1978-02-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of extremely urgent and pressing necessity which I am sure will receive unanimous support from both sides of the House. In view of the vital importance of an efficient and reliable postal service to the economic well-being of Canada, and the apparent inability of the government to effect any significant change other than changing postmasters general, a process that only adds to the growing confusion indicated by lost mail, late and disrupted service bringing about the threat of a law suit, decline in house to house delivery, thereby reducing the number of letter carriers at a time of rising unemployment in Canada, continuing confrontationist labour-management relations, and all of this in the face of repeated illegal postal rate increases, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government set up immediately a special parliamentary committee as recommended in the motion put before this House last May 18 to investigate all aspects of the Post Office system and bring in recommendations for urgent reform, and in particular to do this before the postal system collapses completely under the weight of its own incompetence.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires 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, concerning a number of Soviet agents alleged to be operating within the Russian diplomatic service in Canada, according to an RCMP report which at the time it was
compiled showed that 28 out of 61 Soviet officials were involved in intelligence work. I am prepared to make public this information today. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Solicitor General state why the government failed to act when in possession of the knowledge that almost 48 per cent of the Soviet diplomatic establishment in Ottawa was composed of intelligence officers, the fact that subsequent removal of those expelled still leaves a minimum of 15 agents in the Soviet diplomatic service and, finally, that the minister outline when the government will expel those remaining and what steps will be taken to assure replacements who are not legitimate diplomats will not be permitted to enter Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that a large number of milk producers are in total uncertainty as to what the next Canadian dairy policy holds in reserve for them and that many of them have had no income for several months in the absence of a production quota, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to announce as soon as possible the government's dairy policy for the oncoming months in order to allow producers to adjust their production accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion can only be put to debate with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 21, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the position taken by the Canadian representatives at the Canada-U.S. sea boundaries negotiations with regard to the A-B line in Dixon entrance on the west coast, which would abandon Canadian internal and territorial waters as set by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal in 1903, and in view of the fact that Canada's bargaining position continues adversely to affect our hopes for a fair settlement of all boundaries in the event of arbitration, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instructs the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reaffirm Canada's boundaries in the Dixon entrance and to abandon the concessions made to the U.S. on this boundary.


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.



Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of considerable urgency. In view of the fact that Saskatchewan is the only western province without passport office facilities, and in view of the fact that approximately 12,000 passport applications are received from Saskatchewan annually by the Department of External Affairs, more than justifying a regional office in Saskatchewan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who represents a province with a similar problem:
That this House requests the Secretary of State for External Affairs to direct the establishment of a passport office in the hub city of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.


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.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is threatening Newfoundland that Canada will cease to provide the subsidies necessary for the operation of intraprovincial ferry services in Newfoundland to St. Brendan's, Greenspond, Fogo Island, Long Island, Change Islands, St. Barbe-Blanc Sablon and Portugal Cove-Bell Island, to save some $617,000 in subsidies, despite obligations undertaken under the terms of confederation and in exchange for the discontinuance of regular coastal boat services to those communities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to cease browbeating and bullying Newfoundland into taking over ferry services which are the direct responsibility of Canada, and that the minister be directed to cease his terrorist transportation tactics immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Speaker.!


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that provincial facilities for children with learning disabilities are presently inadequate, and in view of the fact that the learning disability of a child is often health related, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn):
That this House urges the Minister of National Health and Welfare to immediately meet with the provincial ministers of education with a view to offering federal financial assistance to the provinces, so that adequate facilities for children with learning disabilities may be provided.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 21, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Media reports state that the United States government is disappointed at the National Energy Board's recommendation that a 56-inch, thin wall pipe be used for the mid-Yukon to mid-Alberta portion of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline. The same reports state that a U.S. embassy spokesman said the initial United States government reaction to the NEB proposal is one of disappointment.
We were told yesterday by the minister, as reported at page 3014 of Hansard, that the origin of the suggestion for the 56-inch line "comes from the initiative of United States officials during the December meeting of the technical committee which addressed itself to these questions." How does the minister explain the expressed disappointment of the U.S. government with the NEB proposal of 56-inch pipe, when the minister assures us that the origin for the use of 56-inch pipe "comes from the initiative of the United States"? Where is the truth here?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the suggestion came from members of the technical committee on the U.S. side. I suppose one could explain it by indicating that there are a number of different interests in the United States: not everyone in the United States who looks at this pipeline will view it in quite the same way. It might also be because there will be significantly more Canadian content in the 56-inch over the 54-inch.
[DOT] (M17)


Erik Nielsen: The minister also told us yesterday that annex III to the agreement relating to cost estimates would require an addendum to include costs for the 56-inch line, and that such addendum, according to the understanding of the government, was a mere technical change. That is what the minister said yesterday. Will the minister now tell us whether the U.S. government has the same understanding, or whether the whole agreement will be opened up, resulting in further inept negotiations by the President of Privy Council collapsing in the face of U.S. demands for more benefits to them and even fewer to Canada as quid pro quo for agreeing to the use of 56-inch pipe?


Alastair William Gillespie: It is my understanding that this is regarded as a technical change on both sides of the border. But if for any reason the United States takes the position that it is more than a technical change and wants to reopen negotiations, we would have the fail-back position of proceeding with 54-inch diameter pipe.
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: The minister is quite agile in avoiding the central issue in these very difficult questions. He told us yesterday that inasmuch as the agreement is contained in the bill as schedule 1, a corresponding amendment would be required to the bill. What he did not tell us is that paragraph 10 of the agreement would require amendment, since that paragraph makes no mention of the use of 56-inch pipe.
The amendment of such a vital provision in the bill cannot be passed off as mere technical change. Has this matter been discussed with the U.S. government? Can the hon. gentleman assure us that his government will stand firm in the face of any U.S. demands for alterations in the agreement, against Canadian interests? Would he, indeed, take the opportunity to require the establishment of the monitoring agency proposed by parliament to guarantee maximum Canadian labour and industrial content?


Alastair William Gillespie: We think we have a good agreement and a good bargain: we have no interest in reopening the agreement.


VALVES AND FITTINGS FOR PIPELINE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to address a supplementary to the President of Privy Council, the so-called chief negotiator of the pipeline agreement. Two challenges have just been brought to our attention in connection with the recommendation of the National Energy Board regarding the use of 56-inch pipe. The board reports that Canadian companies have little or no experience in making the necessary valves or fittings for 54-inch or 56-inch pipelines, and this would have a significant adverse effect on Canadian content. Has the hon. gentleman considered this report in light of Canadian capability to provide valves and fittings? Has he discussed the report?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: 1 was pleased to notice that following the announcement regarding 56-inch pipe, the president of Stelco stated yesterday that we could produce it. We foresee no difficulties in connection with pipe of this size. The president of the Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation, of Regina, also expressed his delight and is considering expansion plans in order to take advantage of this particular economic possibility. I say this to put at rest any concern the hon. member may feel about where the pipe is to be produced.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about the valves and fittings?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I thank the hon. member for reminding me about valves. I discussed that question yesterday with the associate vice-chairman of the National Energy Board, who is of the view-based upon the knowledge of the NEB-that it would be possible, in the time-frame available, for Canadian firms to get into this business.


Mr. Clark:: Possible!
3054
COMMtJNS DEBATES
February 21, 1978
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Deputy Prime Minister has finally answered my question. Having discussed this matter with the presidents of the respective companies, can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that we will need at least 12 months to 18 months lead time in order to be in a position to produce the necessary valves and fittings? Is this the conclusion our chief negotiator reached in the discussions he had with the companies involved?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member misunderstands me. I did not have discussions with the producers of valves and fittings; I had a discussion with the associate vice-chairman of the National Energy Board. It is not the intention of the government, through the pipeline monitoring agency, to produce valves and fittings; it is the intention of the government to create the possibility for private enterprise to do so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I understand, as a result of reports from the NEB, that we do not have the necessary capability regarding valves and fittings. This would certainly affect Canadian content, because this hardware would have to be imported from offshore. Further, the NEB indicated that because of this situation, producers of this hardware will need some 12 months to 18 months lead time. All I am asking is whether these allegations by the NEB are true. Can the Deputy Prime Minister answer that question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question and expressed the view of the associate vice-chairman of the National Energy Board. But because the hon, member has related the question of valves and fittings to over-all Canadian content, I believe I can further assure him by telling him that yesterday the vice-president of Foothills, upon hearing the recommendation of the National Energy Board, stated that he still believes Foothills can meet its target of 90 per cent Canadian content.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In a speech delivered on his behalf in Toronto on Thursday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated that jobs in the manufacturing sector, and I quote, "will not be able to make a larger direct contribution to the rise in total employment". I ask the Prime Minister whether the minister's statement reflects government policy. If so, how does he explain to the Canadian people this blatant contradiction with the forecast of the Minister of Finance that 74,000 new jobs in the manufacturing sector are required annually in the next four years, almost four times the annual average in the last four years? How does the Prime Minister explain this grotesque anomaly?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to review the speech made by the minister and see if he has been quoted accurately.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: In the same speech, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated quite unequivocally that the proposed Canadian tariff cuts in the current negotiations at GATT will cause the loss of many jobs in the manufacturing sector, particularly-as the minister outlined-in organic chemicals, household appliances, footwear, textiles and clothing. Again I ask the Prime Minister whether he is proceeding with the government's policy in this area. At a time when 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed, this policy will, according to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, only increase unemployment levels in Canada, particularly in the manufacturing sector.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, it would be very important for me to see the speech and the context. Depending on whether the minister was talking about proposed tariff cuts by other countries, or Canada's wish for cuts, obviously the meaning would be completely different.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister whether to his knowledge the present program will, in fact, increase employment by up to 74,000 jobs annually in the next four years, when one considers that in the last four years in the manufacturing sector the annual increase in the number of new jobs has only been 17,000.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives of the premiers and myself at the first ministers' conference last week was to ensure that in the production of goods and services by Canadians, the Canadian economy would be competitive. Also, we agreed that there should be a certain growth path in the area of 5>/2 per cent which would permit the economy to produce the number of jobs forecast.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of parliament is elected to represent the Canadians, and as representations were made at my office with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, my question will be directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the minister tell the House whether he intends to have an unemployment insurance office built in the town of Gatineau to serve that area or does he intend to get the proper studies made in order to pass judgment on its advisability?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I am taking note of the question of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.
February 21, 1978


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As it is now apparent that there has been a distinctive change of approach by the Bank of Canada in its handling of our foreign exchange, with frantic buying by the bank in the marketplace and the loss of tens of millions of dollars in an attempt to maintain the dollar at a value around 89.5 cents, can the minister inform the House what the change of attitude or policy has been? Is it fair to assume that when he said last Thursday, "We do not intervene in the marketplace and we let the value of the dollar fluctuate according to the market situation", that is not necessarily so today?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the policy is still the same. Our operation in the exchange market is limited to maintaining orderly marketing conditions, and will remain so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If what the minister has indicated is true, that the dollar is floating, would he indicate why we have lost almost $2 billion of our foreign exchange reserves in the last year or so, almost one-third of that outflow being in the last six or seven weeks? If we have a floating dollar, as the minister has indicated, why did he feel it necessary to put up a $1.5 billion line of credit with our banks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing else to add. I have made an announcement on the change of policies of the government, and I said in answer to previous questions that the operation at this time is done by the bank in the ordinary fashion. The Bank of Canada intervened to ensure the maintenance of orderly marketing conditions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. With the dollar hovering at 89.5 cents today, and with the Bank of Canada having expended approximately $500 million of our reserves so far this month, would the minister indicate if he has ruled out the possibility of high interest rates, or would he at least level with the people of Canada and admit that his government's economic policies have led us to this plight of having to defend the dollar yet our reserves are dwindling day by day?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should talk to the five Tory premiers who last week agreed with the policies of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ECONOMIC POLICY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that we now have the worst run on the Canadian dollar in 40 years, does the minister not believe it is part of his responsibility as Minister of Finance to make a statement about the economic policy of this country so there can be some reassurance for people around the world that the government will attempt to do something about this situation? Is the minister planning to make a statement or announce changes in our economic policy?
The judgment of the international community respecting the first ministers' conference was clearly that it had failed; it did not bring any feeling of security or sense of change in this nation at all. When will the Minister of Finance make a statement about the economic policy of this country, in an attempt to reassure people around the world that something is going to be done about our serious situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I prefer to hear the views of the premiers to the one of the hon. member. There has been a lot of effort to stabilize the Canadian economy. We stimulated the economy to the tune of $3 billion in the form of tax cuts on January 1. We spoke to the premiers for three days last week, and to the ministers of finance the previous week.


Mr. Lawrence:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think, Mr. Speaker, they have shown a lot more responsibility than we have seen demonstrated from the other side.


James McPhail Gillies: Does the minister have no appreciation of the seriousness of the economic situation this country is facing? It is a matter of total irrelevance to me whether the minister agrees with what I say, but the facts are on the table: we now have the worst run on the dollar that we have had in 45 years. Is the government not even prepared to make some sort of statement about the situation, let alone do something about it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member does not realize, for example, that in the last two quarters of 1977 the performance of the Canadian economy was about 5 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is the dollar we are talking about.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We went from no surplus in trade to a $3 billion surplus last year. We are now in a period of adjustment. We discussed this with the premiers of all the provinces, who represent different types of politicians and parties, and they agreed that we must carry on with the policies we have established for the country.


James McPhail Gillies: I have never heard of such a situation in any country that has had a run equivalent to the run that is on the
80031 - 52)6

February 21, 1978
Oral Questions
Canadian dollar today, where the minister of finance has not considered it his fundamental responsibility to explain to parliament and to the people of the country that the government has some position in this situation. It is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful, that the minister should do nothing about it.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Speaker:: Unfortunately, I did not recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for his supplementary. The hon. member therefore now has the floor.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As several persons and even the town council of Gatineau feel that there should be an unemployment office in their area, can the minister tell the House whether it is possible one may be built in Gatineau and given some priority by his department?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have received the representations of the hon. member for Gatineau, and I shall have to examine the situation with regard to the possibility of having an unemployment insurance office at Gatineau.


FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister telling the House that there were discussions between the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, representing the government, on the one hand, and the premiers of the provinces on the other hand, regarding federal government policy concerning the run on the dollar? Is he telling us that there were discussions with the premiers relative to policy concerning the support of the dollar, and that the premiers explicitly agreed with the policy that the minister is now putting forward in the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the treasurer of Ontario put forward at the last meeting of the ministers of finance, I invited the governor of the Bank of Canada to attend discussions with the ministers of finance. It is the first time in years that this has happened. I presume that the conversation which the ministers of finance had with the governor of the Bank of Canada has been

reported to the premiers. I did this in collaboration with the Tory minister of finance of Ontario.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Finance can wiggle and squirm and attempt to change the subject as much as he wants, but he told the House of Commons moments ago that there was agreement by the premiers of Canada with the policy of the government relative to the value of the Canadian dollar. I see he is being prompted by the Prime Minister. Will he tell us now whether he has any evidence at all for that assertion- which was not covered in the communique-and can he tell us whether there was, as he suggested-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: They can try to shout me down as much as they want, on the other side, but we want to know if the Minister of Finance is deliberately misrepresenting the position of the premiers of Canada. We want to know if there was, as he said there was, explicit discussion and agreement on the part of the premiers with the policy of the government of Canada relative to the support of the Canadian dollar. Yes or no?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain very nicely to the hon. member that when we say economic policy, we mean indeed the fiscal policy, the monetary policy, and all the other policies of the government. In my opinion, the hon. member should have understood that, and he might understand in French now what he did not understand in English.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in answering minor questions of minor ministers, it is at least discourteous to try to evade or mislead the House of Commons. On a major question, it is absolutely irresponsible for a senior economic minister of this country to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The government of Canada called the first minister's conference to attempt to share the blame with the premiers for the failure of the economic policy of this country. Now the minister is trying to get the premiers of Canada to share the blame for failure of the policy respecting support of the Canadian dollar. 1 ask the minister whether his department is now considering contingency plans which he might be announcing within the next few days or weeks concerning support of the value of the Canadian dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if we have to make such an announcement, we will make it in the normal form.


An hon. Member:: What is the normal form?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to tell the hon. member that the premiers have shown much more responsibility than has been shown here in the House in an effort to try to extract from me some comments. I am not very old, but I know that there was a
February 21, 1978

minister in the Tory administration who speculated on the dollar in the House and who was clobbered for that.


Charles Joseph Clark: This minister, on whose word confidence in the Canadian economy depends, moves from irresponsibility to irresponsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Is the minister prepared to stand in the House now and say that he has any justification at all for implicating the premiers of Canada in supporting the position of the government of Canada relative to the dollar? Did he discuss it with them explicitly, and did they agree? That is a simple question to which a yes or no, clear answer will do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For the first time in years, I have instigated a discussion between the governor of the Bank of Canada and the provincial ministers of finance. It was the first time, and it was a very good suggestion which came from the treasurer of the province of Ontario. The governor has explained the monetary policy of the government. This question has not come back and nobody has disagreed with it.


NEWFOUNDLAND-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE IN POWER PROJECTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on the assumption that this project remains under his supervision. Would the minister tell the House whether the government of Canada has approved the Gull Island project submitted to the government in March, 1974, which was a proposal to develop 1,800 megawatts of power on the Lower Churchill River, transmit the power from Labrador to Newfoundland and sell the surplus to Quebec, or through Quebec to other customers, a project for which the government of Newfoundland requested financial assistance from the Government of Canada. Is that project now approved by the government?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member will be aware of the decision taken by the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland to form a corporation, namely, the Lower Churchill Development Corporation, for the precise purpose of reviewing the cost and engineering data, conducting marketing studies and a marketing plan for the generation and transmission of very close to 2,000 megawatts of power from the Lower Churchill Falls area back to Newfoundland, on the one hand, and from the site through Quebec to other markets. That was a decision taken by governments; to that extent the hon. member would be right if he said the Government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland had taken a decision in principle to move forward with this massive project in the national interest.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is a most important question in terms of jobs and economic development in the Atlantic provinces. Last week the first ministers said they had agreed on investment and job creation immediately that would include certain projects such as Gull Island hydro and the Saskatchewan project. The minister issued a weasel-worded release on the same date which stated that the minister and the Premier of Newfoundland both emphasized that, while they are hopeful that Gull Island and other suitable projects will be found economically and technically justifiable, the very large investment requires careful review, market investigation and negotiation of sales agreements.
Which is correct, Mr. Speaker? Is it the release issued by the minister which says nothing is agreed, or is the minister committing the government of Canada to go ahead with this project? He cannot be right both in his release and in his statement to the House. Thousands of people in Newfoundland who are unemployed want to know the answer. Is the project going ahead this year? Is it approved by the government of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it was made very clear in my first answer to the hon. member that the Premier of Newfoundland and the government of Canada agreed that the project should go forward and that work needs to be done. The hon. member may feel, when we are looking at a $2 billion project, that we should just sign our names and forget it. There are some rather important questions that have to be updated, however, such as the engineering costs involved, rather important questions with respect to markets, and some rather important questions about how that power will be wheeled through the province of Quebec.
The hon. member may think these are weasel words. I would ask him if he would put the same question to the Premier of Newfoundland, because it was the Premier of Newfoundland who joined with me in making that announcement.


John Carnell Crosbie: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The person who has the big hammer in this situation is the government of Canada, with its billions of dollars-and that is who I put the question to. I will ask the question again. This is a proposal which was put forward in March, 1974, so the minister has had three years to look into its feasibility and cost.
Is he now prepared to commit the government-as the Prime Minister pretended to last week-to go ahead with this project, or is it still in doubt because these investigations might show it cannot go ahead? What is the situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the hon. member were to cast his mind back over events, he would realize that the Premier and the government of Newfoundland decided they were not prepared to go ahead with an offer then placed on the table by the Government of Canada. That offer of

February 21, 1978
Oral Questions
something like $353 million is still on the table with respect to the transmission of power from the Lower Churchill.
The hon. member might also remember that the Newfoundland government was not able to work out an arrangement with the government of Quebec respecting the recall of power, and decided to go to the courts. He might also remember that during that time we were pressing for movement on the part of the Newfoundland government to get the Gull Island project running. It was only last week that the government of Newfoundland decided they were prepared to go ahead even though the issue of the recall of power from the Upper Churchill had not been decided upon.


AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Apart from the $5 million seed money the government of Canada is prepared to offer to the new federal-provincial Crown corporation, is the minister prepared to revise-on the basis of the inflation that has overtaken the project in the past two or three years-the original offer of $353 million? If that stands, is the minister prepared to revise it in light of present cost estimates? In other words, is that still a firm offer based on 1978 dollars?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think events have overtaken that particular offer. We are not withdrawing the offer: I do not want to be misunderstood on that. I think events have overtaken that offer, but the federal government has said we are prepared to enter into discussions with the government of Newfoundland on the generation as well as the transmission of the Lower Churchill power. The hon. member will recall that the offer until now handled only transmission and did not include generation.
We have also indicated that we are prepared to enter into the development of the whole Lower Churchill complex, both generation and transmission, as an equity partner. The government of Newfoundland has said they want to be the majority equity partner. We have told them that is perfectly satisfactory to us and that we want to get on with this massive project.


GOVERNMENT OFFER ON CLEARING OF GULL ISLAND SITE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that events have overtaken the minister and his colleagues in the government. I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is the minister prepared to proceed on his offer under the Canada Works Program, or any other make-work program, for clearing the Gull Island site, knowing that this could create a number of badly needed jobs in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, as a result of representations from my colleagues, we indicated that we were prepared to go ahead some time ago with this particular operation and that it is under the aegis of DREE. We have indicated that we are prepared to make funding available of up to $8,100 per job. It is a question of working out the details with the province of Newfoundland at the present time, and my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, is at the negotiating table now, I understand.

[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Could the minister advise the House if and when the government will direct the Unemployment Insurance Commission to deal honestly with the 18,000 Canadians who are over 65 years of age and who, after having been granted insurance entitlement in 1975, have been unable after January 1, 1976 to collect the benefits to which they were still entitled, as it was duly recognized later on, and who see their applications turned down now by the commission on the grounds that they have received benefits under the Quebec or Canada pension plans, benefits for which they had applied on the advice of the very officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been one of the strongest advocates of this particular position. It was in part because of this kind of representation that we brought in Bill C-52 which brought about some amelioration of the problem for approximately 500 people in addition to those who had launched appeals under this section. The decision of the Federal Court judge, however, indicated that we could not go beyond what the law provided, that is, we could not pay a topping-up of funding from unemployment insurance to those who had received benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. In endeavouring to ameliorate this problem with Bill C-52, we think we have gone as far as we can under the law, given the policy decided by this government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External
February 21, 1978

Affairs. It concerns the present status of the Canada-United States boundary negotiations. I hope the minister has received notice of the question. Can he confirm that it is now Canada's position in those negotiations that we are going to abandon, in this respect, the waters six miles south of the Dixon entrance A-B line to the United States? This is a line set by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal in 1903. Have we now abandoned part of Canada's territorial waters to the United States in these negotiations?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, since the negotiations are still proceeding, obviously nothing has been abandoned or gained. The negotiations are in the final stages, as I told the House a few days ago. Additional meetings will be held in Washington within a few days, and I believe there is to be another meeting in Ottawa early in March. Until such time as the two negotiators have concluded these talks, clearly I would not be able to say anything specific on the question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could take us into his confidence and tell us if that proposal has been made to the United States. In view of the fact that at the first ministers' conference the government of British Columbia took a very strong stand, both on the A-B line and on the Juan de Fuca trench, which was in direct opposition to the position this government has taken on these boundaries, can the minister advise us whether the government of British Columbia is represented on the negotiating committee in determining the boundaries of British Columbia waters, or are they still unrepresented?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to square the hon. member's request for information with the fact that he draws conclusions based upon pretty firm assumptions which he must already have. The fact of the matter is-and I hope 1 can respond to him satisfactorily in this regard-that there is no position of the government of Canada in this matter which is not fully in line with representations from and participation of the British Columbia government and other parties. It is still a matter under negotiation; therefore, obviously a number of items are being discussed back and forth.
I repeat, until such time as we know that those negotiations are successful, I do not think it would be appropriate for me, nor would it be in the Canadian interest, to indicate clearly what matters are being discussed. I should add, of course, that the British Columbia position is transmitted to us in confidence, as are all of these representations.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the confidential position of the British Columbia government was on national television at the first ministers' conference. It is obviously confidential to the minister and not the rest of the country.
My final supplementary is this. Has the minister received the assessment of the negotiators for Canada as to the ultimate result in the event of arbitration in these disputes, and can he
Oral Questions
advise whether there has been some assessment, given the compromise, feet-up position that we have taken on these boundaries? Has he had an assessment yet as to how we will ultimately lose if we go to arbitration?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why every time one of these matters comes up, hon. members-particularly hon. members of the NDP-assume that we are always the ones to lose.


An hon. Member:: That is because you have in the past.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member says, "in the past". He is talking about the A-B line as though it has been there a long time. In terms of an assessment, of course there have been a number of assessments made. I can assure the hon. member and the House that the fall-back position of the Canadian government is very well protected in the event that arbitration is necessary. Yet I still believe, as I am sure my colleagues in the United States do, that if we can arrive at a conclusion on this matter which is satisfactory to both sides without having to go to third party or to any other from of arbitration, it will be the better course of action.
But it is wrong, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that there is some kind of speed-up action which could imply that we are prepared to make unreasonable concessions in order to get an earlier kind of settlement. It is, however, very clearly in the interest of Canada and of the United States to have this matter settled; and hopefully settled definitely, as quickly and as amicably as possible.


CANADA-U.S. SHARE OF OIL RESOURCES OF GEORGES BANK
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to draw the minister's attention to the east coast for a moment with respect to the boundary question. As he is aware, there is great concern in Atlantic Canada over the sharing of the resources on Georges Bank. At the moment, Canadian fishermen are limited in their quotas of fish on the bank, and scallop fishermen are limited on the same bank. There is concern about the fisheries resource.
The question I would like to direct to the minister is as follows: 1 understand that licences are now being issued by the American government to American oil companies for oil exploration on Georges Bank. Before these permits are issued, 1 would like to ask the minister this question. Has there been any consultation with him or with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on this matter, and what will be the Canadian share of any discoveries of hydrocarbons on Georges Bank?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could confine myself to the second part of the question, since 1 answered the first part earlier to the effect that no agreement on fish stocks has been reached.
With regard to hydrocarbons, seabed mining and related questions, once again no agreement has been reached. Further-

February 21, 1978
Oral Questions
more, to the best of my knowledge-unless the hon. member has more recent information than is available to me-the plan announced in the United States some weeks ago, regarding the possible calling of tenders on certain sites in the east coast area has been withdrawn by the United States authorities. Those areas are not now out for tender. That is the last word I have, and I am satisfied that is the situation. However, something may have occurred over the weekend which has not yet been drawn to my attention.


UN DISCUSSIONS ON FUTURE OF SOUTHWEST AFRICA
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister returned recently from the UN where a further round of the five-power talks with South Africa over the future of Southwest Africa took place, I wonder if he can report to the House the results of those talks?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I can say the talks moved, but not very much. There are still very substantial and substantive differences between the government of the Republic of South Africa and the representatives of Namibia, namely, SWAPO. However, I believe that the five western countries did put forward some proposals which moved things ahead and succeeded in generating some concessions from each side. Talks are still going on, and perhaps the most encouraging fact is that neither side has yet broken off such discussions.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, if the five powers put forward proposals, does that mean the western group is no longer insisting that SWAPO be recognized as the sole voice of Southwest Africa, and does he know whether the South African government has reached any agreement with that organization?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect to the latter part of the question, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member means an agreement between the government of the Republic of South Africa and SWAPO, no such agreement has been reached. Obviously, if it had, there would be no further problem. Respecting the question of recognition, the position of the five, as reflected also by the majority of the United Nations, is that all the parties concerned in Southwestern Africa should be involved in the terms of the election campaign, and that there should be full and free elections with one man, one vote.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General which arises from security figures showing that the number of Russian intelligence agents in the Soviet diplomatic service here in Canada since 1970 has averaged between 48 per cent and 50 per cent annually. I

would like to ask the minister why the government did nothing concerning the matter until its recent expulsion of the 13 agents. Also, could the minister give all the reasons the government is not doing anything about the rest of those in the Russian diplomatic service who they know are members of the Russian intelligence service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As long as the hon. Solicitor General can give all the information on all those counts within the next minute and a half, 1 will permit him to go ahead and try.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the hon. gentleman is attempting to accomplish. Last week he made some statements which fall directly within the question of national security. I invited him at the time, if there were any representations he wanted to make relating to matters which came within national security and could be under the supervision of our national security service, to provide me with such information. I am suggesting to the hon. gentleman-and I am repeating my statement-that he is doing the country no service by making this sort of allegation in public. I would invite him again, if he has any information, to offer us his co-operation in that regard.


STEPS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT TO CHECK ACCREDITATION OF FOREIGN DIPLOMATS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: I direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Even though I have the figures, it is obvious the minister will not respect them. Has the U.S.S.R. nominated replacements for those who were expelled? Whether they have or not, what steps will the government take, or is it taking, if such nominations have been made, to ensure that they are bona fide diplomats and that any further trend to allow people into the country as diplomats who are not diplomats is stopped.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many hypotheses are in that question, but I will try to pick them all out. From my personal knowledge, 1 do not know whether any applications for replacements have been received. I will make inquiries. However, I can say, as a matter of general information-as I indicated to the House some time ago-that in terms of the normal investigation of nominees to replace diplomats from any embassy, but particularly in this case the Soviet Union, we will be very careful to ensure that their services are needed in Canada for the specific purposes outlined in the request. We will also, of course, take the necessary steps to ensure that once they arrive in Canada, they confine their activities to those clearly spelled out in the authorization for them to enter.
February 21, 1978


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister has now completed an agreement on immigration between the province of Quebec and the government of Canada. With regard to immigrants who have landed in Quebec pursuant to Quebec criteria but do not qualify under Canadian criteria, has the minister received assurances from the other provinces that such immigrants will have full interprovincial mobility? Does he have an agreement from the provinces, and do these immigrants now have the right of interprovincial mobility, as opposed to the statements he made earlier that they might have to wait a period of time before moving from Quebec?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the question of mobility is written right into the Quebec agreement, as it is and will be in others; specifically, the agreement with Nova Scotia which we have already signed, and as well the agreement with Saskatchewan which we will be signing. We are conducting negotiations with other provinces. It is absolutely essential that in setting up an immigration agreement with any of the provinces, we do nothing to affect mobility, so that this right of immigrants will, in fact, be protected.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister referred to the agreement he signed with the province of Nova Scotia and the tentative agreement with other provinces; specifically, Saskatchewan. I understand the new act is to be promulgated on April 1. Under the terms of the new act, will the provinces receive provincial selection criteria or will those agreements, as with the Nova Scotia agreement, only confine themselves to provincial-federal consultation, a position this party has taken for a long period of time and has promoted in discussion of the bill? Or will the agreements specifically give each province of Canada, if they so desire, specific selection criteria as the Quebec-Canada agreement does?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, every concession and every agreement we have reached with the province of Quebec is available to each of the provinces of Canada. Some of them expressed the desire to move a little slower because Quebec is already in the field with foreign service officers abroad. Some are not interested in getting into the selection criteria at this time. Whatever agreements we may enter into with Quebec, whatever conditions we may impose upon them, whatever arrangements we make with them, are in fact available to all the provinces.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of reports sent to the administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 241, 411, 796, 926, 928 and 1,156.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Yvon Pinard: 1. Twenty-four (1 part-time retired public servant.)
2. 1974-75, Nil. 1975-76, $374,516.32. No retired public servants.


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


Yvon Pinard: 1. Four (no retired public servants).
2. 1975-76, $102,657. 1976-77, $45,826. No retired public servants.

February 21, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mrs. Pigott: Have professional consultants been hired as advisers in connection with the Woodroffe Demonstration Project and, if so (a) what are their names (b) what is the category or designation of the consultants (c) what is the fee of each
consultant (d) what is the total cost of all consultants hired for the project (e) what is the starting and finishing date for each consultant hired?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
Consultants-Woodroffe Demonstration Project
Contract Period
Consultant	Category of Work Performed	Fees(l)	Starting Date	Finishing DatePeat Marwick and Partners	Concept Competition	$ 20,000	October, 1974	December, 1974James A. Murray	Concept Competition	20,000	October, 1974	December, 1974Robbie/Williams Partnership	Concept Competition	20,000	October, 1974	December, 1974Craig Zeidler Strong	Concept Competition	20,000	October, 1974	December, 1974Peter Barnard Associates	Market Research	83,004	January, 1975	February, 1976Zeidler Partnership/Architects	Planning and Design	306,965	January, 1975	May, 1976De Leuw Gather, Canada Ltd.	Transportation Planning	27,302	February, 1975	Infrastructure Planning	52,872	February, 1975	February, 1976Stevenson & Kellogg, Ltd.	Operational Control System Planning	26,947	April, 1975	January, 1976Peter Frood	Social Planning	3,281	May, 1975	August, 1975Currie, Coopers & Lybrand Ltd. Desnoyers, Mercure, Leziy, Gagnon,	Land Tenure Study	35,562	October, 1975	May, 1976Sheppard	Urban Design	107,966	October, 1975	OngoingLeon Kumove Social Planning Limited	Social Planning	28,334	November, 1975	February, 1976Hanscomb Roy Associates Soloway, Wright, Houston, Greenberg,	Cost Planning and Control	21,700	December, 1974	March, 1976O'Grady, Morin Oliver, Mangione, McCalla & Associates	Legal Counsel-Approvals and Rezoning	14,367	January, 1977	OngoingLimited	Site Engineering	33,112	February, 1977	OngoingSunderland, Preston, Simard & Associates	Infrastructure Design	48,070	August, 1977	OngoingLimited	Planning Approvals and Documentation	18,148	February, 1977	August, 1977Brais, Frigon, Hanley & Associates Ltd.	Heating and Energy Study	21,473	May, 1977	OngoingCanada Permanent Trust	Survey Plans and Processing	400	July, 1977	OngoingSesquaig Incorporated	Recreation Study	4,700	July, 1977	October, 1977Engineering Interface Limited	Heating and Energy Study	1,053	November, 1977	November, 1977
<*) To December 6, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: Are any studies in progress or contemplated into the effect on the competitiveness of domestic production versus foreign imports of environmental standards and restrictions in Canada?


Mike Landers: As new environmental standards and regulations are developed, or existing ones reviewed, considerable attention is directed to the related economic impacts. In most cases decisions result from the work of joint industry-government task forces; a number of such initiatives are currently underway.
Because of the complex factors related to international competitiveness it has proven exceedingly difficult to isolate and quantify the impact of environmental measures. However, studies conducted in the U.S., Japan and in Canada concluded that such measures are relatively insignificant and non-inflationary. The OECD considers that environmental standards are not significant in international competitiveness.

Under the government's announced new program designed to promote a more thorough and systematic economic analysis of all major regulations which are primarily social in nature, social and economic analyses will be undertaken to assess the impact of DFE environmental regulations under development.


Mr. Herbert: What guarantees are required by the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare to ensure that Visine eye drops and ophthalmic ointments imported into Canada are manufactured under the same sterile conditions required of the domestic producer?


Hon.   Monique@: In Canada, ophthalmic preparations must be sterile according to the test specifications of the Standard on the label. Canadian importers of eye drops and ophthalmic ointments are routinely requested to furnish evidence that these products have been manufactured under conditions that are identical to those required in Canada. Failure to supply satisfactory information results in import refusal.
February 21, 1978


Mr. Marshall: Are veterans on WVA/CWA allowances receiving income from Workmen's Compensation, CPP or social assistance and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the average income from such source?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Effective December 31, 1977:
Workmen's
Compensation CPP
(a) No. of WVA/CWA recipients	1,150	15,783(b) Average monthly income	$98.55	$96.53
Records of WVA/CWA recipients in receipt of social assistance are not kept because this source of income is not assessed for allowance purposes. In most cases, social assistance terminates when the veteran or survivor is awarded an allowance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, we have had a very interesting and intelligent debate. I hope I can follow the same track. Seriously, coming from the city of Calgary, which is the oil centre of Canada, I am very proud to take part in this debate today. I think I can restate carefully and correctly this party's policy with regard to this pipeline.
From questions put today by the opposition and answers given by the government, we believe that one of the ways to turn around the lagging economy of Canada is to get on with the building of this pipeline. Everyone is on all fours in that regard. However, we have been presented with a bill and an agreement which forms part of the bill. That needs to be examined. When we are passing a bill in parliament we want to do the right thing for the good of Canada, the good of the industry and, in particular, to start Canada back on the trail from the lagging economy which is being caused by the government's economic policies.
Northern Pipeline
By way of introduction, it is interesting to note that when we are dealing with pipelines we must deal with the whole ball of wax, the oil and gas industry. I have in my hand a copy of a report from the Canadian Petroleum Association which presented a brief some time ago and which I have incorporated into many speeches.
The western petroleum industry, exclusive of refining and marketing, currently spends, and has done so for ten years, approximately $1 billion per year. Over 85 per cent of that money is spent in Canada for goods, services, and payments to the government. Of the major expenditures made for oil and gas pipeline, gas plants, fittings, pressure vessels and pumps, over 80 per cent was spent in eastern Canada, a large part of it in the province of Quebec. The majority of its capital expenditures were made in Canada as a result of tariff protection.
Oil and gas revenues paid to the western provinces have directly, and this is the point I want to make first, benefited all Canadian taxpayers in savings to the federal government in federal-provincial equalization payments. In addition, the federal government is the major recipient of income taxes on the corporate profits of all companies directly or indirectly affected, not only the oil and gas industries but all the tertiary industries that supply the pipes, valves, Fixtures and other parts that make up the pipeline of which Canada has good experience building in the past.
I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), whom I have known for a number of years, dealing with natural gas. He mentioned, and I endorse those figures, that we produced in western Canada five trillion cubic feet of gas in 1976 and five trillion cubic feet of gas in 1977. I remind the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that most of that finding was in the province of Alberta at Suffolk where they drilled over 100 short gas wells and at Elsworth, which is close to Grande Prairie, where they have drilled some very large wells. In that area alone they have found two trillion cubic feet of gas. That is the proven reserves. The reserves in that area will rise to between seven and 15 trillion cubic feet of gas.
Alberta has a surplus of gas. We have heard a lot of pessimism from various speakers in the House that we are running out of energy. There are 3,000 gas wells shut down at the present time in the province of Alberta alone. Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent drilling those. In the Elsworth area alone we can produce one billion cubic feet a day, yet 3,000 of these wells are shut down at the present time. If there were a market at the present time-there is a demand in the United States-with a trade-off, that would net Canada in taxation $1 billion per year to the federal government and a half billion dollars to the provinces. This is all brought about by exploration and development.
As we know, this is a big risk industry. When the federal Liberal government brought in and implemented the white paper on taxation, exploration and development dried up. It was only after the scare of an energy shortage in this country that they listened to the Progressive Conservative party and

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
changed the tax structure of the nation to encourage exploration and development.
You cannot expect exploration and development to take place if you take 100 per cent of the profits away from the corporate body which is taking the risk. You need to have corporations in this industry because it is big business. It costs a lot of money.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear my friends to the left. They voted to shut down exploration. The reason I mentioned the development and exploration, as well as the great reserves now built up in Alberta, is because there is encouragement there. Compare the royalty system to the taxation system in Saskatchewan and you get the exploration where the action is, and that is in the province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: It has something to do with resources.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If you are going to hunt partridge, you have to go in the grass and find them. You cannot stay in the house beside the fireplace. I do not want to get off track on this, but not very long ago some people were saying that there is no oil and no gas, that the pools have all been explored and developed. I have set those figures out to show what can be done on the basis of good economic policies, first in Alberta and now as suggested by my party in connection with exploration for gas and the development of this source of energy.
As to the bill itself, questions were put today by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in relation to the approval given by the National Energy Board for the use of 56-inch pipe. I think everyone agrees with that decision because it gives us some assurance that the pipe will be made here in Canada, either in Hamilton or in Regina. It ensures that despite the lack of any guarantee there will be favourable opportunities in Canada. The United States does not favour a 56-inch pipe. The people there would prefer a high pressure pipe. If hon. members would look carefully at the agreement they would see that this decision may mean, as the hon. member for Yukon suggested in his questions, that the agreement will have to be renegotiated. That would be unfortunate, because, as a number of members have pointed out, it is already late in the day; the bill should have been before us very much earlier. Then again, questions were asked by my hon. friend from Hamilton West about the supply of valves and fittings, and we hear it would take about 18 months lead time if they are to be manufactured in our factories. This just cannot be done if we intend to move rapidly so as to improve our lagging economy.
As I say, it has been an intelligent debate, but before I get into committee matters may I say I was shocked when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) lost his temper last night, with my hon. friend from Hamilton West particularly. He was irritated. I have a lot of quotations I could read but I do not want to take up time reading remarks

he has made against the Liberal party. But I would like to read something else into the record. Maybe a debate on a pipeline is not the time for poetry, but I thought the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would like to be reminded of this poem-no doubt he is familiar with it. It is called "The Lost Leader". I think it fits the hon. member for Crowfoot very well. I shall not quote it all, and, by the way, I have changed one word. It reads:
Just for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a ribbon to stick in his coat,
Found the one gift of which fortune bereft us,
Lost all the others she lets us devote .. .
One more wrong to man, one more insult to parliament Life's night begins, let him never come back to us!
Which means, night begins for him.
After the minister lost his temper yesterday I was reminded of the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he said "The path of glory leads but to the gravy." Well, they certainly led to gravy but they led also to an emotional disturbance last night, and I am glad Hansard did not put his swear words on record because even in Crowfoot it would have looked very bad for the hon. member who, I am sure, is in deep political trouble.
I want to deal with the judicial process set up to adjudicate disputes which are likely to arise from time to time, particularly in connection with clauses 14 and 15 which set aside any judicial review as to native claims, citizens' rights, disputes between contractor and contractor, employers and employees. I say this, and after I have dealt with the agencies which are to be set up, hon. members will understand why. I make the point right now that any process of judicial review is being taken away, the whole matter will be directly under the minister who will have power to authorize these agencies which are being set up to solve all disputes of the kind I have mentioned.
What does the bill provide in this regard? Well, there is to be an administrator described as the administrator of the agency. The administrator will be all-powerful. By "agency" is meant the northern pipeline agency, all of whose powers would be defined by order in council. The agency will be the complete master of the pipeline project, the biggest this country has seen since the building of the "national dream", the CPR.
All appointments are to be made by order in council. Under clause 5, the governor in council has the power to appoint the administrator. The administrator will exercise and perform all the duties and functions of a Czar minister. The minister who is chosen for the job, I do not know who he will be, will be appointed by order in council and he will be the minister responsible for the pipeline. If hon. members read clauses 14, 15 and 16 of this bill they will find that this special minister can be removed by the same process as that by which he was appointed. He can be appointed one day and removed the next to be replaced by another minister. And on the following day a third minister can replace him. Then, according to the rules of the House, should we in parliament see that something is going wrong with the project it might be impossible for us to address
February 21, 1978

questions to the minister who is responsible for what had occurred.
We have been promised 80 per cent of the content, but I still do not believe this figure will be achieved. It is a promise. There is no guarantee. There is no provision for control. There is only the hon. gentleman's word. I may say I have always accepted the word of the minister, but he is only one member of a government that is wishy-washy-


An hon. Member:: He may not be there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. He may retire to a better climate, and I would not blame him. What I say is that we could try to clear up mistakes by putting questions to ministers but we would not be allowed to question a minister who had made the mistakes and who had been replaced. His successor would probably not talk to him. We have seen this happen with respect to the office of solicitor general. What we have before us is a very complex, autocratic approach to a question involving land claims, disputes between citizens, and other important issues affecting the public interest.
As I have said, we must have the pipeline. But surely we could be given a bill which would serve all Canadians better. We want this development because today there are one million unemployed in Canada, more unemployed than there were during the worst depression of the thirties. And no one, as far as I know, has suggested there is a world recession today although there is certainly a depression in Canada.
The minister to whom I have referred will be entitled, under this bill, to exercise all the powers of the National Energy Board. In other words, this agency would not only be all-powerful, exercising its functions by order in council without reference to parliament, but it would take over the powers and functions of the National Energy Board itself. The powers of the minister will be unlimited. It is he who gives direction to the agency. The agency dances to his tune. Moreover, as I say, the minister can be changed from day to day by order of the Privy Council. He can oversee all surveys, enforce the agreement between the United States and Canada, force land expropriations, and conclude land claims settlements, without any right of appeal.
Only on a question of law can there be an appeal to one judge of the Federal Appeal Court of Canada. What kind of nonsense is this? This is all hidden because everybody in Canada wants the pipeline and the employment it would generate to get the country moving again. Canadians are solid thinkers.
Calgary is a city of affluence because of two major industries, the gas and oil industry and the agricultural industry. Coming from Calgary and living in that environment I want to see this pipeline project developed. People in Calgary and Edmonton know better than people in any other city that jobs depend on the development of this project. However, they will think twice before they will give approval to this bill.
Northern Pipeline
We know what will happen in the committee. The Liberal government has a majority in the committee. The chairman is probably appointed by the cabinet, but he gets the nod from the majority of Liberals. The chairman of the committee will say, "Eldon, go ahead with your ten minutes of cross examination", or, "Move your amendment in ten minutes". This is a serious matter. In the committee a member can ask one question of the minister and the minister can talk nine and a half minutes, and that member's time is up.
Clause 14 of this bill grants to the governor in council the right to transfer to a minister-not specified-such of the powers, duties and function of any minister, department or agency and the right to exercise those powers and duties, and there is no right of appeal from the authority of the agency or the minister unless a question of law is involved. The minister can make law, rescind law, change law, legalize the illegal and make illegal the legal. That is the mess we are in.
Clause 15 merely restates that the all-powerful Liberal pipeline czar has the right to dictate to all concerned. Clause 15 states:
The Minister may, to facilitate the exercise of such of the powers and the carrying out of such of the duties and functions of a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada or any department or agency of the Government of Canada as are transferred to him, enter into an agreement,,. and carry out the duties and functions...
And be a czar. Clause 16 is even worse. That clause compounds the powers of the governor in council by decrees and edicts. There were no appeals from the decrees and edicts of the dictators in European history, and there is no appeal here either. Regulations can be made to modify any existing regulations under any act of parliament or under any act in reference to any person or corporation engaged in the development. What does that all mean? How can Canadians know the law if some unknown appointed minister, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands says, makes a decision and modifies the regulations? That is how the legal can become illegal and the illegal legalized. That is what those clauses say.
Clause 14 transfers power but does not give the courts a chance to review the situation. Orders in council can transfer powers from one minister to another. All that can be done without publicity and without any debate in parliament. It can be done by some unknown body, person or group. No dictator had greater powers.
We saw what happened when orders in council created a secret cartel in the uranium industry. Imagine what can be done with the powers granted in this bill! Everyone wants the pipeline, but we want a bill which will build the pipeline and serve Canadians while it is being built and after it has been built.
Clause 15 would allow the transfer of power from one minister to another. Power can be transferred from minister A to minister B, from minister B to minister C and so forth, without question. New agreements and orders can be made, and edicts and decrees can be enforced. Perhaps I should not say this in parliament, but where in hell is there protection of

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
civil rights in this the biggest project since the national dream? Whatever happened to native land claims? What will happen to claims by other people from Alberta and British Columbia? What will happen to provincial rights? This law by order in council should be nicknamed the Liberal gas law. It gases the natives, the little citizen, corporations and public interests without giving any of them the right to survival with a gas mask.
We want accountability to parliament and to the country. We want accountability to natives and to all the citizens of Canada so that their interests can be protected. What accountability will there be if Canadian firms do not get the steel pipe contracts? What can parliament do about that? What can Canadian citizens, factories, and unions do about it? What happens if Canadians do not get the market for by-products? We heard the wishy-washy answer of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). He said he does not know, that it may take 18 months but that it is up to free enterprise to get geared up. I am sure he has much experience with regard to how long it takes to retool a factory, even in the automobile industry.
Let us be practical. If things go wrong and six months from now we ask these same questions-and God help us if this government is still here-will the answer be that there is provision in the bill, that it is the responsibility of the agency, or that things are done by orders in council which can be modified yesterday and varied tomorrow? Will that be the response if native claims are not settled or if Canadians do not get the jobs? We have no control over United States tariffs. How do we know that the Americans will not buy pipe from Japan?
On other projects the United States has used Japanese pipe. Will cheap Japanese pipe be dumped into the United States, and will the United States bid against our firms? The Deputy Prime Minister says we will have to compete. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not even know that Japanese pipe has been used to build pipelines in Canada. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands said he would have expected more intelligence from that minister. I have never expected any intelligence from him because I have known him for a long time. If inferior pipe and other inferior products are used, where can we go if there is not a question of law?
What happens if the cost of this pipeline escalates from $9 billion to $25 billion, as the national debt has escalated under this government in the last ten years? What recourse will this parliament have? What appeal will anyone have from decisions of the agency which is to be created as a puppet of the minister, who could change from day to day? How can we be sure of accountability? In my opinion there should be the right of appeal to a court of competent jurisdiction, the Federal Court of Canada, or a superior court of any province.
I am not talking about little disputes as to whether welders should go here or there. I am talking about substantial matters which go to the very meat of whether the pipe is manufactured in Canada or whether Canadian workers get jobs. All these tremendous powers granted to the minister will be bestowed by

order in council, and there will be no right of appeal except on a question of law, as set out in clauses 14, 15, 16 as well as in other clauses of the bill. Decrees and regulations must be monitored by parliament in a parliamentary committee from time to time. All orders should be tabled in the House so that Canadians will know the law from day to day, even as it is varied.
It was not long ago that the right hon. member for Prince Albert and Mr. St. Laurent made a deal that there would be the tabling of orders in council created by the Cabinet. The monitoring can be done by a strengthened Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, by the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, or by a special committee set up for this purpose, that is, to act as a check and balance on so extensive a power assigned by law to parliament by this bill. We know the difficulties faced by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments with respect to trying to get a reference out of the House as to orders in council. Every year thousands of laws are passed. Only a third of them were published last year. These safeguards must be spelled out in the bill. No other feathery citation would be adequate at committee stage.
In committee we will fight for a quarterly monitoring process which must be embodied in this bill. As wretched a bill as it is, and in that it lacks the necessary guarantees, the basic intention of building a pipeline to serve Canadian and American interests is present. It provides for Canadian interests to be involved and engaged in the building of the pipeline, the rolling of pipe, the manufacturing of fixtures, valves and all other necessary parts. That is what we will ask for in committee. If there is any delay in that regard it will be the government's fault and not the fault of this side of the House.
We have heard many promises, but there is no national energy policy, no northern energy policy, and no policy to settle native claims. The only appeal is to a federal appeal court sitting with one judge. On any other matter-and we are dealing with $9 billion-this court must sit with three judges. In this case, under this bill, one judge answers the questions. What is his power? He cannot vary the order of the agency. He can send it back with a direction. If the agency indicates that it does not go along with that, then it carries on in the same style and way, excercising its dictatorial powers over Canadians.
What protection do people have who own land? What protection is there for their way of life? The bill is polished like a red apple to create the biggest administrative dictatorial Liberal gang: the law makers, the law interpreters and, at the same time, emasculating the National Energy Board. Unless the National Energy Board is staffed with competent help- and it only expects to have 200 on the job-then even the slight influence the Board will have left cannot be put into action.

February 21, 1978

The hon. member for Yukon put it accurately and adequately. It needs repeating. He said the following:
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.
That was caused by the Liberal government. He continued: Unless you ask specifically for the tabling of an order in council, you never see it.
Even when it is requested, it must be pried out of the government.
He went on to say:
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.
I believe that under clause 35 of the bill the commission lands would be virtually wiped out. This cannot stand. As the hon. member for Yukon pointed out as an example, the pipeline could be built right through the town hall at Whitehorse and no one would have the right of appeal.
It is parliament that has and gives the power to delegate subordinate lawmaking by way of regulations and statutory instruments. It should remain there. This power is delegated by means of certain provisions of the legislation or acts it passes. To ensure that this delegated power is not misused, by the Statutory Instruments Act parliament established the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. Section 2(l)(d) of the act applies to orders, rules and regulations of all kinds, with certain important exceptions that I will mention later.
The function of this committee is to act as a watchdog. This cannot be monitored under the bill. What watchdog do we have? We have no watchdog.
The second report of the committee reads as follows:
Parliament retains responsibility for the law of the land and to the extent that these detailed rules and regulations are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, parliament is forfeiting its effective right to settle laws that must be obeyed by the people.
Parliamentary scrutiny of all such subordinate or delegated law is now an accepted part of the parliamentary tradition in the Commonwealth.
But that is not so in Canada. That is what the report indicated. If we ask for a committee to monitor this agency and the powers of the minister, surely that cannot be refused. Surely I, and other hon. members on this side, will be heard. We want this bill as badly as the government wants it. We will listen to reason in committee.
These skeletal provisions delegate excessive power to the minister. Also it is highly questionable whether the subdelegation to the extent allowed under clause 15 of this bill does not contravene the basic legal principle that a delegate may not subdelegate. Blanket delegation of this nature is only permissible, if at all, in emergency situations. If allowed to stand, parliamentary control would be difficult, as would review by the court. There is only review on the question of law. Likewise, it is a matter for serious consideration that the regula-
Northern Pipeline
tion-making powers conferred by this subdelegation would undoubtedly be very broad.
It is a vexed question whether parliament would or could review on a continuous basis, under the Statutory Instruments Act and therefore by a committee, the mass of documentation that would accumulate. The regulations pertaining to this documentation, as we see from clause 16(1) of the bill, may be made before the coming into force of the act. Perhaps they are prepared at this time, without us knowing anything about them. Surely those regulations should be laid before parliament prior to third reading in order for us to have the basic structure. With respect to this area, the bill hands over everything carte blanche to the executive. We are building a house with all the skeletal forms and parts of the rooftop, and at the same time allowing the government to put on the siding and do the interior decorating.
It is important to note, however, that even though the Statutory Instruments Act and the committe are intended as safeguards for the sovereignty of parliament, there is in the act an escape route by way of Section 27 which gives the governor in council the power to make regulations exempting the tabling of any regulation. If we ask for tabling, Section 27 can be invoked and the government can indicate that it does not have to table it. It is secret, like that secret order in council. Surely all hon. members want Canada to become an economically sound nation steeped in the protection of the law.
This is no time to play politics. We are all prone to put forward political ideas at times, but we have endeavoured to give the government some direction. Do not destroy the Bill of Rights, nor the works of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The Bill of Rights indicates that all laws passed are subject to the interpretation of the Bill of Rights, which lays out some of the civil rights. I am talking about the rights of the native claimants. I am talking about the rights of any land owner, and I am talking about the rights in negotiating contracts between contractors and the government and employers and employees. The Bill of Rights is emasculated by this bill.
Now that I have dealt with the legal aspects of this legislation I want to lay down some philosophy. I have spoken in this House for ten years asking that we get on with this job and establish a special committee. I looked at some of the speeches I made when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) was minister, in which I asked that a special committee be set up, but nothing was done at that time.
I would like to quote from "The Future of our Industry", a convention paper presented by J. C. Sproule at a meeting of the Canadian Oilfield Technical Society. He said, in dealing with the development of our resources:
It may or may not make good sense to leave undeveloped a country as rich in natural resources as the Canadian Arctic.	.
The population of the earth is expected to double in the next fifty years and to double again in the following fifty years. Fifty years is a relatively short time. Some of us can remember that long. Many of our children and grandchildren will be here at that time. Meanwhile, we must keep in mind that it was not the

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
western democracies that are doubling population every fifty years, but is rather the over-populated "have not" countries who will soon be looking for living space. Our surplus living space would satisfy them. If we are not using it, or have not developed it, who has a better right to it than they?
In building this pipeline, in building the Dempster route, and in building the other pipeline and developing our resources, we will be protecting Canadian soil and resources for Canadians for all time to come. Of course we attract many immigrants to this country.
This is a very large project. This is the area it covers: from Watson Lake to the Alberta-B.C. border it is 440 miles; from the Alberta border to Caroline, from Caroline to the Saskatchewan border and from Caroline to the B.C. border, it is 806 miles; from southern B.C. to the U.S.A. border it is 105 miles; and from the Alberta-Saskatchewan border to the U.S.A. border it is 160 miles. On the Dempster route from Whitehorse to Watson Lake, B.C. it is 512 miles, making a total of 2,023 miles if the Dempster route is completed. So you see what lies before us.
Before concluding let me say that this is very important legislation. We are not going to debate it long because we want it to go to committee. We have asked for certain definite amendments to be made to the legislation to protect the native rights, the civil rights of Canadians, the rights of employers and employees in the signing and negotiating of contracts and, above all, the public interest, which takes in the cost of gas, if we are allowed to take that gas, something which we do not yet know, to the communities in the North, because it will be American gas that flows down there.
We are very fortunate to be so richly endowed with all forms of basic energy. History has proven that our industrial progress will be proportionate to our availability of energy. However, in recent years Canada has shown an international trade deficit in energy producing resources. As recently as 1950 we, as a nation, imported more than 60 per cent of all our fuel requirements, but in the 1970's we became self-sufficient.
We have oil and we will find a lot more. We have natural gas in surplus. We have one eighth of the world's supply of coal, and therefore we have energy. Our supplies of energy will determine the cost of energy and how we will conquer inflation. Let us get on with the job and go ahead with the project, but let us build in some safeguards because the people elected us as their members of parliament to guard their interests.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) mentioned that this legislation was important and that it was important for the Liberal party to have it passed. Let me point out in my opening remarks that it is not only important to the Liberal party; it is important to the people of Canada as well as to all the provincial premiers to have this legislation passed. A project of this size is important not only to one party. Surely it is important to the people of Canada as a whole.
May I say that the critics, mainly in the NDP, who argue that Canada should have obtained further guarantees of Canadian content before signing the pipeline agreement with the United States either fail to recognize that such demands would sabotage the whole deal, or else are dishonest with themselves, because there would have been no pipeline and no Canadian jobs, and this debate would not be going on at present, if Canada, in its negotiations with the U.S., had demanded guarantees of Canadian content. As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out, they would have been buying a pig in a poke. I am sure the hon. member who is sitting on the NDP benches would not sign a contract not knowing what would be the cost involved.
There is no doubt in my mind that we would have had no pipeline to discuss in the House had we insisted that Canada obtain the majority of jobs on the pipeline and had we denied competitive bids on it. One cannot expect a rational person to sign a blank cheque to the Canadian people, especially in a situation where there is a cost factor which concerns us, that is, of course, the Dempster connection.
It would be hard to argue, if we were only talking about the Dempster connection, that there should be no competitive bids either on the pipe or on materials going into building it, but I suspect that the rationale behind the thinking of those eminent gentlemen who, as I mentioned, are mostly in the NDP, is that if it is American gas that will be going through the pipeline initially, then we should charge whatever the traffic will bear. I am rather amazed at this thinking because I assume that if we were in a similar situation I would not want our neighbours to adopt an attitude expressed in the words "to hell with the cost; the Canadians will have to pay it". I do not think that we, as good neighbours, should take such an attitude, especially when we have assurances from the companies that will be involved in the construction of this important project that they are competitive and that they are not afraid of the United States, of Japan or of West Germany.
Some members of the Conservative party also have expressed their fear, and yet last week we had a conference here in Ottawa at which the provincial premiers of the ten provinces met with the federal government and expressed the belief that the solution to our present economic problems lies in reliance upon the private sector of our economy. Yet day after day I read and hear in the House that we cannot compete with other countries. I wonder whether we have become a nation of mice, afraid to compete with our American neighbours.
This afternoon during the question period we heard remarks made by members of the official opposition regarding the Canadian dollar. Perhaps it is because I am from British Columbia, an export oriented province, that I think there is an opportunity with our devalued Canadian dollars, for us to export our products to world markets and thus pick up some of the trade lost over the years, perhaps due to foolishness on our part.
(Mr. Woolliams.]
February 21, 1978

I believe that opportunities exist if we choose to grab them, but I will certainly not stand up and say, "Poor us, we do not have the guts or the technology to compete in world markets."
I say we do, Mr. Speaker. We do not need guarantees that we must use steel at any price to ensure Canadian jobs. Those jobs will be filled by Canadians, but in competition, and not as a result of an arrangement that we sign a contract with the United States in case they compete against us. 1 do not accept that, and I do not think the people of Canada accept it.
There is an insidious movement in this country to belittle anything Canadian, whether it be this House of Commons or the ability of our companies to compete in world markets. It seems that we have a tremendous inferiority complex which is being encouraged by those who would like to change the system. That is something that I fear personally, and I will fight against it. Canadian companies have said time and time again that they do not need government intervention, that they can compete with the United States and other countries in the manufacture of pipe. The fact that we do not at the moment have companies manufacturing the fittings required is not a great drawback as they will not be needed for two or three years. It just means there will be opportunities for new companies in that area.
Perhaps I am parochial, Mr. Speaker. When the original discussions about a pipeline to transport gas from Alaska to the United States took place I thought that if we did not seize the opportunity to have this built on Canadian soil we, on the west coast, would find ourselves watching a procession of LNG tankers passing from Alaska to southern United States ports. I can assure this House that no one in British Columbia, and certainly none of the political parties in British Columbia, would support the proposition of increased tanker traffic off the west coast. We are all aware of the problems of oil spills in various parts of the world in recent years. British Columbians fear this because the west coast has the potential to be one of the world's greatest sources of protein as a result of the 200 mile limit on fisheries and because of the recently announced $150 million salmon enhancement program. We certainly do not want these resources destroyed.
Even if there were no aesthetic considerations regarding oil spillage off the beautiful west coast, there is a strong economic argument. We do not wish the blights that have occurred in other parts of the world to occur on our coast line. That is why, in August, I strongly supported the proposal for a pipeline.
This pipeline has tremendous prospects for western Canada-for British Columbia in particular and Canada in total, whether it be Quebec or Ontario that will supply many of the goods and services needed. There are tremendous opportunities for British Columbia since 700 or 800 miles of pipe will go through the province. We should use those opportunities well.
Some hon. members suggested that the GATT agreements would not affect a guarantee system and that we should not allow competition on the line. I was rather surprised that some
Northern Pipeline
members from British Columbia would suggest that we do not need to worry about the GATT agreements. With one quarter of our national wealth based upon export sales I fear it would be potentially dangerous for Canada to encourage the deterioration of the international trading system governed by GATT. There may be a loophole but, of course, if there is a loophole for us, there will be for other nations as well.
Coming from a province that is rich in resources I would hate to see our export market damaged because we were shortsighted enough to try to weasel into the GATT agreement a guarantee that was not written into it in the first place. I hope hon. members will look well ahead and not let us fall into a situation where we could be discriminated against in future through some legal flim-flam between nations.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the unreasonable terms proposed by the New Democratic Party would have doomed the pipeline agreement, and the charges of a sell-out which they raised would have been borne out. Such an approach would have sold out the $4 billion project at a time when most Canadians would agree stimulus is needed in our economy. I for one would not wish to go before the Canadian people in an election campaign and say that, in order to obtain guarantees, we lost the project, that it was a matter of judgment and our judgment was bad. I suspect the people would say that we did not have to worry about our judgment in the future because we would not be here.
If the Canadian companies which are vitally interested in this project say they can compete, why do we argue about it? Do politicians know better than businessmen whether they can compete? I think businessmen are able to take care of themselves and do not need the assistance of the New Democratic Party.
Opposition spokesmen have suggested irresponsibly that there will be no provisions to ensure that the 90 per cent Canadian input is achieved. The Canada-U.S. agreement asserts that the system will be built so as to "advance the national economic and energy interests and to maximize the related industrial benefit of each country." Legislation now before this House contains requirements about the input of Canadian labour, goods and services in the planning, purchasing and construction of the pipeline in this country.
The New Democratic Party is either unaware or has hidden under the rug the fact that the companies most vitally involved in supplying the pipeline project have not sought absolute guarantees or some assured preferential system for pipeline contracts. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the steel company of Canada, Peter Gordon, says he is not only confident of Stelco's ability to meet United States competition for pipe in Canada but he indicates that the company may well compete with U.S. suppliers of pipe for contracts on their home ground. To build in guarantees would be to deprive Stelco of the opportunity to compete in the United States.
I wonder if we have lost our senses completely, Mr. Speaker. Just a week ago a conference suggested that the private sector of our economy is our salvation in terms of employment and prosperity, yet time and time again people who supposedly

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
support that argument suggest that we should interfere a little bit here and a little bit there. I am probably the last of the free enterprisers, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who spoke before me wants guarantees. He will give the most eloquent speech on free enterprise and government decontrol of the system, and then in the next breath say that these companies should come to parliament every three months and ask, "Am I doing all right?" It is ridiculous, and you know it is ridiculous. Be honest for once.
The New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, indicates that Foothills is apparently not competent either, although Foothills has said Canadian content in the pipeline will be 90 per cent. They have constructed pipelines in the west on numerous occasions and have been be able to fulfil the 90 per cent Canadian content. I still hear the "boo birds" say, "My goodness, we must do something to help those poor companies because we know the pipeline companies are telling us fairy stories. They cannot do it, the government must put in a guarantee".
We come back to the same thing, the government must do this and it must do that. We cannot take the word of a company which has been in operation a number of years and which possesses more experience than I have or any other member in this House has. Time and time again speakers on the other side keep bringing this point up as to guarantees of content, guarantees of this and that. I have more faith in Foothills obviously than they do. I have faith also in Westcoast Transmission which has had experience constructing pipelines in British Columbia.
The group of companies recognize, and we in the government agree, that over the past 20 years Canada has developed a number of large and highly efficient firms with the capacity to handle a project of the northern pipeline size. Two of the major companies involved in Foothills, Alberta Gas Trunk Line and Westcoast Transmission, have reported that their own construction in recent years has approached 90 per cent Canadian content. I accept their word. If other hon. members have information which I do not possess that these companies are unable to fulfil these requirements, we would like to know. I have heard no contradiction of the Foothills or Westcoast Transmission statement. They have had no guarantees. They run a competitive market, and I must say I accept their word above the word of someone who is not involved in this business.
The Government of Canada approach goes beyond the realm of good intentions as far as Canadian content is concerned. It should be remembered that the Canada-U.S. agreement stipulated that each government endeavour to ensure that the supply of goods and services to the pipeline project would be on generally competitive terms. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody in this country would want a pipeline built on non-competitive terms.
In its report giving Foothills the green light last summer, the National Energy Board said the company should develop its purchasing program so as to ensure that Canadians have a fair

and competitive opportunity to participate in all facets of the project. I stress the word competitiveness because that is all that can be reasonably asked in any market, at any time, that competitiveness be involved. It is also stipulated that the level of Canadian content be optimized as far as is practicable, and that maximum advantage be taken of opportunities provided by the project to establish and expand supplier firms in Canada.
I realize other members wish to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I wish to conclude in this manner that, if we are convinced that it is the private sector of our economy which will provide the jobs many Canadians want, then surely it should be the object of all members of this House, regardless of what side they sit on, to ensure a project of this magnitude goes forward and that the stimulus of $4 billion in 1976 terms does occur within our economy.
It is foolish to discuss whether the regulations should be issued now, later or in between. A report should be made to this House through a committee every quarter. I would like this matter to go to committee and I would like to see this bill passed in order that those people involved in the construction of this project have the lead-in time required.
In Canada there are insufficient numbers of skilled workers should that pipeline construction commence tomorrow. Workers would have to be brought in. We need lead-in time to co-operate with the provinces to ensure that, if there is a shortage of skilled labour in this country, classes are set up immediately in schools so that when the pipeline project does proceed we will have the necessary people to provide that labour for those jobs. This will require the co-operation of the provinces and of the federal government.
Following the conclusion of the first ministers' conference last week I saw a ray of light across the country. Some of the opposition members have not learned what the premiers have learned, that it is more important at this time to get on with the job rather than bringing up straw issues because there may be an election this year or next year. The people of Canada do not want us to play politics with their futures. They want us to do what we were elected to do in the first place, which is to ensure that what is best for this country is carried out. The government has a monitoring position to ensure that it gives every assistance and encouragement to private industry.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say something in this debate concerning the proposal of the Foothills Pipe Lines Company and its sponsors, Alberta Gas Trunk Line of Calgary and Westcoast Transmission Company of Vancouver. I would like to pay tribute first of all to these two sponsoring companies which are prepared to take on the largest single project ever proposed by private enterprise in Canada, in the United States, or indeed anywhere in the world. It takes a lot of personal and corporate courage, a lot of stamina and tenacity to do this, and particularly so in Canada today.
Round one of this contest ended last fall when the government made its decision in favour of the Foothills project to
February 21, 1978

build the line along the Alaska Highway instead of by way of the Mackenzie valley. I say to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the energies and efforts so far on the part of this group, Foothills and its sponsors, are likely to be minuscule in comparison to the tasks which now lie ahead.
One of the First and most important steps to be taken in our country is the passing of this legislation by parliament. Ministers of the government have been emphasizing the importance of quick passage of the bill which has been introduced. It is typical, however, of this government that an agreement signed by Mr. Schlesinger on September 24 and the required bill passed quickly through the United States Congress. It is now four and a half months later when it is before our parliament. The minister of energy and at times the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have spoken in Canada about the urgency of energy matters but their actions have never supported their words. This has always been the case in every other matter relating to energy, whether it be northern regulations, agreements with the provinces, or taxation matters.
When I consider the project I have concern about government involvement, not the lack of it, but the over-abundance. This bill and other information available make it clear that Ottawa will be controlling every minute detail of the project. This has been demanded by the New Democratic Party too.
First of all the size of pipe was chosen by the National Energy Board, and thus the key technical specifications and ultimately the capacity of the line has been determined by the government. All of the rates and tariffs on the system and return on investment will be determined by the government. Property taxes on the line will be set by the government and it appears there will be a strong level of intervention over the control of purchasing policies of the company. The financing of the project and every detail of this important aspect will be controlled by the government. The government will be dictating labour policy, where the employees will be recruited from, how they will be qualified and, I presume, how much they will be paid. All of these things will be taken on by the government.
Who in the experience of Canada during the 1970's would have confidence in a government which is proven to be so inept, so slow to arrive at decisions, and so costly in their operations? Just the same, the route of the pipeline, and presumably every bend and twist, will be dictated by government. I applaud the Foothills Company and its sponsors for the willingness they have shown to accept this difficult and onerous demand upon them.
The thrust of the debate and the criticism of the project by the New Democratic Party have been almost solely concentrated on the question of more government control. In addition, this criticism has been demanding in absolute terms that every single man-hour, every pound of material or supplies, every valve, be spelled out precisely as to where it will come from, and at what cost.
Northern Pipeline
The party to my left has in fact taken a stand against the pipeline. This seems incredible in view of the position taken in the past week by Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan, who is in favour of the project.
Last August all parties in this House supported in principle the proposal of Foothills to build this pipeline to deliver Alaska gas to the United States and perhaps to carry Canadian Arctic gas to markets by way of the Dempster route. The demands being made by the New Democratic Party are unreasonable and impractical. I say this as a businessman who has been involved from time to time in large projects, and I can tell you that it is never possible, especially when pioneering as is the case with Foothills, to be absolutely precise in every detail so far in advance.
The question really at this stage is whether there will be a pipeline or whether there will not be a pipeline. If the demands of the New Democratic Party were to be built into the legislation then it is my view that two problems would occur. The first one would be with the United States. I discussed this entire matter just last evening with a United States Senator. There are some misconceptions in the United States and Washington about this line. There is great concern about the undisclosed conditions imposed by the province of British Columbia.
The matter of gas pricing in the United States itself is perhaps the most important ingredient in enabling Alaska gas to move to the lower 48 states. Suffice it to say, while there was an agreement between Canada and the United States to build this line, we are by no means out of the woods, either in Canada or the United States.
The activities of most businessmen have one important ingredient, perhaps above all others, and in a $10 billion project the importance of bankers and financiers is more significant than in smaller undertakings. It is, however, important in any undertaking. I can say that all investors are fearful of investments which can be severely and adversely affected by bad government decisions, or in fact, no decisions, as well as by government regulation. One important policy which is needed in Canada, particularly as it relates to this project, must be predictable and certain rules where they must exist.
There is an opportunity to restore business and investor confidence, and respect in Canada and in the rest of the world for this Parliament. There is an opportunity to perform a meaningful part of the rescue necessary for Canada's economy. Let us face it, we require a boot strap operation.
This government, which had very little to say or propose at the first ministers' conference, did, however, highly tout energy projects for decades ahead. The problem is that long lead times of five, ten or 15 years are required to put major energy projects into operation. The result is that short term benefits, that is, during the 1970's, will not result from most of the plans that were outlined by the government.
There are one or two important exceptions, however, and at the top of the list is this proposal dealing with a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states.

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
If this project is to proceed without government backstopping, attractive and innovative proposals must be offered to investors. I believe that the greatest possible threat to the ultimate construction of the line is the difficulties that will no doubt be experienced when the details of financing are hammered out. This financing is by no means, in my view, a certainty, and thus, we in this parliament must, as far as reasonably possible, give to Foothills and its backers flexibility to work around the horrendous problems that lie ahead of them, not only in the banking but in the logistics, the negotiations with sellers of the gas, buyers of the gas, and with our own government agencies.
A great deal has been said about jobs; there are few in Canada, except perhaps this government, who would not say that this is a top priority. Members of this House, however, must recognize that if the choice is a pipeline or no pipeline, or
5,000	jobs rather than 6,000 jobs, or 90 per cent of the steel versus 100 per cent of the steel, then surely, there is no question that most of the pie for Canadians is better than none of the pie. To a large degree the question is the extent to which we Canadians and parliamentarians are prepared to place our confidence in the Foothills group of companies. If we are not prepared to do this, a decision in favour of those companies and their proposal should have been rejected out of hand last summer. I am a believer, however, that their track record and their stated intentions speak for themselves. It would be impossible to work out this project on the basis that every last detail be spelled out in advance. This is always desirable when relationships are developed between parties, even I suppose now-a-days by way of marriage contracts prior to committing to a spouse. I am convinced, however, that no amount of rules or regulations will be as important as the good will, the integrity, along with the willingness of the parties to co-operate and to compromise.I believe that the Foothills group in this regard has been outstanding. In fact I sometimes have concern that they have gone too far in accepting the demands of government.
On the matter of supply of materials by Canadians, I have some experience as one who has spent more than 25 years in an important segment of the oil and gas industry, not only in Canada but in the United States and in other countries. To begin with, a lot of the work that will be carried out on the pipeline will be carried out by the contractors who are the prime people in such an operation and, of course, many subcontractors.
I might tell the House a little about the pattern of American involvement in our Canadian oil and gas industry in the past. During the early part of the Canadian oil boom, from Leduc and in the years following, a large percentage of the drilling rigs in western Canada were owned by U.S. companies. The drilling superintendents and toolpushers on the rigs were in many cases American. There was a significant ingredient from Texas, California, and Louisiana. By the middle years of the 1950's, however, this changed, and this important part was probably 90 per cent Canadian owned before 1960.

What is perhaps even more important is that these same Canadian companies have carried their expertise as well as Canadian goods, technology, and experience to all corners of the world. A meaningful percentage of the wells drilled in Alaska has been drilled by Canadian companies based right in Calgary. The same is the case in California, Texas, Colorado, and the Rocky Mountain area of the United States. I say most emphatically that in this international industry, if Canadians take a parochial view, they could exclude themselves from a meaningful portion of international oil and gas activities.
When I look at the pipeline contracting group, those who have the expertise, I find names such as Majestic, Bannister, and Price, to name three. These companies have been established in Canada for a number of years and all of them employ Canadians virtually 100 per cent. They are ready, willing, and able to take on the task of laying this big-inch pipeline along the Alaska Highway.
Laying a 56-inch pipe is not going to be an easy task. There will be complications. It is a very large pipe and this size of pipe has never been laid before. It will require considerably larger ditches, different set-ups for welding, and there will be a good deal to be learned about bending and laying as well as new techniques which will have to be developed as we proceed. A supreme effort will be necessary if Canadian contractors are to train personnel. At the present time it is reasonable to predict there will be shortages of well-qualified people, particularly in areas of welding, fitting, and millwright work. Canadians must be trained and the companies should be prepared to fill every job with Canadians. There will, however, be a shortage of good people and an opportunity will thus be provided to every Canadian who really wants to work.
Any delay in the construction of this project would increase the probability of bunching the demands in the labour market. There are a lot of projects ahead and some of them have been mentioned in the past week or so, both by the first ministers and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). They include the construction of another Syncrude plant, a heavy oil plant in northwest Saskatchewan, and many other labour-intensive projects. Thus it is important that construction be kept on time and that no delays take place. Otherwise start-up problems will be plagued by labour shortages. Where possible every preference should be given to the employment of local personnel. I refer to the Yukon, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan through which the pipeline is to run. I suggest that all those in Canada who want the opportunity to work will have the opportunity to do so.
We have heard a good deal about pipe and its supply for the pipeline. A considerable amount of know-how exists relating to pipeline and other oil-related projects, and it is likely that with appropriate lead-time and planning a significant amount of valves, fittings and all other requirements, particularly compressor station needs, can be supplied from Canadian fabricating plants. There is no doubt in my mind that the largest benefit will accrue to plants and manufacturers in central
February 21, 1978

Canada-Ontario and Quebec. But this project, because of its size, will have a tremendous impact, and a favourable one, on virtually every province in our country.
As we look at the projected activity, the central core it is certain will be Edmonton. Since the modern history of the west was written, Edmonton has been the embarkation point for northern Canada. The Alaska Highway was built during World War 11 and was staged from Edmonton. It was the base forearth-moving companies during early oil industry days when Swan Hills and Alaska Highway oil activities were under way. It has aviation companies, transportation companies and communication companies, as well as a large pool of trained personnel.
Alberta has built up a nucleus of pipeline and oil and gas engineers and technicians and welders since the first big-inch pipelines were laid in the early 1950's. A number of important Canadian pipeline companies were spawned as well during the 1950's; I think of such names as Westcoast Transmission, Interprovincial Pipe Line, TransCanada, the Alberta Gas Trunk Line, Trans Mountain and others. Their expertise and experience cannot be surpassed anywhere in the world. Most of the half dozen major pipeline contractors now based in Alberta have, over many years, qualified themselves as the best, most efficient, and economical builders anywhere in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Colwell Bawden: In addition, through construction in northern Alberta, in British Columbia and in the Yukon these same companies have a wealth of knowledge about northern operating conditions. They are experienced in operating at extremely low temperatures, handling difficult logistics, and working with local labour in these areas, as well as touching at times permafrost construction conditions.
In Canada we have developed a number of vehicles specifically designed to serve the oil and gas industry. Some of these will be in heavy demand in the construction of the pipeline. I think of vehicles such as the Nodwell, the Skidoos, the snowmobiles coming from the province of Quebec, air-cushion vehicles and four-wheel drive vehicles especially equipped to deal with northern conditions, all of which will be required when the project goes ahead.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has not only the expertise to deal with this project. It has the experience, it has the companies, and it betters the qualifications possessed by other parts of the world including the United States. I therefore have no doubt that the Foothills group, which must seek competitive prices for its goods and services, will find substantial savings by dealing with Canadians virtually all the way. I do not, however, feel that any further demand should be placed upon the Foothills group to utilize any Canadian content greater than has already been spelled out by the government.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday when he spoke on the matter of Canadian energy supply. It now appears that the government has finally understood the problem. However, nothing it has done has indicated any capacity to deal with it. Obviously, all the
Northern Pipeline
potential energy projects which have been outlined are possible for the future. What is needed, however, is enabling legislation to make it possible for investors to proceed with the projects. Tax incentives with respect to tar sands projects, improved regulations affecting northern lands and so on, would provide the proper climate. All these things have been so slow in coming that our future energy supply has been prejudiced.
One of the facts of life, however, is that in the 1980's the price of crude oil will likely rise to $25 a barrel or more. At the same time the price of natural gas will track very closely. This will take place at a time when supplies of oil and gas from traditional OPEC sources will be tapering off, if they are available at all. The world today has become so dependent upon OPEC oil that massive power over the world economy has been transferred to those states. Canada and the United States, which today are the biggest energy per capita users on earth, sharing some 40 per cent of energy consumption, are in a very vulnerable position.
We in Canada are in precisely the same boat as the U.S. We are facing an increasing dependence in the decade ahead on imported energy from the OPEC countries. Alaska's Prudhoe Bay oil, which has been flowing for the last year, will relieve the problem to some degree. Alaska gas and gas from the Canadian Arctic will slow the trend toward increased dependence on imports. But even if rapid decisions are forthcoming with respect to transportation methods, financing and construction, supply of the resources involved is still many years down the road.
The fact is that by the mid-1980's Canada will be importing approximately half of its crude oil despite all the protestations by the government about energy self-reliance. The United States will be importing approximately half its oil, so our problems are almost identical. The development of the reserves in the Canadian Arctic and the considerable reserves in the North Sea will make an important contribution to the free world.
I point out, however, that if we are to have any leverage whatsoever with OPEC countries and with those who set the price, and if we want to be immune from world blackmail, it is absolutely vital that not only do we find reserves of oil and gas but also that we produce the transportation systems to bring them to market. Our frontier reserves are of absolutely no use to us whatsoever if they are locked under the permafrost and if no transportation system exists.
It has been stated many times before that Canada's present economic crisis, brought on by the Trudeau government opposite, might seem small in comparison if one adds the imports of perhaps 1.2 million barrels of crude oil a day in the 1980's at a price of close $25 a barrel. This would represent a further drain on our own foreign reserves in the order of $30 million per day or close to $10 billion a year.
Notwithstanding the animosity the government has shown to investors in recent years, surely there is a strong case to be made for increasing the return to Canadian or even American

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
risk takers who are prepared to search for oil and gas reserves in our country, versus the alternative of paying exactly the same amounts to those in distant parts of the world where security of supply is so uncertain.
As I look at this proposed pipeline project I hope that in the years ahead we will see shares offered to Canadians. As we sat down with the financial experts who have been considering this it was explained that there is almost no equity market for shares in Canada at the present time, and the reasons are pretty obvious. Through tinkering as well as massive and destructive changes in our tax laws, the government has virtually driven Canadians from the ownership of their own country. There have been some improvements in recent years, but I say they have been far too little and far too late.
In the early 1960's in Australia there was a desire to have Australian participation in their own mining and oil and gas industries. That country made the purchase of shares in resource companies purchased from the treasuries of those companies fuly tax deductible. Literally tens of thousands of ordinary Australians had a stake, and in many cases a meaningful stake, in the resources of their own country. However, it takes bold and imaginative moves, not the picky little things our government comes out with every year or so and, as I say, far too little to get anything moving. It will take bold and courageous moves if problems regarding Canadian investment are to be solved.
On the question of security of supply, which I think is paramount to this whole matter, the Alaska Highway pipeline which will carry natural gas to American markets is almost as important to Canadians as it is to Americans. In the event of a national emergency or of a conventional war-and the Russians are building their conventional weapons at a rapid rate- there would undoubtedly be an urgent demand to devote all energy supplies to our mutual defence effort.
Due to Canada's complacent role in defence matters during the Trudeau years and because of the weapons capabilities of the United States we would have to turn to our neighbours to a large extent for our total defence and weapons needs. This means that we Canadians, in spite of our cold climate, would be faced with turning our thermostats down, perhaps to the freezing level, so that our protector, the United States, could undertake our mutual defence responsibilities. It is very much in our interests, therefore, that the United States properly manage its own energy policies. At times I have been concerned about whether the United States has done that or maximized its energy policies.
This Alaska energy artery is an important and vital contribution to the mutual defence needs of Canada and the United States. In addition, any alternative consideration, such as tankers to carry natural gas down the west coast, as is presently the case with Alaskan oil, in the event of war would be a disaster.
It must be remembered too that while 50 per cent of our oil needs during the 1980's will be met by imports from OPEC countries, this oil will be largely from Iran and the Middle East, thus traversing the sea lanes of southern Africa. This

security of supply is related to our ability to keep these routes open as much as it is to the willingness and ability of OPEC nations to continue supplying us with oil. The disastrous policies of the western and oil consuming nations, including Canada, relating to South Africa and Rhodesia add significantly to the uncertainties of our oil supply routes in the future.
As I look at the question of our relationship with the United States, I come back to 1941 when the Portland Pipeline was constructed from an American port to Canada as a war measure to supply Canada's Montreal refineries. This avoided difficulties as a result of the freeze-up of the St. Lawrence and the limited season, and it avoided a great many problems for Canada. This line, which travels about 160 miles through the United States, has carried, as recently as 1965, up to 550,000 barrels of oil a day, and it is presently putting through almost
400,000	barrels a day.
During the war when Canada was faced with oil supply problems the United States undertook to supply our domestic oil needs from its own short supply. There was one simple condition: that Canada ration on the same basis as the United States rationed its citizens.
At the present time a large portion of Canada's oil and gas from western Canada travels through the United States by way of the TransCanada Pipelines for gas and the Interprovincial Pipe Line for oil. There are further elaborate plans under way between our two governments to construct joint oil storage reservoirs on the east coast of Canada. The Alaska Highway pipeline project is just another element in this important master plan, but the point is that when the shoe was on the other foot and we were constructing pipelines to suit our needs and to preserve our security, the United States was there and co-operated willingly.
I would like to comment on the complex regulatory agency which the minister has proposed and he stated will be staffed by 200 people. It is interesting that this figure is precisely the figure given in this House by the then minister of finance at the time the Anti-Inflation Board was established. Within two years the staff of the AIB exceeded 900. The cost estimates of the AIB doubled in the first two years.
I think the government must place itself in the position of not asking what the Foothills group can do for it but what it can do for Foothills. If it does not, Foothills may fail. The pipeline may never be built. This massive and difficult undertaking will require a degree of industry and government cooperation never before seen in our country. In addition, the arranging of financing will be a massive undertaking. It will be difficult to accomplish, and some say even dicey in the outcome.
When I look at the bill before the House I believe that the greatest single potential obstacle to the project's going ahead may well be the unwillingness of bankers to produce a blank cheque to cover the costs of the northern pipeline agency. If the government's freewheeling spending patterns are any indication, this could be one of the largest, most uncertain and unfathomable costs in the total project.
February 21, 19 78

Hon. members and others must ask themselves if they would invest in or lend to a company which hands blank cheques over to this government. I will be proposing an amendment in the committee and a formula to limit the amount of cost which can be charged to Foothills for the activities of the regulatory agency.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) have made much of the Dempster connection. I say that there is an excellent chance that the Dempster lateral will never be built. I agree, however, that at the present time it is a good standby. It is perhaps the only standby alternative we have, but the Dome Petroleum Company, which has followed a courageous exploration course in the Beaufort Sea, appears now to have the reserves which could present a threshold level to construct what was originally proposed as the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Notwithstanding this, however, it is also likely that early deliveries from this area will be by tankers, which require less than the threshold volumes required for a pipeline.
In conclusion, the proposal put forward by the Foothills company is simply for a transportation system. It is the transportation of energy in the form of natural gas, and the customer is the United States. This task is not dissimilar to the provision of transportation by other methods such as rail, ship, or air. In this case it is over a land bridge between states of the United States.
Transportation is big business in Canada, and so is the pipeline business. The latest years for which comparative data are available in this country indicate that pipeline transportation of oil and gas yielded revenues of $1.3 billion. This was 16 per cent of the combined revenue of the transportation of all goods by air, rail, ship and truck transport. Pipelines are nothing new in this country. In fact they have been around for more than 100 years. Today Canada has nearly 100,000 miles of pipeline, compared with some 60,000 miles of railroad track.
The Interprovincial and TransCanada systems are respectively the world's longest oil and gas pipelines. These and other pipelines have provided Canadian engineers with tough challenges and the opportunity to pioneer technology. For instance, the Trans Mountain Pipe Line which carries oil from Edmonton to Vancouver, traversing both the Rocky Mountains and the coast mountain ranges, still today represents a remarkable engineering feat.
I believe that the contribution in dollars and cents to Foothills, a transportation company, for the task of transporting American gas is sizeable and impressive. Commencing with the first full year of the Foothills Alaska system, and excluding Dempster, it is projected that the company will realize a net profit of $170 million after tax. Total cash flow before tax and before depreciation will be in the order of $500 million per year. This is some 10 per cent of our present balance of payments deficit. The Government of Canada will collect in the order of $ 150 million per year in federal income
Northern Pipeline
taxes from the Foothills Company. Thus, over a period of ten years the income collected by the government will approach $2 billion from the company, and the contribution to Canada's balance of payments will be in the order of $50 billion.
When we have an opportunity to pass a bill in parliament to assist an enterprise of such tremendous importance to Canada as this, we had better not pick and debate matters which are insignificant in the total and may well contribute or result in the downfall of the entire project. We have an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that Canada is capable of undertaking the largest pipeline ever undertaken and completed in the world, in terms of dimension as well as total dollars. A positive and helpful approach is required on the part of parliamentarians and the government. A vital step is required by the Trudeau government to indicate to the investment community world-wide that the follies of this government are a thing of the past.
We have the opportunity to establish Canada's credibility as a country in which to invest. We have an opportunity to assist our neighbour and protector, the United States of America. That country is our largest trading partner. We can contribute significantly to our mutual energy and defence security.
Therefore let us move forward and not bicker over the division of the pie as to who receives 5 per cent or even 10 per cent more, one way or the other. Let us ensure that the pie is baked and the project goes ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I enter into this debate for a number of reasons. Before getting into the context of my address, however, I should like to make a few corrections to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) earlier this afternoon. In fact he rather flattered me and the New Democratic Party, as he devoted almost his entire speech to criticizing what some of our members have said. When that happens on the government side of the House, then I know a lot of what has been said by members of the New Democratic Party must be correct, and government members must be somewhat worried.
He mentioned the problem of guarantees, which has arisen in a number of debates. Yesterday the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) indicated that we cannot have built-in guarantees that all material and manpower will be Canadian. My party is not demanding a guarantee that every person working on the job and every piece of material which goes into the project be Canadian. If one looks at the current world situation, it is patently obvious what we are concerned about. Of course one area is jobs. Top priority for jobs has to come from Canada. There must be Canadians working on that pipeline. That is paramount.
The other area is: when we are talking about guarantees we are not talking about unfair competition. We are not saying that Canadian corporations, whether it is Stelco, Ipsco or some other small producer, should be given a carte blanche opportunity to fleece the Canadian government, Foothills, or any other

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
manufacturer or contractor involved in this project. We want to caution Canadians. Other countries such as Japan, Italy and Germany produce steel. In those countries steel corporations are heavily subsidized by their governments. Therefore we may end up in a situation where there is unfair competition and very unfair bidding when it comes to the pipeline and the various material components which go into it. This is what we are concerned about.
We are not asking for a special status for Canadian corporations in order for the price to be bid up in their contracts. We are not asking Canadian workers to demand exorbitant labour wage rates. We are asking for fairness and a close look at how corporations in other countries bid. That is our basic concern. I attempted to make that clear yesterday when I asked the hon. member for Niagara Falls a question at the termination of his speech.
Also we are very concerned about the environmental impact. I will have a great deal to say about that later on. As well we are concerned that some hon. members in both the Conservative and Liberal parties are criticizing and condemning the New Democratic Party for being opposed to the pipeline and, for some reason or other, being anti-American. Both of those criticisms are absolutely wrong. Members of the New Democratic Party are not anti-American. But when Canada enters into a deal with the wealthiest nation in the world, which saves that nation $6 billion, because it is not necessary to liquify gas and take it down the container route to the American west coast, and when it is indicated that the best deal possible has been negotiated, there is a question in my mind as to whether that is so.
After negotiations on September 23, 1977, Mr. Schlesinger, who is in charge of United States energy, indicated that the agreement is particularly advantageous to the United States by providing a ceiling on every aspect of potential United States liability, while creating new incentives for efficient construction on a portion of the project which would normally be subject to exclusive Canadian jurisdiction. That type of statement makes me somewhat suspicious that perhaps we did not get the right deal. Be that as it may, we are not opposed to the co-operation the government has entered into with the United States. We are concerned about the nuts and bolts, literally and figuratively speaking, of the entire operation. After all, this is the greatest financial undertaking of a project in the history of our country.
Whether or not the Liberals or the Conservatives have read their history, we know what happened when the other great project was being undertaken in this country back in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and what a hosing the Canadian public took at the hands of the CPR. What we are saying today is that we do not want the next generation or the generation after that to look back and say, "The men and women sitting in the House of Commons in the year 1978 sold us down the river". We want to prevent that kind of thing from happening. We want a fair and equitable deal with

Foothills and with the investors, and we want fair and equitable wages to be paid. We want the pipeline to be built, but we want to make sure that at least that portion that runs through Canada has top Canadian content and will benefit Canadians.
There is one thing we must keep in mind. I think many Canadians at present are under the illusion that this is a totally Canadian operation, that we will bring Canadian gas from the northwest to Canadian consumers. I am amazed at some of the phone calls I receive. Let us put it on the record that, initially and perhaps for the next 20 years, this project will be basically an American project, not Canadian. The project is to bring American natural gas through part of Canada to the United States. We are providing a service. We should have bargained in a much harder way with Mr. Schlesinger and with the U.S. government.
It is interesting to note that in the past three or four years the cost of natural gas to the consumer, to the home owner, and to the person who rents an apartment, has skyrocketed, and yet we have an over supply of natural gas in this country. The most reliable estimates say that we have enough natural gas to last us into the 1990's. What we are doing right now is providing a land corridor for U.S. natural gas to come through Canada to the U.S. I want to make that point very clear. If and when we need Canadian gas we will have to look again at the Dempster spur to find out whether or not we will build a pipeline at that time and to make sure that we can supply our own consumers with our own gas.
A few moments ago I mentioned the environmental aspects of the operation, of this giant project. Environment means two things: it means the physical or natural environment, and it also means the human environment.
I can recall growing up in northern Ontario. We lived in Sault Ste. Marie at the time of the great uranium boom at Blind River and Elliot Lake, Lake Lauzon, in that area, and I can recall the terrible social and economic upheaval at the time of the boom when hustlers and hucksters operated and the cost of a hot-dog shot up from 10 cents to 25 cents. Prostitutes walked the streets, taxi drivers doubled their fares, and houses of ill repute popped up all over the place at Blind River and Elliot Lake. The crime rate soared and the murder rate soared. The police force consisted of only two policemen in those days.
I remember my father talking to the chief of police who said he was literally afraid to go out in his patrol car on a Friday or Saturday night. At that time the cost of food and rents soared. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will remember that when the pipeline was built in Alaska, the net or real income of people who lived in that corridor dropped because prices became inflated as a result of unscrupulous individuals who moved into the area to exploit the people who lived there.
The other aspect which is very important is native land claims. This is a very important subject which has been postponed for so long that it has almost become part of our history, and a very tragic part at that. I suggest to the minister that we should not proceed with the pipeline until we get at
February 21, 1978

least a memorandum of understanding from the native community. I am not suggesting that within the next few months we can settle all the land claims, but I think that there should be some agreement made before the first bulldozer goes in, although I understand that many of them have already gone into the area. I believe that native land claims are paramount at this time.
We all know what our forefathers did to the natives in that part of Canada. They stole their land, they squatted on it, they assumed title to it, and before they knew it it was theirs. This is why the native people of the Northwest Territories today will not tolerate that kind of intrusion and will not tolerate the shacktowns that develop during the building of a pipeline so that in 10 or 15 years' time they will end up with virtually no land at all. We have to keep that in mind.
Another thing we must ensure is a strong local labour content in the building of this pipeline. I am not suggesting for a moment that it is possible to supply all the experts from the Yukon or from the Northwest Territories, from northern British Columbia or indeed northern Alberta. What I am suggesting is that on-the-job training programs should be started, not six months from now or a year from now but right now. Those should be on-the-job training programs both in theory and in practice so that the native people there will have a fair chance in competing for the jobs that will be available in the construction of this tremendous project. Unless we do that we will create the same bitterness, the same hatred, and the same misunderstanding that were created in the process of many other projects in the history of our country, such as the CPR, the Elliot Lake development, and so on.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker? I will continue after the supper adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Urban Affairs-Distribution of CMHC funds by MPs; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale)-Post Office-Suggestion postal rate increases postponed until legislation introduced; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Request for assurance Canadian steel exports to United States not hampered by trigger price system.
Criminal Code
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, public bills, private bills, and notices of motion.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 2, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Translation]	I


Yvon Pinard: I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with consideration of Bill C-224.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the proposition put forward by the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that all bills prior to Bill C-224 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was all party agreement that a certain subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs during the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament. The subject was child abduction. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the subject matter of Bill C-221 from the second session of the 30th Parliament, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Abduction of child), standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), and referred during the second session to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be again referred to the standing committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I would have to seek the unanimous consent of the House because it is difficult to propose a motion on a point of order. Perhaps we could have unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to second the motion on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for
3078

February 21, 1978
Noise Abatement
Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I know he will be very pleased when he returns to the chamber later this evening.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I might add that the parliamentary secretary has a letter from me saying I agree to this, and I do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Robinson) agreed to and subject matter of the bill be referred to Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


RAILWAY ACT
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East) moved: that Bill C-224, to amend the Railway Act (noise abatement), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise an acute environmental problem this afternoon, and that is noise occurring in rather special locations, certain large railway yards concentrated in eight metropolitan centres in Canada. These are known as hump yards. There is one in Edmonton, two in Toronto, and others throughout the country.
The problem is causing polarization in a number of communities, including my constituency of Scarborough East, between the community and the railways. Only in Edmonton are efforts being made to correct it. The CPR in Toronto is doing nothing. The alderman in my constituency receives complaints continuously from residents with respect to the noise. It is a problem that has to be addressed by the federal government since under our constitution railways are a federal responsibility.
Some people may wonder why I raise the question in the form of proposed legislation and not through some attempt at co-operative action. The reason is that there is no federal jurisdiction available over noise. The jurisdiction lies with the province. If the province wishes to do something about noise in the hump yards it is inhibited by the fact that it is the federal government's responsibility, and if the federal government wishes to do something about noise it is stalemated because it has no legal authority.
In face of the failure of the railways to make any attempt to tackle this noise problem I have turned to the only course left, a private member's bill. I hope hon. members will listen to my reasoning and send this bill to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

We should get it clear in our minds what a hump yard is and what the particular noise problem is. A hump yard is a major classification yard where new trains are made up. Existing trains are broken apart and cars are put together in a new fashion.
The particular characteristic of a hump yard is that a man-made hill is built in these yards, perhaps the height of a three-storey building. Two locomotives push cars up this hill two or three at a time. There is a certain noise involved with the whining of the locomotives but that is not the real problem. Those cars roll down the other side of the hill by gravity at quite some speed on their way to any one of literally dozens of tracks where they bump into trains being made up, at speeds up to four miles an hour, forming new trains.
As the cars roll down the hill by gravity, large steels beams about the length of this chamber-in the Scarborough yards they measure 106 feet-rise up on both sides of the tracks and, operated by computer, squeeze in and out against the wheels as they run down the hill. They grip the wheels tightly but the wheels keep turning. They grip, release, grip, release, while the computer retards the speed so that the car will go to the end of the track to its final destination and bump into the train being made up, at exactly the right speed.
It is not difficult to imagine the noise called "wheel screech" as these steel beams rise up and grip the steel wheels of the cars. It is steel on steel. There is a vibration sound, a high pitched screech, which reaches the threshold of pain in terms of decibels. Fortunately, it diminishes over a distance.
There are practical means of reducing this wheel screech. My point is that the CPR in Scarborough does not use the available practical technologies for reducing the noise. It is true that scientists have not yet told us exactly what produces the noise. We do not know if it is the retarder, if it is in the wheels, or if it is the vibration between the two. For our purposes it is not necessary to have the practical explanation of the noise. It is sufficient for our purposes to know that the noise level is intolerable and that it can be reduced by available technology which is not being used.
If the railways, which have the primary responsibility, do not undertake to utilize the available technology on the grounds that they were there First and the homes have been built since, or on the grounds that their major responsibility under the Railway Act is to provide transportation, or that reduction of noise does not eliminate it, then they are not co-operating.
The practice followed by our own federal Ministry of Transport of seeking a co-operative approach between the municipalities, the railways and the departments of environment in the provinces, will not work. It will not have credibility unless there are legal sanctions which can be used.
My bill is a practical means of giving legal power to the Canadian transportation commission-the regulatory agency-to back up the federal government which has no authority over noise at the present time. That is the purpose of the bill.
February 21, 1978

Let me explain the major provisions of this bill. They are not very difficult. This bill would be an amendment to Section 215 of the Railway Act. It would be known as "Abatement of noise in hump yards". It is focused, not on railway noise in general, but on those eight hump yards in Canada. It would give the Canadian Transport Commission the power, after looking at each situation, to direct the railway company to construct and maintain works for the abatement of noise emanating from hump yard operations which, in the opinion of the commission, caused a severe noise problem adversely affecting the community.
Secondly, the noise must be capable of significant reduction by the use of available technology. Measurements are not mentioned. It says, "Is there a noise problem?" If there is a problem, is available technology not being used? And if there is, the commission could order it to be installed. The bill would provide in the language that is appropriate to a private member's bill since we cannot call for expenditures of funds, that the transportation commission could, if it felt advisable, request the Ministry of Transport to contribute up to 30 per cent of the cost of the noise abatement works in the hump yard.
It also provides that if a municipality is an applicant for noise abatement, before proceeding the municipality would be required to agree that it would participate up to a maximum of 10 per cent of the cost of noise control. There is no authority for the federal agency to direct a municipality to spend money. All it says is if a municipality requests noise abatement works it ought to be prepared to participate in a small way because it controls the zoning which brings residences into the area.
Finally, the bill will provide that research into acoustic problems could be ordered with the federal government sharing, upon the request of the CTC, up to 50 per cent of the cost of new research into noise abatement. That is what it says. It is authority to the regulatory agency which at present has no authority over noise. We know for example that the regulatory agency can order the railways to spray weeds on the railway tracks and to remove weeds, to build fences and other things. It cannot say anything about noise. We are left helpless by the negative attitude shown on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian National Railways has co-operated.
What technologies are available? For example, sound baffles could be built along the length, 100 or so feet, of the steel beams that rise up on both sides of the tracks, to soften the noise. Tests prove these baffles will reduce the noise by some 25 decibels, which is around 40 per cent of the total noise at the point of the noise emission. That is a significant reduction. Should the railway employ that technology if the community is affected adversely? I think it should. If it does not and we say "Let's co-operate" and it fails to co-operate, where is the lever? We do not have one. My bill simply says put in a lever which will give credibility to our responsibility in railway functions to handle this question.
There are other technologies available, some of them good and some of them not so good. For example, an oil and water emulsion has been sprayed on the wheels to help deaden the
Noise Abatement
noise, which has had some effect. There are other methods described in technical bulletins which are now available. The Burlington Northern Railway and the Westinghouse Brake Shoe company have done significant research in noise reduction in these special circumstances.
We know that railway classification yards, even though they have moved outside of the major urban centres, are now inside as urban growth takes place. Fifteen years ago in my constituency when zoning made possible this railway hump yard, noise was not the serious community concern that it is today. We must face it in today's terms. When zoning was put in for the railway hump yards there was also zoning for residential uses, homes that were not yet built. Houses are now there and the noise problem is with us. I am seeking a way of coping with it. Is the province doing anything about it?
The Ontario provincial ministry of transport and the CPR convened a seminar one year ago on the subject of railway noise. They concluded that it was a matter for a federal authority. We have no authority because of the gap in our legal capacity.
The province of Ontario is currently issuing new regulations covering new homes in the Malvern area and around the hump yard in Scarborough East. These new regulations deal with sound baffles in new communities, in the siting of homes, in earth berms to break the noise and in heavier insulation in the homes. It has been estimated by some that the cost to homeowners and developers will be between $2,000 to $3,000 per home to meet the noise problems of highways and railway yards.
Can we leave the railways without responsibility to act when the province is acting, when the municipality has zoned the area residential at the same time that it is zoned industrial for the yards, and when this new problem of noise emerged?
In conclusion, this bill is an effort to provide the federal authority through its regulatory agency with the legal power to research a noise situation only in the hump yards. I am not taking a broad approach. It may then order remedial works to reduce noise if there is technology available and it is not being used. It may request the government to share in the cost and it may, if a municipality has applied, ask that municipality to share in the cost in a minor way. It may sponsor and pay some costs of research into noise reduction. I hope it will commend itself to my colleagues in the House and that they will agree to send it to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications where the federal Departments of Transport, Northern Affairs, Environment, the provincial departments and railways can be called to explain their role in the present situation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for bringing forth Bill C-224. We have had the same problem in the Edmonton-Calder area for many years. In 1969 and 1970 the same issue came up in the Edmonton-Calder area. There was the squealing of steel on
80031-S3'/2

February 21, 1978
Noise Abatement
steel in the hump yard which could be heard within a radius of approximately 30 miles. The unfortunate part of the problem was that most of the boxcars came in at one, two and three o'clock in the morning when people were sleeping. It was difficult to get the culprit, CNR, to do something about it. We did manage to get them to build barriers around the trackage for something in the neighbourhood of three miles. This is the buffer for the area.
Every two or three years, I receive letters from my constituents telling me it is time I started getting after the CNR again because they are not doing their job properly. There is a continuous program of the CNR together with the Department of the Environment, both in the federal and provincial field, which checks the decibel rate as far as this particular hump yard is concerned. I think the only solution is the one the hon. member mentioned. I will not go into it because he has described the whole process.
At one time this was on the outskirts of the city. It is now in the middle of an urban area. This is as a result of urban sprawl. These hump yards should be taken out of city areas, or at least the humping should be done during designated hours such as in the afternoon or right after the dinner hour.
I will not take any more time of the House. I know that all members will give their consent and this will be put through as quickly as possible and sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We look forward to speedy passage of the bill. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) will go along with this because he is in a very reasonable mood this afternoon. I sincerely hope this very important bill will be given speedy passage today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of this bill by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). I must say I welcome even more the statement of support just given by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). I am happy to make it unanimous, so the bill ought to go through.
Like the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, I am concerned about this problem. There is a CPR hump yard between my constituency and that of my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). We know what this squeal is. I am glad that the hon. member for Scarborough East has squealed about it in the House. I hope this bill can get through this afternoon.
I see the hon. member looking at me rather quizzically. Usually, when he brings in a bill on a Thursday afternoon, he has trouble, but this is Tuesday. He is wondering what has happened to the New Democratic Party that we are not treating this bill the way we treat Bill C-1001. This is a good bill. We support it.


Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join hon. members who have spoken before me in congratulating the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for introducing this bill. In my riding of Richmond, shunters in

a marshalling yard have no consideration for people living in the vicinity and at three or four o'clock in the morning they do as much as they can to wake them up. I suggest a bill such as this will help railway workers and officials think a little more of the public and respect the people living in the vicinity. Once again I want to congratulate the hon. member and I hope the House will adopt his bill as this afternoon.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, if the question can be put one minute before six o'clock, there is a good chance this bill can be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to speak and I am pleased to take this opportunity to make a few comments on second reading of Bill C-224, which contains amendments to the Railway Act and aims at reducing noise. I am happy to support the bill and I would like to offer my sincere congratulations to its author, the distinguished hon. member for Scarborough East.
I am well aware of the reasons which brought the hon. member to move this bill. I must admit frankly in the House that 1 have not discussed this bill with the hon. member for Scarborough East, but I will show in my comments that we are of the same mind and that the hon. member was motivated basically by the same reasons that would have moved me to introduce a bill somewhat similar to this one. When you have grown up near a railway, when your father was a railroad worker and when you yourself have worked for a railway during your summer vacation, it is easy to understand the importance and the complexity of the problem that the hon. member for Scarborough East would like to rectify today.
Of course, we could talk for several weeks about noise in general and for several days about noise caused by various railway activities. If we talk too long about this and do not choose to act as soon as possible and do what is required to correct the various sources of noise pollution, we would greatly compromise our credibility as parliamentarians. Some jokers would even accuse us of adding to noise pollution.
I understand very well that the hon. member for Scarborough East wished to concentrate his efforts on only one aspects of this source of pollution even though he could have mentioned many others.
This immediately brings to mind the CPR's engine whistles and the CNR's locomotives. In my home town, Grand Falls in New Brunswick, they wake up the people twice a night between twelve and 6 a.m., practically seven days a week. There are three level crossings in less than a mile, so we may easily understand the anger of citizens waking out of peaceful sleep, babies crying, children in tears in this small town with a
6,000	population.
Mr. Speaker, in this day and age I understand the concern of the bill's sponsor for public protection against the noise from railway hump yards or the unending movement of cars going through automatic retarders. The hon. member brought this particular problem to our attention because he figured this problem could be solved more easily through a bill. He explained a moment ago why we should amend the Railway
February 21, 1978

Act. As many other hon. members, he has gone through the frustrating experience of trying to put the problem before MOT officials, railway companies and the CTC. He has been confronted with repeated refusals from all quarters, because nobody wanted to take final responsibility for instituting remedies or taking the decision of solving the problem once and for all, and as fast as possible. This is why he had to put this legislation before Parliament. This is why I am in full sympathy with him.
I went through that kind of frustration, Mr. Speaker, when 1 endeavoured unsuccessfully to put an end to the nightmare of night-time engine whistles in Grand Falls. I could refer to countless letters showing that the legions of Julius Caesar would be needed to overcome the barrage and often fictitious impediments put up by the federal bureaucracy. I understand the hon. member for Scarborough East, after being confronted with that kind of refusals, having used all possible approaches, had to prepare this legislation as a last resort to solve the problem and that of the constituents he is so aptly representing here.
I wonder however if the hon. member would widen the scope of his bill to include all sources of noise pollution from railway operations, which are a real nuisance to the public and this is putting it reasonably.
And to think that the locomotive was invented in 1803, that the noise has not really diminished since then, and that we have not found a way to lessen the noise created by automatic retarders, or to silence those blasted night train whistles, taking into account for security reasons at level crossings: one cannot talk obviously of astounding technological advances, and that is certainly not to the honour of our railway companies or the Canadian Transport Commission which completely wash their hands of this situation.
The hon. member for Scarborough East and myself should perhaps invite the members of the Canadian Transport Commission and the boards of the railway companies to sleep every night for a week near either hump yards or in my native town of Grand Falls which is crossed by two railroads. Perhaps that would shake them out of their bureaucratic lethargy, and prompt them to set up a task force which would examine seriously these and other sources of noise caused by the railways and which, one must emphasize, considerably lower the quality of life of many Canadians, and many Canadian communities. I know of some commissioners who would simply say: But you don't have to live near a railroad, ladies and gentlemen. They are probably the ones who live comfortably in the high-class sections of Ottawa West, Alta Vista or Rockliffe.
The time has come to have the Canadian Transport Commission and railway companies carry out fully their duties and obligations toward the Canadian community.
For too long members of this House had to be satisfied with answers like: It is a known fact that the use of locomotive whistles in certain areas like Grand Falls poses a few problems for the people in the area. This is the kind of dumb answer we get from the Canadian Transport Commission. So there is a
Noise Abatement
whole lot of small but very annoying problems to be solved and it is time that someone dealt with them seriously. The Canadian Transport Commission must stop shunning its responsibilities and stop using arguments like: We are not empowered to change the requirements. Any amendment to those requirements must be made through an act of Parliament.
Is the commission really responsible for those many problems and complaints it receives regularly relating to noise pollution, did it point those problems out to the government, did it discuss them with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang)? Not that I know. If it did, how is it that in 1978, 171 years after the locomotive was invented, we have to put up with the noise made by whistles or automatic retarders in railway hump yards, in the middle of the night to bother everybody? Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute or two to deal with sub-clause (2) of clause 215.1 of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough East on municipal financial commitments as contributions to the solution of problems relating to the noise generated by railways.
A large and wealthy area like Toronto or Scarborough can afford to pay for part, even a very tiny part, of the cost but several small municipalities across Canada which are too poor and without good taxation resources do not have the budgets to pay for any part of the cost of installation of such equipment, no matter how small it is. Yet the formula presently contained in the Railway Act is applied evenly all across Canada, irrespective of the capacity of the municipalities to pay. Poor municipalities, we are sorry to say, are still going to have to put up with the noise of screechy locomotives for many years to come.
Even if this bill is not referred to a committee of the House for further consideration this afternoon-and I sincerely hope it will be-I think we will have accomplished something useful: we will have identified a serious problem and asked the federal government, its departments, its agencies, its commissions, provincial authorities and municipal governments to use the enormous research resources we have in this country for the solution of the problems we raised this afternoon.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to intervene very briefly in support of this private member's bill put forward by my hon. friend and neighbour from Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). As stated, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the protection of the public from the noise and inconvenience caused by railway hump yards. I want to make it clear that I am in favour of the bill and that I congratulate my hon. friend for having sponsored it.
I am familiar, in some measure, with the problem which confronts him. I recall the situation which arose in connection with my own private bill last session; the hon. member is attacking a different aspect of the same class of problem. The dilemma is this: The use of railway facilities in increasing and

February 21, 1978
Noise Abatement
at the same time communities across the country are continuing to grow. The two trends are not being co-ordinated. In my own case, in Scarborough West, the railway was planning to expand its marshalling yards, a process bound to result in increased noise, greater danger to traffic, higher pollution levels and so on. Yet no notice of this intention was given to the area in advance, just as I am sure no warning was given to people in the neighbourhood of hump yards that construction was due to take place. At least there is a law on this. The Railway Act was amended so that people are now informed of what is about to take place. They have an opportunity to let their objections and concerns be known.
There is a need, however, for much more co-operation between the railways and communities of this country. The present level of co-operation is not satisfactory, as the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) and other speakers have said. The railways should not take the position "we were here first", or that their lines were in place before certain communities ever came near them. The railways are performing a public service, and because of that they must interact with the public in the way any major public service should interact.
I support the bill. The residents of Scarborough East and all Canadians deserve every consideration possible, and I commend my colleague from neighbouring Scarborough East for having sponsored this bill.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have the unfortunate duty of now speaking until the end of the period. In ordinary language, the tactic of speaking to a private bill until six o'clock is known as killing the bill. The expression is not very pleasant, but I think that for reasons I shall have the opportunity of mentioning later on in my speech, because of the difficulties the application of such a bill would entail, unfortunately I feel that it would not be easy to implement the bill proposed here by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). However I do think that this debate on the important matter of noise pollution in marshalling yards is very important, and that it should be held because, as the hon. member pointed out, some big companies at times turn a deaf ear to the problems of the citizens in a given area, and in this case, the citizens who live close by the shunting yards of railway companies.
The problem resulting from the noise caused by the various means of transport in residential areas is inevitably worsening with the simultaneous growth of transport and urban areas, two phenomena whose coexistence is marked by numerous problems. The considerable efforts made to reduce the noise of airplanes certainly do not have their counterpart in the field of railways, and as the hon. member for Scarborough East pointed out technology is not quite as advanced in that field as it is in that of aeronautics.
However this problem is serious, particularly in some areas like Edmonton as the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) said, or in any other area where you have those hump yards. And the circumstances justify a debate on this matter today, Mr. Speaker, so that those corporations become more responsible and ready to co-operate more than they do now.
As the hon. member said in his remarks, there have been some initiatives or technical adjustments on the part of the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific to reduce noise in co-operation with the Ontario Department of Environment which has sponsored a conference to study the best means to reduce noise in hump yards but there is no satisfactory solution yet.
However, the seminar held last year has been the occasion of a positive exchange of views that has helped clarify the issue. Mr. Speaker, I think that this seminar is a good example of co-operation between railway company representatives and provincial, municipal and regional officials who met to find a practical answer to a mostly technical problem.
I am also pleased to mention that the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) has taken himself a very active part in this research. The hon. member also had many discussions with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on that important issue and through such forum and dialogues between all interested parties and at every level we should find technical solutions to deal with that problem in spite of its complexity. However, we cannot find a remedy without a better understanding of those real and increasing problems. First we should establish their origin and who is responsible for them, whether the railways, urban centres or urban planning. And I think that by continuing our research in that direction we will eventually end up by finding out the best means to solve these problems. These difficulties arise, Mr. Speaker, in the shunting yards, particularly those related to the industrial use of lands and residential areas when shunting yards and residential areas grow simultaneously and close to one another.
Such situations can happen because urban planning is the prime responsibility of the provinces and the municipalities while railway companies fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government and are not therefore subject to provincial laws. So sometimes-and unfortunately all too often-we witness a lack of coordination when it comes to getting an integrated urban planning system. Consequently, as the hon. member pointed out, conflicts may arise and actually do. Given the fact that planning affecting land is primarily the responsibility of the provinces, they should be in a position to see to it that no parallel development of land takes place when they are incompatible. However, as I mentioned previously, the two national railway companies are not subject to provincial laws. The federal government is then indirectly involved in issues relating to the use of urban land, if we may say so. This is why when he studies a request by Canadian National to obtain permission to build new facilities the Minister of Transport requires that the company back its request by letters from the municipality or municipalities involved as well as letters of authorization from Environment Canada before moving any further toward granting the request. Because of the nature of

February 21, 1978

their services, railway companies would rather build their shunting yards in industrial areas which are closer to the users of the means of transportation.
However this is not always possible, even in the case of shunting yards which originally were not located in residential areas. Problems have sprung up with the extension of the residential zones as well as with the extension or changes that railway activities have themselves undergone, beyond all expectation. In the present circumstances, we can classify the noise problems deriving from shunting operations into two groups: those that already exist and those that can be avoided if necessary action is taken.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation which is submitted today to the House suggests a legislative solution to the existing problems. The hon. member moved to amend the Railway Act in a way which would give the Canadian Transport Commission authority to direct the railway companies to take measures for noise abatement. The bill also provides for a cost sharing agreement among railway companies, the federal government and the municipalities but there is no mention of provincial financing.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier such federal legislative action would give rise to some difficulties. First, although several groups have suggested various steps to reduce noise in shunting yards and even if there was a symposium on the problem, as mentioned a while ago, current technology is not sufficiently advanced to warrant compulsory enforcement. It would be difficult to compel railway companies to apply those procedures without the necessary technology to do so effectively. If we compel railway companies to use the most recent technical methods, however inadequate they may be, nobody will be satisfied because the problem will not be entirely solved in spite of huge expenses. In short, Mr. Speaker, I think our intervention would be premature and would not allow us to achieve the objective we have set for ourselves.
The responsibility for the real origin of the problem and consequently the measures to be taken to correct it are controversial or at least very complex issues. Railroad companies are the source of the noise but they are not solely responsible for the various decisions which have been made and have led to conflicts between them and municipalities with regard to that ecological factor. So it seems to me that those companies should not be forced to defray the noise abatement costs. Municipalities or provinces, or both, should also accept responsibility for the problems stemming from the coexistence of marshalling yards and residential areas since they allowed that promiscuity. Although this matter does not really fall within its jurisdiction, the federal government should become involved in it to the extent that it encourages the railway companies to discuss their plans with municipalities.
This incentive has now become an obligation through a legislation introduced by our colleague from Scarborough East. From now on railway companies must advise the public of the proposed extension or changes to their facilities. People who live near these facilities now have the opportunity to express their views on these projects. Therefore the noise problem of hump yards in residential areas will be reduced
Noise Abatement
because the railway companies will have to discuss their projects as well as their possible effects with municipal authorities.
CP Rail went deliberately further in the pursuit of this spirit of co-operation by sponsoring the conference which was held in May 1977 and by spending, without being forced to do so by any legislation, $1 million to replace the equipment of Agin-court hump yard in order to reduce the noise caused by wheels. Mr. Speaker, I think we should express the hope that the spirit of co-operation which was shown at Agincourt by CP Rail will be pursued and accelerated, as requested by the hon. member. Railway companies have often shown their willingness to take appropriate steps to reduce the noise nuisance from which the people who live along the facilities suffer, provided municipal authorities are prepared to co-operate, to share the cost and to admit that the noise problems are not always due to railways.
Many factors are involved in the impact of a noise level on a community. The importance of each factor varies in each case and all the effects are not known yet. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, unanimity has not been reached as to what noise levels are acceptable in one residential area or another. It is less than likely that a legislation or a standard might be equally applied in all cases. For example, it would be extremely difficult to draft a general list of standards which would apply in any situation. The other solution proposed would be to give wide ranging authority to some regulating body as the Canadian Transport Commission.
However, this body would not have the necessary authority to control all parties involved. For example, the commission could give orders only to federal bodies but not to the provinces or their bodies responsible for planning and problems related to land use. Considering these technical and jurisdictional uncertainties, it would be difficult to achieve this objective through legislation. The Canadian Transport Commission does not have the necessary authority to order provinces or municipalities to spend money, although, I believe, these are partly responsible in land use conflicts.
For the Canadian Transport Commission to consider the participation of a municipality, it would have to conclude beforehand an agreement with the railway company and the municipality concerning the cost sharing procedures. According to the bill, the commission can order a municipality to spend money only if it is one of the parties having filed a request. The other solution would be the establishment of a cost sharing fund similar to the fund for relocating railroad tracks or railway crossings; this solution is proposed in the bill.
This solution would entail the establishment of evaluation, budgeting and project control procedures and coordination with the provinces and other interested parties. But in the past the provinces have not approved cost sharing programs such as the fund for relocating railroad tracks and railroad crossings because it forces them to spend money in areas which are not in their priorities. Taking into account the dissatisfaction of the provinces towards the present sharing cost fund, it is not likely that such a procedure might be used. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that a federal legislation is not the ideal solution to

February 21, 1978
Noise Abatement
the problem raised by the hon. member today. We should rather endeavour to do research on the control and reduction of noise levels and to obtain better co-operation from the parties concerned. Of course, the federal government has a role to play in this area.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize the hon. member will have a difficult time attempting to talk this bill out, in that he has only two minutes left. He is trying to indicate the he would like to do something for us, but because the minister disallows his doing so, he will not pass this bill or put it into committee for further study. We will pursue this further. We will go after the minister to make sure he gets a hump yard in Saskatoon-Humboldt so that he can see how the people of that area like it.


Charles Lapointe: I do not think that you have been very generous to give my hon. friend leave to rise on a point of order on this subject. I do not think it was a point of order, however I was pleased to hear his remarks. 1 must say, Mr. Speaker, and I explained this at the beginning of my speech, that I intended to speak till six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not talking it out. You are reading it out.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Perhaps we could do without the remarks of our friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) at this time, as we are getting closer to six o'clock. I would like to tell the hon. member from Edmonton Centre that when a bill such as this one is put forward we should seek of course whether it can be implemented within the administration.
[ English ]


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of his remarks, the hon. parliamentary secretary mentioned, as an illustration of the co-operative attitude of the CPR, that it was spending $1 million in those hump yards to restore the tracks. 1 realize he does not want to leave the impression that they were spending that money on noise reduction. It is simply a standard replacement of worn out tracks. It has nothing to do with the question in hand with respect to preventing noise. They should not be given credit for rehabilitating the yards in any sense. We would object to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The time allotted to the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the special committee on a northern gas pipeline.
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier in my address to the House this afternoon-and I want to re-emphasize this at this time-contrary to what some members on the government side may think, the NDP is not opposed to the pipeline. We are not opposed to most of the agreements that have been entered into. But we are deeply concerned about Canadian content, the not unreasonable guarantees that Canadian workers get the biggest share of the work market, and because it is a Canadian enterprise that Canadian corporations get a fair chance at bidding on contracts. As I said earlier, we do not want to see the Canadian taxpayers fleeced through some kind of phony guarantee situation whereby Canadian corporations, large or small, can inflate their prices and overbid on contracts.
Let me reiterate for a moment what I said before the supper break. We have a strong suspicion-in fact, it is more than a suspicion; we know-that steel corporations and other manufacturing firms related to this kind of huge project are heavily subsidized in countries such as Japan, West Germany and Italy. We want to make sure that our own companies and corporations, and flowing from them the workers of Canada, have an opportunity for fair bidding. There should be some kind of control mechanism built into this legislation to make very sure-I do not know exactly how this could be done internationally, but at least it is something for the government to consider-that we as a government know whether or not a corporation in Japan, Italy, West Germany, England or any other country, is giving us an honest bid; and by that I mean wage rates, interest rates and productivity rates that are relative to Canada. Unless our government knows exactly how the competitors have arrived at their figures, Canadian corporations and hence their employees will be in jeopardy.
February 21, 1978

There is one point I wanted to raise before the supper adjournment regarding a few comments that were made by some of my friends in the Conservative party about letting the free enterprise system operate in this project, letting the independent corporations compete and letting the chips fall where they will, in the hope that Canadian corporations will get a great deal of the work and the contracts. However, I did not hear any member of the Conservative party-I may be wrong-mention the fact that when Canadian corporations, great or small, find themselves in financial difficulties, it may not be their own fault. In fact, in many cases in the last two or three years it has been the fault of the government.
When they find themselves in financial difficulty, Mr. Speaker, where do they go? They may go to their bank or they may go to their shareholders and stockholders; but ultimately if they are in trouble they come to the government, whether it is the federal, provincial or municipal government. They come to the public purse and say: "Unless we can get some financial assistance from the various federal or provincial programs, we will go broke, we will go into receivership".
I am not personally opposed to this. If a company is potentially economically viable but is running into hard times within a few months or perhaps a year and a half, in such cases I think it is the duty of the country to assist that corporation. But what I dislike about what I have heard from some members of the House in both the Conservative and the Liberal parties is that one would think that the only people who come running to a government agency, whether it is for welfare, unemployment insurance or the Industrial Development Bank, are the down and outs, people who have been laid off or who are on welfare. I want to state now for the record that personally I am not opposed to government hand-outs to business which will assist the business to remain viable; but I am opposed to hearing only one side of the story, which is what happens very often in the House.
A few years ago this party coined the phrase "corporate welfare bum", and I know it hurt a lot of people. I do not want to refer to the corporate sector or to any individual as a corporate individual bum. I just want to point out that when corporations or individuals find themselves in trouble these days, they go to government. As members of parliament we know that, because they come to us for assistance.
Earlier this afternoon I spoke of the social problems that will affect people living in the Yukon. I do not profess to be a specialist in the social environment of the Yukon but I have read something about it and I have been there. When I was in my teens I saw what happened at Elliot Lake, Blind River, Spragge and Cutler and other places in northern Ontario during the uranium boom. I also saw what happened after the boom when the economy dropped to nothing. During the boom hucksters and hustlers came in, made a fast buck and the cost of living went up. That is one thing that I hope will not happen to native born Yukoners and people from southern Canada who have made their homes there.
Northern Pipeline
This bill should provide for some kind of agency not only to monitor the cost of the pipeline but to monitor the cost of living and social effects of the pipeline on the Yukon. I sincerely hope we will also go a lot further in settling land claims before the pipeline gets under way.
We have heard a great deal about the financing of the pipeline. Members on both sides of the House agree that this is an important matter and that we should get on with it. But I emphasize that we must be cautious. We must not march into what could be a huge, horrendous undertaking without certain guarantees for the Canadian people. I am not talking now in terms of narrow nationalism. I suppose the fashionable word today is nationhood, or love of nationhood, as propounded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Love of nationhood refers not only to Quebec but to Ontario, the maritimes and certainly the Yukon. We must make sure that the people of the Yukon understand they are an integral part of this country and that people from southern Canada are not going north to exploit them, to rip the shirts off their backs, whether they be native born Inuit or others living there.
We must make it plain that we are there for two reasons: first, to develop a gas pipeline to deliver United States gas to that country through Canada. The second reason is that eventually, perhaps 10 or 20 years hence, the pipeline might benefit Canada even though we have an abundance of natural gas at the present time. In my riding consumers complain that their natural gas costs have been mounting in the last two or three years. I do not think that even the economists can understand that unless it is because of the cost of delivery via the TransCanada pipeline.
When we talk of a pipeline, Mr. Speaker, we talk of development, development which will affect most Canadians. I hope it will provide needed jobs and an opportunity for investment in our country for those people who have the money. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Canadians do not have the money to invest. For that I blame this government which has been in power since 1963. That is the main reason that the majority of Canadians do not have money to invest. Members of the government can talk all they like about being proud of this country, investing in this country and all the rest, but people just do not have the money to invest in a pipeline.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) made an excellent speech in the House last evening. It was a business oriented speech. 1 stand to be corrected but, in effect, he said: "My speech is based on making money." He did not mean making money himself, of course. He went into all the arguments of how a pipeline could be financed. He spoke of the average Canadian taking pride in developing this great undertaking. If my memory serves me correctly, one thing he omitted to mention, however, was that probably 80 per cent or 90 per cent of Canadians will never have the opportunity to contribute financially to the pipeline and get a decent return on their investment. It will be left to a few people, groups of people, consortiums or organizations, to make money if there is money to be made. And I am quite
3086

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
sure, Mr. Speaker, that there is money to be made eventually in this undertaking.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) says that the government is committed to maximizing the economic benefits of the pipeline to Canada. Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to do that why are there no provisions for Canadian content or Canadian jobs in the negotiated agreement with the United States or in this legislation? I know the word "guarantee" is a nasty one to free entreprisers and to entrepreneurs except when it comes to guaranteed loans from the government; then it is a different story.
I think this is endemic to this country. On the one hand we want to develop our great resources, but the financial imput comes from a very few people and the benefits go back to a very few people. The increase in the price of gas and oil today is an example. We are supposed to have an abundance of gas. However, we are told to be patriotic about it. The New Democratic party is criticized for being anti-American and against the pipeline. Mr. Speaker, we are not. This party is for the people of this country. We want a share in that as much as anybody else. We must address ourselves to that point and that point alone.
We are not intending for a moment to hold up this legislation. It is very interesting to note that we are being labelled in the press as the party which is filibustering; I am not pointing my finger at any specific colleague in this House. Granted there are only 16 NDP members in the House, but if you look at the list of speakers there are just as many Liberals and Conservatives speaking in this debate as there are New Democrats. So I hope the press will realize that it is not we who are filibustering this bill. We want to extend to this House constructive criticism. We do not want to stop construction of the pipeline; we want to make sure there are basic guarantees that will benefit Canada. What is wrong with being patriotic either at this time-or, for that matter, at any other time in the history of our country-when we are being torn asunder vis-a-vis Quebec and the rest of Canada?
What happens after the pipeline is built? It is not for me to delve into the financial details because I am not an expert in economics. There may be 2,000 to 2,500 people working on this pipeline, but what happens after it is finished? Is it going to be the same old story? Are we to have the same old shanty towns we had before in other parts of Canada? Are we going back to the days of Charlie Chaplin and the gold rush-the dog eat dog approach to the development of this country? It makes great poetry. Charlie Chaplin became a hero in the short time he lived in the Yukon. Surely today we can organize ourselves better as far as the social and personal implications are concerned.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that those who ultimately become powerful in regulating the development of this pipeline will make sure that the human aspect is taken into consideration, and I am quite sure the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) shares this point of view. I hope that by regulation, an

act of parliament or by changes or amendments to this bill, there will be guarantees not only of Canadian input but guarantees against human exploitation. To me this is just as important as manufacturing pipe and creating jobs.
When it is all over the people of the Yukon and the northern part of British Columbia will still be there. They will have to live with the remnants of a boom era. If that boom era is similar to what happened in other parts of Canada, such as Elliot Lake and Blind River, then the toll in human terms will be almost unbearable.
I spoke for approximately 15 or 20 minutes before the supper break and I will not take up too much more time. The New Democratic Party does not want to prolong this debate. We will have amendments to present in committee. This pipeline will be the greatest development this country has ever known, both in financial and human terms. I hope we do not end up with the same kind of package which our forefathers ended up with respecting the CPR-a sellout to the pioneers of this country. I am referring to the western pioneers, of course. I hope the day will not come when the people of the Yukon and northern parts of Canada will say: "You sold us down the river", or in this case "down the tube". I hope we will use this development as a unifying force in the country, not as a divisive force.
I hope we will also be able to benefit Canadians. Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to fear from the United States. They are close friends. Geographically they are along our border. Seventy-five per cent of all Canadians live within 100 miles of the United States. Americans are tough bargainers. American businessmen respect toughness in negotiations and bargaining. I believe we have not been tough enough in negotiating this agreement with the United States. Mr. Schlesinger and other members of Mr. Carter's cabinet believe they got a better deal than we did. You cannot have respect for somebody who caves in. You cannot have respect for a relative or a neighbour who says: "Fine, go ahead, we will take this, you take that", and so on. I am not trying to be a prophet but I predict that in the long run Canadians will realize in seven or 10 years that this was not the best of deals, although I am not saying that their comment will be that it was the worst of deals. If we are not tough with our friends to the south, then as the Toronto Star said in its major editorial with respect to foreign ownership, I believe in yesterday's edition-this does not relate to this bill but I think it is cogent-"We can do better on our own".
This comment means we must make it abundantly clear to our friends to the south that we are second class North American citizens. We have resources. We have oil, natural gas, water, timber and all kinds of base metals. We have to bargain on an equal basis. Just because Americans outnumber Canadians 10 to one in population, and because their economy is bouncing back because of government intervention, something the Canadian government has been extremely reluctant to do, we should not take second place. We should bargain as North Americans sharing a continent, and making sure we get

3'

February 21, 1978

as good a deal as they do. That is the way we must bargain respecting this pipeline. I believe my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Don Valley is rising on a point of order.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions to permit the Minister of Finance to come to the House this evening and discuss the very important announcement which was made at seven o'clock tonight. The announcement stated that the Government of Canada is to borrow money from abroad to stabilize the Canadian dollar and that it is drawing down the $1,500 million credit they had established with the Canadian commercial banks.
This action on the part of the government is probably one of the most significant that has taken place in the last decade in Canadian history. It is a matter of great urgency that the Minister of Finance make a statement tonight before the markets open tomorrow. I ask for unanimous consent that this matter, important to every Canadian, be brought to the attention of the House this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, after that little interjection, I guess we can get back to the business at hand. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) on this bill. I was relieved and somewhat encouraged to see the apparent turnaround that he and, hopefully, his party are taking in their attitude toward this pipeline project.
I am not suggesting anybody in the House is attempting to filibuster. However, the only reason a number of us on this side are taking an opportunity to participate at this point is that there is continued intervention in the debate on the other side. We would be quite happy to see the bill moved into committee and discussed in detail there. We will participate as long as the debate carries on.


An hon. Member:: That's democracy.


Alan Gray Martin: That is democracy. We are members of parliament as well as those on the other side.
Northern Pipeline
The hon. member for Brant indicated he has some reservation with regard to the benefits of this pipeline to Canadians. I will touch on that later. I would also like to deal with the speech of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) whose remarks I was privileged to hear earlier. I was encouraged by the positive approach that he took with regard to this major project which will have such an important impact on the Canadian economy in the years ahead. The way his party is now supporting this project is indeed an interesting turnaround.
When this session resumed after the new year, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) indicated that in 1978 the Canadian economy would be buried or come to an end. Obviously the official opposition has since seen some kind of light. Perhaps they feel some degree of responsibility in presenting themselves to the Canadian people as an opposition which finds the odd bright spot in a potentially very exciting economic picture. Presumably they have taken the pipeline project as something they should support.
This is indeed an historic bill. As has been stated previously, the Alaska Highway pipeline will involve some $10 billion in all, representing some 5,500 miles of pipeline construction. By way of simple comparison, this compares with the project some 20 years ago of TransCanada Pipelines. It involved a total expenditure at that time of something in the neighbourhood of $375 million, less than one tenth of this amount. There is no question that the project in this legislation is the most exciting project to face this nation and the private sector in North America for a very long time, and perhaps the largest ever.
The project has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the United States Congress. This is important. There is nothing to be ashamed of when the Canadian government can come to an agreement with the U.S. on a project of this magnitude which will mean so much to Canadians in terms of Canadian jobs in the immediate years to come. This is commendable. The fact that the U.S. Congress endorsed it overwhelmingly in the way they have is an indication of the type of united effort that can help make our joint economies tick.
The purpose of this bill is to establish an agency to ensure that this gigantic project is planned and implemented in a way that will maximize the industrial and social benefits for the Canadian people. From it Canada will be assured access to its own reserves in the Mackenzie delta in the long-term future by the only economic means currently available. We will have substantial assistance from the United States in building part of that link. It is obviously important to Canadians that we can and will preserve access to this important frontier area as we attempt to meet our long-term goal of energy self-reliance.
It is worth placing again on the record that implementation of the agreement with the United States is an important step in further strengthening our bonds with that country. There is no point in anyone on this continent pretending that he lives in a complete vacuum. Obviously it is important, where feasible and in our national interest, to undertake projects in joint partnership with our very large neighbour to the south.
80031-54V4

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
The pipeline will provide a boost to consumer and business confidence in both countries. The words of the Leader of the Opposition earlier this year indicated that he saw nothing on the horizon to provide any boost in confidence for Canadians. He knew this bill was coming. I guess he and his party did not have time to take a good look at it. Now that the bill is before the House the are supportive of it. We are glad they are. It is obviously something that is of substantial benefit to all Canadians. It is somewhat reassuring that the opposition see that now that the bill is before them. It is estimated that some
100,000	man-years of employment will be involved in this project. Eventually our international balance of payments will be improved. These are two areas of concern to thinking Canadians at this time.
There is another matter of concern. Preference will be given to Yukon residents in terms of training and hiring for construction work. In turn, this training and experience will enhance employment opportunities for the entire Yukon labour force. The federal government will have to move in the direction of settlement of claims as quickly as possible. When introducing the bill for second reading, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) clearly indicated that every effort will be made to arrive at a fair and just settlement of these claims. This will be done in as quick order as possible.
The establishment of this northern pipeline agency is very important and I wish to spend a few moments talking about some of the important aspects of it. First, I want to deal with the matter of a government guarantee. This has been said before, but it is worth repeating. It is surprising that the NDP is anxious to see us create a monopoly in pipeline construction.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is not one of them in the House.


Alan Gray Martin: Indeed, they are not all satisfied that we should be doing anything to create a really competitive situation. I have been with members of that party in committees at various times when we have been talking about matters involving business in general, small business or medium sized business, and they have always been most anxious to ensure there has been an adequate form of competition in the country. However, in this case they are speaking against the concept of competition. It must have taken some very deep thinking to arrive at that conclusion. I presume that only within their deepest research background are they able to satisfy themselves about this.
Canadian suppliers will have to sharpen their pencils. They may have to cut some costs to be competitive on this matter of pipeline bidding. That is the way it should be. We as a government would be extremely guilty if we did anything to put forward a project of this magnitude and told Canadian suppliers that they could have the business, with no need to worry about the costs; simply supply the pipe and the bills will be paid. That is no way to promote efficiency in the production sector.
The fact that we have ensured that the competitive aspect must be present before Canadian manufacturers can win these contracts is extremely important, and rather than blame the Deputy Prime Minister for not securing guarantees which would have locked us into a monopolistic situation he should be highly commended for declining to take what might have seemed an easy nationalistic route and for taking the action he did.
This having been said, I would point out that there is provision in the bill for the government to block contracts which fail to provide what is considered to be an adequate Canadian content. So there is an override. These contracts must come before the government which will then have an opportunity to examine them and satisfy itself that the concept of Canadian content is being adhered to, as the Foothills group has indicated it has every intention of so doing.
Another important point has to do with the cost of the agency. Many people are complaining about increases in government expenditures. The cost of the agency will be borne directly by the pipeline companies and, of course, will eventually be reflected in the price of gas to consumers in the U.S.
In addition, the monitoring agency will be able to review the manpower plan to ensure that it makes maximum use of Canadian labour in all phases of the project. It will also be examining the procurement proposals put forward by the companies to see that there are fair competitive opportunities for maximum Canadian participation. The agency will be overseeing the financial arrangements and will ensure that any plan which the companies may come up with provides for majority Canadian control and that the debt is not conditional upon approval by the lenders of construction of a lateral to the Mackenzie River delta. This is an extremely important point.
There will also be provision in the rules governing the agency for the minimization of legal delays which could be occasioned by various objections during the course of the project. I think it is important that, if we do intend to go ahead with this scheme, we should do so with the minimum of legal delays while at the same time ensuring fair play and a fair hearing to those who may object.
Hon. members have talked about the direct and indirect benefits which will be derived from the pipeline. I noticed today one item of incidental cost. Some $21 million is to be spent on a series of frost heave and pipe burst tests in areas of northern Alberta and Alaska. Although this is only incidental in terms of the total expenditure it is, nevertheless, a tremendous amount of money, because when such a sum is injected into the economy it does a tremendous amount by way of providing jobs. And this is only one small item which I have taken from the group of many such items.
Another question which has been asked is this: How much labour will be moving in from the south? Well, I have stated earlier that preference will be given to the hiring of people from the Yukon, and to ensure that this is the case, southern labour will be recruited through hiring halls located in the

February 21, 1978

south. This in itself will prevent a massive influx. We know that the number of workers in the Yukon could reach 2,700 by mid-1981. The Foothills group has given assurances in all its public comments that it will be able to meet the 90 per cent content factor. It seems to me that as long as the companies can give that kind of undertaking it should, in itself, be an assurance to us as parliamentarians that they mean what they say. The figure I have mentioned has been repeated on many occasions at various times.
Still talking about direct effects, we note that S10 billion worth of construction is anticipated, resulting in about 100,000 man-years of employment; and that in the construction sector-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Man-years? Why don't you talk about the number of unemployed who will get jobs? There are a million unemployed.


Alan Gray Martin: I am not talking about a million unemployed. I leave it up to the official opposition to talk about gloom and doom. I am talking about new jobs which are being created. It is the government's job to create jobs and not to run around the country telling people how poor things are when in fact they are not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read Chretien's release!


Alan Gray Martin: The opposition wants to go back to gloom and doom. They want to go back to January 23. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) must be hiding in the wings. They don't want to talk about this important project which will have such a positive impact. It bothers them because it is good stuff. It is government stuff and is being promoted by this Liberal government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Don't get uptight. Just talk about how many jobs will be created.


Alan Gray Martin: I should like to refer now to some of the indirect effects. The pipeline will stimulate secondary areas of construction. Electrical manufacturing is just one. There will be all kinds of spin-off right across the country as a result of this gigantic project. It is true there will be some environmental disruption but the agency created by the bill will balance potential disruption against any potential benefits. I might add that the pipeline size announced by the National Energy Board has at last removed all doubt that we are indeed able to produce in this country the pipe which will be used in the project.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the valves and the fixtures?


Alan Gray Martin: Nations of the world must build their future co-operatively. The fact that we are co-operating with the United States in this project is nothing to be ashamed of. It is something we can be proud of provided we are doing it in the national interest, as I believe is the case in this instance.
Northern Pipeline
We have a great deal in common on this continent and no amount of breast beating will ever change that situation. Last spring, along with other members of the House, I was privileged to take part in inter-parliamentary group discussions with members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives in Victoria. At that time we gave consideration to some of these energy issues and I was impressed to see the degree of goodwill which existed among us, the eagerness to work together on projects of this nature.
We should bear in mind that in the future co-operation will take place not only between Canada and the United States but between North America and Europe. One had only to attend the World Energy Congress in Turkey last fall to have become aware that the energy issue is very much a global situation. The fact that we are involving ourselves so heavily with another country at this time is an indication on our part that we understand the global nature of our over-all energy problems. We must look to the future. The oil and gas question is only one of the areas which must be dealt with. Let us get it out of the way now so that we can turn our attention to the solution of other energy problems.
There is no question that we need oil and gas from our northern frontier. Those of us who are members of the national resources committee and who had the opportunity to visit the north two years ago were overawed by the tremendous potential which exists in that part of the country. In order to encourage people to take advantage of this potential a start on a major project must be made. And this is where the current northwest pipeline project is so important.
There are questions about nuclear energy with which we have to deal. In the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works we are discussing matters relating to nuclear waste and other related aspects, and we cannot spend all our time on oil and gas pipelines. However, this is still the first step in our policy of energy self-reliance, and for that reason I think it is important.
In conclusion, I would like to refer to some comments I made during the pipeline debate last August. At that time I indicated that there are three important things we should obtain from a pipeline arrangement. I spoke very much in favour of proceeding with this project. The first important point I made was that this project would have a positive effect on the Canadian economy. I think that has now been proved to be the case. We have the figures. We are now talking in terms of real dollars which are going to be spent. There is no question that there will be a tremendous impact on our economy.
My second point related to the opportunity we have to participate in this project along with our neighbour to the south. I felt it was important for us to endeavour to enter into a joint project if that could work to our mutual advantage, and particularly to the advantage of Canada. Obviously that will be the case, and the negotiations so ably carried on by the Deputy Prime Minister are indicative of that.

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
The last thing I mentioned was that there is a need for us to do everything we can to stimulate investment in the north. We need the potential oil and gas reserves that are in our frontier areas, and a cancellation of the project would obviously have had a very negative effect on the potential for new investment to move in. The project will now go ahead, and I think the potential will be tremendous and will augur well for the possibility of finding additional reserves in the Mackenzie delta which in time may justify the type of pipeline that was earlier proposed but at this point is simply not feasible.
In summary, it is good to know that there is considerable support for this project coming from different parts of the House. There is a realization from time to time that parliamentarians of all parties must stop talking about all the things they perceive as not happening and start supporting some of the projects this government is putting in place that are indeed making things happen and making the economy tick. There is a clear realization that elected representatives should stand behind some of those projects and support them.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), who prefaced his remarks by stating his reluctance to take part in this debate and then went on for some 20 minutes-


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply want to make it clear that at no time did I indicate a reluctance to participate in the debate. I indicated an interest in participating. I said that the reason I was able to participate was that the opposition was continuing to debate the issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That surely does not constitute a point of order.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that indicates the truth of what I was saying earlier, that that kind of defence is put forward when a weakness actually appears.
However, important as I think this debate is, and as anxious as I am to take part in it, I would gladly stand aside if the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) could assure us that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) would come into this House at this time and explain his announcement contained in the press release just put out regarding the intention of the Government of Canada to borrow funds outside Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but the Chair has difficulty relating her remarks to Bill C-25, which we are presently discussing.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in this debate and in dealing with the legislation concerning the Foothills pipeline project there are certain aspects of the bill which I would like to see strengthened. Although I support the bill in

principle, I certainly hope that by specifying those aspects which I want to see strengthened and by pointing out shortcomings in the bill I can thereby urge members of the special committee to incorporate certain changes in the bill at the committee stage or at later stages so that the bill can be unanimously supported.
The reason I am pleased to be taking part in this debate is that the whole matter of energy, energy supplies and especially energy conservation has been an ongoing concern which I have had for a long time. In addition, I am given this opportunity to look at certain problems of northern development and aboriginal rights which have been and are of ongoing interest and great concern to me. However, most importantly, at this time when the unity of this country is in question everywhere, this mammoth project which is shortly to be undertaken must be one which becomes a symbol of unity for all Canadians, a catalyst which will help pull us together and a monument to our shared interests whether we live east or west, north or south. It must not be allowed to become an element of tension or a divisive element between groups, whether racial or geographic, at this crucial time in our history. There is always the possibility that that can happen.
During this debate we have heard a great deal about steel, pipes, jobs and energy needs. We have heard what this project means in economic terms. All these things are important, but for a few minutes I would like to stand back and try to understand what this pipeline means to Canada as a country of the north.
As Mr. Justice Berger pointed out in the report of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry, "We look upon the north as our last frontier". He also said: "We think of ourselves as a northern people". It would not be an exaggeration to say that, to a great extent, the way in which the Canadian north is developed and the way in which this project in particular is developed will be a reflection of what we are as Canadians and what our values are. It is not an exaggeration to say that the pipeline and all the issues surrounding it are a reflection of what Canada is all about.
This project is about people. It is about native people, non-native northerners, Canadian entrepreneurs and interested southerners. It is about reconciling the various interests of all these groups of people. As such, it reflects the multicultural nature of this country as a whole. However, more than that, it reflects in a very real way the tension between the dominant interest group in this country and a special minority group, a tension which, in another form, presently exists between Quebec and the rest of the country. Our experience with that latter situation and the crisis that has developed in our confederation as a result should make us more sensitive to the needs and wishes of the native people of the north. We must not do anything at this point in our country's history that would add to the problems of national unity by further alienating a minority group of people who already have cause for resentment because of past injustices.



;f
if
I w

February 21, 1978

Many of the injustices spoken about by our native people are based on broken promises. They are based on different interpretations of so-called agreements and on an erosion of good faith. Those things must not be permitted to happen again with this project. Whether it is real or just perceived as real, there is a legacy of bad faith that needs to be healed. We have all read about it, we have all heard about it and we have all had it explained to us. Many of the native people came before the Lysyk inquiry and their testimony to that inquiry prior to the decision about this pipeline reflects, according to the words of that report, "a common Indian distrust of white promises". They use these words:
What is going to happen when the pipelines come through . .. How can you as a government promise our people will not be affected? You promised before and these promises have been broken.
Again another Indian representative said:
My people haven't recovered from the impact of building the Alaska highway. They have lost their self-respect, identity, their lifestyles have changed and with it came problems-
That is part of the testimony before the Lysyk inquiry and it refers to a legacy of broken promises. This trend of exploitation and of bad faith must be reversed, and now we have the opportunity to do so. Great time and effort has been expended to collect the impressions, opinions and demands of the native northerners. The expensive reports presented to the Berger and Lysyk inquiries must not be ignored. That legacy of broken promises must not be perpetuated.
I will mention one particular promise that has been made to the native northerners, and that is the promise of a second stage socio-economic inquiry which was given to the native people by the government to secure their participation in the first stage of the inquiry. That promise must be kept. It must not become another broken promise in the tradition of the government.
Having regard to the second stage inquiry, when he was speaking of it just last week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) said:
This recommendation has in principle been accepted by the government.
What does he mean by that? The dichotomy that prevails in the history of this government between principle and practice does not make us very optimistic about the acceptance of the so-called "principle".
The minister talks about a review process and about bringing to light public concerns, but he carefully avoids any specific commitment or any reference to a second stage inquiry. He very explicitly states that we do not need more studies, more research, more lawyers and consultants and TV cameras. But, in fact, it sounds as though the minister is really saying that what we do not need is a second stage inquiry.
I get very nervous when I hear a minister of this government say, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said last week, that what is needed is for the government to decide upon a range of concrete measures and then put those proposals out for public scrutiny and debate. I have seen
Northern Pipeline
the government put its proposals out for public scrutiny and debate before. I do not like to be cynical, but public scrutiny and debate have had very little impact on the government's actions in the past, and there is very little indication that they will do so now.
As a result of that I would like to see built into this legislation, when it goes to committee stage, provision for a second stage socio-economic inquiry and for protecting native claims. The government's fine words about recognizing claims and being in full sympathy with these aspirations-again the words of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-are not good enough. Sympathetic recognition is one thing; legislative recognition is quite another thing. I am sure the native people of the north have become sufficiently cynical about the former-that is, about sympathetic recognition on the part of this government-that they would appreciate more of the latter, namely legislative recognition on the part of the government.
As well as being about people, this pipeline project is about political and constitutional processes. It is really about the transition of the Yukon from what for far too long has been a kind of colonial status to full responsible government. That is what this project entails as well. It is about co-operation between federal and provincial governments. Here again it reflects the country as a whole. We badly need a revitalized system of federalism, one which recognizes the full partnership between the two levels of government.
As we all know, there is much resentment among the provinces at the way in which the federal government has too often run roughshod over their needs and concerns. We have to ask ourselves whether this pipeline is to be another major project in which the province and the Yukon are involved, but in which they have to bend to the wishes of the federal government.
The legislation as we look at it provides for the establishment of a federal-provincial consultative council to which the Yukon representative, I note, is to be appointed by the federal cabinet. Is this the way the government assures itself that the voice of the Yukon will be heard-by its own decision? It seems to me that if the Yukon nominee were to be chosen by the elected representatives of the Yukon legislative assembly, then the federal-provincial aspect of the council would certainly be far more credible than when the federal government takes it upon itself to appoint that nominee. That would be a proper step in our evolving federalism, and that is something I hope the members of the special committee will insist upon when they are dealing with this bill in detail.
As part of the political process of which I spoke, close to $250 million has already been spent in studies and inquiries by private and public sectors on this project. It was only after great pressure that the government held inquiries which involved the public in the kind of debate which allows the country to arrive at a national consensus. It was not that the government set up this kind of inquiry, or instigated it on its own. It was pressured into finally setting up both the Berger and Lysyk inquiries. One can only wonder whether the deci-

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
sions we are faced with today would have been taken with more confidence if the government had sought such participation from the beginning; if the government had explored openly the alternative from the start. At the present time we are launched upon another road in this process of decision making.
There have been injected into this debate a number of proposals which will have to be adjudicated further down the road; proposals for the Dempster lateral, for the polar gas route, for liquified natural gas tankers and for an Arctic railway. All of these have been thrown out for public discussion, and some of them, indeed, are very questionable.
It should not be necessary to drag the government into the arena of public discussion, as was the case with the Foothills route. The government should begin now, openly and with public participation, to examine all of these other proposals and explore other alternatives, so that we have the full range of information before us on which to base these serious decisions. That is the commitment the government should make now, so that all Canadians have full access to information about the viability and desirability of such huge projects long before any decision to proceed has been undertaken.
Another aspect of the pipeline project is the environmental and ecological one. Again a national perspective will be reflected in what goes on in the development of this project in the north. Future generations will judge us harshly if we perform poorly in this area. The questions here involve more than the pipeline. They reflect a basic attitude about how we will and do treat the land and its life, which so much embodies Canada's strength and identity.
Last August during the pipeline debate, the leader of my party pointed out that we were being asked to make certain decisions without adequate information. He pointed out that we were forced to make decisions at that time without a northern energy policy, without a national energy policy, without a northern development policy, and without any clear or consistent approach to native rights or northern ecology. We must not allow that kind of thing to happen again and again. Otherwise, we will never have any kind of consistent, realistic energy policy.
The whole area of energy, both renewable and non-renewable, is a very complex one that requires very definite policy formation if our energy needs of the future are to be met. I am greatly concerned that the energy debate in Canada continues to be a fragmented and confused one; that it is based on individual projects such as this one, rather than on a comprehensive evaluation of all our major alternatives. We need to recognize our alternatives, set out priorities and realize that decisions which are being made now will directly enhance or detract from the lives of future generations of Canadians. It is our responsibility, in the way in which this project is carried out, to make sure the decisions we take today enhance those future lives. We are custodians of this land. We must pass it on to future generations as intact as possible. We can only

exercise this stewardship through an ethic of conservation and not of exploitation.
Even the National Energy Board recognizes the practicality of conservation. In a recent report the following was stated:
A vigorous conservation program should be a prime goal of Canadian energy policy, and that conservation appears to offer the lowest cost option for balancing the energy budget in the near term.
It is of great concern to me that so little emphasis has been placed on the theme of conservation in this debate. Little mention has been made of it. When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) spoke in this debate yesterday, he devoted but one line to conservation policy. He stated simply, "We have to accelerate our efforts to conserve". The rest of his speech pointed out how we can use gas to fill the gap left by dwindling oil reserves. If the entire purpose of northern gas and northern pipelines is no more than a stopgap to give us another 25 years of over-consumption in energy, then we have failed miserably.
There is an international aspect to the pipeline which brings to the fore the ever present question of Canada's independence vis-a-vis the United States. We must not forget that this pipeline is being constructed to bring American gas to American markets. As the Lysyk report pointed out, the main benefits from the pipeline will be concentrated outside of the Yukon, largely south of the 49th parallel, whereas the most significant costs, in terms of both economic and social disruption, will be experienced in the Yukon.
Given this situation, it is mandatory that the government ensure that Canadians derive whatever benefits are possible in terms of jobs and supplies. There must be provision for the maximum possible Canadian content in materials and labour. We must use Canadian pipe, valves and fittings. This would be beneficial to the steel industry all over the country as well as the workers. It would bring Canadians into the project, whether in their own locale or on site. Whether they come from Cape Breton, Quebec, Hamilton, the western provinces or the Yukon, Canadians would be involved in that project. I am convinced a project of this magnitude, properly carried out, serviced by Canadian labour and supplies, and shared by all of us, can be a boon to national unity as well as to the Canadian economy.
But instead of recognizing this potential working to maximize it for Canada, the government's questionable bargaining in this matter has left us with absolutely no guarantees about Canadian content. Instead of guarantees, we receive the repeated exhortation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that Canadian industry must be competitive. Seemingly the Prime Minister is more concerned with the cost to the American consumer than with the Canadian labour market.
This pipeline will traverse 2,500 miles of Canadian territory. From much of what has been said by the government-the lack of guarantees and the lack of definite details-it appears that Canadians are not in charge. Is the government content to play the role of an absentee landlord-while the tenant takes over the house? Or is it going to stand up and demand that the tenant obey the landlord's rules? There are ways in which
February 21, 1978

these rules can be monitored and policed to see that Canada receives the best out of this agreement. Hon. members on this side of the House are asking that a parliamentary committee, either the special legislative committee or the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, monitor the Canadian content of the pipeline project. It is in the interest of all Canadians to get the maximum benefit for Canada from this venture. This can be best done on a continuing basis through a parliamentary body. That is the best way to meet the needs of Canadians.
We do not simply want an annual report to be presented to parliament. We want a quarterly monitoring process which will provide for parliamentary input on a continuing basis. It is essential in such a mammoth undertaking that the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, have some voice in what happens during and after pipeline construction. I hope and trust that this kind of arrangement will be built into the agreement when the bill goes to committee, or at a later stage in its study.
As I have said, this bill is of such magnitude that it requires special scrutiny and study at every stage. We on this side of the House intend to do everything in our power to see that this project brings the maximum benefit to all Canadians. If properly carried out, this project can be a source of pride for all of us, the kind of pride which can pull us together emotionally and psychologically, the way the building of the railroad did geographically 100 years ago.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that the pipeline is, in a sense, what Canada is all about. It is about people; it is about our land; it is about our political system; it is about our sovereignty in the face of our powerful neighbour to the south; it is about national unity and confederation; and mostly it is about our industrial, consumption-oriented economy and about our past mistakes and future options. We have to ask ourselves: Are we going to be content to exploit our northern territories and their people as has been the case all too often in the past? As Mr. Justice Berger pointed out in his report:
The north has become our frontier during the past few decades; it has been a homeland of the Dene and Inuit peoples for many thousands of years.
That is the difference. They have been there; they understand and work in harmony with it. We are relative newcomers, looking at it as our new and last frontier.
In an age when frontiers are at a premium, when nonrenewable resources are running out, and when we are confronted every day by the often drastic social and environmental effects of past excesses, we must learn to tread more lightly on our environment. Our approach to this project will show just how much we have or have not learned in the past decade about the limits of technology. It will set the pattern for future northern development. The north is our last frontier. If we lay waste to it, there will not be another. We must not sacrifice its resources, human, animal and mineral, to one last futile extension of the wasteful practices now followed by ourselves and by our neighbour to the south. In working out the details
Northern Pipeline
of this bill, in seeking to improve it and in seeking to strengthen it, that is what we should keep in mind.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this most important debate. It was a week ago on Monday that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) spoke on second reading on this important bill. The response of the official opposition was to the effect that they supported both the principle in the bill and the project. The following day the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) set out in his speech some of the aspects relating to this project, its importance to the native people, the second stage inquiry, and some other announcements that were contained in his speech.
It is my intention this evening to comment on some of the points that were made in both the speech of the Deputy Prime Minister and in that of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which were responded to in the intervening time by hon. members opposite, and particularly by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) outside the House. These comments related to the pipeline's impact, its benefits and the ability of the Yukon people to handle them, the second stage inquiry, the question of land claims, and the co-operation and co-ordination between the Yukon territorial government and the department in planning this large project.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development emphasized the importance of this project to the north and to its people. The northern pipeline offers the Yukon the prospect of a boost in its economy and the expansion and improvement of social services, not the least of which would be the possibility of natural gas being made available to a number of communities which, in my view, would give them cheaper energy and the opportunity to develop some industries which would have available to them not only electrical energy but other forms of energy also. The revenue which the pipeline project will generate for the territory and the manpower training it would necessitate should mark the beginning of a new era of economic and social development in the territory, and, most of all, it will give the Yukon territorial government the opportunity to show some real leadership in the planning and preparation of policies and programs associated with the pipeline.
There has been some misunderstanding of the bill in the debate and unfortunately a willingness to distort the meaning of some of the provisions and to ignore the obvious benefits on the part of certain members opposite, particularly the hon. member for the Yukon as evidenced in some of his comments made outside the House which were quoted in the press recently.
There has been an underestimation, not only of the benefits flowing to the Yukon as a result of its active participation in the project, but of the good sense of Yukoners and of their ability to co-operate with the government in promoting the interests of their territory. It is time that the opportunities outlined in Bill C-25 and the terms of the agreement between the United States and Canada on this important project,

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
perhaps the most important project in Canada's history, were pointed out.
First, I should like to comment on the heritage fund and the $200 million advance on tax revenues. The government realizes the importance to the Yukon territorial government of dealing with the social and economic impact of the pipeline on the territory. The first step that the government took was to appoint a fourth member to the executive committee to deal exclusively with pipeline planning and with native affairs. There is no question that there will be a substantially increased demand for schools, municipal services and social services such as health care which are the responsibility of the territorial government and which will be dealt with, as I suggested, through the appointment of a fourth member.
The Lysyk inquiry in its report pointed out that additional funds must be made available to deal with the increase in these public services. It also suggested that funds for this activity come from the tax revenues appropriated from the pipeline project. This is exactly what the government has done through the provision in the bill for a $200 million advance on property tax revenues which the territory may borrow against. This borrowed revenue will be an immediate source for the funding for the projects and services that will be essential to the Yukon when the project commences. It is important to note that this will be up front money. This is the point that the hon. member for Yukon refuses to acknowledge.
Construction will mean an influx of workers and a large scale migration into the territory. The funding provided by loans negotiated by the territorial government will mean money for schools, hospitals, and improved social and municipal services. The important point is that these facilities will remain for the Yukoners to use long after completion of the pipeline and the movement of many workers elsewhere after completion of the project.
Some critics of the bill have said that the territorial government will have no funding to supply the wide range of social services that pipeline-associated growth will cause in the Yukon. But the government will be able to borrow up to $200 million through this funding, which is more than adequate to meet the projected needs of the Yukon in this regard. At present, as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has pointed out, it is estimated that no more than $70 million will be needed to meet these costs up to about 1983. So I think it can be said forcibly that the property tax scheme negotiated with the United States will provide the territory with some $35 million before the pipeline ever goes into operation and $30 million annually thereafter on an escalated basis, with the result that over a 25 year period net benefits could exceed $1 billion, assuming a 5 per cent inflation. This is nearly three times that which would have been produced under the NEB proposal for a $200 million payment, and roughly twice that which would be produced under the Lysyk proposal involving a heritage fund and an increase in property taxes. The $30 million property tax payment can be seen in better perspective if measured against current property tax returns in the Yukon of around $2.5 million, or the current

operating budget of the Yukon territorial government of around $64 million.
The Yukon would benefit substantially from the $50 million heritage fund announced during the debate by the minister and from the substantial progress that it would make toward Financial independence from the federal government. This is a strongly cherished objective of the territory.
The comments made by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to the effect that there would be a $50 million loss to the Yukon through the $200 million loan arrangement is an overstatement. First of all, it will not be necessary to borrow up to the $200 million level. The Yukon territorial government will certainly have the opportunity to borrow at the best available rate, which could conceivably be less than was anticipated when they considered borrowing this money from Foothills.
In developing a policy on the pipeline project the government has demonstrated its agreement that the territorial government must be able to meet the demands for social services that will be placed upon it. It has also shown an understanding of and sympathy with the special social and cultural characteristics of the Yukon and a desire to help the territory preserve its unique quality of life while it experiences the full impact of the pipeline. That is why the minister announced the trust fund called the Yukon heritage fund which will be capitalized to $50 million. Whether the capital of this fund is used or only the interest, the fund is sufficiently large to cover many of the things that are important to the Yukon on a cultural level.
The Lysyk report pointed out that the heritage fund was never intended to cover social, economic and impact-related conditions but was to be used for improvement in the quality of life in the Yukon and for programs to protect the special qualities and characteristics of individual communities. Having studied both the National Energy Board report and the Lysyk report it seems to me that, with the possibility of $200 million "up front" by borrowing and the establishment of the $50 million heritage fund, we have the best of both worlds.
I think this is the right course for the government to follow.
I should like to comment on the urgency of the pipeline project. The fact that the United States needs natural gas means that, in the short term, there will be very large industrial benefits to Canada which will substantially increase employment. There is also the possibility of eventually transporting Canadian gas to Canadian markets through the Dempster lateral.
The Lysyk final report stated that Yukoners saw in the proposed pipeline an opportunity to improve economic and social conditions in the Yukon and pointed out that if the opportunity was not grasped the result could well be frustration, anger and recrimination from the people of the Yukon. The urgency still exists. There are opportunities for economic growth to be realized from the pipeline. Decisions must be made on governing the pipeline companies so that the adverse effects of a boom can be minimized.
February 21, 1978

I should like to read a portion of the Lysyk report, as follows:
All Yukoners are eager to ensure that neither they nor their children will ever feel obliged to leave the Yukon for the lack of employment. If the youth of the region are prepared by education and technical training for careers that they cannot follow in the Yukon, their inevitable departure will frustrate the personal preference of those individuals and run counter to the best interests of the economy and the society as a whole.
I think the point is that if the pipeline goes ahead and the proper steps are taken to train people and upgrade their skills, the objectives set out in the report can be achieved.
1 should like to make a couple of comments on the second stage inquiry that the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) referred to. The twofold objective of the government in expediting the pipeline project and settling the socio-economic terms and conditions has resulted in agreement to a second stage inquiry. As the minister said, this is an agreement in principle with the concept put forward by the Lysyk report. Under the leadership of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development proposals for terms and conditions which will govern the pipeline company as it begins work on this project are being drafted. These will be open to public response through the pipeline agency and could be available for comment and review by the public as early as next spring.
This second stage inquiry has been termed by some members as a betrayal for not being the type of inquiry recommended. It seems to me the time has come to cross the bridge and decide whether the project should go ahead. What we must do now is decide on the terms and conditions under which the pipeline will be built. I think it is preferable to follow the course set out by the minister and have a set of draft proposals prepared which would be available to any group for comment. They might be amended following such perusal and the project could then go forward. In my view there has been no betrayal of the Yukon people and their interests under these specific terms.
Critics have objected to the fact that the pipeline regulatory body will conduct such an inquiry but I think that is in line with what was suggested in the Lysyk report. If hon. members checked the Lysyk report they would see it recommended a second stage inquiry to be carried out by the pipeline regulatory agency. One of the reasons for this would be to co-ordinate the many inquiries that will be going forward and avoid a proliferation of inquiries in the Yukon in the next few years. That is why we recommend that these further inquiries be assigned to the pipeline agency. Clearly the Lysyk inquiry recognized the need for a co-ordinated approach to a study of the impact of the pipeline and perhaps opposition critics could follow this example.
As the minister pointed out, there will be a number of investigations into the environmental, social and economic implications of the pipeline project. The environmental assessment panel of the Department of the Environment is continuing its study of environmental concerns under the terms and conditions set out in Schedule III, in the appendix to Bill C-25. Inquiries that Foothills or their consultants undertake will
Northern Pipeline
have to be submitted to the pipeline agency. The largest role of the agency will be to co-ordinate the many inquiries.
The Yukon people will be given a chance to voice their concerns on specific terms and conditions drawn up by the government and they will therefore have a better grasp of measures to be implemented to protect their interests. Co-ordination will also allow the pipeline project to be expedited so that once construction begins Yukoners will be ready to take full advantage of it and to participate in the work and the supply of materials required for the project.
The numerous and wide-ranging inquiries into the social and environmental issues relating to the pipeline have served the important and valuable purpose of focussing the concerns of the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as the pipeline company on the quality of life and the integrity of the land. These things are certainly important to Yukoners. It is necessary now to turn to specific proposals for the protection of these interests, to test public opinion and proceed with them. All this is surely in the best interests of the Yukon as well as builders of the pipeline. Legislation will create the pipeline agency and its passage will allow it to proceed with these important matters as soon as possible.
As the minister stated in the House, Mr. Speaker, a just and speedy settlement of native land claims is in the interests of both the native people and the government if they are to have their proper share of the benefits of the project. Since pipeline construction will not begin until 1981 there is time to make good progress on the settlement of land claims.
The opposition has expressed doubts that negotiations between the government and the Yukon Indians will result in a settlement in the near future and that delay in the reaching of a settlement will result in delay of the pipeline project itself. They have said that the land claims matter is out of the government's control and that no guidance is offered to bring the claims question to a quick settlement.
There are difficulties involved in these types of negotiations, but good faith has been generated on both sides, especially in the past year. The negotiations have been going on for quite a period of time and I believe substantially in good faith. Members of this House should understand that this is an extremely complex and difficult question with a lot at stake. It is natural to expect that both sides will bargain vigorously. It seems to me, in responding to the approach taken by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), that the proposal to proceed with establishing the terms and conditions under which the pipeline might be built can go on at the same time as land claims can be negotiated. Hopefully the deadline before construction would be such that the terms and conditions could have a very thorough airing under the process set out by the minister and would provide ample opportunity to conclude the land claims on a fair and just basis.
The government has agreed to give consideration to a $50 million advance on the land claims settlement once agreement in principle has been reached so that the Yukon Indians can

February 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
use the financial resources available to institute programs and policies, not only to deal with the pipeline, but to improve the long range quality of life in the territories. Hopefully they would also be able to use that money to set up the type of business which would allow them to tender and be involved in construction of the pipeline in a meaningful way. As the minister said in the House, it is hoped that agreement can be reached as soon as possible.
The government is also aware of its responsibility to the Indians of northern British Columbia. It has already begun discussions with them about how they can participate in planning in preparation for the pipeline. These discussions will lead to the establishment of programs to provide manpower training and to maximize employment and business opportunities for native people in the area.
Surely this is worthwhile undertaking. If manpower retraining results in the Indians being able to participate in the skilled areas, it also means they will be able to compete in the future for higher skilled jobs than the types of employment they are engaged in at the present time. Without minimizing the importance of land title and land expropriation for utilities, a point raised by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), these matters have no direct bearing on the question of native rights in British Columbia with regard to the actual pipeline route. No claims have been received regarding lands on the projected pipeline route. If they are forthcoming, they will be dealt with in the same good faith as evidenced in the Yukon claims situation.
The question of northern B.C. Indian interests and the environmental implications of the pipeline must involve the participation of the government of British Columbia. It is the hope of the government that its negotiations with the Yukon Indians continue in good faith to a settlement. Such good faith can only be maintained by responsible discussion of this question, especially as the legislation moves through parliament.
It is important that the negotiations and discussions not be prejudiced by irresponsible forecasts by opposition members that the government will disregard Indian interests in its anxiety to proceed with the pipeline project. This is not the spirit in which the government has approached land claim negotiations at all. Nowhere is the opportunity for Yukon participation in the pipeline project greater than in the area we have been talking about, as well as in the area of employment. There is provision for preference of Yukoners to be employed in pipeline jobs. The minister pointed out in his speech that some several hundred jobs in preliminary work might become available as early as 1979 for work such as clearing and surveying. Yukoners under the provision of the bill will be given preference for this work. This is a point the hon. member for the Yukon refused to accept and continues to make comments to the contrary.
Clause 21(2) of the bill provides that the pipeline company, in order to receive its certificate of public convenience for each portion of the pipeline, must adhere to the commitments it made at the National Energy Board hearings at the time the Alaska Highway route was discussed. These terms included

preference to Yukon residents in hiring for pipeline construction and also for the procurement of materials as far as possible. These details would have to be worked out by the pipeline agency.
One important aspect of the Foothills undertaking is the proposal to provide manpower training programs which would be carried out in consultation with the government and which basically will be an extension of the northern training program which was instituted in 1970 by AGTL. This would open up skilled jobs for Yukoners and lead to the long term benefit of teaching northerners skills which could be put to use in future projects in the north. Preference to northern workers could also help lessen the impact of an influx of workers from the south. It is also the company's undertaking to do its recruitment of outside workers in the south.
Finally, I want to comment on the statements made in the House by a number of members that the Yukon government has had very little opportunity to participate in the planning of this project. I have a document here, which I could table if requested, indicating the extensive consultations that have been held between the territory and the minister, members of the government and many of the different agencies.
I might outline some of the discussions that have taken place relating to pipeline matters, such as the whole question of the upgrading of roads, establishment of business opportunities, monitoring of pipeline impact and providing manpower information, preparing property tax review forecasts, exchange of views regarding the impact information centre, a survey of native people to update the department's 1969/70 manpower survey for pipeline manpower planning, the environmental social program and the research proposals. There were many meetings held to discuss manpower delivery systems and manpower policy systems relating to the pipeline. Certainly with the amount of input that the territorial government has received and the attitude taken by the minister as well as many other people, we are hopeful that the territorial government will take some leadership in many of these issues.
The territorial government has had every opportunity to participate in the planning of this project, not the least of which would be the establishment of an agency office in Whitehorse, the exploration of the idea of an information and impact centre, the appointment of a fourth member to the executive committee, the consultative council, and the forwarding of all pipeline related correspondence and documents.
I might just take a further moment to elaborate on a few areas of the pipeline in which I am interested myself. It would seem to me that we should be careful of the impact on existing communities of a large influx of construction workers into the Yukon and the northern part of the province of B.C. I hope that the terms and conditions which will be set out will indicate that the construction camps will be some distance from these communities so that there will be a good deal of isolation associated with the construction forces. It would seem to me that demands on existing communities would be rather large if the pipeline people were to construct these camps close to communities and therefore rely on the amenities in the
February 21, 1978

communities to serve workers on the pipeline project. It would be the responsibility of the pipeline contractors to supply most of these services themselves and the best way would be to have these construction camps located some distance from existing communities.
My purpose in intervening in this pipeline debate is to cover some of the points that should be responded to in terms of the impact of the social and economic issues and the ability of the Yukon to handle them. I also wanted to deal with the question of the second stage inquiry, the question of land claims and the co-operation between the Yukon territorial government and the federal government.
This may be one of the largest and most important projects ever undertaken in Canada, and there has probably been more study of the environmental impact and the impact on people and on the communities associated with the pipeline than of any other project in Canada. This is good.
The majority of speakers I have listened to went to some length to point out the tremendous benefits to Canada from an industrial and employment point of view. Having studied these points, the time has come to move forward. We must make the decision that the pipeline will be built and pass the bill.
The minister should continue the leadership he has given in drafting the terms and conditions under which the pipeline will be built. They should be available to anyone who wants to study them in an objective way. We can then conclude the arrangements under which the pipeline might go forward. Taking this approach on the second stage inquiry is very correct.
The opposite approach has been put forward by a number of members, and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands articulated it very well a few minutes ago. She said this approach would bring a tremendous degree of uncertainty to the whole project. It would draw into the debate many issues that have already been settled. Therefore, the time for that type of inquiry has in fact passed. I again emphasize that the point we are making there has been well taken.
In terms of land claims, this is a very complex and difficult negotiation that we are undertaking. It would be a good stance for all members of parliament to try and create an environment that is conducive to negotiations. It certainly does not do any good to have made the kind of statements one or two members have been making. First, it is a tremendous put-down of the Indian people in terms of their approach to it. Second, there will be times when both sides will want to negotiate seriously at the table. There will be times when both sides will want a period of time to re-evaluate their position. They may want to take that position to the people they represent. They may reappear at the table with either an updated position or a confirmation from the people they represent that their negotiating position represents their point of view and it should go forward.
I am hopeful, as is the minister, that the negotiations will continue in good faith. There is a very decided advantage to
Northern Pipeline
the Indian people to bring to an early conclusion at least the principle of the land claims negotiations. One commitment of the minister is the possibility of establishing an immediate $50 million up-front fund which the Indian people can use to establish themselves in types of business which will become involved in the pipeline. It is preferable for the Indian people to establish types of businesses that will enable them to contract for the pipeline. After the pipeline construction, they will be able to continue in business, something they could not do if they were simply employees of the large pipeline contractors.
One difficulty that has been encountered with regard to projects such as pipeline construction has been that those who normally work for low wages receive very, very high wages during the pipeline construction. After the construction is complete, that source of income is eliminated. This has led to enormous social problems. It would be preferable for those involved in these settlements to use this money immediately to become involved in a type of subcontracting on the pipeline. This could have a lasting benefit.
The land claims could be prejudiced in many different ways, particularly by those who want to use them for political purposes. This could delay the settlement to the point that it would not give the Indian people long enough to organize the types of businesses that could be of value to them before the construction begins.
I again want to assure the House that the territorial government has been participating in the pipeline project on a very regular basis. The commissioner met with the minister and other members of the cabinet who have responsibility in the pipeline project some time ago in order to participate in the early stages of the planning of the project. We are most anxious that the territorial government take a real leadership role. No one can suggest they are not being given an opportunity to participate in the many important decisions that lie ahead of us.
When the pipeline comes closer to being a reality, there will be enormous pressures. A very significant number of people will move to the Yukon. This will require very good administration of housing problems, health care facilities and so on. I encourage the territorial government to work effectively on these plans in a cool, rational manner rather than in a crisis situation, as has happened with other very large construction projects both here and in the United States.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call it ten o'clock.

February 21, 1978
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
URBAN AFFAIRS-DISTRIBUTION OF CMHC FUNDS BY MPs
["Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.", 'Wednesday, February 22, 1978']
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I make this intervention on the basis of a rather unsatisfactory answer I received last Friday from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Unfortunately, this is typical of the way he has dealt with many matters in many portfolios.
The minister attempted to mislead the House by stating that he had not received the memorandum and information about which we were questioning him. This was a memorandum from the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the minister expressing deep and justifiable concern about the possible allegation of political interference with the operation of CMHC by this Liberal government. He gave a most inane response to a very serious question about the policy of this government relating to the distribution of funds under the Municipal Grants Act.
The facts are simple. There is in existence a memorandum from the president of CMHC in which the minister was told in no uncertain terms that CMHC was concerned about a possible interpretation of political involvement because of the way in which the minister wanted to handle the payment of cheques to municipalities in this country. After mentioning that the minister wanted to hand out these cheques, the memorandum says, in part:
If this is to be the pattern of involvement you wish to follow I want to make sure that it will not affect the discharge directly by the corporation of its full responsibilities in administering the program. I am also concerned that it should not lay itself open to criticism of political partisanship by arranging ceremonies for or otherwise involving selected federal members in the grant payment process.
Mr. Speaker, these are strong words from the president of a Crown corporation established to run the housing policy of the federal government. I need hardly call attention to the fact that the reason for the establishment of a Crown corporation in this field was parliament's wish that there should not be political involvement in the administration of these programs but rather that decisions should be made on the basis of need and equity.
What do we find now under this Liberal government? We see a continuation of a practice whereby they seem to treat the Canadian people as though they were a bunch of illiterates who believe the myth that all good things come from the government by way of the local Liberal member. The idea is that he should stand up at a ceremony and hand out benefits in the form of cheques to the municipalities. In taking this approach I believe they underestimate the intelligence of the Canadian people and especially the intelligence of the Canadi-
[Mr. Milne.)
an electorate, if they think this attitude is going to win elections for them. There have been many occasions on which this kind of sleazy and shallow practice has been followed by the Liberal government, handing out cheques rather than going through the corporation which was set up to place money into the hands of municipalities on the basis of equity and fair play.
I can recall one example. It happened in Saskatchewan. A ceremony was arranged to mark that opening of a facility in Regina funded in part by CMHC. The minister was not able to be there and it appeared that no Liberal member of parliament was able to fit the occasion into his schedule. So we witnessed the spectacle of an MLA who happened to be a candidate for the federal Liberals in the next federal election-his name is not important-representing the government. It happened he was a relation in law of a minister of the present cabinet. People generally resent the narrow, partisan attitude the Minister of State for Urban Affairs takes to everything he touches.
If the minister thinks that in the province of Quebec it is better for Liberal members to hand out cheques, he is seriously mistaken because this kind of attitude toward the province of Quebec has led to some of the difficulties we are now experiencing there. It has been the tradition of Liberal governments, both federal and provincial, to treat the province of Quebec like a feudal fiefdom. In other words, the idea of this government is to pretend that all good things come from the Liberal party and that any other party is not in the same category and will not have the beneficence to hand out moneys to the province of Quebec. This kind of attitude does more to foster cynicism with respect to politics in that province and in other provinces-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is about time the Canadian people were made aware of what the federal government and CMHC are actually doing in terms of housing. There is one fundamental problem the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has this evening, and it has to do with the memo to which he referred. The problem is that his comments with respect to the memo were absolutely false. This is not the first time we have witnessed hon. members opposite making reference to documents whose authenticity has not been verified. I would have thought the hon. member would want to stay in the good graces of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and not show disrespect for parliament such as the disrespect he showed last Friday and this evening.
In the short time 1 have I would like to set the record straight. The minister explained to the House on Friday that to make better known to Canadians the federal government's contributions in helping solve the financial difficulties of mu-
February 21, 1978

nicipalities he, being unable to make all presentations personally, had on occasion requested members of this House to present cheques on behalf of himself and the department.
Since the inception of this program the Canadian government has given over $38 million in grants to municipalities. That figure represents 38,000 new housing units for Canadians. I think it is important to underline the point that in applying for grants under this program all eligible municipalities are equal. Whether a municipality is represented by an hon. member opposite or by a government member, it is treated fairly and on the merit of its application.
The procedural change in this regard was discussed at a weekly meeting of the minister and his officials on September 6, 1977. A follow-up memo was sent from the president of CMHC on September 12. This was the first and only memo sent to the minister on this subject. I would like to read to the House the contents of this memo, which are as follows:
At our last weekly meeting of September 6, you asked to establish a procedure for the delivery of the municipal incentive grant payment cheques. It is understood that the minister's office will advise CMHC of those cheques with which it will be involved. The corporation will send those cheques to the minister's office together with the date by which it is committed to provide the cheque to the municipality. The minister's office will arrange for transmission of the cheques to the municipalities concerned.
This course of action will permit you to make the payment in any way considered appropriate. It will also be required that your office establish procedures to receive and transmit cheques.
I should remind you that this course of action would not apply to British Columbia where cheques are transmitted by the corporation through the provincial government.
The memo was signed by the president of CMHC and dated September 12, 1977. 1 think it becomes obvious-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.



Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question on February 14 with respect to the further move of the government through the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) to increase postal rates illegally. It is a process which began back in 1968 when the postal rate was four cents. At that time the postmaster general was the Hon. Eric Kier-ans. He proceeded as is prescribed in the Post Office Act to increase rates by amendments to that act. We have had five postmasters general since that time, and in 1974 when it became necessary again to raise postal rates, this question was specifically asked of the then postmaster general, the present Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). He still recognized the validity of the Post Office Act when he said:
Rates of postage for domestic letter mail are set out in section 10 of the Post Office Act. Changes in these rates, therefore, are possible only by act of parliament.
Adjournment Debate
Then we came to the time of the Hon. Bryce Mackasey, the gentleman who started the present illegal activity. In a statement in the House on May 21, 1976, he said:
For some time I've insisted that any increase in postal rates shall only come after I'm satisfied that the Post Office has achieved a satisfactory level of efficiency ... Recent surveys indicate that the level of service achieved by the Post Office is becoming more and more acceptable to the Canadian people.
That was back in 1976, two years ago, and, I am sure everyone will agree, was a gross misstatement. The then postmaster general went on to state:
Post Office customers have been asking for a definitive statement on just when rate changes will take place so that they can undertake their own planning. We intend to introduce changes to the Post Office Act which will deal with this question in its entirety.
Mr. Mackasey recognized the legal procedure and what was necessary. He went on to say:
Meanwhile, there are certain interim measures we must take now in order to give as much notice as possible to allow post office customers to plan ahead.
To this end, under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, I am introducing an interim change in the basic First Class postal rates on September 1, 1976, from 8c. to 10c. and a further increase in this rate on March 1, 1977 from 10c. to 12c.
That was when we moved into the slippery margin of illegality in respect of these matters. Let me just demonstrate further the evidence to this effect. It is conclusively shown by the Post Office Act itself, in section 10, 1970 RSC, which states as follows:
The rate of postage on each letter posted in Canada for delivery in Canada is six cents for the first ounce or fraction of an ounce, and four cents for each additional ounce or fraction of an ounce.
That is specifically stated in section 10. There was an amendment to section 10 in 1971, and I remember the debate in parliament which reinforces that same viewpoint. Section 10(1) states:
The rate of postage on each letter posted in Canada during the period commencing on the 1st day of July 1971 and ending on the 31st day of December 1971 for delivery in Canada is
(a) seven cents for any letter weighing one ounce or less;-
It specified an increase in January 1972 to eight cents, but all within amendments to the Post Office Act.
We then come to the report of the Statutory Instruments Committee which roundly condemned the government for acting illegally in the matter. The joint chairmen were Senator Eugene Forsey, an eminent constitutional authority, and representing the House of Commons was Mr. Robert McCleave, now a distinguished judge in his native province of Nova Scotia. They jointly brought in a condemnation of the government for its illegal action in this regard.
Notwithstanding this, the postmaster general of last fall, the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais, made an announcement in this House that there was to be a further increase under the Financial Administration Act. That was notwithstanding the fact that he himself, when before the parliamentary committee last spring in replying to Mr. McCleave, suggested the Post Office Act should be amended in order to legalize the situation. He said:

February 21, 1978
Adjournment Debate
I fully agree. We have already bitten the bullet on that. We are preparing some amendments and we are going to remove all questions of doubt.
Notwithstanding his promise, he has not done that. As a matter of fact, he approached me last fall and indicated that he was going to introduce amendments to the Post Office Act making it possible to increase the rates from 12 to 14 cents. Having made that announcement to me privately, he then stood up in the House and proceeded on the former illegal basis. The Post Office Act is to legalize what was once illegal with respect to mail openings. Perhaps we will have something further to say when that takes place. Not only has it been done illegally, but it has been done without consulting the major users of the postal system. I have had conversations with representatives from Comae Communications. A letter was sent from their office on December 8, 1977 which arrived in Ottawa on December 20, 1977. That is typical of Post Office delivery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne) would like to reassure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that the announcement by his predecessor that increases in mail rates, and in particular the rate of first class mail, would become effective on April 1 of this year was taken in the best interests of both the Canadian public and the well-being of the Post Office itself.
At the time of the announcement it was stated that the increase was warranted, in the light of the fact the Post Office was headed towards an estimated deficit of $717 million in the 1978-79 fiscal year. Cost increases in transportation, energy and labour, and inflationary pressures in general, have resulted in an ever-increasing deficit, [t would have been folly to have allowed the deficit to increase uncontrolled. As his predecessor argued in the House, the government used provisions of the Financial Administration Act, namely section 13, to achieve a measure of control on these rising deficits.
The extra revenue generated by the increases will total about $126.5 million. Most of this will come from corporations and little directly from the pockets of the individual taxpayer. Without the announced increase, the Post Office could be operating at a deficit of about $717 million. Surely the hon. member would agree that the current postal deficit is being too heavily subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying a higher percentage of postage costs, and the postal user is paying less. Clearly it is time that we began to restore the balance. The hon. member will understand the government's reasons, reasons which involve operating the Post Office along lines as close as possible to business practices, while still serving Canadians as efficiently as possible.
While first class letter rates for a one ounce letter will go from 12 cents to 14 cents, we can still say with some satisfaction that expressed in Canadian dollar equivalents the Australians and the French pay 21 cents for a first class letter, it

costs 16 cents in Great Britain, and 14 cents in the United States. Remember that no increase in first class letters was announced for nearly five years, from January 1, 1972 to September 1, 1976.
When the previous postmaster general made his announcement last year, he said that customers would get sufficient advance notice of the rate adjustments to accommodate their business planning. That is why the increases have been delayed until April 1.
I trust the hon. member understands that we do not increase postal rates lightly, but only when imperative if the Canadian taxpayer is to be well served.


FINANCE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADIAN STEEL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES NOT HAMPERED BY TRIGGER PRICE SYSTEM
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, on February 7 I raised a question and an issue with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) concerning the threat the American trigger price system would be to Canadian steel exports to the United States. This system would apply a duty on all imported steel to the United States in order to make foreign prices equal to American steel prices. The price of Canadian steel is lower than steel of the United States. That is not because we are dumping our steel in the United States; it is because our steel industry is more efficient and has lower costs, including lower labour costs.
The minister said in reply to my question that the Canadian government was discussing this issue with the United States, but that no agreement had been reached. I should like to know whether the minister can now report progress on this matter, and if not will he pursue it with the utmost dispatch and vigour?
My second question was related to the point that the United States trigger price system will necessarily divert foreign steel from areas such as Europe and Japan away from United States markets, thereby posing the threat of dumping in Canada. The minister had no answer to my concern expressed on February 7 referring to this issue. Algoma Steel has already brought to the attention of the government the problem of Japanese steel being dumped in Canada, especially in British Columbia.
I made many representations to the minister about the threat that dumped steel poses to the Canadian steel industry and the 40,000 workers employed in that industry. As well, there are 9,000 steel workers in Sault Ste. Marie alone who are very concerned about unfair foreign competition and the threat this poses to their future employment. I believe the minister has something positive to report on my second concern about steel being dumped in Canada. I hope that this will mean the government will be able to act quickly to stop any dumping resulting from the trigger price system.
February 21, 1978

I therefore ask the minister to respond in more detail to the two concerns that leaders of the steel industry as well as I myself have raised. We must do everything possible to keep our steel industry healthy and viable.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) has expressed his concern about the impact on the Canadian steel industry of both the American trigger price system and the possibility that imports of steel from foreign sources might increase dramatically. This points out the difficulty in governing a country of this size. Our colleagues in the House from British Columbia from his party as well as the official opposition and the government side have made representations in recent weeks with respect to the exemption of wide flange steel beams in the Anti-dumping Act.
In the face of the actions taken by both the United States and the European Economic Community to protect their own steel industry, our government has been active in its consultations, both with the Canadian industry and with the U.S. and European authorities, to assess the possible implications for Canada of these decisions. There have been frequent contacts between officials and the Canadian steel industry to establish the facts.
The hon. member is right to bring to our attention the possibility that the measures adopted by other countries may have some adverse impact on Canadian steel exports. I want to reassure the House that discussions will continue with a view to obtaining as much assurance as possible that normal steel shipments from Canada to these markets will not encounter undue difficulties as a result of these measures.
As to the situation in Canada, it is important for the House to recognize that the Canadian anti-dumping system is working to ensure that dumped imports will not injure Canadian producers. In the case of steel beams, steel angles and stainless steel sheet, the department of National Revenue moved early last spring to initiate investigations of complaints of injurious dumping of these products. Preliminary determinations of dumping were made early last fall and provisional anti-dumping duties were applied on imports of these products from a variety of sources. In December and last month, the anti-
Adjournment Debate
dumping tribunal, in three separate decisions, found that indeed in most of these cases the dumped imports were injuring production in Canada of this type of product.
These decisions have, in my view, helped to reassure the Canadian steel industry that the government can and will act effectively to prevent injurious and unfair competition from imports of steel products.
The Minister of Finance indicated to the House on February 7 that the government was examining these issues carefully to see whether additional steps were necessary. That examination has been completed and, as hon. members know, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) announced yesterday a series of measures to prevent diverted foreign steel from adversely affecting the Canadian steel industry. Briefly, these measures will involve the monitoring of all imports of steel mill products into Canada, the establishment of a task force to collect and analyse necessary data, and accelerated investigation procedures for anti-dumping purposes which will result in preliminary determinations of dumping and the application of provisional anti-dumping duties where appropriate within three months of the start of an investigation. The minister also indicated that the deputy minister of national revenue would use, where necessary, his authority to initiate anti-dumping investigations in the absence of formal complaints.
Hon. members will also have noted that the minister said that the various trigger prices and basic prices in use in the United States and the European community would be among the elements taken into account in deciding whether or not to initiate anti-dumping investigations in respect of steel products.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my comments demonstrate that the government is thoroughly familiar with the issues referred to by the hon. member, is following these developments with care and, indeed, has already taken steps to ensure that this important Canadian industry will not suffer as a result of the developments to which he has alluded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 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 10:26 p.m.

Wednesday, February 22, 1978