1978-02-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) at the Food Conference that there is a nutrition crisis in Canada, in view of the fact that prices in Canada have risen by 15 per cent in the past year, and in view of the fact that low income earners already hit by food price inflation will have to pay approximately 34 cents more per pound for powdered skim milk as a result of the removal of the consumer subsidy by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and, further, that this will adversely affect already declining farm incomes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That in the opinion of this House the government should not remove the consumer subsidy on powdered skim milk.


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.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House. In light of the findings recorded in the interim report of the west coast oil ports inquiry, suggesting that there is confusion surrounding the need to continue the inquiry, and in view of the restraints placed upon the commissioner by the order in council of December 22, I move, seconded by the hon. member Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Environment be charged with investigating the problem of whether or not the west coast oil ports inquiry be reactivated, under what terms and conditions, and that Dr. Thompson, the present commissioner, be amongst the first witnesses to be called.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has dropped the consumer subsidy for skim milk powder from his estimates, without warning or explanation. Because this will mean a 40 per cent increase in the cost of skim milk powder for large, low income families that depend on it, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House directs the Minister of Agriculture to revise his estimates to include the consumer skim milk powder subsidy or other measures to subsidize milk for low income families in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 with regard to an intelligence report of March, 1976, furnished to the interdepartmental committee on security and intelligence-the intelligence advisory committee and the security committee of the cabinet-concerning Alexander Aleksandrovich Palladin, a representative in the parliamentary press gallery of the Russian Novosti press agency, who is named in this intelligence report as a member of the Russian

February 23, 1978
intelligence service. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Solicitor General state all details why Mr. Palladin has not been expelled from Canada for activities not consistent with his occupation as a journalist including, among other things, an attempt to cultivate two special ministerial assistants for purposes of obtaining highly secretive cabinet documents with the assistance at the time of three Russian intelligence agents, Y. A. Smirnov, Y. A. Usaty and the present first secretary of the U.S.S.R. Ottawa embassy, namely, G. I. Zolotov.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that, despite repeated promises to assist transients and other low income individuals living in slum housing conditions in areas such as the downtown east side of Vancouver, and in view of the fact that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) specifically promised legislation during the 1977-78 fiscal year now rapidly coming to a close, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That this House instruct the government to immediately introduce amendments to the National Housing Act, extending eligibility for assistance under the residential rehabilitation assistance program to the owners of hotels and rooming houses serving low income tenants, and that such assistance be available up to a ceiling amount of $4,000 per room, with provision for forgiveness clauses in loans offered under the program.


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.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the murder of Archambault Institute's former director Michel Roy on February 7 last and since his successor, Mr. Gerald Marineau, was replaced by an administrative
[Mr. Cossitt.J
committee and that, according to the Journal de Montreal dated February 21 last, Mr. Marineau has been threatened, these not being the first threats made against loyal employees within and outside our prisons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne):
That this House strongly condemn threats made against the employees of our penal institutions and direct the government to take immediate steps to protect the lives of those employees, according to the recommendations of the sub-committee on justice and legal affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important matter.
Considering the lack of sufficient measures which would improve on the present economic climate; considering that subsidies granted for research will never provide for an industrial strategy essential to permanent job creation; considering finally that recommendations contained in the brief of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association are part of the solution to the problems we are faced with, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously urge the Minister of Finance to grant to industry a tax credit of 25 per cent for at least 10 years for the purpose of industrial research and development.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion related to an important issue.
February 23, 1978

As on this very day the provincial premiers are meeting in Montreal to reach an agreement on important and urgent reforms in the field of education for the minority groups of the official languages; recognizing that education is, under the Constitution, a matter of provincial jurisdiction; and considering the strong current of national interest in the matter, and the fact that millions of Canadians are now living in the expectancy of a solution that will contribute to their cultural and social survival, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That this House send to the provincial premiers in meeeting a message indicating that we are at one with the objectives of equal linguistic rights in matters of education, and that the House of Commons supports them in their search for a genuine reform recognizing that all Canadians, in every province, have the right to be educated in the official language of their choice.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


MESSAGES OF SYMPATHY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that last Thursday Mr. William Irving, a miner with 31 years experience with Inco, was killed while working in a double-slicing operation at Frood Mine in Sudbury, that Mr. Irving and his fellow co-workers had vigorously protested what they considered to be a highly dangerous environment, that their immediate supervisor ordered them to continue to work under threat of job loss, that Mr. Irving leaves a widow and five children, and that this House congratulates beauty queens and expresses sympathy for the families of policemen unfortunately killed in fulfilling their duties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House extend its sympathy to the Irving family.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who indicated
Oral Questions
in the debate last night that he felt there was no crisis with respect to our dollar. Our reserves have been falling very dramatically in recent weeks. Based on OECD figures for last November, which pointed out the Canadian foreign exchange reserves, relatively free reserves, were $1.6 billion at that time, compared to $16 billion in the case of the United Kingdom, almost $7 billion in the case of Italy, and even Ireland had more in foreign exchange free reserves according to OECD, would the Minister of Finance indicate if he does not feel at this point that our reserves are unduly precarious in their size?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the reserves of the Canadian government are published on the second working day of the month, and they are satisfactory just now. Last fall, we obtained a line of credit of some $1.5 billion with the Canadian banks, and I feel we are in a very good position with respect to the Bank of Canada reserves.


EXTENT TO WHICH BANKS HAVE DRAWN ON LINE OF CREDIT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is directed, again, to the Minister of Finance, who has referred to the $1.5 billion line of credit with which the minister gained time in our last crisis in October of last year. On Tuesday evening, the minister indicated that he intended to make a call on that line of credit. Would he confirm that they gave formal notice to our chartered banks yesterday with respect to the credit, and would he also indicate to what extent they have told Canadian chartered banks they intend to call down the credit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the documents are now being prepared so that we may submit our applications to the banks as soon as possible. This morning, I signed the documents, but I do not know when the Governor of the Bank of Canada will forward them to the Canadian banks.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the banks were formally notified yesterday of the actual documentation, would the minister inform the House what the documentation says with respect to the draw on the chartered banks' standing line of credit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer this question.


TOTAL AMOUNT OF FOREIGN BORROWING
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. With regard to the new line of borrowing abroad by the government, can the minister take it upon himself to let

February 23, 1978
Oral Questions
Canadians know today what is the total amount of the borrowing abroad which the minister announced the other night?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer this question, as negotiations have not started yet.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not talking about the negotiations; I am asking about the total amount, about which certainly there should be no secrecy. I cannot understand confidentiality on that particular matter. Would the minister care to indicate to the House whether the government of Canada, or the Bank of Canada, has any stand-by credit, or at least an understanding on funds with the Bank of England and, if so, to what extent may we look to that bank for assistance? If he will attempt to rely on some secrecy, let me tell him that certain aspects of this matter have already been publicly reported in Europe by the Reuters news agency.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a special line of credit with the Bank of England is out of the question. Yesterday I clearly stated the government's position. As for the figures, I will not give them away at this time, and I think hon. members should recognize it is very difficult to speculate on the level of the Canadian dollar. Besides,-

-yesterday, when I made my statement in the House, the Leader of the Opposition, in his speech in response, referred to the fact that I referred to rumours that were circulated about the so called big scandals. If he has read this morning's Gazette, he would know that in London yesterday, because of the false rumour being spread by the opposition, the dollar went down. This happened as a result of something unconnected with the level of the Canadian dollar. I can appreciate the fact that the Leader of the Opposition does not yet realize that he is Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Finance has considered that perhaps one of the reasons we are experiencing the financial bleeding we are experiencing is the loss of credibility and confidence in the Minister of Finance in the international market. When matters are publicized abroad about figures and stand-by credits, the minister will not even let the people of Canada know these figures.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Could the minister at least confirm the news that is presently found in many financial journals in the western world and in North America about the size of the loan he is attempting to get right now? Could he confirm that figure?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not, because that would be improper at this moment. I am doing this very delicate business in consultation with the governor of the Bank of Canada, and I will discharge my responsibility as I think best. I would like to point out to the hon. member that I hope he was sober last night when he made his foolish speech in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark:: Another cheap shot.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You weren't here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You should look at the film.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member at three o'clock on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


NATIONAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED SURVEILLANCE OF MPs BY RCMP
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Following a series of articles culminating on August 12 with an article in the Globe and Mail which contained allegations about the RCMP keeping files on members of parliament, as well as allegations about surveillance of members of parliament and others, 1 wrote the then solicitor general on August 12-


Mr. Trudeau:: I can't hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I understand that because of the noise the Prime Minister did not hear my question. I will repeat it. On August 12, I wrote the then solicitor general concerning a series of allegations which were made in articles which had been published during that week in the Globe and Mail pertaining to the surveillance of members of parliament and the keeping of files on members of parliament by the RCMP. I did not receive a letter from the then solicitor general for some time. 1 subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister. I received a letter from the then solicitor general two days later which concluded with the following quotation of the then commissioner of the RCMP pertaining to allegations about surveillance:
I categorically deny that the RCMP has ever used electronic surveillance, including telephone taps or bugging devices in any form, anywhere, at any time against members of parliament, since the conviction of Fred Rose for espionage in 1947.
Following the submission of a petition by the hon. member for Central Nova yesterday which does contain information which, if it turns out to be true, is a serious contradiction of
February 23, 1978

that assertion, has the Prime Minister checked with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs concerning the allegation made that he, in fact, had been the subject of electronic surveillance and that he, in fact, had been told about it later on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, following a question along those lines yesterday, I did ask the Solicitor General to inquire into the matter. We agreed from the outset that such a serious allegation should be referred to the McDonald commission. I understand that Commissioner McDonald has indicated that he is seized of the matter.
As far as we are concerned, I wrote a letter to the Leader of the Opposition giving the same kind of assurance with regard to security matters as I believe was read by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I have checked today to make sure that the information supplied to me for the purpose of this letter was supplied by our security officials, and the answer is yes, so there is an apparent contradiction between the advice 1 received and the allegations contained in this affidavit. We are not in a position yet to indicate how this contradiction can be resolved. Of course, I have confidence in my advisers and in the RCMP, rather than in a third party who is making these allegations.
For greater security, however, the Solicitor General is having an inquiry made within the RCMP to ascertain if there is any substance to the allegations.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I can understand and accept part of the Prime Minister's answer when he says that the information was provided to him which formed the substance of his letter to the Leader of the Opposition, and the information that was provided to me, is being checked out: I fully accept that part of the answer.
My more specific question pertains to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It seems to me the answer to that question should not wait until we hear from the royal commission. Has the Prime Minister inquired of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to see whether, at the time he was solicitor general, he was informed by anyone that electronic surveillance had been undertaken against him under the auspices of the security service of the RCMP? If he had been told that surveillance had been carried out against him and the hon. member for Nickel Belt, as stated in the allegation, what did he do about it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand some information did come to the previous solicitor general, Mr. Speaker, but I am not in a position to give exact dates. I want to assure the hon. member that I regard this matter very seriously. I also await the answer to this and other questions from the present Solicitor General, who told me just before the House met that he is pursuing the inquiry.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the assurance that the Prime Minister is having the
Oral Questions
matter investigated, 1 would, personally, be very happy to leave it at that if he would tell me that the pending investigation by the Solicitor General and whatever checking he is doing himself would be communicated to us early next week. Will this particular aspect-namely, the involvement of the former solicitor general, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-be reported to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly ask the present Solicitor General to take that question into very serious consideration.


PENITENTIARIES
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
It was reported in the Journal de Montreal of February 21 last that Mr. Gerald Marineau who had succeeded Mr. Michel Roy as director of the Archambault Institute has been in turn succeeded by an administrative committee; the story also states, and I quote:
Since his appointment as director of the Archambault Institute, he (Mr. Marineau) had been the object of many threatening phone calls from unknown individuals, presumably from the Inmates Liberation Army.
1 want to ask the minister whether he could confirm or deny that the new change in that institution's direction is a direct answer to the threats against Mr. Marineau?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 want to tell the honourable member that 1 appreciate very much, as I am sure do all employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the motion he moved today under Standing Order 43 to show support for those public servants, and I want to thank him for that on their behalf. Now, Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to him that the measure we have taken to establish a committee for the Archambault Institute was an administrative decision dictated by the circumstances we are facing.


REQUEST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BE APPLIED IN CERTAIN CASES
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
According to a public opinion poll made by a number of newspapers and involving 20,000 people, it would seem that 88.9 per cent of Canadians are for the reinstatement of capital punishment. This poll involved various classes of people as well as various types of crimes. 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in order to protect honest people and particularly prison guards and police forces, and to restore confidence in our judicial system, the government intends to introduce a bill during this or the next session requiring the House to vote again on the issue of capital punishment, in

February 23, 1978
Oral Questions
response to the numerous letters we are getting from all parts of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government does not plan anything of that kind at the moment.


ESTIMATES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. During his remarks yesterday, the President of the Treasury Board claimed that government spending had been pared to the absolute bone. However, budgetary estimates for the fiscal year 1978-79 are 13 per cent higher than budgetary estimates for fiscal 1977-78. Is the President of the Treasury Board telling the House and the country that 13 per cent is the minimum possible increase in government spending that could occur this year or could occur in the future?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my statement yesterday indicated that over-all spending for the full fiscal year 1978-79 would represent a 9.8 per cent increase at the ceiling I made public yesterday. I also indicated that the main estimates included several items which in the previous year would have been dealt with in supplementary estimates. One can think of additional funds for job creation which are in the main estimates for this year which I tabled yesterday, and which came along in supplementary form last year.
One can think of the established program finance payments to the provinces, in the order of about $550 million, which was put in the main estimates this year because we have an accurate projection on that. That is because this is the second year following the fiscal transfer arrangement. That is in the main estimates, whereas it had to be adjusted in the supplementary estimates last year. There are many items of that nature which mean that the expenditures have been moved forward to the main estimates and will not appear in the supplementary estimates. That is the simple explanation.


Harvie Andre: The figure the President of the Treasury Board has repeated can only be arrived at through judicial assumptions as to future supplementaries and amounts that will last. It results, as well, from a $1.5 billion decrease in non-budgetary estimates, a large part of which is a result of having certain Crown corporations borrow on their own, rather than having their borrowings included in the non-budgetary estimates as has been the case in previous years.
Can the President of the Treasury Board tell us what the over-all figure would be-even using the judicial assumptions he is using-if, in fact, there had not been the structural

changes between last year and this year which, I am sure the minister will admit, distort the over-all picture and allow the production of a number like 9.8, when a considerably larger number is a more accurate description of what has happened?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with the hon. member. The structural adjustments to which I referred yesterday applied to the fiscal year 1977-78 which I clearly set before the House on February 16, 1977, when I tabled the main estimates for that year. I also said yesterday, as was pointed out by the opposition critic following my speech of February 16, 1977, that the figure for 1977-78 probably would have been about 10 per cent except for that one-time change due, again, to the fiscal transfer arrangements negotiated the previous fall. As to the other allegations of the hon. member, he is dealing very much with a hypothetical situation, and I would not attempt to play in that game.


Harvie Andre: Is the President of the Treasury Board assuring the House that exactly the same items that were included in non-budgetary estimates last fiscal year were also included in non-budgetary estimates for the coming fiscal year, and there was no change in the items that will be counted from year to year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, one would have to follow a very detailed path through all the things dropped from one year and added to another. On balance, yes, I think they are. The hon. member for York-Simcoe pointed out, as we pointed out in the fact sheets accompanying my tabling of the main estimates yesterday, that there is borrowing by the Export Development Corporation to the extent of $365 million. We drew the attention of hon. members and the public to the fact that it is in there. We do not consider that to fall into the category the hon. member is describing, because it has a very distinct and separate purpose as to why the Export Development Corporation is going to begin to seek funds on the private market: it is related to the strategy for the Export Development Corporation.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board, seeing that we are flushing him out in terms of flim-flamming. The minister indicated that he will hold growth in the public service to six-tenths of 1 per cent, which I admit is admirable. At the same time, it has been brought to the attention of hon. members that several departments have been getting involved with temporary help and casual and term employment, which certainly has not frustrated the amount of growth in the public service: in fact, it is more.
What steps has the President of the Treasury Board taken to see that this matter has been brought to the attention of heads departments? Also, is any restraint being practised with
February 23, 1978

regard to temporary help, casual and term, or are we still going to have a lot of flim-flam in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is no flim-flam, a phrase the hon. member has fallen in love with in the last few days, obviously having picked it up from somebody else. I will be making public a complete examination of the question of temporary help, which I know has been of concern, somewhat fallaciously, to some members. I will make that release probably early next week, giving full details. I can assure the hon. member that it is under control and the representations or allegations about its misuse are, in fact, fallacious.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is a very important question. Given the fact that one million Canadians are unemployed, and 1 xh million are drawing various social welfare benefits-in other words, drawing relief-and in light of a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the Food Conference that this country is facing a nutrition crisis, will the Prime Minister explain why at this time the government decided to remove the consumer subsidy on powdered skim milk, an important element in the diet of low income families? It will result in a 40 per cent to 50 per cent increase in the price of powdered skim milk in Canada.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his representations. I will pass them on to the minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this is not a representation; it is a well-known fact that the majority of people in this country find it difficult to understand why the government would take such an inhumane step at this time. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Finance to tell the House and the country why the government decided at this time to remove the consumer subsidy on powdered skim milk, amounting to some $18 million, which will probably result in a 50 per cent increase in the price of powdered skim milk, a very important part of the diet of low income families in Canada. This is a question, not a representation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that question could be answered by the Minister of Agriculture or his parliamentary secretary.
Oral Questions


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to ask the President of the Treasury Board a question with regard to the 0.6 per cent growth in the public service. His statements have been challenged repeatedly by public servants in a number of government departments, the Public Service Alliance and the Montreal area council of the Public Service Alliance which is preparing an in-depth study into the true value of these positions. Is the minister relying entirely on the word of the Public Service Commission that this temporary help and these term employees being made permanent is actually being restricted, or is he making any personal investigation?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am relying on figures that I think are reliable. They come from various departments and from the Public Service Commission. I will be making that information available to hon. members and the public in pretty fair detail some time next week.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Alliance also stated that the contracting out which is widespread throughout the public service is another great government cover-up. They claim this contracting out is undermining the merit principle of hiring in the public service. Is the minister fully satisfied that all this contracting is necessary, or does he plan any investigation into the contracting out process which is costing hundreds of millions of dollars?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, contracting out is not amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. That is part of the information I will be making public next week, along with the head-on expose of the fallacious allegations about temporary help.

[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gasp6):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the province of Quebec has announced an energy conservation program granting a $500 subsidy for the insulation of single family dwellings, and that his own department has established a program last year granting $350 for the insulation of residential dwellings in Canada, could the minister tell the House if Quebec residents are eligible for this double subsidy?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. Quebec

February 23, 1978
Oral Questions
residents are eligible for both programs. If I am sometimes critical of the initiatives or the lack of initiative by the province of Quebec, I am very happy to see that, in this case, it has finally understood the necessity of co-operating with the federal government in such an energy conservation program, and I congratulate it on this move.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact the Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated on Tuesday that the minister would be dealing with the problems of Newfoundland on the preparatory work for the lower Gull Island site, for which he mentioned a figure of $8,100 a job, could the minister indicate to the House what progress has been made to provide the 400 jobs which are so badly needed?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the joint statement made yesterday by the Newfoundland minister and myself, we have proposed to the province a program which it is now studying. We hope that in the coming days-in the coming weeks at most-the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be in a position to make a decision on the proposal the federal government has made through my department.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would indicate the rationalization for the figure of $8,100 a job. Does the province of Newfoundland agree that this is the amount of money required, and has any consideration been given to raising that amount?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we must remember that the federal government's proposal is an answer to a suggestion that had been made several months ago. So, at this moment, the proposal is being considered. Obviously, it does not cover all costs involved in the projects that are being analyzed at this moment, but the province is examining the possible ways to provide for the portion of the costs it should pour into the implementation of the first phase of the project.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the

Environment regarding the interim report of the west coast oil ports inquiry which Dr. Andrew Thompson submitted to the cabinet this morning. In view of the fact that in his letter of transmittal, Dr. Thompson suggested that the government had two alternatives-first, to reject the application for the pipeline from Kitimat to Edmonton, and second, to proceed with a further assessment of the environmental, social and navigational risks involved in this project-I ask the minister if he can assure the House that we will receive a reply from the government by March 31 as to which of these alternatives has been chosen.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. member that there will be a reply from the government or a reaction to Dr. Thompson's report before the date he indicates.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the National Energy Board has this application before them from the Kitimat pipeline company, and in view of the fact its area of jurisdiction is limited to the pipeline and does not cover port installations or navigational hazards, can we have assurance from the minister, or from any of his colleagues, that the matter of making the final decision for recommendation to the cabinet will not be left exclusively to the National Energy Board but will cover the other items which are beyond the jurisdiction of that body?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, it has always been made clear that when the National Energy Board does report-and I am not the experienced minister responsible-obviously cabinet has to agree or disagree with its recommendations.


THOMPSON INQUIRY-COMMISSIONER'S MANDATE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. Could he give us some notion of the cabinet's view, in light of the commissioner's belief that it is his duty to carry on even under his existing terms of reference with environmental, social and navigational safety impact assessments? What provisions are being made to allow the commissioner to carry out what he considers to be his mandate.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the appropriate announcement will be made very shortly.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when this appropriate announcement is made, it is appropriate. I wonder whether the minister has, in fact, taken this matter into account and whether any thought has been given to the matter of negotiating a bilateral agreement with the United States covering such issues as hazards to fisheries, compensation, navigation, traffic control and pollution clean-up, construction and crewing standards in the Kitimat waters.
February 23, 1978


Len Marchand: I will take that representation into account, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF THOMPSON INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the inquiry which Dr. Thompson has undertaken. Neither his inquiry nor the terms of reference of the National Energy Board provide for study of the socioeconomic impact of the pipeline route from Kitimat to Edmonton. Is it the intention of the government, in light of the report tabled today and the press release which accompanied it, to initiate another study or extend the terms of reference of Dr. Thompson's inquiry to safeguard any negative impact on the pipeline route?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, everything will be clear as soon as the government makes an appropriate announcement, with respect to the Thompson inquiry, on the options that are given us. I want to assure the hon. member that I, as a British Columbia resident, am very much aware of the views of people living on the west coast and their views regarding tankers, and so on.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Immigration with respect to Warren Hart. I would ask whether he has checked to see whether all regular procedures were followed with respect to his entry into Canada and deportation from Canada, and if anyone had contacted Mr. Hart officially on behalf of the government.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and in view of my interest in the matter, I will take note of the hon. member's question.


POST OFFICE
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In light of the work of the special subcommittee of justice and legal affairs on penitentiaries and violence, and the national credibility of that all-party, non-partisan committee's work to resolve management-union and inmate conflicts, in view of the fact that within the Post Office service similar conflicts between union, middle management and rank and file workers are a fundamental base for the disruptions of the national postal service, would
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister consider establishing a special committee using the same methods and style of the justice and legal affairs committee, even using, possibly, the same people to investigate and seek resolutions to the problems of the Post Office?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly answer such a question without agreeing with the hon. member that the committee did first-rate work. The members serving on it, including the hon. member, were most responsible and did a very good job for this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take this representation most earnestly. I undertake to discuss it with the House leader and with the Postmaster General.


TEXTILES-PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he tell the House whether he is aware that textile import quotas are being bought and sold in Canada, and to what degree these sales and purchases are going on?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the department is aware that businesses are changing hands. With them, to a certain extent, go some of the quotas. I should like to inform the hon. member that quotas were put in place to limit the importation of textiles into this country. For the benefit of the House, the quotas brought about an approximate 1 per cent reduction in textiles imported into Canada in 1977 over 1975. We accomplished what they set out to do.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a company going out of business, does the government have any policy or attitude on the propriety of a market building up in textile quotas?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, if a company goes out of business and does not sell its business, one can assume there was no business left: that is the only assumption I can make.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.

February 23, 1978
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I have the attention of the House, please?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is very rowdy here today. My question is for the Minister of National Revenue, to whom I have given notice. It relates to an article by Mr. Victor Mackie which appeared in the Ottawa Journal. Mr. Mackie was reporting on an interview with the minister concerning the leaking of personal, confidential tax information about individuals to unauthorized people. With regard to the Toronto office and the leaking of information there, the minister is quoted in the article as saying:
We believe a person in that office gave out the information knowing it was being improperly released.
Is the minister aware of the identity of the individual in question? If so, why have charges not been laid?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the person in question and I do not know the person's name. I am aware that this has occurred. Also, I know the deputy minister made a report which was questioned at committee level. I believe the hon. member was present when this took place. In any case, what happened is part of the report of the committee. The reason no charge has yet been laid is that the RCMP does not have enough evidence to do so; otherwise, a charge would have been laid.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, the deputy minister did not deal expressly with this question when he appeared before the committee. I ask the minister whether the officials investigating this matter had a specific individual in mind. Is the minister aware of the name of that individual? Is the department investigating one particular individual? Do they think they know who it is?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they know who it is, but I do not know who the person is. The RCMP know who the person is, but they will not divulge that information until they have sufficient evidence to lay appropriate charges.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In light of the fact that we are now spending $2,575,000 on the Law Reform Commission and, in particular, they have recommended many prison reforms, in conjunction with a special committee, I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question in line with the question I asked as reported at page 2655 of Hansard. At

that time I asked him about the murder of the warden at Archambault, Mr. Roy. Also, I asked him about the taking of hostages. Has anyone been charged in reference to that murder? What charges have been laid with reference to the hostage-taking incident at the British Columbia penitentiary?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, with relation to the Archambault incident, investigation is on-going. In reply to the hon. member's question on the page which he cited, I will be pleased to look at that matter. In terms of the hostage-taking incident at the British Columbia penitentiary, that incident is the subject of a formal internal inquiry.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the estimates show $6 million for justice and legal affairs and that $2,575,000 is being spent on the Law Reform Commission, and nothing is implemented, I should like to ask the minister, who said that under the circumstances he did not have the answers at that time but he would get them almost immediately, whether he will give me an answer on what is being done in the penitentiary service of Canada to raise the morale of correctional officers and to protect inmates of the penitentiaries who are not charged with the kind of crimes which are causing trouble at the present time.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had been here two Fridays ago, at the time we debated the report of the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The matter was fully canvassed at that time and I indicated the progress that had been made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But the minister has done nothing about it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: If the hon. member had been here more often in the past two or three weeks since my appointment, he would have heard me indicate quite readily that I will be discussing the progress of the recommendations of the subcommittee when we deal with the estimates in the very near future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest sympathy to the Solicitor General because he is a disabled person: he must be blind. I have been here for months; I do not know where he has been. I am asking him to answer questions concerning his department. Will he now implement the recommendations of the subcommittee, and stop this tergiversation and procrastination that he is guilty of?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I may be blind, but I am not deaf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the House whether he is still conducting
February 23, 1978

negotiations with the governments of the four Atlantic provinces on his offer of a highway stengthening program? If so, what progress is being made? Will he state, also, the total amount of federal offer of assistance for this program?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the federal offer was for a SI00 million program. We are still discussing the matter with the provinces. Within the last few days I have written to the premiers asking them to give me a firm indication of their willingness to undertake cost-sharing on the highway construction which is envisaged in the program. I hope to receive affirmative replies from them in the very near future.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary. A little over a week ago, the federal Department of Health and Welfare announced, as a result of a study which had been done, that women aged 40 or over who are on the birth control pill were being subjected to the possibility of cardiovascular disease if they were unduly exposed to cigarette smoke, or nicotine in any room, whether it was in a public room, a committee room, a living-room, and so on. Now that this fear has spread across the country, I would like to know what follow-up the government has done to prevent this kind of situation.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is my understanding that smoking adversely affects the heart of all people, not just those over the age of 40 who happen to be on the pill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Kenneth Robinson: I am talking about the females referred to by the hon. member, and not necessarily males. I understand a statement was made by the Department of National Health and Welfare on this matter. I will endeavour to follow up on it and find out what has taken place.


FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: My question is for the Minister of Finance, who developed the curious view that the change in the value of the dollar yesterday was the
Oral Questions
fault of the hon. member for Central Nova. Since the dollar fell again today, I presume he is going to blame that on the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway or perhaps on the performance of the Minister of National Revenue.
My question to the minister is as follows: Earlier today, when he was asked the extent of the draw upon the line of credit, he told the House of Commons-if I am quoting him correctly-that he was not in a position to comment. Can he tell us now whether that was because he does not know, or because as a matter of policy he declines to tell the House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is because I do not think I can reveal it until the final undertaking has been agreed upon between the government and the banks.


Charles Joseph Clark: As the minister will recognize, I am sure, one of the factors which has contributed substantially to the plunge in the value of the Canadian dollar-not only in relation to the American dollar but, for example, a plunge of nearly 38 per cent in relation to the Swiss franc, and dramatic drops in relation to other currencies-has been that the government has not been clear as to precisely what it is doing in relation to the Canadian dollar. Can the minister tell the House, with regard to this draw on the line of credit, the anticipated interest rates and the anticipated forms of repayment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I explained earlier in the House, we have agreed, with the banks, on a line of credit of SI.5 billion. The cost will be five-eighth's of 1 per cent above the agreed price in the interbank system in London.


Charles Joseph Clark: I thank the minister for that answer. I want to turn to the very startling revelation made by the minister yesterday, to the effect that he is now engaged, at a time when he claims there is no crisis, in daily discussions with the governor of the Bank of Canada. In light of the fact that, by his own admission, these daily briefings or daily closetings between the governor and the minister took place in a period when there was no crisis, according to the minister, I should like to ask whether the briefings which occurred on Monday involved the minister being advised of the extensive and unusual interventions of the Bank of Canada which began that Monday afternoon?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I met the governor on Monday morning and we met again on Tuesday. On Wednesday, I was present at a lunch at which he was meeting the directors of the banks. That meeting was not held as a result of the situation of the dollar. I suppose I can accept an invitation from the governor, who is quite a gentleman. I just want to point out to the hon. member that he can read about the kind of irresponsible statements that sometimes are made from the other side. It appeared on the front page of this morning's Gazette: the story comes from Toronto and reports a rumour which was started in London, England.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am quite concerned about the effect of rumours on the value of the Canadian dollar. Precisely because of the

February 23, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
effect of rumours, I want-and the parliament of Canada wants-the government to come clean on exactly what it is doing, and to stop pretending there is no crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the minister, which is simple and quite important, is this: when he began this series of extraordinary meetings with the governor of the Bank of Canada on Monday morning, was he informed of the very unusual activity of the Bank of Canada which began on the afternoon of the day of the meetings between the minister and the governor? Did he know about the extensive activities of the bank to support the dollar? Yes or no?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I cannot reveal the conversation I had with the governor, but I would like to inform the hon. member that the meeting which I had on Monday morning was one that I have every week with the governor-in the morning, mostly on Mondays. On Tuesday morning we had a special meeting, but I have nothing else to report at this moment. I have said exactly what we were doing. I have explained that we decided, because of the balance of payments problem, that we would go to foreign markets to borrow money, and that in the interim we would draw on the arrangement we made some months ago-which was made public in the Elouse-with a group of Canadian banks.


Mr. Gillies:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have received a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). The notice itself raises some procedural problems, some of which were raised when the hon. member rose during the question period today on a question of privilege because of a reference by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), I presume, to remarks made last night by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham.
The notice that has been given to the Chair by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is as follows:
Your Honour,
Please accept this as notice that I intend to raise today at 3 p.m. a question of privilege respecting the manner in which the Minister of Finance deliberately misled the House on Monday and Tuesday of this week, as indicated in his speech to the House last evening, February 22.
Therefore, the first problem I have to deal with, which may relate to the question raised by the hon. member today in reference to the remark made by the Minister of Finance which referred back to the hon. member's speech last evening in which the same phrase "deliberately misled" was used, is

that that phrase flies directly in the face of precedents that are clearly established, that it is unparliamentary language and cannot be used by a member in this House. The reference is at page 131 of Beauchesne, citation 155(3).
In addition, I have a body of numerous references which are set out in clear and concise language by several Speakers. One I can take at random is as follows:
The hon. member for Cape Breton knows that he cannot say that another hon. member has lied to the House-that is elementary.
There are many rules which are being disregarded in the House, and just as many rules were being disregarded yesterday, but we must draw the line, and I cannot and would not want to allow an hon. member to say of another member that he has lied to the House. An hon. member cannot say of another hon. member that he has deliberately misled the House. He can say that the remarks made are perhaps incorrect, but he cannot say he has deliberately misled the House.
In light of the fact that the remarks made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham last night, referred to today by the Minister of Finance, and his notice today appear to fly in the face of precedents, and therefore are out of order, we have to begin by settling that procedural question first, and unless there is some argument which the hon. member can make now which would permit him to be excused from all those precedents and to use that language, when no other member has been permitted to use it in the past, I would have to find that his remarks last evening were out of order and that his notice today is out of order. Perhaps we should begin with that argument before we go on to anything else.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I appreciate your remarks, Sir, and certainly as a member of the House I would not want to get turfed out by your edict or anyone else's. But there is a difficulty here, Sir, and it may be compounded by at least one of your own rulings. It is simply this. There are those of us on this side of the House at least, and I suspect perhaps not just confined to this side of the House, who believe that some of the things that have been said in the House about actions, activities and inactivities in respect of the dollar crisis, have not been the full truth. There may have been evasions or there may not have been evasions-we do not know-but one way of attempting to find out is to check the very obvious contradictions that have appeared in the record and to find out if some of the very obvious contradictions can be borne out one way or the other.
There can be no argument that there have been contradictions. I am fully prepared now to give at least one very obvious contradiction, and I have a motion prepared to do just that, but to be able to get to the bottom of some of those contradictions this is not the forum in which to do it. We would have to have the matter referred to a committee. In a case such as this-and I am quite open about it; this was my motive completely-the only committee I feel this matter could be referred to on a matter such as this where there are obvious contradictions by a minister of the Crown is the Standing

#
February 23, 1978

Committee on Privileges and Elections. Because of those contradictions the only way we on this side of the House would now have of raising the matter would be that hopefully a question of privilege would be raised by the other side. I think it is pertinent that that motion respecting privilege has not been made by the other side.
The reason an allegation of intent had to be made was because of a ruling from the Chair. I refer to April 19 of last year. As reported at page 4766 of Hansard, Your Honour made a ruling regarding a question of privilege. Your Honour was denying that a question of privilege had been properly raised, and in so doing this is what Your Honour said:
If it is to be pursued by way of a question of privilege, I wish to stress again that in order to qualify as a question of privilege the Chair would have to find that not only had there been actions by the minister to mislead hon. members-
That is the allegation I am making. I made it in this House during question period, and I had to repeat it again last night.
-but that those actions were calculated and deliberate by the minister for that purpose.
Sir, what sort of corner have you backed us into?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The ruling of the Chair is that no one, on this type of statement which misleads members, can claim that he has a question of privilege unless he also claims that there has been a deliberate intention to mislead. On the other hand, according to the precedents-and I know them well-the Chair says that it is absolutely out of order for anyone to claim that someone has deliberately mislead the House. With respect to those two matters I believe that my privileges as a member of this House were grossly abridged because I was misled in this House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) last Monday. The subsequent action the minister announced just 28 hours later was completely contracdictory to what he said he was going to do.
I feel that I was misled. If I was misled, my privileges and rights as a member of this House were abridged. Your Honour has said that the only way we can get that before a committee, where we could call the Governor of the Bank of Canada and where we could call members of the chartered banks of this country, is to claim that there was a deliberate intent to mislead. That is the explanation for what happened last night.
If Your Honour rules that I have to withdraw those words, I will not attempt to withdraw them in the mealy-mouthed fashion we have heard others withdraw in the last month. I will unequivocally and absolutely withdraw those words. However, I must say that by virtue of Your Honour's own ruling and under these circumstances where there is no other opportunity, in my mind, for hon. members to get to the truth of these contradictory statements by the Minister of Finance, there was no other way I know of to get the matter before that committee. Your Honour may feel that I am unfairly blaming you.


Some hon. Members:: You are.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Allan Frederick Lawrence: However, I am sure Your Honour can appreciate the dilemma we are in. I have stated my motive. There is no question of what I did and how I did it, and 1 would certainly be willing to withdraw allegations of intent and deliberateness on the part of the minister if you so rule.
I still feel that no matter what type of technical language has to be used in this House, in my heart and in my mind- and I am not alone-I feel I have been misled. Knowing that, the only way we can get to the truth of the matter is to get the matter before a committee of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gave the hon. member the floor today although I could have peremptorily ruled that his remarks were unparliamentary and that they had to be withdrawn. The reason I gave him the floor on this initial problem is, as one hon. member said just a moment ago, there is a danger that it is a Catch-22 situation.
The argument put forward with all our able advisers over the last couple of hours is that it has been ruled in the past to be unparliamentary to make this kind of allegation in this language, but what happens in other situations when someone wants to bring to parliament that kind of situation in respectful terms in order to bring it to the attention of the House? If that is the case, without settling the merits I would have to hear some arguments as to whether that matter becomes procedurally barred because, if it does, it does in fact have the appearance of a Catch-22 situation. That is why I wanted to address myself primarily to the procedural problem, first of all, of whether this matter can be put forward in the terms in which the hon. member has sought to do so. I think he has given a very clear explanation of his motivation.
I may still have to come to the same decision, but I wanted to indicate that I had gone over the same argument, in my mind, as the hon. member has done, and there may be other hon. members who want to contribute to this argument now. However, it is a very serious procedural matter about which 1 would not expect to hear from hon. members unless they had had an opportunity to address themselves to the precedents with a focus on this particular aspect of the problem.
I think I should also add that I have not said from the Chair that this is the only way the matter can be approached. I said that unless this is done it certainly would not begin to qualify as a question of privilege. However, there are other procedural ways of doing the same thing, and they would have to be considered. However, I certainly would want hon. members, particularly those who have an interest in procedure, to have an opportunity to examine the precedents and to give me some assistance on whether a matter can be raised in these terms in order to have it discussed in the House, without being unparliamentary. If it cannot, we must at least know that there is some other procedure whereby matters of this kind can be brought to the floor of the House. Perhaps other hon. members wish to contribute.

February 23, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have read the words of the hon. member. Other things happened while he was speaking which are not written. They are on film.
The words of the hon. member have to be withdrawn. The rules are clear. I do not have to go into that. The hon. member said I lied. He used words such as "deliberately", "intentionally", "overtly" and "openly". I have not lied to the House. I reported the facts as they were on Monday and on Tuesday, and I have nothing to add.
The charges of the hon. member are not true. They are not parliamentary, and I insist he withdraw them entirely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the minister leaped over the issue that you left with us just a few moments ago to decide after the argument put forward by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Quite frankly I think you put the cart in the proper place in relation to the horse in this matter. I would respectfully ask that you grant the opportunity that you mentioned in your earlier statements for the matter to proceed in an orderly way because of the very situation that you put so well when you used the words "Catch 22". I would ask, therefore, that the matter be reserved so that it can be argued completely and fully and the precedents settled.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have one comment to make. I have no quarrel with the necessity for research to be done or further consideration given to the general question of privilege. It seems to me, however, that it is quite unacceptable to suggest that the words uttered by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) should be allowed to sit for 24 hours or 48 hours, or for one instant-


An hon. Member:: Let the committee decide.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and those words not be withdrawn under the procedures of this House.
There is no precedent to my knowledge, and I would like one to be turned up, whereby an hon. member has been permitted to say that another member has lied or has deliberately misled the House and the matter has been allowed to rest pending research into the precedents. The precedents are absolutely clear. We all can mislead the House, and it often happens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: For example, I feel that in the debate on the northern pipeline which has gone on for eight days there have been many misleading statements. I believe that; that is debate. Contradictions occur in the statements of individuals and parties, and that is debate. But there is a line, and the line is when an hon. member says "You misled," and the line is

passed when he says "You deliberately misled the House" or that you lied. That cannot be allowed to stand for an instant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the remarks just referred to by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) were made last evening by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), a point of order was raised which was quite properly taken by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery).
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has said today that if there was some defiance on this point, it would have to come to deliberation at this moment. I think I have exposed the procedural difficulty that is involved. The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has already indicated that if in fact the precedents which I have said at the start are very clear, are to be followed, he will certainly withdraw, unequivocally, the remarks. Had he taken a different position today I think I probably would have had to make a determination, but in light of that I think no harm is done if I leave the matter until Monday until I can look into it further.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, we are really dealing with two separate matters. You have a notice before you in respect of another matter. I should honestly like to assist you and myself on this matter so I am quite willing right now to withdraw unequivocally those words indicating any deliberation or intent on the part of the Minister of Finance. There is no question there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Another matter has been brought to your attention, however. I do not mean what took place just a few moments ago or perhaps twenty minutes ago in the House. I refer to the notice that I gave you earlier. This, as well, touches on the procedural matter which was my initial motivation for even indicating what I had to do yesterday, both in the House when the minister was here-and he took no objection at that time-and later in the evening. I have a motion to make which I gave you notice of this morning. I think, sir, if you took this one under advisement, now that I have withdrawn anything that would touch the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I only interrupt the hon. member briefly. Part of the difficulty that I find myself in, and the reason I have given the House this opportunity, is because the notice the hon. member gave to me uses the word "deliberate." Before I can take into account the question of privilege, therefore, the hon. member would not only have to withdraw the remarks made last night but would have to withdraw the word "deliberate" in the notice before I can deal with it.
This is the reason I was putting the matter into discussion. If it was out of order last night and it appears to me clearly to be, it is equally out of order to use the word "deliberate" in the notice. If the notice is out of order, then I cannot take into account the hon. member's question of privilege. If he is going to withdraw the remarks he made last night now, instead of
February 23, 1978

doing so on Monday, I would have to ask him to take the word "deliberate" out of the notice. I might then be able to come to the merits of the question of privilege which has another set of problems altogether.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Sir, by withdrawing the word "deliberate" in that particular case are we not all caught on the horns of a dilemma, according to your ruling of April, 1977? The only way we are going to get the question of deliberate misleading in this House settled is by including it in something or other.
Surely if the hon. minister is that intent and that upset, as he so obviously is, in respect of what was said last night, it could be left over until Monday or Tuesday while the motion, which perhaps is in more polite terms, is moved in this House.
I have sent a copy to you and I have other copies for leaders in the House if they could be delivered. May I move-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to commit himself to the form of some motion right now, that is up to him. At this stage the motion has no official status except to be an indication of what the hon. member would move if he had the permission of the House. My strong recommendation would be that it await a procedural analysis.
I think, for the benefit of the record, that the House is very well served if we consider that the hon. member for North-umberland-Durham has-as he has just said-taken up his previous offer and in fact withdrawn unequivocally the remarks he made last night. I see the assent of the hon. member. He made it unequivocal. That matter, having been withdrawn in unequivocal terms, is settled. It is disorder as it occurred last night. It has now been withdrawn and that matter has been resolved.
The question of the language is still in focus. I think it should be, because the notice given to the Chair on the question of privilege contains the word "deliberate." I think I have to address myself to that procedural problem which may be a road block in face of the earlier ruling. I think if I resolve the two, at the same time I ought to endeavour to indicate, if this course of action is not open, what course of action is open. I think that ought to be done after careful examination.


MR. LAWRENCE-REMARK BY MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am sorry to rise again, sir, but it is on a completely separate question of privilege, the one that came up at the beginning of the question period today. I rise again more in sorrow than in anger.
I suppose at times everyone in this House under extreme pressure says things they do not really mean or do not really intend. There is a very clear imputation that, because I said what I said last night, I was not sober, i.e., I was drunk. There is a very clear imputation of that. There is no question about that at all. That was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in the House just a few moments ago.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
The reason I say I rise more in sorrow than anger is not so much for myself. I have been insulted in far better terms than that, in far better ways than that, by far better people. But when the chief financial officer of this country, under pressure, lashes out with a personal attack such as that, it does not bode good for this country or this administration. It is unparliamentary.
We have all lashed out at times. Obviously I have lashed out at times. However, I have never in my life attempted to lash out in a personal way such as that. If I have lashed out in terms uncomplimentary to anyone in public life or in private life, but especially in public life, it has been related to the public performance of the duties of that person.
I have called the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) incompetent. I have not called him drunk. I have not said to him that he has lacked sobriety in this House. I merely say to you today, Mr. Speaker, that I think that was uncalled for. I believe it to be uncomplimentary. Whether it is or is not, it does not call for a full apology. I merely say to you, sir, and through you to the Minister of Finance, that he is getting his dates and getting his parties mixed up. It is another group that was going to countenance and advocate drinking in the halls of this parliament, not this one.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had left the House before the hon. member made his speech. As reported at page 3173 of Hansard he stated "When you have a floating dollar, you have a floating dollar". At that time he made some slur about the way I speak English and a physical defect which the good Lord has put on me. I do speak out of the side of my mouth. However, I am not like the Tories who speak out of both sides of their mouths.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was not here, but one of my colleagues told me his conduct at that moment was disgusting. That is unfair, because with the television cameras it can be seen by everyone. I hope he was not serious when he did that. That is why I referred to the word sober, that he was trying to make a joke of that. That is why I referred to that. I have lived with this problem for some years. I am not too preoccupied with it. The hon. member should not have acted in that fashion in the House of Commons. It is certainly not acceptable, in my judgment, and in the judgment of members who were in the House at that time. Some members from this side advised me that his conduct was unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no authority on procedural grounds that I am aware of at the moment for the Chair to make any further intervention in this matter.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 1978
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the usual House question today in anticipation of the fact that we will likely be finishing the second reading of the pipeline debate today. As far as this party is concerned, that debate is completed. What is the intention of the government in terms of advancing other legislation and the order thereof? While the minister is on his feet, will he designate next Thursday, March 2, as an allotted day, in accordance with our understanding?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am quite agreeable to designating next Thursday as an allotted day. Following the completion of the pipeline debate, as I understand the order of business we will then deal with the Bank Act extension and CNR recapitalization bill. Following that it will be my intention to take the bill dealing with the office of comptroller general, then the bill dealing with amendments to the Post Office and the Narcotics Control Act. While on my feet I should advise hon. members that it is my intention at some point to put a motion on the order paper providing for an Easter break of the usual length, from the Wednesday preceding Good Friday until a week from Easter Monday.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion between others, certainly not between my friend and I, with respect to a piece of legislation that is not on the order paper, purportedly to be introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) dealing with World War I prisoners, escapees and evaders, somehow making it retroactive for those who will qualify. Has the minister had discussion with his colleague on this? If so, in order to bring that bill forward, because the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have been working on it for a long time, will he accept as an undertaking from this side, in order to speed up consideration, that we are prepared to have first reading and second reading debate with reference to the committee in one day, and with one speaker from each party?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the understanding he is presenting with respect to the bill that will appear, I expect, in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). I have had discussion with the minister and it is his intention to bring forward the bill as early as possible. Maybe we can deal with it on Tuesday of next week, earlier if possible, but that is the date suggested to me.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: As the minister knows, Mr. Speaker, there had been some discussions as to the possibility of dealing with that prisoner of war legislation this evening, but we understood it was put off until next week. In order to ensure that it is proceeded with early next week, could notice of that bill be filed today? While on my feet, I can confirm the arrangement that the official opposition House leader has mentioned, namely, that we are prepared to deal

with that bill at second reading on the basis of one speaker per party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Can he also confirm the other arrangement proposed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that we will complete the second reading of the bill presently being debated this afternoon?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The universe will unfold as it should.


TABLING OF HOCKEY COMMITTEE REPORT
Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table, in both official languages, the report by the Committee on International Hockey. I would like to thank the members of all parties in the House who gave of their time and talent to the research and preparation of this non-partisan report.


FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: the first reading of Bill S-8 (from the Senate), respecting fugitive offenders in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the eighth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and Finds that it does not meet with requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I might say, in addition to some difficulties with form, and there were more than one, there was one quite serious difficulty as to substance in that the document had appended to it a number of documents which do not form part of the petition. As well, there appeared to be an affidavit by an alien who is not a resident of Canada. There were several difficulties with the petition in a substantive way, but in any case it was not proper as to form, and the matter is therefore resolved by the report of the Clerk of Petitions.

February 23, 1978


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
(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: 255, 258, 523, 700, 703, 901, 959, 980, 981 and 1,122.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Epp: 1.	In each year 1968 to 1976, was aid given by the government to the Government of Algeria and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Has Algeria granted a safe haven to international hijackers and, if so, has the government placed any conditions on Algeria that no further aid will be forthcoming if Algeria does not end granting a safe haven to international hijackers and, if not, is the government contemplating such conditions?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the answer is as follows:
1.	To be answered elsewhere.
2.	The Canadian Government has indicated its concern to the Government of Algeria and has underlined the Canadian position on air piracy. Canada has also expressed the hope that Algeria will become a cosignatory of the Hague and Montreal conventions on air piracy. Our representations were not accompanied by any threat of cutting financial aid to Algeria because Canada does not see this as a means of expressing disapproval. Concerning aid to development, Canada does not consider that it is in its interest to stop aid to Algeria because of the nature of Canada's aid programme which is designed to promote the economic and social development of the people concerned. In our view, it would not be right to use Canadian aid as a tool for rewarding or punishing a foreign country for its actions unless, of course, such actions have a detrimental effect on the aspirations of the peoples concerned for improved economic and social conditions.
In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. In each year 1968 to 1976 aid was given by the Government of Canada to the Government of Algeria as follows:
($000)
Loans	Grants	Food Aid	Total1967-68	-	357.2	357.21968-69	-	296.3	3,000.0	3,296.31969-70	-	721.1	3,200.0	3,921.11970-71	130.4	1,021.7	2,900.0	4,052.11971-72	9.1	1,131.3	3,000.0	4,140.41972-73	589.4	1,374.3	3,000.0	4,963.71973-74	234.4	1,816.7	3,000.0	5,051.11974-75	4,178.1	2,030.2	3,000.0	9,208.3
Order Paper Questions ($000)
Loans	Grants	Food Aid	Total1975-76	8,450.7	2,249.1	-	10,699.81976-77 (31/3)	4,313.9	2,207.4	-	6,521.3$17,906.0	$13,205.3	$21,100.0	$52,211.3
2. To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	Are any countries receiving aid in the form of cash loans from Canada and, if so, which ones?
2.	Do any countries have outstanding debts owing to Canada and, if so (a) which countries and in what amount (b) which countries have had such debts converted to non-repayable grants since January 1, 1977?
3.	(a) What was the total value of the foreign-aid debt cancellations in 1977 (b) what was the individual value, by country?
4.	(a) Did Canada contribute to the fund set up by industrialized countries at the North-South Conference on International Economic Co-operation in Paris to ameliorate the condition of the developing countries and, if so, in what amount (b) was this contribution pledge presented to Parliament and, if so, in what manner?


Maurice Dupras: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:
1.	To be answered elsewhere.
2.	(a) With reference to commercial loans made to countries pursuant to section 29 and 31 of the Export Development Act, these are detailed in the annual reports of the Export Development Corporation. In addition, the following countries have outstanding debts owed to Canada: Belgium, $2,300,000; United Kingdom, $909,300,000; France, $16,900,000; China, $49,400,000; Netherlands, $4,600,000; Greece, $6,400,000.
3.	(a) Approximately $254 million, the actual value of which is $35 million, (b) A detailed breakdown of the loans by country is to be submitted to parliament in due course.
4.	(a) At the Conference on International Economic Cooperation, Canada announced that it would contribute $51 million to the special action programme adopted by the conference to help meet the immediate needs of the poorer developing countries. Of this total, $35 million represents the actual value of the $254 million loan cancellation extended to least developed countries. The remaining $16 million will be split between two U.N. programmes, namely the UNDP (up to $3 million) and UNICEF (up to $2 million), and the International Development Association (IDA), (b) The proposed contribution will be submitted to parliament later in the session.
In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. See list below.
2.	(a) See list below, (b) Nil.
3.	(a) Nil. (b) Nil.
4.	To be answered elsewhere.
1 and 2. (a)

February 23, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Caribbean	
Antigua	$ 2,467,944.05
Barbados	8,180,042.01
Belize	2,380,960.85
Dominica	715,383.12
Granada	850,000.00
Guyana	14,751,473.78
Jamaica	20,331,381.45
St. Lucia	556,061.25
St. Vincent	1,051,771.93
Trinidad	10,070,983.06
Commonwealth Africa	
Botswana	$ 36,158,258.24
C.A.C.	46,906,804.98
Ghana	34,214,631.70
Kenya	13,362,962.08
Malawi	28,068,350.90
Malta	464,293.56
Nigeria	49,876,794.79
Swaziland	434,700.00
Tanzania	71,548,170.95
Uganda	2,277,973.98
Zambia	17,157,930.99
Asia	
Afghanistan	$ 1,272,152.24
Bangladesh	17,867,253.07
Burma	5,451,177.49
Sri Lanka	39,420,691.22
India	442,175,205.35
Indonesia	87,244,577.87
Korea	847,183.16
Laos	2,500,000.00
Malaysia	4,279,887.03
Nepal	2,495,399.33
Pakistan	246,703,205.97
Philippines	2,125,742.82
Thailand	978,321.41
Turkey	9,850,000.00
Francophone Africa	
Algeria	$ 19,171,251.43
Cameroon	20,103,903.31
Congo Brazzaville	9,585,382.46
Zaire	13,079,532.98
Benin	14,447,632.89
Ivory Coast	13,059,562.50
Madagascar	0
Mali	1,586,024.85
Mauritania	0
Morocco	5,332,285.54
Niger	39,904,598.43
Senegal	8,384,759.94
Togo	4,257,095.98
Tunisia	57,301,073.64
Upper Volta	863,619.12
Latin America	
Argentina	$ 746,666.67
Bolivia	1,717,000.00
Brazil	11,569,974.85
Chile	7,982,476.12
Colombia	21,225,686.59
Cuba	8,112,564.59
Dominican Rep.	7,285,273.03
Ecuador	11,548,365.78
El Salvador	4,508,196.08
Guatemala	500,000.00
Mexico	112,239.61
Nicaragua	1,799,757.34
Paraguay	799,853.48
Peru	3,938,218.92


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, has the Ministry of State for Science and Technology or the Department of Agriculture funded any studies or projects or have they any programmes underway on the possibility of accurate seven day weather predictions for farmers during the crop growing season?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology as follows: no.
I am informed by the Department of Agriculture as follows: since January 1, 1977, the Department of Agriculture has not funded any studies or projects on weather predictions for farmers. Weather predictions are the responsibility of the Department of the Environment.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1977, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with Field crops?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as Agriculture Canada and its agencies are concerned: $197,522.93.
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: a total of $273,200 was paid to the province of New Brunswick as DREE's share of the cost of joint programs under the Canada/New Brunswick Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement for farmers in New Brunswick to assist with field crops.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1977, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with dairy production?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as Agriculture Canada and its agencies are concerned: $1,864,196 (estimated).
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: a total of $387,840 was paid to the province of New Brunswick as DREE's share of the cost of joint programs under the Canada/New Brunswick Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement for farmers in New Brunswick to assist with dairy production.


Mr. Laprise: Does the government intend to continue its programme against alcohol abuse among the native peoples of Canada after March 31, 1978 and, if so, will it (a) replace the authorities responsible for project selection and approval by regional committees (b) train native staff to meet the needs of the various regions (c) establish treatment centres for alcoholics to meet regional needs?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of National

February 23, 1978

Health and Welfare is concerned: the National Native Alcohol Abuse Program was initially established for a three year period, terminating March 31, 1978. The future of the program is under active review at this time.
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned: the National Native Alcohol Abuse Program was initiated as a three-year demonstration project in April, 1975. An assessment and evaluation of the project is presently being completed. This assessment includes such matters as decentralization of authority for project selection and approval, regional staff training needs, and regional needs for alcohol abuse treatment centres. It is expected that a decision concerning continuation of the program will be taken before the end of the current fiscal year.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, were studies made for the Department of the Solicitor General by outside consultants regarding child neglect or abuse?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: No.
Note: The Department of the Solicitor General has contracted more general studies on subjects dealing with violence, delinquency and crime prevention. The department also co-sponsored Second World Conference on Family Law (Violence in the Family-what should the law do?) Montreal, June, 1977, which brought together a large number of experts who presented papers on this subject at this conference.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount was paid by the Secretary of State to each theatre for the performing arts or resident company in Canada?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Department of the Secretary of State. Amounts paid under the capital assistance program for the performing arts:
Institutions	Amount
Adelaide Court/Cour Adelaide, Toronto, Ont.	$	475,000
Anna Wyman Dance Theatre, Vancouver, B.C.	7,500
Avon Theatre, Stratford, Ont.	50,000
Caravan Stage Company, Vernon, B.C.	18,000
Citadel Theatre, Edmonton, Alta.	250,000
City State Theatre, Vancouver, B.C.	16,000
Contemporary Dancers, Winnipeg, Man.	26,000
Globe Theatre, Regina, Sask.	3,530
Groupe de la Place Royale, Ottawa, Ont.	32,000
London Grand Theatre, London, Ont.	850,000
Massey Hall, Toronto, Ont.	1,000,000
Orpheum Theatre, Vancouver, B.C.	853,334
Regina Modern Dance Works, Regina, Sask.	65,200
Shaw Festival, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.	125,000
Tamhanous Theatre, Vancouver, B.C.	145,000
Tarragon Theatre, Toronto, Ont.	25,000
Order Paper Questions
Institutions	Amount
Theatre 5, Kingston, Ont.	10,000
Theatre d'Aujourd'hui, Montreal,	Que.	8,000
Theatre 3, Edmonton, Alta	100,000
Toronto Free Theatre, Toronto,	Ont.	66,500
W W Productions, Toronto, Ont.	7,000
Young People's Theatre, Toronto, Ont.	350,000
National Theatre School of Canada, Montreal, Que.	525,000
National Ballet School, Toronto, Ont.	100,000
Fathers of Confederation Arts Centre, Charlottetown, P.E.I.	1,350,000
Centre Culturel Franco-Manitobain, Winnipeg,	Man.	150,000


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, have any (a) grants (b) loans (c) loan guarantees been made for shipyard expansion or improvements and, if so, to or for which shipyards?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: (a) Yes. Upper Lakes Shipping Ltd., Port Weller Division, St. Catharines, Ontario, $1,000,756.87; Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Lauzon, Quebec, $929,207.13; Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. Ltd., Saint John, N.B., $54,583.27. (b) and (c) No.
In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: (a) An offer of assistance under the Special ARDA Program in British Columbia was accepted on January 21, 1977, in the amount of $123,335, by Nimpkish Shipyard, Alert Bay, B.C. (b) No. (c) No.


Mr. Rodriguez: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and those agencies that report to it?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1970-71,	$1,299,100;	1971-72,
$1,491,637; 1972-73, $1,778,299; 1973-74, $1,542,191; 197475, $1,882,646; 1975-76, $2,001,564; 1976-77, $10,624,596; 1977-78 (to January 23, 1978), $10,335,928.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 23, 1978
3204______________________________________
Northern Pipeline



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill this afternoon I want to outline as clearly as I possibly can the reasons why my colleagues and myself cannot accept this legislation in its present form.
The New Democratic Party has an interest in this project. We were the first political party in Canada to talk about the Alcan pipeline as being the most desirable in principle, if and when we developed the means of facilitating our American neighbours and thereby transporting American gas from Alaska to their southern markets. And, coincidentally we could provide a facility to be used in the future for transporting Canadian energy reserves from our north to the south as well.
A year ago this month the New Democratic Party said that, of all the proposals under consideration, the Alcan proposal made the most sense. The Arctic Gas proposal and the El Paso proposal had very formidable arguments to be made against them. I will not repeat those arguments now. The Alcan route, if properly implemented, had some significant advantages. It would provide for the future possibility of bringing Canadian gas to Canadian markets and thus meet Canadian needs. It was, in comparison with the other alternatives, much more desirable in terms of coping with serious issues, including native rights and environmental concerns.
This particular proposal had major benefits for the United States, and I wish to stress that. Members of my party, as with all members of the House, believe it is a normal duty for a neighbour to facilitate another neighbour whenever possible. Therefore we were entirely sympathetic toward the development of the best means, from a Canadian point of view, to aid our American neighbours in getting gas to their markets.
Before I reach the substantive benefits for Canada in this Alcan proposal I want to make it clear that this route has, as its overwhelming purpose, benefits for the United States. We should not forget that. In deciding on the Alcan route we were of course making it possible for the Americans to bring their gas from the north to the south. More particularly, in comparison to the alternatives open to the Americans, the Alcan route is some $6 billion cheaper than the El Paso route would have

been. In comparison with the Arctic gas route it is an even greater saving for the Americans. Therefore there is a major financial advantage of some $6 billion accruing to the Americans because of this proposal. By using the Alcan route the Americans will avoid a major environmental hazard of significant proportions which would have existed had they chosen the El Paso route, and which would have been inflicted upon the west coast of the United States. In choosing the Alcan route we head off that serious concern in terms of human decency and in terms of financial cost for our American neighbours.
This Alcan proposal meets with the central recommendation of the American department of defence. That department was strongly in favour of a continental route, and strongly in favour of ensuring that gas from Alaska was transported to the United States by means of a route which would have the minimum security risk in the event of a war. Obviously to send gas by tankers via the west coast, would leave their energy lines far more vulnerable to attack.
There are four important considerations to the Alcan proposal which we are debating today, and have been debating for some days, which meet American requirements. They obtain gas, it saves them $6 billion, removes an environmental risk, and it meets their military requirements; all very substantial indeed.
What are we going to get out of it as a country? About the only benefit of significance that will accrue to the people of Canada from the Alcan proposal is jobs, jobs that would accrue in the manufacturing of the pipe, in the manufacturing of steel, and jobs that would accrue on the construction site itself. In terms of these implications it is not simply Stelco, Welland, and Ipsco in Regina, it is also the other part of the steel industry in Hamilton, and in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and a component industry in Port Coquitlam in British Columbia which would benefit. In other words, if Canada received what my party believes it should receive as a minimum, that is, the guarantee of labour needed to produce the steel, the labour needed to construct the pipeline for all of the portion of the pipeline in Canada, then the benefits would have been substantial. It would also have a beneficial effect on most of the provinces right across the country, directly and indirectly.
When the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. MacEachen) reported last September 9, after negotiations with the United States, that the Government of Canada had agreed on the Alcan route, on behalf of my colleagues I said, and said with pleasure, that I agreed to the proposal that it would produce a substantial number of jobs, as it was described by the Deputy Prime Minister. He assured us at that time, and had statistics to prove it, that the minimum Canadians would get from this project would be 100,000 man-years in jobs. Well, that is a lot of jobs, particularly at a time when a million and half in real numbers are unemployed.
Almost within days of this announcement doubts began to be raised concerning the credibility of the minister's promises. I repeat the minister did not say that we might get, we could get, or if possible we should get 100,000 man-years; he said
February 23, 1978

with great assurance and confidence on September 9 that Canadians would get 100,000 man-years in jobs.
On behalf of myself, my research staff talked with the commissioner in charge of this project in order to receive a breakdown of this estimate. The minister has refused either to deny or confirm the estimate. Perhaps sometime today the minister will let the House know about the accuracy of this contention. The commissioner in charge of the project indicated that the job estimate was based on Canada receiving 98 per cent, and not 90 per cent, of the orders for the steel necessary for the construction of the Canadian portion of the pipeline. Without that 98 per cent, we would not receive the 100,000 man-years in jobs promised by the minister. Shortly after we received that promise, we had some doubt because of the information given to us by the commissioner. We heard there would be no written guarantees in the legislation.
When the treaty came out and we saw the legislation, we realized there was no guarantee of jobs for Canadians. Actually we looked for that commitment, among other things. As other hon. members have pointed out during the course of this debate, the legislation has the treaty embodied in it. That makes sense. At least there is some logical consistency. The crucial portion of the treaty was clause 7, which is the sellout clause in terms of Canadian interest.


Mr. Crosbie:: Right on.


John Edward Broadbent: I hear the hon. member agreeing with what I am saying. I hope he keeps that in mind when he votes later today.
Clause 7 of the treaty should have provided Canadians with an exclusive right to the production of steel and the construction of the pipeline, but there is no such provision. In fact that clause is almost exactly the opposite. The provision in clause 7 indicates that if Canadians are fortunate enough, in terms of meeting international competition, they will have the legal right to compete in order to get jobs on the Canadian portion of the pipeline.
Because of the pipeline, the Americans will save $6 billion, lessen environmental risk to their west coast, and will have their defence needs met. The minister negotiated for Canadians to have the right to do work on the pipeline after world competition. I consider that clause to be a sellout clause. It was produced by a minister who sold out the interests of Canadian workers, when the treaty was negotiated. All negotiations involve a little give and take. Throughout our history, whenever Liberals do negotiating on behalf of Canadians, Canadians do the giving and Americans do the taking. This legislation is a beautiful example of that.
I am somewhat concerned about what has been indicated by the official opposition. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can argue with brilliant legalistic persuasion on both sides of any cause. He outdid himself in this debate. He devoted half of his time to attacking the New Democratic Party, which I found curious. My party was the first party
Northern Pipeline
which advocated this pipeline route. We have remained consistent by indicating that Canadians should receive the jobs to which they are entitled. Instead of zeroing in on the government, he spent the first half of his speech attacking my party. Having done that, then he proceeded to point out the faults in the bill. That is a perfect example of bad conscience. I will not bore the House or the hon. member by quoting his words. Hearing them once was bad enough. He went on at great length to indicate what a deplorable piece of legislation this was. He concluded his speech by saying that of course the Conservative party would vote for it.


Mr. Paproski:: After it is amended.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, that was the position. I do not want to quote just the hon. member for the Yukon. I give credit to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) who comes from a steel community. He was in on the issue early. He indicated what was involved as a possible benefit for Canada in terms of jobs. Like hon. members of the New Democratic Party, he stressed the positive possibilities. I wish he would take a consistent position, as hon. members of my party do. Then when the hon. member for Hamilton West saw the bill, he was horrified and had some rather uncomplimentary things to say about the government. He indicated that what was involved was "a sellout to the American consumer at the expense of Canadian steelworkers and jobs for Canadians."
Also he indicated that there should be guarantees in order to protect the interests of our steel industry and those who provide goods and services, which play a major part in this pipeline. He went on to say that there had to be such guarantees before this piece of legislation would be worthy of support. I am not frequently persuaded by the arguments of the hon. member for Hamilton West. We differ quite often, but in this instance I found his logic rather cogent and his argument sound. This legislation, without guarantees, is certainly unworthy of support.
I want to say to the hon. member for Hamilton West, the hon. member for the Yukon, and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), as well as to all other Conservative members who have opposed this bill, that their arguments are sound. I hope when my party votes against this bill that those hon. members will join with us in voting against a piece of legislation which is a sellout of Canadian interests.
I have some fresh details which I should like to add to the debate. The government has made the argument that the Canadian steel industry is efficient, modern, and competent. Indeed it is. In fact it is one of the few sectors in the manufacturing end of things which is of world quality. The Canadian steel industry deserves a lot of credit for having entrepreneurial initiative, and for knowing when to renew its capital equipment. That industry is a credit to the country. It shows us the modern industrial base that can be created in Canada.
However, the conclusion drawn from this by the government, simply because they are competitive and efficient, is that we should blindly assume that that industry will receive the
3206

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
orders. We should assume that it will follow, as night follows day, that jobs will inevitably occur in the communities I referred to earlier in my speech. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that does not necessarily follow at all, and I will give six interconnected reasons for Canadians right now being skeptical about the possibility of getting anywhere near the number of jobs the Deputy Prime Minister has said we will get.
First, I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to a study that was done by an interdepartmental committee in the United States, a study which the minister said the other day he had not read, when I mentioned it out in the question period. In that study the U.S. authorities claim that, in their view at least, 30 per cent of the business for the Canadian portion of the pipeline will go to the United States. That is considerably more than the minister has contended. That is not a study produced by the NDP or by some fly-by-night organization, but one produced by an interdepartmental committee of the United States.
Second-and I mentioned this to the minister a long time ago-the Bank of America in the United States has been running adds, not simply in the Wall Street Journal, which I know the minister reads with interest, but in many cases right across the United States. The assumption of the Bank of America is exactly the same as that of the interdepartmental committee, that they anticipate that at least 30 per cent of the business for the Canadian portion of the pipeline will go to the United States.
Third, if the minister is not persuaded by the Americans, as he usually is-they usually do an effective job on him and then they tell him what a tough negotiator he is, and when the Americans tell him what a good job he has done, then we can be sure we have lost completely-then I refer him to one of his own department's studies. DREE did a study for the government on this pipeline in which they said that unless there were assurances about jobs we would get nowhere near the number of jobs the minister has been promising. In fact the part of the estimates on which the minister has been relying for his job prognostications is what DREE called "the wish book", which the Deputy Prime Minister has inflicted upon Canada as being a guarantee for Canadian jobs.
This is what the study said:
Unless there are effective controls ensuring Canadian content, 67 per cent may be a more realistic projection.
That is 67 per cent only of the jobs, not anywhere near the 90 per cent to 98 per cent, depending on which figure the minister deems to be appropriate at the time, which he has been promising the people of Canada.
Some people might ask what is the difference between 67 per cent and what the minister has promised. It involves about $600 million worth of business less than the minister has been telling Canadians we will get. If you translate the $600 million into jobs, it could mean we will get thousands fewer jobs, according to the DREE study, than the minister has said we will get. So we are not talking about a handful of dollars or a

mere scattering of jobs; we are talking about thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars about which the minister had been warned by a department of which he should know something.
Fourth, when we are talking about the competitive situation and how likely we are to get these jobs in Canada, we have to consider the state of the world's steel industry, the very people with whom we will be competing. As even the minister should probably know by now, demand has fallen off very considerably throughout the world in terms of steel, but simultaneously capacity in the steel producing countries has grown considerably.
Excess steel supplies have caused world prices to tumble all over, driving many producers into the red. For example, the five largest Japanese steel companies reported combined losses of over $300 million in the first six months of the fiscal year ending in September of last year. A similar situation exists with the British steel industry. The reality is that the steel industry in Japan, in Britain, in the United States, and in Italy, is in a state of slump. It is looking for new markets and it will be concentrating on the Alcan project as a major instrument of bailing itself out.
I should like to quote two of the principals involved in this whole issue, the heads of companies in Canada. The minister is fond of saying the steel industry is confident so why is the NDP not confident? I repeat that we are confident about the steel industry in Canada; we just have no confidence in the government.
Mr. John Allen, president of Stelco, said recently:
The realities of the current world steel environment are such that Canadian producers will have to fight as never before for future orders and overcome fierce competition from overseas manufacturers, most of whom operate in countries whose governments use their industrial infrastructures as an employment-providing or foreign-exchange-generating mechanism.
Not long ago I met Mr. Jim MacLennan, president of Ipsco, and discussed the situation with him. He made essentially the same point, and in fact went on the record on the night that the National Energy Board made its ruling on the size of the pipe. I heard him on the radio, and I am sure he was on television the same night, saying he has a great deal of concern about the Japanese, the Italians and other steel makers in the world, getting contracts. He spoke with confidence, as he should have, about his own company, because it has done a damn good job, just as Mr. John Allen, head of Stelco, spoke with confidence about his own company. But neither of these individuals underestimate the problems that will occur for Canada in getting those contracts, in a world community in which the steel industry is now operating way under capacity and is looking for new orders.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) dealt most specifically with the problem of competition. He dealt most specifically with the variety of means open to other companies in other countries to undercut the Canadian suppliers. A whole variety of methods can be used to undercut the competitive regulation which is supposed to be in
February 23, 1978

the legislation. I appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister to consider this argument when he winds up the debate.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), speaking in the debate on Monday, February 20, replied to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I was astounded to read his speech and I am totally convinced the minister made a mistake when he read the notes that were prepared for him by his department, because in one paragraph he put forward an argument which he withdrew completely in the next. I refer the Deputy Prime Minister to page 3035 in Hansard. It is at this point that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is trying to deal with the fundamental argument which is now of concern to the leaders of the steel industry in Canada and to members of the NDP, that is, the problem of assessing what fair competition is in reaching a decision about which companies in which parts of the world are going to get contracts. This is what he said in terms of dealing with state subsidies, special tax concessions of the kind, for example, that DISC provides in the United States:
Action under the Anti-dumping Act could be taken in cases where exports into Canada are financed under more favourable terms than are available to the foreign manufacturer for its domestic sales. Under regulation (11 A) of the anti-dumping regulations, credit and other financing terms can be taken into account in determining the normal value, export price, and, hence, the margins of dumping under the meaning of the act.
That quote, if left alone, might persuade a number of people in this House. People might say that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has shown that we have regulations which will really protect the Canadian steel industry from unfair competition. However, the minister went on, and as sure as I stand here I am totally convinced the minister made a mistake. I think he was reading a note from one of his officials about the problem associated with this, because this is how the minister continued:
It should be noted that neither (11 A) of the anti-dumping regulations nor the imposition of countervailing duties for reasons of export financing subsidies, appear to have been tested as yet. Moreover, the anti-dumping option would really only come into play after the fact, which renders its use, other than as a threat mechanism, somewhat ineffective.
The Deputy Prime Minister looked concerned when I read that to him, and well he should, because in the words of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce there is a complete undermining of the government's argument that we are going to be protected. What the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said is that the very provisions of the Anti-dumping Act in section (11A) are going to be ineffective. He was saying that they have not as yet been tested and that with regard to the Alcan pipeline they would become operative only after the fact. Does this mean that after we buy the pipe and lay it- whether we buy it from Italy, Japan or some other country which might win in the bidding-only then can the government go back and say, "Too bad, fellows, you violated our anti-dumping legislation"?
I repeat what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said:
Northern Pipeline
Moreover, the anti-dumping option would really only come into play after the fact, which renders its use, other than as a threat mechanism, somewhat ineffective.
That was not said by a member of the opposition, it was said by a minister of the Crown, and to me it is the most damning argument which has been presented on the matter of competitiveness. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister will deal with that issue when he speaks.
With regard to being optimistic that Canadians will get the jobs in a competitive situation, the minister said that the Canadian steel industry is competitive. We think it is competitive, but who got the contracts for building the American pipeline in Alaska? Was it the Canadian steel industry or the American steel industry? Not at all. It was the Japanese steel industry. I do not know why the minister is so convinced that we will automatically get the contracts to produce the pipe when, for a similar project in Alaska, the Japanese, not the Canadians or the Americans, got the contracts. Surely that should give even the minister reason to pause and not be so acquiescent and optimistic about jobs.
Financial experts are now saying that Foothills will find it easier and cheaper to finance the project if more pipe, equipment and services are purchased offshore than originally planned. Lacking government financial backstopping which would have increased security and lowered debt costs, the consortium may be forced to minimize debt costs as much as possible to ensure debt and equity financing. One obvious way of achieving this would be to take advantage of less expensive foreign export financing which often accompanies foreign purchases.
If the consortium attempts to raise funds abroad, perhaps either in Japan or Europe, in the face of financing difficulties here in North America, it could well expect demands by foreign bankers and other foreign investors that the project use foreign funds to purchase foreign goods and services. In other words, if Foothills is going to get assistance in financing this massive project, which will cost anywhere from $10 billion to $14 billion, the source of those funds, whether continental Europe or Japan, could well insist that a good part of that money be used to purchase equipment in those countries. This is not a concern expressed only by the New Democratic Party.
I want to read to the minister from a confidential report prepared by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With direct reference to this problem of financing abroad, and therefore buying steel abroad, the report says the following:
The Canadian content actually achieved could vary substantially from estimates because of competitive pricing conditions, tied and concessional Financing, government monitoring, corporate attitudes, and other factors.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce seems quite concerned about tied and concessional financing arrangements which could be made by Foothills in and with other countries.
I have tried to put on the record some interconnected reasons why we are not all acquiescent or optimistic about the number of jobs which will come to Canada because of our
80031-6 l'A

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
strong competitive steel industry. There is every reason to believe that other companies in other parts of the world will get a substantial piece of the action.
An interdepartmental committee in the United States, DREE here in Canada, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and heads of companies in the steel industry here in Canada have all expressed the same concern. Only the Liberal Government of Canada, which was taken to the cleaners in negotiations, is saying that we are going to get 100,000 man-years in jobs. That is rubbish, and all experts in the field know it is rubbish.
The only way we can be guaranteed that we will get the jobs Canadians deserve is to make provision for that in this legislation. I want to repeat that I refer not just to jobs at Ipsco or Stelco. There would be a spin-off effect. If we were to get the contract, jobs would be created in Sydney, Nova Scotia; Sault Ste. Marie and in Port Coquitlam. Jobs would be spread right across the country. The only way we will get jobs in the numbers we ought to get them-because the Americans will get plenty as a result of the agreement-is to have embedded in this legislation guarantees that Canadian workers, wherever possible, will produce the steel for the Canadian part of this project.
I want to say in advance that I will be moving an amendment. If the amendment carries, we will be delighted to support this legislation. If it does not carry, we will regretfully have to vote against a project which could have been a project of monumental significance to the people of Canada.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters):
That Bill C-25 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Special Committee on a Northern Pipeline with instruction that the said committee give consideration to the making of recommendations for the inclusion in the said bill of guarantees that all of the pipe for the pipeline the production of which is possible in Canada be produced in this country, in order to assure the attainment of the principal Canadian benefit from this pipeline, namely, jobs for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that we take this amendment under advisement and continue with the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I remind hon. members that if the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) speaks now, he closes the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not on an amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order on the amendment. I do not think this amendment is acceptable on second reading. I think the amendment has not been put before the House. If I speak I clearly understand I am speaking on the main motion, so I would have to clarify the situation or continue the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is moved by Mr. Broadbent and seconded by Mr. Peters:
That Bill C-25 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Special Committee on a Northern Pipeline with instruction that the said committee give consideration to the making of recommendations for the inclusion in the said bill of guarantees that all of the pipe for the pipeline the production of which is possible in Canada be produced in this country, in order to assure the attainment of the principal Canadian benefit from this pipeline, namely, jobs for Canadians.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt said motion?


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to intervene very briefly to point out the irresponsibility of this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Hypocrite.


Erik Nielsen: What the New Democratic Party is doing is attempting to kill this bill. If that amendment should pass it would effectively kill the project.


An hon. Member:: They do not care.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Two-faced again.


Erik Nielsen: I do not know whether two faces is unparliamentary or not.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not care.


Erik Nielsen: That party has adopted three different positions. First, it was going to be a filibuster, then it was going to be all troops thrown into the fray, and now comes the impractical suggestion inherent in this motion of amending the legislation to ratify an international agreement with which we are stuck-a poor agreement for all that-and this is an out and out attempt to kill the bill.
There are timetables which must be met, Mr. Speaker. This project is vital to the national interest, but if this irresponsible amendment were accepted it would go down the tube as a good many other advantages went down the tube during negotiations.
I want to make it clear that while we are after the same kind of guarantees that those on my left are after; the difference is in the method. We know that it must be done by legislation and we know that if the government is reasonable with respect to suggested amendments, it can be done by a monitoring agency of this House. There is the difference. The same guarantees can be procured by either method. The method in this amendment is impractical and out of order. No such amendment can be made to the bill. That is the question that should be taken up by the Chair and the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) should support me on this. It is out of order because that bill cannot be amended to go beyond the provision with the United States that binds the two countries.
Having said those brief words I would urge the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) to withdraw his motion and vote on the main motion.

February 23, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: The Leader of the New Democratic Party and his colleagues tell me to sit down.


John Edward Broadbent: No, I did not.


Erik Nielsen: We are going to vote for this bill. It is too much in the national interest to act any other way. With a reasonable approach and a monitoring agency, the guarantees will be achieved. It is impossible to achieve them in the manner suggested by the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am always sorry to see someone trapped in an untenable position. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has spoken for a number of days and has directed a number of his party to speak in support of the idea that Canadians should be employed. Yet when he sees an opportunity to guarantee this employment through a small change in the legislation-a change that I am sure would be made by almost any other country concerned with a project that is a gift to a friendly neighbour of a transportation facility-he says they will vote against the amendment. When he has the opportunity to stand up and be counted, he does what he often does-turns the other cheek.
I believe this is an excellent amendment. If parliament rules that all the employment for manufacture of the pipe, the valves, digging the holes, laying the pipe, constructing the pumping stations and other facilities, should be Canadian, the only people in trouble will be those who sign the treaty and the amendments that will be made to it.
The treaty is not inviolable. It will be amended in any case. The United States have already made changes and they are going to demand more changes. I am sure we can also demand consideration.
A lot of things have not been said. I would be surprised if a great deal of money is not tied up in the development of the pipeline which may not be built for many years, or even not at all. The hon. member for the Yukon is aware of what is happening to the gas coming from Alaska today. He knows that much of it is being shipped to Japan. He knows that if we allow gas to be shipped to Japan by the United States, the consequences to our competitive position will be great. Japan will get cheap gas because it is not very far from Alaska and will not cost much to transport. The gas will then be used for the manufacture of steel. We are in the unhappy position of having to haul coal from Hamilton or other places, and so would not be competitive.
The hon. member is well aware that more gas is being developed in western Canada than we need today. There are applications galore before the National Energy Board to sell more gas. We are not concerned with a pipeline that is needed in a great rush. We will be able to demand time to develop the pipe, the valves, the pumping stations and all the necessary infrastructure if we make these things a condition of allowing the United States to transport fuel across our nation.
Northern Pipeline
The hon. member for the Yukon knows that there was no opportunity in Alaska for training local people and that most of the labour was imported. He knows that other American states were not allowed to bid on the pipe. The pipe came from Japan. In fact it was manufactured years before the decision was made with regard to the pipeline. It sat there rusting. He knows that.
The hon. member cannot have it both ways. If he believes the Liberal party is the big business party, he should join them. However, he will find that both those parties are losing a lot of friends. When my leader gets so close enough to and knowledgeable about the corporations that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) begins calling them our "corporate chums," he may be closer than he thinks. We are talking about steel plants in Canada, workers who will work on the pipeline, and those who have not yet been trained to work on the pipeline. The hon. member knows that the facilities are not yet built. We have the capability and the know-how. All we need is time to develop the design and we will build the valves for the 56-inch pipeline. These valves are not available anywhere in the world. Given the opportunity, we can build them as good as or better than any country.
I may agree to a road being built across my farm and what the terms of the lease and so on will be. Obviously I will request that I not only have the right to use that road, but to be employed to maintain it and snowplough it. I will either demand that I provide that kind of labour, or get a tax reduction. That would be anticipated. With regard to the pipeline, the Americans can expect no less from us.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) made a very good speech. He rightly said there will be great advantages to our American partners. He also pointed out the advantage to Canadians and the fact that the alternative would be very bad. The alternative would be moving the gas and oil down the west coast, something very dangerous. The Americans will have a great saving as a result of that route being shortened. It is being made militarily safe. Canadians are providing them with the opportunity to transport over Canadian soil. Because we are good neighbours we are making certain concessions. In return, we will ask for concessions.
I do not place the entire blame on the Deputy Prime Minister because he is new at this game. I have negotiated with the Americans on occasion. They are the sharpest traders in the world. I have never been competent enough to negotiate satisfactorily with the international corporations. Therefore the workers for whom I was negotiating did not win. We were always taken because we could not read the fine print. We were honourable. We believed what we said. We always used simple English.
A Yankee trader does not believe in simple English. He reads all the fine print. In fact he wrote it. It is interesting to note that in the fine print there is always a reference to an act of God. However, that always refers to the corporation. I have never seen a case where an act of God worked in favour of the

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
little guy. It always worked in favour of the other side. That was not because God was unfair. It was because of the small print.
The Deputy Prime Minister will find out that the small print is not like that used in External Affairs where everyone speaks in diplomatic language, not meaning what they say and not intending to say what they mean. What is written in the small print is what you get. What you see is not what you get. The Deputy Prime Minister agrees with us. Ele comes from a very backward part of the country, the same as I do.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


William Arnold Peters: I say that in terms of the employment and industry that are being developed in our areas. There is not much in his area or in mine. Foothills told the Deputy Prime Minister that we would get 90 per cent of the jobs. One horse, one rabbit makes 50/50. That is the kind of 90 per cent we will get.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They call it a "rorse".


William Arnold Peters: Whatever "abortion" it will be, we will have to live with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: I will not be offended if the Deputy Prime Minister does not vote in favour of this amendment. I am sure he believes that when we open up the treaty we will get a better deal. However, he must realize that when dealing with the Yankee trader, you need somebody to read the fine print. We are not very good at that. We are not playing around with tariffs here. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is in the chamber. He will tell you that it is not like selling cattle on the open market. He knows that when dealing with the Yankee traders you have to read the fine print very carefully. This may not affect workers in the constituency of the Deputy Primer Minister or in Timiskaming.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There will be work in both those constituencies.


William Arnold Peters: I hope to God that does not happen or I will be very upset. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said it will be worse in both constituencies.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said there will be work in both those constituencies because of this pipeline.


William Arnold Peters: I certainly support that. Coming from the man responsible for making it happen, I will hold him to it.
I am really surprised at the hon. member for Yukon. It is not he who will sit down with the Yankee trader and negotiate. There will be no alternative, no second chance. He will have to depend on the terms of this bill, the application of it to the treaty and the pipeline, the jobs, steel production and all the other facilities. I am sure his colleagues from Hamilton, Regina, Port Coquitlam, Montreal where the valves may be made, or Toronto where they will decide on the pressure units

to be moved, will be shocked to find he has sold them down the river the same as the government did.


Simma Holt: I want jobs for the people.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) is speaking about jobs. We give her full credit for that. She says that she wants jobs. We not only want them, we want them guaranteed. It may be 20 years before this pipeline carries any gas if it is true they are compressing that gas and sending it to Japan and they are not flaming any off in Alaska. It may be quite awhile-


An hon. Member:: How do you get it down the well?


William Arnold Peters: Certainly they are pumping some of it down the well. It is a good way. Any time it goes back into the well it is worth more money. My friend, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, lives in an area that has developed more oil this year than the reserves held five years ago for the whole country.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not so.


William Arnold Peters: We have at least three applications to ship gas out that they are unable to handle. They have had great success in an area where the gas is estimated to be as plentiful as it was in the original Leduc field. If that is so, it will make the gas, reserves on the Arctic slope look like small potatoes. There is no great rush; it will take the Deputy Prime Minister several days or weeks to write in the guarantees in this bill. I am not familiar with the difficulties he will have with the treaty. I am not sure what the relationship between this bill and the treaty may be. But from my point of view I want as many jobs as possible guaranteed by the passage of this bill. Maybe the Conservatives do not. One or two of the Liberals say they want jobs. I count on them to stand up and vote for the guarantees in the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order which I staked out when the Chair read the motion, because of the doubts I had with respect to its acceptability.
Now that Mr. Speaker is in the chair, perhaps I can advance very briefly the arguments as to why-


An hon. Member:: It has already been put.


Erik Nielsen: The motion has not been put.


An hon. Member:: He read it out.


Erik Nielsen: The motion has not been put. The record will show that during my few remarks I staked out the position that I doubted the motion was in order and that I wanted a ruling to that effect from the Chair. Now that Mr. Speaker is
February 23, 1978

in the chair I propose to put arguments with respect to my reasoning that it is out of order.
The motion, sir, in my submission goes beyond the scope of that which is allowable under the usual six months' hoist because it attaches conditions not provided for in the rule. It attaches conditions which impose instructions on the committee, and it attaches conditions that the committee must bring in a recommendation to amend the bill in the most impossible way. It goes beyond the scope of the bill itself. It is impossible to amend it in the fashion suggested in the motion because of the existence of the international agreement.
The original motion of the government had to be accompanied by a message from His Excellency and this amendment may very well affect that aspect since it is an intrusion upon a prerogative of His Excellency by reason of the fact that that motion standing on the order paper is confined to that purpose. For those reasons I submit the motion is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to serve my right to argue the points the hon. member has made if you decide it is appropriate for this argument to be reopened. First of all I wish to make the point that when the amendment was put by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) there was an objection from the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). We sat for a moment without anything being said and then the Acting Speaker, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), rose and put the motion.


Erik Nielsen: No, he did not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will have to resolve this initial point. As is no surprise I am sure to the hon. member, I have some misgivings about the procedural regularity of the motion and the points made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are well taken.
However, it will have to be resolved whether the matter is open for argument at this time. Before resuming the chair I asked the hon. member, the Assistant Deputy Speaker, if he had in fact reserved on the matter and his impression clearly was that he had. That matter will have to be verified, but certainly that was his impression. Reference was made, I understood by the hon. member for Yukon in his participation right after that, that the matter had been reserved. Therefore I do not have as much difficulty with the procedural regularity of the motion as I do with the argument.
It would seem to me there is only one way to settle that argument and that is to examine the transcript of the afternoon, when it is available, to decide whether there is any foundation for the argument of the question having been put. It is not now open to procedural argument. I would have to be persuaded of that, but surely we will need to have the evidence on hand. I do not think there is any way to solve it without looking at the transcript.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree we have to look at the evidence, namely, the blues
Northern Pipeline
of what was said. Of course there are tapes as well, so it is possible to look at what was said and we can hear what was said. An additional point I wish to make is that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) spoke to the amendment at some length after the motion was put. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) debated on his feet whether to speak to the amendment or to wait and speak to the main motion after the amendment was disposed of.
Mr. Speaker, I do not like arguing in advance of looking at or hearing the evidence either, but my memory is different. I will even confess that I was surprised at the ruling from the Chair. But we sat for 30 to 40 seconds without anything being said, and then the Assistant Deputy Speaker got up and said, "Moved by Mr. Broadbent and seconded by Mr. Peters," and called for the question. At that point the hon. member for the Yukon stood up and spoke to the amendment, followed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). It seems to me the time for raising this whole question of the propriety of the amendment was over. It is unfortunate. Maybe there was some inadvertence about it, but this is what happened, and I do not think it is appropriate now to ask to go back at this stage of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Any participation in the discussion would, of course, be without prejudice if the matter had been held under reserve. There is obviously only one consideration at this moment and that is whether the procedural regularity of the motion was held under reserve by the Chair. We have to determine that. The first way to assist in that discussion is to obtain a transcript of the record of the proceedings this afternoon. That will not be available for a short time. We cannot interfere with private members' hour which begins at five o'clock. It would appear that this discussion would have to take place later on this evening, I would presume at eight o'clock. That would be the appropriate time to raise it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, one thing that the record will not show is that I was on my feet before the Assistant Deputy Speaker read the motion and at the outset I staked out the grounds of my point of order and asked the Chair to look at it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) did indeed stake out his brave ground, but the point surely on this matter is: did the Speaker at the time who was in the chair put the question or did he not? Did he name the mover and the seconder or not? The record is, I think, unequivocally clear on that. He moved the motion and expressed some reservations. He got up, he hesitated, and he moved the motion. It was so unequivocally accepted, I thought by all members. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in informal conversation was talking about the debate arrangements to be made after that. The Deputy Prime Minister was assuming, and said to me informally, the motion had been put, and he was concerned about winding up the debate. He asked whether he should now speak on the amendment, or whether he should speak after the amendment was dealt with.

February 23, 1978
Adjournment Motion
We were in the process of making informal arrangements to expedite procedures by agreeing that the Deputy Prime Minister should speak on the amendment. Also we agreed that we would not put up any further speakers. I cite that by way of evidence. It was a widespread assumption on the part of everyone, until the hon. member for the Yukon rose in a totally irrelevant manner to attempt to get himself out of a difficult situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Because of the very complex deliberations, I am sure we would be greatly assisted by examining the record of what really took place earlier this afternoon. Therefore the discussion on the procedural regularity of this motion will be held over until the House resumes its session this evening at eight o'clock. In that event, we will all have the benefit of examining the record. Then I can hear whatever arguments will be advanced at that time.
Is it the pleasure of the House to call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Canadian culture- Federal assistance to cultural organizations; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation-Reason for delay of final payment to fishermen; the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)-Finance- Measures to prevent dumping of steel beams-Definition of "Fair world price".
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Connell that Bill C-1001, respecting Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Leggatt.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with one little difficulty. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) is not here. There have been some discussions about this bill. The understanding was that the hon. member who was sponsoring it did not wish to proceed with it today. I thought this was known by others. I see many affirmative nods on the government side of the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is not here, nor is the hon. member for Scarborough East. Our understandings were quite clear. Behind those understandings is the fact that there have been discussions between Bell Canada and those interested in this bill. It was the disposition of the sponsoring member that this bill was not to proceed today. Since it is only 4.55 p.m., I excuse him for not being here. Is there someone who can confirm this understanding?
There are two other bills under the heading of private bills, and the sponsors of those bills are here. Why can we not proceed with them?


Mr. Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 understood there was an agreement. I was told by the parliamentary secretary that agreement had been reached to call Bill S-5 and Bill S-6 at this time.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, as one of the sponsors, I should like to indicate that was my understanding as well. There was agreement that these two bills could be dealt with expeditiously today. I hope that understanding is clear on all sides of the House. There have been many discussions on the matter. Certainly that was my understanding of the agreement.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone approached my party for agreement.


Yvon Pinard: We spoke to hon. House leader of the official opposition.


Steve Eugene Paproski: In any event, I never heard about it. We are willing to proceed on that basis, if the appropriate hon. members are present.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that I did not personally speak with the Conservative House leader; but I was informed by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul (Mr. Campbell) that an agreement had been reached.
February 23, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Before too many hon. members leave the Chamber, if there is any difficulty about the use of time now, perhaps we can settle the procedure problem at this point rather than waiting until eight o'clock. Perhaps it is worthwhile to wait a moment or two for the "blues".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your Honour will discover that Bill S-5 and Bill S-6 will not take very long, perhaps a minute or two each. My suggestion is that we deal with those bills while waiting for the "blues".


Mr. Speaker:: If the House is in agreement with the calling of Bill S-5 and Bill S-6, then we will proceed.


MARRIAGE LAW EXCEPTION-JAMES RICHARD BORDEN AND JUDY ANN BORDEN
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: that Bill S-5, to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of James Richard Borden and Judy Ann Borden, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been in the works for almost two years. It was dealt with in the other place, received third reading, and as a result has come to this place. As is stated in the title of the bill, it is an act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of James Richard Borden and Judy Ann Borden.
This matter has been gone into thoroughly by myself, as well as by many other hon. members. This legislation is required on the advice of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford), which is outlined in his letter dated June 26, 1975. In part the letter reads:
The only possibility for you to obtain authority to marry your niece under Canadian law would be for you to communicate with a private Member of Parliament in order to see whether the member would be willing to petition on your behalf for a private bill to provide an exception from the general law in force in Canada.
They proceeded to do that very thing. We are half way through the process. The couple have paid the costs incumbent upon them for private legislation. I hope the House rapidly accepts this bill on second reading so that it can be considered in more detail in committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
MARRIAGE LAW EXCEPTION-EUGfeNE WADDELL AND MARGUERITE BENOIT
John Campbell: that Bill S-6, to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Fran$ois Eugene Arthur Waddell and Marie Anne Marguerite Benoit, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Marriage Law Exceptions
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks an exception from the general law regarding the degrees of affinity within which two people may marry. The petitioner, Eugene Waddell, wishes to marry his niece, Marguerite Benoit.
The preamble to the bill, which will be proven in committee, sets out the pertinent facts showing the necessity for bringing the bill before parliament.
Prior to the framing of the British North America Act in 1967, the civil code of the province of Quebec of 1866 was in effect, and it contains the provisions saying that a man may not marry his niece. The next year the British North America Act gave legislative jurisdiction to the Parliament of Canada in the Field of marriage and, to the provinces, legislative jurisdiction in the field of solemnization of marriage. However, the degrees of consanguinity are part of the law of marriage rather than part of the law of solemnization of marriage, and therefore only the Parliament of Canada may properly legislate in this regard. The prohibition against marriage between uncle and niece contained in the code is therefore a matter of federal legislative jurisdiction. Because that prohibition was in the civil code of 1866, Section 129 of the British North America Act keeps it in force until it is "repealed, abolished or altered" by the Parliament of Canada.
Since the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of marriage and since, under Section 129 of the BNA Act, it has the power to "repeal or amend" the law that was in force in Quebec at the time of Confederation, I submit that it has the power to pass a private bill permitting the petitioners to marry each other, notwithstanding the prohibition that would otherwise make it impossible for them to marry.
I do not propose to go into any detail save to note that the petitioner, Eugene Waddell, is 84 years of age, and Miss Benoit is 66.
At this time I would like to express my appreciation on their behalf of the co-operation of the House leaders. I am sure all members would like to wish them much love and happiness in the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There being no more private bills to be dealt with, and private bills being the first order of business today, is it the wish of the House that we proceed to notices of motions (paper), or private members' public bills?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour is to return to the House to determine the ruling on the pipeline. If we can have a ruling, perhaps we could spend from now until six o'clock on that bill.
3214
Northern Pipeline



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
February 23, 1978

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will want to know that we are doing everything we can to expedite the production of the transcript of this afternoon so I can have some guidance from it. I understand the desire of the House to proceed with the matter forthwith because there might be some agreement that the matter be finalized. In the circumstances we may be able to produce the record very shortly, but it may take a few minutes. I would like some guidance from the House as to whether it would be useful to adjourn the House for a few minutes or say, until 5.30 p.m.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have been planning to speak in the debate and I would be ready to speak now. I could speak either on the assumption that I am dealing with the amendment or speak on second reading. If that is agreeable, I will proceed now.


Erik Nielsen: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker, and if the Chair should find that the circumstances are as I outlined them and that the motion is out of order, then it would be considered that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) will have closed the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to add another interesting procedural aspect to it, let me point out that it is indeed a fact that if we find out after the fact that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is speaking to the second reading motion, he closes the debate. If we find out after the fact that he is speaking to the amendment, I understand there might be a disposition to close the debate anyway. Perhaps while the President of Privy Council is addressing the House I can examine the transcript which has just been handed to me, and report to the House. Now that I have it, it should be possible to settle this very shortly.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a terrible precedent to allow a member's speech to be switched to another stage of the debate after the fact. I am prepared to let the minister speak on the amendment and, if it is found later that he was out of order, he could go ahead and make a speech on the motion. However, I would not agree to transferring his speech after he has made it to another stage of the debate. The

amendment is before the House until Your Honour has made your decision on it. If the President of Privy Council wishes to speak, he should do so on the amendment, but I would not agree to having it transferred. That would be a terrible precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that I have the record in front of me, perhaps I might be of some assistance to hon. members. The record shows that, in concluding his remarks, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) moved the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The text of the motion was then read. I will quote now from the text of the transcript as follows:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that we take this amendment under advisement and continue with the debate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I remind hon. members that if the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) speaks now, he closes the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not on an amendment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order on the amendment. I do not think this amendment is acceptable on second reading. I think the amendment has not been put before the House. If I speak I clearly understand I am speaking on the main motion so I would have to clarify the situation or continue the debate.
Then the Acting Speaker put the motion. However, prior to putting the motion, he said to the House:
Order, please. I suggest that we take this amendment under advisement and continue with the debate.
It would seem to me that in these circumstances the proper interpretation of that is that the Acting Speaker at that time had indicated to the House there was a procedural reservation. He said then that we should continue with the debate and put the question, subject to taking it under advisement. I do not know what other interpretation could be put on it, which would mean that the matter was one of procedural regularity. Further, the first person to speak after that was the President of Privy Council who said:
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order on the amendment. I do not think this amendment is acceptable on second reading ...
The Acting Speaker having indicated that he wanted to take it under advisement, I do not know what other notice he could give to the House of his intention to do that. I think that the matter of the procedural regularity of this motion is open for discussion now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what the transcript in front of you does not show is the space of time when nothing was happening.
It is perfectly true that the Acting Speaker said at one time that the matter should be reserved, but then after that certain things were said and certain things happened. We sat for a moment, and then the Acting Speaker got up and put the motion. My interpretation is that at that point he had decided there was going to be any discussion on the procedural matter, and he put the motion. Then he called on the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) to speak, and then on the hon. member
February 23, 1978

for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). It seems to me that that earlier statement about taking it under advisement does not apply when, three or four minutes later, after we sat here, the Acting Speaker put the motion.
Mir. Speaker: We are in a situation in which the occupant of the chair has done two things, one consistent with taking the matter under advisement and one consistent with resolving that advisement very quickly and putting the question.
I have to make an interpretation now, after the fact, as to which one he intended to do, and I think I should take the interpretation that he made his intention clear by saying that the matter would have to be taken under advisement and that there was some procedural difficulty. Therefore I am resolving it in that way. The other choice is a less desirable one.
I think hon. members ought to be able, if they wish, to try to defend a motion which has a clear difficulty in it, in that it directs the committee to a certain line of discussion and endeavour, which certainly seems to offend two well known precedents which I am prepared to cite to the House if that is necessary. I would be glad to hear hon. members who want to defend the motion, but it has a clear procedural difficulty with respect to its instruction. In the circumstances, with the compression of time and if there is agreement that that is a procedural irregularity, I certainly think that it would be appropriate to enable the motion to be purged of the offending words so that it would stand on its own as a second reading amendment and to send the subject matter back to the committee so that it could proceed to a determination directly, if that is the case. In any event, if there is a defence of the motion, I would be glad to hear it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, do I not also have the right to hear any criticism of the motion?


Mr. Speaker:: There has been an argument by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) that the procedure is irregular on the ground that the motion issues an instruction to the committee, that the instruction is to introduce a new element into the bill which goes beyond the scope of the bill, and is therefore out of order. There was a third ground, but those are the two I recall.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in that connection I should like to point out that this amendment does not send the bill to the committee but, rather, sends its subject matter. Therefore the limitations that apply to amending a bill at second reading in my view do not apply. If on second reading we were trying to amend clauses of the bill, I know it could be argued from the authorities that the thing to do for that is to wait until we get the bill into committee. However, in this case we are sending the subject matter rather than the bill itself.
There is a rather long paragraph on page 185 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition which is part of citation 226(2). The opening lines talk about the subject matter of a bill and so on, and then we get down to the last dozen lines:
Northern Pipeline
Accordingly, an instruction can be moved that authorizes the introduction of amendments into a Bill which extend its provisions to objects not contained therein, if those objects are relevant to the subject-matter thereof, or which would augment the legislative machinery whereby the Bill is to be put into force; whilst, on the other hand, no instruction is permissible which is irrelevant, foreign, or contradictory to the contents of the Bill, or that seeks the subversion thereof, by substituting another scheme for the mode of operation therein prescribed.
According to Dr. Beauchesne, that was taken from some edition of May at pages 398 and 399. There are other citations on other pages. I go back to page 183, citation 221(1).
The object of a permissive instruction-
That is what this is, sir, not a mandatory instruction. It is a permissive instruction that the committee has power to consider such and such. Surely the power to consider such and such is not a mandatory instruction.
The objective of a permissive instruction, which is the more ordinary form, is to confer on the Committee authority to do something which, without the ins'.ruction, they would have no power to do, for example, to divide a bill into two bills, to consolidate two bills into one, or to extend the scope of a bill. Instructions of this kind merely empower the Committee to take the course of action specified, leaving it to the discretion of the Committee whether or not they exercise the power.
What is proposed in the amendment is not that the bill be divided or anything like that, but that its scope be extended, and I have in mind the limitation that was in the citation I read earlier, that that extension cannot go beyond the objectives of the bill. I suggest that the whole question of this bill providing jobs for Canadians and providing for the production of pipe in Canada is not foreign to-it is part of-the bill. It is part of what was talked about in the treaty and so forth, so we are simply extending the provisions of the bill to provide that with respect to these matters, the making of the pipe and the providing of jobs, there shall be certain guarantees.
As I say, the requirement that we cannot be foreign to the bill, it seems to me, is met in this amendment. It deals with writing into the bill guarantees about things that are already implicit in it. And as for the suggestion that the instruction is mandatory, I do not see how that can be taken seriously at all because it is an instruction of a permissive nature, giving the committee the right to make recommendations for the inclusion in the said bill of certain guarantees. Surely that is leaving it to the committee, in the terms of citation 221, whether or not they exercise that power.
While it is a bit unusual as an amendment and perhaps a bit innovative in that we are sending the subject matter rather than the bill-and we frequently have had amendments sending subject matter-it seems to me to be in line with the other citations, namely, the right to ask the committee to consider recommending that certain clauses be put into the bill in the nature of guarantees.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I initially suggested that the amendment was out of order, and in view of the fact that you have ruled that the matter is still under reservation, I would like to indicate very briefly my view with respect to the regularity of the amendment.
80031-62/2

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
The first point I want to make, in a sense bolsters the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that the question of Canadian content or the amount of Canadian content is within the bill because there is a clause which obligates the company to provide the agency and the minister with a procurement plan indicating, for example, Canadian content.
Elaving said that, it seems to me that the question of guarantees for Canadian content can be dealt with when the clauses of the bill are considered, and I understand that one of the rules developed by the Chair is that amendments to a second reading motion must not suggest amendments to clauses of a bill. To put it another way, an amendment at second reading must not anticipate amendments which can properly be put at the committee stage. I had anticipated that members of the New Democratic Party would come to the committee armed with amendments, dealing with Canadian content, to the appropriate clauses of the bill.
Second is the further precedent that a reasoned amendment to a second reading motion which would constitute an instruction to a committee is out of order. That case has been dealt with previously by the Chair. On November 6, 1976, in the House of Commons Journals at pages 482-3 the Chair held that an amendment moved was procedurally improper on the basis of citation 386(3) of Beauchesne which said that the House cannot both refuse to give second reading and refer some provisions of a bill to a committee. It has to make its choice. Here we are refusing second reading but at the same time saying we want to instruct the committee. It seems to me these are two considerations that would be helpful in determining the regularity of the amendments.
I make one last point, Mr. Speaker. Your memory was that the amendment goes beyond the motion on the order paper which was supported by a message from His Excellency.


Mr. Speaker:: That was the third point that was earlier argued by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that is referred to in the precedents. I do not know if there is any intention to put forward a counter argument to the effect that the provisions, if accepted in the amendment, would raise the possibility of going beyond the financial prerogative of the Crown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say just a word about that which applies to most of the other arguments. I thought I had made it clear in my earlier submission that what this amendment would do is not to send the bill to the committee but simply to send the subject matter of the bill. Surely, if all the committee has is the subject matter, it could recommend back to the House the inclusion of other matters in the bill when the bill comes back again. Surely there is a difference between the things you cannot do to a bill and what you can do when what is before the committee is the subject matter of the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would be prepared to accede to that argument, as I am almost always prepared to accede to the arguments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), if it were not for the fact that Erskine May takes two or three pages in Chapter 21 to deal specifically with instructions related to motions on second reading of a bill. It goes into motions of instructions that would, for example, have the effect of widening the powers of the committee beyond the ways and means or money resolution which covers the bill, or if its proposals involve charge. There are several other precedents that indicate an instruction is out of order if it attempts to introduce into a bill a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure.
Page 513 of Erskine May's nineteenth edition covers the points raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), that is to say, that since the clauses of a bill can be amended to accomplish what it is endeavoured to accomplish by the general amendment, that the amendment goes beyond the scope of a proper amendment at second reading stage and gets into amendments that can and properly should be secured by specific clause by clause amendments when the bill is in committee.
The first of such precedents cited at page 511 of Erskine May are worthy of mention, that is, if the instruction attempts to embody in a bill principles which are foreign or not cognate to the bill or are outside its scope and declared intention. I know the argument would be that if the bill were sent to the committee with that instruction, those precedents would apply. The argument is that since it is not the bill but the subject matter that is being referred, the instructions have become validated by virtue of that device.
With the greatest of respect I cannot accede to that argument. The hon. member knows that he can accomplish the same thing by stopping the amendment after the words which refer the subject matter to the committee. The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill C-25 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Special Committee on a Northern Pipeline-
The amendment could stop there and the hon. member would be able to do what he wants to do. If the amendment carries, then when the bill gets to committee he could persuade that committee to give consideration to the matter.
In view of the very clear precedent against the addition of instructions on motions at second reading stage, and since the instructions appear to run into a number of difficulties-giving the committee powers that it would not ordinarily possess to do things and to make changes to the bill which appear to be the proper subject of clause by clause amendments and might very well turn out to offend the financial provisions and be beyond the scope of the bill-all things considered, I have to resolve the benefit of the doubt against the procedural regularity of this amendment. I do say that under the circumstances, and particularly with the confusion about putting the question, if it is desired that the amendment be put now in proper language I would certainly think it appropriate to do so in the circumstances. I do not like to do that in every circumstance, but if
February 23, 1978

the amendment were altered to put a period after "Northern Pipeline" I think that might be accepted.
Is the House ready for the question? Before the Deputy Prime Minister speaks, we might regularize our own procedures a little bit. I take it we have agreed we will continue with the consideration of government business, namely, the resumption of the debate on the second reading motion on this bill and by allowing the minister to address the question he would be concluding the debate.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be clear where we are in the proceedings. I understood you to rule or to make the suggestion that my original amendment be changed to make it procedurally acceptable. Are you now accepting the amendment in modified form? If that is so, I will sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: I was making an offer. It is not something I like to do in every case, but in these circumstances I think it only fair that if the hon. member wishes to modify his amendment and put a period after "Pipeline" the Chair would accept that amendment, put it, and it can be taken for debate. Is that agreed and understood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will now read, moved by Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Peters:
That Bill C-25 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Special Committee on a Northern Pipeline.
The motion is now procedurally regular, is before the House and in the possession of the House. In speaking now the President of Privy Council is addressing himself to that motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to begin by expressing the expectation that, even though we are debating the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent), the debate is coming to a conclusion and that it might be possible for us to deal with both the main motion and his amendment by a vote today or after conclusion of all the speeches that may be required.
In any event, if the debate is not concluded by my speech I will have another opportunity to speak on the main motion if necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one never knows what will happen around here, but my notion is that the minister's speech is the last one. Rather than having a vote or two votes that cut into the dinner hour, I wonder if we could have an understanding now that if there are no speeches after the minister speaks, the vote or votes will be taken tonight at 8 o'clock, 8:15, or whatever.


Erik Nielsen: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope there will be no further speakers after the minister. We are prepared to vote at any time he concludes his remarks.
Northern Pipeline


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Knowing that the minister is effectively speaking on the amendment, and seeing the good will and agreement of the House, maybe we could make some order that would prevent a member who is not here now and a part of the agreement from indicating at 8 o'clock that he wants to add something to the debate. If we clarify the situation now we can establish the time of the vote, more or less, agreeing that the speech of the minister would conclude the debate on both the amendment and the main motion, and that any division to be taken would be postponed until such an hour.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I understand there may be a disposition for the House to finish now and to have the vote at eight o'clock this evening or, if possible, before the dinner hour. I certainly hope that will be the case and we can get the matter cleared up.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on that. We will take the vote on the amendment and take any other votes in their turn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I make a simple suggestion, Mr. Speaker. If the minister finishes before six o'clock, he could call it six o'clock and take the floor again at eight o'clock. Things will probably then work out.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have sufficient guidance to know what to do in carrying out the instructions that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) failed to send to the committee but which he has succeeded in giving to me.
First, I want to express my appreciation to the House for its consideration of the bill at this stage. During the course of the debate, a number of questions were raised and several constructive comments were put forward. Of course, there were a number of criticisms of the bill and the circumstances surrounding it. While obviously there will be an opportunity to deal more fully with these suggestions and criticisms in the special committee, I want to respond to some of the more important matters raised in the debate.
1 wish to refer to a statement made today in the debate and earlier by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) to the effect that the only significiant benefit to Canada in the Alcan pipeline project is jobs that may occur in the country. Of course, there is a benefit to Canada from jobs that we expect to be created. However, there are other benefits. It would be a great mistake for anyone, especially for anyone in the House of Commons, to believe that the only significiant benefit to Canada from this international enterprise is the creation of jobs, admitting the vital importance of that result.
I should begin by saying that this is an international project. It will be the result of an agreement that was negotiated between Canada and the United States. It was understood from the beginning that neither country could enter into the

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
agreement unless it could register definite benefits for itself from the agreement.
In the negotiations we were seeking mutual benefits, benefits for the United States and benefits for Canada. I am not put off or disturbed in any way if members, especially those in the New Democratic Party, say in comparison that the El Paso route of Mr. Schlesinger was able to give a benefit of $8 billion to the United States as opposed to the Alcan route. Obviously there were strong pressures in the United States for that domestic route and not an international route. It had to be defended in the United States because that choice yielded benefits to the United States. Therefore, I do not regard that as a convincing argument against entering into this agreement. I refer to the argument that the United States gained benefits.
This agreement has provided benefits for the United States and is providing benefits for Canada. It is a plus for both Canada and the United States. I want to list as briefly as possible the main benefits that are accruing to Canada as a result of this agreement.
First, the agreement provides access to western Arctic supplies of gas on the only economic basis currently available to meet growing needs in this country. The capacity for the transmission of Canadian gas would be 1.2 billion cubic feet per day and even a flow of as little as 800 million cubic feet daily would be sufficient to supply up to 10 per cent of the forecast demand for several years. In contrast, the larger supplies in Alaska would only supply 5 per cent of United States needs.
Second, as a result of the cost-sharing formula with the United States with regard to the Dempster lateral, as provided for in the agreement, the cost of transporting Canadian gas could be up to 20 cents per mcf less than under the original National Energy Board proposal for a diversion of the main line in the Yukon to Dawson. That could represent a saving for the transport of existing Canadian reserves of $1 billion.
Third, it is estimated that between $4 billion and $5 billion will be spent in Canada in current dollar terms for the purchase of goods and services required for the construction of the 2,765 mile pipeline system from the Yukon to the southern U.S. border. These estimates do not include the lateral. This includes everything from design, engineering, projection supervision and transportation of supplies and equipment to pipes, valves, compressors, flanges and construction machinery. These outlays will provide a substantial boost to output and employment in this country, not only as a result of direct spending on the pipeline itself and all the machinery and equipment required to build and operate it, but also because of indirect demand for other goods and services that will be generated by pipeline spending.
Fourth, as stated previously on many occasions, nearly
100,000	man-years of employment would be created by the total project including the Delta lateral. Some 69,000 man-years would be generated directly by construction activities and 31,000 man-years indirectly as a result of expenditures of pipeline income. That was the estimate that was given when the agreement was announced. It was the estimate that we

have been working on. Later I will deal with some of the interconnected reasons that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby put before the House.
Fifth, the construction of the pipeline system and the guaranteed access it assures to the Mackenzie Delta as a result of the Foothills commitment to provide a connecting lateral will provide substantial stimulus to continued exploration for new petroleum reserves in the western Arctic.
Sixth, the northern pipeline project will have a strongly positive impact on Canada's international balance of payments. That has hardly been mentioned in the debate. The first boost will come from the expected heavy inflow of capital to help finance construction in Canada, and once the gas begins to flow through the line to the south, Canada will be in receipt of substantial payments from the U.S. to cover transmission charges.
It is interesting that this particular aspect of the pipeline agreement was mentioned specifically at the federal-provincial conference of first ministers by Premier Allan Blakeney, whom the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby recommended to us as the only man at the first ministers' conference who could assist the current economic situation in Canada. He ruled out the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Manitoba but he selected the premier of Saskatchewan as the paragon of economic analysis. Obviously what he said would be acceptable to the hon. member. At pages 13 and 14 of his address concerning the Alcan project, he was talking about energy projects in general and I quote the premier:
While it's not an energy project for Saskatchewan, the Alcan pipeline project is key. That project awaits a number of very important decisions.
The pipeline could mean 18,000 man-years of construction work and 1,000 permanent jobs.
The premier of Saskatchewan is obviously referring to his province. Then he goes on to say that fees for Alaska gas flowing to the United States through the pipeline could earn Canada as much as $800 million a year by 1983. That is a very substantial benefit. Every year by 1983 American shippers or purchasers will pay Canada $800 million. Then he goes on to say:
If the federal government makes sure that the pipe can be made in Canada, the steel plant in Regina could expand its capacity creating both construction work and nearly 500 permanent jobs.
You will notice that the premier of Saskatchewan said "if the federal government makes sure that the pipe can be made in Canada". We have assured that. The National Energy Board through its recommendation has assured the premier of Saskatchewan that the pipe can be made in Canada. I am sure that the premier of Saskatchewan, even though he is not a graduate of the London School of Economics, knows the difference between the words "can" and "will". He is a graduate of Dalhousie University. That is why I put high value on his selection of words. I will return to the premier of Saskatchewan's remarks later on because I find his speech rich in analysis which will, of course, be immediately accepted by

the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby who extolled his qualities yesterday in the debate.
I mentioned the support on the point of the balance of payments. The premier said that fees for Alaska gas flowing to the United States through the pipeline could earn Canada as much as $800 million a year by 1983. By the way, that figure is substantiated by the National Energy Board, and that is a powerful assistance to Canada.
Here I address myself to the hon. member for Yukon on the question of Yukon employment. Foothills have indicated that preference will be given to Yukon residents in hiring for construction of the line. It is estimated that some 200 permanent jobs will be opened up to residents of the Yukon to oversee operation of the pipeline in the territory and that many hundreds more will be created indirectly in the north as a result of the catalytic effect of the project in stimulating continued petroleum exploration and in helping to foster other industrial development.
I am disappointed that the chief spokesman for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, have confined their interest in the pipeline basically to that part of Ontario which is so interesting to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Not a word about the industrial possibilities and employment opportunities that will come in the Yukon as a result of the catalytic effect of the project.


John Edward Broadbent: "Catatonic".


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Communities in the Yukon lying along the route of the line will also benefit through access to gas supplies at preferred rates.
I raised the question of property taxes-a subject matter which has been skilfully skirted by opposition spokesmen in the debate-under the agreement with the United States. I must say I was a bit irritated with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for his speech and the way he denigrated Canadian spokesmen. He also showed disdain for the Americans. He vacillated. He said we fear them, we do not like them, the Canadians are no match for the Americans. He said there was a lack of confidence. As I listened to the debate I found the NDP had not really understood what happened in the negotiations, and they have not understood it yet. Just take the question of the Yukon property taxes. Under the agreement with the United States the company will be required to pay total property taxes of $35 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) seeks to rise on a point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would entertain one short question at this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will at the end of my comments. I would like to put these benefits on the record in one place so that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will not
Northern Pipeline
go around saying the only significant benefit to Canada is from jobs we have not guaranteed.
Here is a very significant benefit to the Yukon under the agreement with the United States. The company will be required to pay property taxes of $35 million prior to completion of the line and $30 million annually thereafter, an amount which increases each year in line with the gross national product price deflator. Assuming 5 per cent inflation, net property tax payments of the company in the Yukon over the 25 year period will be more than $1 billion.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said we threw away a $200 million compensation fund. He said our chief negotiator threw away a $200 million card that he did not have to throw away. I admit I threw away that $200 million card, but I played a more than $1 billion card for the Yukon. This reminds me of what Mr. Lysyk and the National Energy Board recommended. What has been negotiated has yielded the Yukon more than three times the amount that would have been yielded to the Yukon under the National Energy Board proposal, three times more than what was suggested and recommended by the National Energy Board, and twice as much as was recommended by Dean Lysyk.
By this negotiation the property taxes we have achieved for the Yukon over the lifetime of the pipeline will amount to net tax revenues of more than $1 billion, which are much greater than any recommendation given to us by the National Energy Board and by Dean Lysyk.
In addition to the property taxes which will be paid to the Yukon, there is the very substantial revenue which will flow into the treasuries of the three western provinces as a result of the pipeline from such levies as property taxes and personal and corporate income taxes. Also the federal government will reap significant revenue from all these sources, other than property taxes.
If one compiles the benefits Canada will receive as a result of this agreement, one will see that the question of jobs is an important part but not the only part of the total benefits accruing to Canada.
I thank the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for the general support his party has given to this bill. I should like to answer a number of his criticisms. He indicated that the government has delayed the bringing in of this legislation. We brought the legislation in after having put the complex elements together. It was necessary to decide that before bringing in the legislation. It is true the United States Congress dealt quickly with the decision of the President. That was so because of pre-legislation which had been passed earlier under the Alaska natural gas transportation act. The United States Congress still has to deal with the President's energy package before gas contracts can be finalized. I am told these contracts are vital to the financing of the project.
The question of the price of gas in the United States has to be resolved. As yet the United States has not set up any administrative mechanism, nor any regulatory authority to

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
deal with the pipeline. All of these things must be done. There is no basis for the complaint by the hon. member that the government is delaying the commencement of this project. The passage of this legislation is timely. If it can be dealt with in committee, then we will be in phase with the requirements as they have developed.
Also the hon. member for the Yukon dealt with the wide powers which were being given to the pipeline agency. These powers would be given directly and indirectly through the authority of the governor in council to amend regulations under other acts relating to the pipeline, or to transfer powers under legislation which bear on the project. I had that very much in mind when I was building the legislative framework.
During the debate which occurred last August, the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) indicated that as a final condition for approval of the Foothills project his party insisted upon the creation of a single authority or independent regulatory agency. Also he indicated that the agency should be new and only last for the life of the project. That is what we are providing for. He continued by saying that the agency should have clear authority over all agencies and departments whose conflicts now complicate life in the north. He suggested that this agency must have a mandate to oversee and regulate technical and social problems connected with the pipeline. That is exactly what the government has attempted to do. We wanted to create a single authority which would be capable of overseeing and regulating the technical and social problems connected with the pipeline.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That agency should have been located in Edmonton.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to inform the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that the office of the administrator will be located in the city of Calgary, along with the headquarters of the Foothills company.
Hon. members opposite have referred to the ability of parliament to oversee the operations of the pipeline agency.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Monitor.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have heard the word "monitor" being used, but I am not certain what it means. This agency will be subject to parliamentary control. Its annual reports will come before parliament. Its spending estimates will be before committee. Also it will be possible to examine this agency, to ask questions about it and to control it like any other department of the government.


Erik Nielsen: Once a year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I realize the hon. member for Yukon has other ideas on the subject of parliamentary control. Those ideas will be listened to and looked at in committee. The government does not intend to create an overblown agency. We intend to keep it as small as possible. It will be operated by seconding people from other government departments. We do

not believe a large increase will be required in the number of government personnel.


Erik Nielsen: Is the hon. minister going to deal with the appeals process?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wanted to discuss other issues raised by the hon. member regarding provisions in the bill relating to the matter of recourse to the courts. I have considerable sympathy for the concerns expressed. We are prepared to consider that matter further when the bill is before the special committee. I want to underline the fact that some of those concerns appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: When we rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with the concerns which had been expressed with regard to the provisions in the bill relating to the matter of recourse to the courts. I referred to the comments that had been made by the hon. member for Yukon and other members of the House on this subject. If I interpret the hon. member correctly, he seemed to be suggesting that clause 16 of the bill, which empowers the governor in council to modify any regulations as they apply to the pipeline, combined with the second clause-he is reported in Hansard to have referred to clause 25(3), but I am sure his reference was intended to be clause 23(5), which restricts the Federal Court of Appeal to confirming a decision of the board or referring it back for reconsideration-could be employed to legislate native land claims to the Yukon out of existence.


Erik Nielsen: To prevent injunctions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am certain that no such power exists in the bill, and I can assure the House that we have no such intention.
I will say that the hon. member for Yukon seemed to be somewhat ambivalent about his position on the provisions of the bill with respect to judicial reports. On the one hand he expressed concern that Indian groups may make every effort to prevent the project from proceeding, and he said he does not agree with that. On the other hand, he is concerned also about the denial of the fundamental right in British justice of guaranteeing a citizen free access to the courts.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member suggested that I had unintentionally misled the House in asserting that the restrictions on the judicial process proposed in the bill were
February 23, 1978

similar to those provided by the United States with respect to the pipeline project. I believe that many of the restrictions are similar, but I did not mean, and I do not mean now, to suggest that they were identical. As the hon. member said, the court of appeal in the district of Columbia may quash, alter or confirm an order of the regulatory authority. He suggested that the courts in Canada had the power to confirm, quash, alter or refer back the decision of the semi-judicial tribunal.
He went on to contend, as I understood him, that clause 23 would be more acceptable if the appellate tribunal were empowered not only to confirm or refer back an order of the National Energy Board or the designated officer in the agency but also to alter it. I am informed by others more learned in the law than 1 that in fact it is not customary in Canadian practice to authorize the courts to vary the decision of an administrative agency of this nature. I suggest, therefore, that this is a matter which must be weighed more carefully in considering where to strike a balance which ensures the preservation of justice and equity for the individual without unnecessarily or unreasonably obstructing the progress of a project which promises so much benefit for the vast majority of the Canadian people.
Now I would like, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to turn to a number of questions involving the pipeline project as it affects the Yukon territory. It has been suggested that I made somewhat wild statements regarding preference for Yukon labour and procurement. The legislation requires the company to comply with undertakings it made before the National Energy Board which include a clear commitment to give preference to Yukon residents in hiring and procurement. In addition, Foothills also will be required to comply with detailed terms and conditions laid down under the authority of the legislation which will spell out the manner in which the company must comply with this undertaking.
In connection with the various undertakings by Foothills about which the hon. member for Yukon was inquiring, I might advise him that while many of these are summarized in the report of the National Energy Board, I understand that the board is presently in the process of documenting the undertakings made throughout the course of the hearings. I would expect that a complete list will be available by the time the bill is under consideration by the special committee.


Erik Nielsen: That is next Monday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has also been contended that the representative from the territory on the proposed federal-provincial consultative council should be named by the territorial assembly which, it has been implied, would parallel the practice in the provinces under which their representatives might be named by the provincial legislatures. I am quite certain that in fact the provincial representatives will be named by the respective governments, and I can assure hon. members that it is our intention to designate the Yukon representative to the council on the advice of the executive committee of the territorial government.
Northern Pipeline
There were a number of references made throughout the debate to various proposals that were put forward earlier with regard to providing additional funding for the benefit of the Yukon. This question was thoroughly covered by my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner). 1 think it might be worth reiterating the $200 million heritage fund recommended by the Lysyk inquiry, which the hon. member for Yukon described as up front money to meet the additional costs that the territory would face as a result of the project of providing additional services and facilities. The hon. member for Yukon argued that the provision we have made for the Yukon to borrow up to $200 million between 1978 and 1982 was back-end money.
I think it ought to be made clear that the heritage fund proposed by the Lysyk inquiry was not intended to provide up-front money to meet additional costs of services and facilities required by the pipeline but was for quite unrelated purposes. The provision permitting the Yukon to borrow up to $200 million would make funds available for this very purpose.
I dealt earlier with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that when we agreed in the negotiations to forego the idea of a $200 million fund we threw away a valuable card. I have already indicated that that is nonsense.
Instead of gaining the $200 million so-called compensation fund for the Yukon we suggested in the negotiations the payment of a property tax to accrue to the treasury of the Yukon more than $1 billion over the lifetime of the pipeline. So I do not feel there is a need for going into that question more thoroughly.
I am satisfied that anyone who looks at the report of Lysyk and the funding recommendations of the National Energy Board for the Yukon, including the heritage fund, and at what has been negotiated, would agree that we have in all cases enriched the situation for the Yukon considerably above any proposals that were made by these inquiries.
The question of a further examination of the socio-economic impact of the project on the Yukon was dealt with in considerable detail by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As he made clear in response to unwarranted allegations of a number of members of the opposition, this second stage examination of the issues involved will provide a full opportunity for public consideration and discussion.
The second stage examination will be undertaken by the northern pipeline agency, and it will focus on the detailed terms and conditions which will be imposed on the company to maximize the benefits and minimize the adverse effects of the pipeline, which the Lysyk inquiry emphasized should be the principal objective of the exercise.
A number of speakers, notably the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) and the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), raised the question of socio-economic considerations as they apply to northeastern British Columbia. I appreciate the concerns which hon. members have

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
expressed. I am sure that they in turn understand that there are problems in connection with this issue involving the division of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments. While the primary responsibility in this area rests with the British Columbia government, we recognize our responsibility for the welfare of native communities along the pipeline route. It is not yet clear how the provincial government intends to proceed, and we will want to obtain its views. For our part we would certainly be willing to consider having public hearings held in the region to examine the detailed terms and conditions that would apply to the project throughout northeastern British Columbia, as we plan to do in the Yukon.
Some interest has been expressed in discussions between Canada and British Columbia. I can tell hon. members that earlier this week I had a comprehensive survey, with the minister of energy and environment, the Hon. Jack Davis, on the interface between the federal government and the province of British Columbia with respect to the operation of the pipeline and the benefits that the province of B.C. will derive from this operation.
The hon. member for Yukon also raised a question as to who would be responsible for distribution of gas within communities in the territory. While that is a question which remains to be determined in consultation with the Yukon government, I understand that at least two companies have indicated an interest in resuming responsibility for that operation.


Erik Nielsen: I hope it is not NCPC.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Maine) underlined the importance of the provision we are making through an agreement with Foothills for the possible future electrification of its compressors in the southern Yukon in providing a potential base for future major expansion in electrical generating capacity in the territory. As he recognized, such a development could provide an opportunity for further expanding the industrial capacity of the Yukon and employment for the growing labour force of the Yukon.
I think there is very little I can add at this stage to the question of native land claims. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands complained that there was no provision in this legislation for the settlement of such claims. In my view it would be quite inappropriate for us to make such provision in this legislation.
The hon. member for Yukon thought we would be in for quite a shock if we considered that we were on the verge of settling claims in the Yukon. I can only repeat that the federal government is making and will make every effort to achieve a fair and just settlement just as quickly as possible. As hon. members will recall, the Lysyk inquiry concluded that it was quite possible to reach early agreement and considered that it was in the interests of Yukon Indians to do so in order to enable them to take full advantage of the benefits offered by the pipeline project.


Erik Nielsen: That's right, but they don't believe that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question of Canadian ownership-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), but his allotted time has expired. However, he may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for giving me additional time. I hope they will not regret their decision as I reach the conclusion of my remarks.
Let me turn to the question of Canadian ownership and equity participation in the pipeline. This subject was raised by a number of members of the official opposition and members of the New Democratic Party, and I have no doubt that hon. members will want to probe this issue more fully in the special committee.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) contended that there was nothing in the legislation that made any mention of conditions laid down with regard to the financing of the pipeline to make sure that Canadian content where it really counts-ownership-will be protected. I must advise the hon. member that on this point he is quite wrong. The majority Canadian ownership of the system in Canada is actually doubly protected under the legislation. The parent corporation, Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Limited, and the two sponsoring Canadian-owned companies which control it, Westcoast Transmission and Alberta Gas Trunk Line, cannot terminate, alter or amend their shareholders' agreement without the prior approval of the minister and the board.


Erik Nielsen: That is not what he meant.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Further protection is provided under clause 12(a)(i) of schedule III of the bill, which requires the company to submit evidence to the minister and the National Energy Board prior to commencement of construction which establishes, in effect, that it is a Canadian controlled company as defined in the Foreign Investment Review Act.


An hon. Member:: What about Canadians buying shares?


An hon. Member:: What about Canadians generally?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members have asked about Canadians generally and I want to say a word or two about that. Members have underlined the importance of ensuring that opportunity is provided for the widest possible acquisition of equity in the Foothills project by Canadians. Because Foothills will toe funded on a project financing basis rather than by the more conventional means adopted by companies that are already going concerns, it will be essential for the sponsoring companies to put up all the required equity initially as a prerequisite to raising the necessary debt capital.
When the bill is before committee, members will have to ask themselves whether it would be feasible at that stage to insist that common shares be made generally available to the
February 23, 1978

Canadian public and whether they would be an appropriate security for the average Canadian investor.


Erik Nielsen: Only after completion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The sponsoring companies have undertaken to make up to approximately 13 per cent of the total equity in the parent company available to the Canadian public. At a later date hon. members may wish to pursue in committee whether Foothills should be required to meet such a commitment once the project has been successfully completed and operations begun.
May I turn now to the arguments made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He took great delight in portraying those of us who participated in the negotiations with the United States on the joint construction of this great undertaking as "innocents abroad." Despite the fact that we supposedly held all the cards, he suggested that Canadian negotiators were again outslickered by those shrewd Yankee traders.


John Edward Broadbent: They did not have to be very shrewd.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That refrain has been echoed mainly by members of the New Democratic Party who exhibit an innate sense of inferiority which they feel as a result of the long period spent in their particular part of the House of Commons. I feel no such sense of inferiority even though, as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) suggested this afternoon, I ought to feel it because 1 come from a "backward part" of Canada.
In this debate I have been waiting to find out where we have been outslickered. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands made some comments that I will deal with in a moment. I doubt there has ever been a negotiation undertaken with the United States or any other country that has not prompted some Canadians to proclaim that Canada got the worst of the bargain.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) had an unhappy complaint about all the instances in history when poor Canada had been outslickered by the United States. I find it rather interesting that some in the United States Congress seem to believe the same thing-but in the opposite way. They have been complaining that their negotiators ought to go back to Canada and improve the result obtained on the question of content, because it was obvious they had been outslickered by those shrewd Canadian negotiators.
I want to spend a moment or two with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in support of his allegation that we had been outslickered by those shrewd Yankee negotiators. His speech wavered between an expression of fear of the United States and an expression of disdain for the United States. He was not sure on which side he came down. As I understood his case, it rested on the contention that the United States desperately need the pipeline while Canada would not require gas from the Mackenzie Delta much before the mid-1990s, and might not need it
Northern Pipeline
at all until early next century. His analysis is now supported by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I do not know what he will say when I point out later that the paragon of economic analysis, the premier of Saskatchewan, disagreed with that view quite openly at the federal-provincial conference.
The hon. member said that Canada was put on the defensive by stressing the need to gain access to our Delta reserves, to which he would have attached a low priority. He would have attached a low priority to Canada's gaining access to our Delta reserves-I think that is important-and if not a low priority, no priority at all.
He went on to say that the Canadian bargaining position was strengthened because the United States desperately needed the gas and we do not. We had a further bargaining point because the United States would save $6 billion by transporting existing reserves by the overland route as opposed to the United States alternative, which apparently horrified their military authorities for security reasons.
Out of this fabricated "made in Canada" content policy the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands tried to build his argument. While he now tells us that the United States desperately needs access to Alaskan gas, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby told us on August 4 that there were reports put before President Carter which showed that the United States did not need the gas until the late 1980s. That is the argument he made in support of delaying the project. Now the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands says they desperately need the gas but that their military authorities were horrified at the prospect of an allAmerican route.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby repeated that unfounded allegation this afternoon. We know that the President of the United States received a report from his Department of Defence. The conclusion was that of the three transportation systems there was no overriding preference for one route over another when the analysis was based on military factors alone.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands referred to the saving of $6 billion to the United States by transporting this 22 trillion cubic feet of established Alaskan reserves via the overland route. I should inform him that the saving to Canada of transporting delta reserves of some five billion cubic feet through the joint system, as opposed to the all-Canadian alternative along the Mackenzie Valley, is estimated to be in the order of $2.5 billion. In relation to the size of our reserves there, the savings to Canada on this joint project are 60 per cent greater than is the case for the United States.
When you follow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands down the dark alleys of his arguments you find that his arguments really fall apart. Of course, we on this side of the House differ fundamentally with the New Democratic Party on the question of the critical importance to Canada of gaining access on an economic basis to our reserves in the

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline
western Arctic. In this we share completely the view of the Conservative party as expressed by its leader in the debate last August, when he said that the primary goal is to deliver Canadian resources to Canadian markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) very carefully explained why we consider it so vital to ensure access to our reserves in the Mackenzie Delta.
During the debate last August, the leader of the New Democratic Party was so concerned about the availability of gas reserves in Canada to meet future needs that he proposed, in effect, that we take the drastic step of abrogating our contracts to supply the United States after 1985 with any exports thereafter on a swap basis only. That was the course of action recommended by the leader of that party last August. This past week their chief spokesman said that we really do not need that gas.
I believe the New Democratic Party is prepared to put the future well-being of Canadians at stake in a numbers game based on widely varying estimates from private sources. We are not prepared to join the New Democratic Party in that particular gamble.
I wish to refer to the speech made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in which he underlined the importance to Canada of gaining access to Canadian gas in order to reduce our dependence on imported oil. In that connection, I wish to refer to what the premier of Saskatchewan said at the federal-provincial conference. I quote:
-I can't think of a better place for governments to start investing in our future than in energy. Jobs today-energy tomorrow.
In a few years, it's being predicted that Canada will have to import at least 600,000 barrels of oil a day. Even at current world prices, that's over $3 billion a year.
That's a $3 billion a year drain on our foreign currency reserves. That's $3 billion a year of inflationary pressure on our economy. That's nearly half the gross domestic product of the province of Saskatchewan. Three billion dollars a year and going up!
And yet there are people who say that governments should not build new energy projects now because they're afraid of inflation!
There are people who say that governments should not build new energy projects now because they do not understand the importance of access to these gas reserves to Canada in the pursuit of the goal of energy self-reliance and improving our balance of payments, particularly in financing the cost of the Quebec-Maritimes pipeline. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and all the premiers suggested that an application ought to go before the National Energy Board as soon as possible to test the viability of that particular project.
I will not take very much time of the House to respond to the shop-worn argument of the NDP members with regard to the establishment of some kind of guarantees of high Canadian content. We did not insist on guarantees in our agreement with the United States for a number of reasons. First, they were not necessary. We are content today that Canadian industry is

fully competitive, that it will be able to gain this business without legislated guarantees.
Next week the bill will be before the committee. Members of the New Democratic Party will be able to question the sponsors of the project. They will be able to ask them where they intend to buy their materials and whether they believe they can achieve the goal of nearly 90 per cent Canadian content. Up to the present time, Foothills have assured the National Energy Board, members of this party and me as minister that they intend to buy Canadian materials. They intend to buy Canadian steel and pipe, not Japanese pipe. Hon. members can ask the companies what they intend to do.
More than that, there is a provision in the bill by which the procurement plan listing the sources from which the company proposes to purchase its equipment, goods and materials must be submitted to the agency and the minister. If it is not satisfactory, it can be rejected by the agency and the minister. That is what is meant by effective control over Canadian content.
With regard to the suggestion that we have no ability to deal with unfair competition or dumping of foreign material, there is a provision in the bill which enables the minister to send back to the company any proposal or bid about which there is suspicion of unfair competition or dumping on the Canadian market.
In my opening speech, I argued that it is quite impossible for Canada to have these guarantees written into an international agreement without violating the provisions of our commitment under the General Agreement on Trade Tariffs. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands did not accept that argument. He is quite incorrect in suggesting that Canada and the United States are perfectly free under GATT to enter into an agreement which discriminates against other members by providing a guarantee of Canadian content. The non-discriminatory provisions of GATT do not apply to procurement by governments for their own purposes, but they certainly apply in the case of a pipeline project which is to be carried out by a private company for private purposes.
For many months we have heard suggestions from the New Democratic Party that the Americans were pressing for the adoption of a 48-inch high-pressure system from Whitehorse to Caroline in an effort to squeeze out potential Canadian suppliers. That charge was always quite untrue, but what is the response of the New Democratic Party now that we have indicated our intention to adopt a 56-inch pipe which no U.S. company is capable at present of producing? The argument advanced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is that Canada had been outmanoeuvred by the United States, and the United States had garnered unto itself all of the pipe business. Lo and behold, when it was announced that the pipe selected was not even manufactured in the United States, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby suddenly changed the basis of his argument and said: "I have been talking to members of the steel industry and they tell me they are not really concerned about American competition, they are now concerned about Japanese competition." Of course, the
February 23, 1978

implication of that argument is that the United States and Canada have so outmanoeuvred each other that they have handed over all the business to Japan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How much Canadian content in the Alaska pipeline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot refrain from quoting the immortal words of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on this particular point. He said on February 21, 1978, that: It is a total capitulation to American interests. The Canadian government has yielded to American pressure to allow more Japanese competition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This will certainly go down on the record as one of the most absurd and most nonsensical statements ever made, even by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.
I ask you to contrast that reaction from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby with other interest groups. You would think the president of Ipsco would have complained if he had been thrown off base. He said "We are delighted." The president of Stelco said "Tremendous." The vice-president of Foothills said "This is great." I am using general terms for their words. However, I will not use general terms for the statement issued by the office of the premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney. The premier of Saskatchewan said when we announced the decision that "This is a good decision for Canada." He did not say it was a total capitulation to American interests in order to get business for the Japanese."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish the former premier of Saskatchewan had updated himself on this question. On major points the premier of Saskatchewan has taken opposite positions from the New Democratic party in the House of Commons on the source of piping. He has not asked for guarantees. He asked at the federal-provincial conference if the pipe could be made in Canada, not if it will be made. All he wanted to do was compete, and he pointed out the benefits to his province of so doing.
On the question of energy projects he disagreed totally with the analysis of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands when he urged Canada to get on with new energy projects now. He underscored the importance of this particular project in improving our balance of payments situation and reducing our dependence upon foreign imported oil.
I regret to say that on the question of jobs for Canadians the members of the New Democratic Party have been creating a false issue where no issue exists. I once again remind them of the benefits to Canada that are contained in this agreement with the United States and in the legislation that is before the House. The New Democratic Party intend to vote against this
Northern Pipeline
legislation because they say there are no guarantees for Canadian jobs. If their will prevailed the legislation would be defeated and Canadian business would have no opportunity to compete. Canadian workers would also have no opportunity to compete, and indeed the plans for expansion in Hamilton and Regina would have to be delayed.


An hon. Member:: You are ready for the Senate.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All 1 can say is that the Canadian people and the House of Commons will bear in mind the irresponsible approach to this bill by the members of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would like to suggest that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has already spoken in this debate, and unless he has a point of order, I will not recognize him.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Deputy Prime Minister was granted a half hour extra time for his speech I wonder if he would reciprocate the courtesy by answering one question. The Deputy Prime Minister has indicated he would.
Following the Deputy Prime Minister's long, interesting and at times even factual discourse, I noted he did not deal with a matter I raised concerning a speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on February 20, and it is really very germane to his whole argument. He said on that date with reference to the problem of competition that we really did not have to worry because we had procedures under our Anti-dumping Act that would enable us to deal with the Japanese or the Italians or all these people who managed to build the Alaska pipeline in the face of intense Canadian competition. As reported at the top of page 3036 of Hansard he said:
It should be noted that neither (11 A) of the anti-dumping regulations nor the imposition of countervailing duties for reasons of export financing subsidies appear to have been tested as yet. Moreover, the anti-dumping option would really only come into play after the fact, which renders its use, other than as a threat mechanism, somewhat ineffective.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said in fact the anti-dumping regulations, which the government is relying on so heavily to ensure fair competition, are ineffective. Would the Deputy Prime Minister comment on that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby raises that point. I just do not have the clause before me at the moment, but within this bill there is provision under which the minister or the agency may, quite apart from the authority resting with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, send back or cause to be sent back for review any bid or any contract.


An hon. Member:: Will it be done?

February 23, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is subject to the approval of the minister through the procurement plan. It will be sent back if there is any reason to believe there is any dumping, any subsidy or unfair competition. That is provided for within this bill. There is also, and I think this is important, the procurement plan. Before this is approved we will know where all this material is to come from and then we will have to say yes or no. That seems to me to be the kind of effective control the hon. member wants, and I believe when he gets to the committee he will agree with me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier this afternoon I intervened and asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would entertain a question and he indicated at that time he would at the end of his speech. My question really is non-partisan and of a non-political nature.


An hon. Member:: I am sure.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yes, it is. Just wait a minute. We and the Deputy Prime Minister have been talking about job creation in the Yukon. What I would like to hear from the Deputy Prime Minister is what measures, if any, are contained in this bill, or what measures will the government entertain in respect of the pre-training of natives-that is, native born Yukoners and non-native born, including Inuits, Indians, whites and so on- to ensure that these men and women will be able to compete with those from outside the Yukon for the jobs that will be available when this pipeline is being built.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the question of hiring of Yukoners and of their training, there is an undertaking by Foothills that it will give preference to northern workmen. That is one of the undertakings it has given, and that must be lived up to. One of the direct costs that may be associated with the pipeline is the cost of training which the company will have to bear. We expect that the Department of Employment and Immigration and Foothills will undertake whatever training is required so that the maximum advantage can be taken in respect of this project by the residents of the Yukon.
It is further my understanding that it will not be possible for people just to wander into the Yukon unless they get pre-clearance in the south. The hiring arrangements will be controlled in that way.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Deputy Prime Minister is being so co-operative, in view of the continuing assurance we have from the minister about the competitivenes of Canadian industry, and the assurance from the industry itself that it is competitive, will the minister bring the House into his confidence by advising us what percentage of the Alaska oil pipeline was constructed by Canadian contractors, and what percentage of Canadian steel was used in that pipeline which was subject to the same open bidding he has suggested for the gas pipeline?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have those statistics. I am sure the hon. member has them. It may be that Canada did not get the business, and I do not know the reasons. I do know in respect of this line to be built in Canada that my confidence remains unshaken as to the ability of Canadian industry and Canadian workmen to bid. I should add that I was really quite heartened in that when we made the announcement of the 56-inch pipe the president of Stelco said: "We can get this business".


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The national director of the 185,000-member United Steelworkers Union, rather, when told of the board's ruling, said "That's good ... I think it is a wise decision". The union leader said that the Canadian steel industry is quite competitive and Canadian mills may also be able to get some of the American section of the $10-billion pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to U.S. markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: You cannot blame me for saying we can get the business when the national director of the steelworkers union says that, in his view we can get the Canadian business and part of the American line. I say, more power to him. I wish he were an active member of the NDP and would support this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a point of order, but let me suggest we are now getting into questions, and questions can be asked at the committee stage.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have one very brief question for the minister. Perhaps I might assist in regard to the question which was advanced by the hon. member for Brant by saying that AGTL has had a training program underway for the past six years, training northern native Yukoners to take over operational positions on the pipeline. The government has been slow and has nothing in place as yet.
The minister mentioned in his remarks that he made a better deal with the United States in connection with the tax revenues that will accrue as a result of the construction of the pipeline in the Yukon. Pipelines are normally taxed, somewhat higher than would be the case in the provinces. Because of this these tax revenues would be accrued anyway. The $200 million for the heritage fund, however, was something that Lysyk recommended, and something the NEB recommended should be in addition to these tax revenues. How does the minister explain the loss of that heritage fund of $200 million in face of the fact that the tax revenues are something to be expected in any event?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, it was not a question of "in any event". It was a question of negotiating this particular tax arrangement as a substitution for negotiating the $200 million suggested by the National Energy Board, or the $200 million suggested by Lysyk. This was a substitution, and the
February 23, 1978

end benefits to the Yukon are much greater. The net dollar result is enormously better for the Yukon.
A question arises, of course, as to the purpose for which the fund was accruing. How will it be spent? There may be some difference of opinion as to whether or not we should put aside the $200 million of that more than $1 billion for the purpose suggested by Dean Lysyk. I think that is a legitimate argument to put forward. But there can be no argument which would support the suggestion that we lost $200 million. We gained more than a billion in negotiating.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is the following one. Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Goyer, moved:
That Bill C-25, an act 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 now read a second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Peters, moved in amendment thereto:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-25, an act 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 not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline".
The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Broadbent) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been a suggestion that we might consider sending the document entitled "Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters", and so

on, to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. If we can get agreement on that I would like to move that motion; I believe agreement is forthcoming.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is quite agreeable to us.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree. Indeed, we believe that the whole Liberal platform should be sent to that committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has the consent of the House to move that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the document entitled "Proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts, subsequent to 1970", tabled on the 1st of February 1978, be referred to the Standing Commmittee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will recall, as a result of meetings which took place on Tuesday of this week between the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and representatives of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, yesterday I attempted to find out from the Secretary of State what action he had taken, particularly because of the very strongly worded press release and comments put forward by members of that association as a result of their meetings with the Secretary of State indicating the very serious situation in which a number of professional theatre groups in this country find themselves because of funding policies emanating from that department.
Members will know that over the past 20 years we have seen a tremendous expansion of professional theatre activities in this country. It is difficult to believe now that back in 1957
February 23, 1978

there were only three professional theatre companies in Canada. In the last 20 years we have seen an expansion in the number of professional theatre groups to some 133.
As hon. members know, a good deal of the incentive and encouragement for this has come from governments represented by parties on both sides of this House through regular grants put forward basically through the Canada Council. However, in recent years we have seen a situation in which the government has virtually frozen its funding.
I think it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State, in answering questions yesterday, left the clear impression that there was no real freezing of the funds of these professional theatre groups. To allow that kind of misunderstanding to stand on the record does not do him credit and certainly does not clarify the very serious situation which exists in respect of professional theatre groups. As they themselves have said, in spite of ticket price increases on the part of more than two-thirds of their members, they have been faced with a situation in which some 55 per cent have had to lay off staff, 74 per cent have virtually had to reduce the number of actors employed, and 55 per cent have incurred a greatly increased deficit. As the representatives of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres remarked, their situation is intolerable.
The situation is well underlined in the tabling of estimates which took place yesterday. The over-all estimate of government expenditures is up by 9.3 or 9.8 per cent, depending on which figures are used. That is close in line with the average cost in the consumer price index, which is up 9.5 per cent. Even the estimates of the Secretary of State have shown a whopping increase. It runs into hundreds of millions of dollars, or approximately 25 per cent. If one looks specifically at the grants for arts and culture, one discovers the main estimates are down some 21.6 per cent. This indicates a very serious lack of commitment and concern on the part of the Secretary of State for professional theatre groups in this country.
Obviously thousands of people are now making their livelihood in professional theatre activities from coast to coast. At a time of rising unemployment and at a time when it is increasingly difficult to give people encouragement so that they can expect to have what is rightfully theirs-a job with a meaningful income-it is simply shocking that in this area of government responsibility there is no action and a declining commitment. Not only is there a freezing of the budget, there is a reducing of the federal budget in relation to this important segment of cultural activity in Canada.
Another thing which is of perhaps even greater concern is the impact that short-ranged and insufficient support lends to the importance of the cultural fabric of this country. Much has been written and many speeches have been given about the importance of maintaining national unity. The Secretary of State should know how important his role must be in maintaining the fabric of national unity.
A few weeks ago I was in Calgary. I was amazed to see the amount of professional theatre activity which has mushroomed
Adjournment Debate
in that city. I met a number of groups there, as well as a number of groups from across the country. I know the meaningful contribution these groups make toward national unity and identity. For the government to play fast and loose with cultural activity, which has increased over the last 20 years, is sheer irresponsibility.
I trust the parliamentary secretary who will be responding tonight will provide some measure of encouragement. In the three meetings which have occurred, and in the letter of the minister to the president of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, which was sent approximately two months late, there was no encouragement whatsoever. That is simply not a sufficient answer, in light of the serious plight of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for his question. He will be pleased to know that today the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) received the first instalment on the 100,000 cards urging greater government support, as promised by the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres. The minister looks forward to a continued flood of mail and a continued expression of public interest in and support for our theatre in Canada.
In response to the question posed by the hon. member, I should like to quote from the minister's letter sent to Dr. Gregory Poggi, the chairman of the Professional Association of Canadian Theatres, Pact. The letter answers directly the concerns of Pact and those concerns expressed by the hon. member. It reads as follows:
I need no convincing on the subject of more public support for our artistic and cultural life: all the performing arts, including theatre, together with our visual artists, writers, filmmakers and cultural institutions such as museums, galleries, libraries, deserve and need greater financial support from the public they serve. As Secretary of State I am acutely aware that Canada's cultural growth- particularly in the realm of the arts-has long depended on the federal government's support and that of its cultural agencies such as the Canada Council, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Film Development Corporation, National Film Board, and National Arts Centre. In recent years, support from other levels of government, from the private sector and from the public directly through audiences has broadened the financial base of the arts.
The letter goes on to state:
The $13.6 million increase in federal cultural spending that I announced last September is concrete proof of the government's commitment to Canada's cultural and artistic growth. Not only do these new funds permit us to give more support through some programs whose value to Canadian arts and culture is well recognized. Perhaps more significantly, the funds are contributing in a variety of new areas hitherto unsupported.
The 1977-78 increase in the Canada Council's budget... has meant that the council has had in many instances to keep grants at 1976-77 levels and to forgo this year making the first sustaining grants to newer companies. That in turn has forced many theatre and dance companies and orchestras to hold back on plans to more ambitious productions and schedules, or to seek more vigorously alternative sources of financing: private sector contributions, expanded subscription drives, for example. But I think it is unfair to say that because the government has, on the one hand, limited the over-all growth of an agency's budget and, on the other, provided new funds for specific areas of its total cultural program, it is taking from Peter to give to Paul.

February 23, 1978
Adjournment Debate
I would like to emphasize further that the $13.6 million that the Secretary of State announced last September was new money for ongoing and new programs across the spectrum of federal cultural activities. Theatres do benefit! Here is the specific allocation in this area: The National Theatre School received $525,000 in capital grants in 1977-78 and 1978-79. The total over four years is $2.1 million. The Canada Council touring office, received $765,000 in 1977-78 and $1,065 million in 1978-79 for increased tours, workshops for impressarios and tour organizers.
The theatre, music and dance sections received $400,000 in both 1977-78 and 1978-79 for national cultural events involving participation of performing artists and arts companies, and for master classes enabling students to work with professionals. The National Arts Centre received $150,000 in 1977-78 and $1 million in 1978-79 to establish a theatre company, consisting of two small nuclear groups, one English and the other French, for creation and touring of theatrical productions.
I trust that the information from the minister's letter to the chairman of Pact, and this added information on the allocation of some of the $13.6 million, conveys to the hon. member for Egmont the commitment of the Secretary of State and that of the government to promoting professional theatre in Canada.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION-REASON FOR DELAY OF FINAL PAYMENT TO FISHERMEN
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba produces 51 per cent of the fish that is handled by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation located in Transcona, Manitoba. Due to the revelations that we have seen in the press in the last month and a half, I would say that the reputation of northern Manitoba fishermen is certainly in jeopardy.
At a meeting of the Northern Manitoba Commercial Fishermen's Association held on November 22 and 23, 1977, the chairman of the corporation, Mr. Peter Moss, said at that time that the fishermen would be receiving their final payment, which is due about the first part of December, in a couple of weeks. However, shortly after December 1, the chairman of the FFMC announced that no final payment would be made at that time. What has taken place since that time has certainly disheartened fishermen in Manitoba and, I am sure, has put what was once a very viable fishery into a precarious situation.
What had led to this situation is the fact that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has in its inventory some 14 million to 15 million pounds of fish which were purchased by the corporation. Of course, we read in the paper that much of this fish, due to freezer burn and to being stored for long periods of time, must now be dumped.
On November 22 and 23 at the meeting of the Northern Manitoba Fishermen's Association the chairman of the association, in reply to fishermen's questions, said he is getting sick and tired of people running down an efficient, well running corporation. "What are we fighting about", he asked. "We are trying to peddle your fish", he said. "We must work together closely". He suggested that they look at the beef producers

and grain growers and count their blessings. Two short weeks after that the chairman said there was no final payment for the fishermen.
In 1969 the corporation was established, and its mandate was to market fish. Since that time the corporation has been getting into other aspects of the fishing business. I suggest that the corporation has spoiled the reputation of Canadian fishermen. The quality of fish has deteriorated. It will take a long time to re-establish fish markets.
Another point is that the ability of salesmen to sell fish harvested by fishermen has diminished. It has been suggested by the Northern Manitoba Fishermen's Association that these salesmen be put on commission instead of salary.
On the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press for February 18 we find an article entitled "Freshwatergate?" That pertains to some very serious allegations concerning the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The agency has been accused of changing package dates as well as stamps.
Another article is entitled "Rabbi's OK was forged". That article accuses the corporation of changing dates on fish which had been stamped for gefilte fish and so forth.
There have been other allegations. It has been alleged that fillets have been shipped to a city dump for burning because they had been shipped to New York and some 30,000 to
40,000	pounds had been rejected by inspectors due to freezer burn. It has been alleged that trout has been kept in cold storage for far too long, and that freezer burn had to be trimmed off. It has been alleged that dates on packaging have been changed to make it appear as though the fish was fresh.
The fishermen of northern Manitoba who must try to harvest fish and get it to market in a fresh condition are losing everything they put into their operations. Technically the fish still belongs to the fishermen. They have not received their final payments, even though a partial payment has now been made. This is very discouraging for commercial fishermen.
I would like to see an immediate investigation conducted into the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. We have dealt with the chairman of the corporation many times in the committee. The chairman has been giving the committee a whitewash job. He has also been giving fishermen's associations whitewash jobs. He just cannot seem to understand that fishermen are concerned about putting a quality product on the market for human consumption. Fishermen do not want their products stored for long periods of time. There is an allegation that fish is being dumped under the direction of management. Fishermen are complaining about that and wondering why the price of their product cannot be reduced and sold rather than dumping the product. There has been an allegation that tons of fish have been left in the open and allowed to spoil. I ask that an investigation into the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation of Manitoba be started immediately.
February 23, 1978


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation has ten members. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) talks about irregularities and deviations from good corporate policy. I would remind the hon. member that four of those directors are active fishermen in the province of Manitoba. Although it is a Crown corporation the hon. member should realize when he makes remarks regarding the corporation in the province of Manitoba that he is not only hurting it but also the fishermen who play a very active role in the organization. I suppose I could say that the corporation has had a success which has led to some problems within the board.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, as at April 30, 1977, completed the highest sales records and profits ever.


Cecil Morris Smith: And the fish are still in storage.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I hope he will allow me the same consideration.
Prices this past summer were increased and landings were up considerably for the summer fishing season. As a result this
Adjournment Debate
attracted fishermen who delivered greater volumes and substantially increased their earnings. Consequently, the corporation found itself at its borrowing ceiling and the board of directors made the decision to defer final payments until the cash flow improved.
On January 25, 1978, the corporation's board authorized the payment to the fishermen of 50 per cent of the final payment to be made February 24. The remainder will be paid as the cost flow situation continues to improve. In addition, the corporation is currently seeking inventory financing from the federal fisheries prices support board. This request is presently under consideration. This initiative will provide assistance until markets improve.
The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation also provides financial assistance to fishermen to cover start-up costs when necessary. This program is well known to fishermen and is designed to assist them. Fishermen, therefore, have every reason to continue to fish this winter as they have in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Monday, February 27, 1978