1978-03-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) has had time to consider the motion I presented in this House on Thursday, March 16, concerning apparent bankruptcies and possible fraudulent activities relating to unfilled Olympic coin orders, and due to the fact that the Canadian public has a right to protection under this federally-legislated program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Pa proski):
That the Postmaster General state in this House today what action the government intends to take, and when, to remedy this unacceptable situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the negotiations in progress in Quebec between fluid milk producers and industrial milk producers and given the fact that their differences will probably not be ironed out for a few weeks; considering that the Canadian Dairy Commission has arbitrarily decided not to pay subsidies to the milk producers of Quebec as long as both opposing groups will not
agree; and considering that this withholding of subsidies has the effect of penalizing all milk producers in Quebec, of adding to their financial problems and that it could very well force many of them into bankruptcy and incite producers to abandon that field of farm production, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That the House urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to direct the Canadian Dairy Commission to issue not later than April 1 the cheques which the milk producers of Quebec are entitled to and which should never be issued later than necessary because of protracted negotiations or legal hassles.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion can be made only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that Premier William Davis of Ontario has urged the federal government to implement immediately job-creation proposals at the very time his own government has brought in a budget which totally rejects job-creation programs and, indeed, introduced a regressive health tax increase of some 37.5 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Government of Canada and the provincial government of Ontario to adopt immediately full employment as their number one priority and immediately implement direct economic measures such as tax cuts and capital works projects as were announced recently in the budget brought down by the government of Saskatchewan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 22, 1978


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises from the uncontrolled, discretionary power vested in the leader of a discredited and useless administration to postpone an opportunity for the electorate to reject the government, which situation continues the existing state of chaos and confusion in the country. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House take steps to constitute a parliamentary committee to examine and report on the question of fixing the duration of parliaments and limiting the right of prime ministers to decide on an election date on the basis of partisan political expediency.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the summers of 1976 and 1977, students from Shawinigan received preferential treatment in filling jobs in the mines at Flin Flon. Students arrived with their papers completed, thus bypassing the local Manpower counsellors and taking jobs that students in Flin Flon should have filled. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan):
That the Minister of Finance not use his office to influence the preferential placements of students from his constituency in Flin Flon this summer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an urgent and pressing matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns fears that the government is about to abandon the principle, reinforced by the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson when he was in office, that no commitment of peacekeeping forces shall be made without the approval of this House by affirmative resolution. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That as a binding principle of foreign policy, the government of the day, following the precedent set by a motion made by the former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson on March 13, 1964, on the deployment of peacekeeping forces to Cyprus, shall not make a commitment of forces to a peacekeeping mission without the express consent of this House by affirmative resolution.


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.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that volunteer firefighters risk life and limb at all hours of the day and night to provide fire protection and emergency services for in excess of 2,500 communities in all provinces and territories, and in light of the fact that towns and municipalities provide compensation to volunteer firemen for their donation of time and personal expense, while the Government of Canada allows them only $300 maximum for tax exemption purposes, which does not cover costs and acts as a disincentive to serve, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House acknowledge that due to inflation, the federal government deduction of $300 per year under the Income Tax Act is grossly inadequate and, further, that the allowable annual deduction for costs incurred by these community-minded volunteers be raised to the level of $1,000 per year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 22, 1978


RESEARCH
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the chairmen appointed to two research councils, the Humanities Research Council and the Natural Science and Engineering Council, have been individuals drawn from the bureaucracy and give the appearance, at least, of being partisan political appointments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the government explain on motions why it has not heeded the advice of the research community in appointing researchers to these positions, and that when the Medical Research Council chairman is appointed, it be an individual drawn from the research community.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), I move:
That this House calls on the government, now that it has heard again from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, to expedite the introduction of legislation to establish equality for women, and that as a step toward this goal special emphasis be placed on pension equality, including full rights for homemakers under the Canada Pension Plan, equal pension rights for all women between the ages of 60 and 65 regardless of marital status, increasing the pensions paid to widows under various government plans to at least 75 per cent, and the continuing payment of pensions granted to widows regardless of any subsequent change in marital status.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance: I have given him notice of its general thrust. The question touches on the $3 billion tax stimulant which the minister has maintained was put in place as of January 1. Last Friday, when I asked him to explain to the House the form of this $3 billion tax stimulant, he was only able to indicate $700 million of what would be regarded as a tax cut effective January 1 this year. Having received notice, will the minister now indicate exactly where the $3 billion is expected to be?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the measures that were included in Bill C-ll at the end of December last were the stimulants to which I was referring. Indexation, which came into effect on January 1, accounted for $850 million. Then $730 million represented the $100 given to the seven million taxpayers for the first two months. Also, $100 million was the amount of credit for the creation of jobs-the bill was passed and became effective in February- and there was the $1.6 billion which was approved under Bill C-ll, voted at the end of December. That is a package of $3.2 billion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further question to the minister, based on the answer he has given. He referred to $850 million as a tax cut, but in fact it relates simply to the indexing of personal income tax. Would the hon. gentleman tell us whether it is not correct that $1.5 billion of what he claimed to be a tax cut effective on January 1 of this year did, in fact, become effective as long ago as January 1 or March 31 of last year? If he agrees with that proposition, why does he consistently maintain he must wait still longer to find out the effect of these measures?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that, technically, the hon. member is right when he says indexation was provided for previously in the law. One of the problems of indexation is that it amounts to a reduction in the amount of income tax people have to pay, but people do not realize this because it comes into play as a result of previous legislation. We are the only nation which has adopted such a system, and whenever there is a cut like that it means people have that much more money than in the previous year. It is only fair that a minister of finance should remind them of this. It is only fair we should repeat it, because the House voted in favour of this system continuing on an automatic basis. We have to tell the people that we have it, because in the United States they do not have that cut. We have it on an automatic basis; that is why I have to repeat it all the time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Since it is now established that the $3 billion to which the Minister of Finance was referring includes tax

March 22, 1978
Oral Questions
measures taken by his predecessor and by his predecessor twice removed, and since he has only been able to identify $1 billion, at most, of the tax cut effective as of January 1, would he explain why he consistently refuses to bring in a tax stimulus equal to $2 billion, as we have been suggesting, bearing in mind that this would result in the gross national product being $7 billion to $8 billion greater than it would otherwise be? We are talking about the creation of between 100,000 and 200,000 jobs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am delighted to hear that the hon. member is willing to increase the deficit by $2 billion more than the present figure. When I bring down a budget, I shall be delighted to remind the hon. member of his statement.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: May I ask the minister a question in a non-partisan way, purely for information? Is it his position that tax indexing amounts to a fiscal stimulus?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a stimulant because it changes the tax base in such a way that people have less tax from one year to another. This was an idea of the hon. gentleman when he was leader of the opposition and one we took from him. He has to recognize that this is a technique which has been used by Canada and not by the United States or other countries. We have to realize this and tell the public that when this automatic tax indexation is in place, people will have that much more money in their pockets.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the disastrous effects to the Canadian people when the Minister of Finance operates under a total misconception-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I ask the minister not to take my word for it, but to get in touch with a former minister of finance, Mr. Turner, who, while a slow learner in this respect, eventually did learn that the indexation of personal income tax is not a fiscal stimulus but is merely a method of preventing an increase in the actual tax rate and a method of avoiding a drag on the economy. I therefore ask the minister if he would not mind getting in touch with Mr. Turner and having Mr. Turner explain this to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a very good relationship with the former minister of finance.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When I talk to him, I will say that I heard about him from a former colleague of his, the hon. member for Halifax. I will be delighted to communicate to him the words of the hon. member.


MEASURES TO CREATE JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Unlike the Premier of the province of Ontario, the Premier of Saskatchewan practices what he preaches.


Mr. Beatty:: Socialism.


John Edward Broadbent: In the budget which was brought down in Saskatchewan on the same day Premier Davis brought in his monstrosity in the province of Ontario, the Premier of Saskatchewan followed up at least one or two of the minimal accomplishments which were achieved at the first ministers' conference in terms of job creation. In the budget brought in in Saskatchewan there was, in addition to the effects of indexation, a 9 per cent tax cut offered to the people of that province. In addition, the decision was made to invest some public money to create jobs now, and to produce energy down the road.
Those were two concrete measures to create jobs, which the first ministers' conference alleged it was concerned about. I would like to ask the minister, in all seriousness, why does he not take similar action, now, at the national level.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 said earlier that I will decide to have a budget at the right time. I am looking at all the opportunities everyone is offering. By not putting forward a budget, at least I am not subjecting the House of Commons and the people of Canada to the kind of budget the government of Ontario put forward, which increased taxes.


Mr. Woolliams:: What about Lougheed?


John Edward Broadbent: In addition to saying what he is not going to do, will the minister give us some expression of opinion at this point about the general orientation? Would he not agree that instead of spending between $4 billion and $5 billion which we are going to spend in deficit, so to speak, next year in unemployment insurance pay-outs to people to do nothing, it makes a lot more economic as well as social sense to take a part of that $4 billion to $5 billion and put it into public sector investment to create jobs now? That would also benefit the public in other areas down the road.
[Translation}


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if that could be done automatically, things would be easy but I would be much surprised were the hon. member to agree to stop paying unemployment insurance as of tomorrow morning and invest those funds in public works. I suggest that the transfer is not done automatically and that there is a span of time between the two. We have employment incentive programs amounting to $600 or $700 million and administered by the Department of Employment and Immigration. Those programs are monitored on a permanent basis and if we feel we can put more people to work by expanding the budget of this department, we will be glad to do so. But it would be impossible to stop paying unemployment

March 22, 1978

insurance for the time being. The leader of the New Democratic Party would certainly the first to complain about such a move.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that I am not suggesting he transfer funds from one area to another. The point I am making is that public sector spending, like unemployment insurance pay-outs, in some ways is money down the drain, economically. It produces no jobs, but investment does produce jobs. If I understand the minister's argument correctly, he is saying that the government is still waiting to see the effects of his mini-budget in the fall and those of the earlier budget last year.
Considering that almost every economic forecasting group, including most recently the Conference Board, have said that unemployment will increase this year and the growth rate is going down, will he make a commitment, now, to reduce taxes and have some public sector investment in job-creation projects before the next election is called?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when I will present a budget. I am now considering all proposals. Of course, projections made by the Conference Board went down from 5 to 4.5 and I am taking note of it. I only want to point out to the hon. member that it is nevertheless an increase in the level of economic growth which was at 2.5 last year. Even the Conference Board has now established that the economic growth will be at least 4.5 and if we can further stimulate the economy we will do so when we introduce a budget.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that the House will adjourn today and that surely we will not be sitting before March 31 since we are not expected back until April 3, and considering that the government's dairy policy is usually announced by March 31 at the latest, can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House if the government's dairy policy will be made public during the recess before the beginning of the year which starts on April 1?


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy will be announced
Oral Questions
as soon as possible and will be known to the people and the farmers in the next few days.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Considering the importance of that industry in Canada and the rather large quantities of imported cheese in past years when the minister assured us that imports would not exceed 50 million pounds, is the minister in a position to tell us whether our dairy industry has improved to the extent that an appreciable reduction of imports can be expected to compensate for reduced consumption anticipated in the months to come?


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, the dairy policy as a whole is now under review. Several suggestions have been made by members on both sides to allow that dairy policy to maintain normal production. Many representations have been made and, as will be seen in the forthcoming announcement, we are waiting for all the suggestions made with respect to the 1978-79 dairy policy.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether there have been consultations with the producers' offices, either in Quebec or in the other provinces, with a view to reaching an agreement paving the way for announcing a dairy policy that would be satisfactory to the producers of both manufacturing and whole milk?


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, with regard to consultations with the provincial federations, the hon. member for Bellechasse surely knows that the dairy policy is formulated jointly by the management committee and the Canadian Dairy Commission on the basis of recommendations by the provincial federations. I can assure the hon. member that the dairy policy for 1978-79 will be at least as good if not better than the one we had this year.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES HONORARY DEGREES AWARDED TO MEMBERS OF ROYAL FAMILY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I make no apology for asking the question, because we will be adjourning until April 3 which will be too late for a decision to be made that is of interest to universities across Canada. I would ask the minister first whether the decision was made by cabinet that no honorary degrees should be given to any member of the Royal Family without the consent of the Prime Minister of Canada?
4020

March 22, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this topic and cannot report to the right hon. member. I will inquire, but I have not heard of such a thing, inside or outside cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply would indicate, therefore, that the decision was made by the Prime Minister himself, and it also reveals his primacy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will bring a particular case to his attention because I know now, the cabinet having had nothing to do with it, who made the decision. Various universities are concerned about the fact that the government refused to permit the Governor General to pass on a message from the University of Western Ontario in which a request was made to have the Prince of Wales given an honorary degree during the centennial celebrations of that university. Some nine or ten months passed. The Minister of Labour may be able to answer this question; he is mumbling. That would be the most intelligent contribution he has made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Acting Prime Minister why, after a lapse of several months with no reply ever given, the request was turned down by verbal decision? Why was that done? The minister does not know, because the cabinet had nothing to do with it; but will he ascertain why the Prime Minister made the decision-and he must have done so?
This is just another example of the erosion of the monarchy which has taken place over and over again with the assistance of the hon. minister sitting behind the Minister of Finance. He has been one of the greatest offenders in this country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot subscribe to what the right hon. member says. Her Majesty the Queen has come to Canada, since the Prime Minister has been in office, much more often than she came when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister. He should be the last one to ask me that type of question, because he knows very well that the adviser to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada is the Prime Minister of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, is that right?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Whenever there is such a request, there is communication with the Queen and the decision is made as to how often the Royal Family should come to Ottawa. I do not think Canadians have been deprived at all of royal visits during the last few years.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, everything was answered but the question. What business did the Prime Minister of Canada have to direct the Governor General not to forward
that letter from the University of Western Ontario and hold it silent for several months?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell the House why he did not table the amendments to the Bank Act since he promised the House to do so before the end of March and today is the last sitting day this month? In addition, can he tell the House when he hopes to table those amendments?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report to the hon. member that unfortunately the bill is not ready, and it has yet to go to cabinet. As soon as it has come back from cabinet, I shall table it in the House.


DRAFTING OF BILL TO AMEND BANK ACT
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, since the indication in the past has been that the drafting of these bills presented certain problems, could the Minister of Justice, who has responsibility for drafting legislation in his department, advise the House of the particular difficulties in the drafting of this legislation which has been in his hands for months? If this is so difficult, will he accept some official aid from the opposition in preparing this bill?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question in full, for very obvious reasons. I would assure the hon. member that the cabinet, at the insistence of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, some time ago directed that the drafting of the Bank Act bill be given top priority in the Department of Justice. From that point of view it has been, and is being, given that priority. I would hope my department will be able to produce very quickly to my colleague a print of that bill.


An hon. Member:: Before the banks close?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I note the hon. member's offer of assitance in the drafting. I would have to check his legal credentials very carefully for offering such advice. However, depending on the outcome in Edmonton of the next election, he may have an opportunity in committee, as a member of the opposition, to offer his advice on the quality of the bill.

March 22, 1978


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the principal conclusions of the main recommendations of the Woods-Gordon report on relocation and decentralization of the public service, and in view of the many representations by individuals and groups to the Minister of Public Works, I should like to ask whether he is prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues any policy which would redress in total or in part the adverse effects being occasioned the central core of the city of Ottawa by the relocation and decentralization of the public service.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, would any such policy include a slowdown of the move to Hull until there is a modest rate of growth in the public service, namely, 2 per cent or 3 per cent, and a committment on behalf of this government to continue to rent at least 50 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows we have met with representatives of the Building Owners and Managers Association. We have given an undertaking concerning the space we will continue to lease beyond the completion of the move to Hull. We will do our utmost to try to keep the percentage of occupancy in the various buildings concerned at 50 per cent, but we do not believe we can stop the move. We think we would be accused by the Auditor General of irresponsibility if we held Crown-owned buildings vacant when leases had in fact expired.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Notwithstanding the assurance the minister gave the House that the employment tax credit bill would be in place by March 1, we now know that because of technical difficulties the booklets designed to assist businessmen to take advantage of the program will not be ready until the end of April. Can the minister please explain why this bill, so important to the one million plus unemployed Canadians, is not ready and in place now in accordance with the assurance he gave the House when the bill was passed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration gave the House of Commons the assurance last week that the program was in place and that applicants could file their applications with the department; and as well as that, there are officers in every
Oral Questions
branch of his department to give explanations to the people who want to take advantage of the program.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that senior officials of the Department of Employment and Immigration have informed us that these booklets, so necessary to assist businesses that wish to take advantage of this program, will not be ready until the end of April because of technical difficulties, in view of the fact that application forms are only now going out into the field, and because of the importance of the bill to the unemployed people of this country, I ask the minister whether he is now able to give the House his assurance, for what it is worth, that the bill will be in place before the end of March?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course I can give that commitment to the hon. member: the bill has been in place since March 8, two weeks ago.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I ask the question again. The minister is playing with words. I am talking about the implementation of this important bill. We know it has been passed by parliament. That places the onus upon the government to implement it. Would the minister give the House the assurance that this bill will be implemented before the end of March, or give an explanation as to why not?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said the bill has been in place since March 8. People can file applications if they want to benefit from the program. This is the word received by the House of Commons from the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


GOVERNMENT CASH REQUIREMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978-79
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. My colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, asked the minister on March 17 about the level of Crown corporation borrowings in the coming fiscal year in addition to the government's cash requirement of $11 billion. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to inquire, could he tell the House the anticipated borrowings of Crown corporations for the next fiscal year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figure available at this moment. Some of the financing for Crown corporations is not decided as yet, and I am not in a position to give the final figure.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We are endeavouring to determine the total indebtedness of the Government of Canada, given its tendency to monetarize the increasing amount of debt in the country. We have noted that Statistics Canada, in a recent release, indicated that our balance of international payments was $42.3 billion, or over $2,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada.
4022

March 22, 1978
Oral Questions
Can the minister advise whether he is going to reveal this information on motions, whether it will be as a notation in a budget, whether we will get it from Treasury Board, or will we have to ask the Auditor General to make a special report on this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, those figures are made public when we present our budget.


Mr. Clark:: When is that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will be presenting a budget. If the hon. member wants to put a question on the order paper, I will see if I can reply.


An hon. Member:: When is the budget?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Soon.


DISCOUNTING OF LOAN FLOATED IN NEW YORK
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. As the loan that the government is now floating in New York is already being discounted, may I ask the minister if he anticipated this unusual and disconcerting event?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the dealers who handle the bond issue which went on sale this morning report that it has been very well received in the marketplace.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the further loss of $400 million in foreign reserves so far this month, does the government intend to have further foreign borrowings, especially as the Prime Minister will be delivering his "We are broke; let's be kind to the bankers" speech tonight in New York?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is using figures that do not exist.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We have not been wrong yet.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will reveal at the beginning of next month the amount of reserves we have. In the middle of the month there is no such figure being circulated.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Following last Saturday's visit in the Eastern Townships of Quebec Cultural Development Minister Camile Laurin, and his statement regarding the federal decentralization program to the effect that the government of Quebec would be willing to give federal civil servants coming into Quebec six years during which they could send their children to English schools, could the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if he has read the text of Mr. Laurin's statement and if the federal government agrees with that suggestion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yes I have read Mr. Laurin's statement. Regarding the move to Sherbrooke, our request that the Quebec government allow public servants affected by that move to send their children to English schools is the same as the request we make to other provincial governments whenever there is decentralization: we require that they provide French education to public servants moving to their cities. The request is the same for the province of Quebec as for all other provinces; furthermore the move will not occur for another six months. It is the government's intention to decentralize over a long period of time and public servants have the right to send their children to schools teaching in their mother tongue if they want, otherwise, pursuant to the commitments given to the House, we will not allow decentralization.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Would the minister comment on the veracity of the front page story in the Globe and Mail today concerning the commitment of troops to Lebanon. The article quotes the Prime Minister as saying:
Canada, if asked, will send a battalion of combat troops into southern Lebanon.
Is the Acting Prime Minister in a position ot inform the House whether that statement is the policy of the government?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not read the statement made by the Prime Minister. I know the Prime Minister had discussions with the Secretary General of the United Nations yesterday, and that he is prepared to help in the circumstances. There was an exchange

March 22, 1978

of views on the help we can offer concerning this problem but no definite decision was made one way or another.


PEACEKEEPING FORCE-APPROVAL OF PARLIAMENT BEFORE COMMITMENT MADE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will direct my supplementary question to a minister who is certainly interested in this matter, the Minister of National Defence.
As the Prime Minister's statement makes no mention of parliamentary approval or consultation before committing our troops to a new peacekeeping task, and runs counter to the precedent established when parliament approved the peacekeeping mission in Cyprus and the observers mission in Viet Nam, as well as making a total mockery of the blandishments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs during the past two days, will the minister assure the House that any commitment made will be subject to approval by a resolution of the House of Commons?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot comment on the press release itself. Certainly, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs said yesterday, there is no reason to hold back at all: we want full and frank information on this question.
In so far as specific parliamentary approval is concerned, I think it would be difficult to make that commitment because one might have to react to particular circumstances. It is rather hypothetical today, because the only forces we have been asked to supply and which we are supplying are those offering logistic support. That has been announced and some of those troops are already serving in that role. The forces needed for the peacekeeping operation have largely been committed. There is no indication that we will be asked to serve in that role at this time, even though in a general review one could say that we have troops ready and available and quite capable of doing that job.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister keeps information from the public; we did not know until today that he also keeps it secret from his colleagues.
My question is to the Minister of Finance and it relates to the economic business and to the Bank Act that is being delayed by this government. It has now been established that the Department of Justice is drafting the bill. I presume the Minister of Finance has instructed the lawyers of his department on what he wants in the legislation. Would the minister tell the House now, as a matter of policy, whether it is the intention of the government to bring within the provisions of
Oral Questions
the Bank Act the caisses populaires and credit unions of Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this will be known when we table the bill.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. I have another question about economic business that is being delayed by this government so that Canadians will not know what they plan or do not plan to do about the Canadian economy. The minister has admitted today that his claim about the amount of fiscal stimulus was false. It is clear that all the projections, both in his statement of October and in the budget of March last year, are incorrect.
We have a situation where uncertainty is being created by the statements of a minister which are false, and the projections of a minister which are wrong. In light of that uncertainty, will the minister reconsider his refusal to give some guidance to the Canadian economy? Will he not give a commitment now for an early date on which this House may receive a budget from this government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the only final decision I have made about a budget is that there will be no budget before the end of this month. I asked to wait until April or May, depending on the circumstances, and I will advise the public accordingly.
As far as projections are concerned, I would like to say to the Leader of the Opposition that in December the president of the Conference Board of Canada-who now is planning to be defeated as a Tory candidate-predicted exactly the same figure that I did, 5 per cent growth. The same day this gentleman announced that he was to run for the Tories, the Leader of the Opposition said that nobody believed my prediction. I would like to tell him that his own candidate was in complete agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that events have also passed him by in that regard. We have a situation now where there will be no budget and no revised Bank Act. Will the Minister of Finance tell us, at least, whether he and his government are prepared to respond to the request of the Premier of Ontario and to the request that I am sure is shared by the other provinces? Is he now in active consultation with the ministers of finance of the provinces, five of whom have already brought in budgets since the February meeting-the province of Quebec being the sixth province that will bring in a budget, leaving this government virtually alone in its refusal to bring in a financial statement and budget-and will the minister tell us whether there is an intention on his part, in the absence of a budget, in the absence of a Bank Act, in the absence of any other economic activity, to at least convene a meeting of the ministers of finance next month?

March 22, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would rather have no budget at all than have budgets like the ones proposed by the Tory government of Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and the Tory government of Newfoundland, both of which have increased taxes. I find it unbelievable that the Premier of Ontario is sending telegrams asking this government to stimulate the economy, when less than two weeks ago he increased taxes for the people of Ontario by $350 million.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the minister answer the question? Is the minister now in active consultation with the ministers of finance of the various provinces, with an eye to convening a conference of the provincial ministers of finance next month so that there can be some agreement on general economic policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I had consultations with the ministers of finance about a month and a half ago. Because their deficits are less than the federal government's I asked them to stimulate their economies. I recognize that the minister of finance for Saskatchewan agreed with my argument. But as far as the Tory governments of Ontario and Newfoundland are concerned, they were not too positive about it. I am ready to meet them, but if they are as responsive as they have been so far, in increasing taxes, it is better for me not to ask them.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Since there are now, despite ministerial denials earlier, several illegal acts on the record by the security service, has the Solicitor General satisfied himself that no illegal acts have been committed, directly or otherwise, by the Security Planning and Analysis Branch since its creation a few years ago? Can we have his unequivocal assurance on this score, in the same way as his predecessor assured the House and the country with reference to the conduct of the security service, with so little basis in fact?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman knows what the responsibility of the Security Planning and Analysis Branch is, and that it is not an operational branch. Unless he has some indication of specific areas where lack of operational ability could lead someone into trouble, I would have to indicate that his allegations are completely unfounded.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready and willing to assist the Solicitor General. Since this group has, and has had, individuals employed, such as Messrs. Cobb, Armit, Banning and Schultz, among others, who have in the past been operational, does he still maintain to the House and the country, unequivocally, that the Security Planning and Analysis Branch is purely and simply a passive and non-operational analytical group, as has been maintained up to this point? Is that what he is telling the House unequivocally?


Mr. Blais:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I might point out to the hon. gentleman that if he is relying on the story which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning-he referred to one gentleman who was mentioned in that particular story-he is, in fact, a gentleman who did have a role in terms of security planning which is a role he played, as well, when he was involved in "G" branch, dealing not with operations but with security planning.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Following the numerous representations which have been made, I would like to know whether there are new developments on the withholding of subsidies to milk producers in Quebec and all over Canada?


Yves Caron: Mr. Speaker, considering the conflict between both federations in Quebec which resulted in a quota surplus of 2 per cent on the production market, the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission decided to hold back subsidies to milk producers for January 1978. I must assure the hon. member that since last Friday there were many negotiations between the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission and both federations, and the Canadian Dairy Commission decided unilaterally that if both groups have not come to an agreement by tomorrow evening, it would issue the cheques to industrial milk producers in Quebec.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. It is supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Central Nova, as well as earlier questions that were asked of the minister on this topic.
March 22, 1978

Has the minister now reviewed the voluminous correspondence concerning the RCMP agent whose case was brought forward last week? I know the minister has studied it. The correspondence included a letter from the minister's department to the agent, captioned "Recommendation for citizenship", and another letter from the Solicitor General, who wrote on December 22 last year: "I have been in contact with the minister of immigration, the Hon. Bud Cullen, and have made representations on your behalf. I expect you will be contacted shortly." I would like to ask the minister, now that his memory has been refreshed once again, what he has been doing on this case. Has he discussed this matter with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and what action are they planning to take?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, of course, the hon. gentleman, from his question, recognizes the sensitivity of the file concerned. I am sure he would not want me at this time to comment on the actions I intend to take. I would indicate to the hon. member that I have received representations from the hon. member for Central Nova, and from him as well, in terms of this question. I am dealing with this matter very seriously indeed, and I will be communicating with him, as well as the hon. member for Central Nova, in due course.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General, in view of the renewed interest that the security branch has taken in this case, whether he could indicate to the House if there are written contracts of any nature with the agent in question?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would not comment on that information at this time. I would indicate that it is not a question of renewed interest; it is a question of ongoing interest.


REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL GRAINS AGREEMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the mnister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a matter of great interest to Canadian farmers. My understanding is that negotiations for a new international grains agreement were originally to conclude by the end of March or thereabouts. I would like to ask the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board what progress is being made. Can he tell us in general the position Canada is now taking in these negotiations?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should limit myself to saying that progress is being made in resolving some of the major differences between principal participants. It is anticipated now, however, that the agreement will not be concluded during this set of negotiations but,
Oral Questions
rather, that in a matter of weeks another meeting will be held to conclude the agreement.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister confirm that the government of Canada is taking a position of supporting reserve stocks without supporting a reserve price range for the sale of grain at the same time; in other words, a minimum-maximum price.


Otto Emil Lang: Expressed that way, Mr. Speaker, I think the question is somewhat misleading. It is our position that reserve stocks can be a very important part of an agreement. Of course, having those reserve stocks would involve having a bottom price or a low price at which stocks would have to be accumulated, and then they would be held off the market until a high price or a top price was achieved.
There is some difference of view among countries as to whether, at that bottom price or top price, in addition to the reserve action and other action, there should be certain commitments to supply over and above the reserve. We have not taken the position that that would be very workable and that, in fact, the reserve and other forms of action at those levels of price are the way to get a decent return for our producers.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a straightforward question for the Minister of Finance which I hope will elicit a straightforward answer regarding Premier Davis' letter to the Prime Minister of Canada. Premier Davis mentioned a number of areas in which there was agreement at the federal-provincial first ministers' conference for action to get the Canadian economy back on track and create new jobs. I ask the minister, what action has been taken by the government since the first ministers' conference to implement the agreed upon "Buy Canadian" policy, and also to provide new incentives for industrial research and development in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was to write all premiers following the conference for a follow-up on those propositions. Of course, there was discussion in our government about research and development. However, I do not have anything to announce on that matter at this time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: May I ask the minister about two other areas in which there was agreement between the provinces and the federal government on which Premier Davis feels there has been no action? Has any action been taken on the proposal to get the unemployed back to work by putting them to work on such projects as badly needed sections, rebuilding railroad beds, grade separation, and by taking action to protect Canadian jobs under the auto pact?

March 22, 1978
Pages


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On the first proposition, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for the Premier of Ontario to say that we should do that. However, when we had a budget a few weeks ago, he did not move very substantially to reduce the level of unemployment in Ontario. We will look at the problems within our jurisdiction in the spirit of the agreement of the first ministers' conference last February. It has only been a month; we have not had time to put the programs in place.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['Order, please.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that on March 22, 1978, a communication has been received which is as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
March 22, 1978 Sir:
1 have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the twenty-second day of March at 5:45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a question of privilege of which he has given the Chair notice, may I take three minutes to advise the House, before rising later in the day as has already been ordered by the House, of activities that have taken place which I think will be of interest to hon. members with regard to the employment of pages in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I preempt the time of the House to do this now is because it will relate to some interest members will have relative to possible enrollment dates at universities. I thought I should take a moment to explain this to members, because during the recess information will be going out about it. I thought hon. members ought to be the first to know.

Since coming here it has been an interest of mine, and many others have shared it and many others had it long before that time, that we find a way to encourage young Canadians to participate in the House of Commons by serving as pages here. That was attempted at the high school level and faced great difficulty because of discrepancies and differences in various academic programs throughout the provinces.
A couple of years ago I asked the Clerk of the House of Commons to attend in Washington to examine the system there. He did, and returned with a very thorough report which was referred to the Members' Services Committee. The members of that committee worked very diligently on the project, with great interest, and came up with what I think is an excellent idea. I hope all members will share it. It is that the program, instead of being operative at the high school level, be operative at the first year university level, which facilitates provincial interchange much more easily and enables residents away from home to lead a much more normal course of life.
Having given approval to that basic idea, we are attempting now in some hurry to implement, at least partially, this program before September, which will involve possible enrollment by students in two Ottawa universities, whose co-operation we have received throughout and for which we are very grateful.
1 want to assure hon. members on a couple of counts. First, this program will be phased in in such a way as to ensure that all of those who have served so faithfully and well as pages will not in any way be prejudiced or jeopardized in the employment they have enjoyed here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The obvious advantages bear some repetition. We will now be able to secure, in addition to this cross-Canada participation, young people for a year of university, for which they will work as pages and receive a full salary which will enable them to finance their education.
We will, of course, benefit from that kind of participation. We will benefit from being able to do something that is long overdue here, that is, to employ an appropriate number of female pages in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May 1 at the same time indicate that we will be giving, in the process, some serious consideration, and I hope that hon. members do not rebel at this, to altering the uniform being worn by pages in the House. While we feel we must maintain the dignity required in the Chamber, it will reflect something that is a little more in keeping with modern times. We have in mind something in the nature of a blazer in the House of Commons green colour, with an appropriate crest, and grey flannels for the boys and skirts for the girls. However, we will receive suggestions from members on that.
I expose this to the thinking of members at this time, first to thank all of those who have been involved in working on this project with such great interest. That includes the Clerk of the
March 22, 1978

House, the Members' Services Committee, and the universities from which we have had cooperation.
I invite from all hon. members suggestions as to worthy candidates. We would expect that, while they need not necessarily be fluently bilingual, they would certainly have sufficient capacity in both languages to serve in the House which, of course, is a requirement familiar to all hon. members.
I look forward to co-operating with hon. members. 1 hope as well to elicit the co-operation of various provincial Speakers who probably have already received suggestions regarding pages whom they would like to employ but are unable to employ in some of the provincial legislatures. We will endeavour to make participation in the program as broad and universal as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave Your Honour the required notice under Standing Order 17(2). My point of privilege relates to certain things that have been happening and may still be happening to my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). I have indicated to you, sir, the nature of the matter, and I have also discussed it with the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo).
Some time ago, back on February 13, a letter was written to the hon. member for Northwest Territories by the president of the 1978 Arctic Winter Games Host Society which read as follows:
Dear Mr. Firth:
The 1978 Arctic Winter Games will be held in Hay River and Pine Point from March 19 to 25, 1978. The games will be officially opened by Mrs. Iona Campagnolo, Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, at 2 p.m., in Hay River, on March 19, 1978.
We would be most pleased to have you come to Hay River for the Opening Ceremonies, and to participate in the various activities at Hay River and Pine Point.
We would appreciate your early advice on this matter in order that we might make the necessary arrangements with respect to accommodation.
Yours very truly
D. M. Stewart
On February 27 my friend and colleague replied to Mr. Stewart's letter in these words:
Dear Mr. Stewart:
I would like to thank you for your kind invitation to be part of the Opening Ceremonies and to participate in the various activities at the 1978 Arctic Winter Games, to be held in Hay River and Pine Point from March 19 to 25.
I would be more than pleased to attend and should be arriving in Hay River on March 18.
With kindest regards
Sincerely yours,
Wally Firth, M.P.
Northwest Territories
Privilege-Mr. Stanley Knowles
That is where my hon. friend is today. Someone might ask whether this matter should not stand until he returns, but in my view when an affront is offered to one member of this House it is an affront to all of us.
I feel there has been an affront, and a certain amount of intimidation which I regard as rather serious. The invitation was quite clear. The hon. member for Northwest Territories was to take part in the activities connected with the Arctic Winter Games, particularly the opening ceremony at Hay River on Sunday, March 19, at 2 p.m. However, after that invitation had been extended and accepted there were certain telephone calls.
My information is that it was either Mr. Stewart himself, the Mayor of Hay River, who is also an official connected with the games, or someone from his office who telephoned to the office in this building of the hon. member for Northwest Territories and also to the office of my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). A complaint was made that the hon. member for Northwest Territories would apparently be attending the Northwest Territories NDP nominating convention which would be held in Hay River during the time the Arctic Winter Games were taking place. What is wrong with that, I do not know.
Of greater concern to me than the affront to the hon. member is what seems to me to be intimidation with respect to the election process itself. This, indeed, is the serious matter which I raise. The information given by Mr. Stewart or his office to the office of my hon. friend and to the office of my leader was that unless the nominating convention were cancelled, his invitation to take part in the opening ceremonies and to participate in activities connected with the games would be cancelled.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: When my hon. friend refused to have anything to do with such a cancellation, pointing out that it was not he who was arranging the convention but the New Democratic Party in the Northwest Territories, the word came that unless the convention were postponed the invitation would be cancelled.
Furthermore, arrangements had been made for the convention to be held in a room in one of the schools in Hay River. That reservation was cancelled when the Northwest Territories NDP refused to postpone the convention. The convention is to be held tonight in the basement of the Caribou Inn, which is privately owned and completely separate from any governmental ties. As far as I know, plans are going ahead for the convention to be held this evening.
As it turns out, the invitation to Sunday's event was, in fact, cancelled. My hon. friend from the Northwest Territories turned up at the opening ceremonies on Sunday afternoon at 2

March 22, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanley Knowles o'clock and, although he still held his card telling him which seat he could occupy, the list of persons who were to be present at that ceremony did not include his name.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) was there-she is present in the chamber today-and my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories told me that after the occasion was over, when he saw her, she said to him "Wally, if I had known you were here I would have mentioned you".


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend believes the reason the minister did not know he was there was because his name was not on the list of invited guests. Although many officials at the territorial and municipal level were introduced, the hon. member for Northwest Territories was not introduced or mentioned in any way.
In addition, there was a reception of the usual kind given by the government of the Northwest Territories in Hay River on Monday night, to which anybody who had any kind of official status at the territorial or municipal level was invited. Also invited were former representatives of the Northwest Territories and at least one former member of parliament from the Northwest Territories. A former Governor General was there, too. All these people were invited, but the hon. member for the Northwest Territories was not.


An hon. Member:: A shameful Grit trick!


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friends in the Progressive Conservative party are trying to put the blame on the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. My hon. friend from the Northwest Territories does not do that. He thinks she is on his side and that it is the local people, in charge of a project funded by government money, who are snubbing him and, what is worse, interfering with the election process.
I do not mind snubbing. I can take it. We all get it now and then. It is part of our occupation; our skin is not that thin. But when an invitation is rescinded and everyone else is invited, and when an hon. member who represents the largest constituency in Canada is not invited to a ceremony in his own constituency, it becomes an affront which I am sure the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport will not condone. In fact, I suspect she will be the first to extend an apology to the hon. member for Northwest Territories when he returns.
What I think is really serious is that local people who are operating a function which is largely, if not wholly, funded by federal money, should use their position to intimidate a person or group of persons in connection with the election process. At that point it becomes a matter of privilege as far as this House is concerned.
I suppose it may be said that the New Democratic Party in the Northwest Territories is taking advantage of the fact that many people have come in from all over that vast area and decided that it would be a good time to hold a convention. I think this makes good sense. It probably means saving money, because people might make the trip only once, rather than twice. And to suggest that a convention held in the basement of a motel in Hay River would interfere with the carrying on of the Arctic Winter Games is utter nonsense.
On the other side of the coin, persons like Mr. Stewart, who is president of the Arctic Winter Games Host Society and Mayor of Hay River, by taking these various steps to interfere with the election process are probably infringing the Canada Elections Act itself and this, consequently, is a case of privilege as far as hon. members here are concerned.
The things which have happened are too many for this to be accidental. There was the written invitation. It was not just one of those printed cards which might go to anyone. It was a personal letter. There was an acceptance. Then there was the telephone call saying that unless this convention was postponed the invitation would be rescinded. There were calls not only to the hon. member's office in this building but also to the office of the leader of this party. Then there is the fact that the name was omitted from the list of those attending the opening Sunday afternoon. There is the fact that there was no invitation to attend the reception held by the government of the Northwest Territories on Monday night. As I say, these things add up to an attempt to dissuade a member of this House from pursuing his rightful privilege of being a candidate for nomination for the next parliament.
I felt this matter should be raised without further delay. Obviously, Your Honour would not want to rule until the hon. member himself has returned from the games, and I hope he will be re-nominated tonight. Your Honour would want to look into this, as would the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), perhaps the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner), and perhaps also the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who is in charge of the Canada Elections Act. However, I decry in the strongest terms this kind of interference on the part of local officials. Your Honour might, under normal circumstances, tell me to complain to those officials up there, but the fact is they are operating a function which is funded by the federal government.
I decry, in the strongest terms I can use, these practices which interfere with the rights of any citizen but particularly with the right of a member of this House of Commons to seek re-nomination so that he can return to this House. It is a matter which is the cause of a great deal of concern in the north. I have had read to me some of the things that are appearing in the newspapers. There is a feeling that there was an element of discrimination against the hon. member in his own person for certain reasons which I need not state, and I think the matter should be cleared up.

March 22, 1978

I am a little sorry that my friends to my right seem to think that the blame should be put on hon. members opposite. I do not want to blame the hon. minister opposite. I want her help. The hon. member for Northwest Territories says the minister was most kind to him when she spoke to him Sunday afternoon after the event was over, and I am sure she would not condone what has happened, but I hope somehow this matter can be sorted out and, if the time comes when Your Honour feels that either I or the hon. member for Northwest Territories has a prima facie case of privilege, either he or I will be prepared to make the necessary motion to refer to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections the specific matter of certain officials interfering with the election process.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the chief magistrate of one of the host cities of the Arctic Winter Games has certain privileges in the administration of his city, but I do not believe it is our purpose to determine the scope of those administrative duties here.
I would like to note that there are two separate matters at issue in the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I thank him for giving me the information he did at the beginning of the question period. The first is the alleged lack of recognition by the games organizers of the presence of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) at the opening ceremonies. The second point, I believe, is whether it was appropriate for the hon. member for Northwest Territories to use the assembly, for which all travel costs had been paid by the people of Canada, as an occasion at which to hold his nominating meeting for the next federal election in the Mackenzie constituency.
On the first point I would like to point out that there was a great deal of informality at the opening ceremonies of these games. The dais was crowded with honoured guests. Indeed, it was overcrowded with honoured guests, many of whom were not accorded public recognition in other than general terms.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre mentioned, I in fact did see the hon. member for Northwest Territories immediately after the ceremonies concluded. He was taking pictures from the front part of the dais, as he had moved himself from the seat he had, closer to the second row. The hon. member approached me, and I told him that if I had known he was there I would have recognized him in my preamble, as I certainly would have. However, I would like to note that there was no introduction of guests on the program. There was a spoken program. A man was acting as M.C.
Also on the platform was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Milne), and he was not introduced either. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary was not being intimidated because he intended to have his nominating meeting for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe as part of the opening of the Arctic Winter Games.
On the second point, which I feel is the more important point, the propriety or lack of it with regard to using the
Privilege-Mr. Stanley Knowles
Arctic Winter Games as a vehicle for a collective meeting of northerners for a nomination meeting, I can only say that hon. members opposite have frequently said to me that they wish to see less involvement of politics in sport.
I am absolutely not in a position to comment on what was said between the mayor of Hay River and the hon. member for Northwest Territories. I have no way of establishing what was said in that conversation or if, indeed, it took place, as I am quite sure the hon. member will tell me when he returns. What one individual says to another is quite beyond the realm of purview of my ministry. However, just before making this statement I confirmed that the hon. member for Northwest Territories was and is a fully accredited official of the Arctic Winter Games. In addition, the Arctic Winter Games organizing committee has the hon. member registered as a V.I.P. of the society, which, I understand, grants him automatic inclusion in all events.
I regret very much that any slur might be cast upon the Arctic Winter Games, and I know that is not the intention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The Arctic Winter Games is the largest event of this type in the world above the 60th parallel, and since more than 600 athletes from Alaska, Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, organizers and volunteers, are all involved, I do not believe any of them should suffer because of the politicization of superb hospitality and fellowship for which these games are famous. I regret that the hon. member for Northwest Territories feels that a discourtesy has been done him, and I hope that we may look forward to the next Arctic Winter Games in 1980 in Whitehorse without any such charges of political opportunism being levelled.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. I think the question of privilege is quite spurious. I can see nothing wrong with the holding of a convention, whether it be at the Arctic Winter Games, at the Sourdough Rendez-vous or anywhere else. The question is one of popularity between a local member of parliament and local officials. I can only express my disappointment.
The minister has said that the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) is a fully accredited official of the Arctic Winter Games. I was not even invited, and yet my constituency is very vitally involved in this event of such magnitude, as the minister describes it, above the 60th parallel.
I can see nothing wrong in what has happened. As I say, it depends entirely upon the popularity of the hon. member involved with his own local officials, and perhaps he should improve his p.r. The Liberals held a convention in the middle of the Sourdough Rendez-vous a few years ago. I found nothing wrong in that.
Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, with respect to Your Honour's announcement on the question of pages for the House of Commons-and 1 cast no reflection on Your Honour's announcement in this respect-the territories were omitted, and they should be included.

March 22, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanley Knowles


Mr. Speaker:: On that last point, just to set it aside, 1 attempted to do this orally in a very quick way. The intention is to seek-and I did not get into numbers-36 pages in that respect, three from each of the areas, the ten provinces and the two territories.
Mr. Edward Broad bent (Oshawa-Whitby): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to two questions that have been raised during the question of privilege. I must say that I was quite disappointed in the minister's response to what I thought was a very courteous and generous presentation of the issue by the House leader of my party.
The issue raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in terms of holding a convention for any political party in Canada was that there should not be any kind of intimidation by any local group in this country, particularly a local group that has been federally funded, and that could inhibit that process. The local group concerned, if I understand it correctly, was appointed by the minister who spoke on the issue, intimidated-and I will use it openly-the member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), who happens to be, and it has not been mentioned, a Metis in this country. For that reason, he happens to be a little more sensitive maybe than the rest of us when he is subjected to what most of us could call a put-down by the white majority.
I think it is useful for us to discuss this issue, but not so naively as to assume that a minority feel just the same as the rest of us when they are confronted by such a situation. The hon. member for the Northwest Territories, in my view, very appropriately, in terms of the interests of the people he represents in that part of Canada, decided to have a political convention. It is true that he chose a time when a lot of people were coming in for another function, and it is true that they were going to be using public funds for that convention. 1 would like to point out to the minister that most of these people might not have been able to come the hundreds of miles to a political convention if such had not been the case.
The minister, who sort of oozed her way around the point that perhaps the hon. member for the Northwest Territories was inappropriately having a convention at that time, was incorrect. It was quite the contrary. I would like to see all of the political parties-and I am not making a criticism of the other parties-seize such opportunities, in a part of the country where most people are too damned poor to attend a political convention. Rather than seeing it as a fault, Mr. Speaker, I see it as a virtue.
The member for the Northwest Territories-and let us not be naive about that either-is going to get the nomination. He has done a good job, and there is no local opposition to him for the nomination. All he wanted to do was take advantage of the event and schedule the convention when it was going to be open to a lot of people who are in the main poor and spread over hundreds and thousands of miles. What happened was that a local official, for God knows what reason, but certainly not a good reason, attempted to intimidate that member and

said, "No, you can't have this convention at this time or we are going to strike you off from the official list of participants in the opening of these important games."
I say that is wrong. There was nothing wrong with the scheduling of that meeting. I repeat, I would be happy if all the political parties of Canada could schedule their meetings at a time when people could attend. Once again, it was poor people in the main. I resent the minister getting up, and instead of replying with some courtesy to what I took to be a courteous and generous comment by the House leader of my party and, indeed, courteous comments of the member for the Northwest Territories himself, implying that it was inappropriate for him to have a convention at that time. That kind of suggestion on her part, to put it euphemistically, was less than gracious.
I do not want to take up the time of the House. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated, it is a ruling that you will have to make, Mr. Speaker, and it should probably be left over to a later date when the hon. member is back in this House. I wanted to make the comments that 1 did today because, instead of responding in an appropriate way, the minister who entered into the debate did just the opposite. Instead of coming to the defence of an hon. member in this House, who is trying to do his job in a democratic fashion, the minister brought up a spurious point and hurled irrelevant abuse in his direction.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a very short contribution to the question of privilege, there is nothing wrong with any member of parliament taking advantage of a public occasion to hold a nominating convention. That is not a bad thing to do, and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) ought not to give umbrage to an hon. member doing just that.
The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport did not take advantage of the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that perhaps the other ministers involved would like to take part. If it is to be an issue-and the issue for you to decide is whether it is a question of privilege at all-we had better have all of the facts, including those of the hon. member for whom the nominating convention is alleged to have caused such great difficulty that the mayor of Hay River may have taken what I regard as a most unusual step. We are not here to determine the privileges of the members, and I think it might be appropriate to listen to the hon. member before we go any further. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are some considerable doubts as to whether it is a question of privilege.
I want to point out, however, that the New Democratic Party has successfully used up 37 minutes of time on this issue whereas we could have been dealing with the bill involving the northern pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not intend to use up any more time except to say that it is important to this country
March 22, 1978

as a whole, particularly with respect to a matter that can be argued later, that we get to dealing with the bill on the northern pipeline, which can have some significance for the country and which, hopefully, we may be able to deal with in all final stages before the House rises at six o'clock today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been rather lengthy discussion on this matter today, particularly in light of the fact that it remains to be established whether the matter does touch privilege. There are some serious concerns about it, and it is a very substantial matter. However, it does appear to relate to events outside the House essentially, and also to nominating conventions.
I am fascinated by the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) initially, which does not come to the assistance of his general proposition, but which is that since members of the House as elected members really have no propriety or property in the nominating process, but it is that of a party, it may be a grievance among the local officials and the New Democratic Party of that particular area. It is difficult to extend it to members of the House because, in fact, the member of the House has no more right to be at that nominating convention as a candidate than any other candidate, who in this case does not exist.
In any event, I am not making a final ajudication. I simply say the matter is complicated, and if it is to be established as a question of privilege it would have to be done so on the basis of the intervention, that has been suggested, by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). Accordingly I agree with those who have suggested that the matter ought to stand over until the hon. member himself is here and has had the opportunity to give us the benefit of his presentation. Perhaps then there may be contributions by other hon. members.
I have received notice of what I think may be an acceptable and very brief question of privilege by the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne).



Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I shall be brief, because the bill dealing with the pipeline is more important. When a reputation has been attacked, I feel it is sometimes necessary to set the record straight and make public concrete evidence to dispel certain allegations.
Ever since I was elected to the House of Commons, I have noticed that hon. members are used to asking questions about the Post Office, the mail delivery, and that they often include in their preambles comments which are sometimes unfair and generalizations which smack of demagogy. They recall inci-
Committee Reports
dents which may have unduly undermined the confidence the Canadian public should have in the Post Office Department. [English]
You will remember the incident of an offering to my predecessor, which was a Christmas cake that was accidentally damaged. You will remember the story-


An hon. Member:: What is the question of privilege?


Mr. Lamontagne:: 1 will come to it, sir.
There was an accidental mail spillover on Highway 401 that was made into a horror story, and yet was purely an accidental incident. Even yesterday the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) gave me a bundle of misdirected mail which arrived in the Yukon instead of Montreal. It, too, probably was an accidental incident.
Such stories tend to have an effect on our management and a great majority of our workers. I would like to mention something which happened in the last few days which indicates that the Post Office does not do everything wrong.
A few days ago I received a letter from Montreal. As usual, it took only one day to come from Montreal to Ottawa. The letter will confirm this.

I am sending you, under separate cover, the traditional Easter egg.
This Easter gift was in a way a show of confidence in the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, this being the start of Holy Week, a time when all the faithful show compassion and generosity, it is my intention, with the permission of hon. members, to deposit this egg and a copy of the letter in the National Post Office Museum. This will reassure all Canadians, especially those in Toronto and Montreal, that not only is there great hope in the future for the Post Office-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

March 22, 1978
House of Commons LABOUR, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, in both official languages.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board, and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I take pleasure in tabling, in both official languages, the 1976-77 annual report on the Public Service Superannuation Act, and the 1976-77 annual report on the Supplementary Benefits Act.


MEASURE RESPECTING DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-429, respecting the duration of every House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I can explain this bill very briefly. Its purpose is to standardize the time for federal elections in this country so that a general election would be held every four years on the third Monday of June. In the event that a government loses the confidence of parliament, then an election would be held immediately, and thus parliamentary democracy would be preserved. The present system during majority parliaments turns election dates into protracted guessing games that disrupt the normal flow of business both within and without parliament. The selection of the election date ought not to be at the political whim of the Prime Minister, but should be fixed in law for the good of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With some procedural reservations about whether that has to do with the duration of parliament or the duration of the House of Commons, I am prepared to put the motion.


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

Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-37, to amend the Canada Student Loans Act.


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

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-430, to amend the Canada Council Act (Killam-Dunn).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory notes with respect to this are very brief. It is in recognition of the contribution to the establishment of the Canada Council by two great industrialists and Canadians, Mr. Killam and Mr. Dunn. The purpose of this bill is to recognize, as I have indicated, the special and significant contribution of the late Sir Isaac Walton Killam and the late Sir James Dunn, two Canadian industrialists and philanthropists, which made possible in a very significant way the establishment of what is now the Canada Council. This bill would change the name of the Canada Council to the Killam-Dunn Council.


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

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-431, to amend the Canada Council Act (Killam-Dunn).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of this bill is for a purpose parallel to that of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). It is in recognition of the fact that these two gentlemen, who were born in the Atlantic area, contributed to Canada's welfare and in turn contributed indirectly, but by the will of parliament, to the formation of the Canada Council. Their names should be remembered as the Canadians who created this fund. Therefore, it should be named the Killam-Dunn Foundation.


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

March 22, 1978

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 935, 1,082, 1,112, 1,118, 1,166, 1,200, 1,244, 1,301, 1,344, 1,345, 1,346, 1,347, 1,348, 1,349 and 1,350.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Does the Department of Transport have any plans to re-open Vancouver's Old Boundary Bay Airport and, if so, what type of aircraft would have the use of the facility?
2.	(a) What is the estimated cost of bringing the facility up to standards (b) on what date would the work begin and what is the estimated length of time it would take to complete?
3.	What amount was spent on the Airport in each of the past ten years by (a) DND (b) DOT (c) PW (d) S&S?
4.	Approximately, how many light aircraft per month could be diverted to this location from Vancouver International Airport facilities?
5.	What is the nature of negotiations with the municipality regarding increased use of municipal facilities i.e. roads etc. as a result of the ugrading?
6.	Will the local municipality have to bear the cost to maintain access to the facility and safety procedures for those using the beach area?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Transport Canada and the Departments of National Defence, Public Works and Supply and Services as follows: 1. Transport Canada is investigating the possibility of reactivating a portion of the Boundary Bay Aerodrome to accommodate piston engine and turbo-prop aircraft weighing less than 12,500 lbs. gross take-off weight.
2.	(a) Preliminary cost estimates, which are currently under review, range from one to six million dollars depending on the standards to which the airport will be reactivated, (b) Reactivation of Boundary Bay Airport must await the completion of an Environmental Impact study for which the completion date is presently unknown, as well as a study of the financial impact upon present general aviation users of Vancouver International Airport. Therefore the proposal to reactivate Boundary Bay has not yet been approved. For these reasons, it is unlikely that any major reconstruction program would start before April 1, 1979, and would probably require up to two and a half years to complete.
3.	(a) Old Boundary Bay airport was vacated by DND in
1971,	and no financial records were retained except for data associated with caretaker-security service, which amounted to $33,000.00 during the fiscal year ending March, 1972. (b) Transport Canada has invested no Capital funds at the site since taking over the administration of the Aerodrome in June,
1972.	The only identifiable O&M expenditure was a water bill
Order Paper Questions
in 1973 for approximately $30,000. (c) Public Works-None, (d) Supply and Services-None.
4.	It is estimated that 50,000 aircraft movements (i.e. landings and take-offs) per year could be diverted from Vancouver International Airport to the Boundary Bay Airport. These movements can be attributed to approximately 150 aircraft that could be relocated from Vancouver International Airport to Boundary Bay.
5.	Transport Canada has held preliminary discussion with the Municipality, the Corporation of Delta, on matters related to the demand for water, sewer and road facilities which may result as the aerodrome is reactivated. In addition, we have held preliminary discussions with the Municipality on the subject of the latter operating the proposed airport.
6.	The cost of maintaining the access road to the Airport from the municipal road bordering the site will be the responsibility of the operator of the Airport (i.e. Transport Canada or Corporation of Delta). All aviation safety standards will be enforced.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Mrs. Jocelyn Pelchat-Johnson employed with the National Film Board and, if so (a) in what position; (b) what are all the qualifications that she possesses for her present job; (c) was she appointed to her present position by means of a competition and (i) if so, what are all the details of the competition including dates, etc. (ii) if not, for what reason; (d) is the government aware as to whether or not Mrs. Johnson holds separatist views?
2.	Is the government aware that she is the daughter-in-law of the former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson?
3.	Is it government policy to permit government agencies, such as the National Film Board, to employ persons with separatist viewpoints?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. (a) Yes, her title is Chief of Information and Promotion, (b) In addition to having academic training in law, Mrs. Pelchat-Johnson had also acquired relevant experience in films, as she had, until she joined the National Film Board, been the assistant to the President of Faroun Films, one of the largest film companies in Quebec. She had also been in charge of the technical aspect of the Montreal Film Festival. It should be pointed out that Mrs. Pelchat-Johnson started to work for the NFB on September 3, 1975 as a distribution officer for the Commercial Division, Television Section, and was selected in a competition open to persons outside the Public Service. At that time, there were two vacancies and Mrs. Pelchat-Johnson was selected for one of them, (c) No. Because appointments at a certain level are at the discretion of the Division Director. However, a number of persons within the Public Service were approached about the position, and it was Mrs. Pelchat-Johnson who was finally appointed, (d) Our employees' political views are not among the criteria we consider when we hire them.
2.	Yes, the selection board members who interviewed the candidates knew that Mrs. Pelchat-Johnson was married to Daniel Johnson Junior, the son of the former Premier of Quebec.

March 22, 1978
Order Paper Questions
3.	The NFB's hiring policy does not discriminates on the grounds of sex, religion, social status or political views. Competence is always the key concern in hiring.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each Fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of the Solicitor General and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: By the Ministry of the Solicitor General:
Canadian Penitentiary Service and National Parole Service	
Fiscal Year	Total Expenditures
1970-71	Not available
1971-72	Not available
1972-73	$123,570.16
1973-74	$120,069.00
1974-75	$155,586.84
1975-76	$147,072.58
1976-77	$205,356.38
April 1, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1977	$206,633.00
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	
Fiscal Year	Total Expenditures
1970-71	*143,900
1971-72	*142,600
1972-73	*161,000
1973-74	*135,600
1974-75	*265,100
1975-76	*323,200
1976-77	*498,500
April 1, 1977 to Dec. 31, 1977	*293,100
Ministry Secretariat National Parole Board	
Nil


Mr. Rodriguez: For each Fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Public Works and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Fiscal Year	$
1971/72	-	55,3181972/73	-	66,7641973/74	-	56,1121974/75	-	70,7131975/76	-	233,2111976-77	-	185,2461977/78	-	223,748
(to December 31, 1977)
Information prior to April 1, 1971 is not available as per the Government of Canada's General Records Disposal Schedule.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Financial Collection Agencies, 170 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa have a contract or arrangement with the Department of Finance for collecting unpaid student loans while such loans were under the administration of the Department?
2.	Since December 1, 1977, does Financial Collection Agencies have a similar contract or arrangement with the Department of the Secretary of State and, if so (a) what are all the details concerning the contract or arrangement (b) what fees were paid to Financial Collection Agencies since their services were engaged and what percentage of the amounts collected back did the Company retain?
3.	Did the Department of Finance or any other person in the government permit Financial Collection Agencies to use the government telephone system for working on such collections and, if so (a) what is the name and job designation of the person giving such authority (b) over how long a period of time did this last (c) what would be the estimated amount saved by Financial Collection Agencies by using the government telephone lines?
4.	Were or are Financial Collection Agencies under instruction by the government that they could not use their own solicitors but must use the names of solicitors furnished by the government when legal services are required and, if so (a) what is the name and job designation of the person or persons giving such instructions (b) what are the names and addresses of all lawyers furnished to Financial Collection Agencies by the government and did the Department of Justice play any part in this matter?
5.	(a) What are all the reasons Financial Collection Agencies were not permitted to use their own solicitors (b) who paid the legal fees and, if paid by the government, what was the total amount paid to date?


Yvon Pinard: 1 am informed by the Deparment of Finance and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. A contract between the Department of Finance and Financial Collection Agencies Ltd. of Montreal concerning the collection of defaulted Canada Student Loans was negotiated in 1975 to cover the three year period ending December 31, 1978. This company has one of its branches at 170 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario.
2. The contract between the Department of Finance and Financial Collection Agencies Limited continued in effect upon transfer of the program to the Secretary of State. The Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act under which the transfer was effected provides for continuation of any contracts in effect at the time of transfer, (a) Under the terms of the Contract, Financial Collection Agencies Limited are required to make their best effort to effect collection of all delinquent student loan accounts and to pay to the Government all amounts so collected. The contract requires the government to pay to Financial Collection Agencies Limited a fee equal to 25 per cent of amounts collected. The existing contract expires on December 31, 1978. (b) Since December 1, 1977, fees totalling $193,400.24 have been paid to Financial Collection Agencies Limited (subject to adjustment on reconciliation). As indicated in (a) above the Com-

March 22, 1978

pany does not retain any of the funds collected but receives a fee for its services.
3.	No.
4.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Legal action when required is taken by Department of Justice lawyers or lawyers appointed by that Department to act on behalf of the Crown (see 5 below).
5.	(a) The Canada Student Loans Program Administration is under instruction by the Department of Justice to send all cases for litigation to that Department pursuant to the Department of Justice Act. (b) Only recently have agents been appointed by the Department of Justice to act on behalf of the Attorney General and, hence, no legal fees have yet been paid.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Prime Minister's trip to certain Ontario points commencing on or about January 19, 1978 (a) what was the total cost to the taxpayer, including transportation, accommodation, food and drink for the Prime Minister and all those accompanying him on the trip (b) what specific government aircraft were involved in this entire operation and what was the total cost (c) what are the names and job designations of all those accompanying the Prime Minister at any time during this trip?
2.	Did the Prime Minister during such trip order a government aircraft into the air to inspect the weather at a further scheduled stop and, if so at what cost?
3.	Did the Prime Minister's schedule include attendance at various gatherings supported by the Liberal Party?
4.	Will the government seek reimbursement from the Liberal Party of Canada for a share of the cost of the trip and (a) if so (i) what amount will be billed to the Liberal Party and how was the amount arrived at (ii) on what date (b) if not, for what reason?
5.	Is it government policy to permit the Prime Minister the use of government aircraft and also taxpayers money on trips of a political nature?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Transport Canada and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council's Offices as follows: 1. (a), (b), re cost, and (c): See reply to Question No. 2,881, page 8266 of Hansard for October 17, 1977. (b) re type of aircraft: See Flight Details below.
2.	No. Flight details: Minister, Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau; Type of Aircraft, Viscount; Dates, January 19-21, 1978; Point of Origin, Ottawa; Stops, Hamilton-Toronto; Termination/ Destination, Ottawa.
3,	4 and 5. See reply to Question No. 2,881 answered October 17, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government accept, as part of any possible deficit on non profit housing, the inclusion of municipal and school taxes in cases where the provincial government has refused exemption from these taxes for such a project and would the federal coverage of 50% of any operating deficits cover the taxes which may be included in such deficits?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing
Order Paper Questions
Corporation: Non-profit housing, financed under the terms of Section 15 and 15.1 of the National Housing Act, is intended to operate on a full recovery basis. Deficits in the operation of non-profit housing are, therefore, not anticipated. If they should occur, adjustment to the rentals would be required to offset any operating losses. Some units in a non-profit project may be occupied by tenants who pay rent according to their income on the basis of a rent-to-income scale. Losses incurred in the operation of such units are shared by the province or agency thereof, and the Federal Government, on a 50/50 basis under an agreement made under Section 44(1 )(b) of the N.H.A. The total operating costs of the project would include municipal and school taxes for which the non-profit project would be responsible, if the provincial government had refused exemption from these taxes.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is July 1 a legal holiday under the name Canada Day and, if so, by what legislation is this so?
2.	Does the 1978 Post Office Calendar list July 1, 1978 as a designated holiday under the name Canada Day, and if so, is this a legal designation?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of the Secretary of State and the Post Office Department as follows: 1. The Holidays Act (ch. H-7, RSC 1970) stipulates that July 1 is a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed under the name of "Dominion Day". This provision has not been amended by Parliament.
2. Yes. "Canada Day", "Jour du Canada" has been used because such is the common usage to designate this holiday, although this designation has not been confirmed by law.


Mr. McKinnon: Has the Department of National Defence a contract with Safari Arms Ltd., 25 Jutland Road, Toronto, for weapon components and, if so, what are the specific components?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. Forty seven various items applicable to the C3 Sniper Rifle; two components for 9MM Sub Machine Gun; one component for 7.62MM Rifle.


Mr. McKinnon: Has the Department of National Defence ordered life preserving vests in the amount of $25,895 from Irvin Industries Canada Ltd. and, if so (a) how many (b) what do they preserve life against?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. (a) Seven hundred, (b) To prevent drowning accidents during bridge building, bridge laying, deck work around water areas and water assault exercises.

March 22, 1978
Order Paper Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE-ACQUIRING SNOWSHOES


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Has the Department of National Defence ordered snowshoes in the amount of $187,782 from Magline of Canada Ltd. and, if so, how many pairs?
2.	How many pairs of snowshoes do the Armed Forces hold on charge at the present time?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes. 2,550 pairs.
2. 24,159 pairs.


Mr. McKinnon: Has the Department of National Defence ordered a wind tower in the amount of $24,437 from Wind Turbine of Canada Ltd. and, if so, for what purpose?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No.
However, a contract for $24,436.80 has been awarded to Wind Turbine Co. of Canada Ltd. for the supply to DND of 18 self supporting communications towers.


Mr. McKinnon: Has Jatel Corporation Inc., 38 Elmdale Crescent, Ottawa provided engineering services to the Department of National Defence in the amount of $44,000 and, if so, what were such services?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. Support to the Terminal Radar and Control Systems project and in particular the acquisition of terminal radars for selected airfields.


Mr. McKinnon: Has Harper Management Consultants, P.O. Box 364, Manotick provided engineering services to the Department of National Defence in the amount of $40,000 and, if so, what were such services?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. Technical investigations and engineering studies on ships electronic warfare systems during the period January 3 to December 31, 1978.


Mr. McKinnon: Has $3,087,605 worth of sonobuoys been ordered from Hermes Electronics Ltd. and, if so, are they considered as expendable stores when received?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) Yes. (b) Sonobuoys normally have a shelf life of at least five years, but are expendable when used, i.e. when dropped from an aircraft.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 put a starred question on the order paper back in July. Again it was put on the order paper on October 19 as question No. 145. I still have not received an answer. At one time in November the parliamentary secretary indicated that he would provide an answer within a couple of weeks. That is a long, long while ago. I wonder if he can provide the answer within a couple of days.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the question concerns various departments. Unfortunately, I have not yet received detailed reports from each one of them and am therefore unable to give an adequate answer to the hon. member. He can rest assured though that as soon as I have all the information, he will be given a reply.



MR. TOWERS-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTION NO. 1,319

Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, 1 requested that the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) reply to question No. 1,319 before the Easter recess. It relates to the gold double-struck Olympic coins, which were struck under federal legislation. I am very disappointed in the Postmaster General, in that he did not answer that question. Perhaps if he tended to business, instead of capering around, we would all be better off, even those who are receiving mail.



MOTIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 48 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations relating to confidential documents and authorization by the governmental authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion for the production of papers No. 48 be deemed to be adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 22, 1978



COPIES OF ALL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS SINCE 1945 RELATING TO NAVIGATIONAL REGIME IN WEST COAST WATERS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 48-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents, including international or intergovernmental arrangements or agreements, protocols, aides memoires, etc., since 1945 relating to the navigational regime now in existence or to be set up in (a) the Straits of Juan de Fuca (b) the Haro Strait (c) the Gulf of Georgia
(d)	Rosario Strait (e) Puget Sound insofar as navigation and the control by one country or another or both of navigation in these waters is subject to bilateral arrangement of one kind or another.
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notice of motion for production of papers No. 60.



COPY OF APPROXIMATELY 1,600 JOB STUDIES IN CONSTRUCTION TRADES ACROSS CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the approximately 1600 job studies in the construction trades across Canada prepared in order to update the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupants and contracted to South-am Business Publications, Don Mills, Ontario.
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot follow up on that motion since information on employment which we asked contractors to gather for these studies can in many cases be considered as confidential by the business involved. That is why the firms which have provided contractors with information have received assurance from the former Department of Employment and Immigration that data provided would remain confidential. Given those circumstances, we cannot table those studies in the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: Transferred for debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-3, an act respecting Canadian non-profit corporations, to which the concurrence of this House is desired, and that the Senate have passed Bill
Northern Pipeline
C-31, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1979.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 21, consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline.
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to my motion No. 3, which is on the Order Paper today, 1 think 1 should start perhaps by making the observation that when Bill C-25, to establish an agency to oversee the construction of the northern pipeline, passes the House of Commons and work gets under way, this project will likely be the largest and most important ever undertaken by private enterprise in the history of the world.
Canadians in all parts of the country support very strongly the creation of a northern pipeline. They recognize that as well as having tremendous benefits to Canada in terms of ensuring that in future we will have adequate supplies of energy for Canadian needs, it will also have industrial spin-offs in all parts of Canada and will have enormous benefits in terms of business in the country, trade, and badly needed jobs. No Canadians more than Ontarians and Quebecers support the construction of the pipeline. They recognize that their interests as Canadians and as members of particular provinces lie very directly with the creation of the pipeline itself.
The central point which I hope to make in moving the motion I have proposed is that the government appears to be bulling ahead in setting up an agency to oversee the construction of the northern pipeline without having provided for input from the provinces in all parts of the country.
Under clause 17 of the bill a federal-provincial consultative council is to be created which would have responsibility for carrying out the objects of Bill C-25. It would consist of the Commissioner and a representative of the Yukon Territory, named by the governor in council upon the recommendation of the Commissioner and Council of the Yukon Territory, and one representative of each of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, nominated by the lieu-tentant governors in council of each of those provinces.

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Perhaps it would be worth while to take a short bit of the time of the House to go back and review the objects of the bill as listed on pages 2 and 3. The three very important objects are these, and I would remind hon. member that I stress the fact that the objects are national in scope. They do not simply affect one part of Canada, but affect the development and future security of energy supply for all of Canada. Object (d) is:
(d)	to facilitate, in relation to the pipeline, consultation and co-ordination with the governments of the provinces, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories;
It does not say just the western provinces, it says "the provinces", meaning all the provinces.
Object (e) states:
(e)	to maximize the social and economic benefits from the construction and operation of the pipeline including the maximizing of the opportunities for employment of Canadians while at the same time minimizing any adverse effect on the social and environmental conditions of the areas most directly affected by the pipeline;
Again, although there are some areas of the country that will be affected more than others, no one part of the country is excluded from this object of the bill.
Object (0 does not refer to provincial, northern or western. Object (f) states:
(f)	to advance national economic and energy interests and to maximize related industrial benefits by ensuring the highest possible degree of Canadian participation in all aspects of the planning and construction of, and procurement for, the pipeline while ensuring that the procurement of goods and services for the pipeline will be on generally competitive terms.
Earlier today during the question period we heard comments by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) which amounted to an attack on the Premier of Ontario because of a letter he sent to the Prime Minister of Canada asking that he get under way in taking action on those proposals agreed upon by the provinces and the federal government to get the economy back on track. 1 believe the comments today, which were very unconstructive on the part of the Minister of Finance and will do nothing to help Canadians who today are unemployed, gave a very graphic example of this government's attitude toward co-operative federalism.
If we have problems in Canada today, for example the question of national unity, in large part the blame must be shouldered by the national government, by this government, because of its failure to consult with all the provinces and to share power with the provinces in determining what the national priorities will be for the development of Canada. If this government were serious about wanting to promote and foster national unity, and about building a strong, united, and harmonious country, it should show by example that it is prepared to open the doors and invite co-operation of the type from all levels of government.
It was with this intent in mind, of sharing in the decisionmaking process, and having the opportunity of input in the decisions which will affect the citizens of this province, that the Ontario Energy Minister, Mr. Reuben Baetz, came to Ottawa on March 14 to appear before the Special Committee on the Northern Gas Pipeline.

At that time Mr. Baetz argued very strongly about this federal-provincial consultative council being set up by the government to ensure that the objectives included in this bill are recognized and achieved properly. He argued that the government of Ontario and the citizens of this province ought to have their voices heard. I think the case made by the Ontario Minister of Energy was a compelling one.
That minister pointed out that Ontario is by far the largest market for natural gas in Canada; about 50 per cent of all the natural gas used in Canada today is consumed by Ontarians. He pointed out that, by far, Ontario is the largest potential market for gas from the Mackenzie Valley and Prudhoe Bay, particularly if a gas swap takes place. That is obvious as it would involve the transmission of gas to southern Ontario through the entire length of the pipeline. Ontario is also the largest producer of the goods and services which will be used in construction of the pipeline. Clearly Ontario has an interest in having some say in the policies which are set up and which will determine what sort of pipeline will be created.
The province and the people of Quebec, while not so immediately concerned with the pipeline project as are the citizens and the province of Ontario, will also be affected in the same way by decisions which will be made. The motion I propose is not simply to include a representative of the province of Ontario on this consultative mechanism, but also to include representatives of the other major consuming province, Quebec. The opportunity is here today for government members to show that they are concerned about the impact this pipeline will have on the citizens of these provinces, and to allow them to have some say in its development.
The province of Ontario has followed the pipeline hearings very closely and has been represented at many applications before the National Energy Board. Ontario was also represented on several occasions before the Mackenzie pipeline inquiry. Ontario is not requesting, and we should stress this, to be placed at the centre of the pipeline decision-making, but merely wants to be consulted and allowed to present alternative proposals on matters which very substantially touch it.
Liberal members on the committee see this federal-provincial consultative council as being responsible for the co-ordination of the pipeline in those areas where it is to be built. Unfortunately, I was out of the country on official business and was not able to be present at the committee meetings, but I have studied the transcript closely. If I understand their position correctly, government members of the committee see the bill in question as not being concerned with the pricing of gas for the Ontario and Quebec markets because this matter would go before the National Energy Board, but as being concerned with the construction of the pipeline. They also feel that if the Dempster lateral is built, a new regulatory agency might be set up for that project. Other members of the government feel that the government would successfully protect Ontario's interests. For some incongruous reason they feel that while the government is well eauipped to protect the
March 22, 1978

interests of the consuming provinces, it is necessary to set up a federal-provincial consultative mechanism to ensure that the interests of the territories, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, were protected. Why is the federal government in a position to protect the interests of the consuming provinces but not of the other provinces? That was not explained.
If the pipeline is to be built for the benefit of all Canadians, according to clause 3 of the bill, we have to recognize that consultation should not only take place in those parts of the country where the pipeline is to be built, but the provinces that are to consume the gas should also be heard. The fact that decisions on pricing may be taken later by the National Energy Board does not alter the fact that the way the pipeline is built will largely affect the final price. Ontario and Quebec have a real interest in seeing how this pipeline is to be built.
I do not intend to go on at great length, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is worth while to put on record an editorial which appeared in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen. Members of the government will recognize that this newspaper is not known as supporting this party, but traditionally supports the government. The editorial deals with the presentation made to the committee by the Minister of Energy for Ontario, which is the position I am trying to take today on behalf of the people of Ontario and Quebec. The editorial has a headline, "Why Not a Seat for Ontario?" and reads as follows:
Is it so unreasonable for Ontario, this country's biggest consumer of natural gas, to have a seat on a federal-provincial pipeline council?
Ontario Energy Minister Reuben Baetz thinks not, and his argument makes sense.
But he's having trouble convincing the Commons pipeline committee. Liberal MPs argue that because the federal government will look after the interests of the country as a whole, that committee's membership logically should be limited to representatives from the areas through which the pipeline will pass.
These areas-the Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan- don't seem to feel that way. Alberta has already told Baetz to apply for membership and the others have indicated they support his bid.
Let me stress this again, Mr. Speaker. The other provinces which are to be members of the federal-provincial consultative body, support the proposal made by Ontario. The only opposition comes from this government in this House.
The editorial continues:
Ontario is neither trying to cash in on a major western project, nor step on federal jurisdiction.
This province, from its experiences with Syncrude and Polar Gas, merely wants to ensure that "the Canadian portion of the northern pipeline (be) constructed in the most economic manner."
All in the interests of what Baetz calls "co-operative federalism." Nothing sinister in that.
I think this editorial makes good sense, Mr. Speaker. It is up to members of the government to explain why they oppose allowing people in the consuming provinces to have a say in decisions which will very dramatically affect the level of industrial development in this part of Canada and also the cost of energy to Ontario consumers. I believe that if the government today is willing to be flexible, this can be a step forward for federal provincial consultations and for co-operative federalism.
Northern Pipeline
I must say I was disappointed to read the comments of one Liberal member, in the committee transcript. The fact that he is a Quebec member is irrelevant and does not bear on this. The fact that any member of the federal parliament should make such a gratuitous attack on another province can only be a blow to federalism. In the proceedings of the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline of March 14, 1978, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) is reported as follows:
As far as co-operative federalism is concerned, I would not want to be very critical but I do not think co-operative federalism means Ontario, Ontario, and Ontario. I think it has to be more than that. 1 do not think Ontario should be involved whether it is the construction of a pipeline in western Canada or of a Quebec and Maritime pipeline perhaps being built in the province of Quebec in future years.
This sort of statement coming today with national conditions in Canada being what they are, can only serve to polarize Canadians and to drive a wedge between the provinces. I think it is important that members of this parliament, members of the Canadian government, prove that they are prepared to recognize the right of all Canadians in every part of Canada to have a say in decisions which will affect their lives and the economy.
I hope that members of the government who are present today will review the motion I have placed on the order paper.
I hope that they will search their consciences and ask themselves what their constituents would want them to do-whether they feel that their constituents believe that the consuming provinces have a right to be heard in decisions which will affect them? I hope they will agree to allow this very sensible amendment to go forth with the support of all sides of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to participate briefly and indicate that the government does not intend to accept this amendment. The purpose of the council is largely to deal with environmental and socio-economic matters, and it would seem to me that these relate almost entirely to the Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
I would suggest to the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) that he refer to clause 9(c) of the bill which provides that an agreement can be entered into by the provinces that are not already on the consultative council, to deal with such things as information pertaining to the pipeline. The issue that would perhaps be of most interest to Ontario would be the procurement policies to be pursued by the pipeline contractors. The province of Ontario has been invited to sign such an agreement and I suggest, in light of the interest that its representatives expressed in committee, that they do just that.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment presented by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). I think he

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline
has outlined quite well the reasons why Ontario should be represented in the building of this northern pipeline. Not only axe we going to be the major consumers of northern gas should the Dempster lateral ever be built, but we are certainly going to have a large role to play in providing the materials for the pipeline.
As the parliamentary Secretary to the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Milne) said the committee will look at environmental and other matters. We all know that has a relationship to cost of material, and that in (urn has a relationship to the bids that will be submitted and accepted.
The whole point of the NDP intervention in this debate has been to seek amendments that would ensure that Canadian companies and Canadian workers receive the maximum benefits, in terms of contracts and jobs, from this great energy project. I therefore see much merit in having the province of Ontario represented, along with British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, in the decision-making process.
As I stated in my first amendment, I hope that we will get 90 per cent or more of the contract work and jobs that the government has been promising but is unwilling to commit itself to in black and white in the legislation before us. The major portion of the steel, if Canadian companies win the bids, will be fabricated in Ontario. This is of immense importance to the province.
We know, of course, the provision in the treaty which relates to the eventual construction of the Dempster lateral, a provision which states that if the construction costs of the part of the pipeline which moves through British Columbia and the Yukon exceeds the estimates by a certain amount, then the requirement that the United States compensate for the construction of the Dempster lateral, decreases on a sliding scale according to the increase in the cost of the main line. Therefore, it seems to me very important, as I mentioned, that the environmental and other matters will have an effect on the cost of the main line. It seems to me important in view of the eventual amount of steel of steel to be used, if the Dempster lateral is built, that Ontario have a voice in this Council which is dealing with these matters, because of its interest.
I commend to the House the motion moved by the hon. member. I think it makes sense. I do not understand this government's reluctance to involve the province of Ontario. I think there is some similarity with the Syncrude project. We have had joint federal-provincial involvement in energy projects like this in the past. It seems to me to make sense to include Ontario in this provision at this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on motion No. 3 standing in the name of the hon. member for Welling-

ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon Members: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on motion No. 3 stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 5 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Motion No. 5:
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 amended in sub-clause 20(6) by striking out lines 29 and 30 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"not, without the prior approval of the Governor in Council and the Board, terminate, alter or amend".
He said: The purpose of the amendment here which has been agreed to by the government and which was supported by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), was to ensure that control of the ownership of the companies would not pass into foreign hands. After having read the shareholders' agreement very carefully and after referrring to the provisions of subsection 6 of Section 20, which we seek to amend, we simply restrict the discretion that resides under the shareholders' agreement in the NEB, and under subsection 6 of section 20 "in the minister''. We restrict that discretionary process by enlarging it to place the responsibility on the governor in council of the making of any decision which would permit foreign control to occur over the ownership of the line once it has been financed and completed. If Canadian ownership does pass out of our hands, it is the responsibility of the government of the day. They have agreed to that amendment.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, might I just put it on the record that the government does concur with this amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
March 22, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5. (Mr. Nielsen) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The next question is on motion No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden).


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South) moved: Motion No. 7:
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 pipline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be amended in Subclause 29(1) by
(a)	deleting the word "and" in line 10 at page 15
(b)	striking out line 15 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"to which the certificate is subject; and
(c)	provided that such amount payable by the company shall not exceed 1 per cent of the actual costs of building the said pipeline."

Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
Privy Council): Yes, yesterday I raised an objection concerning the admissibility of this amendment, and at that time Mr. Speaker suggested that he preferred to hear the opinions of other members before deciding if the amendment was acceptable or not, but to avoid a loss of time, before other members give their opinion on this subject, I would like to add the following. We have checked the situation concerning another gas pipeline, that of Alyeska, and it cost about $70 million for an agency similar to that which we want to create under Bill C-25. This pipeline was relatively short since it extended for only 800 miles as opposed to a pipeline of 2,025 miles. It is quite probable, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of the pipeline agency established under Bill C-25 will exceed the ceiling mentioned in the amendment. As I said yesterday, this would oblige the taxpayers to pay the difference and we do not have the royal recommendation required to move the amendment, which means it would be out of order to do so.
The argument I would like to add today concerning the inadmissibility of the amendment is that we have an example to follow. It concerns a pipeline much shorter than the one which now concerns us, and this pipeline cost $70 million, whereas, under the suggested amendment, the cost of the agency to be assumed by the company would be limited to some $42 million.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, to prevent useless debate I ask that the amendment be ruled out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising on the same point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I support the substance of this motion, in fact I suspect I would be against it, but I do rise to support its procedural admissibility. I always enjoy coming to the defence procedurally of something I may not agree with, but that is the position I take.
Northern Pipeline
First of all, I should like to point out that when Mr. Speaker was giving us his preliminary review of all the proposed report stage amendments he did not raise any question about motion No. 7. This was not for want of his looking at the procedural aspects of the motions because he did question motion No. 2, and in due course ruled it out or order.
I followed the arguments put forward by the parliamentary secretary and I appreciate his point; indeed, I respect it. But it seems to me that what we have here is a motion in itself that corresponds to the situation of a private member seeking to move the reduction of a tax. That, I emphasize, Mr. Speaker, is permitted. A member cannot move for an increase in taxation, but on a number of occasions members have been allowed to move for a reduction in a proposed tax. When that has been done, members on the government side have argued that it upsets the balance of ways and means, that if the government loses money that it wants from one source it would have to make it up somewhere else. I have been around here long enough to remember when that argument carried some weight. But starting about 20 years ago it was discredited, it was argued that the phrase "balance of ways and means" really meant nothing even though the reduction in a tax might force the government to find the money somewhere else, it was still competent for a private member, without a Governor General's recommendation, to move a reduction in a tax.
What we are talking about here is a fee, tax, or cost that a private company would have to pay. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) is seeking to impose a limit on how much that private company might have to pay. In the interests of procedural consistency and in the interest of applying the same rule today that we apply when there are proposals to reduce taxation, the Speaker's original hunch that No. 7 was not out of order should be confirmed today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the decision as made by Mr. Speaker yesterday when he was in the Chair was as put by the hon. member or Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He did go on to say that if it should emerge at some time during the debate on this motion that there might be the imposition of a cost to the Treasury, a decision could be made at that time as to whether it was procedurally out of order or not. Surely we should proceed with the discussion. Hopefully my friend from Calgary South will be able to convince the members of the government that the cap that he is proposing will not cost the taxpayer of Canada anything at all.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely to avoid this discussion that I found it appropriate to draw your attention, before it even starts, on a specific fact which 1 did not raise yesterday in the House, and on the fact that I made a comparison a moment ago between the construction of another pipeline and its administrative costs, which makes it most probable that the ceiling suggested in this amendment is too low and that Canadians taxpayers will have to pay something.

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline
So I am prepared to participate in this debate today if, even given this new fact which I draw to your attention, you still feel that it would be preferable to have a debate on this question in order to reserve judgment on the admissibility of the amendment based on the representations of hon. members. To avoid undue delay, I thought that my drawing to your attention the fact which I have just stated and which I shall not repeat would suffice for you to reject the amendment as being out of order, because it will definitely cost the taxpayers something.


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary is quite correct, as is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I indicated that while there were some concerns expressed by the Chair in this matter, the preferable course would be to wait for debate on the motion to see what it was in detail that was in the mind of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) with regard to the operation of this. If it turns out that the regime which he is proposing by virtue of this amendment does result in a charge on the Treasury, obviously the amendment would be out of order.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) has supported extremely well the arguments that I have made in the figures that he quoted in his remarks a few minutes ago. Yesterday I sought the advice of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has spoken on this question in a technical sense today. I will not cover that again.
The hon. member for Drummond stated that in his research he found that the Alyeska pipeline, which ran for some 800 miles, had cost the federal authorities in Alaska an amount of some $7 million. He then quoted the much longer length of the Foothills pipeline and made an exact comparison. The hon. member has related a cost of $70 million that was spent by their regulatory agency, the successor to the Federal Power Commission now known as the Federal Energy Resources Commission.
As I recall, the Alyeskan pipeline cost something between $7 billion and $8 billion. Therefore the 1 per cent formula that I have proposed would present a more conservative estimate of cost if we applied the same percentage of the total cost of the pipeline as we find that the costs of the regulatory agency in Alaska cost that agency in comparison with the total cost of other pipelines.
It is important to recognize that the Alaska pipeline planning costs started out at a very early time after oil was discovered on the north slope. It was extended for many years. It was shut down. It was held up for all kinds of technical reasons and environmental reasons. The fact is it stretched out over probably three or four times as long a construction period as would have been the case if it had been pursued expeditiously.
It is interesting to note that the Alaska pipeline was constructed to a large extent above ground. It carries oil, not gas.

It offers many more serious problems in traversing perma frost. A lot of the pipeline is elevated rather than buried.
In summary, I was pleased to have the hon. member confirm to me that a 1 per cent formula to limit the costs of government expenditures in this project will be completely consistent and somewhat more conservative than was the case in Alaska where so many more difficulties were encountered.
Clause 29 of Bill C-25 states that the pipeline will pay the cost, not only of the regulatory agency that is proposed, but also of other government departments that have inputs and charges to this agency over a period of time as their activities relate to the northern pipeline. In other words, all of the costs that are chargeable as they relate to the pipeline are to be passed on to the Foothills Pipe Lines Limited. This is acceptable. However, these costs that are passed on should be within reason.
It is for this reason that I have proposed this amendment. I am convinced, by everything I have seen over a number of years as they relate to government departments, that these things can and likely will get seriously out of hand. If no upper limit is placed, we are in effect giving the government a blank cheque as it relates to its expenditures. I am sure all Canadians would be concerned about giving this government a blank cheque, particularly those connected with the Foothills Pipe Lines Limited.
A limit such as I am proposing could easily be a vital matter when it comes to financing. As we hear about the difficulties that are to be expected and the problems of the Foothills Company, one of their greatest problems and difficulties will be arranging the financing. If the Foothills Pipe Lines Limited can make their estimate of some $4 billion for a massive project like this, surely the government can give some estimate of what its costs are going to be.
The people who will be principally involved in the financing of this, in the final analysis are going to be the large institutions which carry the debt. It is important when we are passing this bill to recognize that limits-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 wonder if 1 could *sk the indulgence of the hon. member for just a moment. It seems the clearest way to get at the procedural aspects of this motion is to ask the hon. member to give some indication. The import of his amendment is to put a ceiling on costs passed along to the pipeline. It is unclear to me whether the effect of the amendment is to put a ceiling on the costs themselves or simply to put a ceiling on those costs that are passed by the public treasury to the pipeline company.
If indeed it does not control the total cost, but only that portion which is passed along to the pipeline company, the effect of the amendment could be to leave the residue of cost as a charge on the public treasury. If, however, the effect of the amendment is to control the cost in the total and thereby limit the amounts that are passed along, it would seem there is not a procedural problem; it is an amendment the merits of
March 22, 1978

which would be decided upon the floor of the House. All I want to hear from the hon. member is whether the effect would be to control the entire cost or simply that portion which is passed on to the pipeline, leaving the residue to be picked up by the taxpayer, in which case the amendment would require an amendment to the royal recommendation.


Peter Colwell Bawden: 1 cannot be certain how the government or the pipeline agency will behave. If they know there is such a limitation in the legislation it might very well be they would work within the cost limitation proposed by the amendment. If, on the other hand, they chose, perhaps recklessly, to exceed this limitation, the cost would be carried by the public treasury. But it would depend entirely upon the activities and planning of the pipeline agency.
I feel it is important to bear in mind that this precedent will apply in the future to other massive energy projects. It could relate to pipelines in the southern part of Canada. Because of this it is important, in my view, that we do not allow the government an open-ended opportunity to spend money.
In relation to the point which Your Honour has made, I should like to make it clear that this formula would be much more generous if the pipeline were to be built in the southern part of one of our provinces or were related to other projects where similar government supervision was required. If, for instance, the agency proposed to overrun the expenditure limit suggested in my amendment, the money could easily be recovered from savings on future pipelines which might run through less difficult terrain. Over a period of time, the averaging principle would apply. As to the question of whether the government is likely to exceed this limit or not, I stress once again that the limit proposed is greater than in the case of the Alyeska pipeline and five times as great as the limit the Federal Resources Commission utilized in the United States.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is a very fine distinction which has to be made here. Your Honour has expressed the view that if there is a risk that the amendment might impose a charge on the treasury it would be out of order. With great respect, I submit there must be clear evidence that a charge would be imposed on the public treasury before an amendment ought to be ruled out of order on such grounds.
The amendment before us could be further amended. One per cent amounts to $40 million. The amendment could be amended by the imposition of a 10 per cent limitation, and no one in his right mind would expect the government to impose a $400 million ceiling. As the hon. member has just told us, $40 million is five times the amount the United States has mentioned in its legislation on a similar matter and it is far greater than in the case of the Alyeska pipeline which was desperately mismanaged. There is no reason whatever why the $40 million ceiling suggested should be exceeded. Indeed, the argument put forward by the hon. member for Calgary South would, hopefully, persuade most hon. members that the cost to the government with respect to the agency and the plethora of
Northern Pipeline
other charges to be incurred will amount to much less than the one per cent limit suggested by the amendment.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, during the discussion in the standing committee on this matter I raised some objection to this proposed motion, both on the ground that it did probably impose a charge on the public and also because I did not think a percentage of this kind, if it were realistic, would be anything but a floor under expenditure. I propose to deal only with the first of these arguments since it touches the question Your Honour has raised.
It seems to me this proposal is only important if it does actually put forward a limitation. So when the hon. member for Yukon says it could be amended to 10 per cent, he does not mean it seriously. It would have no purpose at all, then. The whole purpose is to restrict in some way a charge upon the company. If it is to be a restriction it could very well result in an additional cost over and above the amount payable by the company. This would fall upon the Government of Canada and thus the proposed amendment would require a message which recommended such additional expenditure.
I might add that if the hon. gentleman intended this to be a real restriction he could have amended his proposal very easily by saying, "provided that such costs shall not exceed one per cent" and by adding the words "that would be the cost imposed upon the company."


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the hub of the problem is very simple. The question is whether there is a real possibility of Financial involvement for the taxpayer. Thus what is suggested by the hon. member in his amendment is a ceiling, not on the cost of the agency created by the legislation, but on the cost of the agency created by the legislation and payable by the company, putting aside the possibility that extra expenditures be paid by taxpayers.
When the hon. member says in his amendment that the administrative cost, as provided for in clause 29 of the bill, namely the costs incurred for overseeing and monitoring the construction of, and procurement for, the pipeline should not exceed one per cent, he is saying that they are limited to one per cent as regards the obligation for the company to pay or assume it. But he does not give us any guarantee of that. He does not ask that the cost be limited to "one per cent", so that he himself, by the very nature of his amendment, is indicating the possibility and indeed the probability that taxpayers would have to pay that difference of one per cent. Such surplus is all the more likely, Mr. Speaker, since, as 1 mentioned earlier, the only concrete example of another pipeline is the Alyeska pipeline where the cost to the agency was $70 million.


An hon. Member:: Yes.
4044

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Yvon Pinard: My hon. colleague says yes but that pipeline cost nearly $7 billion, so there is my one per cent. On the other hand, one can ask: Should the over-all cost be used as a criterion to determine what is going to be the real cost of an agency to monitor and scrutinize the construction costs of the pipeline? Should the over-all cost of the pipeline or its length or the difficult circumstances in which it is built be used as the basis for that determination? The real example I am giving you, Mr. Speaker, which could be used as the basis to determine whether or not there is a danger that the taxpayer will have to pay the surplus is a pipeline that covers only 800 miles. Ours is 2,025 miles. All this to say that there is a real possibility as a result of the very nature of the amendment that the taxpayer will have to pay the difference over the limit of $42 million being suggested by the hon. member in his amendment. So if the Chair is convinced that there is a real possibility that the state, the government and the taxpayer will have to pay an amount of money equal to the surplus of what is to be paid by the company when we have not received the royal recommendation, I suggest that the amendment should be ruled out of order.
In concluding, I would like to point out another aspect of the discussion which leads me to believe there is a possibility that the taxpayer will have to pay an amount for the cost of the agency beyond what is to be paid by the company. That is the argumentation put forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He himself admits that and says, Mr. Speaker, that if those costs are found to be higher than the one per cent suggested as a ceiling, an amendment can always be brought in. But the very fact of that possibility makes it all the more likely that the taxpayer will eventually have to pay the difference in the cost of the agency between the amount paid by the company and the actual cost, and the taxpayers will be paying for it.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you are faced with a situation where there is a serious and real possibility that the taxpayer will have to pay for the cost of the agency because the private company, in this case Foothills, is being told: You will only pay up to one per cent or about $42 million when there is a much smaller pipeline where the agency cost $70 million. There is also a serious possibility that the taxpayer will have to pay the difference because the hon. member for Yukon himself already anticipates the introduction of amendments to allow us to raise the ceiling proposed by the hon. member. For all those reasons, I submit that, not having received the royal recommendation, the amendment is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. From a procedural point of view I indicated yesterday that the Chair had some reservations about the regime which was being set up here but wanted to understand it better and, indeed, what has happened is that

the discussion today has given me a much clearer understanding of the implications of the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden). It raises a very difficult procedural problem because there is not the absolutely clear necessity of a charge upon the treasury which would usually enable the Chair to set the motion aside.
I now understand fully the intention of the hon. member for Calgary South. It is a measure of fiscal control on the operation, and therefore he is saying in his argument that what he is doing is not using this amendment in such a way as simply to limit that amount of money which is to be passed on to the pipeline by the government but rather is forewarning the government that, in providing the services that are required by the statute, it will suffer a limitation in the amount of money it can spend in respect to those services and pass on to the pipeline company, and therefore saying to the government that it does not have an open-ended cost recovery mechanism, and a blank cheque, as it were, to provide these services.
At first it appeared to me that that reasoning was sound and that the amendment could be allowed on procedural grounds. As I examine it, though, I am afraid that what it amounts to is this: In the first place, in addressing himself to the financial provisions that are contained here, His Excellency would be examining a statute which would be setting up a regime in which the government would be required to provide certain regulatory services at a cost which would not be subject to a limit, and that cost would be passed along to the private company and to the private sector by virtue of this section, and therefore would be no charge on the treasury.
The imposition of a limit, it seems to me, sets up either the possibility that the cost of providing these services would exceed the limit, in which case there would be a charge on the treasury which His Excellency could not have envisaged in giving his recommendation or, alternatively, the possibility that the government might have to come, in providing the services that are required of it in the statute, to a position in which it says, "These regulatory agencies that we are required . to provide in this statute must be discontinued because we foresee that we have achieved the ceiling and, by virtue of this amendment, we cannot spend any more money. Therefore, we will have to take the regulatory agencies out of business".
I think that on the one hand the result of the hon. member's amendment would be a charge on the treasury. On the other hand, the one I have just described is surely a concept which is foreign to the statute as it now exists. If it is going to be introduced, it would have to be introduced in some other way because it seems to me to go beyond, in that respect, the scope of the statute as it was originally envisaged, and therefore it seems to me that on either one or the other procedural ground I have just cited, the amendment will have to be struck down.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Motion No. 4:
That Bill C-25, An Act to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an
March 22, 1978

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 amended in sub-clause 20 (1) by striking out line 34 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"respect of that company with the condition that construction on any section of the route will not precede a negotiated settlement of any native claims involving the affected section."


Mr. Speaker:: My recollection is that motion No. 4 is to be taken together with motion No. 6.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent) moved: Motion No. 6:
That Bill C-25, An Act to establish the Nothern 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 amended by adding immediately after line 37 at page 12 the following new heading and clause:
"Native Claims
23.1 Notwithstanding this Act, any native claim, right, title or interest that the native people of Canada may have had prior to the coming into force of this Act in and to the land on which the pipeline will be situated continues to exist until a settlement in respect of any such claim, right, title or interest is effected."


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It might assist the House if I were to mention-and ask for confirmation from the government-that motion No. 6 as put forward by us in the committee has been agreed to be the government.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I understand that motions Nos. 4 and 6 will be dealt with together, but that a separate vote will be required for each motion, because the government is not ready to accept motion No. 4 but would accept motion No. 6. [English]


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the intent of motion No. 4 standing in my name is to amend the pipeline bill so that we can be assured that the rights and interests of the native people of the Yukon will be upheld by parliament if a pipeline is to go through territory which would affect them in terms of their land claims. The intent of the amendment is to ensure that pipeline construction would not proceed on a section upon which a native land claim settlement has not yet been negotiated. As many hon. members realize, the situation in the Yukon is fraught with difficulty as far as relationships between native and non-native people are concerned.
There is hope among the majority of Yukoners that the Alcan pipeline will bring economic benefit in the form of new business, and the creation of jobs for local residents, and that it will do so in such a way as to provide economic benefit without significant economic damage. This is a concern I share with those who reside in the Yukon Territory.
Yukoners do not have to look very far to see the damaging economic and social effects that accompanied the construction of the Alyeska oil pipeline in the state of Alaska. There they saw tremendous price increases as hundreds of people moved into the area and land became scarce, which drove prices up and affected accommodation, goods, services and wage rates.
Northern Pipeline
Prices escalated to the point where many people employed in normal businesses or in municipal or state governments left their jobs for jobs related to pipeline construction. As a result, many essential services in the communities of Alaska suffered. There is fear among Yukoners that a similar situation might arise, and unless we have very strict monitoring of the pipeline, many people will face inflation that may get out of control.
Many people-and I think of public servants whose wages are going to be held down by this government-may find themselves falling further behind as inflation escalates in the general economy due to pipeline activity. The pipeline could be a blessing or it could be a disadvantage for Yukoners. In that kind of economic milieu, one must also be cognizant of the social impact of the pipeline, not only on the white or nonnative community, but on the native community as well. Again, one need only look at the situation in Alaska to realize the social upheaval that occurred in that state during the construction of that pipeline which was of a negative nature as far as native people were concerned. With the influx of many white workers from the south and their different value systems and attitudes, the native people saw what was left of their traditional always and social patterns challenged.
In looking at the Yukon Territory, we must recognize-the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) will agree-that there is a great difference between the needs and situations of the native people in the Yukon and those indigenous people, the Inuit and the native people, of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Justice Berger addressed himself to the social and economic implications of the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline for the indigenous people of the Northwest Territories. It was a thorough and exhaustive report which captured the imagination of northern and southern residents. Mr. Justice Berger stated in his report that the way we went about constructing a northern pipeline would tell us more about ourselves than anything else. It would tell us, who are the majority living south of 60, what we really believe to be the rights of those people living in the far north. It would tell us whether we put our own economic gains, through receiving energy from the north and jobs from construction, above the rights and interests of the people who have to live there after the pipeline has been constructed and the transient workers have moved on.
Mr. Justice Berger indicated that we have to accept and acknowledge the rights of the minority groups living north of 60. It is to the principle outlined in the exhaustive studies of Mr. Justice Berger and to a lesser extent the studies of Dean Lysyk that my amendment is addressed. We have to respect the rights of minorities in this country. Anyone committed to the principle of majority rule must acknowledge the other fundamental principle of a democracy, minority rights.
In the history of our country the acknowledgment of minority rights as they pertain to native people has been a very sad chapter. I need not catalogue the lists of broken promises and broken treaties that non-natives have perpetrated on the native people, who believed that when we signed something and when
80033-43%

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline
we said we believed in the rule of law and justice we should be taken at our word, only to find later that the white man spoke with a forked tongue. More recently, the history of this Liberal government only confirms the suspicions of the native people that they will get a raw deal when there are only verbal assurances. Indeed, even when there have been written treaties or written guarantees, they have been broken.
As a parliamentarian, I can only hope for the best. In my view the best is to have something that is the law of the land enshrined in an act of parliament which will hold this government responsible for its provisions. The bill we have before us on the northern pipeline has in it no mention of native land claims or native rights. This is an essential matter that must be settled before the pipeline can proceed. 1 cannot foresee Foothills being able to go to the money markets of the world to raise the necessary capital for this pipeline unless the issue of native land claims has been settled. When I see no provision in the bill for settlement of these claims, I become very suspicious. Surely, to have my amendment accepted would put some pressure on the government to settle native land claims expeditiously and fairly.
Negotiations on native land claims in the Yukon Territory began in a serious way in 1973. Here we are in 1978 with only minimum progress having been achieved. We require some type of measure to force the government to stop dragging its feet on the matter of native land claims.
Surely we need to put some pressure on the government, through a legislative amendment, in order for it to get down to business and to recognize that the land claims must be settled fairly before the pipeline can proceed. If that amendment is contained in the legislation, then there is the pressure of law and the pressure of the company to get these claims settled as well. Because we have that amendment in law, hopefully it will ensure a just settlement, and not have native people settling with a gun held to their heads. I understand that is the fear of many of the native people of the Yukon Territory: unless there is a hard provision in this bill, they will be sacrificed to the expediency of getting the pipeline constructed.
In this regard I should like to refer to the testimony of the chairman of the Council for Yukon Indians, when he appeared before the Lysyk inquiry, which was studying the issue of native land claims and environmental problems in the north. Before that inquiry, the chairman said the following:
A pipeline now would mean a substantial influx of white immigration both as a direct and indirect result of the project. We would become an even smaller minority in our own land. We would have no land and no resources. We would have almost no political influence and decisions would be made by the vast white majority which would control our lives. We would not have had time to develop our own structures of decisions making and we would have no land or resources to make decisions about. We would be relegated to the political backwaters of our own land. We would remain an underdeveloped people with no prospect for improvement. Our constitutional and aboriginal claims to self-determination would be effectively lost.
It would turn the land claims negotiations into an elaborate, although perhaps dramatic, farce, with our people relegated to playing a few bit parts in the scripts.

That was the fear expressed by the Council of Yukon Indians. I believe it is still the fear of that group today.
We have received assurances from the president of Foothills indicating that he would not proceed to build a pipeline through that territory without the people in the affected region agreeing to it. I should like to refer to his policies and undertakings recorded in the transcription of his appearance before the National Energy Board. In particular I refer to the December 10, 1976, transcription under the heading: "Settlement of Land Claims and Public Acceptance of the Project". Mr. S. R. Blair stated the following:
Foothills has taken the position that construction of a pipeline in Yukon should not proceed until there is a broad acceptance of the project by the residents of that area.
Of course that is open to interpretation. How does one define broad acceptance? Is that 10, 20, 50 or 60 per cent of the people? Approximately 20 to 30 per cent of the residents of the Yukon are of native origin. They are not an insignificant minority. Surely if the president of Foothills has given an undertaking that he will not proceed unless there is a broad acceptance on the part of the residents of the area, then the amendment which I have put forward is not unreasonable in terms of the opinion of the company itself.
One factor of the Foothills application which impressed Canadians, over that of the Mackenzie Valley one by Arctic Gas, was the commitment of the company to listen to the people of the area and to take account of their needs. Thus, in light of that testimony, I think my amendment would be acceptable to the company, given Mr. Blair's commitment to the people of the area.
Now, the government has undertaken preliminary negotiations. A planning council has been set up. This planning council is a government agency which was set up to negotiate with the native people. This was an attempt as expediting the negotiations. The planning council indicated that the goals of a settlement were as follows:
Restore, protect, preserve and guarantee the identity of Yukon Indians and their freedom to choose a way of life in harmony with their cultural heritage.
Provide land and other forms of compensation to the Yukon Indian people to compensate them for loss of lands traditionally used and given up under the settlement so that they may have the opportunity to build an economic base equal with that of other Yukon citizens.
Provide the Yukon Indian people with the incentive and opportunity to have their rightful say, within the context of a one-government structure, in the decisionmaking authority which governs their everyday life.
That is a commitment of goals on the part of a government negotiating committee. I submit these goals are perfectly consistent with the amendment I am proposing today.
The native people in the Yukon Territory are not as dependent on land and the migratory hunting way of life as the people in the Northwest Territories and the Mackenzie Valley. Native people have been assimilated more into the white economy in society in the Yukon. Indeed, some native people have undertaken economic ventures in mining and what-have-you. That is to their credit. But a great sense of commitment to the land by these people still exists, as well as a realization that traditionally the land has been their way of life. Their
March 22, 1978

rights to that land have never been extinguished by any treaty or similar provision. Therefore, if a pipeline is to go through that land, which has traditionally been theirs to live and hunt on, surely it is reasonable to expect some kind of compensation and some kind of formal arrangement as to what will remain their land and what will be ceded to the pipeline company. We require a formal arrangement regarding the settlement of native land claims.
I believe hon. members of the Conservative party, and particularly the official spokesman for Indian affairs, would have some sympathy with the amendments 1 propose. Construction of the pipeline through native lands, or lands claimed to be under native jurisdiction, should not proceed until a settlement regarding that land area has been negotiated. Indeed, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), the Conservative spokesman on Indian affairs, during the debate on the northern pipeline, when he was commenting on the Lysyk inquiry. He quoted from that inquiry as follows:
For the reasons stated in Part E of this chapter, some additional time is desirable to avoid prejudice to a just settlement. Construction of the pipeline should not commence before August 1, 1981.
That is quoted from the Lysyk inquiry. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent went on to say:
Dean Lysyk was not recommending a moratorium. He was not recommending some unrealistic time delay; his was a responsible position. He was recommending a responsible time in keeping with the complexities and sensitivity of the issue in the Yukon Territory. Yet this government chose to ignore this important recommendation.
Further on during that debate on February 15, the hon. member for Lambton-Kent stated, as reported at page 2899 of Hansard:
The government's game plan is obvious. With the passage of this legislation the momentum of the project will impede efforts to conclude a fair and just settlement. The rights of individuals can be conveniently shunted aside in the name of progress.
I share the fear expressed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent that unless we have some strong provisions in the bill before us, the native people will be sacrificed to the expediency of getting this construction under way by 1981. Indeed, the government has advanced Dean Lysyk's recommendation, that construction not begin until August, 1981, to January, 1981.
1 think a fair and just native lands claim can be achieved by 1981, but only if this government begins to recognize that which it has failed to recognize so many times in the past, namely, the legitimate and just claims of the native people in the area. This government has dragged its feet in these negotiations. We need something in the legislation to prod it along, and make it realize that we will only accept a just settlement for the native people in that area.
I have looked as well at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, which I understand the government will accept, regarding the issue of native land claims, and I fear it is not as strong as that hon. member would want, or as strong as I would like. It in effect says that if a land
Northern Pipeline
claim has not been settled by the time the pipeline is under construction through the affected territory, the pipeline will be allowed to continue to be constructed, but that will not jeopardize the future rights of the native people in the area to obtain a just land claim settlement.
Unfortunately, that is inadequate. The negotiating position of the native people is certainly weakened if that provision passes, because we will have a situation under which the pipeline in effect is in place, and therefore the negotiations in a sense will be after the fact.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The native people will have to accept a fait accompli in respect of the pipeline and any disruption that takes place in their area, but they will still be guaranteed some kind of land settlement. Anyone who has been involved in negotiations knows that would be a very weakened position from which to negotiate. You are in a strengthened position to negotiate when you know the pipeline construction will not proceed until you have a settlement negotiated and concluded in law.
The motion of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent, while better than nothing, simply does not go far enough. I will support it if my amendment fails, but I still suggest his amendment is weak and that we should have an amendment along the lines of my proposal in order to guarantee this settlement. This is something we have not had many examples of in the past in negotiations between the federal government and the native people. For these reasons I hope I will find support among my friends in the Conservative party for my motion. We need the strongest kind of provisions possible in the bill, given the sad record of this government vis-a-vis native people. I commend my amendment to the House.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to make a few comments on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sault-Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) as I feel he has given the House the impression that the government is not interested in expeditiously arriving at a settlement of the claims in the area that will be traversed by the pipeline. Had he bothered to attend any of the 21 committee meetings held on the subject, if he had read the committee reports, or if he had listened to the Deputy Prime Minister's (Mr. MacEachen) speech in the House on February 13, he would realize that the government has every intention of proceeding to settle these claims, if that is at all possible. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated on February 13 that the government would make every effort to settle native claims in the Yukon Territory. On March 1 at a meeting of the committee, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) said:
I have always felt that the fair and just settlement of land claims was one of the most important things we are doing, not only as a government, but as a country. And I am convinced that the fair and just settlement of the land claims north of 60 is a precondition to the sort of normal political economic evolution that everyone in the north would like to see take place.
The government is in a position to back up what it has said with concrete evidence of what it has done within the last year

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline
on the question of land claims. The government was a party to the James Bay settlement. That was a settlement which members opposite have attempted to portray as a sell-out of Indian and Inuit interests. To the contrary, an examination of that settlement will demonstrate to any fair minded person that it is a good if not better than any other settlement made anywhere in the world by a government of a country in which native peoples live. It is even better when you take into consideration the various social services that will continue to be supplied by the two senior governments. It certainly is better than the Alaska settlement with the native people of Alaska.
On the basis of that settlement it is necessary in the future that governments, provincial or federal, when tackling this question of land settlement claims, must recognize that they have to pay for any interference with the rights exercised by the native people in a given area, whether those rights are in respect of trapping, hunting, fishing or otherwise. They must pay for any intereference with the original uses of the land. That is a precedent which had never before been accepted.
The second important precedent was set by the James Bay agreement, which the NDP chose to ignore, and which the hon. member for the Northwest Territories particularly chose to ignore, which I find very strange, that is, it set a precedent for the settlement of claims with non-status Indians. That is of extreme importance for the people of the Yukon and of major importance for the people in the north-east corner of British Columbia who are affected or will be affected by this pipeline. The James Bay settlement, whether or not it has been sold convincingly to most of the native people in this country, is another matter, but it provides an extremely good precedent, in my view, for the settlement of future claims.
What the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie proposes in this amendment would kill the bill. There is no doubt about that. I should like to know what the steelworkers of Sault Ste. Marie think about their member presenting an amendment which would kill a bill which, over the next few years, would provide enough work so that they would not have to worry about layoffs or loss of overtime. Because of this pipeline, the steelworking capacity of Canada will be functioning at its maximum over the next few years.
The New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. They want jobs in this country, but when an issue like this arises, whether because of lack of proper analysis or proper study of the problem, they make proposals which are totally contradictory. Either the pipeline is a good thing for Canada, or it is not. If it is good, then we must recognize that Canada is going to do the right thing by the native people. I agree that in the past this has not always been the case, but there are some recent examples of where we have done the right thing.
Perhaps the hon. member should consult the Crees of northern Quebec to find out whether they think we have done the right thing. I am sure he will find that they do. That is one group that is making more progress and has more control over

their destiny than any other group of people in this country. They are optimistic. If he were to ask them what they think about the James Bay settlement, he would get a different response than the propaganda that has been fed to certain circles in the country for purposes that are not necessarily in the best interests of the native people involved. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the House to reject this amendment.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to motion No. 6 which stands in my name. At the outset, however, I want to thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) for recognizing my interest in the problems of the native people. I am somewhat surprised that he did not share the same concern with respect to the native problem in British Columbia, specifically in the northeastern part of British Columbia, which is equally significant.
May I say to the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) that I think that he has not quite understood the James Bay settlement. I am sure he remembers very well the position this party took on that question. It was a very fundamental principle that this government would extinguish unilaterally the rights and signatories of third parties to that agreement. The hon. member knows very well that that is the position this party took, and knows very well that an amendment that I presented to this House on the very fundamental issue, to preserve the minority rights of one group, was defeated by the government.
I recognize that the government has accepted the motion in my name, but I think it is important to reflect for a moment or two on what has transpired within the last few weeks and few years. In my view, it will reflect upon the sensitivity of the government with respect to Indian and native problems. I must say that despite the rhetoric we have heard from the government and the various pious statements we heard from the hon. member for Laprairie referring to some of them, if one follows the proceedings very carefully one comes to the inescapable conclusion that native and Indian people are being sacrificed in the name of progress. I made reference to this in the previous debate.
When the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) spoke on second reading, he attempted to emasculate the government's position on the second stage inquiry. The minister attempted to convey to this House that the issue of land claims was proceeding very smoothly and that there would be no problem in resolving that issue. I know any individual in this House or in committee who has followed the events carefully over a period of time recognizes that that position was unrealistic and untenable.
One only had to listen to or read the testimony given by the Council of Yukon Indians or the Union of B.C. Chiefs when they appeared before the committee to understand the depth of feeling and concern for the future.
My colleague from Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), described the problem in north-east British Columbia and the way in which he hoped this government might move to
March 22, 1978

involve the native and Indian people of the area in the pipeline process.
When I spoke on second reading and at the committee hearings I raised several critical issues where, in my view, the government abrogated its responsibility in respect of the native and the Indian people. In doing so, it jeopardized the trust relationship between the native Indian people and the Government of Canada, and therefore seriously jeopardized the prospects for a fair and just settlement.
As 1 indicated, the government broke its promises with respect to a second stage inquiry. I have no intention of going into the details, Mr. Speaker, but you will recall that the Lysyk commission was formed and in a three-month period Dean Lysyk went to all the communities in the Yukon and indicated to the Indian and native people that there would be a second stage inquiry if the pipeline came through that area. Indeed, the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made that promise, not only to the Indian and native people of that area but to the people of Canada, that if a decision was made for a pipeline in that area there would be a second stage inquiry. In the fall of 1977 the Union of B.C. Chiefs, under the very able direction of George Manuel, requested that a second stage inquiry be carried out in the north-east part of British Columbia. Again, that was rejected by the government.
In my opinion, there are still no guarantees in this legislation vis-a-vis the socio-economic impact, Mr. Speaker. It was pointed out very clearly in testimony that when one is setting the terms and conditions for pipelines, the socio-economic problems must be identified early and set out in those terms and conditions. That is why it was essential to have a complete study of the socio-economic impact with respect to the Indian and native community.
Extreme difficulties had been encountered on the issue of land claims. On second reading I pointed out that the government had dragged its feet. Let me review quickly what has transpired. The Council of Yukon Indians presented their excellent document entitled "Together Today for our Children Tomorrow", in 1973. Shortly after that negotiations got under way, but initially the negotiators had no mandate from the federal government to carry out any specific or effective negotiations, and progress was painfully slow. The former minister went north to Whitehorse on March 3, 1975, and made a unilateral offer to the native people, breaking down the normal consultative process that the Indian and native people anticipated. Obviously it was rejected at that time.
Then, sir, in October, 1975, they appointed Digby Hunt as a negotiator for the federal government. He was well known to be one of the architects of the development of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. We knew at the time he would be rejected by the Indian and native people in terms of negotiations, and yet this government undertook to appoint him as a negotiator. Obviously, once again, the negotiations failed. Then for about the third time, in 1977 negotiations commenced with Dr.
Northern Pipeline
Naysmith. I can remember the minister of Indian affairs of those days telling us in glowing terms about the progress and success that were being achieved in those negotiations.
In a press release the Council of Yukon Indians, who appeared in Ottawa just prior to the second reading debate, gave a statement. During second reading of this bill I quoted from this press release the following:
We are now faced with some clear choices. We can continue to oppose a pipeline until our land claims are settled and be labelled as radical and anti-development. Or, we can compromise, thereby, sacrificing our rights to self-determination on our home land.
We have decided not to compromise but to fight!
We will take our case to the Canadian people. We will demonstrate the humanity and justness of our position. We will use every legal means at our disposal to ensure that we achieve a fair and just settlement. On February 13th, the Federal Court will rule on our opposition to the National Energy Board recommendations. Our struggle to achieve self-determination will not stop there.
That, to me, is not a sign of negotiations proceeding smoothly with the federal government. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie referred to it when I spoke on second reading. I made reference to the very significant recommendation of Dean Lysyk which I quoted at page 2898 of Hansard, February 15, 1978. It reads:
For the reasons stated in Part E of this chapter, some additional time is desirable to avoid prejudice to a just settlement. Construction of the pipeline should not commence before August 1, 1981.
Sir, one had to ask very serious questions at that time when the agreement between the United States and Canada was signed to commence construction of the pipeline in the Yukon on January 1, 1981. Why the difference? If the federal government had been truly interested in the Indian and native people in that area in the Yukon, surely it could have negotiated within the recommendations as outlined by Dean Lysyk. Obviously the federal government declined to do so.
Again, during the committee hearings we have the document which appeared at the pipeline committee hearing. Is there any wonder why the Indian and native people have distrust for this government, and why it is essential to have at least some sort of protection in this particular legislation? Let me quote from this document which appeared before the standing committee.
The Government of Canada is prepared to extinguish native land claims if necessary by legislation to support its international word and commitment but it will only do so in a way which represents the fairest possible settlement to those involved.
There is additional material here which, quite frankly, cannot help but impair the trust relationship between a government and the Indian and native people. It must be recognized, sir, that it was in this context and with this background of material and the knowledge we have had, for example, of the James Bay experience, which my good friend from Laprai-rie referred to a few moments ago, that we approached this bill in committee. Indeed, I want to point out there was nothing in the original legislation that made reference to the Indian and native people. Can you imagine, sir, there was nothing in the original legislation that made reference to the Indian and native people? In Issue No. 1 as recorded at page 40 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Commit-

March 22, 1978
Northern Pipeline
tee on a Northern Gas Pipeline during the very first meeting I asked the very question of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr, MacEachen). Let me give you his answer to my question regarding the fact that no reference to the Indian and native people was in the legislation itself. It reads:


Mr. MacEachen:: I am not exactly clear whether I understand your question properly, but I gather you have in mind some reference in the legislation to the desirability or the necessity of assuring a just settlement of Indian land claims, and the recognition of their rights. We have given some thought to that and we would certainly be interested in hearing further views as to how we might give that recognition in the legislation.
We offered some suggestions and we had one amendment, which I would have preferred. Let me read that amendment to you. It appeared in Issue No. 11 at page 11:7 of the minutes of the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline. It reads:
39.1 Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to prejudice any existing rights or interests of Indian and Native people residing in the areas traversed by the pipeline nor shall any provisions of this Act in any manner be construed as as to prejudice the negotiation of the final settlement of those Indian and Native claims.
Hon. members can compare that amendment with the amendment now before us. As I indicated I would have preferred the one which I have just quoted, for two reasons. First of all, the amendment which I presented had the word "Indian" in it. I think that is important because it specifically recognizes the rights of that group of people, and the Indians as defined under the British North America Act, Section 91(24). This section was redefined again in the Supreme Court, as I recall, in 1938 for the Inuit or Eskimo. Secondly, there is the latter part, which is very significant. Let me read it again:
... nor shall any provisions of this Act in any manner be construed so as to prejudice the negotiation of the final settlement of those Indian and Native claims.
I suggested at the time, and I suggest again, that that amendment would have been a far more preferable one. But, sir, I must emphasize that it was not possible. It was rejected by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council, and rejected by the government. It was important to have something in this legislation to protect in some way the rights of the Indian and native people. With the amendment that is in my name, together with a significant change that was made under clause 3(c) and which I quote:
To facilitate the efficient and expeditious planning and construction of the pipeline, taking into account local and regional interests, the interests of residents, particularly of native people, and recognizing the responsibility of the Government of Canada and other governments, it is appropriate to ensure that any native claim related to the land on which the pipeline is to be situated is to be dealt with in a just and equitable fashion.
I do believe that gives some protection and some guarantee to the Indian and native people. On the other hand I must again emphasize my disappointment that the government did not support the initial amendment, or indeed some other amendments, which would have more adequately protected the rights of the Indian and native people.
Let me conclude by quoting from the excellent brief which was presented by the National Indian Brotherhood to the

special Senate committee, I believe it was yesterday, March 21, 1978. At page 20 of the brief presented by Noel V. Starblanket, president of the National Indian Brotherhood, it states:
We respect the sovereignty of parliament. But we suggest that that too has its limits. If terms such as "a just and equitable settlement" have any real meaning, they must mean a settlement which speaks to the secure future of the Indian peoples as distinct peoples within confederation.
Sir, that should be the goal; that should be the objective of the government. I would hope that the government interprets the amendment which I have presented to the House in that fashion.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate very briefly. I want to make a couple of comments on the two motions before us, motion No. 6 which the government intends to accept, and motion No. 4 which the government intends to reject.
I agree in part with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) that the bill has been improved by the committee process and the number of amendments made to the bill as a result. I thought there was some very positive input from native groups, other people, and from members of parliament participating in the committee. I was very impressed with the reaction of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the chief spokesmen for the opposition parties in the way they addressed themselves to the native question. Most important, the special pipeline committee and the Senate committee have given the native groups ample opportunity to express their views first-hand to them. As I said, they were certainly well listened to and reacted to by the government.
In response to the committee discussions, the government has agreed to accept two important amendments, recognizing, first, the need to take account of native interests in the planning and construction of the pipeline and the responsibilities of governments to ensure that native land claims are dealt with equitably and, second, affirming that any native land claims will continue to exist notwithstanding passage of the bill.
The government gives a very high priority to the settlement of claims on the pipeline route, and has made extensive efforts to achieve this objective. Sustained negotiations were conducted during 1977, and late in the autumn both sides expressed the view that an agreement should be attainable early in 1978.
Since then, the Indians have recessed the negotiations to review and revise their position. We hope to have their new position at an early date. An agreement, by definition, requires the assent of both parties. While the government is anxious to arrive at a settlement, it cannot move more quickly than the Indians are willing to go.
I wish to respond to a point made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent which rather surprised me. He mentioned the report to which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) made reference at the committee stage.
March 22, 1978

It seems to me that that, if anything, will only prejudice the successful conclusion of the land claims that were engaged in, and I want to put on record what the Deputy Prime Minister said in response to that in committee. He said:
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is important to state that the government has absolutely no intention of legislating a settlement. Our intention is to pursue negotiations and it has been stated by myself and the minister to proceed with negotiations. If we had in mind to legislate a settlement, probably it would be in the bill.
This was further substantiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a day or so later in the House when, on March 16, he said as reported at page 3826 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I understand that this phrase was taken from a document prepared at a lower level of the bureaucracy, indicating various alternatives. There is no hesitation on my part in repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister said last night before the committee, that there is no intention on the part of the government to proceed in any way than by looking for a negotiated settlement. The legislation speaks for itself. It has been reported out of the committee today,
I understand, and indicates no intention to legislate.
I would hope that through you, Mr. Speaker, we can extend this conversation to the native people in the north, to convey that statement by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, a statement that has been made in this place and other places by a number of ministers of Indian affairs. It is a position the government subscribes to very sincerely.
I wish to respond to another point made by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. He wished to have a much stronger amendment in place of amendment No. 6 that he has on the order paper. I suggest that one of the people he should have talked to in that regard is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who did not take a viewpoint which agreed entirely with that.
If you are talking about whether the government would have accepted a stronger amendment, I do not think the government would have had any difficulty accepting the original amendment which read "Nothing in this act shall operate so as to extinguish any native land claim, right, title or interest that the native people of Canada may have had prior to the coming into force of this act in and to the land on which the pipeline will be situated." This position was strongly supported and put forward by the Council of Yukon Indians last night at the pipeline hearings in the Senate.
The hon. member for Lambton-Kent might review again his comments on the second stage inquiry. With the proposal, as set out by the government, to take specific draft terms and conditions to the people in the Yukon and to the people in northern British Columbia, the native people will be in a much stronger position to be able to realize what is being proposed and to be able to react to the specifics, rather than have an open second stage inquiry which deals largely in generalities, perhaps describing problems rather than looking at the specific approaches that might be taken.
The government suggests this process will be more productive and, in the long run, more acceptable to the native people, both in the Yukon and British Columbia, than would another second stage inquiry as suggested by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.
Northern Pipeline
1 conclude by again saying that the government intends to oppose motion No. 4 which would have left entirely in native hands the progress of the project and, indeed, the future of this bill, and by saying that we will be supporting motion No. 6.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) displays his abysmal ignorance with regard to the native people in the Yukon. He stood up and informed the members of this House that native people in the Yukon do not live in the traditional fashion. I invite him to visit Old Crow where they do just that all year round. There is a whole village of people in that area in the Yukon who live in just that way, and a great many others as well. His speech was full of inaccurate statements and absolute rubbish.
We would like to have seen a stronger amendment in this bill with regard to native rights. Let me make this clear at the outset. The original bill that was presented to parliament was glaring in its omission of any native presence. It was at the insistence of this party that that native presence was inserted in the bill. The general impression that is given in the media is that it is a government thought and a government amendment. That thought and that amendment were at our initiative. That amendment was supported in committee by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas).
It is surprising that where constructive discussions could have been had, the New Democratic Party representation on that committee did not advance a single amendment during the 21 hearings. Now they have a spokesman who has not even attended a single meeting of the 21 that were held. That is one of the reasons why they are not contributing intelligent amendments at this stage and not contributing intelligent debate. They are absolutely ignorant of what went on in committee. I do not criticize the absence of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It is a pity he is not here to straighten out his colleagues who are participating in this debate.
If it were not for the contributions made in committee by this party, we would have had no native presence in this bill. We would have had no protection for them at all. However, we do not go along with the theory advanced by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, on behalf of this party, that there should be no development whatsoever until native claims are settled. If you take that position, you may as well kiss goodbye to a project that is going to be very significant with regard to the creation of thousands of jobs and will contribute to the growth of a steel and pipe industry in Canada which will involve thousands of positions. Is that what the NDP want?
Is it to be held up by 5,000 native people because they insist on settlement before the project goes ahead? In our view, that is not progress. Our position has always been that there is no reason why negotiated settlement cannot go hand in hand with development. If you accept the native position, there would be no new mines employing workers, no industrial development whatsoever in the Yukon until native claims are settled.
4052

March 22, 1978
Royal Assent
[DOT]	(1752)
It does not prejudice their rights and interests or their title, whatever that might be, one iota, if those negotiations proceed at the same time development proceeds. By taking their present position they deny themselves the jobs and other benefits in the form of economic development which they legitimately desire. Their position is unreasonable. They should adopt a reasonable stance of continuing the negotiations and arriving at a settlement as quickly as they can-this applies to the government, too-so that they can share in the economic development which is bound to flow from a project of this magnitude.
To hon. members to my left who are so sanctimonious about protecting native rights, 1 say: why did they not advance amendments in committee? Why did they not agree with the amendments we put forward to clause 3 and clause 23(1)? We wanted to reassure the native people with respect to the lands the pipe was crossing, and we wanted to make sure that negotiations would not be prejudiced.
Mr. Speaker, I hear a noise at the front door.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	0802)
[ Translation]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-30, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1978-Chapter No. 6
Bill C-31, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1979-Chapter No. 7
Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Election Expenses Act and the Northwest Territories Act in respect of territorial elections- Chapter No. 8
Bill C-21, An Act to implement treaties on the transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences-Chapter No. 9
Bill C-16, An Act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act-Chapter No. 10
Bill C-27, An Act to amend the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act-Chapter No. 11
Bill C-418, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve)-Chapter No. 12 Bill C-412, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe)-Chapter No. 13 Bill C-423, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead)-Chapter No. 14 Bill C-358, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle)-Chapter No. 15 Bill C-414, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Prince Edward-Hastings)-Chapter No. 16 Bill C-267, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Prince Georges-Peace River)-Chapter No. 17 Bill C-415, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Saint-Henri-Westmount)-Chapter No. 18 Bill C-417, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Sainte-Marie)-Chapter No. 19
Bill S-5, 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.
Bill S-6, An Act to provide an exception from the public general law relating to marriage in the case of Francois Eug&ne Arthur Waddell and Marie Anne Marguerite Benoit.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, pursuant to the order made Thursday, March 9, 1978, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 3, 1978, at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2. In the interval, any of those usual invitees who are still in the building at this hour are welcome to join me for a small libation and celebration of the Easter Bunny's scheduled arrival in only a few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At 6.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, April 3, 1978