1978-02-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of sad but pressing necessity. In light of the terrible tragedy of the crash of a PWA 737 at Cranbrook, British Columbia, on Saturday, February 11, resulting in the death of 41 passengers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That this House expresses its deepest sympathy to the families and friends of the victims and its encouragement to the survivors.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANTI DUMPING TRIBUNAL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the discrimination being practised by the federal government in appointing a male chairman of the federal government's Anti-Dumping Tribunal, a decision just learned about on the weekend, passing over Margaret Ritchie, a highly qualified person who has been the tribunal's vice chairman for five years, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government to rescind its recent decision in this matter, reverse its discriminatory practices and appoint Margaret Ritchie as chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, arising out of the tragic air disaster which occurred at Cranbrook, B.C., last Saturday. Inasmuch as the Ministry of Transport will once again be investigating an incident involving loss of life which occurred within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport itself, in order to remove or preclude any possible perception of conflict of interest in the investigation of this tragedy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Minister of Transport forthwith name an independent commissioner of inquiry from a senior court with competent jurisdiction, together with the necessary support staff, for the purpose of conducting an impartial examination of all the facts related to this disaster.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, with regard to confirmation made on a national television network last night on facts I raised in this House in

February 13, 1978
June, 1977, concerning the training of terrorists at Finster-walde, East Germany, and questions asked in 1974-75 concerning a double-agent at one time operating in the Prime Minister's office, and whether Pierre Levasseur was the individual involved, all of which was denied at the time by the government. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That the Prime Minister make an immediate statement giving all information possessed by the government of terrorists trained abroad, of the attempt by the Soviets to infiltrate his office a few years ago, of funds being transferred from France since 1958 through certain Canadian companies acting as agents in Canada, with the amounts involved, whether the funds originated from the KGB and were subsequently funnelled through Jacques Foccart of the French intelligence service; and, finally, that he explain the statement on television last night by Robin Bourne, head of the police security planning analysis group, to the effect that a terrorist act will eventually occur in Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last this House gave unanimous consent to a motion having to do with legislation respecting veterans. I hope the House will be in the same mood today. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House takes note of the deep concern of all veterans' organizations with respect to the rule under which a veteran's widow receives no widow's pension unless the veteran was in receipt of a disability pension of 48 per cent or more, and this House calls on the government to correct this situation, without further delay, by providing prorata pensions for widows of veterans in cases where the veteran's disability pension was less than 48 per cent, as recommended by the Woods commission, the Hermann commission and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to present a motion on a question of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the importance and the seriousness of the referendum on the constitutional future of Quebec;
Considering the need to let Quebeckers entirely free to chose objectively the appropriate structure for their emancipation and their evolution;
Considering that the most elementary justice and simple logic should lead us to put this debate well above the chauvinism and partisanship inherent in electoralism;
Considering that it would be inadmissible for the federal government spokesmen who do not reside in Quebec to campaign directly or indirectly within the province;
Considering finally that it would also be absurd and unfair to have the taxes which are levied among Quebeckers by the federal government used against their very interests;
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette):
That the House order the government to stop Fighting against the growing awareness of Quebeckers concerning their future and consequently to abolish immediately the Tellier committee which has been created to this end.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity relating to last week's revelation of Soviet espionage activities in Canada in which the Soviets clearly demonstrated their continued disrespect for Canadian relations with their country. Because of allegations by a number of sources that terrorist and subversive espionage activities by foreign interests in Canada are far more widespread and far-reaching than has been generally known-as witnessed, for example, on CTV's "Prime Time" program aired last night-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
February 13, 1978

That the government initiate forthwith a comprehensive, over-all investigation into terrorist and subversive activities in Canada as a whole, during which time all travel or movement of so-called Soviet diplomats operating in Ottawa be restricted to the national capital region, as well as those diplomats from any other nation that may be implicated during the investigation; and, further, that the screening process of incoming personnel from such nations be improved in such a way that no individuals who have previously, in any way shape or form, experienced guerilla or espionage training with the KGB or any related agency or organization, be allowed entry into Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I seek unanimous consent, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, to move the following motion:
Whereas by a resolution of this House the Canadian flag stands unfurled beside Mr. Speaker's chair; and
Whereas the federal presence is now more than ever required to be seen, in particular the principal symbol of nationhood and unity;
This House asks that arrangements be made for the Canadian flag to be placed to the right of the bench of the presiding judge in all courts established by the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In accordance with Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, may 1 direct my question to the Minister of Justice, whom I presume is the Acting Solicitor General? Will he advise the House whether, as has been
Oral Questions
reported, there are more than 300 Russian and Cuban-trained terrorists active in the Montreal area, and does the government intend to wait until acts of terrorism break out, or is it its policy to keep these people under surveillance so immediate arrests can be made at the first sign of any terrorism?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I did not see the program to which the hon. member refers, but 1 should like to say that the RCMP is reviewing the allegations made. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the House that in my view the RCMP are fully familiar with what is going on and are able to take action against it.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General. What action is being taken to identify former strong-arm members of the infamous Deuxieme Bureau, in Algeria, who according to reports are now relocated, or were relocated, in Montreal? Will these people lose their citizenship if untruthful statements are found in the applications for citizenship?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unwise to answer the first question, and the second question is hypothetical.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, what action is the government taking in order to ensure that Canadian security services have adequate personnel and resources in order to cope with and contain what appears to be a most serious threat to the national security of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, by supporting the security service, as we have throughout the history of this government.


GOVERNMENT POLICY TOWARD TERRORISTS AND ESPIONAGE AGENTS OPERATING IN CANADA
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Since it is apparent that it is the government's policy to continue to allow terrorists and KGB espionage agents to operate in Canada, despite last year's government policy as stated to the House by the former solicitor general, can we now receive assurances from the government, through the Minister of Justice, that this irresponsible policy will be changed forthwith and appropriate action will be taken to reverse these permissive trends?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think appropriate action is taken when that action is appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: One more time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As the action taken last week indicates, when these matters are documented by the security service, action is taken.

February 13, 1978
Oral Questions


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, on March 24, 1976, the then solicitor general of Canada very clearly stated in the House of Commons that the government, as well as the RCMP, were well aware of KGB activities taking place right under our noses and that it was the policy of the government to allow these people to continue to operate in such an event. In view of the minister's answer now, can we take it that the new policy of the government is not to allow into Canada any individuals known to have espionage training with the KGB, and to get rid of any agents who are currently operating in Canada, whether it be in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere? Is this the new policy of the government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the policy was clearlv stated last week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


SEVERING OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES GUILTY OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we can receive assurances from the Acting Prime Minister, rather than the Minister of Justice. He may be a bit more realistic. Can we have assurances from the government that should foreign countries continue to practice terrorist or subversive activities in Canada or, for that matter, any illegal actions such as the importation of arms from Cuba, diplomatic relations will be terminated on a temporary basis with countries which do not respect the laws of our land?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the seriousness of the points made in the hon. member's question, but certainly I cannot give an undertaking that in every case we would terminate diplomatic relations with the country involved. An incident occurred not too long ago which was brought to the attention of the House by the minister. It is not our intention to terminate relations with that country but to attempt to build for the future and maintain relations with the country concerned.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-REQUEST SECOND READING OF BILL DELAYED UNTIL PIPE SIZE KNOWN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister's sombre exercise in deception last night on television reiterated the truth that the Alcan pipeline proposal will be the largest construction project of its kind in Canadian history. Considering that the National Energy Board has not yet made the crucial decision on what kind of pipe is to be used, and since that is central to the question of Canadian jobs, would the Deputy Prime Minister reconsider the government's position and not proceed with second reading of the

pipeline bill today? It would be an affront to parliament to ask us to make a decision on the pipeline well in advance of knowing what kind of pipe will be used.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is under a misapprehension, because the House will not be asked to make a decision on the pipeline prior to receiving this information. The House will be asked to debate at second reading the many other issues involved in the pipeline. As I indicated last week, in order to meet the general concern expressed by the hon. member, I will ensure that the bill does not come to a decision at second reading until this information becomes available to hon. members. No decision is being called for before hon. members have that information.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has gone beyond the usual bounds of Liberal sophistry: he says we will not have to make a decision on the kind of pipe that is going to be used, in reaching a decision on this bill. Does the Deputy Prime Minister really believe that we can have a serious debate at second reading, in which principal spokesmen for all political parties, presumably, will commit themselves one way or another, before we know what kind of pipe will go into the pipeline and, therefore, before we know whether Canadians are going to get the jobs to which they are entitled from this project?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is possible for hon. members on both sides of the House to debate many principles of the bill.


John Edward Broadbent: But not the essence of it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In fact, if one where to take a procedural point of view, the point to which the hon. member is referring would generally be dealt with at the committee stage. However, I am not making very much of a point of that because I believe it will be very possible to deal with the principles of this bill at second reading without this information. I have assured the hon. member, because that was the concern expressed in his first question, that he will not be asked to make a decision at second reading until he has this information. I undertake that the bill will not come forward for a decision at second reading until the hon. member has that information. I believe that is an accommodation which ought to be satisfactory, in the circumstances.


John Edward Broadbent: Surely the Deputy Prime Minister knows that we cannot proceed with a number of days' debate on the bill without knowing whether we are going to have the kind of pipe which is absolutely essential from the point of view of Canadian interests. However, it is clear that the Deputy Prime Minister has no intention of changing the government's position on that matter.
Is the real reason we are proceeding with the bill today, instead of a week from today when we will have the requisite information, due to the fact that just down the street the Prime Minister is having a conference with all the provincial
February 13, 1978

premiers; and is it not the government's real view that the news media of Canada should be concentrating on that conference instead of on the sell-out involved in this piece of legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: The President of Privy Council is perfectly able to answer that question if he wishes. However, I must recognize that the question does contain some argumentative elements.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, while I was reconsidering the view of the New Democratic Party as to whether I ought to proceed with this bill today, 1 happened to be watching the televised proceedings of the federal-provincial conference and I became persuaded by Mr. Blakeney that it would be a great mistake not to proceed today.

[ Translation]


REQUEST DOCUMENTS EXCHANGED BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND QUEBEC REFEREES' ASSOCIATION BE BILINGUAL
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport).
As a result of pressures which are now exerted by the Quebec Referees' Association, could the minister tell the House if she has asked that the unilingual documents and especially the rules used to teach youngsters of 13, 14 and 15 years of age to become referees be bilingual, in our country which is now experiencing problems about the spoken language?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the National Sport and Recreation Administration Centre is striving to create a situation where all the documents issued by it are printed in both official languages. That has not been fully possible as yet, due to the fact that certain of the sports are not yet in Quebec. But we will be working on improving the number of sports. I believe the hon. member said "arbitrators", but I think he meant coaches, in asking that all coaches be supplied with bilingual material. We are working toward providing more bilingual material in this regard.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a supplementary question.
The minister mentioned certain sports in the House. While hockey is surely the national sport of Canada, I do not understand why the National Amateur Hockey Association sends only English questionnaires in Quebec. I therefore ask the minister whether it would now be possible to correct that
Oral Questions
situation and send a French copy of the rules to the Val-d'Or Minor Hockey Referees' Association.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I beg the hon. member's pardon: I thought he was talking about coaches, but he was talking about referees and officials. The governing body for amateur hockey in this country is the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association. If there is any concern on the part of the hon. member about the functioning of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, I would be pleased to bring it to their attention. Certainly, bilingual clinics for referees and officials were conducted in connection with the recent junior hockey tournament. A considerable amount of money has been spent on upgrading referees and officials in the French and English languages.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that put by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and is addressed to the Acting Solicitor General. Would the minister tell the House how the government intends to prevent foreign nations from carrying out subversive activities in Canada in future, in view of the real possibility of subversion by the Soviet KGB of individuals in high places in the government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we intend to do this by the support of the security service and by their constant surveillance of activities.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's inability to give me any real assurance, and since such surveillance has not in the past prevented these activities, can he tell the House how we can have confidence that the drive for separation in one of our provinces is headed by provincial nationalists rather than by agents of foreign governments?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on that sort of question. I think those running in the movement are quite entitled to speak and answer for themselves.


INQUIRY WHETHER FILES REQUESTED BY KEABLE INQUIRY CONTAIN INFORMATION ON SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES IN CANADA
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, or to the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact that there are very serious concerns about the security of the nation, particularly following the statement last week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

February 13, 1978
Oral Questions
First, do the security service files now being requested by the Keable commission contain information about illegal activities of foreign governments in this country? Second, do these files contain information about Russian, Cuban and French recruiting or subversive activities? Third, can we be assured that information of this type will not, under the circumstances, be given to a commission or public body if the security service has reason to suspect that these groups may be unreliable? I would further ask that this not be done until each person who could possibly obtain access to sensitive material has undergone a complete security check and has been unconditionally cleared for access to top secret information.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not signed any of the affidavits given to the Keable commission as to the material that went to them, or the material that is being withheld under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to allow me to take notice of his question so that the present Solicitor General or the previous solicitors general who signed those affidavits can answer.
I am delighted, if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, with the tone of the question. It indicates quite clearly the hon. member's view that certain material of a national security nature should be withheld from the Keable commission. That has been the position of the government for many months.


POLICY OF DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION ON ENTRY INTO CANADA OF KNOWN SUBVERSIVE AGENTS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy that the minister thinks my questions are responsible. We have never suggested for one moment that this type of information should go to the commission. We have suggested that the information sent should demonstrate ministerial responsibility, which has been irresponsible.
I would ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration to answer this question which is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley. Is it now definitely the policy of the Department of Employment and Immigration that from now on any known KGB agents will, either directly or indirectly, be refused admittance to this country? I refer to agents such as those in the recent spy ring, which one could almost classify as creating a complex in this country.


An hon. Member:: The CIA.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't worry about that. We know where you stand.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the accreditation of those who work at particular embassies is, of course, within the purview of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In so far as others who hope to emigrate to this country are concerned, they are given very careful scrutiny before being granted

admission, particularly on the grounds of security. This was true under the former act, as it is under the new act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to understand why the minister cannot say "yes" or "no", instead of the verbiage which he uses. Is the answer "yes", or is it "no"- that his department is taking the position from now on-


An hon. Member:: Verbiage.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is here. I thought he would be advising the Prime Minister, at the conference, as he has become so important to western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will allow the minister from Crowfoot to keep on crowing, because he will crow himself out of his constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Now may I put this question to the minister, Mr. Speaker? Is it now the policy, after there have been security checks, to say "no" to any KGB agents trying to enter this country? Is the answer "yes", or "no"?


An hon. Member:: Both.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we will add up the verbiage of the question and the verbiage of the answer, and see who comes out ahead on that particular issue. I tried to indicate to the hon. member that if an individual seeks accreditation to a particular embassy, that is within the purview or jurisdiction of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If someone makes application for landed immigrant status, and we determine he is an agent, obviously he will not be allowed to enter Canada. He will, also, not be allowed to be accredited to an embassy, if we have that information in advance.


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT ARMS BEING SMUGGLED INTO CANADA-SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, since it concerns government policy. In view of the statement made on national television last night by Robert Bourne, head of the security planning and analysis branch of the Department of the Solicitor General, to the effect that a terrorist act will inevitably occur in Quebec, I ask the minister: Does this represent the conclusion of the government based on information which it possesses? Specifically, what steps is the government taking to meet this situation and to deal with arms smuggled into Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity of listening to or reading what Mr. Bourne stated. But I can tell the hon. member it is not the policy of the Government of Canada; we have not concluded that there will
February 13, 1978

be a terrorist act in the province of Quebec. That suggestion is quite new to me.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Having had very little luck with an answer in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary to the Minister of Justice, who I hope can be a little more direct. Is the government prepared to name the companies, along with their locations, which have been receiving large sums of money from abroad for the promotion of terrorist and guerrilla warfare activities in Canada, and will he tell the House what part the French, Cuban and Russian intelligence services have played in this situation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, we would not reveal names unless and until charges were laid or people were expelled from the country.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is in a very serious vein and arises out of the Standing Order 43 motion which was put to the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville. I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared, now, to indicate if he will appoint a member of a senior court of competent jurisdiction to inquire into the relevant facts surrounding the tragic air accident which occurred in Cranbrook, B.C., over the weekend.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the ordinary procedure is to have a preliminary investigation first. This is now taking place. Of course, we do have an independent accident review committee which also could play a role. At the conclusion of the preliminary examination, I would ordinarily be in a position to decide whether a further investigation of the type to which the hon. member refers is necessary.


J. Michael Forrestall: In light of the fact there has been a clear indication from the government of Canada, referring back to the throne speech of 1974, that sometimes members of the opposition do have constructive ideas to put forth, I ask whether the minister could be spurred on by these events to bring in legislation-which we understand is pretty well drafted-to establish an independent commission of inquiry into all modes of transportation accidents, so as to ensure removal of any potential conflict of interest.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, yes. As the hon. member implied, there may not be grounds for concern in this particular case. But wherever that might occur, because of the relationship between Transport as an operating department and as the investigating body, we have put forward a proposal for an independent review board. That proposal is at the discussion stage and was put before involved members of the public and
Oral Questions
industry. Their comments are coming back now and the drafting is going forward at the same time. I hope at a very early date to bring forth legislation.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister advise us what the situation is regarding the B.C. Telephone labour dispute that has been going on for a number of months between workers and management?


An hon. Member:: It was settled last week.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I am very happy to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the hon. member for Nickel Belt will be interested to know, in view of his partisan remarks last week, that the strike is settled. Some workers turned up for work today, and all employees will be back on the job within three days.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? In view of the fact that when the House, on Friday, gave unanimous consent to a motion calling for an extension of the prisoner of war compensation to include veterans of World War I and some others, the minister himself joined in that consent, can he now confirm to the House that there will be legislation at this session to amend the Pension Act to extend the prisoner of war coverage? While he is answering that question, can he also say whether any such legislation to amend the Pension Act will also restore the basic rate of the war disability pension to the average take-home pay level of the five categories in the public service agreed to in 1973?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the hon. member's question is presently before the government and I expect to have some information before too long. As to the second part of the question, no, we are not considering that legislation at this time but it will be looked at at a later date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the department is studying amendments to the Pension Act, will it consider including in any such amendments at this session a provision for prorata pensions for the widows of veterans, where the veteran's pension at the time of death was less than 48 per cent, as

February 13, 1978
Oral Questions
recommended so often by various commissions and by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: This question, also, is under consideration by the department. I should inform the House that widows of veterans who are entitled to pensions and who are in receipt of a 48 per cent pension, or a lesser amount, are entitled to pension should death occur from the effect of service. Furthermore, widows of veterans whose husbands were not in receipt of disability pension can also receive assistance.


ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT-MEMBERS' STUDY OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: In
view of the fact that two motions under Standing Order 43 on the subject have received unanimous consent, and since the estimates are due to be considered soon, would the minister discuss with the House leader the possibility of bringing forward the annual report as soon as possible, so we could discuss the many inequities which exist in the Pension Act and in the veterans' charter?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I do not see any difficulty at all about that. The reason it has not been brought to the attention of the House leader so far is that some of the high executives in the veterans' organizations are out of the country. They have requested-and I have so informed members of the other parties who are especially interested-that consideration of this matter be delayed until such time as they are available to appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


RELOCATION OF VETERANS' HOSPITALS-JOB SECURITY OF STAFFS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary arises from the transfer of two veterans' hospitals-Westminster, in London, and Camp Hill, in Halifax-which underlines the concern which has been expressed about job security for hospital staffs. Since announcements are being made by regional officials involving staff amalgamation and reduction, which is of concern to veterans employed on the staff of Veterans Affairs, would the minister clarify, for the benefit of the staff across the country, previous assurances that job security would be maintained in accordance with the commitment made in 1973 when agreement was reached to hand over these hospitals?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this has not presented any problem for us in the past and we do not expect it will in the future. There is provision in our agreement with the provinces that job security will be maintained. As far as the Westminster hospital is concerned, every employee of the federal department had an option to transfer to the provincial administration. Hon. members will recognize that there are positions under the provincial government which do not have their counterparts under the federal administration. The total number involved there is 45,

19 of whom are unemployed. The situation of several others will not be known until the end of 1978, but we have every reason to believe they will be employed at a later date in some other capacity under the federal government.


ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL APPOINTMENT OF NEW CHAIRMAN
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It has been widely reported in the press that the outgoing chairman of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, Mr. Guy D'Avignon, recommended that the vice-chairman, Dr. Marguerite Ritchie, succeed him as chairman of the tribunal. Can the hon. gentleman confirm that Mr. D'Avignon did make such a recommendation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any information bearing on that point, so I am not able to comment.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Since the government has shown its confidence in Mr. D'Avignon by appointing him to chair the newly created Special Committee on Merit in the Public Service, would the Acting Prime Minister explain why the government failed to follow his recommendation of the appointment of a woman with such an outstanding record as Dr. Ritchie? Does the government have any intention of accepting any further recommendations by Mr. D'Avignon with regard to ending discrimination against women in the public service?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on whether or not Mr. D'Avignon made any such recommendation, may I say, first of all, that I agree with the hon. member that Miss Ritchie has had a distinguished career in the public service and has a well established reputation as a lawyer. In this particular case, because of the tribunal's requirements in relation to international trading concerns it was felt that the present appointee would be best qualified. There is no tradition in the public service, to my knowledge, that the vice-chairman automatically proceeds to the post of chairman.


An hon. Member:: That goes for deputy prime ministers, too.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that recently we appointed Miss MacDougall chairman of the Tariff Board when the vice chairman, in the context of this discussion, might have expected to be promoted. 1 want to assure the hon. lady that there was no element of discrimination whatsoever. The appointment was based on what the government felt was the job required at the time. We shall continue our efforts to increase the number of appointments made from among the competent women who serve in the public service.
February 13, 1978


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Solicitor General. It relates to the KGB and to the staff of the Soviet embassy in Ottawa and to the implication contained in a statement made on March 24, 1976, by the then solicitor general, now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, when he said:
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP are aware that certain members of the Soviet Union Embassy staff in Ottawa are with the KGB.
In other words, the government was aware, possibly at the time they came into Canada, that they were with the KGB. Can the minister confirm whether this was the case? Were they under surveillance at that time? Further, can the Acting Solicitor General inform the House whether or not restrictions are being placed upon the right of people so identified to travel within Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not familiar with the statement to which the hon. member refers, so I think I will allow the Solicitor General to answer the question, if he wishes, when he is next in the House. As to whether there are restrictions on travel, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made it clear the other day that there are some restrictions.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I should like to thank him for naming the firm of Vickers and Benson as the faithful firm which will be the recipient of the contract to place the advertisements relating to unemployment. May 1 ask the minister what professional advice was obtained which resulted in the department being persuaded that this kind of campaign was desirable?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In addition to the information already sent to the hon. member, outlining the many and varied reasons for conducting this campaign at the present time, it seemed appropriate, given the fact that a lot of people were suffering under the misapprehension that people are cheating on unemployment insurance and getting away with it, while nobody was taking any action against them, to point out that we collected some $60 million out of a total of $65 million in overpayments. There were more than 7,000 instances in which we were able to enforce repayment; but in my opinion it would be better to work on preventive measures rather than the enforcement aspect.
Oral Questions


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Employment and Immigration found such success with this kind of advertising campaign, can we expect other ministries of the government to come forward with other advertising campaigns to persuade Canadians to stop committing other types of crime?


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. As the minister knows, on January 1 CN Marine, a new organization, took over the assets of the government in connection with the ferry service and coastal service in Newfoundland and the mari-times. Is it correct that CN Marine are about to transfer out of Newfoundland the staff, or make redundant the jobs of the staff in the office and accounting department? If that is the case, how many, why, and what is afoot with CN Marine? The minister knows the very high unemployment situation there.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any such transfer in the works. The proposal by CN Marine has included the desirability of looking at a number of centres within the Atlantic area where their operation might be located. I would like to identify further the suggestion the hon. member has made and come back with a definite answer on it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the minister agree to recommend to CN Marine that in addition to being cost-effective it should be human-effective and, since most of their work is involved in the Newfoundland coastal service, Labrador service and ferry operations in Newfoundland, that their head office should be in St. John's, Newfoundland or somewhere in Newfoundland, and not Moncton, New Brunswick?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that the prime objective of CN Marine is to provide good service to the public. That always is true. I believe one can produce efficient operations, try to minimize waste and lower costs at the same time. Certainly, if one has to choose between the two, my direction to CN Marine would be to give good service to the public.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.

February 13, 1978
Oral Questions
The Ontario premier reasserted last week his refusal to recognize officially or even symbolically both official languages of Canada. Since Mr. Davis has also scorned the efforts of the federal government to achieve linguistic equality, can the Secretary of State tell the House whether Ontario has received its fair share of federal funds allocated to support official language training and utilization programs or whether the substantial efforts and contributions of the federal government to promote the official languages were supposed to be purely symbolic?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to this date, the Ontario government has received nearly $ 150 million to support minority education programs in Ontario as well as second language education. This is why I greatly deplore the fact that the Ontario premier has said that we have not supported the development of the education system in the province of Ontario. This is completely inaccurate.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A number of Canadian railroad workers are employed in Canada by United States railroads and do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits; rather, they must accept the benefits accorded by the United States unemployment insurance system. Will the minister undertake to examine the possibility of being included in the scheme to receive Canadian benefits, which are superior to those of the United States?


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


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Was the minister speaking on his own, or after consultation with his colleagues-in particular, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment-when he told the United Fishermen in Vancouver recently that he would do everything in his power to obtain for that union the right to represent all fishermen on the west coast for collective bargaining purposes? Further, does he consider that it is within his ministerial responsibility to give such an undertaking?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. What I did say was correctly reported in any press reports I

have seen. I have no idea what the hon. member is reading from. There have been submissions from the fishermen that the Canada Labour Code be amended in such a way as to give them the right to certification, which they do not now have as a result of various interpretations of sections in the Canada Labour Code as it is now worded. I told them that I was taking to my colleagues in government proposals to amend the Canada Labour Code so that they, like other unions, if they had all the other qualifications in terms of support, and so on, could apply for certification to obtain bargaining rights.


Donald W. Munro: When considering this question, will the minister also take into account the representations made to him by the Pacific Trailers' Association and by the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of the province of British Columbia. They are small businessmen and not necessarily capable of or desirous of entering into a union arrangement?


John Carr Munro: As I say, this would give them the right, if the code is amended, to obtain certification if they have the qualified support in terms of necessary percentages, and so on. They are all elaborated in the act. I do not think any group of workers should be denied that right, nor do I think they should in this particular instance. May I also say, yes, to the hon. member; I have taken into account the concerns of the people the hon. member mentioned.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. Some Nova Scotia pulp operations, and perhaps operations in other provinces, are being affected by a shortage of suitable railway rolling stock. Is the minister aware of this situation? Are plans being implemented to secure a more efficient and businesslike way of returning railway cars to this country that are now in the United States?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the railways have been aware for some time of a problem developing in the return of railway cars from the United States for servicing that market from Canadian plants and sources. This led the other day to CNR placing an embargo on further cars going to the United States. The problem may have been building up. It was certainly greatly aggravated by severe storms in the United States which prevented the normal movement of cars on to sidings for unloading purposes. A very high percentage of CN lumber or pulp cars is now in the United States. An effort has to be made to bring them back. The railways are very much aware of this, and will do everything they can to try to shorten the period during which there is a shortage of cars.
February 13, 1978


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-the do-nothing minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: This past weekend, 3,000 jobs went down the drain and this minister refused to do anything about it. These lay-offs will have a very serious effect on the Sudbury basin, which is a one-industry economy. The regional council of Sudbury, with Your Honour's support and instruction, petitioned the cabinet to ask Eldorado Nuclear to locate a uranium refinery in the Sudbury basin. Will the minister advise whether he and his cabinet colleagues have reached a decision with regard to this request from Your Honour and the people of the Sudbury basin? If not, when can we expect such a decision?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a number of areas around the province of Ontario have expressed an interest in the second Eldorado uranium refinery. While the government has considered a number of these, it is not yet in a position to make any announcement. Departmental work is going on at the present time. There have been discussions with regard to the Sudbury area. That is about as far as I can go at the moment.


INDUSTRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the points I raised earlier with regard to the effect of the lay-offs in the Sudbury basin, and the fact that in this House, on February 2, the minister announced he was having discussions with the three major automotive producers with regard to the location of auto parts plants in Canada, and the fact that one was slated for Windsor, can the minister advise whether in those discussions they specifically discussed other locations in Canada, and in particular in the Sudbury basin?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, other locations have been discussed. I think that in conjunction with the province of Ontario, a number of spots, including Sudbury, were discussed with the automotive companies.
Privilege-Mr. Broad bent FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS


PRESENCE OF MINISTER IN HOUSE RATHER THAN AT FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. In view of the fact that there is a conference being held down the road a little way, at the Convention Centre, involving federal-provincial relations with the various provincial premiers, is the presence in the House today of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations a conscious act in the hope that this will help resolve some federal-provincial problems, or has he been told to stay away?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, my presence in the House today was required to give the hon. member the opportunity of asking a question.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to an answer in the House today by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) indicating a continuation of the government's decision to proceed with Bill C-25.
I should like to say at the outset, because the premier is not here to defend himself, that the Deputy Prime Minister misinformed the House completely when he cited Premier Allan Blakeney of the province of Saskatchewan as supporting the government's position. Today at the first ministers' conference the premier of the province of Saskatchewan reiterated the common concern of the New Democratic Party that the pipeline be proceeded with on the basis that jobs for Canadians are guaranteed. This is just the opposite to what we find in this bill.
The point of privilege I have is that by proceeding with this bill this afternoon the government is insulting the intelligence of every member of parliament and making a sham of debating procedures in this chamber. If debate means anything in the House of Commons in relation to a piece of legislation, we are supposed to have before us the essence or substance of the material we are debating. The answer given in the House this afternoon by the Deputy Prime Minister was in fact extraordinary.
The logic of the Deputy Prime Minister's argument is that we can debate this measure today, tomorrow, the next day and presumably ad nauseam, but we have his assurance that we do not have to reach a decision on the debate until the National Energy Board makes its final recommendation. How absurd can we get? If we follow the Deputy Prime Minister's reason-

February 13, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
ing this means that potentially we are going to duplicate the whole process of debate after we hear the decision of the NEB.
A number of members of the House could take a certain position on this legislation which affects the future of Canada in a profound way if we consider the amount of capital resources proposed to be allocated to the project. For example, members from the province of Saskatchewan, or from western Canada as regional spokesmen, and those of us who have a national perspective anyway-


John Carr Munro: What about Hamilton?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, and what about Hamilton as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) says. If we go ahead on the assumption that this bill is to be proceeded with if, and only if, low pressure pipe is to be used on the pipeline, that kind of pipe can be produced at the Ipsco plant in Regina, then a number of members in the House of Commons may well be disposed to support the bill on the ground that that assumption would prevail.
What happens if the National Energy Board in its wisdom, and God forbid, a week from today makes the decision that the kind of pipe to be used is high pressure pipe, pipe that cannot be produced at the Ipsco plant in Saskatchewan, but pipe that can be produced only in limited quantities in the province of Ontario? I suggest then, Mr. Speaker, that these members will have to reverse themselves in the debate if that factor were a predominant consideration to them in reaching their decision.
The serious point I want to make is that I am scandalized by the Deputy Prime Minister who, after all, has been around for a few years and is a rules expert, because he would get up and say to the members of the House of Commons that we can debate this for a number of days, taking up the time of the country discussing this capital project which will involve anywhere from $10 billion to $14 billion, but the debate means nothing because we do not have to vote on the bill until the National Energy Board makes its ruling. How absurd that is, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that makes a mockery of what debate in the House of Commons is supposed to be all about. We are supposed to engage in serious debate about which members on both sides of the House know the relevant facts before making up their minds.
I do not have a precise motion on the question of privilege before me and I want to hear what other members of the House have to say about this important question, but I will be happy to present one. In terms of the rules, to put it frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to draft a motion that would be procedurally acceptable. I acknowledge that. The standard privilege motion is to refer a matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, asking it to report back, recommending when the matter should be debated. That is the procedural way of doing it. That does not seem to me to be an awful lot better than the kind of crazy decision the cabinet has already made.
What I am doing through this question of privilege is attempting to appeal to the common sense of the Deputy Prime Minister. If he is serious in wanting to have a debate

that is meaningful to the people of Canada, on this project which is the largest in the history of Canada, then why does he not postpone it for a week? Why does he not say that he understands the NEB is to make a decision a week from today, hopefully, so we should have that information then, information which could affect hundreds of thousands of jobs, and we can hold the debate at that time? For God's sake, why does the government not proceed with other business today, and then when the NEB makes its decision we could call second reading and have a serious debate about the future of this project which will seriously affect the future of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has put forward his thesis which, as he has acknowledged, is procedurally outside the acceptable grounds of privilege. He has put it by way of an appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), and it is not the first such appeal. It may be the subject of considerable other discussions under other procedural forms as this matter unfolds. However, as the hon. member has recognized, it is the prerogative of the government of the day to call the legislation that is properly on the order paper in whatever order it wishes. There seems to be no connection with the classic definition of privilege, and I think it would be stretching that definition to the extreme to try to include it in that. Therefore I have to set aside this question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Robert Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 413, 559, 759 and 966.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McCleave: In each year since 1945, which buildings were erected in Hull for government purposes and, in each case, which department or agency used the building and for how many years?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: February 13, 1978

			Number of years of occupancy to
Year	Building and Location	Occupants	October, 1977
1945			
1946	nil	nil	nil
1947			
1948			
1949	Canadian Government	Ministry of Transport	28
	Printing Bureau	Dept, of National	
	Sacred Heart Blvd.	Defence National Health and	28
		Welfare Royal Canadian Mounted	28
		Police	28
		Supply and Services Canada Unemployment Insurance	28
		Commission Department of Veterans	24
		Affairs	24
1956	Government of Canada	Agriculture	205, rue Principale	Manpower and Immigration National Revenue	20(Customs)	20Post Office Canada Unemployment Insurance	20Commission Department of Veterans	20Affairs	20Note: This building was demolished in 1976.	1973	Place du Portage	Consumer and Corporate	Phase I 1 Victoria St.	Affairs	41975	Place du Portage	Labour Canada	2Phase II 2 Victoria St.	Consumer and Corporate	Affairs	2Supply and Services Canada National Health and	2Welfare	21977	Place du Portage	Supply and Services	Phase III	Canada


Mr. McKinley: 1.	Does the Central Real Property Inventory of the Department of Public Works list all leased and Crown-owned buildings in the National Capital Region?
2.	Is such information recorded on computer tape?
3.	Which departments, agencies or Crown corporations do not report their property holdings and any changes in the status of such property as they occur to the Central Real Property Inventory?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. All leased and Crown-owned buildings in the national capital region are recorded with the exception of the following: buildings or leases administered by Air Canada; buildings administered by the Bank of Canada; buildings administered by the Canadian National Railways; leased buildings when the term of the lease is for a period of less than one year.
Nickel Industry Lay-Offs
2.	Yes.
3.	Canadian National Railways; Bank of Canada; Air Canada.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many persons were appointed to the Task Force on National Unity and for what term?
2.	Was a date set for the Task Force to report?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister):: 1. Eight commissioners have been appointed to the Task Force on Canadian Unity until conclusion of the inquiry.
2. PC 1977-1910 of July 5, 1977, establishing the Task Force on Canadian Unity states in part-"adopt such procedures and methods as they may from time to time deem expedient for the proper conduct and conclusion of the inquiry within one year and sit at such times and in such places in Canada as they may decide from time to time". The period of one year has been extended by six months to December 31, 1978, (see order in council PC 1978-157 dated January 19, 1978).


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, were studies made by the Treasury Board regarding the cost of continuing the full pension to the widow of the recipient of a Public Service pension?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes. The most recent study indicates that the cost would remain the same as it was in January, 1976-2.5 per cent of payroll, excluding the cost of escalation. This would amount to $105,850,000.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the lay-off this weekend of some 1,600 workers in the nickel industry as part of an over-all plan of 3,000 lay-offs which will cause severe dislocation directly to at least 10,000 people, the communities involved and the Canadian economy as a whole, as well as creating a social cost of between $150

February 13, 1978
Nickel Industry Lay-Offs
million and $200 million which must be borne by government, thus creating the necessity that this matter be debated in parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Of course the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has given the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26, which has provided me with an opportunity to examine the terms of the motion, to examine the terms of the Standing Order, and to examine the several precedents which were brought into consideration in the recent past.
As has been described, the purpose of the motion is to enable h,on. members to bring matters before the House, by way of emergency debate. Standing Order 26(1) reads as follows:
Leave to make motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must be asked immediately before the calling of government orders.
The terms of that order have been referred to many times. In terms of individual communities and industries, the Chair has often been in a difficult position when attempting to adjudicate upon these matters because the terms of the Standing Order, as such, are to give leave or an opportunity to hon. members to bring matters of a crisis nature before the House which would not otherwise come before the House. Yet, it is not envisaged that that rule ought to be used to bring what are considered crises from individual constituencies or industries before the House. Obviously the difficulty which would follow from that is that if the rule were to be used in that way, it would become the function of the Chair, on an almost weekly basis, to attempt to adjudicate the relative impact of difficulties in individual constituencies.
Certainly, to grant a motion with respect to one industry in one particular area of the country, even if it is my own, would only invite the same kind of application on an almost weekly basis with respect to other areas of the country. That would put upon the Chair the difficulty of trying to attempt to adjudicate in some way the relative impact of, for example, the closure of a linerboard mill in Newfoundland as opposed to a lay-off of some 3,000 people in the nickel industry in the Sudbury basin.
As tempted as I may be to be sympathetic with this particular application, I have to refer back to some precedents which I will cite now to the hon. member and to the House. Upon examination of my own precedents, three of which I will bring to the attention of the House, to grant the application would be reversing very directly my own rulings on these previous occasions. Therefore, I remind the House, for example, that on January 27, 1975 the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) made a very similar application under almost precisely the same circumstances in respect to the automotive industry and lay-offs in the Oshawa area. At that time the remarks of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby included the following:

-the crisis in the automotive industry manifested by the announced lay-offs on the week end which will bring the total of unemployed in this sector to more than 40,000.
I reviewed the matter and, among other things, I said:
The subject matter of the motion, while it concerns a very serious problem, has, in fact, to do with problems related to one industry, and even that aspect is one symptom of a larger problem, that is to say, the economic condition of the country in general-
The reason I express concern is related to my resistance to setting a precedent of interrupting the regular schedule of business of the House, to permit consideration of a one-industry problem of this sort; because, it seems to me, to do this would be to put other members who have already expressed similar concerns into this position: that, if they were to do less than seek the intervention of the House in these matters, they would not be fulfilling their responsibilities as members.
There was another precedent in December, 1975, which related to some other aspects of the problem. These were raised by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) who, at that time, was the parliamentary secretary to the postmaster general. The specific and important matter to which he referred is quoted in Hansard of December 4, 1975, at page 9715. It reads as follows:
The specific and important matter is the nation-wide strike in the pulp and paper industry, a strike involving some 25,000 members of the Canada Paperworkers Union, and lay-offs of the same order in the bush and allied operations.
In adjudicating on that problem, I said the following:
-there is the additional difficulty that except by virtue of the reference to the anti-inflation measures which are, of course, matters of federal jurisdiction, the fact is that it appears to be a work stoppage in the private sector involving private companies and unions which are not in any way subject to federal jurisdiction.
That was the problem at that time, and some of those aspects certainly are present now.
On October 21, 1977, the hon. member for Northumber-land-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) raised another problem. His remarks included the following:
-because of the ruthless and unexpected decision by the Inco metals company drastically to cut back production and mining operations in Canada, resulting in the loss of between 3,500 and 4,000 jobs-
I said that the subject matter before the House at that time was, of course, not only the Speech from the Throne, which gives the widest latitude in debate, but an amendment which would permit even more direct focus on that particular problem.
The first two precedents I have cited to the House indicate that previously the Chair has had to resist, although each had equal merit, the application for an emergency debate on a one-industry or a one-location type of problem.
Furthermore, Standing Order 26(5) calls upon the Chair to determine whether or not the matter might be brought before the House in some other way. In dealing with the application previously made by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, I cited the opportunity for participation in the throne speech debate. A number of members took advantage of that. Subsequently on November 23, November 29, and December 8, debates have taken place on allotted days which were addressed directly to that problem; on November 23-loss of jobs in mineral industry; on November 29-unemployment resulting from importation of foreign goods; and on December
February 13, 1978

8-lack of industrial strategy. Furthermore, a number of questions have been posed and a number of answers have been given during the oral question period. Some of them have been referred to the adjournment debate. That occurred as recently as Thursday of last week. It provided the opportunity for an expanded question by the hon. member for Nickel Belt and an expanded answer on this particular problem.
In terms of the subject matter, I have to refer to precedents on which I have ruled already. To find that it would be a proper subject, would be a direct reversal of my previous reasoning. On examining the use of time in the interval, since the first application by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, and the subsequent application with respect to the Falconbridge lay-offs by the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the House in fact has taken extensive opportunity to address itself to this problem and to deal with it in the best way it can.
I do not want to get into detail about the shared responsibility with the provincial government, particularly in light of the very extensive work the provincial government has done in its select committee, but perhaps there is some merit in addressing ourselves to the problem of jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction is not significantly or primarily provincial, certainly it is shared. Recognition of that has been taken by Queen's Park, which has set up a special committee in that regard.
However, my main reason for setting aside the application is because I had to do the same thing to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby with respect to the automotive industry, and to the hon. member for Fort William with respect to the pulp and paper industry. It would be in direct contradiction of my own precedents if I were to do otherwise, despite all the sympathy I have with this particular problem.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this historic bill, which is before the House today for second reading, provides legislative authority for Canada to join together with the United States in one of the largest private projects ever undertaken.
Northern Pipeline
Bill C-25 paves the way for construction of a $10 billion northern pipeline stretching over a distance of nearly 5,500 miles to transport natural gas from the Arctic to meet the pressing needs of millions of consumers in both countries.
This legislation to create a northern pipeline act implements the terms of the co-operative agreement to serve the mutual interests of our two nations which I had the privilege of signing, together with the U.S. Energy Secretary, Mr. Schle-singer, here in Ottawa last September. The terms of that agreement have already been overwhelmingly endorsed by the United States Congress.


John Carnell Crosbie: You bet they have. You gave it all away.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The legislation also establishes a northern pipeline agency to provide a single regulatory authority, armed with the necessary powers to exercise all federal responsibilities directly related to the building of the system by the Foothills companies.
The primary objective of this agency, together with other complementary provisions in the bill and further supportive measures we plan to adopt, is to ensure that this gigantic project is planned and implemented in a way which will maximize the potential economic, industrial, energy and social benefits for the Canadian people, while at the same time minimizing adverse social and environmental effects.
I believe the policies embodied in the legislation, together with the other measures we will be instituting, will fully achieve the broad objectives expressed by hon. members on all sides of this House during the debate on the issue early last August. Let me briefly outline some of the principal elements involved.
The proposed pipeline system will enable the United States to transport more Arctic gas to markets in the lower 48 states where it is urgently required more cheaply, more quickly and with less environmental impact than the alternative all-American pipeline, the LNG tanker system proposed by El Paso.
For its part, Canada will be assured access to its own reserves in the Mackenzie Delta by the only economic means currently available, a lateral line connecting the main system at Whitehorse to transport gas as and when it is required to meet the growing needs of Canadian consumers. Access to these gas reserves is an important part of the national strategy we have adopted to meet our goal of energy self-reliance. Provisions in the bilateral agreement, in this legislation, and in the undertakings we will obtain from Foothills are all aimed at ensuring that this lateral line is ready to go into operation at the time we need to draw on this frontier gas to supplement that from western Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Would the hon. gentleman give us the latest estimate of when it is now thought we are going to require the frontier gas?

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the estimate which has been given by the National Energy Board has not been altered by any recent events. We all know that there is a welcome acceleration in the rate of new gas discoveries in western Canada, but their extent is still far from firmly established, and we cannot responsibly take the risk of not ensuring access to those reserves of gas in the Mackenzie Delta.
My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), will be speaking in more detail about this question later in the debate, and undoubtedly he will go into more detail on the question just raised.
Proven gas reserves in the Delta are already sufficient to supply some 10 per cent of projected Canadian needs in the mid-1980s, as compared to the 5 per cent of U.S. consumption that would be supplied from Alaskan reserves. The access to Canadian gas in the western Arctic provided by construction of this northern pipeline, together with a number of other complementary government policies, should provide a strong stimulus to further exploration and development in that part of our frontier by private industry and by Petro-Canada.
As a result of the negotiations with the United States the cost of transporting Arctic gas to southern markets would be significantly lower, particularly for Canada, than under the system originally proposed by the National Energy Board.
Routing of the trunk line directly to Whitehorse rather than diverting it to Dawson, the U.S. undertaking to pay between two thirds and the total cost of moving Canadian gas between the two points, depending on the extent to which capital outlays exceeded estimates, and adoption of a higher capacity pipe design, would reduce United States shipping costs by about 7 per cent and Canadian shipping costs by between 11 per cent and 15 per cent.
If construction expenditures are within 35 per cent of estimates, and the United States consequently pays the full cost of transporting Canadian gas over the 277-mile line between Dawson and Whitehorse, Canada would save about $1 billion alone on the transportation of current reserves of more than five trillion cubic feet. The savings will, of course, increase with the development of additional reserves.
The conclusion and implementation of the bilateral agreement are important also as a means of further strengthening the bonds which have traditionally linked Canada and the United States closely together. This unique association has led in the past to the construction of more than 1,700 miles of Canadian pipeline through the United States to transport Canadian oil and gas to markets in both countries. Undertaking of this major new project could well provide the basis for further co-operative efforts in the future that serve our mutual energy interests.
Meanwhile, the launching of this mammoth northern pipeline project will provide a much needed boost to consumer and business confidence in both countries, one that will go beyond the very considerable real impact it will have in stimulating production and employment directly and indirectly.

On the basis of the procurement targets laid down by the principal sponsors of the Foothills project, which have an excellent record in employing Canadian goods and services, we estimate that nearly 100,000 man-years of employment will be created by construction of the total pipeline system in Canada and by indirect economic activity generated by income arising from pipeline outlays.
Excluding the Delta lateral, direct and indirect employment created by the pipeline is estimated at some 68,000 man-years. I will return to this issue later, but just let me assure the House that the legislation contains a number of provisions which are aimed at ensuring achievement of the highest Canadian input that is reasonably possible.
From recent discussions I have had with senior officers of Foothills, I am satisfied that the company is just as anxious as the government, and as hon. members on all sides of the House, to see that this objective is realized. I am sure these officers are fully prepared to come before the special committee we have established to consider the bill in order to reaffirm their determination in this regard.
I should add that Canada's international balance of payments position would also receive a strongly positive boost both from capital inflows associated with the project during the construction period and subsequently from tariffs levied on U. S. gas transported through the Canadian section of the system.
There is no doubt that some dislocation and disruption will be created in the Yukon territory during the construction period. On balance, however, I am confident that these unavoidable problems will be significantly outweighed by both the short-term and long-term benefits of the project.
The pipeline company will be required to give preference to Yukon residents in training and hiring both for construction and operation of the system in the territory. It will similarly be required to give preference to Yukon enterprises in the procurement of goods and services for the project. Although permanent employment opportunities in the operation of the system in the Yukon will not be large, there is every likelihood that the project will serve as a catalyst in promoting other industrial activities, including accelerated petroleum exploration and development in the western Arctic.
The agreement that we propose to conclude with Foothills with regard to possible electrification of compressor stations in the southern Yukon could, in particular, provide the base for the expansion of electrical generating capacity which is necessary to facilitate further industrial development.
The training and experience provided by participation in the pipeline project would, in turn, enhance the opportunity for employment of the growing Yukon labour force in such developments.
Our ability to offset the unavoidable social and economic costs created by the pipeline project in the Yukon and to realize significant net benefits will be substantially enhanced by the terms the agreement concluded with the United States
February 13, 1978

and further financial arrangements we intend to conclude with the Foothills company.
Under the latter arrangement, the Yukon government will be able to draw on an advance payment from the company against future tax liabilities of up to $200 million between 1978 and 1982 to provide any additional funds that it may require to meet socioeconomic costs resulting from construction of the pipeline in the Territory. At the same time, however, it will also be open to the Yukon government to borrow from other sources if it considers it more financially advantageous to do so.
Under the terms of the Canada-U.S. agreement Foothills will be required to pay $35 million in Yukon property taxes prior to the completion of the line by the target date at the end of 1982. After the system goes into operation, it will be required to pay annual property taxes of $30 million, which would be escalated annually by the increase in the gross national product price deflator. Even if the Yukon government borrowed all of the $200 million to meet added socioeconomic costs, which seems unlikely, it is estimated that the proposed tax system would still yield more than $1 billion in net revenue after amortization of principal and interest over the 25-year economic life of the system. That is substantially more than was proposed either by the National Energy Board or the Lysyk inquiry. The result will obviously significantly strengthen the financial position of the Yukon government.
A further long term benefit would be derived by the people of the Yukon from the amount of up to $5 million that the company will be required to put up to build lateral lines for the distribution of gas to communities along the pipeline route at the Alberta border price.
I want to comment now on another important element of the pipeline project, the timing of construction.
Under the Canada-U.S. agreement, both governments are committed to do everything reasonably possible to ensure the expeditious construction and operation of the pipeline. The timetable established in the agreement provides that the laying of pipe will not begin in the Yukon until January 1, 1981. This starting date, which is just seven months earlier than that proposed by the Lysyk inquiry but later than planned by the company, will enable advantage to be taken of a construction period that is critical for achievement of the completion timetable established in the bilateral agreement. In our judgment this period of nearly three years will still provide time which the members of that inquiry properly considered necessary to allow for a settlement of Yukon Indian land claims and the fair start on the implementation of that agreement. In addition, it will provide ample time for the completion of further studies required to minimize the environmental impact of pipeline construction.
The Lysyk report considered that good progress had been made in moving toward final agreement on a settlement and concluded that deferral of construction of the Yukon pipeline until 1981 would provide the time necessary to complete the process and make a start on implementation of the agreement so that Yukon Indians would be in a favourable position to
Northern Pipeline
realize the benefits offered by the pipeline project. For our part, we in the federal government will bend every effort to arrive at a fair and just settlement of these claims just as quickly as is reasonably possible. At the same time, however, we remain firmly committed to our obligation to ensure the expeditious construction and operation of the pipeline system in accordance with the timetable laid down in the agreement with the United States.
Against this background, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to speak more specifically about the terms of the bill itself.
The central provision of the legislation is that of providing for the establishment of a northern pipeline agency. Working in close conjunction with the National Energy Board, this agency would provide a central regulatory authority or window for the exercise of all federal responsibilities related to planning, monitoring, and controlling the system throughout Canada.
Under the bill the governor in council will be authorized to transfer federal powers now exercised by various departments to the agency to the extent they are required for the purpose of the pipeline in order to maintain central control over the project. This might include the authority to issue land use permits under the Territorial Lands Act for pipeline related activities, for example, or powers under the Fisheries Act for the control of project developments that could affect fish habitats. In addition, the legislation provides for the amendment of a number of other relevant statutes in order to expedite and facilitate the project.
The agency itself will be responsible to a designated minister in the same way as any government department. Acting under authority delegated by the minister is a commissioner who would serve as deputy head of the agency in Ottawa and have prime responsibility for advising the minister on matters of policy.
An administrator will be appointed to assume responsibility for day to day operations of the agency's office in Calgary, which is also the headquarters of the Foothills' parent company.
To provide for close co-ordination with the National Energy Board a member of the board is to be appointed to the agency as the designated officer, serving either as the administrator or a deputy administrator. Under the powers delegated to him by the National Energy Board, the designated officer will have the authority, subject to the concurrence of the responsible minister, to exercise a broad range of powers provided for under the National Energy Board Act. These include approval of detailed pipeline designs, routing and specifications; approval of certain proposed contracts, and the issuance of guidelines, orders, and directives with regard to detailed terms and conditions that must be complied with by Foothills.
Certain responsibilities that bear on the long term operation of the pipeline will continue to be exercised by the Board itself. These include the power to approve, in conjunction with the minister, Foothills financing plans, to make orders with respect to traffic tolls and tariffs, and to grant leave to open the
2790

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
pipeline. Both the Board and the designated officer would be subject to direction in the exercise of their responsibility by the governor in council.
An integral part of the agency's role is related to the broad terms and conditions laid down in the legislation that Foothills will be required to meet in order to comply with the certificate of public convenience and necessity that will be deemed to be issued with the enactment of the bill. The bill lays down certain general terms and conditions relating to such matters as the input of Canadian manpower, goods and services, the design, specifications and routing of the system, and the avoidance or minimization of adverse socio-economic and environmental impacts.
The Foothills companies would also be required to submit extensive information and, in many cases, to obtain federal approval with regard to such factors as costs, financing plans, shipper and producer contracts, operating and safety manuals, and collective agreements. The general terms and conditions set out in the legislation require Foothills to comply with all undertakings it made before the National Energy Board to achieve the greatest possible economic and social benefits from the project and to minimize adverse social and environmental effects.
These general terms and conditions will be supplemented and reinforced by detailed guidelines and orders to be issued by the northern pipeline agency. It is our intention to have the detailed terms and conditions relating to socioeconomic and environmental matters published in draft form this summer in order to obtain the views of various interested public groups and of the provincial and territorial governments concerned before they are formally adopted.
Foothills is already in the process of preparing an environmental impact statement in response to guidelines laid down as part of the second stage of the environmental assessment and review process, which will contribute to the development of the detailed terms and conditions in this area. The company may also be required to submit further information to assist in the preparation of supplementary terms and conditions relating to socioeconomic concerns.
As in the case of those dealing with other matters these detailed terms and conditions relating to socioeconomic and environmental issues will also be subject to revision to take account of concerns expressed by various groups. In addition to the obligations imposed directly on Foothills, there is also a responsibility on governments to adopt measures that may be required to avoid or alleviate potentially adverse socio-economic impacts which are beyond the control of the company. In the case of the Yukon the responsiblity for developing mitiga-tive policies and programs will be shared between the territorial and federal governments, as my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner), will explain more fully when he speaks later in the debate.
Earlier in my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the terms and conditions laid down in the legislation would include

extensive provisions relating to the input of Canadian labour, goods and services in the planning, procurement and construction of the pipeline in this country.
This is an issue I want to deal with very directly in view of the unrealistic and unfounded allegations made by some members of the opposition. The term "sell-out" comes easily to their lips. Indeed, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made this charge even before we had concluded our negotiations on the agreement with the United States. Opposition members in fact, Mr. Speaker, are attempting to create an artificial issue where no issue exists.
During the hearings before the National Energy Board, Foothills stated its objective-and I stress the word objective because it was not and could not possibly be a flat guarantee- was to achieve Canadian input into the system in Canada of more than 90 per cent. During the intervening months Foothills has repeatedly restated that objective. On the basis of past performance of the sponsoring companies and of our own assessment of Canadian supply capabilities, there is every reason to believe that this target will be achieved.
The Canada-U.S. agreement itself asserts in its preamble that the system will be built so as to "advance the national economic and energy interests and to maximize the related industrial benefits of each country." The agreement also stipulates that each government will endeavour to ensure that the supply of goods and services for the pipeline project will be on generally competitive terms having regard to price, reliability, servicing capacity, and delivery schedules.
For some members opposite, that is the rub. They contend we should not stand ready to compete. They contend that we should have demanded a guarantee of a very high Canadian content regardless of price and regardless of its effect in escalating the costs of gas to Canadian consumers.
For the benefit of members let me point out that in the first place for Canada to have formally required, either in the bilateral agreement or the legislation, that Foothills purchase a guaranteed percentage of their materials from Canadian suppliers would be in clear violation of our international obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. There is no doubt about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That agreement stipulates that imports should be treated no less favourably than domestic products "in respect of all laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale". That, in effect, is exactly what some members opposite have urged us to do.
The New Democratic member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has suggested, according to a column by Geoffrey Stevens in the Globe and Mail of December 2-I hope I am not incorrectly quoting the hon. member, if I do I will be glad to apologize-that in failing to secure such a buy-Canadian guarantee we bought a pig in a poke. What he appears to be suggesting is that we should have tried to sell the
February 13, 1978

United States a pig in a poke by demanding that it will join in the construction of a pipeline with an open-ended price.
Had we insisted on inclusion of the kind of guarantees being bandied about by opposition members, I firmly believe that our chances of achieving a satisfactory agreement would have been seriously jeopardized. In fact, even the provisions with regard to general competitiveness that were included in the agreement have been criticized in Congress. In its report to the Senate, the energy and natural resources committee called for what it termed "open competition" between Canadian and U.S. suppliers over the entire project and urged the administration to "go back to the Canadians to resolve the content issue".
Let me remind members as forcefully as I can that if we had been unable to secure an agreement with the United States because of a demand for a guaranteed Canadian input, or if that agreement were subsequently rejected by Congress, there would be no opportunity for Canadian workers to participate in this gigantic project, and there would be no opportunity in the foreseeable future for Canada to gain access economically to its own reserves in the Mackenzie Delta.
Let me point out another important factor, Mr. Speaker. Those who are proponents of such a buy-Canadian policy seem to be going on the assumption that we in this country do not need to concern ourselves about costs. Their view seems to be that this is primarily an American pipeline to carry American gas to American markets and, therefore, Americans should be required to pay a premium in exchange for the right to run the system across Canadian territory.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As 1 indicated earlier, the construction of the lateral to the Mackenzie Delta could, on the basis of currently established reserves there, be supplying some 10 per cent of our own gas needs here in Canada by the mid-1980s. By contrast, natural gas from Alaska is expected to meet only 5 per cent of U.S. demand by that time. In relative terms, therefore, Canadian consumers have a considerably greater stake in the cost of deliveries of gas from the Arctic than those in the United States.
Quite apart from our general interest in the cost of building the system, we have also a particular interest because of the formula in the agreement under which the United States' share of the cost of transporting Canadian gas between Dawson and Whitehorse is determined directly by the capital cost of the system in Canada as a whole.
While some members are demanding establishment of a monopolistic preserve for Canadian pipeline suppliers, Canadian companies in the related industry have themselves sought no such protection.
It is rather interesting that the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) should have become the protector of these companies which themselves have sought no such protection whatsoever. The fact of is that over the years in Canada we have developed highly efficient companies in these fields and they ask no more than the underlying assurance
Northern Pipeline
provided in the legislation, namely, that they have a fair and competitive opportunity to participate in the supply of goods and services for the pipeline.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be happy to deal with questions later if I can, but I wish to finish my statement. While some hon. members may not agree with every point I make, there are some aspects that I believe it is important to deal with in order to clarify our thinking, particularly the terms of the bill before us.
The supply of pipe for the system has been a particularly contentious issue in the minds of some opposition members. Much of the argument has been totally overlooked with respect to the competitiveness of the Canadian industry. In fact Peter Gordon, the chairman of Stelco, has emphasized that his own company is not only confident of its ability to supply a substantial portion of the pipe for the system in Canada, but also to compete for some of the pipeline to be installed in the United States as well.
In this connection I should advise the House that I am hopeful I will be in a position to announce our intentions with regard to the question of pipe size and the pressure of the system between Whitehorse and Caroline before the conclusion of this debate. In fact the bill provides authority to the National Energy Board, with the subsequent approval of the minister, to make a decision with respect to pipe size.
It should be borne in mind that no decision can be made by the NEB or with the concurrence of the minister, on pipe size, until this bill is enacted. What I have agreed to do is to declare our intention as soon as possible on this particular item. I hope that it will be done either this week or not later than the first day of next week, and that the hon. members will not have to make a decision on the bill even though the terms of the bill provide that the decision can only be made, after the bill has passed, on the pipe size. Notwithstanding the provisions of the bill, I am quite prepared to declare our intentions within a time frame that I have mentioned earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let me point out that under the terms and the conditions there is a very important feature specified in the bill where Foothills is required to submit a procurement program covering all goods and services for the approval of the minister responsible for the northern pipeline agency. This program must be aimed at achieving the company's own objective of providing for a level of Canadian input that is as high as practicable. It must also be designed to ensure that maximum advantage is taken of opportunities to foster Canadian research and promote the long term development or expansion of viable Canadian suppliers.
Foothills will be required to submit to the minister an outline of the procedures that it proposes to follow to imple-
80031-35y2

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
ment its procurement program and would be obliged to comply with the plan after its approval.
In addition, certain proposed contracts received by the minister will require his approval before they are awarded. If the minister has reason to believe that a prospective contract might involve dumping, or other unfair trade practices, he could require the company to establish to his satisfaction that this was not the case prior to approving it.
Foothills will also be directed to obtain the minister's approval for a detailed manpower plan designed to ensure that maximum use is made of Canadian labour in the planning, construction, and operation of the pipeline.
I think it should be very clear that the legislation provides ample safeguards for achievement of the highest level of Canadian labour and industrial content consistent with our further objective of ensuring that the system also serves the interests of Canadian consumers through its construction at reasonable cost.
I am sorry about the length of this statement, but this is a very complex bill and subject. I should like to touch further on some of the other important provisions in the legislation.
Under this bill, the minister responsible for the agency is authorized to undertake consultations with the United States government and the governments of the provinces and territories in Canada, as required, to co-ordinate all aspects of the project as they effect different jurisdictions.
The legislation also envisages the establishment of a federal-provincial consultative council composed of officials, on the provincial side from the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and on the federal side there would be one representative of the agency and one representative from the Yukon government. The function of this council will be to supplement and complement the day to day liaison and coordination between those who have the primary responsibility for overseeing the project in the various governments. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a continuing round of discussions with provincial and territorial governments over a period of many months with regard to many aspects of the pipeline project. These consultations will continue and they will be formalized through the establishment of the mechanism which I have mentioned.
In addition, the governor in council will also be empowered to establish one or more advisory councils of up to ten persons to be drawn from outside of the government service in order to provide a two-way means of communication and consultation between interested public groups and the Northern Pipeline Agency. While it is not possible, at this point, to anticipate how many such councils might be created, it is certain there is the expectation that an advisory council for the Yukon will be established. As we see it, one of the tasks of this and any other councils would be to provide an organized channel for public input with regard to the detailed terms and conditions that will be proposed for consideration by the agency.
The National Energy Board Act will be amended by the bill to permit the National Energy Board, in future, to recover

from any company all costs incurred by the regulatory authority in scrutinizing and monitoring the planning and the construction of any pipeline from the time of certification until one year after leave to open the system is granted. As a result of this amendment, which is in line with the practice followed in the U.S., Foothills will be obligated to cover the related costs of both the Northern Pipeline Agency and the NEB.
The bill creates two forms of penalties. Failure of Foothills to fulfil any term or condition included in the certificate of public convenience and necessity would make it liable to assessment of a fine by the minister of up to $10,000 for each day of non-compliance. The company could require the minister to reconsider his decision, or appeal it to the Trial Division of the Federal Court. In addition, any person who fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the certificate or an order issued by the NEB, or one of its members, would also be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to $10,000 for each day the offence was continued.
In the case of any person directly affected by a decision relating to the pipeline by the NEB or its designated officer in the agency which had been approved by the governor in council, recourse will be available to the Federal Court of Appeal. The court could consider an appeal on the grounds that the board erred in law or in jurisdiction. The Federal Court is required to hear and determine any such appeal without delay, and the bill stipulates that the disputed decision may not be suspended in the interval. In its decision, which would be final, the court could confirm the order or refer it back to the board as the designated officer for reconsideration. In our judgment this procedure will ensure that the ends of justice are served, while at the same time reducing the possibility of the project encountering crippling legal obstacles which could add enormously to its costs. It was because such obstacles proved so very costly in terms of time and money in the case of Alyeska oil pipeline in Alaska that the United States has also adopted similar procedures with respect to the northern gas pipeline.
The bill contains a number of provisions with regard to tolls and tariffs. The governor in council, for example, would be empowered to make regulations to give effect to the provisions in the Canada-U.S. Agreement that relate to this question, as well as to prescribe the method to be adopted by the Board in establishing a rate of return on equity related to project costs. The definition of tolls in the NEB Act will also be revised to permit the board to authorize the imposition of such a charge at the time a pipeline is capable of transmitting oil or gas.
Under the bill, those sections of the legislation establishing the northern pipeline agency and delegating certain authority to it and the designated officer would terminate within one year following the granting of leave to open the pipeline for which a certificate of public convenience and necessity is being issued. These sections may be continued in force, however, by a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament if a certificate is also issued for construction of the Dempster lateral to the
February 13, 1978

Mackenzie Delta prior to the granting of leave to open the main system.
Let me hasten to emphasize that this terminating provision does not reflect any present doubt on our part about the need to press forward with development of a link to the Delta within the foreseeable future. Members of the official opposition will be pleased that we have adopted the Sunset provisions recently advocated by members of that party in the debate with respect to this agency and that it will not be financed by the taxpayer, but the companies involved.
This great project on which Canada and the United States are preparing to embark is the outcome of a long and dynamic process that has intensively engaged the private sector, governments, and the public on both sides of the border. Each has had, and continues to have a crucial role to play.
The various applicants competed vigorously for approval of their respective projects for transporting Arctic gas to southern markets, and in the process added immensely to our fund of knowledge. The Alcan-Foothills group of companies that eventually was successful proved itself to be energetic, resourceful, and responsive to issues of public concern. And those public concerns were very capably and forcefully registered by a wide variety of interested groups and organizations in both countries. It should be noted that Foothills' spokesmen themselves have acknowledged the beneficial role played by these public groups in their own corporate interest and in the national interest.
Governments have inevitably had a major role to play as well in view of the extreme importance of energy to the national interest, the international character of the project, and the inherent need for a legislative and regulatory framework to control all aspects of pipeline construction and operation.
Following the enactment of this legislation there will still remain a number of challenges to be met and overcome. The project companies, the suppliers of pipeline goods and services, financial institutions, public interest groups, and governments at every level all have a continuing and important role to play in ensuring that the system is developed and built in a way that will best serve the national interest in the years that lie ahead.
As the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) anticipated in putting a question to me shortly before the first reading of the legislation, this is a lengthy and complicated bill. I appreciate that members will want to give it careful study. Yet it is also important that we deal with it as expeditiously as possible so as to establish the legislative framework that will govern the project and create the Northern Pipeline agency that will have such a crucial part to play in its implementation.
On balance, Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that this immense undertaking will yield very substantial short and long-term benefits for all Canadians. It will provide us access to a major new source of energy from the frontier that is both secure and cheaper than any other alternative. It will provide a substantial stimulus to output and employment throughout many parts of the country. It will have a strongly positive
Northern Pipeline
impact on our international balance of payments, and it will play a vital role in fostering the long-term development of the economy of the north. For all these reasons I very much hope that this legislation to give effect to the project will command the full support of all parties in this House, as I believe it will command the support in general of the Canadian people in all the provinces of Canada.


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a very short question. It relates to experiences encountered by Syncrude in Alberta. When Syncrude asked for bids on the construction of pipeline from Fort McMurray to Edmonton, a low bid came in from a Canadian-owned company which employed non-union labour. The international union leadership at Syncrude objected to this. Syncrude bowed to the pressure and awarded the contract to an American-owned company at a considerably higher price. Does this bill and the authority granted to the minister and the National Energy Board ensure that Canadian-owned companies will have an opportunity to bid on the construction of this and the construction will not end up in the hands of American-owned companies at higher prices as a result of these artificial pressures?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that I would say yes, the legislation certainly provides for that.


Mr. Fraser:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest we are getting into a debate on this issue. I will inquire whether there is unanimous consent to permit the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) to answer questions. Otherwise I will have to recognize the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on behalf of the official opposition. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) would answer a question relating to the option now being studied as to 48-inch low pressure pipe, 48-inch high pressure pipe, or 54-inch pipe. Would he indicate to the House at this time any estimate of what differences there would be in the estimates that so far have been put forward in terms of man-years available on this project if, for instance, the selection were other than the 48-inch low pressure pipe, which the company has recommended from the start, or the 54-inch pipe, which is also capable of being produced in Canada, as opposed to the 48-inch high pressure pipe, because the 48-inch high pressure pipe cannot easily be produced in Canada and may have to be obtained from the United States or some other country? Can the minister give us any estimate of what difference it would make in total man-years of work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the estimates which have been put forward, and to which I have referred since the announcement in respect of the agreement, are based upon the current plans of Foothills which in turn submitted the proposal

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
based on low pressure pipe. I have not had any estimates as to the man-years of employment that might occur against the possibility that the National Energy Board would recommend high pressure pipe. 1 do know quite well that the plant in Regina is interested in obtaining business and, as was pointed out this morning by the premier of Saskatchewan, its ability to get that business might be very directly influenced by the selection of the pipe pressure. Certainly I have not any prepared estimates on the basis of high pressure pipe.
This is very a complicated subject, but just let me say that the National Energy Board will make its recommendations and its intentions known, and it must take into account, in addition to the economic factors, the factors of safety and reliability. The decision or recommendation of the National Energy Board is one for that board within Canada, but 1 have no estimate of the labour cost.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a brief question for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). Since the minister signed the agreement with the United States on behalf of Canada and has said several times today that the National Energy Board will announce the specifications, I would point out that under the provisions of article 10 of the agreement, which established a technical study group for the purpose of testing and evaluating various kinds of pipe, the last sentence states that it is understood the decision relating to pipeline specifications remains the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory authorities, and "authorities" is in the plural form. Do I take it that the technical committee will not make this recommendation, but that the National Energy Board, which will be part of the technical committee, will make that decision solely on its own?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is my understanding. It is my firm understanding that the National Energy Board, under the terms of this proposed bill, will be making its recommendation on the basis of the results of the technical study. In fact we have been in continuing consultation with the United States. On the basis of all the information and proposals of the United States it will be the chairman of the National Energy Board who will convey to me, either this week or the first of next, its conclusions, and I will make them known. It is the National Energy Board that will make that recommendation.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the minister, and I do not fault him for this in view of the complexity and length of the bill, has taken some 50 minutes to put the government's position on record. Let me say one kind thing about that presentation, and that will probably be the last kind thing the minister will hear from me regarding this bill throughout my remarks. I accept the understanding he gave today in respect to informing members of the House concerning pipe design, pressure and pipe size, before we conclude this debate. That is surely essential.
Having said that, I find myself in disagreement with a great many things the minister believes the bill contains. Before

going on to those I want to criticize, with all the force I can muster, the stance being taken by the NDP on a bill so vital to the national interest as is this one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: When the minister is describing remarks being made by members of this party, the opposition, and I will not use the term "official opposition" because, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has been around long enough to know, that is a term invented by Mackenzie King to split the opposition, he should single out the party whose members have been making remarks that lead him to believe they are going to encounter unconscionable delay in getting this legislation through. Let me make it abundantly clear that this party does not in any way intend to delay unduly the passage of this vitally important legislation through this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has said things today, as he has been doing ever since we came back after Christmas, along with other members of that party, which clearly indicate they are going to marshal their entire forces for the purpose of deliberately delaying or filibustering this bill. I am sure that is what the government can expect. I hope those members will change their minds because the matters at issue here are far too important to Canada to have that kind of irresponsible attitude adopted by the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The spurious question of privilege raised today by the leader of that party was more than adequately answered by the Deputy Prime Minister, and any member with any conscience at all would accept his undertaking for what it means in a House composed, as it is, presumably of honourable members. If those members had done their homework they would be knowledgeable on matters the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to explain. However, they did not believe him.
We had the good fortune to hold several meetings of great assistance to us in obtaining information and education on the subject matter of this bill. I want to compliment the officials of Foothills pipeline who went to the expense and took the time and trouble of coming here and sitting with us for one full day, from nine in the morning till almost six in the evening. The same kind of request was made by the government party and the same kind of co-operation was extended to their members who expressed an interest in the legislation. I dare say that members of the NDP did not even take the trouble of requesting that kind of enlightenment, and I would be very suspect in regard to heavy and intelligent participation in this debate by members of that party.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: You are
wrong again.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is aware, I am sure, that there are proceedings which were
February 13, 1978

commenced today in the Federal Court in Vancouver, brought by the Yukon Conservation Society as plaintiff. That action has been joined by the Council of Yukon Indians. Counsel for CYI was generous enough to send me a copy of the pleadings in that action. I have examined them very carefully with respect to the possibility that they might prevent this debate from proceeding. I have satisfied myself that those proceedings are confined to the question of the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board, namely, whether it was intra vires its powers to require Foothills to submit an application to build the Dempster lateral by next July. Since the pleadings are confined to that issue, I am satisfied it does not offend the sub judice rule with respect to the construction of an Alaska pipeline, which is the subject matter of this bill.
The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has labelled the bill a betrayal of Canadians. We put no such label on this bill. The bill has its weaknesses. There are several which I will speak about, as will other hon. members in their areas of speciality and responsibility. We do not believe we have been negotiated down the tube by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council. Perhaps he was the minister with the least knowledge who was conducting negotiations with our friends across the border. We speculate as to why that was and why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) seemed to have his nose pushed out of joint in the conduct of these negotiations. At times the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources seems to be more knowledgeable in these matters than the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council.
The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council quoted the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) as having said, "We bought a pig in a poke". I think that was the expression he used. For those familiar with pipeline parlance, perhaps it could be described as buying a pig in a pipeline. My comment does not make the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council smile. Perhaps he does not know what a pig in a pipeline is. By way of explanation to him, it is a device for cleaning out the pipe.
Members of my party cannot advance amendments which will cause irreparable harm to the viability of this project, nor can any amendments be advanced which would go beyond the provisions of the international agreement that has been negotiated. Amendments are possible, and we will attempt to assist the government in a constructive and positive manner to clean up a very badly drawn bill.
I want to be critical of the government in regard to the manner in which it has treated the opposition. The statement of President Carter, made in the decision and report to Congress on the Alaska natural gas transportation system, reads in part as follows:
Unnecessary delay would greatly increase the total cost of the pipeline system. I urge the Congress to act expeditiously to approve this important project.
Northern Pipeline
That statement was dated September 22, 1977. The Congress acted quickly. I fault our government for its serious delay and foot-dragging. After my perusal of this bill, there seems to be no earthly reason why it could not have been before the House prior to Christmas, instead of giving hon. members so little time to consider its provisions with experts in the field. Opposition members have been deprived of a fair opportunity to examine the provisions of the bill. Indeed, it was not until late last Friday that hon. members were privileged to have the minister's press package release. Both the bill and the press package release were in the Yukon before I received them in Ottawa. I do not know whether hon. members have that press package release as yet.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: It came this morning.


Erik Nielsen: February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
That is just as true now as when the hon. Leader of the Opposition uttered it on August 4.
What did the government do when it knew the United States had to make a decision as to whether the Prudhoe Bay oil should be transported by the Alyeska route, via the El Paso route, or via the Mackenzie valley route? The government knew well in advance that some mode of transportation was required to move that oil. It fiddled and fumbled about. Finally in approximately 1972 the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made an announcement on the eve of an election, which was coincidental, that a $100 million Mackenzie highway was going to be constructed. The intention of the government in making that announcement which, incidentally, was verified by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), was to induce the American decision to move that oil down the Mackenzie. Unfortunately, they fiddled so long that the day after they made the announcement the United States government announced that it was going to be the Alyeska route.
What happened after all sorts of clearing and grubbing had been done prior to the announcement by the Canadian government was that they abandoned the route, similar to an earlier abandonment. The then prime minister accused the Diefen-baker government, in which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) was minister of northern affairs, of spending money like drunken sailors on the Dempster Highway. So in 1963 construction was stopped. It was the vision of the government of that day, which did not foresee what was going to happen at Prudhoe Bay and what was going to happen in the Delta and in the Yukon where we are now active again in the Eagle Plain and the Peel Plateau. So they cut it off. Then as soon as Prudhoe Bay was discovered, bingo, they were right on the ball again, and they started building the Dempster Highway. That was some vision! It is a tired, bankrupt government which comes to that kind of conclusion. It is a government of reaction instead of action.


Mr. Foster:: I thought you would be more charitable today.


Erik Nielsen: I would like to hear the interventions, but with this new electronic control we have in this chamber one does not enjoy the full exchange we used to enjoy and which used to make debates much more exciting. Now members are shut off by a button. We operate like electronically controlled puppets.
One of the truly great bargaining factors which could have been discussed by the minister when he negotiated this agreement with the Americans is that the Yukon has some six million horsepower in hydroelectric potential which is run by a Crown corporation. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) will say more about the nature of that corporation and its habit of sitting on its backside through most developments of this nature. I might add that it is still there.
Six million horsepower is capable of development by reversing the flow of the Yukon River watershed under the plan known as the Taiya project. If such a project went ahead-and it was proposed to the Liberal government of the day in

1953-it would require the development of industrial sites on the Panhandle, which is United States soil. I recall that we negotiated away, albeit in terms of an urgent situation, 99-year leases, several of them in Newfoundland, and those leases are still extant in Newfoundland. Why could the minister not have negotiated on behalf of the Canadian people a corridor through the Panhandle for the purpose of that kind of hydroelectric development, twice that of the St. Lawrence Seaway project as it now exists? It would have provided all the power needed for the near future. It would have provided power for export to the rest of Canada, with our present knowledge of transmission lines. Why could Canadian industrial sites not have been negotiated as part of this package, in view of the fact that the minister has described it in terms of such magnitude? That is one of the areas he could have negotiated. Perhaps we were shoved down the tube, and I mean all Canadians, not just those in the Yukon.
The minister gave some figures with respect to Delta Gas. I rather doubt those figures. It does not seem to me that they are in accord with those which were given in evidence both before the Berger and Lysyk inquiries. However, I am prepared to be corrected on that. I am told, though, that whatever is in the Delta now is not sufficiently commercial to permit its transportation at this stage nor, indeed, at the completion of this line in 1983.
I have said that we intend to introduce a measure in committee which hopefully will be accepted by the government. That was suggested by our leader in his speech on August 4. He suggested that parliamentary input should be the responsibility of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. He said we should have a continuing right to monitor the pipeline question. That can be found at page 8040 of Hansard for that date. My leader also urged the government to bring in the legislation not later than last fall. We will be proposing that the monitoring process be on a quarterly basis. It might well be that that standing committee is not the proper forum for that.
I do not think hon. members on this side would argue that there should not be monitoring to ensure that the intentions expressed in the agreement are carried out. It may well be that the government will accept the proposition that the committee which has been set up to study the provisions of this bill should be the instrument by which we can achieve that monitoring. However, I seriously suggest that monitoring is the right of parliament and of the people of Canada.
The minister spoke about the advantages to the Yukon at some length, and I am very happy he did. It is not my purpose to confine my remarks to the Yukon simply because I represent that vast area. It is my responsibility to put forward the position of this party on a national basis, which I intend to do, but the minister did make some fairly wild statements about Yukon procurement, Yukon labour content, and the like. I do not find any such provisions in the bill. I may again be mistaken, but I have studied the bill fairly carefully, and I do not find that there.
February 13, 1978

The minister spoke of setting up a federal-provincial advisory council. On that council will sit one nominee from each of the western provinces plus the pipeline commissioner, but who appoints the Yukon representative to that federal-provincial- not federal-provincial-territorial-advisory council? The cabinet. What voice do the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon have with respect to that appointment? None. I ask the minister, where is the input? We do not consider the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) to be very knowledgeable about the social, economic, environmental, educational, and municipal problems this pipeline will cause the Yukon.
My advice to the minister-if he does not follow it, an attempt will be made in the committee to alter that, and there is ample precedent for it-is that the Yukon nominee on that council should be nominated in the same way provincial nominees are nominated, namely, by obtaining the recommendation of the elected members of the Yukon Legislative Assembly. There is precedent for that in the inland northern waters legislation and in other legislation. I need not belabour that point. That is one part of the bill about which we intend to advance suggestions in the committee.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw will be speaking about NCPC. The minister speaks of great benefits to the Yukon. I would like to have his attention once again.
I spoke of the press package. When I look around 1 see that the office of the pipeline commissioner is listening. Notwithstanding the fact that we have made several inquiries of the office of the pipeline commissioner, of the minister's office, of the pipeline's branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and on the NEB, we have yet to receive the list of commitments made to Foothills when they appeared before that body, with respect to the contents of the bill. We have been informed that there must be a list of commitments somewhere, but it cannot be produced. Surely we should have it at this stage of the debate, and certainly should have it not later than committee stage. I believe those commitments are essential to an intelligent study of the bill.
I should like now to deal with the $200 million fund. I do not know whether the minister did not understand what he was saying or whether what he was saying was deliberate-but he is wrong. I hope he misunderstood. The recommendation of the Lysyk Inquiry was that a Yukon heritage fund be established with up-front money, similar to that in Alberta. That was negotiated away by the minister in the United States. The fund was intended to recompense the people of the Yukon for the undoubted harmful effects the construction of this line will have on every aspect of their lives. Schools are needed now. There is no point in starting to build them when construction of the pipeline begins. The fund would have meant that the assets of Northern Canada Power Commission could be transferred to a Yukon power commission. We should not repeat the mistakes made by the Aishihik project with overrides of $36 million on the original estimate of $11 million.
Northern Pipeline
The minister has negotiated a deal with the United States, which is embodied now in the agreement, whereby we get back-end money-an advance on taxes. The minister speaks of the people of the Yukon using this advance through their government. That is a fiction, since all financial decisions are made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I do not know why the government continues to abuse Canadian intelligence by trying to create the idea that there is some kind of separate government in the Yukon. Mr. Speaker, it is a colony. The cabinet and the minister govern the affairs of the Yukon from time to time as they see fit.
The minister's press release of September 9 stated that Foothills is obliged to make an advance payment as required between 1978 and 1982 of up to $200 million which, together with the interest charges, will be offset against the company's future tax liability. The press release assumes that Foothills will be able to raise this money at 10 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a book is being written now by Francois Bregha who points out that this government could borrow the money at a little over 8 per cent. The difference between approximately 10 per cent and 8 per cent over the retained period of 25 years could mean a loss of $50 million to Yukoners out of that fund. Not only has the minister thrown away the heritage fund, and the NEB went along with him, but by inept negotiation he has caused that $200 million to fall to $150 million.
The Yukon, in the meantime, will have to pay a" the bills for schools and for the municipal infrastructures wnich will have to be put in place long before laying of the pipeline starts in January, 1981. The minister knows that construction, grubbing, clearing, surveying and engineering will have to be done a good year ahead. Foothills estimates that they will begin in 1979, so there is not much time to get these things in place. Where is the money to come from? The government has told the Yukon not to look to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for it. In effect, it has said not to bother planning schools or municipal facilities because it will not be advancing the money. It encourages them to borrow elsewhere if they can, and in that respect, Mr. Speaker, the deal is very harmful to the Yukon.
I should like to move to something else now. Knowledgeable as he is, my friend, the hon. member for Moose Jaw, may not be familiar with these things and I have not had the opportunity to discuss them with him since I received the bill. First of all, the justice facilities will be seriously taxed by the influx of 2,200 or 2,500 workers. I have written to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) suggesting an increase in the Supreme Court in the north-I should say I am not carving out a sinecure for myself even though I might be favourably considered by this government. There will be great law enforcement problems as a result of this construction.
The minister says it was a good deal that Foothills were required by the agreement to instal feeder lines to supply communities in the Yukon, British Columbia, and elsewhere along the route. Unlike British Columbia and Alberta, the Yukon does not have any utility companies to look after distribution, and I hope the government does not intend to
2798

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
impose that responsibility on NCPC. That would not be a good arrangement.
The minister also said that there will be time for the necessary studies to be made and some will be published in June. More important, he said that the timing will permit the settlement of native land claims. Mr. Speaker, those negotiations have been going on since 1973. In 1968 the Prime Minister made a speech in Vancouver in which he reaffirmed his belief-which was strange, coming as it did from a professor of law-that there were no such things as aboriginal rights and that no more treaties would be signed with the native people of Canada. Someone got to him, Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the debates in this House, or perhaps through the council of the National Indian Brotherhood. Local associations were not set up until they were funded by this government. By its funding and policies it lifted the lid on Pandora's box. Members of the government do not know where they are now on Indian policy, they do not know where they are going, and when they get there they probably will not know where they have been. The matter is totally, completely, and utterly out of control, with no guidance being offered by this government to bring these claims to quick settlement.
As recently as two weeks ago the CYI put the government on notice when they visited Ottawa that they are going to bend every effort to prevent this project from going ahead. I do not agree with that. On more than one occasion the leader of this party has stated our policy as believing that negotiations of these claims can proceed hand in hand, without one prejudicing the other. The position of the New Democratic Party is quite the reverse. There is no reason for the negotiation and settlement of Indian land claims going ahead at the same time as this or any other development, with one rider, that the development should not in any way prejudice the just settlement of these claims.
The government is in for a shock if it thinks that it is on the verge of settling any land claims with the Yukon native people. It will not happen unless it legislates them out of existence and that is precisely what I think it has smuggled into this bill. Unless I am mistaken on a combined reading of clause 16 together with clause 25(3), the bill deprives the right of the native groups to use a judicial device which they would be tempted to use in order to prevent construction from going ahead.
To illustrate I will quote some words said by a prominent member of our party on this side of the House. "In all my years at the bar and in all my time as a legislator here I have never seen a more gross intrusion of government control in any legislation." This is the first time I have seen anything like these repulsive clauses in a bill. It gives the governor in council, the cabinet, virtually the power to amend any regulation made under any act of parliament affecting any aspect of the pipeline or any person working on it. I believe I have that accurately. The Deputy Prime Minister nods his head. He is

nodding his head in the affirmative. I hope he is not going to sleep.
This is one of the more important and most offensive points of this bill. It practically places the power in the hands of the regulatory agency to make a decision with respect to any matter it chooses. If there happens to be a law contained in a regulation under an act of parliament which conflicts with that decision of the board, we have to change it. It does not make any difference what act it is, unfortunately. I have not as yet looked carefully to see whether it offends the Bill of Rights, I do not think that it does.
Let us consider the example of CYI wanting to appear before the board to obtain a decision with respect to the route of the pipeline crossing lands which they have traditionally occupied as an established village for a few hundred years. If the board says to the native groups in the village, "I am sorry the pipeline has to go through the centre of your village; you have to take your pump and so on, that is it," what recourse does the group have? They have the power of appeal under clause 23(5). What appeal does that give to the offended citizen? It gives the Federal Court, and only that court, the right to confirm the board's decision or the right to refer the matter back to the board for further consideration. In my opinion that is a denial of a fundamental right of British justice guaranteeing the citizen free access to the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The normal provision, and the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of this, provides that any legislation affecting jurisdiction of appellate tribunals is to provide in that appellate tribunal the power to quash, alter, refer back, or confirm. If that power in clause 23(5) were broadened to include in the power of the appellate tribunal the power to alter the decision of the board, it would be more acceptable. But the way it is now, it is totally unacceptable. We will be making every effort, short of any filibuster, to convince the committee members, and perhaps the government, prior to hearings in committee that it should do the proper thing and amend that clause, or declare its intentions so to do, so as to include that normal power of the appellate tribunal in this bill.
There are enormous transfers of power under the bill which can be transferred from one minister to the other. I assume that the Deputy Prime Minister will be the minister designated under the provisions of the bill-if he can patch up his differences with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-at any time he can transfer his powers or any privilege. As far as the powers of the National Energy Board which are contained in this bill are concerned they are such that the National Energy Board is emasculated if the cabinet so chooses to decide. It can tell the National Energy Board to do anything it pleases. I think it does now anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: But this bill certainly is like the opening of the mail bill-they are going to make lawful now what I strongly suspect them of doing anyway.
February 13, 1978

Environment


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
It has not been satisfactorily explained to me yet why the National Energy Board itself could not be the single regulatory agency in this instance. It has the skills, the expertise, the historical experience in matters of this nature; it has dealt with it for years. If the National Energy Board does not have sufficient personnel at present to cope with the added responsibility, no one has explained that.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister in his press release thought that it would be staffed by 200 personnel at peak-I think that is what he said. But having regard to the track record of this government in keeping the lid on the growth of bureaucracy in this country, I am afraid I do not have much confidence in that statement of the minister's. The bill does not make any provision for a maximum number that will serve on this proposed new board. If the Deputy Prime Minister's estimate is wrong, and I am sure that it will be, instead of 200 there will be 1,000 bureaucrats working for that agency.
There is a further provision. The bill provides for the setting up of advisory councils. The number on these councils is limited to ten, but there is no limit to the number of advisory councils which can be set up. It could be one or it could be 100. What a refuge for goodness knows how many friends of the Liberal party that will be, having regard to their track record lately. I think I speak on behalf of my party on this side of the House when I say that the government must give some consideration to limiting the numbers required in the regulatory agency.
If the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would like a pillow I will be happy to provide it. Perhaps I can call it five o'clock in order to allow the hon. member for Nickel Belt to have a nap.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows; the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette)-Public Works-Date of establishment of post office in Rouyn, Quebec; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-National Defence-Building of defence research centre in Winnipeg; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Airports-Edmonton International-Government position on improvements.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions and public bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order No. 4, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order No. 5, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order No. 11, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order No. 12, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Walter David Baker: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of setting up, in co-operation with the provinces, an Institute of Human Environmental Studies to determine, among other matters the (a) degree of air, soil, water and noise pollution the human species can tolerate without serious effects on physical and mental health (b) type of environment which stimulates the most desirable qualities of physical and mental health in the human species (c) type of national development which would give satisfactory environment to the greatest possible number of Canadians (d) minimum of modifications to the present day indiscriminate and largely unplanned growth of our metropolitan areas necessary to put within reach of the inhabitants of these areas a quality of environment which would provide adequate (i) housing (ii) recreational facilities, including parkland (iii) social infrastructure, such as transportation, education, hospital and recreation facilities.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion there are two things I should like to make clear at the outset. First, I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House, that the original drafting of the motion is not my own.
The original drafter of this motion is a former colleague of ours in this House who represented the constituency of Mal-peque, a minister of fisheries for many years in a former government who is now leader of the opposition in the Prince Edward Island legislature. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken to our former colleague about this matter; I had the privilege of being in the House on the last day he took part in the discussion of this motion, which was on October 18, 1974. I was impressed by the spirit of the motion and by what
80031-361/!

February 13, 1978
Environment
it seeks to accomplish in terms of the human condition, and although I realize that many private members' motions lead to nothing concrete, it is nevertheless important, in my view, that from time to time an opportunity should be provided to discuss matters affecting the human condition.
I am happy to report to the House that this motion does not involve the setting up of a bureaucracy which would take any part of the decision-making process or advisory responsibility out of the hands of the public service. But it does give credence to the proposition that there is a split jurisdiction in environmental matters, among others. It is not intended to be an attack on the work which the federal Department of the Environment is doing, or on the work which any ministry in any provincial government is doing. As I said, it is brought forward so that members of this House can address themselves to a very important subject. This is not to say I would not be delighted if the motion, broadly based as it is, were to receive the approval of the House. But I do not rise in any anticipation that it will.
Mr. Angus MacLean, then member for Malpeque, introducing his motion on October 18, 1974, had this to say as reported in Hansard at page 537:
Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions that what I am about to say will cause a sensation ... however, I feel a strong urge to put forth my views-
Anyone who knows the hon. member will appreciate the sincerity of his feelings on this subject. About the greatest compliment which could be paid to him was paid by the House leader of the New Democratic Party a few moments ago; just before we began this debate he indicated that this was an all-encompassing motion and inquired whether there was anything our former colleague had forgotten. I assured him he had not.
One of the things which concerns all of us today in this country is our preoccupation with bigness, whether it is big government, big organizations or large communities. This has created problems both for those who are directly involved and for others outside big complexes who have seen their populations and opportunities diminish. The sad fact is that today almost three quarters of our population live in cities and towns. This is not necessarily bad in itself, but it is predicted that by 1980 almost two thirds of the Canadian population will live in 29 major communities, almost one third of them in the three cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Whereas at one time cities were places where communication was easy, transportation was readily available and services could be supplied in an inexpensive way, this is not the case today. One has only to speak to a city planner or to a transportation expert to be told that cities everywhere, even the national capital area in which we live, are plagued by shortcomings in the services I have mentioned. So we have to consider carefully the direction in which we are moving and try to decide whether or not that direction is appropriate. We must attempt to decide whether or not the fixing of an optimum size for city growth is appropriate and, if so, whether development should be restricted. Are we neglecting the virtues which are to be found in the smaller communities of Canada?
Industrialists are gregarious. They like to move to places where other industries are already established. Thus, from year to year our problems are compounded and the development underlined in the statistics I have quoted is reinforced.
Many writers have pointed out that the rural areas are beginning to suffer from decay; they are exporting their best people to the cities where jobs are available. Consequently, the agricultural community is increasingly less able to provide commodities upon which other sectors of the economy rely. It is important we should not assess blame. We have simply allowed this to happen.
The problem is compounded by the shortage of agricultural land in the vicinity of great cities. Those who provide the sustenance of life, as far as our weather allows it to be produced, are leaving the farms. We tend to rely on technology to which there is a limit. Plainly, we have to look at where we are going.
The object of this motion is to create an institution outside of the political necessities of government. There are political necessities regardless of what political party one may be talking about. One level of government must discuss in cooperation rather than in opposition with the other the problems that we face.
We have come to regard the trend of centralizing in large cities as so much a part of our national make-up that our heads are down. We really are not looking at what we are doing. We should look at the experience in the United States with some of their cities. I know that none of ours have reached that size. All levels of government in this country must look at this problem while there is time. The purpose of this proposal is to ask the government to consider ways in which a new direction can be found, or at least a new insight into our problems.
With very few exceptions, communities around the rim of the city of Ottawa are growing as residences and ancillary to the city of Ottawa. Rather than growing in terms of themselves, they are becoming dormitories.
Small towns which have amenities which are useful to people who would live there and establish businesses with resultant employment are not growing to any great extent as the movement to urbanization continues. This is important to the kind of lifestyle we want in our country. It is important to the lifestyle of those who by necessity or otherwise must reside in our cities.
I am also concerned about the environment the cities create and the housing problems that are there. Whether it be housing for men and women with young families or housing for senior citizens, in the smaller communities of Ontario on a per capita basis there is a better quality and a greater number of senior citizen residences in the smaller communities than in the cities. There is an atmosphere of concern. The problems are apparent. That is part of the goodness of living in a smaller community. In spite of this, we still develop large cities with large problems. It is to this question my motion directs itself.

February 13, 1978

Quite frankly, we are getting to the point where if a community in this country, or indeed in all of North America, boasts that it is the most rapidly growing community, it is like someone saying he has the fastest growing cancer in town. The ravages of growth are all around us.
The proposal in my motion is to couch the problems that we face as a nation, as a part of North America and as part of the civilized and now urbanized world. Appropriate policies must be designed not only to improve the existing environment but to ensure that we do not forget there may be an alternative. That alternative may well come through a form of co-operation that has not existed here before.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the remarks he has made today and, in particular, for paying tribute to a former colleague who first spoke on this motion in 1974. The motion was also presented by our former colleague in 1976. He was very persistent. It is now again before the government.
I wish to point out to the hon. member that there have been some significant results because of this coming before the House of Commons in that the Environment Contaminants Act was passed in 1975 or 1976. Much has been done and much more will be done. However, it is timely that this matter is again before the House of Commons.
I thank the hon. member, not for the practicality of the suggestion, because I do not think it is either practical or necessary, but because the motion demonstrates a real concern for our environment.
I do not think it is necessary to restate this government's concern for a clean, healthy environment. Rather, the record of the government speaks for itself. This is our best evidence. The measures the government has adopted, particularly since the establishment of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, have been strong, positive measures designed to yield tangible results. I am pleased to say that we are beginning to see those results.
One of the best examples perhaps, only because it has been such an obvious pollutant, is sulphur dioxide. As a result of guidelines established by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment and the cooperation of the industries concerned, we are beginning to see a reduction in sulphur dioxide levels in the air. The same is true of particulates. All told, there have been guidelines established now for emission into the air of five significant pollutants and further guidelines for the discharge of five others into our rivers, lakes and streams.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls or PCBs, which are especially persistent in the environment, are being phased out of use and fluorocarbons are being carefully studied to determine their real effect. Progress through research is also being made on the problem of the long range transport of air pollutants. This is a particularly insidious problem that enables air pollutants from one source to have a detrimental effect hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
Environment
I mention these achievements, not simply to oppose the motion, but to demonstrate that concern for the environment is being translated into action. At the same time, however, I believe there there is one element in the motion that deserves some discussion.
The motion before us is praiseworthy in that it looks at the environment in a comprehensive way as a web of interdependent, complex, relationships. This government, largely through the Departments of the Environment, National Health and Welfare, and Urban Affairs, has been looking at the environment in the same way for many years. One of the humbling aspects of this approach, really the only approach, is the realization that we do not know all we should about the environment and the delicate relationships that comprise it.
One example that springs to mind is that of the Canadian chemical industry. That industry is now undergoing exceptional growth, growth that we all welcome. At the same time, however, we know that such growth must inevitably mean the planned introduction of thousands of new chemicals into industrial processes. Needless to say, our scientists cannot even hope to be able to keep up with the monitoring of these chemicals in the environment, either locally or on a wider scale. Unfortunately, I suppose progress dictates that this scenario is repeated time after time as our society expands and develops.
Clearly, neither this government nor any other would simply say that development must stop. Still the problem remains and, to my mind, there are only two solutions to it; research, and the establishment of mechanisms to prevent the introduction of potentially harmful substances into the environment, not after the fact but before.
We have already heard about the research programs now being conducted in the Departments of National Health and Welfare, and Urban Affairs. The Department of the Environment, as the lead department in environmental matters, also has extensive research programs aimed at discovering the kind of basic information and data asked for in the motion before us today. These are long-term, comprehensive research programs that have produced a great deal of knowledge in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Additionally, the department has an excellent relationship with many faculties of environmental studies in universities across the country. There, more valuable research is being carried out and, I might mention, a great deal of it funded by the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
Before I leave the question of research, however, I should like to emphasize that the investigations conducted both by and for the department are not carried out in a vacuum. Because I believe this is the primary intention of the motion, I can assure you there is a very real and useful exchange of information both between government departments and between those departments and the academic community.
Essentially then what is being asked for in the motion is already being done, and because this is so I can see little value

February 13, 1978
Environment
in adding another largely redundant bureaucracy. Such an action in these times of restraint and difficult economic realities would be irresponsible. In terms of real progress toward a cleaner environment, the establishment of the institute would be far more symbolic than real.
As I said earlier, research is necessary to enhance our knowledge of the environment. In the meantime, however, we must have mechanisms, not simply to clean up after ourselves, although those are necessary, but to prevent the introduction of harmful substances or to restrict potentially harmful activities.
In this respect, the Environmental Contaminants Act, passed by this House in 1975, is one of the world's leading pieces of legislation. It establishes the precedent that chemical or other potential contaminants must be approved for use before they can be introduced into processes through which they might enter the environment. I believe this to be an extremely important approach and one that reflects the concern of this government for our environmental well-being. No longer is it enough that a new chemical may make an industrial process cheaper or more efficient. Environmental destruction is not an acceptable price for higher profits.
Finally, in the area of potentially damaging activities, the government has also taken an important step through the establishment of the environmental assessment review process. The objective of the process is to determine the impact of federal projects before they are carried out rather than having to deal with the impact after the fact. Although the actual conduct of the process is still being refined, it is working, and there are now 22 separate projects under review.
In conclusion let me say that these are significant measures. More important still, they are positive action designed to prevent and solve problems-real problems. I do not think yet another institution will increase our ability to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the Angus MacLean motion before us again, and I congratulate the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on giving notice of it so we could have this discussion.
As the member who moved the motion indicated, I made a comment to him just before he commenced in which I indicated the terms in which I see the resolution, but it is obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson) did not see it at all in those terms.
My friend across the way made the surprising statement that we do not need this motion because everything it calls for is being done. How could my friend, a reasonable, decent, and honest fellow, make a statement like that? I think the reason he did it was that he thought in terms of the environment, as relating only to things like clean air, clean water and so on, and because he can claim the government has a department working on these things he says the same things are already being done, so we are on the road.

When I look at this motion it seems to me that what is being called for in the title "An Institute of Human Environmental Studies" is a body that will consider everything which relates to the human condition. Most of the bodies we have for studying things are cast in economic terms. We have the Economic Council of Canada, the Conference Board in Canada, and the C. D. Howe Research Institute. Most of these bodies make assessments and report to parliament or the government in economic terms. It would be a really good idea to parallel these bodies with this kind of institute that would be concerned about everything which affects human beings.
As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has pointed out, this would include not only clean air and clean water, but decisions as to the sizes of our cities, the spaces between our cities and towns, green belts, and all of that kind of thing. I suggest it includes matters having to do with conditions under which people live at various ages of their lives, what we do about education, about recreation for people during their working years and, as well, includes the question of whether older people should be maintained in their own homes or should be maintained in institutions of various kinds. This would include the effect on life of things that have to do with social security, and mental health comes into it, as well as the effect on our society of more crime than is tolerable, and so on. It literally affects everything. As I say, the thing I like about this motion is that very universality I see in it.
Like others, I recall very well speeches made by Angus MacLean when he was the member in this House for Mal-peque, particularly his very strong presentation of the case for small being beautiful. I am glad, as I say, that the motion is before us again. I think the House might consider supporting it in one way or another because it seems to me what it seeks is for the government, parliament, and people in public life to think not only in cold, crass, materialistic, economic terms, but to think in human terms, and in terms of what everything that touches our lives can do to advance the human condition. That is our purpose surely in this life and in this country, not just to have a country that one can boast of as being prosperous and able to solve its economic problems. Surely what we want is a society that is a good place for human beings. For that reason I am very happy to join with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in supporting once again the Angus MacLean motion.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the motion put before the House by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) concerns an issue which is both comprehensive and critical. If my memory serves me correctly, we have had a similar type of motion before the House on more than one occasion. At least in the time I have been here I remember participating in a debate on a private member's motion regarding the same suggestion being put forward here this afternoon. I cannot help but mention the sad position taken by members of the Conservative party, in that they speak on the one hand about too many Crown corporations, suggesting that we must cut back, conserve and be conservative, yet on the other they
February 13, 1978

want us to support a suggestion today that would create another agency for the expenditure of money, this makes no sense at all.
As the motion suggests, the human environment encompasses a broad range of factors including elements of the natural environment such as the purity of air and water, the condition of the soil, and the level of noise, as well as elements of the constructed environment such as the quality of housing, access to open space, and the availability of social services.
This wide spectrum of consideration touches the lives of individual Canadians in diverse ways. Our physical health can be impaired by the high decibel levels we must endure, the high concentrations of nitrogen dioxide in the air we breathe, the contaminants in the water we drink and the harmful additives in the food we eat. In corresponding fashion, our daily activities and levels of satisfaction can be affected for better or for worse by the design of our homes; the internal layout of the dwelling, the amount of living space available, the use of appliances, amenities and private outdoor areas. Similarly, our psychological well-being can be influenced by features of the neighbourhood where we live; the presence of greenery and open space, as well as the absence of stressful situations such as crowded city streets. Finally, the lifestyle we choose can be enhanced by the provision of social services, leisure programs and recreation facilities such as daycare centres, fitness classes and community social functions.
In a larger context, Canadians as a group also have been immeasurably affected by the rapid, seemingly haphazard expansion of this nation's largest cities. A few of the consequences of unbridled metropolitan growth have been the conversion of fertile farmland from agricultural production to urban uses; the competition for, and resulting price escalation of, scarce serviced land; low-density suburbanization which fosters excessive dependence on the automobile; ill-conceived and poorly located development which squanders our natural environmental resources; and rapid increases in public expenditures for urban services. The outward sprawl of metropolitan centres has also influenced life in core areas. Inner city neighbourhoods, which are generally the homes of low income groups, are usually marked by congestion, pollution, a scarcity of recreation facilities and a deteriorating housing stock. Finally, urbanization focussed on the largest urban centres has also exacerbated regional disparities in income and opportunity.
In short, the government recognizes that the complex array of factors which comprise the human environment are of vital importance to all Canadians. In recognition of that importance, the government has had in place for some time units within a number of federal departments which conduct research, administer programs and regulate activities concerning the human environment. In many instances, federal efforts in this field are either carried out jointly or conducted in close consultation with the provinces.
Environment
Therefore, the question must be posed: is there a pressing need to create another institution-an institution of human environmental studies-to duplicate the work already conducted in this field by existing public agencies? Although it may seem attractive to create a new organization each time a new problem rears its head, the creation of a new institute would be an inappropriate and unnecessary response. A high profile and a comprehensive approach are some of the potential advantages of a new institute. However, the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of External Affairs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are working already in a focussed and effective way to study, improve and protect our natural and built environment.
In support of this viewpoint, I will review briefly some aspects of the research efforts and action programs of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Urban Affairs. The intent is not to provide an exhaustive list of the agencies' programs and activities, but rather to illustrate in a selective manner the wide array of environmental issues considered and the progress made toward alleviating problems and enhancing opportunities in the fields of housing, recreation, neighbourhood improvement, public participation, urban growth management and over-all quality of life concerns. First I will describe the agencies' research activities; then I will discuss the program currently in place.
The research activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Urban Affairs may be considered as comprehensive yet focussed. A broad array of human environmental concerns are under investigation, but each research project zeroes in on a particular problem, whether it be to determine the most effective means for public participation or to assess the consequences of urban sprawl. Also it is important to recognize that the research is not conducted simply to expand our knowledge of the urban environment, although this undoubtedly occurs, but rather is directed specifically toward the development, assessment and further improvement of public policy.
The list of research efforts is quite impressive. Basic up-to-date information on the adequacy, suitability and affordability of housing in Canada's largest urban areas has been gathered and analysed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation through the 1974 survey of housing units. The study revealed that Canadians in the urban part of the country are well housed by almost any measure. The majority of the stock is less than 25 years old, is of good quality, has most of the facilities generally thought necessary, and provides a relatively high average amount of space per person.
However, housing involves more than bricks, mortar and mortgages. Even as an increasing proportion of the Canadian population has come to live in apartments, there continues to be a perception of high-rise as a spawning ground for alienation, isolation, crime and other forms of social pathology. In response, the Department of Urban Affairs has sponsored several investigations into the social and psychological consequences of living in high density conditions. The evidence thus

February 13, 1978
Environment
obtained suggests that modest crowding, such as may exist in Canadian housing units, as a rule does not adversely affect the health, family life, or behaviour of the inhabitants.
Discernible emotional stress or physical illness, however, need not be the prime criterion for determining the suitability of a particular housing form-high-rise apartments-for household-type families with children. Less stringent criteria, such as dissatisfaction with the living environment, also must be given due heed. In this vein the studies have, as an example, found that the arrangement of space-the design and layout of rooms in the dwelling unit-is at least as important to the satisfaction of the occupants as the total amount of space available. Though tentative, the evidence further suggests that certain dwelling types are better suited to particular stages of a person's life cycle, with apartments being more suited to the lifestyles of single adults and the elderly, while low-rise singledetached units are more conducive to the needs of families.
Lest the wrong impression be created, government research related to the urban environment extends beyond the dwelling unit and the residential area. Thus, in recognition of the fragmented and unco-ordinated approach taken to open space planning in many Canadian communities, a set of guidelines for urban open space planning has been developed and widely disseminated by the Department of Urban Affairs, in conjunction with the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association. Guidelines are provided for the selection of locations and planning of uses for a diversity of open space areas ranging from small pocket parks through to neighbourhood playgrounds, community sports fields and regional conservation areas. The guidelines indicate that some factors which should be taken into account in developing open space areas are the size and spacing of areas, the frequency and intensity of use, the sociodemographic composition of the population and the prominent natural features.
The need to provide a better environment for children caught in the midst of rapid urban growth has prompted several government activities. At CMHC the children's environment advisory service was established some four years ago to provide information on creative day care centres, playground facilities and play areas in residential projects. On a longer term project basis, urban affairs is associated with the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children on "The Child in the City" research program. The project team is currently exploring how the health, opportunities and wellbeing of children are affected by the physical environment and social changes in cities.
Nor has the importance of public participation to effective urban planning been overlooked. It has been widely acknowledged that involvement by citizens in expressing their needs and establishing community priorities can increase the responsiveness of urban plans, heighten the citizens' sense of personal efficacy and reduce their alienation with big government. As a consequence, the Department of Urban Affairs is currently performing research to determine the types of circumstances

and range of techniques that would allow for a more effective citizen participation in the urban decision-making process.
Research into problems inherent in the management of urban growth have been tackled from several angles. As an ever increasing number of Canadians have chosen to live and often work outside the traditionally built up areas of cities, the downtown areas of many Canadian urban centres have declined in a physical, social and economic sense. In response, the department has begun to explore the various options available for revitalizing central areas, including a study of how the residential component can be retained within the urban core area.
Another pressing issue facing urban centres is the increased demand for adequate housing coupled with a continued decrease in the supply of suitable serviced land. To preserve agricultural land and to provide housing, the ministry has begun to examine the potential that previously built-up residential areas have for accommodating additional growth through the introduction of infill housing which utilizes existing infrastructure and amenities.
Inquiry into the causes and consequences of urban growth often takes the form of a joint endeavour with the provinces. Urban sprawl, a pattern of settlement characterized by a small number of scattered communities, ribbon development and large, thinly populated rural areas, can encroach on productive farmland, engender excessive use of the automobile, despoil natural areas and severely strain the financial capacity of government. The ministry, in co-operation with the province of New Brunswick, has therefore embarked upon a full investigation of the broad fiscal, social and environmental costs and benefits of urban sprawl to governments and individuals in New Brunswick. It is anticipated that the study will provide policy options and suggest alternative settlement patterns suitable to the province.
In a similar vein the federal government and Saskatchewan have recently agreed to support jointly the study of development in the areas surrounding Regina, Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Prince Albert. The studies will encompass concerns such as agricultural use, urban sprawl, small community development, housing and regional services.
Last in this description but by no means least is the research effort that has touched on the broadest array of aspects of the urban human environment, namely, the development of quality of life profiles for Canadian cities. Under development for Canada's large and medium-size centres are statistical portraits of the health, education, work, leisure, housing, income and other aspects of residents' lives. Also measured are city differences in the provision of urban services such as health care, police and fire protection, recreational facilities and cable television. In order to expand public awareness and stimulate discussion on quality of life issues, some results from the nation's metropolitan areas have been reported in the publication "Urban Indicators: Quality of Life Comparisons in Canadian Cities".
Quite apart from the engrossing but somewhat frivolous pastime of determining which city is the best read, most
February 13, 1978

cultured or best educated, the development of quality of life profiles for urban centres serves more serious purposes related to policy development, namely, to identify deficiencies in the provision of services and infrastructure in specific cities and to monitor conditions over time in order to assess improvements or deterioration in various key aspects of urban life.
To complement the work on quality of life profiles, the human environment directorate within the Department of Urban Affairs is currently completing a research design to survey the perceptions that urban Canadians have about the environment in which they live. The survey will inquire about people's satisfaction with their homes, their neighbourhood setting, the community services they receive, the recreation facilities available to them, their downtown area and other salient aspects of their city. Also investigated will be the aspects of the environment that residents consider most important, the services that they most wish to see improved and the role that they think various government levels should play in the betterment of their urban area. The study design for the proposed survey of people's urban concerns is currently under consideration by Treasury Board.
The list of research activities described is long, somewhat longer than I had intended, but it serves to emphasize that investigation and analysis of human environmental issues by existing agencies at the federal and provincial levels is already extensive. This suggests that the initiation of a corresponding research program within an institute of human environment would prove somewhat redundant.
But government agencies do more than investigate human environmental issues; they also implement programs to manage development of and facilitate improvements to the environment. A few examples drawn from the activities of CMHC and the department should prove sufficient to make the point.
Communities which dump raw sewage directly into rivers and streams are major polluters of the nation's waterways, but the high cost of constructing sewage disposal plants and trunk lines places excessive financial burden on small municipalities. This problem has been tackled at CMHC through both technological innovation and financial aid. From a technological standpoint, the corporation has supported the development of the Canadian Water Energy Loop-CANWEL. The system, which renovates household waste water and recovers energy from domestic garbage, is being introduced as a demonstration plant in a Toronto apartment building. When completed, the plant will treat half the sewage and all the garbage generated by the building's one thousand occupants. On a wider basis, the municipal infrastructure program provides financial assistance to provinces and municipalities for sewage collection and treatment installation, water supply system and trunk storm sewers.
Designed to overcome water and soil pollution as well as to increase the supply of serviced land, the program has seen more than $1 billion in financial assistance extended since its inception in 1961. Perhaps the most highly profiled programs found at CMHC for the improvement of the urban human
Environment
environment are the neighbourhood improvement program and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. NIP is designed to help municipalities and local residents preserve and improve the amenities and living conditions in older and low and moderate income neighbourhoods. Through a wide range of grants and loans the program assists designated neighbourhoods and eligible municipalities with a broad array of action, including the provision of social and recreational activities, the clearance of substandard properties, the redevelopment of clear land for social housing and the improvement of municipal services. Designed primarily to complement NIP, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program provides funds for the improvement and repair of substandard dwellings to bring them up to locally accepted standards of health and safety.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The motion describes the activities of an institute of human environmental studies for the country working in co-operation with the provincial governments. The proposed institute is very much along the lines of an institute of environmental and occupational health related to the production of uranium to be located in my constituency. This concept was developed two or three years ago after the Hamm royal commission inquired into the health and safety hazards related to mining and also the production of uranium especially in the Elliot Lake area.
Subsequent to the report of that commission, several of us have worked to establish an environmental and occupational health research centre to be located at Elliot Lake, sponsored by the federal government, the provincial government and the mining industry. Companion to it would be an information centre dealing with providing information on various aspects of nuclear energy and uranium production. During this past year the federal government sponsored a study by the Elliot Lake centre into the design, function and operation of the proposed centre at a cost of some $200,000. It is encouraging that the mining companies and labour unions are very supportive of this proposal. When we consider what the demand for uranium will be in the next 30 to 50 years I believe the amount of money spent investigating the hazards is small. The Hamm royal commission report specified several areas where research should be done, such as safety standards, silicosis, dust levels in the mines and radiation levels in the mining environment.
Tremendous expansion of this industry is just beginning, Mr. Speaker. Elliot Lake has a population of about 12,000 at the present time and within eight to twelve years it is expected to reach around 30,000. A royal commission in Saskatchewan has mentioned the prospect of several new mines being developed in that province. Expansion of the mines means deeper levels of deposit of ore and greater problems of production.

February 13, 1978
Environment
I support the suggestion of the hon. member for Grenville Carleton with regard to this industry, Mr. Speaker. In the past, the difficulty with health and safety research has been its fragmentation between various governments, departments and agencies such as the Atomic Energy Control Board, Atomic Energy (Canda) Limited, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of National Health and Welfare and others. At the Provincial level research has been done by the department of health and the ministry of natural resources. Industry has also carried out some research. What we envisage is an independent research center with people drawn from both levels of government, from industry and labour.
The government, through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, has undertaken to provide $500,000 per year for the operation of the occupational and environmental research centre and there is some indication that the five underground uranium mining companies will match this. The federal commitment was made on the basis that the province of Ontario would provide an equal amount, but although the request was made in the spring of 1977 and the provincial government said it would indicate its intention by the fall, no support has been forthcoming. The project is thus delayed even though the initial stage is complete.
I think this institute is vital to carry out research and development for the safe expansion of the uranium industry in Canada. It should study community and environmental hazards, disposal of waste from the milling operation, occurrence of natural uranium within town sites and such problems.
The institute I have been speaking of could be very important to the health and safety not only of uranium miners but to people in the communities related to the production of uranium in Ontario and Saskatchewan, as well as in other provinces where it will be found in the future. The mines will expand from the production of a few thousand tons of yellowcake today to about 10,000 tons within eight to ten years. This kind of research facility could ensure that we will be able to cope with the problems of rapid expansion in the industry in Ontario and western Canada and, indeed, throughout the world. Each area of the world has different problems. Australia's problems, for instance, are not the same as those in Ontario, and Ontario's problems of deep underground mining are different from those of Saskatchewan with open pit mining.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to talk out this motion. While one cannot but applaud the good intentions attending this motion, one is moved to question the wisdom of creating yet another agency to study environmental questions of the kind raised in the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hour allotted to the consideration of

private members' business has expired. I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada, and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking at the adjournment I called it five o'clock a minute or two early to enable the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to have a nap, because he seemed to require some rest. I think he has slept in because I do not see him here now.
I regret that, although the spokesman on the issue for the NDP undoubtedly is here, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). As he usually does, he listens with judicious attention to what I have to contribute to these debates, as I do him. It would be my hope that what I have said thus far will convince him to convince in turn the members of his party that any attempt to delay the passage of this beneficial legislation in the best Canadian interests will be avoided here on second reading and in committee.
I want to draw to the attention of members that are here in such unfortunately small numbers-I could say the more important members are here-that before the drastic changes in the rules and the electronic conversion of this place to a very unexciting forensic forum a debate such as this would command the attention of two-thirds of the members of the House at least. There are not that many members attending committee meetings tonight who could not be here, and with legislation of this magnitude, it is rather shameful that members could not be present in greater numbers than they are tonight.
Again I castigate the government, if the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) would just pay attention for a moment. I have already drawn attention to the fact that the bill itself was in possession of members of the public before it
February 13, 1978

was in possession of members of parliament. The press package was not even in the hands of most of the members until this morning's mail. Tonight members can accuse me of whatever they wish, but I was in the government's lobby looking for sugar for coffee and I found that the notes for the remarks of the minister, in both official languages, on the second reading of the northern pipeline bill are supplied in that lobby in stacks a foot high. There is nothing in our lobby that would enable members to have recourse to the actual words the minister used in the debate. This is the kind of attitude this government adopts with respect to informing members of parliament. If it was convenient for the minister to make these publications available in the governments' own lobby, why on earth did they not have the courtesy to make them available in the opposition lobby so that we on this side could have access to them in order to participate in the debate?
Before the adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the intent which is expressed in the appendices to the bill. Admirable as those intentions are, we have suggested that there should be some kind of regular quarterly monitoring process by parliament. I simply add that regardless of what degree of trust members throughout the House might hold with respect to the intentions of the government to follow through, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is essential, in our view, that that kind of monitoring process exist.
The Deputy Prime Minister accused the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) of charging that we have been sold out. He charged the member with labelling the bill as a sellout before it was exposed to parliament. I reject that contention of the Deputy Prime Minister. We do maintain, as I am sure my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands will maintain, that in certain areas we have been sold out, particularly those areas which affect my constituency. There are others which are more important and which I intend to mention briefly in a moment. Since the hon. member for Nickel Belt is not here, I do not have to be concerned about concluding too quickly.


An hon. Member:: You will put him to sleep with that speech!


Erik Nielsen: Before this electronic surveillance was introduced in the chamber I could hear that kind of intervention and reply to it. In any event, most of the interventions which come from that rump end of the House are worthless, so there is not much point attempting to listen to them, let alone reply to them.


Mr. Gilbert:: The same applies to your end!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Forget it. He can't hear you!


Erik Nielsen: I want to reiterate the ground for this debate which was staked out by our leader on August 4-the conditions upon which we agreed in principle during that debate to accept the construction of the pipeline.
Northern Pipeline
We have these reservations about it. Some of them have been covered by the Deputy Prime Minister in his remarks. Our leader said on that occasion that we agree in principle with the construction of that pipeline, but that before that construction commenced we would insist upon the following conditions.
That the $50 million advance impact payment to Yukon communities to the native peoples be in place.
That the $200 million heritage fund paid by the pipeline consortium to the Yukon government, up-front money, as recommended by the Lysyk inquiry and the National Energy Board, be in place for the purposes of planning.
That the investigation of temporary export permits for the sale of so-called Albertan "bubble gas" to the United States in return for future gas be in place.
That there would be pipeline capacity to handle future Canadian supplies; this is absolutely essential.
That a comprehensive study of the Dempster route, including the environmental and socio-economic impact and all of the other factors that go into such a study, be undertaken.
That there be no Canadian government financial guarantees. Such an undertaking has been forthcoming from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as well as from other members of the government sitting on the treasury benches.
That there be maximum possible participation by Canadians in jobs and the supply of material for Canadians. This, we contend, can only be accomplished through parliamentary input initiated by such a process as we have suggested or some modification thereof. I am sure with co-operation we can achieve this unless the government adheres to an arrogant denial of the possibility of any constructive suggestions coming from the opposition.
We must insist that there be access to northern gas supplies by northern communities. We insist upon the creation of a single agency to deal specifically with the socio-economic impact of the pipeline. In this connection, may I say, there was an order in council setting up the Lysyk inquiry which had the full force and effect of the law, with the inclusion of a term in that order in council that there would be a second stage inquiry. The Lysyk inquiry repeatedly, throughout its hearings, led people of the Yukon to believe that the representations which they were making before it would come before a second inquiry. That is the law as expressed in the order in council.
I know the government may abandon or alter or ignore an order in council at their will; that is also the law. But as the CYI has pointed out, this reneging on the government's promise amounts to betrayal. I understand from the replies to certain questions addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) that there is no such intention to hold any formal second stage inquiry but rather that it is the intention to allow the regulatory agency to accomplish this purpose. We want to consider that and make suggestions in committee with respect to how it can be accomplished. This

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
idea of delaying the production of certain studies which are now under way until next June will not help the government's commitment that was made to provide this second stage inquiry.
Last, and most important, we insist there be a standing committee of whatever nature may be necessary to monitor pipeline conditions. Those are the conditions which we set forth on August 4 during debate. The minister really said nothing during that debate with respect to the government's plans, which they well knew at the time and which we insist upon knowing now. In case there be any doubt about what I have said with respect to the Yukon input by its people, let me just refer to a special delivery letter mailed from the Yukon only five days ago which 1 received only this evening thanks to the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne). The minister in the Yukon responsible for pipelines is directly at odds with the views of the commissioner and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in this government.
The report in the Whitehorse Star quoted Mr. MacKinnon as saying:
The pipeline legislation presently before the House of Commons reflects a growing and powerful federal presence in the Yukon.
He refers to the clause of the bill calling for a single regulatory agency with respect to the pipeline construction, and calls attention to the fact that the Yukon representative will sit on the federal side of the council and will be appointed by the federal government. He said he objected to the concept of the Yukon not being treated equally with provincial counterparts on the council. This is apropos of the parliamentary secretary's comment that this government would not lose any face if the Yukon adopted the views of their elected representative, which I have put forward today.
The commissioner-in-council indicated that a legislative assembly should make legislation which could be accepted. Mr. MacKinnon pointed out that the Yukon should be totally involved in all matters pertaining to the pipeline through the territory and that it should not be confronted with complete and absolute federal control. The commissioner of the Yukon, viewing federal civil servants appointed by the minister, says- it is not true-that this advisory council-referring to the federal-provincial advisory council-will allow Yukoners to make an input, and added that this view was put before the Lysyk inquiry and was completely ignored in the legislation. He also pointed to the provisions for second stage environmental hearings and further socioeconomic hearings, misleading the people of the Yukon into believing that there would be that second stage public hearing and opportunity for input. This is false.
The commissioner further said that the Yukon representative would be selected by the executive committee and would reflect Yukon policy, which he claims makes the appointment a political decision that follows the wishes of the Yukon representatives. This is false. That is not what is provided in the bill.
With respect to this commissioner, and previous commissioners in terms of the colonial status of the Yukon, when the

minister says to his commissioner "Jump!", what the commissioner says is "How high?". That is exactly what is going to happen unless amendments are made to the bill.
The native position has been betrayed by the reneging of the government on their promise, embodied in the law, of a second stage inquiry. I can foresee grave difficulties being encountered in dealing with that situation in order to give quick and efficient passage to this bill.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) will be the next participant in this debate. He will deal with the labour problems involved in this legislation and the utter lack of any plans being in place by the government regarding training. Private enterprise, through AGTL and others, have been in the process of training northerners, particularly native northerners, for six and seven years to assume operative skills once that pipeline is completed. What has the government done? Nothing. My friend from Vancouver South will deal with that at great length.
I was interested in a television program last night in which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) participated. The subject under discussion was the pre-build of the Alberta section. I ask him to correct me if I am wrong, but I gathered it was his opinion that this would delay the Yukon construction some ten to 20 years. 1 am not that pessimistic.
We were assured by the Foothills officials with whom we spoke in our studies prior to this debate that there would be no delay. We were assured by the Deputy Prime Minister that it was the intention of the government to adhere strictly to the schedule which set forth the international agreement that pipeline laying would begin January 1, 1981 in the Yukon. If I were a gambling man, I would not bet on that because of the financial implications inherent in the pre-building of the Alberta section, enabling the more facile financing of the northern sections.
It is likely that the construction schedule will be delayed. That is of great concern to me, as it should be to all members. Complete financing will not happen; it will happen section by section. However, assuming complete financing at once, the implication could be as much as $100 million a month in interest alone on a project of this magnitude.
I want to mention something in passing, but with no less sincerity for it being mentioned in such a style. It is essential that the fovernment include in its overall Canadian content planning and Canadian participation in not only pipe and steel but all the related industrial requirements in terms of supplies such as valves, fittings and the like, the province of Quebec, their steel industry and their manufacturing capability. They should be very positively involved in a most encouraging way in this whole project. I can see very positive implications in this project of interest to all Canadians with regard to encouraging the process of national unity.
It concerns me that there may not only be governmental but financial pressures brought to bear with regard to tendering
February 13, 1978

practices and the bidding for the supply of goods and meterials and labour on this project. The intentions are spelled out. They all sound very well, but again the monitoring process is an effective parliamentary check on malpractices that could develop.
I wish to make a personal suggestion here, not as a party position. Perhaps the government might consider a provision in the bill similar to that inserted in the AIB legislation. Upon the petition of a given number of members, say 50, the progress of the project might be reviewed from time to time by a debate in parliament. That would at least accomplish exposure of any unfair practices or irregularities.
On the same television program, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands also discussed the gas swap in terms of the Alberta pre-build. There are two points of view. The one he expressed contained an inference that there was a split in cabinet. I think that is putting it mildly. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member in the expression of that view, which is the way I understood it.
There is a body of opinion which believes it is impossible to arrange that pre-build without paying market prices now in terms of exports to the United States, and market prices three, four or five years from now in terms of the cost to Canada on the return of that swap. My own personal viewpoint, again not expressing the policy of the party, is that it should be gas for gas and volume for volume. In this regard I agree with the very sensible position adopted by the hon. member. I hope he is just as sensible in working toward the achievement of that kind of condition so that in the interest of Canadians generally we do not delay passage of the legislation.
Imagine the plethora of orders in council with which we are going to be confronted. Enormous powers will be granted under clauses 14, 15 and 16 of the bill. In the years of the Diefenbaker government, a gentleman's arrangement was made. The Deputy Prime Minister will remember this. Orders in council were to be tabled monthly, and they were. Since 1963, that practice has been discontinued. Unless you ask specifically for the tabling of an order in council, you never see it. Under the sweeping provisions of clauses 14, 15 and 16, we are going to be confronted with numerous orders in council that will not be tabled unless they are specifically requested.
I request from the government, if not an embodiment in the legislation, at least an assurance that once a month copies of orders and decisions of the board and any orders in council made under this legislation will be tabled in this House. In that way we will be informed of the manner in which the regulatory agency is conducting this project.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) will be dealing with the judicial features of this aspect of the debate. He will deal with clauses 16 and 23 at greater length.
I am sure the minister unintentionally misled the House. I ask for his attention because I hesitate to speak about misleading the House when he is not listening. He unintentionally misled the House when he spoke of the judicial appeal provisions in clause 23 of the legislation. If I read him correctly, not
Northern Pipeline
having had the opportunity of studying the release in his lobby, he said that the American legislation had similar provisions. That is not correct. Close examination of the American legislation will reveal they have provided that there will be a court of appeal. That court of appeal will be district court of appeal for the District of Columbia in Washington. But there is no limitation whatsoever spelled out in the United States legislation with regard to the appellate tribunal. They may quash, alter or confirm. They have the ordinary full powers of an appeal tribunal. However, as I say, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) will be dealing with that in a more detailed fashion.
I have dealt with the second stage inquiry, and I would now like to conclude this debate, as far as 1 am concerned, on this note. 1 am sorry I did not hear the intervention about Solomon, or whatever it was, and again I blame the electronic puppetry we have in this place.
I think it is absolutely vital to the Canadian interest that there be an opportunity for Canadians as a whole to share in the equity investment of this project-that is essential. That is what the 1956 debate was all about. In those days the shares were to go to Americans for something like $10 apiece and had to be bought back by Canadians at something like $40 apiece. That is why the government fell on that occasion, that great sellout of the Canadian position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I would suggest that the railroad spokesman for the NDP down there is off the rails.


An hon. Member:: What about a used car?


Erik Nielsen: I would not buy a used car from anyone in that government.


Mr. Goodale:: Now they have derailed your train of thought.


Erik Nielsen: They have not derailed my train of thought, for the benefit of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Good-ale), one of the few over there from out west.


An hon. Member:: A growing number.


Erik Nielsen: There must be that opportunity for more equity investment by Canadians. It was denied to Canadians in 1956. If ever there was a betrayal, that was it.
We have a shining example of how this situation can be handled in the manner in which AGTL was set up, where the citizens of Alberta exclusively, because the resource was in that province and the action was there, were given the right to participate fully in the equity stock of that company.
It is my understanding that Foothills from the beginning has said that all of the equity would be held by Canadian firms or individuals. This is to that company a fundamental factor in the presentation of its plan for equity to Canadians. I am also informed that the company has not yet designed its final share

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
offering or how it is going to split it because it involves tax and financial problems, all of which have to be overcome. However, at the moment it would appear that a 25-75 equity debt system is envisaged by the company. The president of Foothills, Mr. Blair, has said there will be a share offering to the Canadian public in an equity way. I would commend to the minister, if he has not studied the matter yet, a reading of the AGTL legislation setting up that company, which in magnitude is far and away less than this one; but nonetheless, we have seen some very sound participation by Canadians in principal and equity stock.
The National Energy Board Act, as I understand it, stipulates that Westcoast and AGTL must retain 51 per cent ownership of Foothills. That does not cover the situation we envisage. We want to see Canadians as a whole participate in the largest possible equity sense. There is no doubt in my mind that a great many more than Foothills might anticipate would in fact invest in the equity. This is a very attractive investment and, goodness knows, there are enough savings in the fiscal system of Canada to be invested in a project of this nature.
The best I can say here is that we will be advancing at the committee stage suggestions which will be more specific and designed so as to ensure that in the bill there are positive requirements allowing the widest possible participation by Canadians as a whole throughout the country in the equity investment of this project.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has finally awakened and is back in his seat. I welcome him back. Again I say it is a pity I cannot hear those hon. members but this new electronic suppe-try we have here prevents that.
We believe, like the deputy minister, this bill with improvements will command the support of the Canadian people generally, but the government will have to amend its ways and soften its arrogance and intransigent attitude in respect of positive, meaningful and constructive amendments from this side. We too have studied the bill. We have gone into it in some depth. We have a modicum of information and some idea of what might be in the best Canadian interests. Normally we would reject it, but we think we can help to improve the bill and make it more meaningful and more positive. We will be making proposals and suggestions in the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Unlike hon. members who are heckling from the rump to my left, whose interjections-


An hon. Member:: We are just trying to be helpful.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the contribution that will be made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) will be useful. I know he has some knowledge about the subject matter. I have listened to him for too many years to think otherwise. I am sorry I cannot share that same
confidence in respect of the other members of that party in the rump, and that applies especially to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) whose tongue is always in gear when his mind is not functioning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: This bill can do more to accomplish a sense of national purpose and unity in this country than anything that has transpired during ten years of Trudeau musings and of a tired and worn out government. I beg the government to approach the matter in that sense, and I ask the NDP to join with us in that purpose because it could contribute to that sense of unity. A project of this magnitude could do more for unity in this country than anything that has happened in the last ten years. We on this side urge members throughout the House to approach the debate with that overriding purpose. We urge them to give second reading reasonably rapid approval. Let us get the bill into committee, advance our arguments and amendments there, and eliminate unnecessary delays. The hon. member of Nickel Belt is crying about unemployment in the Sudbury basin and so on. Just think what this bill means in terms of employment and industry to this country. Let us not adopt an obstructionist attitude. Let us get the bill through second reading and into committee where we can possibly, get our amendments passed. The Liberals have the majority. If they do not want them, they will reject them; there is nothing we can do about that. If we do not adopt that attitude, the shock waves in the financial community and the political environment in the United States could very well kill this project, which is so vital to the national interest of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Milne:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for the Yukon permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for the Yukon permit a question by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Mr.   Neilsen@: Yes, certainly.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon, as I am sure all members have. Would he summarize in 50 words or less exactly where he and his party stand on the second stage inquiry?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not been listening. I have described it as a betrayal by the government. The order in council setting up the Lysyk inquiry contained a term of reference promising a second stage inquiry. Throughout the inquiry, Dr. Lysyk repeated to the people of the Yukon that such an inquiry would be held. The native people relied on the second stage inquiry. They did not appear

February 13, 1978

before the first inquiry, relying on the fact that they would be able to appear before the second stage inquiry. Hon. members opposite are in trouble because of that.


William Ross Milne: Where does the hon. member stand?


Erik Nielsen: There should have been a second stage inquiry. With proper direction, it can be embodied in the agency process, but it cannot be part and parcel of the over-all responsibilities of that agency. It has to be directed toward hearing the views and opinions of the people of the Yukon, who were promised that they would be heard on the second stage inquiry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25 seeks to give effect to the Canada-United States agreement, which was signed in Ottawa on September 20 by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on behalf of Canada, and by Mr. James Schlesinger, President Carter's energy aide, on behalf of the United States. Despite the fact that it has taken the government four and a half months to formulate legislation which the United States Congress has ratified already, the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council is now urging us to expedite this legislation as quickly as possible. I can understand the minister being very anxious to hurry this legislation through the House. What I cannot understand was the vehement attack which was made on the New Democratic Party by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who started out by saying that he had spent a great deal of time with representatives of the oil and gas companies. Also he indicated that they had informed him and educated him on this subject. I suggest a refresher course might be in order.
Then he went on to say that he was absolutely certain that hon. members of the New Democratic Party had not met with any of the officials of these companies which, like so many statements he makes, is entirely unfounded. As a matter of fact, members of my party met with all the groups concerned. They met with Arctic Gas when they were promoting the Mackenzie Valley pipeline; with Foothills when they were pushing the Maple Leaf line; and during the last year with Foothills (Yukon) Limited, both before the decision of the National Energy Board and since. As a matter of fact, we have met with them two or three times in the last two or three weeks. Just as much as the Progressive Conservative party, we have sought to familiarize ourselves with all points of view.
When the hon. member for Yukon accuses both the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and myself of attempting to Filibuster the legislation, he is talking absolute nonsense. As a matter of fact, if he visited this place more frequently, he would know differently.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He would know that under our system of parliamentary procedure there is no way in which a party of our size can filibuster legislation. I have great difficulty attempting to decide on which side the
Northern Pipeline
hon. member for Yukon is on this question, as well as on which side the Progressive Conservative party is.
It seems to me the hon. member for Yukon, like the people of a very old profession, was playing both sides of the street. He started out by attacking the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby because the latter had said, on the items which we had been promised with respect to the proposed pipeline, that most of them had gone down the tube. Then the hon. member for Yukon proceeded, item by item, to show that they had gone down the tube. He read the list of the conditions which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had propounded on August 4 as being the conditions to which the government should subscribe if it wanted the support of the Progressive Conservative party. Then he proceeded, clause by clause, to show that none of those conditions has been met. He wants to be in a position where he can say that his party voted for the pipeline because it will have some benefit to the Yukon, at the same time as being able to say that his party criticized the government for all its failures and deficiencies in this project.
Let me put the position of the New Democratic Party very clearly. In the first place, we suggest that this is the biggest and costliest project which has ever been undertaken by Canada in its long history. We are being asked to embark upon this project without knowing what the exact route is going to be. It has not been fully surveyed. It has had none of the environmental study which went into the Mackenzie Valley pipeline route. The Dempster spur has not even been studied, let alone surveyed. There are no gas contracts yet formulated and no prices yet set for the gas.
Most seriously, today when we are at the second reading stage of the bill we do not even know what the specifications for the pipe will be. I was appalled when the President of Privy Council stood in his place and suggested that, as long as we have that information before we take a vote, it is not necessary to have it while we are debating. The specifications will decide the cost of the line, for one thing. It will cost, by the government's own figures, $545 million more if high pressure pipe is used. The specifications will determine what the Canadian content will be and how much of the steel pipe will be processed in Canada, because we have very limited capacity to process high pressure pipe. These specifications will determine what orders will go to Canadian companies and what jobs will go to Canadian workers, but the President of Privy Council says that is not important and that we ought to be able to carry on an intelligent discussion about a project of this magnitude without having this information. That is also the position of the hon. member for Yukon, who says, "Hurry this thing through, you don't have to have this information."


Erik Nielsen: I didn't say that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is he suggesting, like the President of Privy Council, that we should buy a pig in a poke? All the vituperations of the hon. member for Yukon and all the urgings of the President of Privy Council

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
will not persuade us to shirk our responsibility to insist that the government make clear all the terms and conditions which will apply with respect to a project which the Canadian people are going to have to live with for many years to come.
Let me look first at some of the events leading up to this pipeline agreement. For two or three years most of the ministers of the Crown had been supporting-some vigorously and some more than others-the application of Arctic Gas, a consortium of American companies which wanted to build the pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley. The most outspoken advocate was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) who on every occasion implied that it could virtually be taken for granted that the National Energy Board was going to approve a permit for Arctic Gas. Members of the New Democratic Party opposed the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and we did so for good and sufficient reasons which I have given to the House previously, and there is no need for me to repeat them here tonight.
The New Democratic Party was the first party to propose very serious consideration for the Alcan route through amendments and motions we moved on February 23 last and on May 13 last. We pointed out why we thought the Mackenzie Valley route would be disastrous for Canada, why it would be uneconomic and would hold no advantages for the Canadian people, and why we thought the government and the National Energy Board should give serious and favourable consideration to the proposed Alcan route. I must say that every reason we gave was fully vindicated by the decision of the National Energy Board, which emphasized many of the points we made in this House.
The leader of the New Democratic Party pointed out on August 4 last when this matter was last discussed the reasons we advocated very serious consideration for the Alcan route. The first was that it was the most preferable route with respect to the options we had before us. We had already stated our strenuous objections to the Mackenzie Valley route. That left two other options, the El Paso route or the Alcan route.
Most people do not realize that Canada was not the sole arbiter in this matter because the Americans did not need our permission to follow the El Paso route. We felt that the El Paso route-particularly the prospect of the LNG tankers going down the Pacific coast where we already have huge oil tankers moving between Valdez, Cherry Point and points south in the United States-would add to the problem of congestion on the west coast. Therefore, we thought that of the three options which were under consideration by the two governments certainly the Alcan route seemed to be preferable.
We were also impressed by the fact that Foothills (Yukon) Limited was a Canadian company and that it was going to raise its equity here in Canada, although it would have to go outside Canada to raise its loan capital. We were impressed by the fact that Foothills asked for no financial backing from the federal government, whereas Arctic Gas had made it very clear that its application was contingent on the federal government's backstopping its project in the event of cost overruns.
However, I think what impressed us most about the Alcan route was that Foothills (Yukon) had committed itself to Canadian content with respect both to the steel in the pipeline and to the laying of the pipeline.
The working paper which Foothills sent out says, and I quote:
Line pipe represents the greatest single expenditure by any of the applicants. Foothills (Yukon) proposes to purchase all its pipe in Canada.
Before the National Energy Board the representatives of Foothills said again and again that they would purchase over 90 per cent of their pipe in Canada and that all their construction work would be done by Canadian firms and by Canadian workers. That appealed to us. We were impressed by the recommendation of the National Energy Board that a $200 million compensation fund be set up to alleviate some of the problems which the Yukon would have with respect to the infrastructure which must be built because of the influx of construction workers into that area. We were impressed when we were told that, whereas in the Northwest Territories the matter of native land claims was not nearly settled, in the Yukon an agreement in principle was expected in a matter of weeks or months.
We were also impressed by the suggestion which came from the Lysyk commission that $50 million should be paid to Yukon Indians in order to compensate them for dislocation until such time as their native land claims were settled. Those were the reasons we gave on August 4 for supporting this project.
It should be remembered that the primary purpose of this pipeline is to take American gas from Alaska to the United States, and if no Dempster spur is built Canadians will never get a cubic foot of that gas. This is a neighbourly gesture to the United States. Therefore, we have taken the position that, if we are going to provide our American neighbours with a land bridge by which they can take gas from Alaska to an energy-hungry nation, then Canada has a right to certain benefits accruing from that project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What happened to those benefits, Mr. Speaker? The Canadian government started to negotiate with the United States. It had all the cards because the United States desperately needed that pipeline. We did not need it. In spite of all that has been said about the fact that we are going to get gas over the Dempster spur, the fact remains that we are not desperately in need of gas from the Arctic. In 1976, five trillion cubic feet of gas was found in western Canada. In 1977 another five trillion cubic feet was found; that is ten trillion cubic feet in two years. Preliminary discoveries this year indicate we will get more than that in 1978. This means we will have well over 60 trillion cubic feet, almost 70 trillion cubic feet of gas in Canada. That is not an unlimited supply but it certainly means we are not

February 13, 1978

pressed for natural gas. The United States needed the pipeline. We could resolve their problem and so held the trump card.
The United States wanted the Alcan line in the first place. As President Carter told the press conference in Washington when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was there, the Alcan route would save them $6 billion compared to the El Paso route. Second, the defence department in the United States was horrified at the prospect of having a large section of their people dependent upon gas which was being brought by tanker in time of war, so because this is a safe route the United States wants it.
When our negotiators-the operation might have been labelled "Innocents Abroad"-sat down with the United States negotiators, instead of pressing the natural advantages they had, they went on the defensive. If press reports are correct they began by stressing that there must be provision for a Dempster spur so that we could bring gas down from the Mackenzie Valley if and when we want it. There was no need to make that the number one issue. The President of Privy Council stressed again and again today that this was going to be a great asset. As a matter of fact, I doubt if any gas will come down the Dempster spur much before the middle of 1990 and probably not until beyond this century.
It is true that Foothills is committed to making application by July 1, 1978. It is true they are committed to making a survey. The fact remains, however, that you do not build a pipeline until you have contracts and nobody is going to buy Arctic gas at twice the cost of gas in southern Canada. You are not going to get gas contracts until gas is in short supply in southern Canada, and that is not going to happen for several years. There was no need to press that point, Mr. Speaker.
The second thing we stressed was that we had to justify the $200 million compensation fund because this was setting a precedent. Again there was no need to throw that card away, but we did. On the other hand, the United States negotiators played a marvellous game of poker. They bluffed the Canadian delegation completely out of the game. Reports kept coming every day. Columnists in the United States were writing to the effect that there was no doubt the United States was going to choose the El Paso route; they were not going to pay $6 billion more than they needed to get Alaskan gas. It was a good game of bluff.
It was not hard to bluff some of our Ottawa trained bureaucrats. For as long as I can remember they have been trained to believe that you must never stand up to the United States, because if you do they will resort to economic retaliation. I have listened to that for four decades-"We will get economic retaliation if we do not jump every time they snap their fingers."
We got to the final stage of negotiations in Ottawa and that took some 17 days. Then we got to the last stage when the President of Privy Council took charge. A lot of people wonder why the President of Privy Council was chosen. I do not know the reason unless it was to make sure that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was not put in charge. If that was the reason I certainly endorse it.
Northern Pipeline


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is like putting Custer in charge of Big Horn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Those negotiations went on for 17 days between officials, and then the President of Privy Council and Mr. Schlesinger, the economic adviser to the President of the United States, took over the final negotiation. That lasted seven hours. That is an exhausting negotiation, Mr. Speaker. Any trade union boss who took only seven hours to negotiate an agreement would be fired. Somebody suggested that was why the minister's hair turned grey during that period. We are glad to see it has resumed its raven hue.
The agreement was signed on September 20. Mr. Schlesinger praised the President of Privy Council for being a tough negotiator. President Carter praised the Prime Minister for being a tough negotiator. Mr. Speaker, when a Yankee trader tells you that you are a tough negotiator, you know you have been taken to the cleaners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let us examine what happened as a result of these negotiations. The fact is-I do not say this with any pleasure-that the Canadian government was outmanouvred and outwitted. Canadians will pay a heavy price for their incompetence. I think the best summary of the negotiations is contained in the statement which Mr. Schlesinger made before the United States Congress on September 23 last, when he said:
The proposed Alcan system will deliver Alaska gas at the lowest possible cost of service to U.S. consumers-below the cost of imported oil and substantially below the cost of other fuel alternatives.
But the agreement is particularly advantageous to the United States by providing ceilings on every aspect of potential U.S. liability while creating new incentives for efficient construction on a portion of the project that would normally be subject to exclusive Canadian jurisdiction.
In a single sentence Mr. Schlesinger is saying: "We have succeeded in maximizing the advantages to the United States and minimizing the benefits to Canada." Let us look at it closely, Mr. Speaker. First of all, there were the provisions with respect to the Canadian content which are so ambiguous and so weasel-worded as to be meaningless. When the treaty was signed the President of the Privy Council's office issued press releases telling the Canadian people that this would mean an expenditure of $4 billion in Canada and it would create 100,000 man-years of employment. But if you read the small print, as I understand it this includes the Dempster spur which may not be built for 15 or 20 years. It may not be built in the lifetime of most of us here-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I expect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), like Moses, will live to be 120.


An hon. Member:: He is already there.

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: So we are
not talking about $4 billion and 100,000 man-years of employment; we are really talking about $2.5 billion and 68,000 man-years of employment-if we get it. I say "if we get it" advisedly because there is no assurance in the treaty or the legislation that we will get it. As a matter of fact the treaty, in my opinion, says just the opposite.
When the House gave first reading to this bill the minister had a press conference, and according to the press reports he is supposed to have said the government could block any contract being granted. That is only true, as I see it, if he can do so under the provisions of article 7 of the agreement.
Let me put on the record article 7 of the agreement because it is germane to the whole problem. It says:
Article 7-Supply of Goods and Services.
Having regard to the objectives of this agreement, each government will endeavour to ensure that the supply of goods and services to the pipeline project will be on generally competitive terms. Elements to be taken into account in weighing competitiveness will include price, reliability, servicing capacity and delivery schedules.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is perfectly clear. One may look at the provisions in clause 10 of schedule III in the legislation, but they are merely pious hopes, an expression of expectation. If the minister or anyone else blocks a contract which is competitive, it occurs to me that under article 7 he must show that it is ruled out of court on the grounds of either price, reliability, servicing capacity or delivery schedules. If he cannot do that, there is no way that the minister or anyone else can block such a bid.
I listened today to some strange statements made by the minister. He said one of the reasons assurances could not be put into the agreement was because this would interfere with GATT. I thought this was an agreement between Canada and the United States. Surely Canada and the United States can make any arrangement they want with reference to this. Or is the President of Privy Council suggesting that this has international ramifications and that the market is to be open to Japan or West Germany or anybody else? Is that what it means?
How much they know about it is shown by the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), when he was appearing on the Patrick Watson program the other day, said: "You know, Japan cannot make large pipe." Are the government unaware of the fact that every bit of the Alyeska pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez is Japanese pipe? These are the brains we trust!
Surely it was not beyond the ingenuity of the Canadian negotiators, first of all, to recognize that there is not a provincial government in Canada which does not have included in all its contracts for highways and public buildings a preference clause for its companies and its own workers. Everyone has this preference because they are the people who pay the taxes in that jurisdiction, and they should have some preferential treatment. There is no reason why this could not be provided.
If the government did not want to do that, there was a simple means by which the company, Foothills (Yukon) Ltd., could take any bid which came in from a Canadian company, and if it was too high and it was apparent that, by giving a preference to the Canadian companies method, they were taking advantage of the situation, they could submit it to the minister or to the commissioner and that bid would be thrown out and competitive international bidding would be installed.
I see no reason why Canadians should not have that market for the steel and pipe exclusively to themselves as long as the company in question is satisfied they are not being taken advantage of by the steel mills. What did the government do? The most amazing thing of all is that they proceeded under article 10 of the agreement to agree to the setting up of a technological study group for the purpose of testing and evaluating different kinds of pipe. It says at the end of the clause that it was understood that the decision relating to pipeline specifications remain the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory authorities. I asked the minister about it this afternoon and he said that the National Energy Board will make the decision. I hope he will consult the lawyers and table an opinion from the law officers of the Crown before we finish this debate. I know that the chairman of the National Energy Board will convey the decision of the committee to the minister, but when the clause speaks of "regulatory authorities", I take it that the American regulatory authorities working with the National Energy Board will have to reach some agreement with respect to this matter.
Why was it necessary to refer this matter to a joint technical committee of Canada and the United States? The National Energy Board had already set the specifications. The applicant, namely Foothills (Yukon) Limited, had already put those specifications in its application. Why did the matter have to go to a joint committee? I will tell the House why. If hon. members read the transcript of Mr. Schlesinger's remarks before the congressional committee they will see he was under pressure from two sides. The steel-producing states wanted him to give them a piece of the action. Secondly, he was under pressure to ensure that, during the time the pipeline was being built, they would be able to get Canadian gas.
That is why Mr. Mondale came to Canada. He too, of course, praised the government. Who would not do so if he was looking for some several trillion cubic feet of gas? He had done so well in negotiations before there was no reason why he should not expect to come here and with a little flattery get some gas. Unfortunately he made the mistake of going to Edmonton and ran into a negotiator as tough as he was. He went on his way, without any flattery and with no bouquets.
The difficulty I see is that although in clause 10 of schedule III it says the minister can ensure that the procedures followed by the company will not involve unfair trade practices, there is no definition of "unfair trade practices". Is the DISC program in the United States, by which the government subsidizes companies going into export trade, an unfair trade practice? Is the fact that the government gives transportation subsidies or tax credits or tax exemptions an unfair trade practice? Is the

February 13, 1978

fact that a company in the United States buys its steel pipe from Japan and then acts as broker to sell it to Foothills (Yukon) Limited an unfair trade practice? We do not know. I do not think the minister knows and certainly the legislation does not answer that very vital question.
Some of the other things which we had hoped for and which my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent), enumerated on August 4 as being, in our opinion, absolutely essential if we were going to support legislation putting this agreement into effect included, for example, consideration of the route. The route which was recommended by the National Energy Board, of course, has been altered. That alteration could save the Americans some money. It could also save Canadians some money, but only if we build it in the first place, and, if we do build it, if we keep over-runs down to 35 per cent. It is interesting to note that Mr. Schlesinger said of this clause:
It provides a formidable incentive for Canada to build the main line as efficiently as possible, and decrease the overall cost of service to U.S. consumers to the maximum extent.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we have got by agreeing to bring the line from Whitehorse and not through Dawson: we are committed to an incentive to keep cost over-runs below 35 per cent. But the most serious defect is that there is nothing said about the $200 million compensation fund, an idea which apparently has been rejected. There is nothing here about settling the native land claims: nothing about the $50 million which was to be given to the Yukon Indians; nothing about the second review of the sociological and environmental problems, though this was promised by the government.
Finally, and most serious of all, this legislation sets up an agency which will become a bureaucratic smokescreen behind which this whole project will be continued and operated beyond the scrutiny of parliament. Parliament will have no control. There will be no estimates. Whole sections of the powers given to departments would be relegated to this group-a minister, a commissioner, an administrator, probably a deputy administrator, a consultative council and a number of advisory committees. What control will parliament have over this project? What accountability will there be to parliament and to the people of this country?
The day we pass this bill, unless substantial changes are made, we shall lose control of a $10 billion project. I want to say on behalf of this party that though we support the building of a pipeline it is apparent that the promises and conditions which were set forth on August 4 have not been implemented, and unless they are implemented we have very serious reservations about whether this legislation should be passed by the parliament of Canada.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. In the last portion of- his remarks he appeared to be suggesting that parliament ought to be running this project on a day to day basis, as it were. In my
Northern Pipeline
view that would be one of the most foolish policies we could possibly adopt. Parliament has a hard time running its own business without trying to manage the construction of a pipeline.
Earlier in his remarks he emphasized the importance of cost over-run provisions. Certainly this is important. It is extremely important that we should build this pipeline cheaply and efficiently, because we get the Dempster line for nothing. If we do not get it for nothing, if we exceed the 35 per cent, the line will still be built when the time is opportune, so we would not have lost anything. The decision made by the negotiating minister was a very wise one.
I was interested, too, in the remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He recalled that the President of the United States said on September 22, 1977, that unnecessary delay would increase the cost of the pipeline a great deal. We must make sure there are no unnecessary delays.
I enter this debate because I have been a member of the energy committee for five years and also because Welland is the home of the biggest pipe mill in Canada. It has a competitor in Regina called Ipsco and I understand there are one or two others. There are certain differences between these companies but they will all be kept very busy making pipe if we get on with the job here. The main thing is that under the northern pipeline agency we want to maximize Canadian content. But, of course, these pipe mills want to maximize their own content. These companies are different from their American competitors. The great United States Steel Company, which is situated in Texas, has much further to ship its pipe than our own industry in central Canada.
Perhaps I should say a few words about Stelco, the Welland company. Stelco (Welland Tubes) built a 7.5-acre plant two or three years ago. The company was wise, expecting the pipeline to be built. Another two acres was recently added to the plant, which is all under one roof; it cost more than $50 million but all those concerned knew they had great competitive ability and the most modern type of machinery. The company is known throughout the world for the quality of its products and this has been the case ever since the time of the second world war when Page-Hersey Tubes came into being.
Some of the union members from Stelco came down to see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) recently. They told me that if this pipe mill were to start up on the basis of three shifts a day, each shift would put out a mile of pipe. The Welland pipe mill offers certain advantages when it comes to the assembly and bending of steel plate and welding the spiral type of pipe. It can use plate not only from Stelco but from other companies and produce pipe up to 80 feet long. Any diameter of pipe can be turned out and the mill can use all specifications of steel. Each 80-foot section can be moved into one of four bays in which the welding is done. Thus, it is not necessary to hold up the assembly line. According to the company manager, they are not worried about the thickness of the pipe. There has been talk about the fact that the National Energy Board has not brought out specifications

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
with regard to the thickness of pipe. This does not matter to the Canadian companies; they can use whatever thickness is required.
Second, it has been said that the National Energy Board should have decided what kind of steel it wants, the diameter of pipe and whether it is high or low pressure. The Canadian companies are not worried about specifications. They can compete with anyone.
The United States Steel Company has a huge plant, but it is not used to making pipe larger than 48 inches. It makes a straight weld down the centre of the tube. By lobbying, the United States Steel Company could influence the United States to use its steel in their section. However, the big point in that they are used to making only that kind of pipe. Stelco has been able to sell pipe in the United States right under the nose of the United States Steel Company.
There is also the question of pressure. It should be made clear that high pressure pipelines have never had extensive testing or use anywhere in the world. There has been some small amount of testing, but that is all. Nobody has yet built 500 or 1,000 miles of high pressure pipe, which is 1,600 pounds per square inch, to carry gas. This is very important to remember, because the National Energy Board has to ensure that it is not risking trouble for the future. If this pipe has never been used extensively anywhere in the world, it would be taking a chance to use it here.
We know that large diameter pipe can be built. We also know that low pressure pipe of 800 to 1,000 pounds p.s.i. could very well carry gas. All it needs is proper compressors. This is a chance for more Canadian industry. We in Canada are rather good at building turbines, compressors and pumps. No doubt our industry could be competitive with any company in the world.
Having said all this about the matter of specifications, I wish to emphasize that the specifications decided on by the National Energy Board should not be any excuse for holding up this debate or the pipeline act. We should get going on this great project for Canada. In our local situation, and I am being very parochial, there are reasons why I am most anxious to speed up this matter. I know that eventually our mills will get the business. I would like to see delay reduced as much as possible, and I will state why.
I live in a very industrialized part of the country. We have had our setbacks. We do not have the benefits of DREE. In fact, there is no body set up anywhere that I know of which will help municipalities in any area which have had setbacks as a result of plants closing and that sort of thing.
We have had all sorts of discussion in the House with regard to Inco. Port Colborne felt that situation very badly. Between 300 and 400 people have just been laid off. This has had a very adverse effect on the city's economic life. Algoma Steel has shut down its plant entirely. One hundred and fifty to 200 people were put out of work. Atlas Steel in Welland has had

some bad news. Cuba is building a stainless steel mill. This communist country, obviously a tool of her great partner, the U.S.S.R., is to come into direct competition with Atlas Steel.
Finally, false fears have been fostered by the chambers of commerce in some municipalities regarding increased tolls on the Seaway, particularly on the Welland Canal. We are all convinced that raising the tolls will play no large part in increasing the costs of any of these companies. In fact, the suggestion that there will be any effect whatsoever on increased costs is really a bogeyman and is deluding the public on the economic outlook.
Locally, the Canadian content of manpower, materials and services will be maximized. This will amount %a large sum. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) has stood by his earlier assertions that it will amount to at least 100,000 jobs or 100,000 man years.
I would like to bring a few figures to the attention of hon. members. They seem very simple. The length of the pipeline in Alaska will be 731 miles. The length of pipe in the lower 48 states will amount to nearly 2,000 miles. The pipeline in the Yukon will be over 700 miles. The Dempster lateral and the pipe in British Columbia and Alberta will be over 2,000 miles long. In other words, Canada is building just about half of the line. This amounts to a Canadian figure of $4.2 billion. Of course, with the Dempster lateral, it could be a great deal more.
This work is going to be farmed out to a great many Canadian firms, not just to pipe mills, steel mills, iron ore producers, and producers of all the other minerals which go into the making of steel. In addition, there is going to be earth-moving machinery, trenchers, cranes, camps, construction of roads, airports, helioports, work for welders, truck drivers, probably increased length of railway lines, shipping of all types and relay stations. Think of the requirements for compressors, pumps and turbines which we are pretty good at building in Canada. Add the pipe itself and the labour to make it and finally you have a huge sum of spin-off.
Hon. members may be getting tired of hearing the comparison of this being the biggest private undertaking since the building of the CPR. In any event, it will add a great deal to the stimulus of our recovery in Canada from the rather slowly improving economic picture which we have now. In other words, the economic improvement generated by $4 billion to $6 billion will be greater by far than the $1 billion to $2 billion which we have injected recently into the economy with tax removals and make-work projects.
One of the greatest reasons for benefits to Canada is the way this pipeline act has been drawn up. I differ from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). We need to have a powerful agency headed by a minister who is tireless in his efforts to bring this undertaking to a successful conclusion. He has to have veto powers. We have to make sure that the tenders and contracts are reviewed. I realize that Canada's attempt at national energy self-reliance will improve. This will open the way to further development in the high Arctic, after we get the Dempster lateral route producing.
February 13, 1978

The Northern Pipeline Agency will have the advantage of being a single regulatory window on all the undertakings under federal responsibility. The commissioner will run it from Calgary. He will be closely in touch with the Foothills company from day to day. There will be discussion with departments. For example the Departments of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Public Works and Treasury Board will all be brought together under a single agency by having people seconded from their departments. Through the agency, the terms and conditions of manpower procurement plans which the Foothills company is considering will have to be submitted.
There will be public sessions held by these advisory councils that are to be set up. There is the requirement that the Foothills company has to make an application to build the Dempster line by July 1, 1979, and no later. In other words, they have to apply to do this while this line is being built. I certainly think it is very likely we are going on to greater and greater economic things in Canada.
The fact that more gas is being found all the time in Alberta does not worry me. It pleases me a great deal. In fact, in Ontario just recently there has been a rumour that a deep gas well has been drilled and large quantities of gas discovered near Sarnia and Windsor. As the House knows wells were drilled all over southern Ontario and a number of shallow gas wells were found, producing at a few hundred feet. They were all around the Lake Erie area and up into the Lake Huron area. As hon. members will remember, the first oil well in the world was drilled when they were looking for gas at Petrolia, Ontario, about 100 years ago. It is just possible that these areas of Ontario might also produce gas in huge quantities; who knows? This is all to the good in order to make Canada self-reliant in energy. But it will be a long time before we can develop any of these speculative fields, so it is very much to our credit to get busy making use of what we have already found by building a pipeline from the delta.
I think hon. members must realize that there are penalties involved in this legislation. This agency is pretty well allembracing. The penalties apply not only to Foothills, which is constructing the pipeline, but also to other individuals or firms who have contracts. The penalties are as high as $10,000 a day for non-compliance. Even appeals from the decisions of the agency are looked after by ensuring that the Federal Court will hear these appeals without undue delay.
I do not want to go into a lot of uninteresting things like tolls and tariffs, but they are well looked after. The National Energy Board will be able to authorize the imposition of charges which are related to the project cost when the pipeline is capable of starting up and when it is actually transmitting gas.
Finally, there is the self-destruct provision that the whole agency will be taken out of action about a year after the pipeline begins to function. I think the major fact is that the powers of this agency, which seem huge to some people, will allow the minister to make sure we have a pipeline that is economical in nature. It is important also that it is built with
Northern Pipeline
private money, that of the people of Canada. The people generally are not again to be billed for a huge public project.
This matter of guarantees is a very vexatious one. If we asked for a guarantee of 90 per cent or more Canadian content, men, material and services, including pipe, this would have almost meant a handout or a real come-on to private companies to gouge the government and the company. Even union members themselves know this and accept it readily. It is up to Canada to see that we not only have the most efficient use of manpower and services, but also that it maximizes Canadian content. It is important to keep efficiency in mind as well as cheapness, and if we can keep the cost of over-runs down to 35 per cent or less we will get that Dempster line completely free. That is not a small thing; it will amount to $1 billion or $2 billion. It will free some cost in this way, but we will still get the line even if we cannot manage to do that.
Another wise idea, which is new to me and I think to most Canadians, is that the Foothills company is asked to pay the cost of this national pipeline agency, which could amount to anywhere from $5 million a year or more for the next three to five years. This does not seem too much when you are thinking in terms of $10 billion to $15 billion for the whole pipeline cost, but this is a new departure. It has been used in the United States in the past but not in Canada. Since we know the minister is definitely anxious to make this suggestion work, I wonder if, in respect of future pipelines, we could make Crown agencies or corporations pay for their monitoring bodies, such as the CBC paying for the cost of the CRTC and the railway companies paying for the cost of the Canadian railway commission.
These are matters which are worth considering, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion we have a huge but worthwhile project here. It will take a strong hand to make sure that Canada gets proper treatment. It will take a strong hand to make sure the Yukon natives and the Yukon itself will be assisted and helped by this project. It will take a strong hand to make sure we maximize Canadian content, both in respect of labour and materials. I think the best action we have taken is putting the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) in place as head of the northern pipeline agency.
Mir. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I think it would only be appropriate if I said at the commencement how much we in this party have appreciated the help of the officials of the Foothills company and also-and I say this especially in respect of the help I received personally-from representatives of the labour movement in Canada. They have been very generous indeed to me in conversations I had with them, as well as giving me advice and assistance, helping me to come to a better understanding of what are the issues regarding the pipeline itself, and particularly in regard to the terms of the bill before the House this evening.
I regret having to say that in many respects we have received a lot more help from the company and those interested in the work and services that will result, and the material that will be supplied to this pipeline, than from the government

February 13, 1978
Northern Pipeline
itself. I say that advisedly. Nothing could symbolize more the neglect with which the government has treated hon. members in this House on this matter than the fact that even a day or two after the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) held his press conference and made his announcement describing the terms of the bill my office made inquiry as to whether the kit or material were available, and we were told that members of parliament would get it in due course. The initial distribution was to senior public servants. I am told by some hon. members this afternoon that they still had not received the material.
I have to say to the government, Mr. Speaker, that this is really not good enough and there is no excuse for it. This government comes to members of the opposition, whether in this party or in other opposition parties, and constantly asks us to help get legislation through. Members tell us they need help to keep things in the House moving. It would not take very much to remember some of the fundamental courtesies. When telephone calls were made to the Deputy Prime Minister's office, a very courteous but, unfortunately, not helpful secretary said there were no kits and no material available. This is just a little thing. I recognize, as my good friend the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) has said-I listened to him carefully-that this is a very big undertaking. Other hon. members in the House realize that. But quite frankly, the trouble with this little act of neglect by the government is that it is symbolic of the manner in which this act has been approached.
In 1972 in British Columbia, the then minister of the environment for the government indicated that we did not need to worry about tanker routes down the west coast because the trump card was the overland Mackenzie pipeline. It was not clear from that whether he meant an oil and gas pipeline, but clearly the thinking with respect to the supply of energy in this country was confused. In 1971 it was decided deliberately not to encourage our American friends to count on any Canadian co-operation for an oil pipeline. I suspect Americans got the message in those days, and no doubt they had reason to believe that would apply to a gas pipeline as well.
The record of backing into a phony energy crisis in the winter of 1973-74 does not put the government in a very good light, looking back on it in hindsight. Generally speaking, the entire approach of the government to the energy problems we are facing seems to be symbolized by the fact that not even hon. members received copies of the material which had already been distributed in the Yukon, to the press and to senior members of the public service.
The Americans have managed to deal with this problem more expeditiously than the government of Canada. I do not want to inject a note of irritation at this late hour, but it is nonsense to listen to anyone on the government side suggesting it is the fault of the opposition that this bill has not been passed days or weeks ago. The American Congress passed its bill weeks ago. In the middle of the summer, the hon. Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked the government to introduce legislation as quickly as possible. For reasons only the government knows, suddently we are faced now with the bill. We are told it must be passed immediately. The inference is that if anyone wants to ask any questions about it, somehow he is working against the national interest.
To further illustrate the necessity of hon. members of the opposition asking questions, I should like to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton). He discussed the specifications as to pipe size, which are apparently in front of the National Energy Board, at the same time as they are in front of an American regulatory authority. The inference was that we must not become disturbed about this, and that basically any of the pipe can be made in Canada. Perhaps this is so in so far as size is concerned, but the hon. member for Welland pointed out that the question of high pressure indeed is something different. The hon. member for Welland indicated there was no reason to doubt the estimates of 100,000 man-years of employment that this project would provide for Canadians.
I realize the hon. member for Welland is not given to making incautious or inaccurate statements, but what is forgotten is that the estimate of 100,000 man-years was received by the government from the company itself. I am not criticizing the company for giving that estimate. I am not criticizing the government for saying that is an estimate which should receive serious consideration. But that estimate is based on the manufacture of 48-inch low pressure pipe, which was the pipe advocated by the company from the start. If some other pipe is to be made-and I am not talking about 54-inch pipe which can be made in Canada-such as the 48-inch high pressure pipe, perhaps it can be manufactured by one plant in Canada, but there will be severe problems from corporate and union sources in the installation of this pipe and the expertise which is required. As the hon. member has pointed out, there is very little experience in the handling of that pipe.
This afternoon I asked the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) the following:
I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council would answer a question relating to the option now being studied as to 48-inch low pressure pipe, 48-inch high pressure pipe or 54-inch pipe. Would he indicate to the House at this time any estimate of what differences there would be in the estimates that so far have been put forward in terms of man-years available on this project if, for instance, the selection was other than the 48-inch low pressure pipe, which the company has recommended from the start, or the 54-inch pipe, which is also capable of being produced in Canada, as opposed to the 48-inch high pressure pipe, in the sense that this may not be easily produced in Canada and may have to be obtained offshore from the United States or some other country? Can the minister give us any estimate of what difference it would make in total man-years of work?
I asked him how the changes in the specifications would affect the number of man-years of work. He replied that he did not know. Presumably the government has not studied this at all, yet we are asked to hurry this debate. My responsibilities are for labour in this caucus; thus this question is of great concern to me. We do not know what the difference in specifications will mean to the number of man-years of work.

February 13, 1978

The statement of the Deputy Prime Minister on the first day of this debate was quite incredible.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Samuel Victor Railton: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since it is ten o'clock, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) requires the unanimous consent of the House to ask a question of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Vancouver South ready to receive the question?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, of course I am always prepared to answer a question from my hon. friend.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member for Vancouver South if he realizes that the United States steel industry does produce 48-inch pipe but not necessarily high pressure, and that Canadian pipe mills can produce 48-inch pipe just as well as U.S. mills, either high pressure of low pressure.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would not make the mistake of pretending to be an expert in these matters. What I have been able to learn is that there is grave doubt among both management and labour that 48-inch high pressure pipe can be produced easily. There is certainly doubt about the feasibility of this and the expertise available. So I must say that that is all I have learned to this moment. That is why I am raising the question, and surely my hon. friend will assist me and speak to members of his own party to be sure that the question we have raised and discussed tonight is adequately answered in the interests of all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on February 2 last, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) about the construction of a federal building in Rouyn. I experienced some difficulty in trying to remind the minister that in 1972, the decision had been taken to build a post office in Rouyn.
Adjournment Debate
In a letter dated March 16, the then postmaster general, the Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote, indicated that the construction was expected to begin in 1972-73. On May 11, 1972, the Minister of Public Works replied that an amount of $200,000 had been earmarked for 1972-73, $300,000 for 1973-74 and $250,000 for 1974-75. On December 12, 1972, Public Works officials met with the civic authorities of Rouyn and Noranda. On July 9, 1973, a letter was effectively sent to the architect indicating that his services were required for the construction of that building and on January 24, 1974, a letter confirmed the right of the architect to hire consulting engineers. But of course we should not forget that an election was held in July 1974. Apparently that occasion was used to play politics. On June 23, 1976, that is a year after the election, we suddenly realized that the government has decided to hire a different architect. The first one was dropped and a new one appointed to spread confusion.
On July 13, 1976, as a result of representations made by my predecessor, the mayor of the city of Rouyn and the local chamber of commerce, a retraction was made and finally it was confirmed that the contracts were being given to the architect who was first contacted in 1973. To summarize, on December 5, 1977, in reply to my letter, the minister advised me that Treasury Board had in fact approved the project on May 20, 1976. Note that this is four years after the initial decision.
Unfortunately, on January 20, 1978, a Public Works civil servant got in touch with the responsible architect advising him that there would be a one-year delay, that construction would probably not start before February 1, 1979, and that the offices would most probably be ready by August 1, 1980. So, on February 2, I put my question to the minister asking about the moneys involved. What has been done with the credits voted in 1972-73, 1974-75 for a total amount of $750,000? What has happened to them? I have had no reply to that question. And with regard to the unemployment problem we are now studying, statistics dated February 7, 1977, indicate that in northwestern Quebec, the unemployment rate is 25.8 per cent.
So I asked him a second question: could he accelerate the construction of that post office particularly in view of the circumstances prevailing in northwestern Quebec where the unemployment rate is as high as 25.8 per cent? I asked the minister that simple question but 1 got no answer. This is why 1 decided to ask the same question tonight to get an answer. I do so to get a real answer and not only a partisan answer. We know there will probably be an election in 1978 or in early 1979 and the letter from Mr. Havor of the Department of Public Works makes me believe that once again the building of that post office will serve political interests. As I said earlier, after the 1974 election they hired a different architect. So we the people from that area are asking that the initial undertaking be met and that local architects be hired as would be justified.

February 13, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Is the minister trying again to play political games or is he waiting for the next election to delay that project once more? And 1 sincerely wonder if in northwestern Quebec they are playing the same game as in the Gaspe Peninsula where 15 elections have been run on Gros-Cacouna harbour, for which people are still waiting.
Mr. Speaker, these are the comments I wanted to make this evening about a matter which greatly concerns us in northwestern Quebec, and especially in Rouyn. I repeat that since we have 25.8 per cent unemployment, I believe it is time to grant exemptions and start as soon as possible to build this post office in Rouyn.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, in 1972 representatives of the Post Office Department asked us for a first group post office: consequently, we had expected to build in Rouyn a one-service post office. However, afterwards, other federal departments also requested facilities at that location, and after examining the various alternatives, we submitted the present suggestion which was approved by the Treasury Board in May, 1976, and which provides for the construction of a new Canadian government building which will have a total area of about 56,000 square feet and will cost approximately $4,482,000.
Expenditures to date on this project are as follows. In 1972-73, $4,000 for miscellaneous; 1973-74, $61,000 for land purchase and miscellaneous; in 1974-75, $351,000 for land purchase and miscellaneous; in 1975-76, $3,000 for miscellaneous; in 1976-77, $12,000 for miscellaneous; in 1977-78, $120,000 is projected for consultants, demolition and miscellaneous. That gives a total of $551,000.
Proposed expenditures for future years will be reflected in the 1978-79 main estimates "blue book" when tabled in the House. The present schedule is as follows. Tender call, November 15, 1978, contract award, January 31, 1979 and in service June 30, 1980.
The schedule for this project cannot be significantly advanced because of the work remaining to be done on the plans and specifications and the availability of funds for capital expenditures in the department's program in 1978-79.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-BUILDING OF DEFENCE RESEARCH CENTRE IN WINNIPEG
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for the last four years I have been asking the Department of National Defence and the government when they will finalize the purchase of 111 acres in the Tuxedo area of Winnipeg where the federal government is supposed to be building a national defence research centre. I have received a series of evasive answers, and the old Liberal runaround is the best way to describe it.
Last Friday in the House I questioned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) once again as to where the federal government stood in regard to the purchase of the property, and the minister replied:
However, the negotiations are continuing and alternatives are being pursued.
Are these alternatives to be explored to eternity, Mr. Speaker? I am asking the parliamentary secretary tonight, will the federal government stop playing political games with the city of Winnipeg and withdraw from this transaction, and give the land back to them so they can do something constructive with this 111 acres in Tuxedo? If the 111 acres are returned to the city the federal government can negotiate with the city fathers for an alternative piece of land, or negotiate a settlement in a reasonable length of time. There is much land available in the city of Winnipeg. If they cannot find appropriate acreage in the city, they can approach the provincial government. We have land available in Manitoba. Certainly 111 acres or the amount of acreage which the department may require is available without placing the city of Winnipeg in the frustrating position they are in.
To reiterate some background, in February, 1974 the then minister of national defence announced plans for locating a new research defence facility in Winnipeg. Nothing materialized. In October, 1976 I raised the question again in the House and the parliamentary secretary to the minister of National defence said: "I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the new research establishment in Manitoba will be constructed in his constituency". Here we are in 1978 and nothing has materialized.
In February, 1977 the Minister of National Defence informed me that plans to build the $25 million facility had been deferred for six months to one year. The next statement which the minister made was on February 28, 1977, when he said that Winnipeg was advised to use the land, that the federal government is not releasing the city of Winnipeg from this land purchase transaction. The minister said at that time that Winnipeg should not hold its breath in expectation of the long promised defence research establishment. According to the Winnipeg Free Press of February 28, 1977:
He said in the House of Commons that it doesn't expect the city to hold on to the land it has earmarked for the research centre, suggesting that city council might as well use it for other purposes.
Those are very bold statements, Mr. Speaker. The federal government has not released the city of Winnipeg from this land purchase agreement; they are playing political games with the city. Their stalling tactics have put the city of Winnipeg in the position where for over four years they have had 111 acres of land which has not produced one cent of revenue during that time because of the procrastination of the Liberal government. It has also put an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers of that city.
If the Department of National Defence is serious about its intentions to purchase the land in Winnipeg, they should immediately reopen negotiations with the city. The value of

February 13, 1978

the land has increased three times from the original asking price of $1,200,000. The government cannot continue to act in this way. Let them abandon the plan and look for a different site.
One of the excuses put forward by the government is the existence of a number of 65-year-old caveats. Well, the federal government has the power to overrule any of these caveats. I might add that there has been an endless list of correspondence by letter and telegram over the last four years. The situation amounts to a complete charade and it is time this nonsense came to an end. I have a copy of a telegram the former mayor sent to the Minister of National Defence on January 18, 1977, in which he said:
I have again been asked by my colleagues what assurances your ministry has given that will allow this project to proceed.
Nothing has proceeded, yet we are well into 1978.
In closing I wish to state that if the land were returned to the city it could be a source of much-needed revenue to finance municipal projects such as the Tuxedo golf course. If this land reverted the city would get $3 million or $4 million and could use the money to purchase the golf course or for other municipal projects in the city. There has been a great deal of disenchantment among residents of the area, many of whom assert that the land could be put to better use as a site for new homes. As things are a valuable source of income has been denied.
I feel the government has no choice at this point but to abandon its plans and choose a less contentious site. In the four years during which there has been delay in purchasing the land, the city has received no tax revenue at all. I hope the parliamentary secretary will provide a satisfactory answer tonight without further evasion.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think we must first of all recognize that the hon. member has perseverance. He has come back to this question many times and I can at least congratulate him on his tenacity in defending his cause. Unfortunately, I do not think I can give him this evening a much better answer than that given by the minister last Friday in reply to his question.
Negotiations are still going on with the authorities of the city of Winnipeg and various alternatives are being considered by the department for the various projects that it wants to carry out in the Winnipeg area. The agreement which provides for the purchase of the 111 acres of land mentioned by the hon. member has been in the hands of the authorities of the city of Winnipeg since December, 1977. As he said himself, I understand that various complications have caused the delays. Nevertheless, the building program of the Department of National Defence for this area is now being completely reviewed for several reasons, including the representations that
Adjournment Debate
the hon. member has been making for some time. As soon as the decision is made, it will be announced in due time.


AIRPORTS-EDMONTON INTERNATIONAL-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when Edmonton is experiencing a vigorous boom and is in need of improved transportation facilities, it is difficult to understand the government's refusal to link transportation policies with development in this key commercial centre of western Canada.
First, the government reneged on its promise to fund urban rapid transit, a promise made on the eve of the 1974 general election. Then came the announcement that the urban transportation assistance program would be terminated in 1983 leaving massive deficiencies in road, rail and grade separation financing, particularly along the Yellow head Highway corridor. Now the government is refusing to make structural changes at Edmonton International Airport although the Ministry of Transport states that such changes are necessary.
It is time this House was informed that the city administration, the chamber of commerce and, indeed, the travelling public are angry at the way our representations are being dismissed by the Liberal government. It is not one bit more concerned about the problems in western Canada than it was before the dubious acquisition of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).
The fact is our airport was built for an age which has gone by. It is severely overtaxed now with 1.7 million passengers per year. By 1980, the number of users will be 2.2 million. Chaos will prevail unless we get some action now. As the Department of Transport's own study shows, and I quote:
The present air terminal building, completed in 1963, was designed to accommodate aircraft such as the Vanguard which carried 90 passengers and the early DC-8 and 707 aircraft which carried up to 120 passengers. Today's passenger jets carrying anywhere from 100 to 450 passengers have created passenger and aircraft handling problems. Therefore, Edmonton International's basic aircraft handling capability is a mismatch for today's large jet aircraft.
The growth of Edmonton's airport usage was noted by the department as far back as 1975 when studies began, particularly following the signing of a bilateral treaty between Canada and the United States which would provide for preclearance facilities in both Edmonton and Calgary.
Because of the unique situation in Alberta where both Edmonton and Calgary operate international airports, many routes are operated with Edmonton and Calgary as co-termini. It therefore became essential that preclearance facilities in Alberta had to be instituted simultaneously in both cities. Edmonton was repeatedly assured it would receive this consideration, but it has never happened.
The $28 million program proposed by the Department of Transport in 1975 was turned down. Ultimately, $5.8 million was approved last fall. However, this program will only permit
2822

February 13, 1978
Adjournment Debate
improvements to the external part of the building, such as parking lots.
We are now left with the situation where the airport will have customs facilities that can barely meet 50 per cent of the present demands. It will be prevented from having the institution of preclearance facilities. We will be maintaining intolerable passenger flow configuration per international, transborder and domestic passengers. We will be maintaining insufficient airside capacity for the amount of aircraft arrivals. It is a totally insufficient operation.
In the closing days of 1977, the government grudgingly announced $417,000 for temporary customs facilities. This was because of the impending arrival of Commonwealth Games travellers. That small amount is not going to meet the demands of the airport as it tries to service a city and a province growing in Canada's transportation and development needs. Following the $417,000 announcement, the Edmonton Journal commented, and I quote:
For the 1.7 million people who now use the airport, baggage facilities will still be unreal, there will be no customs preclearance, and services for arriving passengers will still have all the charm of a department store during a Boxing Day sale. By 1980, there will be 2.2 million passengers trying to make do with a building ill-designed for another age.
I ask the government on behalf of the city of Edmonton to give reconsideration to the request for the very needed facilities of a structural type to improve the Edmonton International Airport.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to pinch-hit for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), tonight. I understand that he was with the minister in Quebec city today dealing with matters relating to the Old Port of that historic city and I am pleased to take his place in responding to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche).
The continued strong economic growth experienced by the province of Alberta generally, and the city of Edmonton specifically, has created a demand for air travel which cannot continue to be met by the existing terminal facilities at the Edmonton International Airport. To quantify the need and to obtain the necessary approvals to proceed with detailed planning and implementation, Transport Canada prepared a comprehensive plan for the expansion of the terminal building and for the provision and upgrading of related facilities. This expansion program was designed to accommodate the forecast growth. In particular, more capacity would have been available for the processing of international passengers and preclearance facilities would have been provided for transborder passengers. As the minister indicated in reply to the hon. member's question on January 30, those improvements will be made when our financial position permits.
A number of the most pressing related projects have been approved and include an extension to the aircraft parking apron, a new central utilities plant and a project to upgrade the water and sewage system. This work is scheduled for completion in 1978-79 at an estimated cost of $5.8 million.
In recognition of the expected influx of visitors and participants for the Commonwealth Games in 1978, approval has been given to an interim plan for expansion of the capacity of the terminal building for processing passengers, especially international passengers.
From the description I have given of current work, work which, I repeat, Mr. Speaker, is estimated at $5.8 million, I believe it is readily apparent that these projects at the Edmonton International Airport are not in the nature of cosmetic improvements but, rather, will provide the facilities which are essential if we are to meet our immediate responsibilities to the air travellers of the Edmonton area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Tuesday, February 14, 1978