1980-07-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to place before this House a matter of urgent and pressing importance. Due to the extreme antipathy of more and more Canadians toward the government's method, to date, of implementing the metric system, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the government, if nothing else, abolish the Metric Commission and enter into a voluntary system, supported by Industry, Trade and Commerce, if necessary, thereby restoring the faith of a large number of Canadians in the democratic system of government, not to mention their rights.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the uncertainty about the future of the Canadian government elevator at Moose Jaw and the effect this has on employees, and in view of the importance of this facility to the grain handling and transportation system, 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of Agriculture give a firm commitment that the said terminal will remain in service as an integral part of the grain handling and transportation system, and under no circumstances will he consider mothballing the facility.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the terms of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that tobacco exports exceed $1 billion annually, and that the tobacco industry suffered disastrous setbacks last year because of blue mould, and considering that tobacco farmers are extensive users of petroleum products in greenhouse operations, in the field, planting, cultivating, spraying and irrigating, as well as in kiln-curing of the leaves, 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That in order to ensure the viability of the industry in Canada, the government take steps to exempt tobacco farmers from the recent tax increase on petroleum products for the 1980 crop year.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), I move:
That this House notes that today in Copenhagen, Canada is signing the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, and this House therefore calls on the government to take affirmative action to establish equality for women in all phases of our economy, in employment opportunities, access to adequate training and upgrading, the provision of adequate daycare facilities, equal pay for work of equal value, a

guaranteed level of income for women below pension age, and equality between men and women in all pension plans.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (mo)


TRANSPORT
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that my motion of May 16, requesting the minister to re-establish the service depot for life rafts in Prince Edward Island, has generated the consideration of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and that a service depot may soon become a reality, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House request the Minister of Transport to extend the deadline for certification of life rafts so that no fisherman from Prince Edward Island will be forced to ship his life raft out of the province, at additional expense, for servicing when soon a servicing facility will be available on the Island.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The trapnet gas-pereau fishermen on the Saint John River system had a disastrous year: their catch was barely one-third of what it normally is.
The disaster was compounded by the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) would not allow the fishermen to fish the normal duration of their season, despite representations to him on their behalf. This is in direct conflict with the image of compassion that the minister has attempted to create in this House. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That this House instruct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to arrange for suitable compensation for the families of fishermen for their loss of revenue caused by his indifferent attitude, so that they will not suffer undue hardships for the remainder of the year.
July 17, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put a motion of urgent and pressing necessity before this House.
In light of the unanimous approval given yesterday with regard to the Iranian situation, in view of the almost daily reports of mounting political repression, violence and genocide in El Salvador, including the murder of journalists, priests and other workers-now reaching civil war proportions-and in view of Canada's lack of a clearly defined policy with respect to Central America at a time when our ally, the United States, is giving $5.7 million in military aid to the rightist-controlled junta in El Salvador, a junta which has no popular backing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House directs the Government of Canada to put pressure on the U.S. government to suspend all military assistance to anti-democratic regimes in Central America; and, further, that this House responds to the urgent representations of the Guatemala Democratic Front Against Repression, and more recently the El Salvador Democratic Revolutionary Front, in their meetings with Canadian officials and parliamentarians by sending a fact-finding delegation to Central America as tangible evidence of our concern for human rights and improved relations with the peoples of that region.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that I have received an extremely negative response from the constituents of Simcoe South to a questionnaire, plus a petition of protest regarding metric conversion, and in view of the fact that a group of Alberta citizens, because of the present government's ironclad position, has resorted to civil disobedience by changing metric road signs-costing tens of thousands of dollars-and their spokesman maintains he fought in World War II in order to preserve the freedom he feels is abrogated
July 17, 1980

by the imposition of metric without approval by Parliament, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That no further implementation of the metric system be made in this country unless the system is adopted in conjunction with our major trading partner to the south and until the measure is fully debated in this House.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise concerning the shocking and scandalous revelations that taxpayers are stuck with half a million dollars in unpaid rent by the financial failure of Portage View Investments' food and beverage operation in government-owned Hull Place du Portage complex, the restaurant company being headed, controlled and connected with high echelons of the Liberal Party of Canada. Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That an immediate parliamentary investigation be ordered into Portage View Investments, terms of reference to include why the company was given an untendered exclusive 20-year contract, connections with the company of both former Quebec Liberal premier Lesage's relative, Guy Lesage, treasurer of the Hull Liberal Association and Jack Pelech, former law partner of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, all connection with the matter on the part of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and formerly minister of labour, which department occupies the building; and, finally, thorough examination of whether this sordid incident is a direct result of Liberal government filthy, pork-barrel pay-off politics.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, if I may have his attention. Am I correct in presuming that cabinet has now met and finally decided on the pipeline? If such is not the case, would
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister indicate when that decision would be made?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, we did meet this morning but, as hon. members know, the House is meeting earlier than had been planned originally and we have not been able to finish the discussion on the pipeline. I am sorry. We hope to meet again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot understand the disappointment of the Tories, since they have not expressed any views on this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are planning to meet again at five o'clock this afternoon to discuss the matter further. In the meantime, if the parties in the House wish to make any representations, we would be happy to hear them.


William Herbert Jarvis: To assist the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues, I will repeat the assurances made as long ago as 1977 with regard to this party's commitment to both the pre-build and the whole pipeline within the confines of the act, and the party's position on December 6 with respect to gas exports, despite the fact that it was called the greatest sell-out in Canadian history by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is the position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: How about that ironclad agreement?


William Herbert Jarvis: As Senator Olson, who is the minister responsible, may not report in this House, will the Prime Minister indicate his intentions in so far as bringing this matter before the House is concerned, in a preliminary sense at least, and will he confirm that it will be a statement on motions and indicate when that statement might be made in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member will permit me to say that my understanding is that on behalf of his party he was supporting the pre-build. Did I understand correctly?


An hon. Member:: As part of the whole pipeline.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As part of the whole pipeline, all the way-


An hon. Member:: You were saying?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have that assurance.


An hon. Member:: Ironclad guarantee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is right. I understand that many Albertans were distressed by the inability of the Conservative party

July 17, 1980
Oral Questions
to make up its mind, because I think we all know that the province of Alberta and the people of Alberta are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am afraid-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There are too many interruptions for one answer and it is difficult for the right hon. the Prime Minister to give his answer. Could we have some order?


William Herbert Jarvis: I have a final supplementary question, Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister may wish to take the opportunity to indicate when that statement on motions will be made in the House.
The Prime Minister will recall that on December 7, when he was leader of the opposition, he referred to the commitment his previous government had received from Mr. Schlesinger on behalf of the United States administration, being a commitment with respect to the whole pipeline, that commitment being a condition precedent to the pre-build.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister is reported to have said to a journalist that he was asking the United States administration for assurances and hoped they would be received in time for the cabinet meeting. Again, this was from the United States administration.
Has the Prime Minister received those assurances? Would be undertake to table both the current assurances and the Schlesinger commitment of some months ago in order that the House may see what differences, if any, are contained in the United States commitments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the Schlesinger commitment, I think I made it clear at the time that the Secretary Schlesinger had told me verbally that we would not be wise to proceed with the pre-build if we did not have guarantees that the whole line would be built. So, 1 cannot table anything- that I can remember in my recollection-in writing from Secretary Schlesinger.
In so far as the other part of the question is concerned, yes, it is true we are trying to obtain at this moment further assurances which will permit us to make our mind up for the pre-build, if those assurances are forthcoming. Some of them are from the United States, and I must say that we are trying to get some view on this from the province of Saskatchewan.
We know that Alberta, the people of Alberta and the government, are strongly favourable to the pre-build. But over the past weeks we have not been able to reach anybody in a responsible position in Saskatchewan to say whether they-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -favour it or not.


Mr. Crosbie:: Get on the telephone; try the telephone.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have tried the telephone.


An hon. Member:: Call collect.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Strange as it may seem-


John Carnell Crosbie: Roy Romanow is in Toronto; Romanow is right in Toronto.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there is a loud-mouth over there who is really not being very helpful; I believe he is from St. John's Newfoundland. He should be reminded that he is sitting here now. He is not in St. John's trying to shout across the way. Perhaps the people of the New Democratic Party can help us get in contact with the premier or some responsible minister, but that is the situation.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, likely inadvertently, did not indicate to us when that statement on motions will be made. Can he give us his target date for that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we are meeting again at five o'clock. I indicated if the decision is reached I would hope we would have the consent of the House to make a statement on motions at eight o'clock.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You have it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not said whether or not we will be able to reach a decision at this cabinet meeting at five. But if we do, certainly 1 would undertake to ensure that a statement on motions would be made. It would be made in the other place by Senator Olson if the House is sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Shameful.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But certainly I would be happy to consult with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to see that he would make a statement here in this place, too.


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-DIFFICULTY IN REACHING DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION-EXPORT TAX
Mr. Elarvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. I wonder if he is able, without violating cabinet confidentiality, to enlighten the House as to what is the difficulty in arriving at this decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: For what reason is there this apparent delay in coming to a decision? Can the Prime Minister assure us that it is not because he would like to await announcing the decision until after we have left?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware of the nature of the problem posed to us; it has been discussed in this House for the past several days.
The first question is: are the guarantees we have received for the pre-build sufficient and complete for the pre-build now? The second question is: do we have sufficient guarantees that
July 17, 1980

the whole line can be built? Those are the terms on which condition 12 has been amended; I read them in the House yesterday.
As I have said many times, the government is weighing the evidence. We want to make sure that the pre-build is financed and that the whole line can be financed. This requires a certain amount of evidence, some of which we have obtained as of now from the U.S. Congress. Other parts and other assurances are still forthcoming, or hopefully will be forthcoming, and until we obtain them 1 do not want cabinet to reach a decision.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated to the House yesterday that the economic benefit to Canada, the jobs that would be produced and the health of the junior Canadian gas producers, was very much on his mind as he contemplated this decision.
As he is aware, an equal and perhaps larger threat to the health of these junior gas producers is the possibility of a natural gas export tax. Could the Prime Minister give an assurance to the House now or, barring that, will he be assuring the producing provinces in the near future that the government is no longer contemplating a natural gas export tax? I am sure he would realize that granting the pre-build and imposing a natural gas export tax would neutralize the whole situation; in fact, it would result in a net loss to Canada as opposed to a benefit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is obviously expressing an opinion which is his own. The pre-builders themselves are not of this view. 1 can tell the House now there is no guarantee that there will never be an export tax. There has been one on oil since 1974, and we do not reject any possibility in advance. That is still to be negotiated and discussed. But if some of the pre-builders have the same confusion as the hon. member from Calgary, they had better tell us, because if they do not want to pre-build in the knowledge that this Canadian government might some day exercise its constitutional right to tax exports, they had better cease the discussion.


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-FINANCIAL GUARANTEES FOR PRE-BUILD SECTION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Diane Hall, vice-president of Foothills Pipe Lines, the company that is going to build the pre-build, had this to say, as reported in the Financial Times for July 14, 1980:
Bul we don't know in the end whether there will have to be an American government guarantee for the Alaskan portion or some kind of other comforts provided to the lenders by the U.S. government-
My question is simply this: if a senior officer of the company building the pipeline does not know whether financing can be obtained, how on earth can cabinet seriously consider that financing can be obtained?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have not read the statement from which the hon. member has just quoted.


John Carnell Crosbie: Obviously.


Marc Lalonde: Secondly, the National Energy Board is the agency that has to be satisfied that financing is to be obtained for the pre-build section and can be obtained for the rest of the section.


John Carnell Crosbie: Cabinet.


Marc Lalonde: Then the National Energy Board's recommendation goes to cabinet and cabinet has to make the decision.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Perhaps the minister read the Report on Business this morning; in particular 1 am referring to Thomas Kennedy's article from Calgary where he quotes the industry's reaction to the pre-build as follows:
-said industry concern centered on substantially more gas exports "as soon as possible" and little else.
Kennedy further reported that the western producers said:
-they "have a vested interest" in delaying construction of the rest of the $20 billion-
He is referring to the northern part of the project. The article continues:
-in order to sell more of their surplus gas south of the border.
My question to the minister is this: where does it stop, in view of his off-oil policy, substituting gas for oil in eastern Canada? Where will he draw the line now, if he approves the pre-build, in exporting all that Canadian gas to the United States and, of course, losing it for eastern consumers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad that the hon. member has indicated the condition: he said "if the pre-build is approved". So we have to carry the discussion on this hypothetical condition. Cabinet will make a decision, and until then I have to answer on the basis of a hypothesis.
As far as the question itself is concerned, 1 want to give the strongest assurance to the hon. member, the House and the country-


John Carnell Crosbie: Ironclad?


Marc Lalonde: Ironclad if you wish-that no export of gas will be approved by this government unless we have the complete assurance that there will be plenty of gas for all future Canadian needs under the formula which has been applied by the National Energy Board over the years. 1 hope that I have made it quite clear and that it is clearly understood.
As far as the Energy Board itself is concerned, and as the hon. member knows, it has approved and recommended the export of a certain quantity of gas which, in the view of the

July 17, 1980
Oral Questions
Energy Board, is a surplus reserve. This does not include Arctic gas. In the view of the Energy Board, this gas can be exported without endangering the needs of Canadians in the future.
Moreover, the Energy Board has indicated that this export would be approved only for seven years. They have required that the depreciation of the pipeline be made over that period so that nobody, but nobody, should expect that if the pre-build were to be approved, there would be more gas flowing through that pre-build after the expiry of the permit provided for by the Energy Board. That is quite clear, and that is the view of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I might point out that my constituents in British Columbia, a province which, incidentally, opposes the prebuild, remember the assurances which were made by his predecessor with regard to oil, that we would have lots of oil, but now we do not have lots of oil.
In the Toronto Star, July 16 issue, it was reported:
Union leaders say they have rejected appeals from Northern Affairs minister John Munro to support the Alaska Highway gas pipeline because it would be a "sell-out" of Canadian natural resources and won't provide promised jobs.
What further assurances can the minister give the working people so that they will not have to settle for one-tenth of the loaf but, rather, they can have the whole loaf; in other words, they will have all the jobs in the whole project up to the north?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there are two elements to this question. With regard to the first one, I would like to quote a telegram which was sent on behalf of the Ontario steel workers:
On behalf of the 100,000 members of the United Steel Workers of America in Ontario, I wish to add my voice to that of director Len Stevens, district No. 3, of the United Steel Workers of America urging the government to proceed with the Foothills, Alaska highway natural gas pipeline.
It is signed by Stewart Cook, district No. 6 director of United Steel Workers of America in Ontario. I have telegrams from the American Federation of Labour and other unions. That is what I have to say in so far as the views of labour are concerned.


Walter David Baker: They voted against the pipeline.


Marc Lalonde: With regard to the other point, I would like to again state quite clearly that this government would consider approving the Foothills pipeline only if it were convinced that it would proceed as a part, and only as a part, of the total Alaska gas pipeline. We do not support, we do not favour, and we will not support the notion or concept of a stand-alone pre-build project.


Walter David Baker: Now you are talking.


NEED FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMS TO ACHIEVE ENERGY SECURITY
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns his responsibility to ensure energy security in this country.
As the minister, I am sure, is aware, yesterday the Ontario Economic Council indicated that our failure to deal with energy shortages in Canada could lead to, in their words, "open conflict between classes, regions and countries". I am sure the minister is also aware that the International Energy Agency report of a week ago indicated that Canada has the second worst record in the world with respect to developing good conservation programs.
Can the minister tell the House why his government has failed to develop good conservation programs so that we may decrease our reliance on foreign oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that the IEA report refers to the year 1979, when his government was in office.


William Herbert Jarvis: Come on, Marc.


Mr. McDermid:: Be careful now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Be serious, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: If hon. members will read the report, they will see the year to which it refers. Also, the IEA report examines only federal expenditures and compares them with other unitary countries in which expenditures are all concentrated within the national government. Under Canada's federal system, expenditures are divided between two levels of government at least.


An hon. Member:: Pass the buck.


Marc Lalonde: I would submit that it is quite inappropriate to compare the expenditures of a central government in a unitary state in which there is only one level of government with the expenditures of federal states such as Canada, and to try to make a comparison on the basis of such figures.
In so far as the other point raised by the hon. member is concerned, we have indicated consistently and recognized the need for the price of petroleum products to increase in this country. However, we disagree with the notion that they should be tied to international prices. This, by the way, is also the view of the Ontario government, as the hon. member well knows.
We believe that it is possible to achieve conservation and substitution without tying Canadian prices to international prices. While we recognize that prices must rise, much can be achieved by conservation and substitution without hurting the Canadian consumer to the extent of paying international prices.
July 17, 1980


David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, most Canadians have heard words for years now. I expect that most Canadians are interested in knowing what programs the minister has in mind with respect to renewable energy resources, particularly in the area of solar energy. We would like to hear what initiatives and what month, or even perhaps what year, the minister might announce those programs. Words alone are not enough.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we have already announced the intention to set up the alternative energy corporation as a subsidiary of Petro-Canada. The amount of $20 million has been assigned by Petro-Canada for that particular purpose. At the present time we are interviewing people to choose the person who will assume the function of chief executive officer of that corporation. I hope we will be able to make an announcement in that respect before long.
As far as broader measures are concerned which would go over and above those which have been announced by previous Liberal governments, I can advise the hon. member that we are working very actively on these measures. I hope that as soon as discussions on pricing are concluded we will be able to announce our program and plan of action, knowing what kind of resources the federal government can count on to fulfil its responsibilities in this particular area.


John Horton McDermid: Another Crown corporation; is that your answer to everything?


BUDGET FOR PROGRAM ON RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the United States is spending $1,163 billion on renewable projects, and over $80 billion on synthetic fuels this year alone, whereas Canada will spend only $13 million, or less than that for this year, does the minister not believe that he is over-concentrating his proposed off-oil program on non-renewable energies, and is he not embarrassed by the small budget which has been allocated this year, given the urgent Canadian needs in energy?


Marc Lalonde: In a way, Madam Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that the amount earmarked for the purpose he mentioned is indeed insufficient. I entirely agree with him. That is precisely why I hope we will obtain the support of all members of the House in the current negotiations on the review of the oil price so that the federal government, the national government, will be assured of all necessary resources to assume its responsibilities and thus help all Canadians attain energy self-sufficiency, so that Canada as a whole may quickly gain independence as far as oil products are concerned.
Oral Questions


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: A supplementary question, Madam Speaker. If we do not begin a reasonable solar program very quickly using the present technology, incentives and abilities that we have as Canadians, are we not just designating Canada as an importer of that technology and hardware, as was shown in a recent federal government PUSH program in Montreal where the solar panels could not be designated in Canada and had to be brought from the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Once again, 1 will go further than my hon. colleague. His comments indicate the necessity for the Canadian government to have at its disposal much greater resources than in the past to assume its responsibilities in the energy field. Just the same, Canada is at the forefront, it is among the first countries for technology in the energy field, whether hydroelectricity or synthetic oil. Obviously, we also have excellent researchers working in the field of windmills and solar energy. It is clear, however, that we must grant much more support than ever to those energy sources. I would like to reassure the hon. member and tell him that this is truly part of our objectives. I thank him for his interest in that area.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I do not think there is any question that the guaranteed financeability of the entire Alaska gas pipeline is the main concern of this party and, I think, of many members of this chamber.
The second main question, however, is in relation to the swaps of Alaska natural gas. Since the minister and the Prime Minister have indicated that a decision is going to be made in about five hours regarding the gas pipeline, I would remind the minister of something he said on December 6, 1979, when he was obviously stating his priority:
Second, there must be an arrangement for swaps in this agreement with the United States so that down the line, if Canada were to need natural gas, we would be in a position to obtain natural gas from the Alaska gas pipeline-
I wonder if the minister could tell the House and all Canadians whether he has anything in writing that he will be taking to cabinet this afternoon which indicates there is an agreement for swaps of Alaskan natural gas for gas that we would export through the pre-build.


Marc Lalonde: First of all, Madam Speaker, I should like to note with interest the support of the hon. member's party for the concept of an Alaska gas pipeline, because I am advised that his party voted against the pipeline in 1978.

July 17, 1980
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Marc Lalonde: If this represents a change of policy for his party, it is a welcome change and it is not the first time that this has happened. We are happy to see them on our side.
As far as the question that he has raised concerning the swaps is concerned, if there were to be a decision in favour of the pre-build, I would intend to comment on this particular matter if I were called upon to make a statement.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, 1 think a very interesting diversion was just attempted by the minister. I said that the prime concern of this party and of many members of this chamber is the guaranteed financeability of the entire gas pipeline. I think the whole question of credibility is something that people in this country would like to know about.
Not too long ago, one of the minister's predecessors said in this House that we had 900-odd years of oil and an endless supply of natural gas. I wonder if the minister would perhaps tell the other members of cabinet and members of this House, taking away the amount of natural gas that would be exported through the pre-build, how many years of surplus are known now in Canada of natural gas? How many years would it be before we would be in a negative position with no natural gas surplus?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to provide the exact figure to the hon. member in terms of an exact number of years. He has to realize, however, that the way it is being calculated at the present time by the Energy Board excludes the known and produceable reserves in the Arctic. I will have to ask the Energy Board, in order to answer his question-


An hon. Member:: All frontier sources.


Marc Lalonde: I will have to ask the Energy Board to provide me with the information for which he is asking. If it is possible to obtain it, I will be very happy to provide it to him in terms of the exact number of years.


Mr. Nielsen:: You mean you don't know?


An hon. Member:: How can you make a decision ?


An hon. Member:: I hope you know by five o'clock.


Marc Lalonde: The NDP is again getting into a fit, I see, Madam Speaker. It is very simple. The formula that exists at the present time, and which the NEB applies, is a well-known one that is accessible to all hon. members. It is a formula that provides for at least 25 years of supply, I believe more like 29 or 30 years of guaranteed supply of known and accessible reserves, excluding the Arctic. That is the exact formula.


Erik Nielsen: Sixty-six.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. members asked a question of a more general nature-of all gas, how much we have.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marc Lalonde: I say the NEB has not calculated that to my knowledge, but I will inquire and give him the exact answer as soon as I have the information. The cabinet has the information in terms of the known reserves of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


DEVELOPMENT OF COAL INDUSTRY IN NEW BRUNSWICK AND NOVA SCOTIA-POLLUTION CONTROL
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the commitment made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the House a couple of weeks ago to have the government assist in the development of the coal industry in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, can the minister tell the House how much money his department has earmarked, or how much money the government has earmarked, for pollution control of potential coal-using facilities, and how quickly the government will move in implementing controls which will ensure an orderly transition to coal-utilizing facilities?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this question is being examined and reviewed at the present time. 1 would have to give the same answer to this question as 1 gave to the previous one concerning renewable energy: that is, we are waiting for the conclusion of our discussions on energy pricing before we will be in a position to know how much money will be available to the federal government to achieve the kind of purpose to which the hon. member is referring. Once this has been done, we will be able to let the house and the country know in a short time how much money will be available.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the estimation that the development of the coal industry in some parts of the east will triple sulphur emissions and the subsequent effects of acid rain.
The minister's colleague, the Minister of the Environment, lauded the Tory minister of the environment in Ontario as being courageous for his bold strides in implementing sanctions against Inco. Surely the minister does not want to be known in this House as being chicken, so I ask him to be more specific. Can he be more specific on dollars, dates and deadlines in order to ensure the growth of the coal industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in an acceptable environmental fashion?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has referred to the laudatory comments that my colleague, the Minister of
July 17, 1980

the Environment, addressed to the environment minister of the province of Ontario. I wish he were in a position to make the same laudatory comment vis-a-vis the environment minister of the province of Nova Scotia, whom my hon. friend knows very well.
Obviously, the provinces have a big role to play in this respect and we are in consultation with them. The hon. member knows that as far as this type of pollution control itself is concerned, the provinces have a big role to play. As I indicated, we are examining the whole question at the present time in terms of how much money would be available out of a new oil pricing agreement. After that, we will be able to announce how much money is available to help the relevant provinces fulfil their responsibilities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The minister will be aware that last summer the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, in their revised manual on petroleum fuels allocation, removed agriculture from the top priority classification, which was the critical classification, and put it in the essential classification.
I should like to know from the minister how these priorities are determined. I would also ask him to use his persuasive powers, which we all agree are formidable, to see that agriculture is put back in the top priority classification list for agricultural usage across the country.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have done some checking. If the information that has been given to me is correct, there has never been any official documentation or recommendation given to the government that that position should be changed by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board.
I cannot say any more. That is a board that can make recommendations to the government. The government can either accept or not accept their suggestions. If the information I have is correct, it has never been submitted to the government.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I have a question along the same lines for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It has to do with the announcement made about a month ago by Mohawk Oil that they would begin production in Canada, for the first time, of gasohol. This was accomplished largely by the province of Manitoba exempting the production of ethyl alcohol from some provincial taxes. Would the minister consider the same kind of removal of the 7 per cent excise tax from the production of alcohol, to encourage the production and
Oral Questions
thereby help us to become self-sufficient in liquid, portable fuels in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to take under advisement the suggestion made by the hon. member. In fact, I can tell him that we are reviewing this whole situation of the new energy policy that we are developing.
I assume, hope and expect, that the task force which has been set up by this Parliament under the able leadership of the hon. member for Pontiac, I believe, will examine this question and that we will benefit from the advice that this task force will bring to us, since it would represent the views of all parties in this House.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Several of my electors have informed me of the difficulties they have experienced with regard to the services at the veterans' hospital in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue. The patients in that institution have been deprived of basic care due to staff shortages. It seems that nurses working in federal institutions are earning less than their counterparts in other institutions. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether he has taken steps to remedy the situation?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. We are dealing here with a rather difficult situation which stems from the regional inequalities that exist throughout Canada with regard to nurses who work for the federal government.

1 would like to assure hon. members that we are looking into the situation. There is a mediator.


Mr. Stevens:: You are studying everything.


Donald James Johnston: We are doing everything. Unfortunately, my predecessor offered a mandate of 8 per cent to the people who were 40 per cent behind the market.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald James Johnston: I would just like to add that, in keeping with our philosophy of ensuring that people in the public service are paid on a basis comparable to those in the private sector, we will be making a settlement which may be perceived as being

July 17, 1980
Oral Questions
more generous than usual, but it will be in order to meet that philosophy of comparability across this country.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Another CUPW.


Donald James Johnston: I might add, Madam Speaker-

-that those nurses are working under extremely difficult conditions, for instance, in isolated areas. There is a problem, and we shall solve it soon, equitably and fairly.


PROGRAM TO DEVELOP SOURCES ALTERNATE TO OIL
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the Speech from the Throne the government promised steps to encourage more rapid substitution from oil to other energy sources in order to substantially reduce the dependence which we have on oil. Also, we were promised policies to encourage consumers to switch from oil to natural gas, electricity or some other form of alternate energy.
Other members and I have had requests from industry and consumers to make that switch easier. They want the policy. They want the steps. Can the minister tell this House what the government is doing now, today, to make those promises come true with regard to alternate energy sources and the ability to switch from oil to other sources?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the first step has been taken. Very soon after the appointment of this government, it was announced that accessibility to natural gas would be extended east of Montreal, at least as far as Quebec City, with branch lines covering the rest of the province of Quebec.

As for the other measures to be announced, as I have said, we have already announced that the government has approved the extension of the natural gas pipeline to Quebec City in order to serve the Quebec population. We have also indicated that the extension of the natural gas pipeline to the Maritimes remains a top priority of the present government. We are also in the process of studying several other measures which should be announced in the near future, provided we have been able to reach an agreement on oil prices, which will represent increased revenues for the federal government and enable it to give Canadian consumers the help they need to speed up the switch from oil to other forms of energy.


HOUSING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my supplementary question to the minister of housing. Summer and fall are high activity periods for home insulation. In the Speech from the Throne, promises were made. What measures has the government taken to encourage the higher standards of home insulation that were talked about in the Speech from the Throne? Second, when will the government announce the improvements promised to the existing home insulation program?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently asked for support of the government in additional funding for insulation purposes to ensure that at least the present levels of funding are continued for that program. Second, in the area of standards generally, I indicated in a response earlier that the Canadian Standards Association hopes by the end of this month to have completed a review on the whole question of the standards, qualifications, adequacy, etc., and that report I think will be coming shortly.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. It concerns the natural gas sell-out. Since we have no more guarantees today than we had in 1978, and since apparently nothing exists in writing from the United States to guarantee the matters of swaps, completion date, or financing, can the minister, first, tell the House when the Alaskan section will be built? Has he anything in writing?
Finally, since this is a matter of extreme importance to the people of Canada, and since there is some question about the prudence of proceeding at this point, can the Prime Minister assure this House that he will come before the people's elected representatives and discuss this major issue in a very, very serious way, and not do it in a manner which he is entitled to do by the law but would be imprudent to proceed with-in fact, contemptuous to proceed in that way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 cannot speak for the other side of the House, but as far as we on this side are concerned we have been doing exactly what the hon. member suggests, discussing it in a very serious way both in the House and in cabinet, and by making sure that every piece of evidence, both pro and con, is studied with care.
July 17, 1980


REQUEST THAT NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT BE AMENDED
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Normally, when something of this magnitude is done, there is an amending bill. Will the Prime Minister consider bringing in an amending bill?
Since there is a real problem in this country over this project, having to do with future energy supplies, the price of energy, jobs and the economy in general, has the Prime Minister considered, instead of building this line to the United States, using the same amount of financing to extend the pipeline to serve the people of Atlantic Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. The minister and the government have indicated several times that it is one of its policies to extend the pipeline from Quebec City, the section which is to be built now, to the maritimes. But for that we need the permission and co-operation of the maritime provinces, and we have to make sure that the markets are there and that they exist. This is the discussion which is going on now.
As the hon. member knows, the National Energy Board has been seized with an application to proceed with the Quebec and maritimes pipeline and the evidence is being gathered now. We are as anxious as any party in this House to see that that line is built through to the Atlantic, but we need the co-operation of the provinces and we need the authority of the National Energy Board giving us the assurance that it can be financed.


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege concerns the Minister of Energy. In response to my supplementary question, he stated that the New Democratic Party had voted against the construction of the northern pipeline. I would quote from page 4123 of Hansard for April 4, 1978, where Mr. Cyril Symes said:
I want to reiterate the stand of the New Democratic Party in favour of the building of the northern gas pipeline, the Alcan pipeline as it is called.
Our concerns and, indeed, our reasons for voting against the bill that we have before us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: He continued:
-are that we feel it is inadequate and it does not represent the true interests of Canadians and Canadian companies.


An hon. Member:: You opposed it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Message from the Senate


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am in the habit of listening to what the member has to say when he raises a question of privilege. I cannot rule upon it before I have listened to it. That is what I was doing. I would ask the hon. member to be brief, as he usually is, and to try to indicate to me how his question of privilege arises.


Marc Lalonde: There is none.


James Ross Fulton: The point I was trying to make was that the Minister of Energy indicated that the New Democratic Party was opposed to the construction of the pipeline, which is not true. What I said in my question to the minister was that our prime concern was the financial viability of the entire line.


Madam Speaker:: I understand very well that the hon. member wished to get some corrections on the record, but obviously this does not constitute a question of privilege. Rather, it is a grievance he is expressing. He has done this by way of a question of privilege, which he knows is not the proper way to indicate that he is not in agreement with the answer he received from the minister.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, would the government House leader tell us about the business he intends to bring before the House for today and tomorrow? We know that today is to be devoted to the throne speech debate, of course, but I am thinking more of tomorrow.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, tomorrow we intend to introduce the motion for the adjournment of the House. If there is no debate or if the motion is agreed to, we shall adjourn as soon as it is adopted.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-30, to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 198081, without amendment.
I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed Bill S-8, to revive Pyramid Communications Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

July 17, 1980
The Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
July 17, 1980
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 17th day of July, at 12 o'clock, for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be.
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Madam Speaker informed the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-30, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1980-81-Chapter No. 18;
Bill C-40, an act to amend the Pension Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, the War Veterans Allowances Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act-Chapter No. 19;
Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreements Act-Chapter No.
20;
Bill C-268, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Saint-Hya-cinthe-Chapter No. 21;
Bill C-402, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Sarnia- Chapter No. 22;
Bill C-488, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski-Chapter No. 23;
Bill C-529, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Hastings-Frontenac-Chapter No. 24;
Bill C-565, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Chapter No. 25;
Bill C-599, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Berthier-Maskinonge-Chapter No. 26;
Bill C-600, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Cochrane- Chapter No. 27;
Bill C-601, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Argenteuil- Chapter No. 28;
Bill C-602, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Verdun- Chapter No. 29;
Bill C-604, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Sainte-Mar-ie-Chapter No. 30;
Bill C-605, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Mercier- Chapter No. 31;
Bill C-606, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Richmond- Chapter No. 32;
Bill C-608, an act to change the name of electoral district of Montmorency- Chapter No. 33;
Bill C-609, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Laprairic- Chapter No. 34.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works. If the House so agrees, I shall move adoption of that report later on in the day.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
*
* *


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table, in both official languages, four reports of the Advisory Committee on the Canada Pension Plan.
The titles are as follows: Retirement Ages; Indexation of Benefits; Minimum Contributory Requirements for Survivors and Disability Benefits; and Appeal Procedures.
July 17, 1980

Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Correctional Investigator, 1978-79.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, a number of international agreements which have entered into force for Canada.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table a document entitled: Declaration of Solidarity of Canadian Women Parliamentarians to recognize equal rights for Indian women.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) just now tabled a number of agreements between Canada and foreign countries. I wonder if at least a list of those agreements which are tabled might be appended to today's Hansard, so that there is a record of what agreements there are, and with what countries.


Mark R. MacGuigan: That certainly would be agreeable, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that they be tabled and appended to today's Hansards


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For agreements referred to, see Appendix "A".]
Post Office Act


HUMAN RIGHTS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a similar point of order. In view of the general interest in the declaration just tabled by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette), I wonder if it could be agreed that it also be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is ordered to be appended.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to, see Appendix "B". |


POST OFFICE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-42, to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related Acts and to make related amendments to other Acts.


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

Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could ask the parliamentary secretary the usual question on House business with regard to the NORAD renewal. It was my understanding that today we were going to have a request to refer the matter of the NORAD renewal to committee.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We will come back to the hon. member's point of order later. We were dealing with another matter. 1 will come back to the hon. member later for orderly proceedings.


POST OFFICE
André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, 1 under-

July 17, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon stand it is difficult for Parliament to discuss fully this legislation at this moment, but I had discussions with both Elouse leaders of the opposition parties who assured me of their co-operation to facilitate the passage of this bill in the fall.
Thus I hope hon. members on both sides of the Elouse will take advantage of the summer to familiarize themselves with this legislation and that very soon we will have a Crown Post Corporation in Canada.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think it is a case where all parties of the House of Commons have expressed themselves in favour of the principle of the Post Office being made into a Crown corporation, which I gather is the intent of the bill introduced today.
As the minister said, we have not had an opportunity to look at the details of this bill, which I have heard described at least as being somewhat different from the bill which was put forward by our government. I want to assure the minister that there will be no untoward debate, but any binding, ironclad commitment-to use a phrase that has become famous in the House-would have to await the study of the bill. 1 hope that is of some assurance to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, we are happy to give the same assurance. We hope that this bill can be dealt with as soon as possible.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-43, to enact the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, to amend the Federal Court Act and the Canada Evidence Act, and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof.


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

[Stage Direction]
mr. McKinnon-committee study of norad agreement
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order on which I have already spoken. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has had time to think about it, and could tell me about item No. 4, on page 9 under government business on the order paper?
My understanding is that it was to be brought forward today. If we do not settle it before the adjournment, it will deprive us of an opportunity to do some planning in the
Standing Committee on External Affairs and Defence to reconsider this NORAD agreement.
National


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I can have agreement to have this motion passed without debate today, I would be glad to propose it. If there is no such agreement today, I will be glad to speak to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) and to the hon. member and try to reach some kind of agreement for tomorrow, if possible. But I cannot give a guarantee. If I can have the assurance that there will be no debate at all, there would be no problem and the motion could be passed by this House.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I can give the President of the Privy Council the assurance, on behalf of our party, that five minutes will be all that is required for debate of this item.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will speak to the Minister of National Defence. I would also like to give him a chance to say a word if he is here tomorrow. He is not here today, so obviously the item cannot be brought forward today.
*
* *


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Ian Watson: that the second report of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to mention that there have been consultations with the House leaders and there has been agreement on their part.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether item No. 15, at page 10 of today's order paper, standing in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is to be brought forward today.


Yvon Pinard: The
motion is in the name of the Prime Minister. I think it would be preferable if we were to wait until tomorrow. It is certainly our intention to introduce this motion before the summer break, so obviously it will have to be brought forward tomor-
July 17, 1980

Order Paper Questions
row. If the Prime Minister is not here tomorrow, I will see to it 3. The value of paper money withdrawn in each of the past five years follows: that somebody else brings it forward.	(thousands of dollars)
I should like to say that obviously this will be done if there is agreement that there will be no debate at all. I do not expect any debate on this kind of motion.


Madam Speaker:: With the permission of the House, we will proceed to questions on the order paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 72, 97, 107, 151, 246, 684, 685, 686, 688 and 697.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past five years, what value, by denomination, of paper money was issued by the Mint and what was the over-all total for the years?
2.	What was the cost of production?
3.	What was the face value of paper money withdrawn from circulation and destroyed?
4.	What is the present estimate in circulation of (a) $1 bills (b) $2 bills (c) $5 bills (d) $10 bills (e) $20 bills (0 $50 bills (g) $100 bills (h) $1,000 bills?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: 1. The
Royal Canadian Mint is not responsible for the issuing of paper money in Canada. Notes issued by the Bank of Canada as at December 31, in each year, were as follows (thousands of dollars):
Denomination	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979$1	216,747	220,112	234,887	245,366	257,372$2	161,901	166,723	179,204	188,520	198,948$5	352,313	353,513	373,944	385,831	397,558$10	1,135,514	1,142,928	1,196,364	1,254,866	1,282,072$20	3,303,249	3,562,128	3,933,577	4,280,950	4,561,833$25	46	46	46	46	46$50	485,584	580,126	678,710	800,487	931,895$100	1,451,646	1,587,884	1,816,263	2,114,160	2,382,804$500	25	25	24	24	24$1000	163,141	186,683	212,648	256,575	289,321Total	7,270,166	7,800,166	8,625,667	9,526,825	10,301,873;. Bank note costs in each of the past five years follows:	(thousands of dollars)	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	12,126	14,948	14,043	15,243	18,685	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979
2,270,587 2,937,564 3,101,647 3,098,283 3,354,406
4.	The estimate of the number of notes in circulation as at December 31, 1979, by denomination, follows: (thousands)
$1	257,372
$2	99,474
$5	79,512
$10	128,207
$20	228,092
$50	18,638
$100	23,828
$1000	289


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the total cost to the taxpayer, of the government-owned property at 10-12-18 York Street, in connection with the building, including acquisition, architects' fees, renovations, purchasing of contents and all other items whatsoever?
2.	Does the National Capital Commission plan to rent the premises to Canterbury Foods Limited of Toronto, Ontario, to operate a restaurant known as the Crock and Block and, if so, what are all of the important terms of the proposed lease?
3.	Will Canterbury Foods Limited pay the government for approximately $50,000 worth of foreign wines purchased by the government from public funds for use by the originally planned lessee, By-York Developments Ltd. and (a) if so, what will be the purchase price (b) if not, what does the government plan to do with the wine and has any disposal of wine to this date been in accordance with the regulations of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario?
4.	Did the arrangements for leasing to By-York Developments Ltd. cease and, if so, what is the total amount of additional funds put into the project by the National Capital Commission before the rental to Canterbury Foods Limited?
5.	With respect to approximately $50,000 of public expenditure on antiques to be placed at the restaurant, will these be retained under government ownership and, if not, will they be sold to the lessee and, if so, for what amount?
6.	What is the estimated time that it will take the NCC to recover from a new lessee, all public funds spent to date or still to be spent, on this venture?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2.	A portion of the premises has been rented to Canterbury Foods Limited of Toronto, for the operation of a restaurant. The lease is for 40 years including the original term of 10 years and two (2) lease renewal options of 10 and 20 years. The annual rent is $100,000 plus percentage rents on gross revenue in excess of $2.5 million.
3.	The successful tenderer, Canterbury Foods Limited, will not be purchasing the wine from the commission. Since the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario had informed the commission that it could not sell the wine to any other licensee or private individual, and that an intergovernmental transfer of the wine would be acceptable to the board, the National Capital Commission made arrangements to dispose of the wine to other federal government departments and agencies. The wine has
[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1980
Order Paper Questions
now been fully disposed of to other federal government departments.
4.	Yes. The arrangements for leasing to By-York Development did cease. To date, $188,779 has been spent by the commission to finish the common and public areas of the building. It is anticipated that further expenditures of $7,000 will be required.
5.	The artifacts placed at and incorporated in the construction of the leased premises will be retained under government ownership and will not be sold to the lessee.
6.	At this time it is not possible to estimate the date of recovery as only part of the building has been leased.
Mr. McKenzie: What is the total amount of cash in circulation in Canada outside of banks and other financial institutions?


Pierre Bussières: As at
March 31, 1980, the amount of currency circulating outside banks was $9,077 million, consisting of $8,120 million of Bank of Canada notes and $957 million of coin. Currency holdings of other financial institutions are not available and are included in the figures provided above.


Mr. Cossitt: Since December 12, 1979, under the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement, what was the total amount of funds committed to date and what is the total amount under consideration for the Constituency of Leeds-Grenville?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: From December 20, 1979, to April 14, 1980, a total of $5,904,538 was committed by the federal and Ontario governments under the various program areas of the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement.
There is at this time no authorization of funds in support of projects specific to the Leeds-Grenville constituency. However, a number of municipal outlet drainage projects are under consideration for near future implementation in the constituency area. It is estimated that the total cost of these drains during the 1980-81 fiscal year could amount to approximately $125,000.


Mr. Herbert: 1. In each of the past five years, what was the net increase in foreign borrowing of (a) the government (b) the provincial governments and their agencies (c) the municipalities (d) Canadian companies?
2.	As a percentage of the gross national product, what was the country's net international debt (a) in 1966 (b) for the latest date for which such information is available?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: 1. The net increase of foreign borrowing in each of the past five years by sector is shown in the accompanying table.
Sector	1975	1976	1977 1	978	1979
			($ billions)		
(a) Government of Canada	0.2	0.8	0.5	4.0	0.6
(b) Provincial governments					
and their agencies	3.1	4.9	2.9	2.4	1.6(c) Municipalities	0.4	0.7	0.6	0	0(d) Canadian companies	(non bank)	1.7	4.2	2.2	2.0	3.12. As a percentage of	the gross national	product	the	country's net international debt was:
(a) in 1966-38.8 per cent (b) in 1979-26.5 per cent.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the loan made to the African Development Bank through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, under what authority was the loan made?
2.	(a) How many paid-in shares of the bank does Canada own and what is their current value (b) what was the original cost of purchasing all of the shares (c) how many callable shares is Canada committed to for the bank and what is their current value?
3.	For the fiscal year (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978, which countries received loans and what is their present status?
4.	(a) For the same years, what non-governmental organizations received loans from the bank (b) what was their value in each fiscal year (c) what is the present status of the loans?
5.	What arc the stated aims of the bank?
6.	Which other countries hold shares in the bank?
7.	What percentage of all of the paid-in shares does Canada own?
8.	What percentage of all of the callable shares is Canada committed to?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. With reference to the loan made to the African Development Bank through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, the loan was made under the authority of his Excellency the governor general in council (P.C. 1976-505) pursuant to External Affairs vote L35, 1976-77.
2.	(a) Canada owns no paid-in shares in the African Development Bank
(b)	Not applicable
(c)	Not applicable.
3.	See next page.
4.	(a) None of the loans from the bank were awarded to non-governmental organizations for the same years
(b)	Not applicable
(c)	Not applicable.
5.	The stated aims of the Bank are to contribute to the economic and social progress of its Member States, individual-
July 17, 1980

ly and jointly, by financing investment projects and programmes which promote the economic and social development of Member States, giving priority to those which benefit several Member States simultaneously, render their economies increasingly complementary, and bring about an orderly expansion in their foreign trade. To achieve this purpose, the Bank is authorized to select and promote appropriate projects, mobilize medium and long-term capital resources both in and outside Africa and provide technical assistance.
6.	All independent African states are members of the Bank. No non-African states are members.
7.	Not applicable.
8.	Not applicable.
3.	The following table shows which countries received loans from the African Development Bank for the following years: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. With regard to the present status of these loans, 42.6% of the African Development Bank loans were disbursed, as at December 31, 1979.
African Development Bank Loan Approvals by Country (U.S. Smillion)
Countries	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979Algeria	6.0	6.0	6.5	Benin	4.8	3.4	6.5	Botswana	0.84	10.5Cameroon	5.2	6.8	6.0	7.8Chad	2.7	Congo	3.0	6.0	13.0	18.9Egypt	6.0	12.1	10.5Ethiopia	8.5Gabon	4.8	6.0	13.0	Gambia	2.4	11.7Ghana	9.8	3.4	8.9	10.5Guinea	1.8	0.85	6.5	Guinea Bissau	1.3	Equatorial Guinea	8.5	0.6Ivory Coast	6.0	2.4	12.1	10.5Kenya	3.6	3.6	11.0	6.5	17.1Lesotho	10.5Liberia	7.0	2.1	8.6	5.4	8.1Madagascar	6.5Malawi	6.0	17.8	Mali	6.0	Mauritania	0.96	9.6	6.5	6.5Mauritius	7.2	3.2	6.0	2.0	10.5Morocco	19.5	20.5Mozambique	6.5	10.5Niger	8.5	5.7Rwanda	4.2	Senegal	5.9	3.4	6.0	8.1Seychelles	4.8	Sierra Leone	.72	3.6	1.8	Sudan	5.9	Swaziland	1.0	6.0	11.5	Tanzania	3.6	19.7Togo	6.0	4.6	2.6	Tunisia	10.5	3.6	5.0	6.5	21.0Uganda	4.2	6.0	6.5	Zaire	8.0	1.2	6.0	18.2	15.0Zambia	6.0	12.7	10.5Multinational	15.9	6.0	39.0	Totals	103.08	96.4	152.85	204.74	259.7
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the loan made to the African Development Bank II through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume 1 of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, under what authority was the loan made?
2.	(a) How many paid-in shares of the bank does Canada own and what is their current value (b) what was the original cost of purchasing all of the shares (c) how many callable shares is Canada committed to and what is their current value in Canadian dollars?
3.	For the fiscal year (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978, which countries received loans from the bank and what was the value in each case?
4.	For the same years, what loans were made to non-governmental organizations?
5.	(a) Of the total of all paid-in shares, what percentage does Canada own (b) who are the other major shareholders?
6.	Of the total of all callable shares, what percentage does Canada own?
7.	What is the special, stated, objective of the bank?


Louis Duclos: 1. With reference to the loan made to the African Development Bank II through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, the loan was made under the authority of his Excellency the governor general in council (P.C. 19731481) pursuant to External Affairs Vote L35, 1973-74.
2.	(a) Canada owns no paid-in shares in the African Development Bank II.
(b)	Not applicable.
(c)	Not applicable.
3.	See list below.
4.	None.
5.	(a) Not applicable.
(b) All independent African states are members of the bank. No non-African states are members.
6.	Not applicable.
7.	The objective of the bank is to contribute to the economic development and social progress of its members individually and jointly.
3.	The following table shows which countries received loans from the African Development Bank for the following years: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. With regard to the present status of these loans, 42.67 per cent of the African Development Bank loans were disbursed, as at December 31, 1979.
African Development Bank Loan Approvals by Country (U.S. Smillion)
Countries	1975	1976	1977	1978Algeria	6.0	6.0	6.5Benin	4.8	3.4	6.5Botswana Cameroon	5.2	6.8	6.0	0.84Chad Congo	3.0	6.0	2.7	13.0Egypt	6.0	12.1	Ethiopia Gabon	4.8	6.0	13.0Gambia	2.4	
11.7

July 17, 1980
Order Paper Questions
African Development Bank Loan Approvals by Country (U.S. Smillion)
Countries	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979Ghana	9.8	3.4	8.9	10.5Guinea	1.8	0.85	6.5	Guinea Bissau	1.3	Equatorial Guinea	8.5	0.6Ivory Coast	6.0	2.4	12.1	10.5Kenya	3.6	3.6	11.0	6.5	17.1Lesotho	10.5Liberia	7.0	2.1	8.6	5.4	8.1Madagascar	6.5Malawi	6.0	17.8	Mali	6.0	Mauritania	0.96	9.6	6.5	6.5Mauritius	7.2	3.2	6.0	2.0	10.5Morocco	19.5	20.5Mozambique	6.5	10.5Niger	8.5	5.7Rwanda	4.2	Senegal	5.9	3.4	6.0	8.1Seychelles	4.8	Sierra Leone	.72	3.6	1.8	Sudan	5.9	Swaziland	1.0	6.0	11.5	Tanzania	3.6	19.7Togo	6.0	4.6	2.6	Tunisia	10.5	3.6	5.0	6.5	21.0Uganda	4.2	6.0	6.5	Zaire	8.0	1.2	6.0	18.2	15.0Zambia	6.0	12.7	10.5Multinational	15.9	6.0	39.0	Totals	103.08	96.4	152.85	204.74	259.7


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the loan made to the Central American Bank for Economic Integration through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, under what authority was the loan made?
2.	(a) What is the present value of all paid-in shares in the bank (b) who are the major holders of these shares?
3.	In which countries does the bank operate?
4.	In the fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, to what non-governmental organizations did the bank provide loans?
5.	For the same years, which governments received loans from the bank?
6.	What percentage of the total of all paid-in shares in the bank are held by Canada?
7.	By percentage, who are the major shareholders of the bank?
8.	(a) On what date is the loan due to be repaid (b) what percentage of it is forgiveable (c) what interest is being paid annually?
9.	What are the special objectives of the bank?
10.	What percentage of the total of all callable shares has Canada committed itself to buy and at what value?


Louis Duclos: 1. With reference to the loan made to the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) through the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, the loan was made under the authority of his Excellency the governor general in council (PC 19641826), 1964.
2.	(a) The value of paid-in shares totalled U.S. $47,500,000 in 1976.
(b) The major holders of these shares are the member countries: Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
3.	In the five member countries.
4.	(a) and (b) No information available.
5.	The governments of the member countries.
6.	Zero per cent.
7.	The member countries own 22 per cent of the share-capital.
8.	(a) The first payment was made on October 26, 1977; the final payment is due on April 26, 2017.
(b)	None.
(c)	The annual interest is 0 per cent.
9.	The objectives of the bank arc to promote the integration and the economic development of the member countries by * financing:
(a)	infrastructure projects;
(b)	regional industries;
(c)	agricultural projects;
(d)	production modernization projects;
(e)	projects to improve the common market.
10.	Zero per cent.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the loans made to the Andean Development Corporation through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, under what authority was the loan made?
2.	What is the present value of all shares in the corporation?
3.	What is the current value of any shares held by Canada ?
4.	Who are the major shareholders?
5.	In which countries does the corporation operate?
6.	What are the special objectives of the corporation?


Louis Duclos: 1. With reference to the loan made to the Andean Development Corporation through CIDA detailed at page 8.67, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada, the loan was made under the authority of His Excellency the governor in council (PC 1973-2489) pursuant to External Affairs vote L30 1973-74.
2. The Andean Development Corporation has an authorized capital of U.S. $400 million of which the subscribed capital is U.S. $300 million which breaks down as follows:

-paid-up capital, U.S. $25 million -capital to be paid-up, U.S. $75 million -callable capital, U.S. $200 million.
3. Canada holds no shares in the Andean Development Corporation.

July 17, 1980

4.	The major shareholders are the member governments of the Andean Pact countries: Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and Equador.
5.	In Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia and Equador and lends in all countries except Venezuela.
6.	The purposes of the Andean Development Corporation are to encourage economic integration, to promote trade within the area and encourage foreign investment. The special and particular objectives of the Andean Development Corporation are to:
-identify investment opportunities -provide technical assistance -promote capital and the transfer of technology -grant loans, provide pledges and endorsements and guarantees
-promote the organization of enterprises, their expansion, modernization or conversion.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the National Capital Region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Seven.
2.	(a) Six; (b) one; (c) nil.
3.	None.
4.	$105,548.96.



POINT OF ORDER


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact the House will be adjourning shortly for the summer, presumably tomorrow, I think it is in order for me to raise this particular point of order in regard to four unanswered questions.
I know the parliamentary secretary and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) are well aware that there are those of us on this side of the House who are not very happy, as far as speed is concerned, about the way certain questions have been answered by the government. Referring to questions I
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
have on the order paper, 1 should like to mention four specific questions. They get worse as they go along, timewise.
First, question No. 28 concerns certain tendering policies of Canadian National Railways. As of this day, the question has been on the order paper for two years and 20 days. In my opinion, it is inexcusable that it has not been answered.
I have raised question No. 15 as a point of order on at least five other occasions. It has been on the order paper, as of today, three years and 17 days. I think it has come to the point where the matter has become utterly ridiculous.
Briefly, the question deals with Martin Goldfarb and Gold-farb Consultants Limited who, of course, work for the Liberal party. The question concerns what they have received from the government in the way of government contracts over a specifically mentioned period of time. I have been told and told this will be answered soon. It is always "soon", but soon never comes. After three years and 17 days, I think I am safe in assuming that the government does not know, and needs to be given a dictionary to find out the meaning of "soon".
The third question is No. 29, concerning the return of the Taschereau papers dealing with matters of espionage in Canada to the Public Archives for a further ten years on the orders of Michael Pitfield and, as far as I know, not under any particular statutory permission that would allow such a thing. This question went on the order paper on June 4, 1978, which is two years, one month and two days ago, as of today. I think that is a disgrace as well.
Finally, question No. 30, concerning the Canadian Transport Commission is a very simple one. How many members of the commission have Air Canada passes; how many of their wives have Air Canada passes; how many employees, people connected with the commission, and so on, have Air Canada passes? I would not think it would take long to find out the answer. But it has taken the government four years, one month and six days, as of today, and it has not been answered yet. When a question sits for over four years on the order paper, I suggest there is gross negligence on the other side of the House.


Walter David Baker: They tabled the freedom of information bill today.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: As our House leader has just drawn to my attention, the government tabled the freedom of information bill today. This shows how interested they must be, really and truthfully, in freedom of information; in other words, absolutely nil.
I find it very difficult to understand why the answers are not forthcoming. One assumes, after four years, that they never will be forthcoming. One assumes this government has no sincerity whatsoever on matters of providing information to the House.
When I raised one of my last points of order in regard to one of these questions, I forget the exact words, but to sort of colloquialize and summarize, the parliamentary secretary said, "Don't ask me; ask the President of the Privy Council". But he

July 17, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
was not here at that particular time. He is here now, so perhaps he, in all his wisdom, can tell the House more than his assistant could as to why questions sit on the order paper for three and four years without anything being done about them.
I think it is high time that members on this side of the House have every right to not only ask, but to come a point of demanding that the government get off its back seat and answer questions placed by the opposition which are really an attempt to elicit information to which Canadians and members of Parliament are entitled.
Why would the government hide from the Canadian people who has passes from the Canadian Transport Commission, or whose wives have passes? What is behind it that they do not want us or Canadians to know? Why do they not want the Canadian people to know what Martin Goldfarb and Goldfarb Associates Limited, who are close to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), got out of the government in the way of contracts? I know 1 have gone far enough, but may we have an answer?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is taking a little more time than is usual for this proceeding.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the hon. member takes the same kind of liberty with the House in bringing this up on a point of order as he does in putting questions on the order paper. I will have to do a tally-perhaps I can do it for tomorrow morning-of the number of questions asked by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) out of the total put on the order paper.


An hon. Member:: That is his right.


David Michael Collenette: He costs the taxpayers of this country quite a lot of money in answering these questions. That is his right, but 1 would say that not one day goes by without the tabling in the House of at least one or two questions by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.
I am doing my best, but I should like to raise one point. The hon. member mentioned the delay in answering some of these questions. I should remind him that the Liberal party has not been the government for all of the last four years. There was ample time during the time of the last government to ask this so I find it somewhat insulting.
The hon. member took a shot at the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) on freedom of information. His colleagues in the Conservative party talked about freedom of information, proposed to introduce a bill, but would not even answer one of their own members whose questions had been on the order paper for quite a while. I think that bears some explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there are two aspects of the answer of the parliamentary secretary which rather surprise me. The first is that he did not take into account the fact that the questions are quite old, quite ancient. I think the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville
(Mr. Cossitt) would be delighted if, as well as answering the most current ones, the parliamentary secretary went back to answering some of the more ancient ones. His complaint with the government is that questions have been on the order paper for a number of years; not just weeks, days or months.


An hon. Member:: You did not answer them when you had the chance.


Walter David Baker: The unfortunate part of the answer concerning when our party was in power is that if the two parties had not been so quick to defeat the government, we would have answered those questions because we thought they were quite straightforward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Some time in the next five years.


Walter David Baker: I want to make sure that another matter is clear on the record. In the course of his answer, the parliamentary secretary referred to the freedom of information bill. He indicated that we had tried, but did not introduce a freedom of information bill. On this day, particularly, 1 think it is important-and the parliamentary secretary can read his answer-he does not understand and recollect, because he was not here, there not only was a bill prepared by the Clark government over the course of the summer, but it was introduced as Bill C-15, approved in principle at second reading and was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I had the privilege of carrying that matter. I just want to make sure the record is clear, so it does not appear on the record that we did not move.
As a matter of fact, 1 have the privilege of reading the freedom of information bill tabled by the minister today. I congratulate the minister on two grounds. First, I congratulate him for the scope of the bill. I think it is a first-class bill. In some areas he has improved upon ours and in some areas we will have to look at things, but basically it is a first-class bill. It attributes to the public the right of judicial review which is the underpinning of freedom of information. I congratulate him on that. Also, I congratulate him warmly on being a good thief and recognizing the good things to steal.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, on this last point. 1 shall transmit the warm congratulations of the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox). At the same time, I would like to come back to the question raised by-
Madam Speaker, the hon. member believes that the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications committed a theft by taking the valid provisions of the bill which was prepared following many speeches made in the House by Liberal members.
July 17, 1980

I believe that, to do justice to all members of this House, this bill meets the wishes of all Canadian parliamentarians. 1 think that the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was sincere when he congratulated the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) for having taken the initiative to improve the bill introduced by the Progressive Conservative Party.
With respect to the first remarks by the parliamentary leader to defend his colleague who is the expert on order paper questions I will say that for the questions which are very dated, his government had ample time a few months ago to comply with the requests made by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt), and if it is true that Bill C-15 would have been presented at that time and referred to the committee by the Progressive Conservative government, although in a much less perfect state than ours, one would be hard pressed to understand why the Progressive Conservative government of the time did not follow up on it and provide answers to the questions asked so long ago by the member for Leeds-Grenville.
In any event, Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does a splendid job with respect to answers to questions on the order paper in general and he averages very well in giving answers to questions asked by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. This is very commendable and indicative of the government's willingness to give complete answers. We do the necessary research and I can assure all hon. members that this is the way we intend to proceed for the remainder of the first part of the session and the next session, that is to say, to provide the required information not just in a superficial way, but after exhaustive research; this might explain some occasional delays in answers given to questions on the order paper.


MR. COSSITT-RIGHT TO PUT QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to remarks made earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Col-lenette). He referred to the number of questions that I have placed on the order paper. If I remember correctly, he said that he would try to determine the over-all percentage and tell us tomorrow.
That is not a matter of privilege, but what 1 think is, is the fact that he used the phrase that I was taking the liberty of placing questions on the order paper. If it is not the liberty of any member of this House to place questions on the order paper, then our privileges are being denied by the Government of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In addition, and I believe I am summarizing correctly what he said-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I will not sit down until I have had my say. He said that I should not do this, that it costs the taxpayers a lot of money. This is, in effect, what he said.


An hon. Member:: Use good judgment.
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I think I have more judgment than the hon. member. When the day comes, Madam Speaker, that the government of this country tells members on this side of the House that they should not ask questions because it costs money-when, incidentally, they are the biggest spenders from the public trough that we have ever seen-I take that as a threat to members of the opposition saying that, in effect, we are not supposed to ask questions. In other words, do not rock the boat. What are we here for? We are here to find out what this government is doing, whether it is doing a good job. If it is not doing a good job, why it is not, and what can be done about it.
One other thing, Madam Speaker, we were highly criticized on this side of the House about my raising this point, and that our government did not answer these questions. Let me remind the House that these questions were submitted two years, and I think in one case three and a half years, before this government came to power. When it was found that this government across from us now had done nothing about the questions, how on earth did it expect the information, which in some cases is a bit intricate, to be compiled in a matter of a very short time when it had done nothing for three to four years? That is gross negligence.
As far as privilege is concerned, I do not intend, Madam Speaker-nor do I think any other member on this side of the House should have to contend with the same thing, either-to sit here and be told that we should not spend taxpayers' money by asking legitimate questions of a government supposedly interested in freedom of information, or that we are taking liberties-


Yvon Pinard: Abusing.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -when we put questions on the order paper. We are not taking liberties; we are exercising our rights. Abusing our rights, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) just said. That may be his opinion, but I am sure it is not the opinion of the people of Canada. A few years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself called us-and I know they will all agree-"a bunch of nobodies", but when the opposition of this country is given-


An hon. Member:: Wasting the time of the House.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Wasting the time of the House, the hon. member says. That is the point I am trying to make. That is what he has told me, that we are wasting the time of the House and the taxpayers' money by asking questions. If it has come to that, then I suggest that this House dissolve, that the Prime Minister go up to his office with his cabinet and run the country by edict or dictatorship and let everybody go home.
I think it is time that we got a decent answer. I should not suggest that because that is what is going on right now, anyway; this Parliament has been made a farce by the Prime Minister, by his backbenchers and his frontbenchers.


An hon. Member:: That is unparliamentary.
3008

July 17, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt


Thomas Charles Cossitt: As far as I can see, nobody in this House has any authority over anything. This government does what it wants. It does whatever the Prime Minister wants or what the President of the Privy Council wants, and only questions that will not hurt those dear little people across the House ever get answered.
They talk about the number that have been answered. The number that they have answered of mine have been nonanswers. You can put some words on paper, but that does not mean those words constitute an answer. In most cases they have been absolute non-answers. This government has been hiding behind such phrases as: it is not in the public interest; it has never been done before; and all that sort of silly stuff.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Our government, when it was in office, came out with straight, direct answers to questions and did not hide behind the bushes.


David Michael Collenette: I also point out the number of questions that were answered by this government. On the question of the word "liberty", the hon. member knows that when one uses the phrase, "take the liberty of', it does not impute any motive; it is strictly a comment on the fairness or the propriety of a certain course of action. I would say that it is inappropriate and a little unfair for the hon. member to take so much liberty, if you will-


Mr. Paproski:: Do you want a crying towel?


David Michael Collenette: -with the rules of the House and the privilege to put questions on the order paper. I submit, Madam Speaker, that you do not have a question of privilege before you; it is somewhat a question of debate. In any event, I think I did have the right to correct the record somewhat because readers of Hansard might have been misled by the hon. member's comments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: 1 conclude my question of privilege by saying-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I know they will be glad if I conclude, because they do not like the truth-and they never did. The sooner they stop hearing it, the better, I suppose, for their sorry, sad ears.


Walter David Baker: They would not know it if they fell over it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would like to conclude by saying that it is high time the opposition in this House was no longer threatened or accused of exercising liberties and spending too much money when they do what they were sent here to do, and that is to ask questions of the government.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I do not want to prolong this debate, but as usual the comments made by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) are somewhat unproductive when there is business before the House which needs to be done. He did misrepresent some of the things I said and I am sure the blues will bear me out. 1 am not saying it is deliberate, because no member of this House does that.


An hon. Member:: He knows not what he says.


Madam Speaker:: This is, obviously, not a question of privilege but a matter of grievance. The debate which followed the grievance by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) might have been legitimate, or it might not. However, with the explanations of the hon. parliamentary secretary-


Walter David Baker: Such as they were.
m


Madam Speaker:: -perhaps this House is a bit more aware of what exactly was said on both sides. At any rate, one can always read Hansard and look into the exact meaning of what members say in this House. But I cannot see a matter of privilege.

The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered.

Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
*
* *



THE QUEEN MOTHER


David Michael Collenette: I would like to make the point, however, that at no time did I say the hon. member should not put questions on the order paper. That is the right of every member of this House. What I was trying to do was to point out the inordinate number of questions which the hon. member has on the order paper in proportion to the rest.


Walter David Baker: He is a very hardworking, active member.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is a hardworking member.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, since the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) raised a question with regard to motion No. 15, I have had consultations with my colleagues from the other parties, the House leaders. There seems to be agreement that if the motion is put today, there will be no debate.
I would be willing, with the consent of the House, to put motion No. 15, in the name of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I understand that there is agreement that there will be no debate.

July 17, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Does the suggestion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) have agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: That Madam Speaker send a Message to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. The Queen Mother, extending the congratulations of the House of Commons of Canada on Her completion on August 4, 1980, of Her eightieth year, expressing the gratefulness of the people of Canada for the many services Her Majesty has rendered them over the years, including Her many visits, beginning with the first in 1939 when she accompanied Her husband, His Majesty King George VI, on the first visit of a reigning monarch to this country, and wishing Her continued good health and long life.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, there has been agreement between the three parties that Bill S-8, a private member's bill which was passed through the Senate yesterday would be brought before the House. 1 do not think that there is any cause to hold up the bill.
The sole purpose of the bill is to revive a company known as Pyramid Communications Limited which through some inadvertence allowed their charter to lapse. It is now imperative, in the circumstances, that the company be revived and it be deemed not to have been dissolved, in order to allow the company to dispose of certain real estate holdings which it hopes to sell.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would like to confirm these consultations. To be correct, I understand that Bill S-8 is a private member's private bill. The bill was passed by the Senate without amendment, and there is some urgency to it. We on this side will agree to have the bill sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, which we hope will meet later today on this particular bill.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 want to express agreement on this matter. There were consultations. While I am on my feet, I would also like to express my thanks to the staff of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who facilitated the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) after we were in touch with them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, there were such consultations, and we are willing for this bill to be sent to the standing committee.


Madam Speaker:: By unanimous consent, Mr. Darling, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton), moves that Bill
The Address-Mr. Collenette
S-8, an act to revive Pyramid Communications Limited, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, and that the provisions of Standing Order 103(1) be suspended in relation thereto.
is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 12, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I find myself in a very odd position, having spoken back on May 12 for nine minutes, I believe, when the address was last before the House on its seventh day. As you can see, I have the floor once again.
It is very unusual, because this is the third occasion on which I have tried to complete one speech. I started off on May 12, on the seventh day. Then on May 22, hon. members of the New Democratic Party, on their opposition day, kindly facilitated a constitutional debate in which I proceeded to say a few words. 1 would like today to conclude my speech of the last couple of months. In a sense, it is somewhat novel because 1 have had the benefit of being able to use current events which have intervened between the various debates to update the message which I was trying to bring to the House.
There are a couple of minutes left before one o'clock and I would like to summarize, since it is sounding somewhat like a serialized speech, the points which I want to make. On May 12, when the seventh day of the address was allotted, 1 tried to make the point about the entrenchment of minority and language rights in any new constitution. This is something for which members of this party have stood for years. It is something to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) attaches a particular importance. I would hope that there is a similar sentiment on the other side of the House and in all parties.
I realize that some of the provinces are somewhat reluctant to entrench language rights in the constitution. I would hope that the deliberations which are now under way under the chairmanship of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) will bear some fruit. As 1 mentioned on May 12, one of the imperatives in constitutional reform is that we entrench minority and language rights in the new constitution.

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Collenette
On May 22, a couple of days after the referendum in Quebec, I had the benefit of putting my particular message in the context of the result of May 20, which members on both sides of the House applauded and which has spurred on the whole question of constitutional change throughout the country. 1 again implored the provinces to try to facilitate some entrenchment of minority and language rights in the constitution. I wanted to continue then, before my time elapsed, on the whole question of constitutional change from the perspective of a member of Parliament from Ontario.
1 think that members of Parliament from Ontario, notwithstanding their party, and members of the legislature of Ontario have a particular role to play in the constitutional debate which is before the country. There have been comments thrown back and forth in this House about the attitude of Ontario vis-a-vis the sharing of benefits and wealth in this country. 1 would like to call it one o'clock in a couple of minutes and come back after the break to talk about sacrifices-perhaps that is a strong word-or the accommodations which must be made by Ontario, the richest, province in this country, to ensure that there is equality of benefits, revenue sharing and opportunity throughout this country.
The Atlantic region and the western region have historic grievances against Ontario and confederation as it has developed, and 1 am in sympathy with those arguments. I would like to talk about this subject after the break in the context of the negotiations which the Prime Minister is about to undertake with the Premier of Alberta on the setting of an oil price. If 1 could have agreement, 1 would call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. As it happens, it is one o'clock. We will recognize the parliamentary secretary when the House returns at two o'clock.
It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) had the floor.


David Michael Collenette: As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat truncated speech and I shall try to finish with some dispatch.
Before the lunch break I talked about the constitutional debate in the context of the division of powers, especially as it affects Ontario. 1 think it is crucial that members of Parliament from Ontario and members of the legislature of Ontario enter into the constitutional debate that is now going on, especially in view of the negotiations that the Prime Minister
will be having with Premier Lougheed in a couple of weeks' time.
My point is that the discussions now under way on the whole question of oil prices could have serious effects on the future of this country. I hope that the rhetoric on both sides of the argument-for the producing provinces in western Canada and for the consuming provinces, such as Ontario-could be in language a little less inflammatory than that which has been used. It is not for me to stand in my place and admonish any member of this chamber, but those of us who view the issue with some alarm and those of us who inflame passions in this House are doing a disservice to the country. I hope that over the next few weeks when Parliament will perhaps not be sitting we will cool our rhetoric somewhat.
Before lunchtime I talked about the way Ontario has benefited from confederation. We can look back 100 years and realize that in 1867 the maritime provinces were somewhat wealthier than they are today, given the proportion of the GNP at the time. The people from Atlantic Canada can argue that they have suffered over the years and that only with equalization has a measure of parity been achieved in the country. I am not arguing against equalization; it is one of the great concepts that we have in Canada today. I think people in Atlantic Canada, however, would argue for the need for development of their own potential and also that the freight rate structure in the country has hampered the development of industry in eastern Canada. The same arguments, of course, are made in this House by members from western Canada.
Those of us who come from Ontario must realize that if this country is to continue, that if there is to be a common market, as the Prime Minister describes it, where there is free movement of labour, goods and people across provincial boundaries, then concessions have to be made by all provinces and particularly by Ontario.
When the Prime Minister meets with Premier Lougheed in a couple of weeks' time I hope that he will not just be discussing the oil price in its narrow context but will talk about other concessions that will be made by central Canada to western Canada. I hope there will be recognition of the fact that, after oil and gas is taken from the ground, an industrial base must be established in order to create the wealth needed by western Canadians. I think this is what Mr. Lougheed wants but 1 believe we have to strip away the inflammatory language on both sides and agree on the basic thrust that economic growth in this country is moving west. That is not a bad thing, Mr. Speaker.
At the weekend, Mr. Speaker, 1 was reading the Toronto Star. That is the bible for those of us who come from Toronto.


An hon. Member:: The Liberal members.


David Michael Collenette: The inside section of the Toronto Star dealt with the problems in Ontario's mines, farms and forests. It referred to their vanishing. The point made was that through mismanagement by the provincial government, farm land was being lost, resources were being destroyed-


An hon. Member:: By the Conservatives.
July 17, 1980


David Michael Collenette: It is a Conservative government, 1 should add, in Ontario. Fishing was also being depleted.
1 think one could also read the article in the context of the need for a slowing of growth in Ontario. It refers to the fact that much of Canada's prime farm land in Ontario is being developed for urban sprawl, or whatever, and that the pressures of growth are taking their toll on the natural environment in Ontario. As I travel around Toronto I notice the crowding and I cannot help but feel that Ontario should perhaps grow more slowly, as in the past. There has been phenomenal growth since the Second World War, and this has given rise to a number of problems, some of which are described in the article. I would urge hon. members to read this article which appeared in Section B of the Toronto Star on July 12.
Politicians from Ontario should welcome the fact that the industrial impetus is shifting to western Canada. Perhaps it is time for Ontario to concentrate on trying to improve the manufacturing industries in which it does well, such as communications and transportation equipment, and leave the processing of raw materials to other parts of the country. Let those areas develop these particular industries.
I hope that when the Prime Minister meets Mr. Lougheed, he will discuss a whole range of things. 1 hope he will discuss an energy conservation package, not just prices. There has been some talk in the Toronto press about de Havilland Aircraft of Toronto which needs to build a second plant for the Dash-8 aircraft, perhaps locating that plant in Alberta. I have no objection whatsoever. I have de Havilland workers in my constituency. If that plant is built in Alberta, Saskatchewan or anywhere other than metropolitan Toronto where the existing plant is, it will still help the economy in Toronto. There will still be some 2,000 jobs generated for parts. However, the assembly of that aircraft could be done elsewhere in the country.
When people in western Canada, especially the premiers, talk about all the industrial expertise and industrial growth occurring in Ontario, they have a point. I hope there will be some trade-offs made by the Prime Minister and Mr. Lougheed. We in Ontario expect to pay lower than world prices. I believe we should. The policies enunciated by this government when in opposition and through the election were the right ones, 1 believe. We should not be held up to ransom by any oil sheiks across the world, or cartels of any description, especially when we have an abundance of those resources in Canada.
When we in Ontario expect lower prices, we should be prepared to make some kind of trade-off. In annoys and bothers me when the deputy premier of Ontario views a potential export tax on hydroelectric power as being discriminatory against Ontario. In this case I agree with Premier Blakeney. If we are talking about the export of resources, whether they are manufactured or come straight out of the ground, there should be some equality of approach. 1 can understand the attitude of western Canadians on this. My only
The Address-Mr. Collenette
hope is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will take this into account when he is having discussions with the western provinces.
Having said that, and having said some pretty harsh things that I am sure some of my constituents would not want to hear, we must make it absolutely clear that we cannot allow any one part of this country, any one province, to amass a fiscal base that will erode the financial integrity of the nation as a whole. That is what is happening with the development of the heritage fund in the province of Alberta.
Look at other federal states around the world. Look at the United States and Australia where there is a similarity, where there are natural resources, oil and gas, being taken from the ground. If you look at the take from those countries that the member states have equivalent to our provinces, you will see that the resource producing provinces in Canada enjoy an unparalleled advantage.
We see the Premier of Alberta going around the country trying to get support for his position, promising money, in effect trying to buy off, if that is the word, or trying to use his money to buy favour from, say, the maritime provinces. My colleague from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe knows this only too well. That bothers me, Mr. Speaker.
What we are developing in this country is two central banks. If you follow the philosophy of Mr. Lougheed through to its logical conclusion, there is very little difference between his concept of Canada and that of Mr. Levesque. We have just been fighting against that concept, the concept of co-equal states in this country. We either have strong national institutions that can govern on behalf of all Canadians, that can redistribute the wealth, that can see that the wealth of this country is shared, or we become separate states. We fought against that on May 20.
My colleagues from Quebec should be applauded, as well as members on all sides, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), members of the NDP or the Leader of the NDP, for taking a non-partisan approach on the question of Quebec. However, 1 would submit there is very little difference in the grand design that Mr. Lougheed has-the concept of co-equal states, that the federal government is just another government with certain responsibilities in all the provinces, and that the provincial governments are paramount. This was not intended when the BN A Act was drafted in 1867. I would hope that we would arrest this trend.
Speaking from my point of view and I hope that of all members of our party, we are prepared to compromise. We are prepared to see that there is equity among the trading and financial arrangements of this country. But we cannot allow the nation state of Canada to be held up to ransom by any one of its component parts, whether that is a government in the province of Quebec, a government in the province of Alberta, or elsewhere. We should emphazise and not take lightly the fact that the people of this country have a very difficult decision to make within a matter of months. The rhetoric will escalate. I only hope we can try to work things out in a

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Collenette
compromising way. The rhetoric will escalate and Canadians will have to decide.
We had a bill before us in the Thirtieth Parliament calling for the establishment of referenda. I submit, and I am talking here as a private member obviously, that if there is failure to agree on any constitutional change, if there is failure to agree on oil pricing, the people of Canada are going to have to decide once and for all whether they want this competing power game between bureaucratic and political elites to continue to the detriment of the well-being of the collective good of all Canadians.
We have only a few months to resolve these questions. 1 hope that we can patriate our constitution. I hope that the premiers of the consuming provinces, especially Ontario, will not react if concessions are made to legitimate western applications. On the other hand, I hope that the premiers especially in western Canada and the governments of western Canada, above all Mr. Lougheed, will not try to press their point to its logical conclusion.
There are changes we can make in the constitution which will bide well with western Canadians. We can redefine in any new constitution the provincial ownership of resources clause. We can put limits on the declaratory power. We can perhaps even talk about doing away with the federal power of disallowance which has not been used in 30 years and which perhaps is an anachronism in a modern sophisticated state.
There are concessions we can make; I think our government is prepared to make them. 1 would urge that they make concessions. I urge that members in my caucus from Ontario, and opposition members from Ontario, help to sell that position in a non-partisan spirit. If we divide on party lines on constitutional change over the next few months, then this country is in for a very rough ride indeed.
I know, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of members who wish to seek the floor. I am sorry that my remarks have been somewhat truncated because of the unusual circumstances. In conclusion, there are members from Ontario, certainly myself as a Liberal member from Toronto, who are prepared to go out in our constituencies and talk in metropolitan Toronto of the need for a deal for every region in this country, even though that will perhaps hurt in some way the opportunities of our own constituencies.
We have to look beyond normal electoral considerations in trying to get re-elected. If we cannot resolve this basic question, we may never get to another federal election in the way we used to. I do not want to be an alarmist, but we have to look at this question very seriously. I hope all members on all sides will do their best to try to sell to their constituents a policy that will give equal opportunity, fairness, and enshrine the principle of sharing right across this country, no matter where one lives.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in our discussion on this the last day of the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I request, Mr. Speaker, that you be kind enough to add my name to the long list of others who have congratulated Madam Speaker on her appointment.
I wish to speak for a few moments about my constituency, the federal riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin. It is a relatively large riding located in the main in central British Columbia. It is about 42,000 square miles in area, just slightly smaller than the area of England. It extends approximately 400 miles from the Pacific port of Squamish in the south to the town of Quesnel in the north. About 75,000 people live within its boundaries. Its major industries include lumbering, pulp and paper, mineral production, cattle ranching and tourism. The riding is divided almost in half along a north-south axis by the mighty Fraser River, the single most important producer of salmon in the world.
The largest portion of the constituency is located inland and has come to be called cariboo country. This area was opened in the 1800s by the gold miners and cattle ranchers. The famous boom town of Barkerville, which in its heyday was the largest community north of San Francisco and west of Winnipeg, is still very much in existence. It has been completely refurbished and is now one of Canada's most popular tourist attractions.
At the southern end of the riding we now have a very ambitious world-class resort being constructed at Whistler in Garibaldi Park. Millions of dollars are being expended on skiing and other recreational facilities. When completed, approximately 26,000 skiers will be accommodated on a daily basis and skiing will continue for 11 months of the year.
It is important to note that inland we have the Hat Creek coal deposit, one of the largest in the world. We also have Canada's largest cattle ranch, the Gang ranch. To add to all of this, Mr. Speaker, we have within the boundaries of my constituency 37 Indian bands. I am proud to represent the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin, and especially the native population which makes up a large percentage of my constituents. It is in this particular regard, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to frame the remainder of my address.
I would like to turn to the issue of Indian affairs in Canada. Recently we have had two indications of the depths to which our Indian policy has fallen. The most offensive of these was the case of Sandra Lovelace who has been forced to resort to the United Nations human rights committee to seek justice. This puts us in the same elite group as the Soviet Union, Chile and Idi Amin's Uganda. To say that this is a national disgrace is an understatement. That our system cannot deal with this matter of equal rights is almost beyond comprehension. This is not an issue which has suddenly sprung up on the government; it is a problem which has been sitting in front of us for 111 years.
The second indicator is a recent report on Indian conditions by Mr. R. H. Knox of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Although the report is just a rehash of old statistics presented in a glossy new format, it is useful in bringing public attention to the plight of native people. This is necessary because the Speech from the Throne almost ignored the issue.
July 17, 1980

If the House will bear with me I will restate the government's native people's policy, as given in the Speech from the Throne:
Expanding native opportunities and training women for new occupations will receive strong emphasis.
That was the limit in the area of native policy as laid down in the throne speech. I am sure that our native chiefs, whose people face a suicide rate which is about three times the national average, were reassured by this comprehensive new policy. They have been waiting since 1968 for the "just society", so I suppose they will be equally patient in waiting for these "expanding native opportunities" which are receiving such "strong emphasis".
I would like to suggest to the government, if it is not too presumptuous of me, some methods as to how native opportunities can be expanded. We could begin by reviewing the government's policy on trust funds set up for native bands. These trust funds have apparently been used more as a source of cheap revenue to finance government spending than to help the native people. Recently native chiefs estimated that they are losing in the order of $10 million a year through the mismanagement of funds held in trust for them by the Government of Canada. How could this happen in a just society?
The answer is much simpler than one would expect. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) is in a conflict of interest situation. He is the legal trustee for all native trust funds and as such, he is expected to ensure to the best of his ability that these funds are used in such a way as to maximize the benefits to the bands. On the other hand, he suffers under the mantle of a minister of the Crown and as such it is his first duty to act in the best interests of the Government of Canada. He fulfils his mandate as a minister of the Crown by depositing the trust fund moneys into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The money in the Consolidated Revenue Fund is then used to finance the deficit which has made this government a legend in its own time.
Unfortunately, the Indian bands do not get a fair return on their trust funds. At the recent all-chiefs conference held in Ottawa the minister made a commitment to undertake a comparison between the interest rates paid by chartered banks and the government rate paid on the trust funds. This the minister promised to do within two months of the time the conference was held. That deadline has now passed by some three weeks. Pending the tabling of this now overdue report we are left to depend upon the statements of departmental officials. At a recent meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development we were informed that the government rate was "significantly lower than the rate of interest you would get from commercial banks". Two days later the same committee was told that the two rates were competitive in the long term. I would tend to put my faith in the former statement because, in the words of John Maynard Keynes, "in the long term we are all dead".
However, there is an additional aspect to the conflict of interest situation I have described. The hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) pointed out last
The Address-Mr. Greenaway
Tuesday night that the audit of the government's handling of these funds unanimously ordered by this House last November has not been forthcoming. As the hon. member indicated, we have been told that difficulties exist.
The difficulties are twofold. First, the government, the trustee, has lost documents relating to the trust funds. These documents have apparently been devoured by the Public Archives of Canada, never to be regurgitated again. This has left a gap in the trust fund records. I find this action on behalf of a trustee to be irresponsible at best. Imagine, if you will, that you have set up a trust fund with your lawyer, Mr. Speaker. This trust fund would be for the purpose of ensuring the financial security of your children. In ten years you ask your lawyer for a status report on the fund and your lawyer replies: "I am sorry, but I cannot do that; I filed your financial records and in the interim they were lost". Your first action would be to fire the lawyer, your second action would be to sue him for his gross incompetence, and you would probably wish to have him disbarred as well to ensure that he never did it again.
The Indian bands, unfortunately, do not have this recourse. They cannot fire the minister as a trustee. Their position is similar to that of a minor in this respect. They cannot sue the government, and they cannot depose the government for its incompetence.
The second facet of this problem is the complexity of the accounts themselves. There are some 1,100 accounts which must be audited. Combined with the gaps in documentation, the result is an auditor's nightmare. How could a responsible trustee allow this situation to develop? The trustee's conflicting interest with his role as minister of the Crown not only allowed this to develop but might even have precipitated its development. If we are to return to that nirvana, the just society, then the government must eliminate this conflict of interest. This would go far toward expanding native opportunities.
I would now like to open a specific area where there is considerable scope for the expansion of native opportunities in British Columbia. In British Columbia in the early part of this century a provincial commission was set up to "review conditions of Indian affairs in British Columbia". This body, known as the McKenna-McBride commission, was essentially established to modify the size of British Columbia Indian reserves, in full consultation with the Indian people. This was agreed to by the federal government because of the conflict over the size and legal ownership of reservations which had existed with the province for over 40 years.
Even in these early times a conflict of interest existed with the department of Indian affairs and its role as trustee. Here was the federal government agreeing in many instances to reduce the size of its trust. However, the federal government did include the proviso that, and I quote:

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Greenaway
-the reserve shall, with the consent of the Indians, as required by the Indian Act, be reduced to such acreage as the commissioners think reasonably sufficient for the purposes of such Indians.
What had happened was that when certain reservations had been set up at the very beginning, the Indian population had been decimated by smallpox. The white population then saw Indian people as a handful living on various reserves, and this commission was set up ostensibly to reduce the size of the reserves and sell the land to the white population.
What sane person would voluntarily agree to reduce the size of his holdings? As hon. members can imagine, the Indians did not agree to the reduction of the size of their reserves. In most cases they did not even realize that they were losing their land. By the time the report of the commission became law in 1916, 35 cutoffs amounting to 36,000 acres had been taken from the reserves. These cutoffs were, of course, completely illegal because of the lack of consent of the Indian people. There was no consultation.
I would like to emphasize at this time that what we are talking about here is not the settlement of new claims but, rather, the return of land to the legal owners. There is no question that this land belongs to the Indian people because it was outside the mandate of the commission to cut off lands without the consent of the Indians.
The situation which developed was that British Columbia acquired legal title to the cutoff lands with the requirement that the province turn over 50 per cent of the proceeds from the sale or other disposition of these lands. This amounted to only $90,000 for the Indian people. Much of the land was sold for $1 an acre, and it was prime agricultural land.
The Government of Canada acquired title to all British Columbia Indian reserves as a result of this commission. It is true that Indian reserves were increased in size by 85,000 acres, but I would like to emphasize that these 85,000 acres were far below the quality of the cut-off lands, and in most cases it was a matter of trading acreages in valleys for barren mountain tops.
Ever since the lands were lost in 1916, these affected bands have been trying to get their land back. The Squamish band has been a leader in pressing the case with the federal and provincial governments. One half of the Squamish band is in my riding and the other half is in the riding of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). The Squamish band lost between 130 and 132 acres on the north shore of Burrard Inlet near the mouth of the Capilano River. The northernmost footings of the Lions Gate Bridge sit on Squamish band cut-off land. The bands' lawyer estimated in 1976 that this 132 acres of land would be earning $786,590 a year in rent, and this is a very conservative estimate. This is the rent which would accrue to this band if it owned the land at present.
The province has agreed to return about 30,000 acres of cut-off land, which it retained control of, to the reserves, to compensate the bands for assessable damage and compensate for certain lands it wishes to retain for public purposes, mainly for parks. The federal government would compensate the
bands for the 3,200 acres sold to third parties; in other words, for the encumbered land.
It is with the federal government that the Indian committee which represents the affected bands is at odds. The federal government offered the bands the market value at the time of taking, 1916, for the principal portion plus a very low rate of interest on this amount. This is about 10 per cent of what this land is actually worth at present. On March 9, 1979, the federal cash offer was increased to $14.4 million for all claims. It is estimated that the real estate value of the Squamish land near the First Narrows Bridge alone is worth $30 million.
In closing, because of over 60 years of procrastination the situation is now very difficult. We cannot expect these people, who have waited patiently these many years, to settle for 1916 values for encumbered land. On January 3 of this year the Squamish band decided it could wait no longer and submitted its case to the federal courts. It will be an interesting case, and 1 sincerely hope justice will finally prevail.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had the usual discussions with representatives of each of the parties in the House, and I believe there would be unanimous consent to revert to the presentation of reports from standing and special committees for a minute.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member seeks unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from standing and special committees. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Beatty.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above Reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* *
*
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House for the first and, I hope, not the last time. I am also happy to say that I am proud to speak in the name of the people of Lotbiniere who did me a great honour by electing me as their representative here in Ottawa. Lotbiniere is a riding which has
July 17, 1980

undergone some changes, mostly since 1968. 1 will say first that it is bounded on the east by the constituency of Levis, which is represented in the House by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) whose presence in the House I want to acknowledge because he has been instrumental in my election here. It extends northward to the St. Lawrence river, southeasterly to the constituency of Lrontenac, southwesterly to Richmond, westerly to the constituency of Drummond and northwesterly to the constituency of Richelieu.
As I said earlier, Lotbiniere underwent some change in 1968, when some parts of the riding were part of the Drum-mond-Arthabaska constituency, especially the Bois-Francs area. In addition, the constituency now extends further towards the Quebec area where various municipalities belonged to what was called the old Lotbiniere. It is a semirural constituency made up of several towns and 57 municipalities in all. I am therefore proud to be here and address mainly my constituents of Ste-Cecile-de-Levrard, my birthplace, the people of Victoriaville, of Arthabaska, Princeville, Daveluy-ville, Ste-Croix and Laurier-Station, which, by the way, is so called because one of our distinguished prime ministers, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had stopped there. That is why it was called Laurier Station.
The riding, of course, is rich in parliamentary history; as I said, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made his mark on the Victoriaville-Arthabaska area, mainly in Arthabaska. He was a lawyer and had a practice. Later, he became Prime Minister of Canada, and probably one of the greatest prime ministers in our history. The riding of Lotbiniere has also been represented in the House of Commons for several years by the Hon. Hugues Lapointe, former lieutenant-governor of Quebec. Trained as a lawyer, he served in the armed forces and was later appointed lieutenant-governor of Quebec.
Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin, now Minister of Transport, was once the elected member for this part of the riding as well, which was then called Drummond-Arthabaska. This riding was also represented by the former leader of the Social Credit party, the late Mr. Fortin, who died in a car accident in the summer of 1977. The riding also produced some painters such as Suzor-Cote, one of our great Quebec painters who lived in Arthabaska in the riding of Lotbiniere.
Of course that riding has also made a name for itself in the world of sports since many people from the Victoriaville and Bois-Francs area, such as Jean Beliveau, Gilbert Perreau and Gilles Marotte, have done them proud as well as the riding of Lotbiniere. I am very pleased for my riding with the Speech from the Throne and the various programs and other measures it announced for creating employment in the small and medium-business sector. On page 6 of the speech, Mr. Speaker, the basic objectives of the government are outlined, namely to give work to more Canadians in those groups, such as the young, women, our native people and the handicapped, who have a harder time getting jobs.
The Address-Mr. Dubois
As I said, Mr. Speaker, the government will change those programs and re-allott funds to better meet the needs of those groups. Already, Mr. Speaker, many things have been done with regard to that situation; as far as my riding is concerned, there certainly is need to create jobs for the present situation is really serious. Even the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who was here this afternoon, spoke about the job-creation program some time in June. For the current fiscal year, he announced on June 2 a $137 million program designed to meet the critical and immediate job problems many Canadians are facing. Over a $100 million of that amount has already been earmarked for winter community development projects, especially in high unemployment areas. As for the riding of Lotbiniere, these projects are undoubtedly very useful and enable a great many people, especially young people and even women, to join the labour force under these various programs, such as the community services development program and the local economic development assistance program. This situation is also very important for a constituency like Lotbiniere where there are many industries such as the furniture industry and related industries, the textile industry and its by-products. The furniture industry has experienced some problems in the Lotbiniere constituency, particularly in the main area around Victoriaville. Fortunately, the situation has now improved thanks to some federal assistance and to programs that were already being implemented and have only recently been amended. I am referring to the small business program mentioned on page 5 of the throne speech to assist industries by raising the ceiling for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act and for farm improvement loans to $100,000.
I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that the Speech from the Throne mentions these things which will allow Canadians, my constituents, and the industries operating in the riding of Lotbiniere to receive these benefits. For example, the employment tax credit program, covered by Bill C-3 which was passed recently by the House, will assist young people starting off in the work force and help some industries facing cash flow problems to hire people with the aid of federal programs such as the employment tax credit program. To enable employers to hire new people who, we must admit, Mr. Speaker, are not always experienced, require considerable investment. This employment tax credit is indeed an excellent program for many Canadians and, obviously, also for my riding.
There will be a concentration of furniture and textile plants in the riding. Those have sometimes been said to be soft industrial sectors. Considering what exists in Lotbiniere and the programs of the Canadian government, it can be said the Trudeau government through those various programs has reached a happy medium in those industries and allowed a good many Canadians to have decent work and earn a living for their families.
3016

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Dubois
When one considers the programs that apply in Lotbiniere and naturally to all Canadians, one can see, as it is said on page 5, that the government is very concerned about the employment situation in Canada. It is hoped that later on the municipalities, with the consent of the provinces if necessary, will be able to introduce programs such as Canada Works. 1 know that recently municipalities including Lotbiniere were unfortunately prevented from introducing Young Canada Works projects by our provincial government which thus caused the rejection of many projects and a lot of trouble to some people. The forthcoming programs that have already been adopted following the throne speech allow for optimism about the employment situation in Canada in future years. The Trudeau administration tried to develop that very kind of program which is sought out by the Canadian people, and as I said earlier, it started on June 2. 1 refer to Mr. Axworthy's program.
While we can talk about those programs, I think what we should do in fact is publicize them. That being said, I also invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to publicize the various employment programs of the Government of Canada. We should tell the Canadian people what are the existing programs. You will see there are a lot of programs, if you read the document issued by the minister on June 2, 1980, which refers to native training programs, to the training of women to occupy non-traditional occupations, to local job-creation assistance. How many Canadians do not know of these programs? How many Canadians are not aware of this situation? Of course, there are departmental press releases, but I think that members have an important role to play with respect to these programs, and that is to make their constituents aware of them by telling them how the Canadian government is helping the community through job creation.
We must therefore tackle this problem. I shall return to this matter later on when dealing particularly with the question of Canadian unity and the situation in Quebec between April 15 and May 20, the referendum period. Therefore, we must make those facts known to the Canadian people, and I think one of the duties of a member of Parliament is to tell his constituents and Canadians in general: "Listen, the Canadian government has implemented various job-creating programs. You must take advantage of them and provide opportunities for the unemployed to benefit from government aid. Thus, the wheel is set in motion, because workers pay taxes and therefore get the economy going. This very urgent publicity problem must be tackled, because in the province of Quebec particularly, where the riding of Lotbiniere is located, we are deluged with publicity to the effect that it is the provincial government which is doing such and such a thing. How many social programs are there in the field of job creation, aid to municipalities whose costs are shared between the Canadian and the provincial governments? How many citizens do not know this?
Mr. Speaker, many citizens do not know the extent of the federal participation. We must therefore tackle this problem and inform the Canadian people that the federal government is everyone's government and that it can help them in the field of employment just as I have said.
Of course, I could not make my speech without talking about farming and, there again, at page 5 of the Speech from the Throne, reference is made to agriculture. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious we had to discuss certain problems in the House, and the budget of the Department of Agriculture and the agricultural policies enabled Canadian and Quebec producers to maintain their position. In the past, it is true we had problems in agriculture. We even saw farmers come here on Parliament Hill to demonstrate. But that situation went back to normal, and I think our Canadian and Quebec producers are very happy. So we have to continue in the same vein.
In my riding, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to point out to the House that even that farming business is important. Many breeders are renowned and even go to major exhibitions like the Toronto exhibition and won prizes there. I am speaking of breeders like Messrs. Pepin and Tourigny who were master breeders in Canada as farm producers of the Holstein breed.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we can only be happy about the situation of farmers who are having problems today like any other class in society but, nevertheless, I think we can say that farm producers have their place in the sun in Canada. The policies implemented by the government of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the policies that have been implemented in the past 12 years, since 1968, have enabled Quebec farmers to hold an enviable place in our Canadian society and earn revenues comparable to those of people in other classes of society.
I admit farmers will say they have to make huge investments and spend a lot of money to start their businesses. It is obvious that agriculture today is no longer a small undertaking, it is a business in which a good many Canadians succeed through hard work like in any other area. Mr. Speaker, I can only be happy with that situation given the Speech from the Throne which applies perfectly in the riding of Lotbiniere.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, when reading the Speech from the Throne, I can only rejoice that the criminal law situation is mentioned. As I have a law practice in the Victoriaville area of the Lotbiniere constituency, I am more than happy to see the following reference on page 5:
The serious problem of violence against women will also be addressed along with other amendments to the Criminal Code, and efforts will be made in concert with the provincial and territorial governments to improve health and social services for women who are victims of violence.
It is time, too, to move cannabis offences to the Food and Drugs Act and remove the possibility of imprisonment for simple possession.
Mr. Speaker, after eight years as a trial lawyer, I know that many Canadians wonder about the situation relating to the
July 17, 1980

Food and Drugs Act and the cannabis offences. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) made some statements that made the headlines about this situation, many people were concerned that the government wanted to legalize cannabis and therefore wanted Canadians to use this drug. I believe it is important for me to state clearly to this House, to the constituents of Lotbiniere and to the Canadian people as a whole that the government of Canada has no such intention. Rather, the government wants to restrict the penalties provided under the law, especially with regard to simple possession of this drug. It is often said that we profit by our mistakes. If a youth makes a mistake in this area, and if he is given, as an example of drug traffic, only a few ounces or a gram of this drug, he can be imprisoned for a minimum of seven years. Should a 20-year old Canadian who has had an unfortunate experience in this area automatically be imprisoned for seven years?
It is mostly this situation that the Minister of Justice dealt with when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and many people, perhaps mostly police officers, have been saying: "This problem is serious and the government wants to legalize it." This is not true, Mr. Speaker, because as I said earlier, the government only wants to simplify the situation and lighten the sentences for simple possession of this drug. I feel this is quite important. Many jurists and lawyers have stated before the courts that the law should be changed, and I believe it is because the government of Canada has listened to them that it wants to bring amendments before this House. Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne also mentions Canadian unity. When the Speech from the Throne was read by His Excellency the Governor General, Mr. Schreyer, on April 14, the next day, as everyone will recall, Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec launched its referendum campaign.
In the Speech from the Throne, on April 14, we were told:
That is why my government hopes that the referendum, to be held in Quebec sometime during the coming weeks, will be a time when Quebeckers affirm their will and their right to be fully Canadian, a time when all Canadians will reaffirm their desire to live together in the country to which we all belong, and which belongs to all of us.
Because my government wants to strengthen the spirit of Canadian unity and nurture the seeds of renewal, it promises to interpret a vote of No to sovereignty-association as a vote for the rebuilding of the Canadian federation. My government also promises to give effect to a No vote by mobilizing all the forces at its command in order to ensure the renewal of the federation in a spirit of respect and justice for all.
Mr. Speaker, today, everybody knows, of course, that on May 20, 1980, Quebeckers said no to sovereignty-association and yes to Canada. They said yes to Canada because they believed that they would find security in Canada and something basic. The empty words of Quebec politicians who supported sovereignty told us that we had nothing to lose, that we are going to negotiate. They did not say exactly what was implied in sovereignty-association. Quebeckers made their choice. They said no to that insecurity and uncertainty. So, they said yes to Canada and to a renewed Canadian federa-
The Address-Mr. Dubois
tion. In that regard, in terms of renewing our Canadian federation, considerable progress has already been made. Just after the referendum, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) invited provincial premiers here in Ottawa, and on June 9, a meeting was held at which a few statements of principle were issued, some points raised for future discussion; more recently, the minister in charge of federal-provincial relations, the Minister of Justice and Minister of State in charge of Social Development (Mr. Chretien) met his counterparts in Montreal. This week he is in Toronto; next week he will be in Vancouver.
Quebeckers were right, then, in saying Yes to a renewed federation, because that renewal was launched immediately in an effort to show Quebeckers that their vote in support of federalism was not just wishful thinking, and that the Quebec MPs, the 74 and even the 75 who said no to that travel into the unknown bid by the PQ government, wanted quick action. And I submit rapid progress has been made to date. Even in today's newspapers, as in days past, we see discussions are going on between provincial ministers in charge of federal-provincial relations and the federal minister, Mr. Chretien. A consensus is sought on many points and already some aspects have been referred to a committee of officials, such as family law, communications, fisheries, and a statement of principles. So, in a very short time, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government, the Liberal administration, here in Ottawa has proved to Quebeckers and Canadians that they want to renew the confederation and want to keep the promise they made, the one hon. members from Quebec made, to work diligently to that end.
Of course, in respect of this whole issue, I referred briefly to it when speaking on federal programs. I think members of this House must, even now, draw the attention of Quebeckers and Canadians to existing programs at the federal level and show what the implications are of the federal government as far as provinces are concerned. How many Quebeckers, how many Canadians have hon. members met who were surprised to hear about the federal government's participation or to learn that such and such a Canadian program existed!
Mr. Speaker, I think that it was a good way to show the Canadian people that the Government of Canada is not only concerned with external affairs, armament or disarmament matters, but is also anxious to make sure that all Canadians, whether in Quebec, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, the Northwest Territoires, or any other province, really feel like Canadians, are really involved with their government and aware, either in Saskatchewan or elsewhere, of all the programs it has set up to provide them with jobs or health insurance or what have you.
Quebeckers in particular acknowledged this fact during the referendum campaign; in their case, I suggest that the federal government was right in explaining the situation to them, the

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Mayer
actual facts, the reason why they should remain in Canada with other Canadians to share with them a stronger and more united Canada, in short, to be really first-class Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude with these remarks on Canadian unity. 1 was very proud when 1 first read the Speech from the Throne to realize that this Canadian government is meeting head on the various problems now facing us. 1 have dealt briefly with the various issues, Mr. Speaker, but I am very happy to speak in the House and tell my constituents that thanks to the Speech from the Throne, we will be able to prepare many pieces of legislation-some of which have already been introduced and adopted-to improve the lot of Canadians, Quebeckers and also, 1 hope, the people in my constituency of Lotbiniere. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and give my unqualified support to the government of Canada.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to take part in this debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I will start out, as many others have done, by congratulating Madam Speaker, through you, on her appointment. We have had a chance to see how she conducts the affairs of this House, and we all agree that she is going to be a first-class Speaker.
In addition, 1 would like to thank the constituents of Portage-Marquette for returning me here. I was first elected to the House of Commons in May of last year. I had the opportunity and the privilege to run as a candidate again and 1 was elected once more to represent the constituency of Portage-Marquette.
Portage-Marquette is a large rural riding in central Manitoba. It stretches approximately 15 miles east of Portage la Prairie all the way to the Saskatchewan border. It is over 200 miles in length. As I have said, it is a largely rural riding, Portage la Prairie being the largest city with some 15,000 people. It takes in a good many small towns which are and have been servicing agricultural communities, such as MacGregor, Austin, Carberry, Gladstone, Neepawa and Min-nedosa. The riding stretches to the Saskatchewan border where we find towns such as Shoal Lake and Russell.
My riding is a great productive agricultural one. Not only are vegetables grown in the riding, but they are also processed at Portage la Prairie and Carberry. Many diverse crops are grown. We also find considerable livestock including both cattle and hogs. I thank the people of Portage-Marquette for seeing fit to return me here for a second term in this House of Commons.
Now I would like to talk a little about some of the items mentioned in the throne speech, specifically under the heading "Developing our Economic Potential". In that section there is a reference to agriculture. At this point I will quote from the Speech from the Throne. At page 6 of Hansard for April 14, 1980, the speech reads as follows:
My government regards the production, transportation, handling, and marketing of prairie grain as a national priority. Rail facilities will be upgraded, and port facilities improved.
This was welcome news in the throne speech, but unfortunately since that time a lot of things have happened which have been exactly opposite to maintaining and upgrading rail facilities. In this connection I refer specifically to an article which appeared in The Brandon Sun for Saturday, July 12, 1980. On the front page the article is headed "Reeve blames Liberals for loss of Miniota CP line". The first paragraph reads as follows:
Blanshard Reeve Frank McPhaden blames the re-election of the Liberals and not a last-minute appeal for the loss of the Miniota CP Rail subdivision.
This seems to me to be very strange when one reads the throne speech in which it says that rail facilities are going to be maintained.
Because we have such a large rural riding, grain transportation facilities, and rail facilities in particular, are extremely important to the riding of Portage-Marquette. Yet the reeve in my riding blames the Liberals for the loss of a rail line. That is only one line, namely the Miniota subdivision. It is a line that is in very good shape and it is made up of 85-pound steel. It is in about the same condition as some lines that are being upgraded. It would not entail very much maintenance, if any, to keep that line in operation and the Liberals are being blamed for the loss of the line.
In addition to that, there are several other branch lines in western Canada about which concern is being expressed for their survival because of statements which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has made. A month ago at a committee meeting on June 5, the Minister of Transport called into question the maintenance of some 30 branch lines which had been put into the permanent network by the previous minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski). Approximately 1,000 miles of these lines were put into the permanent network as a result of a study by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). This study was conducted during last summer and it resulted in the report which has come to be known as the Neil report. The then minister of transport acted upon that report and as a result, and through orders in council during the first week of January, approximately 60 per cent of the line at which the hon. member for Moose Jaw looked was put into the permanent network.
Since then, the future of these lines has been called into question. It is causing much concern to the producers in western Canada who, as a result of the orders in council, thought that this branch line issue had been settled. The Minister of Transport said at the committee meeting that he was not willing to accept the criteria on which the decision was made by the hon. member for Vegreville to put those lines into the permanent network. This to me is a very unfortunate situation because what we have now is a case where the grain companies and the two railway companies involved, the CNR and the CPR, are now uncertain about the future of these lines.
July 17, 1980

My concern is that if all these lines are not kept in the permanent network, they will probably be referred to the Canadian Transport Commission. This means that they will have to go through the regular process of holding hearings before a decision can be made on what should happen to them. This could take three years, four years or perhaps as much as five years. During that period of time the rail companies will not know whether they should spend any money on these lines and, in all probability, they will not spend any money because of the uncertainty that if they do spend money and the line is abandoned, it will be money which was not spent wisely.
In addition, the grain companies will not be in a position of certainty to know whether or not they should maintain their facilities. What we will have is a situation, if it is allowed to drag on, where these branch lines will be abandoned simply because of the indecision of this government. This is strange to me considering that the government said in the throne speech that "rail facilities will be upgraded and port facilities improved".
It seems to me that what has happened in the three months since the throne speech has been exactly the opposite in terms of rail facilities. I find that very unfortunate, and 1 urge the Minister of Transport to clear up this matter and indicate that he is willing to see the lines which were put into the permanent network by order in council remain with service guaranteed to the year 2000. 1 urge the minister to see that those lines remain. The sooner he makes a statement to that effect the sooner he will get rid of the uncertainty which clouds these lines in western Canada. It is affecting something like 7,000 or 8,000 producers in the three prairie provinces, and the sooner that decision is firmly made, the better it will be for everybody in terms of knowing where they are going with regard to rail transportation.
The next thing which was talked about in the throne speech after rail facilities was that port facilities would be improved and upgraded. I would like to make reference to two ports, the Prince Rupert project and what is going on in the port of Churchill.
Churchill has exported not a lot but a significant amount of grain. This is very important to the people in that town who depend on grain for jobs during the summer. It is basically the only employment available to the port of Churchill over the summer. I had the privilege of travelling to Churchill with the former minister of transport last November 21 when the MV Arctic came in with the icebreaker Pierre Radisson. In using the icebreakers, the season was extended by approximately three weeks. This was a boost for the port of Churchill and it signalled to that port that the previous government was serious about trying to make as good use of that facility as it possibly could.
As I found out during my trip to Churchill, Canada has one of the best icebreaking technologies in the world. It was a very good idea to make use of that ice-breaking technology in terms of extending the shipping season at Churchill. Our record as a government in terms of making use of the port of Churchill is excellent. As I said, we extended the shipping by making use
The Address-Mr. Mayer
of ice-breaking technology by some three weeks, which had never been done before.
It was also the intention at that time to bring in an icebreaker to open the port earlier than usual. If the government had followed that plan, the port of Churchill would have opened earlier than normal. Unfortunately, what it looks like for this year is that the port of Churchill may not be in a position to ship very much, if any, grain at all. I have a telex dated July 4 which says:
Canadian Wheat Board announced on July 4 that no grain would move through Churchill this season unless farm deliveries increased.
They are blaming the fact that farm deliveries are down for not having enough grain to get to the port of Churchill. That is a rather flimsy excuse. If the government were really serious about making use of the port of Churchill, there were three or four months prior to July 4 during which farmers were delivering grain and the CN was hauling grain to Churchill. If the government had been serious about making use of the port of Churchill to the extent which it can be used, it would have had grain shipped to that port ready for export. I find it unfortunate that we will not be able to make use of the port of Churchill this year to the extent it should be used.
1 would like to refer briefly to the port of Prince Rupert, which has long been known as a good port. The facilities there for handling grain are not necessarily what they should be in terms of meeting Canada's exports in the future. The goal of all parties, 1 think, is to increase our exports by 50 per cent, or to attempt to get to a point where we can export 30 million tons of grain out of Canada by 1985. To do that, we must make better use of the port of Prince Rupert.
Within two months of the previous minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, assuming office he had a memorandum of understanding on the construction of the new facility at Prince Rupert. This required a considerable amount of negotiation, I am told. There was a considerable amount of good will on both sides in order that this agreement of understanding could be signed in such a short time. Within less than two months of the now Minister of Transport assuming office, he called into question the whole construction timetable in so far as the port of Prince Rupert was concerned. The Minister of Transport did this by questioning the amount of money which the federal government would be willing to put into the port to handle the cost of some of the infrastructure. In addition, upon assuming office the previous minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, also approved the site at Ridley Island and reached an agreement with the consortium, based on some $40 million of federal government money being available to handle the cost of some of the infrastructure. Unfortunately that has been delayed. The deadline for signing the agreement, I understand, has been postponed three times from the original date of March 30, 1980. The final date for signing, as I understand it, has not yet been set.
What we have seen in the period of time that this government assumed office is that the port of Churchill will not be used to the extent that it should be and that the timetable for

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Mayer
the construction of facilities at Ridley Island in the port of Prince Rupert has been delayed.
I find the concern of the government over spending money to see that western Canada is in a position to export some of its products, which would contribute to the benefit of the whole country, inconsistent with the statement in the throne speech that rail facilities will be upgraded and port facilities improved. It seems to me that what has happened during the three months since the throne speech is the exact opposite to what was referred to in the throne speech.
Another area of transport to which I would like to refer concerns air service to the city of Brandon. My constituency runs very close to the city of Brandon. In fact, the Brandon airport is in the constituency of Portage-Marquette, so this matter if of very great concern to me as well as the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and other hon. members from western Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan. Last November the then minister of transport changed the air transport policy to allow a regional air carrier to apply for a route between Calgary, Brandon and Toronto, but nothing has happened since then. PWA applied for that route but no hearings have been scheduled, although I am told they are supposed to be held in the fall.
Almost a year after the policy was changed by the previous minister in order to allow an adequate service between Brandon and points east and west, nothing has happened. Brandon is a productive and aggressive community of some 40,000 people and services an area of some 140,000 people in southwestern Manitoba, so it needs and deserves a jet air service. The government has done nothing to see that the service is made available, however. I find this rather unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
Just this week I was somewhat infuriated when a press release came to my attention stating that Frontier Air Lines had been granted a licence to serve Saskatchewan cities. This is an American airline based in Nevada, yet it was granted a licence to fly between Saskatoon, Regina and Minot, North Dakota, and on to Denver without a hearing being held. This foreign carrier applied for and was awarded a route without a hearing, yet a Canadian carrier willing to provide a needed service that would be well supported, and without subsidy, was told that a hearing was necessary. PWA was the only applicant for the route to service Brandon. The government does not seem to have the courage to instruct the CTC to set a date for that hearing. This is a rather shocking way to deal with constituents, Mr. Speaker.
In his remarks the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) said that he was interested in a fair deal for all constituents in Canada I take him at his word and hope he will prevail upon the Minister of Transport to set a date for a hearing so that we can supply a first-class air service to an area of the country that so badly needs it. This is particularly important in view of the fact that
a licence was granted without a hearing to an American airline to serve an area of western Canada.
In the throne speech the government said that a meat import act would be introduced in order to protect consumers and producers. The drought in western Canada is serious and will cause problems for the rest of this year and next year as well. That is assuming that we have normal rainfall and a normal growing season for 1980-81. Cattle and grain produced now will not necessarily be sold for another year. The lack of moisture over the last six months has already had its effect on what will be offered for sale in 1980-81.
The cattle industry has been calling for a beef import law for a long time. It was sorely needed in 1976 when Canada was the only major importing country with open borders for beef. In that year both Australia and New Zealand sold very large quantities of beef in this country at prices lower than those in the United States. At that time the United States had a beef import law which protected cattlemen and precluded excessive imports from offshore.
When the Conservative government was formed over a year ago, one of its priorities was a beef import law. I understand that the legislation was ready and would have been introduced in the last week before Christmas. This government, however, has shown no intention of introducing such legislation in this session. This is a very important piece of legislation, as beef producers are now making the decision whether to increase or decrease the size of their herds. The lack of rainfall and the resultant lack of feed has led to the present critical conditions. If producers knew that the government cared enough to protect them from excessive imports such as was the situation in 1975-76, they would be encouraged to breed more animals and thus make more beef available.
Unfortunately the government has not seen fit to give this legislation any priority. I would argue very strongly that it should be brought forward and dealt with as quickly as possible.
Last year, with some other members from this side of the House, I had the opportunity to sit on a beef import consultative committee which made recommendations on what the beef import legislation should contain. The guaranteed minimum access levels that Canada is committed to under the GATT negotiations imposes certain limitations on the legislation but if the legislation the government proposes is anything like the legislation the previous government intended to introduce, I am sure it would receive support on all sides of the House and could be dealt with very quickly. It is unfortunate it was not brought forward in this session. It should have been the law of the land by now and would certainly have been of use to beef producers when planning their future beef herds.
Another area of concern is the Two-Price Wheat Act. The government has not seen fit to introduce a bill on this subject but instead a Senate bill to amend the act is before the House for consideration. This is an urgent problem. As a poor crop is expected in western Canada, this bill would be welcomed by producers who will have less for sale this year than in previous years. If the government were serious in its attempts to have
July 17, 1980

this bill passed, I am sure it would receive the support of this side of the House. Unfortunately, however, it has been dealt with as "filler" legislation brought in on three or four successive Friday afternoons in order to round out a week's activity. It deserves better, Mr. Speaker.
I have one more comment to make before I close, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the government has not set the initial price of wheat higher than the present level. The initial price for the next crop year is 25 cents per bushel less than the initial price producers are presently receiving. I find this rather shocking in view of the fact that grain prices have increased. There is really no reason why initial grain prices could not be increased substantially.
I should now like to refer to some comments made to me in the House on May 16 by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), as reported at page 1176 of Hansard. At that time the Farm Improvement Loans Act was under debate. I was making the point that producers would be interested in receiving more for their products so that they would not have to borrow money. When you borrow money you have to pay it back. I urged the minister seriously to consider increasing the initial price of grain. I had been referring to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board who sits in the other place when the Minister of Agriculture replied as follows:
He is, and he is very much aware of it.
I replied that I heard the Minister of Agriculture talking about increasing the initial price and he replied, "It will be done."
That was May 16, Mr. Speaker, but so far we have not seen any action. I would encourage both the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board to increase the initial price of wheat. This is something that could be done very easily, would be well received and is long overdue for western grain producers.
In closing, in the three months since the throne speech was delivered on April 14, we have seen some great inconsistencies in what is contained in the throne speech with regard to agriculture. If the government is serious about keeping some of the commitments it made in the throne speech, I urge that it look very seriously at addressing some of the problems I have tried to point out here this afternoon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging to see a western member occupying the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: At the conclusion of his remarkable speech when he was urging the building of a Canadian transcontinental railway, Sir John A. Macdonald, then prime minister of Canada, had this to say as reported at page 494 of volume one of the Hansard debates of 1880-81:
The Address-Mr. Waddell
I can trust to the intelligence of this House, and the patriotism of this country, I can trust not only to the patriotism but to the common sense of this country to carry out an arrangement which will give us all we want, which will satisfy all the loyal legitimate aspirations which will give us a great, an united, a rich, an improving, a developing Canada, instead of making us tributary to American laws, to American-
-gas companies-
-to American bondage, to American tolls, to American freights, to all the little tricks and big tricks that American-
-gas companies-
-are addicted to-
I have made a change in two places in that speech by Sir John. In two places I changed the word "railways" to "gas companies". Otherwise that is the verbatim statement of Sir John A. Macdonald in this very House in discussing the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. Kempling:: How can you change words and say it is a verbatim statement?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I want to use those remarks and refer to a decision that is being made this very afternoon by cabinet somewhere in this building, or on the Hill, probably one of the most important decisions for Canada. In the Speech from the Throne, the government in its own words says that pipelines are really like railways; that what railways were in the nineteenth century, pipelines are in the twentieth century. Today the cabinet of Canada must decide what they are going to do about authorizing the pre-build of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline.
The minister of trade was here a minute ago. I thought he might be interested in this. The economic development agency in the United States, in a pre-hearing procedure this week, suggested that it might have the United States back out of Canadian gas imports, back out of the sales. I suspect that cabinet this afternoon must be asking itself why we are sticking our neck out in approving this pre-build if the Americans are going to act that way. I suspect that is one of the elements in the delay today, yesterday and before that.
I like to think that myself and my party had something to do with the delay in pressing for rejection of this crazy scheme, but I think I am honest and probably realistic enough to know that the delay was probably a deliberate action by cabinet, that they were about to make a very big mistake and the Americans do not deserve to get this handed to them on a platter.
I equated pipelines with railways and 1 quoted Sir John because the pipeline issue today involves some of the issues that involved railways in the past, including the whole issue of Canadian independence. The whole issue of Canadian energy security is the reason for some of the questions I put in the past week and a half to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). It also raises the whole issue of the role of Parliament.
In addition to the members and the press, I notice there are full galleries in the House today with many Canadians visiting here. I would like to try and simplify what is involved in this

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Waddell
so-called pre-build. 1 suspect that most Canadians do not understand it, or better still are just coming to an understanding of what the whole issue is about before it gets railroaded past the House of Commons and through cabinet by the gas and oil companies.
This goes back to 1968. In the late sixties oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay, on the north coast of Alaska. 1 have been there; it is a very desolate place. In winter the temperature goes down to about 78 below.


Erik Nielsen: That's warm!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) says that is warm. I say it is a cold, desolate place. To use the words of an engineer who, in his Louisiana accent, said, "We have a real elephant here." they do. They found oil there in the late sixties. Of course, the large multinational companies cornered the oil fields and the market. Coming from Alberta, Mr. Speaker, you know that when they pump for oil, there is gas as well. Sometimes the gas is injected back into the well to keep up the pressure. That is what is happening in those great fields in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, at this moment.
A pipeline was built to take Alaskan oil to the lower 48 states. Unfortunately-and 1 say that because it was probably the wrong direction-this pipeline, which ended up costing $8 billion and was supposed to cost $700 million, went from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. I have been the entire route of the pipeline. Let me tell hon. members that it is an engineering marvel across Alaska. The problem is it drops the oil in Valdez, on the southern coast of Alaska, and the oil has to go by tanker past the magnificent beaches of British Columbia, near my colleague's riding and my own on the west coast of B.C. These beaches are in danger of a big oil spill. However, that is another matter. The pipeline should have been built down the route of the Alaska highway. It would have made more sense. However, the government of the day did not have its act together-and we have the same problem now-and could not get the approval in place for the overland pipeline, so that is the way it was build.
So much for all that oil. It is going now. What about the gas? They need the gas. I am told by an expert in Canadian gas that the gas is worth between $100 billion and $125 billion, a lot of money. It is just sitting there. It will have to be brought out as it is needed in the United States. There was a proposal that Canada help the Americans. Why not? We will help them out if we can.
The notion was that they build a pipeline. They were going to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay through the Mackenzie delta to pick up Canadian gas, bring it down through the Mackenzie valley and take it down to points in the lower 48 states and in part to eastern Canada. There were disputes and hearings about it. That is what the Berger commission inquiry into the Mackenzie valley pipeline proposal was all about- something I spent three years of my life working on. There were magnificent hearings and there was magnificent public participation in that inquiry. It was pretty obvious that we were not ready to bring our gas down, first of all because we
really did not have it on stream in the Mackenzie valley and, second, because we were not ready in terms of the social impact on the native people and other people in the Mackenzie valley to have the pipeline constructed.
It was therefore suggested by Bob Blair of Calgary that another pipeline be built to follow the route of the Alaska Highway and that it bring American gas to American markets. That made sense. We were giving it access across our country, but Canada would benefit because we could hook up to our reserves in what we call the Dempster lateral from Whitehorse up to the Beaufort Sea.


Erik Nielsen: Dawson.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Dawson, to be precise, a little north of Whitehorse.


Erik Nielsen: A little over 350 miles away.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We were going to hook that up, plus we were going to provide some jobs, get some construction contracts.
What was the position of our party in the House of Commons? Let me make the position of our party very clear on that issue. Our party is a democratic party so we are bound by our convention resolutions. Our convention in 1977 passed a motion to the effect that we were agreeable to that pipeline provided there were proper environmental safeguards in place and provided that there were sufficient jobs for Canadians. The Canadian government, as in the case of many other things, made a hash of the negotiations with the Americans and did not get a really good deal for Canada. We approved the pipeline in principle but we voted against the specific bill because it did not give those particular job guarantees and so on. That was our position. We are not against the notion of the pipeline.
That is what happened and Parliament passed the northern Pipeline Act in 1978 for a gas pipeline to transport American gas through Canada to the lower 48 states. That line was set out, and it is interesting to read the speeches of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and other people who took part in that debate. If you read those speeches it becomes quite clear that Parliament was to be consulted. The Minister of Finance said that in his speech, as reported at page 4120 of Hansard of April 4, 1978.
The President of the Privy Council told us not to worry, as reported at page 2894 of Hansard of February 15, 1978, He said the whole pipeline would be built, that there would have to be financing for the whole pipeline, that we would be protected against non-completion; and in all the committee hearings there was statement after statement by one government member after another that legislation would ensure that there was financing for the whole pipeline and that there were commitments that the whole thing would go. The Americans, they said, wanted the pipeline and they should finance it. Well, that made sense.
July 17, 1980

Problems erupted. The Americans, for whatever reason- and I will suggest a reason in a moment-could not raise the money to finance the pipeline. Exxon, to be specific, was giving the pipeline agency difficulties in putting in a financial guarantee for the building of the pipeline in Alaska. I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. That gas up there is worth $100 billion to $125 billion. The oil company is in no hurry to get it out. Leave it in there for a few years, until the 1990s then bring it out. It will be worth four, five, ten, 20 times that amount- some $500 billion. They are banking it up there, that is what is happening. Where can they get gas in the meantime? "Let us call on our good friends in Canada." So they approached Mr. Blair.
Let me go back for a minute and remind the House that Canadian arctic gas executives from Toronto once said-and I was there at the time-"This guy Blair will never be able to get the financing for this line." So he said: "Sure I can get the financing for the line", and he was made businessman of the year. He was a wonderful man; he said he could get the financing. But the others were right, Blair could not get the financing, so he came back and proposed to the Canadian government: "Well, let's just amend the act; let's make a pre-build of the pipeline. Let us take Canadian gas and pay for the whole pipeline by shipping out Canadian gas."
Today the Government of Canada-and I cannot believe the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) can sleep at night after making this decision-is prepared to okay an export pipeline to take away Canadian gas, to suck out Canadian gas and to send it to the United States, two trillion cubic feet of it.
I raised in the House, to the yawns of the ministry, another agreement. It was called a backstop agreement. In that backstop agreement TransCanada Pipelines, a Canadian company, said they would guarantee that gas would go through there. So we saw the ludicrous situation that if the whole line is never built and it never takes Alaska gas, not only will we first of all sell our Canadian gas at cheap prices, but we will even guarantee that gas will go through there. This means that TransCanada will have to send Ontario gas down from Ontario, through the pipeline, and back into Ontario.
I called it bizarre in the House of Commons. We had a great pipeline debate about keeping the pipeline in Canada and about shipping Canadian gas through Canadian pipelines. I find it strange. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you may say: "Well, Canadians are not stupid; obviously, if they are going to send this gas out, if they are going to send out all this Canadian gas, now up to four trillion cubic feet, from Alberta, here is what they will do. They will get an agreement from the Americans; we will swap; we will give them that gas now and then, when they build the whole pipeline up to Alaska, we will get Alaskan gas."
I asked the minister about this and I discovered there are no swap agreements in the scheme. So what do we do? We sell out all the cheap Canadian gas and then later on we will have to pay a lot of money, two, three, four times as much. Canadian consumers, out of their pockets, will have to pay
The Address-Mr. Waddell
that because we sold all their gas off at a cheap rate to the Americans with no swap provisions. I asked the minister about this in the House. Do you know what his reply was, Mr. Speaker? He said, "Well, when 1 was at Venice last week I had some discussions with the American secretary of the interior and we tried but we didn't really get anywhere."
1 asked him about guarantees. I said that if you are going to pre-build this part in the south, how about a guarantee that the whole thing will be built? After all, this is a $600 million project. That whole project will cost $22 billion, $8 million of which is incurred in Canada. Wouldn't that make sense? The minister of industry must be concerned about jobs, of course he is. But what is the point of providing one-tenth of the jobs if, when you hold out and are tough and you put this thing over for a year, you postpone it for a year, you could go back and really get American guarantees? I tell the minister we could get the whole loaf, not just one-tenth.
Senator Olson sends telegrams. I have seen his telegrams. Senator Olson, the lobbyist for the oil and gas companies, goes out and gets these telegrams. They are from gas companies and from some trade unions-


Mr. Gray:: A lot.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, from some, not all of them; from some trade unions who are worried about immediate jobs, as well they should be. But other trade unionists realize that in the long term there are ten times more jobs there, and in the long term there will be jobs in terms of constructing a pipeline to the maritimes. But it has stopped at Quebec; they wouldn't make a pipeline to the maritimes. There would be jobs in terms of making a pipeline to Vancouver Island. We have had no commitment on that.
Now, I ask this question, Mr. Speaker. As the cabinet makes its decision today, where does the minister of energy stand? I have a great deal of sympathy for him because I think that one part of his energy policy-to move Canadians off expensive imported oil to cheaper Canadian gas-makes a lot of sense. I think that makes sense, and I think it makes sense to Canadians. But it surely does not make sense to Canadians if they are told that and then told that we sold all their cheap gas five years ago.
I cannot see how the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources can live with that. When he was in opposition he said he would agree with the pre-build if we got some gas swaps and some ironclad guarantees that the whole line will be built. I asked him in the House, "Can you stand up with a straight face and tell me that those are ironclad guarantees?" I was referring to a resolution of Congress which does not bind the future Congress and which does not spend one bit of money. There was a commitment by private companies to do studies. There was reference to 2 per cent of the project. I know the government has a letter in its back pocket from President Carter which says he is in favour of it too; but he is not prepared to commit money, and we do not know how long

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Waddell
he is going to be around. However, it is no commitment at all, and I do not say that in a partisan way. I say wait, we can get a better commitment.
I hear some Liberal backbenchers putting in their two cents' worth. Let me address some remarks to them. One of the big issues in this particular matter is the role of Parliament. There was a Northern Pipeline Act passed. That was what Parliament wanted, and hon. members opposite said that there have to be guarantees. The Prime Minister says he is going to get around parliament; he is not going to come back and he is not going to have a debate. He will not have a debate in Parliament. He will not bring in a change in the act. He says it is like the St. Lawrence Seaway and that this is only building one little part. You build one lock and then another lock. Does that make sense? It is like approving the St. Lawrence Seaway and building the Erie Canal. It is approving a transport pipeline from Alaska and building an export pipeline from Alberta, and that is not logical.
The Prime Minister was being a sharp Philadelphia lawyer in deflecting those questions. He knows full well that it does not make any difference, but I think one of the reasons he is afraid to have a debate on this matter is that he would have to have a vote if he brought in legislation, and I suspect and hope there would be some Liberal members from the industrial cities of the east who might oppose such legislation.
What are they going to tell their constituents? Are they going to tell them that it will cost four or five times as much for gas in the future because of this decision? How are they going to explain that? Some of them might vote against it.
I refer hon. members opposite to the Liberal Party of Canada convention program, projet de manifeste or discussion paper at page 50, where it says the following:
The Government of Canada must be in the position to judge the energy security of each region and area of Canada. The operations of the oil and gas industry must be thoroughly understood and the national interest assured.
(a)	As far as is practicable, a distribution network should ensure that all regions of Canada are linked to the provinces rich in energy resources.
Look at what the government is doing. It is taking gas and selling it out to the United States. Hon. members opposite are making a farce of their own energy policy. They are making a farce of their own convention policy. Is that the leadership that this government is giving? I hear about the new Liberals. Where are they?


Mr. Tobin:: Right here.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Are they prepared to stand for this program? Where are the new ideas?
The discussion paper also states, and I quote:
(b)	Exports of energy or energy sources should be very carefully assessed to guarantee Canada's long-term interests.
If the government approves the pre-build, the government will sell out our cheap gas to buy back expensive gas in the future.
I want to conclude by making reference to two things. I want to refer first to the position of my own province of British
Columbia. If British Columbians and the government of British Columbia are worried about a proposed export tax on gas, that is chicken feed compared with what this pre-build is going to do. This pre-build will lock in all the gas in British Columbia and all the gas exports. It will be the end of the present markets for British Columbian gas. I am surprised at my hon. friends to the right, the Conservatives. I am shocked. There are 16 members from British Columbia, and not one of them has put British Columbia's interest ahead. It was the Prime Minister who had to stand up and count noses- "Are you in favour? Are you in favour?"
The other day the Conservatives tried to take cheap political advantage of the Liberals on the issue. They did not set out their own position, and it turns out that they are in favour of the pre-build. As a matter of fact, they approved a lot of gas exports. The 16 Conservative members from British Columbia are selling out British Columbia. I do not think he intended to do so, but in a sense the Prime Minister misled the House this afternoon when he suggested that western Canada was for this pipeline.
I read the telegrams from Premier Lougheed and the gas companies. What about those gas companies? Let us be fair; they are Canadian gas companies. They have a cash flow problem, and they have a surplus of gas. Last week Evelyn Gigantes, the MPP from the Ottawa area and our party's energy critic in the Ontario House, and I proposed that Ontario buy $1 billion worth of gas from those small companies and bank it in the ground in Alberta. We proposed that it not be given away to the Americans but left there for the use of Canadians in a few years. I see an hon. member shaking his head. That proposal sounds sensible to me. It sounds like a sensible idea, and if the hon. member has reasons why it would not work, I wish he would tell me. But it seems to make sense for Ontario, Quebec and other provinces.
Let me conclude finally on this note: We on this side of the House take a position which is quite clear: we are against the pre-build. We think it is a sellout. We think it is different from the act. We think we can get a better deal. We would agree to the pre-build if we could get two things. The first is gas swaps so that we could get gas later on and keep our energy security. The second is that we get guarantees that the whole line will be build.
I am not known for being non-partisan, but I am trying to say this in a non-partisan way because I know the cabinet is meeting. The Prime Minister asked for representations, and I am giving him my representations in the best way I know. It seems to me that the policy put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he was opposition energy critic was a sensible policy. He was right, and now hon. members opposite are going to turn around and destroy their whole energy policy.
In any case, I want to finish by saying that we on this side of the House have said that there is another issue. Oh, it is perhaps not as well known or as big, but it is just as important. That issue is the rights of Parliament. That is why we are digging. We are digging in because Parliament really is

July 17, 1980

becoming obsolete. The power has been centralized in the cabinet. We really have a dictatorship between elections.
Do hon. members opposite want to take away the whole intent of the law of Parliament without coming back to Parliament? They have the votes. Let them come back to Parliament and pass an amending act. We will wait here. We get paid to come here, not to go home and take three months' holidays. We will wait, listen to the debate and vote. Let us get the guarantees and the issues out so that the Canadian people will understand. That is what Parliament is all about. That is what Sir John A. Macdonald was talking about when he spoke in Parliament.
The Prime Minister asked for representations today, and on behalf of the New Democratic Party I have tried to give those representations.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will start out by saying that the best proof that democracy is alive and well in Canada and that we have not in fact been reduced to dictatorship is the fact that the kind of rhetoric we have just heard is listened to-although perhaps not always quietly-and put up with in this most distinguished chamber. I want to tell the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) that I was impressed by his arguments, by his style and by his ability to communicate his thoughts. He almost had me going for a while. If only the hon. member and his party were consistent, 1 think he would have had me going, perhaps trotting across the floor or something or other.
If the hon. member and his party showed the same kind of concern, the same kind of conviction in Canada during April and May when the referendum was on, that he showed in the House today, I may have taken him seriously, Mr. Speaker. At a time when most of us in this House-and I give the Conservatives and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) credit-were concerned about the future of this country, at a time when most of us in this House miss no opportunity to stand up and be counted for Canada publicly-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -at a time when we did that, where were the NDP? Silent. Let me tell you why, Mr. Speaker. We have opposite a party of media junkies. They must have their daily or weekly fix.


Some hon. Members:: Ha, ha!


Brian Vincent Tobin: We all know that for some time we have been .talking about adjourning this session.


An hon. Member:: Who is taking a fix now?


Brian Vincent Tobin: We have been talking about adjourning the House tomorrow, and all of a sudden we have developed in the benches opposite a matter of great national concern. On Friday hon. members are going to represent the Canadian people perhaps until three o'clock or four o'clock Saturday
The Address-Mr. Tobin
morning, because I will be here. They are going to put on a little display, another fix. You can see them jittering in their boots. Anyway, they have had their fix; now just sit quietly and 1 will tell them what the government has done since we brought in the throne speech three months ago.


An hon. Member:: Yes, fill us in.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to examine some of our policies and enlighten them on the good things we are doing.
I would like to express a number of concerns, Mr. Speaker. We spoke about the importance of responding to individual needs-nothing that hon. members opposite know anything about; they have a cloning process over there. We wanted to bring some assistance to those who need help most in Canada, in particular senior citizens. We have done that. We brought in legislation which will mean a $35 increase, as we promised those receiving the guaranteed income supplement in Canada. My only concern about that is that some of the provinces in Canada-I can single out my own, Newfoundland-are not passing on that $35 to senior citizens; they are pocketing most of it and putting it into general revenue.
The hon. member opposite was talking about energy. That is one of the issues mentioned in the throne speech. This is the party which in the last federal election published a paper called "An NDP Made-in-Canada Energy Policy". It was 26 or 27 pages long. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no reference to that great energy potential in Canada today, Newfoundland's Hibernia, and Ben Nevis in Nova Scotia. I think it was 42 pages long. I think they had the idea that probably Canada stopped at Toronto. As a matter of fact, the election results would indicate that, so far as the NDP is concerned, Canada does not go any further east than Montreal because they have been wiped off the electoral map in Atlantic Canada. And is it any wonder?


Stanley Howard Knowles: How far west do you go?


Brian Vincent Tobin: We go right across the country.


An hon. Member:: This sounds like Newfie blarney.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Listen here, m'son, I may twin with you!


Some hon. Members:: Ha, ha!


Stanley Howard Knowles: You stopped at Waverley Street in Winnipeg.


Brian Vincent Tobin: First, let me speak for a moment about the Canadian energy policy in Newfoundland. In my province we have on our doorstep today, as we are told every day the estimates are higher, massive potential for development which is becoming more certain every day. We believe in our province and we look upon this potential development as an opportunity to strengthen our social and economic fabric. But despite what some provincial politicians are suggesting, we also look upon this potential bonanza as an opportunity for a province which for 31 years has been sharing in the wealth of this country, the tax dollars of this country, to contribute to the well-being of all Canadians.

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Tobin


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I become a little upset with the opportunistic type of comments and with the politicians in this chamber who want to raise falsely the expectations of Canadians and who carry the proverbial stick with the perpetual carrot dangling from the end of it. The Quebec referendum is the best example. I do not know how you can live with yourselves.


An hon. Member:: It is sad.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It really is sad. We in Newfoundland expect the lion's share of Newfoundland's offshore development, but in terms of strengthening our economy and our social fabric, we also look forward to sharing with the rest of the country.
One of the things about which we are concerned is what we hear more and more every day from the provinces, and this is why the constitution must be repatriated. For example, in my province we hear that only Newfoundlanders will work in Newfoundland, says Brian Peckford; and only Nova Scotians will work in Nova Scotia, says John Buchanan. Only Newfoundlanders will catch fish in Newfoundland waters, says Brian Peckford; and only Nova Scotians will catch fish in Nova Scotia waters, says John Buchanan. And Rene says the same about Quebec. All across the country we have premiers who claim to the representing the best interests of their people, who claim to reflect the aspirations and concerns of their people, who, I think, are really divorced from the concerns and aspirations of their people.
We talk now about an oil pricing agreement, and whether or not we will go to world prices, which Alberta would desire. I am sure we are going to reach a reasonable compromise in these oil pricing talks, because I can tell the House now that Newfoundlanders are good Canadians and Newfoundlanders look forward to sharing the potential of our shores with all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: But, as we say at home, what is sauce for the goose had better be sauce for the gander. I would be disheartened and surprised, shocked in fact, if we saw an oil pricing agreement with Alberta that was not in the best interests of all Canadians. Because we are going to go to Newfoundland very soon, all of us, to tell Newfoundlanders: "Let us have a sharing of resources to the benefit of all Canadians". 1 hope we will practice very soon what we shall be preaching in the months and years ahead.
Earlier I mentioned another area on which I am pleased to hear our government is taking action. We have singled it out in the throne speech. It is the question of the free movement of goods and people across borders, an issue about which many of us in Atlantic Canada are concerned. After a few months here I have confidence that this principle is one that this government will do no less than enforce in this country.
With regard to Petro-Canada, I have to get a poke in there. Do hon. members know that Petro-Canada is a 25 per cent owner of the Hibernia oil development off the shores of
Newfoundland? We have heard members opposite talking about the Liberals' lack of concern for Canadians. The same members opposite would like to take credit for Petro-Canada. In the Speech from the Throne we indicated that we would strengthen Petro-Canada. We have done that with $80 million. It is a national oil company whose concern is the Canadian people.
I said that I would be short, but as a rookie member of Parliament I should like to say simply that I have sat in the House and have not said a great deal. I am a cynic by nature, but by sitting on this side of the House I have found men, particularly in cabinet, who are men of principle and integrity. They have lived up to the thrust, ideas and convictions put forward in the throne speech debate. I look forward to a very successful four years, five years, ten years, or 15 years on this side of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not staying very long, are you?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would only say one other thing. Perhaps one could call it naive, but as a rookie politician I was surprised, on matters of national importance and concern regarding the energy pricing agreement and the referendum, at the amount of politics.
Like everyone else, I put the best possible face on the policies of my party; that is fair. But there really comes a time when we must put our partisan considerations aside. I say this is one of those times in Canada. Literally the country is being torn apart at the seams. We fail to realize it is not the people of Canada who participate in that tug-of-war at all. The regional and national politicians, with what could sometimes be called more ego at interest than people, make true or false statements which are self-serving. They present their own cases and enhance their own chances at re-election. If anything, that kind of rhetoric by politicians today, at a crucial time in our history, causes me to wonder about the quality of people who are elected and sit as top dogs in some posts in this country. It causes me to wonder if they have the ability to recognize that this is a time of crisis in Canada.
As a young member of Parliament and one who is perhaps naive, thank God, I should like to leave a short message on behalf of the average Joe who sent me here. 1 address this message without being partisan, not only to my own party but to the other side of the House, particularly the corner of the House. It is time to stop playing games, it really is.
Having said those few words-and I am sure they will mean a lot back home-I take my seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 17, 1980



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate have passed Bill S-7, to provide for the prohibition of certain international air services, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne with some mixed emotions. My emotions are mixed by many things. They are mixed by the fact that this is the third speech I have written because over three months have transpired since the Speech from the Throne was delivered. I sympathize with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette); he had the same difficulty, only he had to do it in three different stages.
Also my emotions are mixed by the government's record since April 14, the heat of July, the imminent return to our constituencies and families and our frustrations at both the lack of action, on the one hand, and the method of action, on the other.
It is my understanding that the Speech from the Throne is designed to outline the government's legislative program and what it will do, its philosophical attitude toward its term of office. Since my remarks provide me with an opportunity to review what the government has done, I should like to review the Speech from the Throne. 1 say to the member who spoke before me that when he commenced to address the Speech from the Throne, he indicated that he would review the great number of things his government had done since April 14. I took pen to paper and thought that I would make sure I did not miss anything. I made note of the $35 GIS increase, the $80 million to Petro-Canada, and then I stopped writing because that is all there was.


An hon. Member:: You missed something.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: If the hon. member sticks around, he will not. In the original Speech from the Throne, His Excellency referred to the opportunity he had to visit the provincial capitals and the Northwest Territories during his first year of office. I make reference to that because of the fact he mentioned he was looking forward to visiting smaller communities across our vast and beautiful land. We in the riding of Simcoe North were pleased in June when he visited us. He has become a man of the people. He moves among the people very readily. He and his wife bring a grace and a presence, a warmth and a
The Address-Mr. Lewis
tradition of that office to the country of Canada. I am pleased to say that he is very, very well received in the country.
The Speech from the Throne referred to serious challenges. Canadians everywhere would agree that we face serious challenges, though we are fortunate enough to have great opportunities. The people of my riding will face those challenges in the 1980s as they have in the past. There is a determined resilience and an energy in my constituency and all of Canada to conquer the challenges of the eighties. The Speech from the Throne called for action. We commend the government's desire for that action.
Reference was made in the Speech from the Throne to the accumulation of essential legislation left from previous Parliaments. We were asked to dispatch that backlog expeditiously. It was suggested that the government is relying on the good will of members and senators of all parties. 1 was a new member during the last Parliament and I watched members opposite to see what good will was all about. I saw them debate the budget of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) of the fall of 1978 for 21 days during the fall of 1979 although it had not been changed. Where was that good will last fall? Where was that good will on the night of April 21 when the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) introduced a ways and means motion which was substantially what he condemned in December? Where was that good will when our party and the New Democratic Party were denied the traditional right to review that legislation? Sure, it was a ways and means motion, but Your Honour and I know it was legislation. Where was that good will?
I understand the Minister of Finance is suffering from a throat infection. It is no wonder, because that throat has had to swallow a lot of pride. If there was any good will left after April 21, it was blasted out of the water on July 11, which was a Friday, late in the week, when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) introduced his infamous tax on Canadian people. I know Mr. Speaker's background is that of a lawyer. There is a saying in the courts, "If you come to court demanding equity and justice, you must come with clean hands". I say to the government, "If you come to us relying on our good will, you must demonstrate good will yourselF'.
Reference has been made today and in the throne speech to the referendum in Quebec. On May 20 the people of Quebec went to the polls. Sixty per cent voted to remain a part of Canada and 40 per cent showed their dissatisfaction. I think 100 per cent deserve a better deal from this government. One hundred per cent of all Canadians deserve a better deal from the federal government.
I wonder where the Liberal party has been for the last 17 years. Why was this dissatisfaction on the part of Quebeckers allowed to reach the point where they challenged the federal government, which is controlled in all its aspects by an overwhelming Quebec Liberal caucus? That feeling of dissatisfaction pervades all provinces. Unrest is evident everywhere because there is a lack of understanding. We do not like the

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Lewis
method of negotiation, we do not like the province-bashing and we do not like the people who were sent to negotiate. Whatever the results of the referendum, we want to solve the problems. The government wants to anticipate them; we want to solve them with understanding. There are no winners and there are no losers when the constitution is debated. Canada and Canadians must be the winners.
It is my specific responsibility as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to monitor, criticize and review the efforts of the minister of housing. In pious tones in the Speech from the Throne-one of the things that was missed in the list-it was stated that we are going to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided. We know of no specific programs. We know of no specific help. And as the government said, the interest rates are coming down because the country faces a recession which this government is leading us into. We know that this government has accepted quit claims just as subway conductors accept transfers, as people abandon their homes leaving CMHC to resell them at prices that are lower than those of their neighbours who stay.
The Speech from the Throne said that we are going to encourage higher standards of home insulation. I commend the minister because that study has been made. I do not want hon. members to think that I am just picking the things that were not done. The study has been made, the study was necessary, and on this side of the House we look forward to receiving the results of that study.
The Speech from the Throne also talked about an improved Canadian home insulation program. Where is it? It is now July. We are coming to the month of August. It is insulation time but there is no program. There are no improvements.
I am pleased to see that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is in the House. In the Speech from the Throne there was reference made to the increased effort to develop critical trade skills. I would implore the minister to concentrate on that. We are faced with a double tragedy in Canada. We have a rapidly aging population of skilled tradesmen and we have young people out of work. We have to take action at all levels to curb this problem.
I know that the role of the federal government does not get into education; that is the responsibility of the provinces. However, there is a part for the federal government to play in co-ordinating the on-the-job training and the tax concessions that can be worked on. In my riding there are some very good people in the minister's department who go out to seek those opportunities. What we have to do is to push that program right across this country. There are link community projects which link the high schools and community colleges. The federal government and manpower department should be pushing that on-the-job training. It is vital to us because of the rapidly advancing average age of our skilled tradesmen.
In the Speech from the Throne it is suggested that the government will enter into a new partnership with voluntary agencies and local organizations in a program of community
service. This suggestion concerns me. People might ask why. In my opinion, the LIP grant mentality of the Liberal government over the past decade has eaten away at the morale of the volunteer segment of society.
Once upon a time Canadians performed a service to the community because they were concerned for humanity. There were worth-while community projects which Canadians accepted as part of their duty. Those programs are now being performed by civil servants, pseudo-civil servants and people working on grants. The government takes longer. It spends more and it destroys the will of Canadians to contribute to their communities. I urge this government to take a long, hard look at the volunteer sector of society. I suggest that we make it a partnership with a purpose and not a partnership by purchase.
Terry Fox is running across Canada to raise money for cancer research. He should become a symbol for Canadians to show what we can do in the volunteer sector of society. He is not working on a grant; he is working on a lot of determination, effort and concern. He is raising money by that dedication and concern. He will do it the way we used to do it before the federal government got into the business.
I wish to deal briefly with energy policy. I commend this government for recognizing that we need an energy policy in 1980. I will not talk about the 1970s or the 1960s when the government did not think we needed one. It has been suggested that a made-in-Canada price will solve everything. We think that the petroleum price auditing agency will act as a watchdog. There are a lot of questions to be asked. We are going to hold this government to an energy policy. Our party fought the last election on the basis that we were committed to one price for Canadians. We felt we should pay our way. We did not want to lay our deficits at the feet of our children and that meant an excise tax of 18 cents per gallon to pay for the courage of our convictions.
It has been suggested in the Speech from the Throne: "My ministers do not intend to impose an 18-cent increase in the excise tax on transportation fuels and the made-in-Canada price will result in a lower price to consumers than the one proposed in the budget of the previous administration." Those words are as infamous as the words "We will never impose wage and price controls."
The tax of 2.4 cents per gallon on heating oil will result in a higher tax for consumers than that proposed in the budget by our party. The tax of 2.4 cents per gallon is to permit the world price to be paid for tar sands energy. Not 85 per cent of world price, but world price. That is what we said we would never move toward.
I say that the Liberal party has cast adrift the Liberal candidate in my riding in the last election. He has had some problems. In 1974 in Scarborough West, Alan Martin said "We will never institute wage and price controls". In 1979 he went back to the same people. In 1980 he tried my riding and he said "The Liberals will not impose an 18-cent excise tax on transportation fuels". He did not say that it would be less, he did not say it would be more. He forgot all about home heating
July 17, 1980

oil. Ele said that the Liberals would ignore world price, and that was an ironclad guarantee. I said that Mr. Martin had been set aside and cast adrift by the Liberals, but really he has not. Ele has been awarded a contract through the ministry of energy. For 1 5 days' work he is paid $7,300. My pay, as a member of Parliament, for one year is $30,600.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Let us talk about his expenses now. His expenses for 15 days are $10,300. My expenses for a year are $13,500. 1 am pleased to have that in the record.
This government promised to reduce the federal deficit in a planned and orderly manner. We want to know when that will start. What was denounced in December was clutched to the bosom of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in April as a drowning man reaches for a life raft. The deficit is larger. The planning is absent. We agree with the premise: Canadians want effective government, not necessarily less government. We feel they want it while they are still alive.
I want to deal briefly with our economic potential because I have touched on many other matters. On April 14 the government said that it would reduce the deficit. One week later the deficit went up from $11.5 billion to $14.1 billion.
There is another ray of hope in the Speech from the Throne; this government reaffirmed its commitment to increase Canada's over-all expenditures on research and development to 1.5 per cent of the value of the gross national product. Where was that commitment in 1973 when the rate was 1.01 per cent, in 1974 when it went down to .98 per cent, in 1975 when it went down to .97 per cent, in 1976 when it went down to .93 per cent, in 1977 when it went down to .92 per cent and in 1978 when they broke the barrier of .9 per cent and it went down to .8 per cent? We do not know to what depths it will plunge in 1979. The government must stop paying lip service to research and development and begin to do something about it.
In closing, I want to take issue with two direct references which are of a regional nature found in the Speech from the Throne. They disturb me greatly. First, the government suggested in the Speech from the Throne that members who represent the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have a responsibility to represent their constituents to the nation. It is then suggested that they have an extra responsibility in the present circumstances to represent the nation to their constituents.
In my opinion that is a direct insult to every member in this House from those provinces. As a member from Ontario, I take exception to those remarks in the Speech from the Throne. The root causes of western alienation, as I understand it, are in that kind of thinking which destroys good will, determines enemies and divides our country. We sat here in the Parliament of Canada listening to Liberal cabinet ministers and backbenchers finally representing the nation to their constituents because of the Quebec referendum.
The Address-Mr. Laniel
This remark in the Speech from the Throne is a cheap shot at the hon. members from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia from both parties and I resent it. Those of us who make an effort, not by twinning, to know the members from those provinces know that they are men and women of good will and that they are conscious of the balance between representing their constituencies and representing their country. They do not need to be reminded in this insulting manner.
1 think that everybody should make an effort, not just from day to day but every day.
It has also been suggested that there are some problems in central Canada. In central Canada it is said that there are some who fear that the economic strength of this region is somehow slipping away, and this has led to envy and bitterness. If that feeling exists, it only exists among members of the Liberal party. As a Progressive Conservative from Ontario, I can tell this House that we do not fear for our economic strength. Sure, there are momentary concerns, but they are always surpassed by an inner strength and resilience which can be found in our province and which some of the members opposite will always envy.
We were a founding partner in confederation and we intend to be a continuing partner in confederation. We reject the envy and bitterness as the problems of lesser men and women. We have faith in our party, in the people of Ontario and Canada which rises above the fears expressed by the Liberal party. Do not worry about the people of Ontario; we are participating partners and dedicated to a strong, united Canada and always will be.
In closing, I would say, as was mentioned by the hon. member who preceded me, that it is time for all of us to think of our country first and our province second. Canada is one country. Let us close ranks and prove it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, since the throne speech debate was interrupted on May 12 last, a major event occurred in the Canadian political life, when a majority of Quebeckers voted against separatism advocated by the PQ party and against its vague project of sovereignty-association, expressing quite clearly their desire to remain in Canada, a Canada where each province will feel more at ease and will benefit from a fairer economic distribution.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it can truly be said that the referendum results have relieved the Canadian people, more especially in Quebec where the tensions among the various classes of society or within families had greatly increased during the referendum campaign. The recent public opinion poll made by the Quebec Employers' Council, of which I have a copy here and which appeared in the July 10 issue of La Presse, shows that the defeat of the separatist option of the Quebec government had a very positive effect in business

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Laniel
circles, judging by the satisfaction expressed by Quebec business leaders in that poll at the economic, social and political climate in the province.
Mr. Speaker, 93 per cent of the business leaders polled found the social climate good or acceptable in Quebec since the referendum, while 82 per cent feel the same about the economic climate and 78 per cent are optimistic as to the political climate. That is a significant improvement over a similar poll taken six months before, that is in January 1980, and over all such previous polls taken before 1976 as well. Now, the Quebec premier, Mr. Levesque, stated following this poll that it would be absurd, that it would be "the height of absurdity to relate the result of the referendum to the improvement in the psychological climate in the Quebec business community.
However, as Yvan Guay, a leader-writer in La Presse, wrote in the July 16 issue, the president of Devencore Realties, one of the largest real estate firms in Montreal, stated recently in an interview with a Gazette reporter that the No-victory in the referendum had given new impetus to construction work in Montreal. Also, the deputy-manager of investment services of A. E. Lepage Company stated that he had made more business deals in the four weeks immediately following the referendum than he had in the five previous months. And a great many other brokers with him, Mr. Speaker. I will not quote Mr. Gray's, in view of the harsh judgment on Mr. Levesque's biased analysis, but I agree with him when he states in the same article that social peace and political stability are two major factors of a healthy economic climate.
On the basis of these premises, while most Canadians and Quebeckers are anxious to see the current constitutional negotiations come to fast and concrete results, I should like to deal for a while with the present government's concern for the future of our economic development and, more specifically, for putting together a train of economic policies likely to create jobs, accelerate growth, ease regional imbalances and favour Canadian control over our economy, as mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I have been nonplussed by the negative critics voiced by several hon. members from the official opposition this week during the debate on the Progressive Conservative motion, who apparently failed to recognize that over the past four months, the government had shown its firm determination and ability to deal with the problems and avail itself of every possibility resulting from the current economic context, and who dared even deny the fact that we had already implemented some elements of a policy of economic development and industrial strategy.
Mr. Speaker, the planning and drafting of a comprehensive economic and industrial development strategy cannot be done without putting together all the elements of the problem if that is to be done responsibly. And it cannot be done without taking
into account the impact such a strategy may have on the orientation of the economy in coming years. So it is understandable that while they have defined all the basic elements of that strategy, as I mentioned earlier, the government should momentarily defer its announcement but you will readily admit that they have in the past four months given priority to that industrial development, job creation, economic growth and regional distribution.
A central factor in the government's initiative was the decision that led to the decision concerning the F-18A planes which is going to promote economic activity and bring about an industrial development of over $3 billion for all of Canada, spread out over various regions, and that will be particularly beneficial to Quebec. When the contract was signed the economic fallouts for Quebec were estimated at $1,573 billion, and as a result of the interest shown by Canadian and Quebec firms, the economic fallouts for both Quebec and the rest of Canada will probably, as we read in several press reports recently, be much greater.
That program, Mr. Speaker, could create up to 24,000 direct and indirect jobs across Canada. The purchase of the new fighter for the Canadian Forces is also a key element in the development of high technology industries like the electronics and aviation industries which will result in promotion of our high technology and allow it to face more effectively foreign competition in the 1980s while at the same time resulting in economic fallouts worth over $3 billion.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, this government's commitment to guarantee private sector loans to the Chrysler Corporation of Canada starting in 1982 for a total of $200 million. At the same time, in return, Chrysler promised to invest $1 billion in Canada during the next five years, in addition to its commitments with regard to job creation, future production and the purchase of parts in Canada.
Everyone knows, of course, that the North American automobile industry is currently going through hard times. The newspapers are full of articles on the subject. And the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is personally involved in various connections with the industry; his recent visit to Washington, as well as his statements, prove that he is determined to ensure Canada a continued profitable participation in the automobile sector. 1 would much rather have heard the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans), every time he intervened, encourage the minister in his efforts and actions, rather than try to see the mote in his brother's eye, inasmuch as our minister has proved his will to save jobs and his concern for Canadian workers. The same thing happened last week or the week before when I heard the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) put questions about to the inquiry undertaken by the RCMP into Space Research, as well as the subsidies or loans granted Valleyfield Chemical Products, a firm located in my riding.
July 17, 1980

Well, I would have preferred more positive questions than those asked by a member who simply wanted to know who the guilty party would be in this matter. We forget that, in subsidizing Space Research and in creating the Valleyfield Chemical Products Company, the federal government took over a business which employed 250 people, and that there are now about 650 employees on the company's payroll. For my part, 1 believe job conservation is more important and as 1 said, 1 would have preferred to hear hon. members urge the government to tidy up what might have been some loose ends in this organization or in these businesses or even with respect to its past, but to deal mainly with preserving these jobs.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to international trade, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has already had a dynamic influence on foreign markets by creating the position of Minister of State for Commerce and, since his return, the possibilities are limitless. The dynamic measures taken by this minister and the creation of an agency to deal with foreign trade will be of great help to exporters and enable the Canadian industry to sustain foreign competition more easily on international markets and on the Canadian market. Obviously, everyone in the House is aware of the views of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) on economic nationalism since he is the author of the famous report published some 10 years ago which called for more stringent measures to lessen the foreign stronghold on the Canadian economy, and led to the creation of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, FIRA. The government is severely criticized and some people ask for tighter legislation on foreign investment control, and yet they express doubt about the government's willingness concerning the amendments it intends to make to the Act.
During the last election campaign and in the Speech from the Throne, the government made known its intention to extend and reinforce FIRA's role, and the minister mentioned in his speech in the House on July 14 that he is contemplating submitting a series of measures to this effect which would reinforce the Canadian participation in the economy, improve the role of foreign companies in our economy. As a result of those prospective changes, Mr. Speaker, FIRA will have to publish before taking any decision the list of all major proposed take-overs which are under review, a procedure that the legislation does not authorize at present. The agency will also be authorized to undertake a periodic performance review of some Canadian branches of foreign corporations in key sectors such as research, development, high technology exports and so on. This is important.
I hope that the same companies will not always be the subject of such performance reviews but that they will be done in an orderly manner and will also deal with the small Canadian companies which can be branches of large international corporations. Those amendments will provide for some finan-
The Address-Mr. Laniel
cial assistance to Canadians who would like to compete against foreigners and purchase Canadian companies, or buy back the equity held by foreigners in Canadian corporations, or still purchase branches of foreign corporations which would become available.
We also heard last month the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who was here earlier, announce certain new initiatives in the field of employment, and especially of training, which shows the concern of the government for an essential aspect of the approach we will have to take for the eighties in the area of human resources and manpower adaptation. In addition, the recent establishment of a special parliamentary committee, a task force on employment opportunities in the eighties, will enable the government to obtain the opinions of the greatest possible number of people concerned about future aspects of employment, and especially the needs in specialized fields.
Mr. Speaker, since energy is closely related to the industrial strategy, unlike the Progressive Conservatives who wanted to get rid of Petro-Canada, the government sees in this organization a tool for economic development, to develop our energy resources, and the very basis of our economic development if we also set a Canadian price for our oil. This week I heard certain western members complain about paying the same price as anyone else for consumer goods from the east and about paying the international price for certain products that westerners must buy, and claiming the right for the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the producer provinces, to receive the international price for their oil.
For my part, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not quite agree with all this. My colleague who spoke before me talked about Newfoundland and about the possibility for this province to understand the Canadian entity, the concept of sharing in Canada. As for me, I submit and everyone in this country must realize it, that the international price of oil is an inflated price which does not necessarily reflect production costs. I am prepared to accept the responsibilities of a policy that will ensure that all provinces will benefit from their natural resources, oil or whatever, in an equitable way. But it is through dialogue, through mutual understanding that we will be able to keep moving forward in Canada, while sharing at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, rather than submitting our economy through all the ups and downs created by international producers, we will be in a position with Petro-Canada, with a made-in-Canada price, to maintain our competitive edge on world markets, since our energy resources put us among the top industrialized nations. The new Canadian strategy for industrial development must clearly take into account the future potential of the western world economy, but also the current Canadian industrial structure and certain directions and alternatives that are now open to us on the economic level.

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Laniel
There is increasing reference to gradual liberalization of trade between most GATT members, which means for Canadian businessmen a significant opening of new markets in nearly one hundred nations across the world. During a meeting I attended this week, there was mention of textiles and someone suggested: In the United States things are going because they have a large market. Liberalization of trade will give us access to such a market if trade barriers are abolished. But if they are, there will be more pressure, especially in the weak industries.
Mr. Speaker, I think that even if we must accept stiffer competition on our domestic market, the government should assume its responsibility and protect its own economy. So, it is more than ever necessary to have a well structured economy to face this increasing competition from outside and this is why this government wants to play an active role in the economic situation of 1980.
If we had not purchased, as the Liberal government did, De Havilland and Canadair, I wonder what would have happened to the Canadian aeronautical industry and our country would have deprived itself of a high technology industry which allows most industrialized countries to compete on international markets and create highly specialized jobs. So we will continue to support actively the efforts of those two companies in particular, as well as those of other Canadian manufacturers and exporters, by giving them, through the Export Development Agency, government support like that given by Japan and many other countries to their exporting companies.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is committed to support advanced technology industries on which our economy will depend even more in the coming years, but it is also necessary to maintain the hundreds of thousands of existing jobs in the automobile industry to which I referred earlier or other more vulnerable sectors such as textiles and footwear. I know that cabinet was supposed to make a decision today concerning the extension of quotas for footwear. Also, this week, the Textile Board has presented to the minister its report that will guide us in the evaluation of the future policies of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In those last two fields, while we should allow competition from developing countries, because we must share not only in Canada, access to the Canadian market should be regulated to maintain not only our jobs but also our productive capacity to produce Canadian goods specially designed for Canadian consumers by our Canadian technology which is growing more competitive in those sectors.
Some industrial sectors in foreign countries receive greater government aid because of increasingly stiffer competition and of the very high costs of automation of production, which leaves manufacturers with no other alternative than to amalgamate and seek government help. For an industrialized country like ours, it is of vital importance to maintain within our
territory, a production and research capacity in a variety of sectors whose products are part of the daily lives of Canadians.
This brings me to the topic of research and development, priority areas for the future in which this government wants to invest as much as other industrialized countries; it is seeking to increase investments in research and development from 0.9 per cent to 1.5 per cent of the gross national product. To achieve this goal, one of the means the government foresees is tighter control over the operations of multinational companies on our territory and, while still encouraging foreign investments, ensuring that these operations are consistent with present and future interests of Canadians. Mr. Speaker, coming back to the matter of Canada's political future, even though the results of the Quebec referendum helped restore a certain social, political and economic confidence, the problems of Canadian unity are apparent even in this House, despite the good will displayed by members, these problems which are also of an economic nature, are far from being solved. Faced with increasingly stiffer international competition, Canada must solve its domestic problems as soon as possible and form a common front to face its competitors. The provinces, the regions, do indeed have their own particular aspirations and claims, either in the field of energy, natural resources or whether they be of a cultural or linguistic nature, but that, Mr. Speaker, is the essence of our diversity. We must, however, transcend these differences as soon as possible to put the economic machinery back into high gear by taking into account our exceptional natural resources, our highly skilled and diversified manpower and develop an economic dynamism which would help us overcome our handicap because of the small size of our market compared to the vastness of our territory. This economic dynamism, Mr. Speaker, this confidence which is so essential for the progress of the Canadian economy is precisely the key to our future.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be able to add a few final remarks to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne this afternoon. In so doing I would like to talk a little about energy, about the pipeline, and I do so, of course, mainly from selfish motives, the main motive being that 450 miles of the Alaska highway gas pipeline will be eventually located in the constituency of Prince George-Peace River, that great part of our country which I have the distinct pleasure to represent in this House.
Much has been said about pipelines, both oil and gas, in recent weeks and months since we began this session of Parliament. One cannot speak about oil or gas, or about the Alaska highway gas pipeline, or the polar route or any of these energy schemes, without first projecting them against a global background. Today I particularly want to say something about economic nationalism and about nationalism in terms of energy politics.
July 17, 1980

When one looks at the global energy situation, in the period since the Second World War, if you lookback over the last 30 or 40 years, you will find that the statistics indicate that our demand on energy over the last 30 years doubled roughly every ten years. Indeed, comparing this statistic with the increase in the western world, at least, of the gross national product, one finds it is identical. In other words, gross national product in the western world increased or doubled every ten years. One can then make the correlation, or project ahead, by saying that the gross national product, or the improvement of the quality of life of western countries, will be directly related to the availability of energy in the future.
At the present time the total producibility of oil-and I am talking here exclusively about oil-is in the neighbourhood of 60 to 65 million barrels a day. We know, on the basis of projections which have been put together not only for the producing but also by the consuming countries and which are in the main quite accurate, that unless we can expect an increase in the total producibility of world oil of 1 per cent per year for the next five to eight years, and beyond that, we will have to begin to live with the situation where supplies of conventional sources of fossil fuels and energy sources will decline. Up to the year 2,000-in fact, after the year 1985- we must expect a decline beginning with 1 per cent per year and then accelerating at a much faster pace.
If we go back to the relationship with the gross national product, we find a very frightening picture, because we would have to accept the fact that the economies of the western world would no longer be able to grow. In fact the economies of the western world would inevitably decline if we continue to rely on the conventional methods of driving our industrial machine and sustaining our enviable lifestyle. It is a frightening picture as well, because many say that an economy of the type we have built for ourselves in the western world cannot survive unless there is an element of growth.
Many say that a business cannot survive unless there is an element of growth, an opportunity for people to progress within an organization. Indeed, many say that if our economies cannot survive at the present level and cannot grow, our political system is in jeopardy. And many say that this is a very important component of the oil politics which the east bloc countries and the Soviet Union are relying upon to destroy capitalism and the system of western democracy. That is basically the global picture.
If one now turns to the situation in North America, it is no secret that we in Canada and in the United States are using the lion's share of the world's energy resources. We are wasting more than we are using, of course, and we are criticized not only by our partners in the western world but, in the United Nations and other forums, by other nations which look upon us as irresponsible people who have little or no concern for the legitimate aspirations of people in other parts of the world.
If you look at North America you are confronted, first of all, with the demographic situation-260 million people on the North American continent; we in Canada number 23 or 24
The Address-Mr. Oberle
million. When we talk to our rich neighbours to the south, we are immediately confronted with their attempts to establish some kind of North American energy approach. We in Canada have, of course, always rejected that, because when it boils down to where the potential for future energy reserves lie, they lie in Canada. Since we number only 23 million people we should, of course, be very careful about how we share this energy, particularly with our friends to the south, but with other countries as well.
This is okay up to a point. But I want to portray a hypothetical situation, and this message is directed to my friends in the New Democratic Party, those great economic nationalists and energy nationalists. I want to portray a situation in the year 2000. Energy is extremely short and the world population has grown from four and a half billion to six billion people. Most of the new population is based in the Third World. They, of course, will have achieved a much better lifestyle and in so doing they will have placed incredible demands on the world's deliverability of oil and other energy resources, and the world is running out of fossil fuels. But we in Canada have been very prudent because in 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1985 we were very careful not to export any of our fossil reserves-gas, oil or anything else-to the United States or to any other country. So here we are.
The rest of the world machine has ground to a halt. People are freezing to death and sitting in the dark, but here we are in Canada with the lights shining brightly, our machines running at full tilt, and we are continuing this lifestyle which we have enjoyed and which our forefathers have built for us. Well, sir, I do not think that even my friends in the New Democratic Party are so naive as to think that that is actually possible and that we can actually totally isolate ourselves from the global situation of energy politics, and from the global situation of demographic politics, and sit here in Canada on top of all our wealth and enjoy it just for the benefit of ourselves and those who may come after us. The reality, as all of us know, is of course much different.
Instead of a continental energy policy we should be talking about continental energy co-operation. It is indeed against that background-I give credit to the former government, and 1 would even like to give a little credit to the present government-that some of the decisions that are relating to the most prominent project at the present time, the Alaska highway gas pipeline, have to be made.
We have to consider first of all that this particular project was planned to deliver gas which is exploited or harvested in Alaska to the lower 48 states. The Americans came to us in 1970 when the same question was raised in connection with delivering oil from Alaska to the United States. They came to us then as well, and told us that the most expedient, best, safest and cheapest way would be to run a pipeline through Alaska and through Canada, and to utilize as much as possible existing conduits and existing facilities to bring this important

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Oberle
resource down to their markets. At that time we procrastinated.
In fact much of the debate which has been going on here in recent days went on in 1970 and 1971 as well, when the Americans wanted to bring oil down. We in the west, and particularly I in northeastern British Columbia, never had any doubt that that was the proper route to take. 1 was selfishly motivated, of course, because I realize probably more than anyone what the economic benefits of that kind of system and that kind of industrial endeavour can be. However, at that time we frustrated the process so long that the Americans finally said that they could not wait forever. They were in dire need of this resource. They had to secure their own energy needs and to find some other alternative, and they did.
Alaska delivers to the United States roughly two million barrels of oil a day. The Americans built the Alyeska pipeline through Alaska, and facilities at the Pacific Ocean to load tankers to deliver that crucial resource down the west coast to the United States. As soon as the system was built, we went running down to the United States to say that we were worried about those tankers going down the west coast and that there could be accidents. We were worried that they could break up. They are vulnerable in a strategic sense. What if we ever got into a war with the Japanese? I hope it would not be with the Japanese, obviously, but the Russians might come and blow those tankers out of the water. What did we do?
The Americans frankly told us that they had asked us to build a pipeline through Canada but that we did not want that. Then we did not want tankers either. Here we are now in 1980, the Americans are now ready to deliver another 800,000 barrels of oil daily, and again the prospect of a pipeline is being discussed. Let us remember that 1,200,000 barrels are already proceeding by tanker, and again we are procrastinating. The Americans have really given up on us, and they are now building additional facilities to handle this additional oil. They are shipping that down by tanker as well, thus rendering our west coast very vulnerable in terms of the ecology and the environment.
That is some of the background to the pipeline politics in the west. That is another component of pipeline politics which is being considered as we make a decision on the Alaska highway gas pipeline.
The pipeline was always intended to serve the purpose of North American energy co-operation. There are some very significant industrial and economic benefits to Canada, but the pipeline is also planned to accommodate the delivery of our own gas from the Arctic to the south. All my friends have heard of the Dempster Link and the concept of building a pipeline from Inuvik to absorb the gas which is in the Beaufort Sea, and bringing it to the Alcan or the Alaska highway gas pipeline and joining it at Whitehorse, Yukon. The American line is so designed that it increases in size at Whitehorse and all the way down to the United States border to accommodate the delivery of our Canadian gas. Imagine, the Americans are prepared to pay the additional cost of increasing the size of the conduit to accommodate the delivery of our own gas. So it is
not just an American pipeline or a pipeline which is just in the American interest. There is a very clear Canadian interest connected with this pipeline as well.
The question of the pre-build is not a new concept with has been thrown in in the last three or four weeks. It was always talked about from the very beginning. It was always felt that it may well facilitate the financing of the whole scheme. We talk about $22 billion, $25 billion or $26 billion. Can anyone here really imagine the amount of money that is? It is money which is to be spent to a great extent in Canada. It is money which is to be spent to a great extent in Ontario, the industrial heartland of our country, where the pipe will be manufactured and where workers in the foundries will be making valves and other important components. In fact the Americans are really angry with us because they are totally out in the dark. Canadian firms have under-bid the Americans for the pipe every time, and the Americans are very angry. Imagine, one of the main components of the pipeline is of a size which the Americans cannot manufacture at all. It all has to be manufactured in Canada, and the Americans are saying that we are not fair.
American firms claim that we have too much of an advantage because of the difference in the dollar, but still the Americans have said "Let's go ahead". It is a competitive thing. After all, it is free enterprise. We want to get this project under way in the cheapest possible way, and as it happens Canada will get the lion's share of that $25 million that the project will cost.
It was always said right from the beginning, as I set out to say, that the pre-building of the line is almost essential to the financing of the whole. There never was any doubt that we have surplus gas in Canada which in the short term should be exported to the United States. Again I want to take hon. members back to the global picture and to this hypothetical situation I have explained. We have surplus gas. We have instructed our Energy Board to use a formula to ensure that over a certain period of time our energy needs are secure. The energy board is required, first of all, to look at the catalogue of proven reserves, identified reserves, and reserves ready for market, and to compare those with the demand which could possibly be placed on these reserves over a period of 25 years. In doing so the board is required to take a look not only at the present demand but also at the obvious necessity to convert major industries away from oil to natural gas and the obvious desire to extend pipeline systems to the maritimes and Quebec, to get away from reliance on foreign oil to generate electricity and to convert homes to natural gas.
Having taken all that into account, the National Energy Board is then required to protect all these needs over a period of 25 years. Anything that is surplus to that should be made available for export. Last year the Conservative government decided that at that time we had 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available for export. I should also say that the National Energy Board is required to adjust these figures from year to year. That takes us to the year 2005, and one does not
July 17, 1980

have to be much of a futurist to realize that the energy picture in the year 2005 will be quite different from what it is today.
When one looks around the world-and again we are babes in the woods-one finds that billions of dollars are being spent every year now on the research and development of more exotic forms of energy. The sun projects on the earth more energy in ten minutes than we have in our total fossil reserves. It is mind boggling to contemplate what that source of energy could do and will have to do in the future to sustain the lifestyle we now enjoy, and indeed enhance it, not only for ourselves but for Third World countries. One does not have to be much of an optimist to be optimistic about the future of energy. So I say that 25 years is a realistic and indeed a very optimistic time period in which to secure our energy future. In fact there is not a country in the world today, other than probably Mexico, Venezuela and some Middle Eastern countries, which has the luxury of being able to plan ahead for 25 years in an optimistic way.
Now I should like to speak about the concerns of the local area for which I have special responsibility. The situation in British Columbia is somewhat complicated and I intend, of course, to ask the government, once the decision with regard to the pre-build line has been made, how discussions with British Columbia are proceeding and their requirement for a statement of acquiescence with respect to the pipeline. At this point there is no agreement with the province of British Columbia on the final terms and conditions which will be attached not only to the pre-build leg of the pipeline but, what is more important, to the major portion of the pipeline of which 450 miles traverse northern British Columbia. Unfortunately, British Columbia has not been very aggressive or very active in participating or contributing to the study of the terms and conditions of the pipeline.
1 suppose it is for the first time that most of my colleagues here would hear of a report that was published about three weeks ago called "Forgotten Land, Forgotten People." It is the final study of socioeconomic conditions relating to this pipeline, a study which followed the Berger report on the Mackenzie valley, the Lysyk study with regard to the Alaska gas pipeline which was held in the Yukon. This particular study, which was conducted by Winston Mair, who was the inquiry commissioner, deals entirely with northeastern British Columbia. The title of the study "Forgotten Land, Forgotten People" is probably a little exaggerated, but it says something about the northern parts of our provinces.
We here in Ottawa have a more direct relationship with the territories because we still operate, to a certain extent, under a colonial system and we think of ourselves as colonial masters of the territories, something which I do not like and which has been challenged at least by my party on every occasion, and something about which we had very definite policies and plans. Nevertheless we know a little more about what goes on in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon than we do about what goes on in the provinces, because that is really their domain.
I have just published a report out of my own office which tells a little about the rip-off of northerners. I am not now
The Address-Mr. Oberle
straying away from the energy theme of my contribution today; I am just talking a little about the north because it is in the north that our energy future lies. In fact when we talk about the economic benefits which will be derived from the Alaska highway gas pipeline, the lion's share of these benefits will accrue to Canadians in all other parts of the country except the part where the pipeline will be located. In fact the economic benefits there will not be benefits at all; there will be horrendous problems associated with them. We are not strangers to massive projects such as that, particularly in northern British Columbia.
We have seen the construction of the Alaska highway itself and the construction of one of the largest hydroelectric projects, the Bennett dam, and we have experienced these kinds of industrial schemes where thousands of workmen are dumped into small communities which are already short of essential services. They impose their demands and needs on the area for short periods of time, and then they all go away while the local people are left holding the bag. Of course, we look with favour and excitement to the construction of the pipeline.
The report "Forgotten Land, Forgotten People" talks about the aspirations of the northerners in British Columbia in connection with this pipeline. It talks about the native people. In this case, while the natives have raised some questions that are as old as time, and some concerns about further assimilation and integration into the wage economy into which they are not ready to be assimilated or integrated, generally the natives in northeastern British Columbia also are excited and optimistic about the potential benefits which this project could offer them.
We have raised some legitimate concerns because while there are some real economic and industrial benefits which will accrue to all Canadians, any negative side effects of this project will be suffered only by the people who populate the land where the pipeline is located. Indeed, Mair accepted in his report many of the recommendations that I made in my submission to his hearings, namely, that we must develop a technique by which the amenities, the social services and the infrastructure in terms of transportation and communication and other things which might be required to accommodate not only the work force which will be building the pipeline but those who will be operating it in the future, must be paid for either by the proponents of the pipeline, or through some other scheme by the rest of the Canadian taxpayers who will, after all, receive the lion's share of the economic benefits.
I have proposed the imposition in northeastern British Columbia of a benefiting area tax which would tax the pipeline right away. The money which would accrue from such a taxation scheme would be used entirely to upgrade the transportation and communication infrastructure to help the small communities absorb the new work force which will be locating there permanently by providing them with sufficient means to build local services such as sewers, water, and even some recreational facilities, hospitals, and so on. The idea was certainly considered favourably by the government and recommended by the inquiry commissioner who was exposed for

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Oberle
some period of time to the realities of northeastern British Columbia. It has been a somewhat uphill battle to convince British Columbia to join in the scheme and to allow for a change so that the people in the north who sit on top of the energy will share on a fair and equitable basis in some of the benefits that will accrue.
Briefly I referred to the report published out of my office. If 1 may digress a little, I spent two years researching in order to point out, not only to my friends in the House of Commons but to all Canadians, some of the very real disadvantages which 5 per cent of Canadians living in 80 per cent of our land mass suffer as a result of the discriminatory tax regime in the country. I would encourage all my friends to read the report; it is available out of my office. In the report 1 pointed out that those 5 per cent of Canadians pay $470 million in unfair taxes every year. The report marks the beginning of a crusade I intend to take up over the next year in the north and in the south as well. It will encourage Canadians not only to remove the disparities, but to establish an equitable and fair system in the north to entice and encourage other Canadians, particularly young ones, to move away from the artificial, plastic and concrete environment of our cities, which are sustained by the resources of the north, to join in the excitement and the available opportunities of the north.
I notice I have reached the end of my time. I wanted to get that plug in because I am a little excited about this document. It may well be the most important thing I will do in my political career, particularly if my ideas are accepted by the government. Of course they are already accepted in the fact that federal public servants posted in isolation in the north are receiving very, very significant northern allowances and benefits which are not available to other northerners. 1 wanted to get this plug on the record today before the House recessed because I hope a lot will be heard about the report in the summer months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent for the House to revert to Routine Proceedings in order that I may table the First Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I should like to report on a bill which was approved today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) seeks the unanimous consent of the House to revert to routine proceedings in order to present a report. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Gauthier.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: This being the second Speech from the Throne to which I am exposed since becoming a member of the House, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that my reaction this time is quite different from the one I had when 1 heard the first one under a Progressive Conservative administration.
When I rose to deal for the first time with the address, 1 remember I was highly pessimistic, while this time around 1 am quite optimistic. A few minutes ago, as 1 was going over the notes for my speech of a few weeks ago, I came across my election pamphlet and realized that nearly all the promises which my party and I had made to my constituents of Shefford are part of the first Speech from the Throne, and that the local projects to which we had committed ourselves are being carried out just now.
While dealing with the Speech from the Throne, I think I can inform my constituents of the steps the government has taken and its attitude toward its commitments.
I think it is very important for us all to keep in mind what responsibility is all about and particularly for voters to realize that at a certain point in time politicians can make commitments and then keep them. I think that is probably going to be the trade mark of this Parliament and this government.
Like all my colleagues 1 would like to talk about the constitution because I think it is the vital element that is keeping us in active politics, particularly these years, and in commenting the result of the referendum I think my colleagues and 1 have all worked very hard to get a No-majority in Quebec, and I am thinking in particular of my colleague, the Hon. Jean Chretien, the Minister of Justice, who certainly managed to give all members from Quebec and several citizens of Quebec the desire to win. I think we should pay tribute to
July 17, 1980

him, and particularly for me it was an honour to work by his side. Now that the results are known, I think we should above all not take anything for granted but our leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in accordance with the commitments he also made at the time of the referendum, had promised to get intensive negotiations going.
I think the government agreed to meet its commitments toward Quebeckers. We are now witnessing a series of federal-provincial conferences and we realize that the will to change is not only in the speeches of politicians but in reality, and I think it is hoped that the provinces which are all sitting around the table these days, will want to co-operate with the federal government and allow it to deliver the goods to all Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular.
I think there is only one obstacle to that quest for renewal, and it is perhaps the presence at that table of PQ ministers who are acting every day like offended virgins and want to have us believe after the results of the referendum that they have become federalists and want to improve the federal system. I must admit that I am looking forward impatiently to an election in our province so that the Quebec negotiators sitting at that table will have that will of renewal and that openness of mind that will allow considerable improvement to this country, and particularly our constitution, to meet in an increasingly better way the aspirations of Canadians.
I think many had an opportunity to hear the speech of Miss Begin, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when she called for the participation of the people in the process of renewal. I think that participation by the people is essential because if Canadians do not have a means of expressing themselves in this constitutional renewal, if they do not have a channel to go to to voice their claims, I am afraid they are going to witness, as my colleague from Newfoundland suggested earlier, a cock-fight between federal and provincial politicians, and if the people are not in on it, it could be difficult for them to see through all those fights that are taking place around the tables and all those political wars.
So, as members of the Quebec Liberal caucus, we are striving to create a committee which could convey to the government and federal negotiators the considered opinion of the people-and when 1 say the "people", I mean it in the noblest sense of the word-the people who also want to have their say. 1 think that all those constitutional exercises should really aim to achieve a better administration of the affairs of State, but above all, to better serve the citizens.
I appeal to all of those who are involved in those negotiations to really keep that objective in mind, and perhaps to set aside, to a certain extent their self-interest or even, perhaps, in some cases, their thirst for power or a for a bigger share of the cake and to manage the country with greater concern for its citizens. If the federal government is better suited to deal with some areas of jurisdiction, by all means, let it keep it or even get it but, on the other hand, if provincial governments are
The Address-Mr. Lapierre
better equipped to deal with some other spheres of jurisdiction, then, well and good, let us hand them over to them; but above all, let us make sure that it will be for the benefit of the citizens and not for the glory of a some politicians. To pursue along the lines of our commitments, I think that especially in my constituency industrial development is one of the key aspects of the economy and, the fact that the Montreal area has been designated for the purposes of the DREE grants program is a great boon to our economy. All the new businesses in our area-there have been hundreds in the last few years-were set up largely through DREE grants and the fact that it has been decided to extend the program in the eastern townships region will allow us to create new jobs.
A little while ago I heard an hon. member say that the textile and rubber industries were very important in his riding and, these industries are considered important in mine as well but it is widely accepted that these industries must also be buttressed by other related industries or other high technology industries likely to provide workers with viable and profitable jobs in the area. I have in mind industries such as General Electric and that is why I was happy with the Canadian government's decision regarding the F-18, because the company involved has promised to build a plant in the eastern townships thereby creating some 650 jobs; it is very important for us that we should develop this new technology and the F-18 program will certainly provide for it and create new job opportunities for the young people coming out of the universities, the CEGEPs, etc.
I was particularly interested in the proposed grants for a $237 million contract to build military trucks; and I hope a decision will be made on this matter in the forthcoming months.
Mr. Speaker, the Bombardier company is located in my riding. It is keenly interested in this contract to build military trucks and would be ready to create new jobs in my area and, I think that the cabinet's gesture in asking Bombardier to make a bid for this important project is already most encouraging for us. You know, when the company's founder, Joseph-Armand Bombardier, started his snowmobile business, he thought it would be the vehicle of the future. Unfortunately, it has become a rather expensive recreational vehicle and the sales volume has not been increasing and in diversifying its production, Bombardier could include military trucks. Now, the advantage for us would not only be the Canadian contract for 2,800 trucks but the subsequent opportunities for exporting these trucks throughout the world and creating a viable industry in our area. That is why I am happy that we have asked Bombardier to make a bid and 1 hope the government will consider it favourably.
Another economic development project which is very important to us is the development of Mont Orford as an international tourist area. We know that DREE is negotiating with the Quebec government to include Mont Orford in the tourist

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Lapierre
development area. You can be certain that 1 am trying very hard to give to that area of my riding a year round tourist industry which could also create permanent employment. Speaking of job creation, 1 was very pleased to publicize the announcement made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) about the $137 million program to create new jobs, particularly for development and community services projects.
Earlier, I heard a Progressive Conservative member criticize those programs that will allow us to create jobs and give work to people who want to work. If he does not want that money in his riding, we are going to take it. Maybe there is no unemployment in his riding? Very well, we will take that money! That type of program is very important to us and I protested against the disappearance of Canada Works Program that the Progressive Conservatives were going to abolish because it is important for us as well as for various organizations and our community. Senior citizens, the handicapped, all kinds of volunteer organizations have taken advantage of it and we want also to train our unemployed because, in an area like ours, young people have problems to find work and that kind of project will allow them not only to continue their search for a permanent and profitable job but also to gain a diversified experience while serving the public. I certainly prefer to see our young people and our unemployed work in those community projects rather than drawing unemployment insurance to stay at home. Idleness is the root of all evil and it might be true! The summer projects that have been announced made me very happy. Almost $150,000 have been spent in Shefford and if this is a waste for the Progressive Conservatives, for us it is indeed a good investment. During this summer, some 40 or 50 young people are trying to help their community thanks to those federal programs and this makes us very happy.
The maintaining of the employment tax credit is also very important to us. A number of firms have been and will be benefiting from the extension proposed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. And speaking of employment and immigration, I wish to mention something which is of particular interest to me, the in-depth review of the whole unemployment insurance program announced by the minister. As a member dealing with some 40 to 50 unemployment cases each week, I want to take an active part in that kind of review of the unemployment insurance rules because often, quite honestly, the complexity of the regulations and the lack of understanding displayed by some officials will discourage some unemployed, and will even have them feel they are almost treated like tramps. Often it is the result of an accident they suffered in their life. I know of persons who have been working for 30 and 40 years, who had to go on unemployment for all sorts of reasons, and I feel that the regulations should be, perhaps not eased up but simplified. It is therefore with much pleasure that I welcome the review and also, if I may, I would like to suggest to the government that people between 55 to 65
do not have enough programs tailored for them, although they have specific problems. We have established employment programs for the young, for women, for natives, for almost everybody but that group of workers. In my view, when someone loses his or her job at 55, it is very difficult for them to go and apply here and there. He or she may apply, but getting a job is another thing. This is a problem which will have to be tackled because in my area, especially in the textile industry, there have been numerous lay-offs. Right now many workers are at a loss. They can go on unemployment for 52 weeks but that only leads them to age 56. Then they face some problems. I therefore urge the government to look after that specific group of people because they have specific problems.
Over 65 years, there are senior citizens. I am therefore happy to see that we have honoured our commitment made in the Speech from the Throne by adding $35 guaranteed income to the supplement.
Many people in my constituency who will receive the supplement for July will benefit greatly from this initiative.
However, there is a sombre note in all this. The Quebec minister of social affairs has taken away $20 of these $35 for all senior citizens in nursing homes, and this same minister has had the gall, and it really takes a lot of gall to do this, to announce to the senior citizens that he was giving them an increase. At the same time, instead of giving them an increase, he is taking away $20 from them. 1 think that this should be pointed out to all senior citizens in nursing homes. The federal government decided that senior citizens needed $35 more, and the Quebec government appropriates these funds, for what purpose, I do not know, perhaps to pay for the referendum. It has appropriated part of the money that the federal government was giving to senior citizens.
As concerns housing for senior citizens, I believe that the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is taking vigorous action to make up for the shortage of housing for older people. I hope we will all make more efforts to enable non-profit organizations to start building such housing or renovating senior citizens and low income housing.
With the rents at their present level, many senior citizens have a hard time finding proper housing. 1 believe we have an obligation in this matter, and many non-profit organizations are willing to contribute to building new housing, but unfortunately the funds are insufficient and I would certainly like to see, in the weeks and in the months ahead, additional funds earmarked for this program which, by the way, is much better than a direct government construction program because 1 would rather see volunteers getting involved in housing rather than some government officials and going through tender after tender because that always ends up costing twice as much as expected, whereas non-profit organizations can certainly play
July 17, 1980

a major role in building. As far as renovation is concerned, 1 am very happy to see that the government granted the major city in my riding $1,367,000 last week to upgrade the city core. This is a cost-sharing project where the federal government contributes 50 per cent, the province 25 per cent and the city 25 per cent. That is true co-operation between governments and that will help make downtown Granby a good place to be. I think everybody will benefit. Hopefully, this federal contribution will give Granby, which is called the princess city of the eastern townships, a greater role to play.
The throne speech spoke a great deal about energy. Rereading the election pamphlets I realized that most of our commitments are fulfilled. We promised Canadians that there would be no unfair 18 cent tax. To my knowledge, there is none. We promised Canadians to do our utmost to give them a made-in-Canada price for oil, and we are still doing our utmost to achieve this and we also want to set up an oil prices monitoring agency. I think that will come soon and I think it will help reassure Canadians who think that the large multinationals make excessive profits and charge too much. 1 think that is commendable, and the sooner the better. But those are all commitments we made during the campaign and we are living up to them and making them realities. There have been references to the increased role of Petro-Canada. I think that with the re-election of our party Petro-Canada can have no fear for its future because we believe that agency can play a most important role.
1 heard a member opposite talk about the metric system earlier. Several opposition members are complaining that the conversion to the metric system is not working in their area. Yet our area has been designated for metrication. I do not know why my Progressive Conservative colleagues received so many complaints, because the people in our area where the very same process is going on, while they did not know what to think at first, did not go so far as to sign petitions and make all kinds of representations as people in other areas did. They understand that it is the system of the future and that we had-


Jean-C. Lapierre: That system is international, as my hon. colleague says. 1 think that people in our area were very quiet, although we normally have a tendency to protest and we found nothing awful about that. 1 invite my colleague who has problems in his constituency to come and see how well it worked in our area.
One of my favourite subjects, which is mentioned is agriculture. I see that my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe is smiling. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I want to commend him for his efforts, because since our return to Parliament, I have had the opportunity to work with my good friend, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, and I know how concerned our caucus is
Committee Report
about the problems faced by the farmers. In my area in particular, there was a strong demand for the creation of a Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation. We are confident that it will not be long before that corporation is established, and that it will enable our producers to export and to sell their products. We hope that they will use it as an instrument of development.
There is also the pork marketing problem. 1 think it affects a good many of my constituents who earn their living directly or indirectly from the pork industry. Several have welcomed with great satisfaction the price stabilization program for pork growers. Unfortunately, the Quebec government has not done so well for the piglet producers of that province.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for interrupting him, but I think the House would give unanimous consent if we were to revert to the presentation of reports from standing or special committees.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Pursuant to what I understood earlier this day, there is an agreement between the representatives of the parties in the House that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) would rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House to table a committee report. I understand that the tabling will be followed by a motion for report stage and third reading by the hon. member who sponsored the bill. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS AND STANDING ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Gauthier.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I could have the consent of the House to proceed with Bill S-8 in all its remaining stages?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
3040

July 17, 1980
The Address-Mr. Lapierre


PRIVATE BILLS
Stan Darling: that Bill S-8, to revive Pyramid Communications Limited, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Stan Darling: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: By leave, now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
[English]	,

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 can recognize the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) but I see the clock reads six. If I may, I would suggest that I call it six o'clock with the understanding that I will recognize the hon. member at eight o'clock this evening.
It being six o'clock 1 do now-


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as a courtesy to hon. members I would point out that there is a likelihood at eight o'clock of seeking unanimous consent to revert to statements by ministers as was indicated earlier today. We do not know yet, but I would advise the House that this is a possibility.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I take it that if a decision is made and consent is sought, it might be sought at later than eight o'clock this evening if the meeting of the government goes on later. I understand that it is to be whenever the government is ready, Mr. Speaker.


David Michael Collenette: It should be eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. If the government has something to say we shall listen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May we proceed with calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.02 p.m. 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 Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, before we adjourned for dinner, I was addressing the House on agricultural matters and particularly on commitments the government made in the Speech from the Throne. I was saying that the Canadian Agricultural Export Corporation which is to be established during this Parliament is in my opinion one of the best actions to be taken for the benefit of the Quebec agricultural community in particular. There are the hog producers, the poultry farmers and many other agricultural groups in Quebec who are anxious to expand their businesses and are making major investments. I think the government is very sensitive to their requests and surely we will all benefit from it.
There was also this question of the Canadian postal service which was discussed at length during the last election and I am pleased to note that yesterday the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) introduced that famous bill for the setting up of a Crown Corporation. I hope that the change to a Crown Corporation will enable us to restructure our postal service, because up to now there were all kinds of irresponsible decisions made in some post offices in my constituency and I hope that the problems in Rock Forest and in other places in my constituency will be solved by that revamping of the department.
Madam Speaker, I think that this government is certainly honouring its commitments towards Canadians and I hope that during the constitutional talks in the forthcoming weeks with all the work performed during the summer, Canadians will be in a position to expect a new constitution in the shortest possible time. I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) will deliver an important speech this evening and, while being responsible for the promises made during the election campaign and in the throne speech, I am
July 17, 1980

convinced that his wise decision and that of the cabinet will be another step toward a price made in Canada, self-sufficiency, and the creation of jobs in the energy area and those areas of the future.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I will say that I expect much of this Parliament, that I am quite proud to be a member on this side of the House and that I will do my utmost to fulfil our commitments.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, further to the request addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the question period, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is willing to make a statement, provided the House agrees to revert to Routine Proceedings, statements by ministers, even if it means sitting beyond normal hours, if need be, to allow us, before adjourning, to vote on the motion for debate on the address in reply on the eighth and last appointed day.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been those discussions and there is that agreement from this party to facilitate the business of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This party also agrees, Madam Speaker.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to reverting to statements by ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NORTHERN PIPELINE
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to speak at this time on a subject that is of interest to this House and the country. I wish tonight to make a statement concerning the pre-build project of the Alaska pipeline. 1 wish to state from the start that the government has taken a decision to approve in principle the construction of the Alaska pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

In 1977, Canada and the United States signed a bilateral agreement for the construction of the gas pipeline. In 1978, legislation to implement the agreement was passed by Parliament. Since then, two important developments have altered circumstances. First, the estimated completion date for the pipeline was set back from January, 1983, to the end of 1985.
Alaska Gas Pipeline

There has been, therefore, a delay in the original time for the scheduled completion of the line from 1983 to 1985.
The second major change relates to the proposed pre-building of the southern segments of the system. Its initial purpose of exporting Alberta gas to western and mid-western U.S. markets has taken on considerably greater importance. Prebuilding has become of prime importance in two ways: first, as a means of facilitating the completion of the entire project; and, second, in terms of the substantial and widespread economic benefits it promises to provide Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am sorry if some members of the New Democratic Party are feeling sick. I am sure there must be a doctor in the lobby to take care of them.


An hon. Member:: Why don't they just walk out like they did the last time?


Marc Lalonde: In its original conception, as indicated, the southern portion of the line was to be built only moderately in advance of the remainder of the system in the north. The effect of the delays I mentioned has been the pre-building can now take place well in advance of construction of the rest of the system.
There has, of course, been another development. In the intervening years the volume of Canadian gas surplus to our needs and available for export has grown from some 800 billion cubic feet to around 4.5 trillion cubic feet. A number of steps have been taken by the government to take this changing situation into account.
First, the National Energy Board made the following determination: if pre-building were to be undertaken on schedule, with commencement of the construction of the western leg this summer, then it would be necessary to modify condition 12 of the Northern Pipeline Act. Because of the delays which I mentioned it would have been quite impossible for Foothills (Yukon) in these very different circumstances to meet the original requirement of establishing that financing had been obtained for the whole line in Canada.
Second, on April 2, the National Energy Board issued an order amending condition 12, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. The amendment required Foothills to satisfy both the Board and the minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency on two major points. First, they had to be satisfied by Foothills that financing had been obtained for pre-building of the southern segments of the system in Canada. In the second place, they had to be satisfied that financing could be obtained for the remainder of the system before construction of the pre-build would be authorized.

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
Third, also on April 2, Senator Olson requested the NEB to hold public hearings in order to obtain evidence as to whether Foothills could meet the terms of condition 12 as revised with respect to financing. At the same time, however, he advised the Board that the government intended to defer consideration of its order on this condition until it could also consider two other closely related matters. One was the pending recommendation of the NEB with respect to applications from Pan-Alberta. The latter had requested a licence to export an additional 500 bcf of gas remaining in the unallocated surplus previously identified by the board as a means of establishing the financial viability of the pre-build.
The other matter requiring consideration was the position of the United States government-its view as to the financeabili-ty of the pipeline system within its territory and the outlook for its timely completion.
Let me deal with the last issue first. The government has before it information on a number of steps which have been taken in the United States to encourage and facilitate the commencement and expeditious completion of the project by late 1985. These steps include recent decisions by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certifying the pre-building of the western and eastern legs of the system in the lower 48 states for the initial purpose of transporting surplus Alberta gas pending the through-put of Alaskan reserves. They include also the June 19 agreement between the major gas producers in Alaska-Exxon, BP, Sohio and Arco-and Northwest Alaskan, the pipeline sponsor in that area, on the sharing of some $500 million in expenditures to complete final design and engineering work required to construct the pipeline and conditioning plant in Alaska, and to arrive at final cost estimates. On June 19 the producers and sponsor also signed a statement of intention in which they undertook to work together to facilitate the financing of the pipeline and conditioning plant in Alaska with a view to achieving completion of the system by 1985.
As hon. members are all aware, the strong and continuing commitment of the U.S. Congress was forcefully expressed through a joint resolution unanimously approved by both Blouses within the past few days. This resolution emphasized the conviction of Congress that the Alaska pipeline remains- and I quote-"an essential part of securing this nation's energy future and, as such, enjoys the highest level of congressional support for its expeditious construction and completion by the end of 1985."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I might say that this resolution was passed by Congress at the urging of the Canadian government represented by Senator Olson in those discussions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Finally, the Canadian government took account of the assurances which President Carter has indicated the U.S. government was prepared to make with respect to the financeability and timely completion of the system within
its territory, given the developments to which 1 have just referred. Based on all these factors, and on the formal assurances which President Carter has today provided in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Canadian government is prepared to accept the U.S. government's judgment that the project within its territory can be financed and will be completed expeditiously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: With the permission of the House 1 should like to table copies of the joint resolution of Congress and the statement of intention by the producers and pipeline sponsor in Alaska. I am also pleased to table a copy of the president's letter of today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I apologize for the fact that the president's letter has not yet been translated into French-it has only just been received-but the other documents are in the two official languages.
Based on all these factors and on the formal assurance that President Carter has provided today, again, the government has accepted the United States' commitment assuring timely completion of the whole project. I repeat-timely completion of the whole project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The government is also prepared to authorize additional exports recommended by the National Energy Board through the pre-build system in order to establish the financial viability of that stage of the project. It also approves the amendment to condition 12 made by the Board.
Madam Speaker, 1 referred earlier to the hearings undertaken by the National Energy Board on the ability of Foothills to meet the revised condition 12. In a statement following these hearings, the NEB raised four matters of concern with respect to the financeability of the project in Canada. All these matters related to issues involving decisions made in the United States. Foothills itself initially raised all these issues as being potential problem areas. However, in response to an inquiry on this matter by the NEB, Foothills indicated that because of more recent developments it was confident that these issues had been, or would be, satisfactorily resolved.
However, it still remains necessary for the Board, and Senator Olson, to make a judgment as to whether Foothills is, in fact, capable of meeting the requirements of condition 12, as amended, with respect to the financing of the project in Canada. I expect that both the Board and Senator Olson will be in a position to reach a decision on that question within the next few days. Assuming this last issue of policy is satisfactorily resolved, the way will finally be cleared for a start on construction of the Alaska highway gas pipeline. The southern segment will commence within the next month.
July 17, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: It has been suggested in some quarters that the pre-build would amount to the construction only of an export line and represent a very different project than that provided for in the Northern Pipeline Act. Such an allegation is completely groundless. What is proposed is the construction, in two stages, of a fully integrated system capable of carrying Alaska gas to the lower 48 states and providing access to Canada's own gas in the Mackenzie Delta.
1 spoke earlier of assurances by the United States government. We are satisfied that the United States Congress and the United States administration are fully committed to building their portion of the line by 1985. We base this not only on the assurances already received but on a recognition of the absolutely vital national interest of the United States in gaining access to its gas at Prudhoe Bay, which represents more than 10 per cent of all its established reserves and its largest single new source of energy for the foreseeable future.
First, as I stated earlier, construction of the southern segments for the initial transportation of Alberta gas would spur completion of the entire project. It would provide an early cash flow to pipeline sponsors which would be a big help to them in financing the remainder of the pipeline.
Second, by stretching out the construction timetable it would also ease the strain on skilled manpower and the supply of goods and services, and ensure a very high level of Canadian input into the project. In other words, the pre-build fits in with the current economic cycle of the country.
Finally, pre-building of the western and eastern legs and the initial export of surplus Canadian gas will provide substantial economic benefit to this country. According to estimates, this will result in direct capital expenditures in Canada of a total of $1.6 billion, the benefits of which would be felt right across the country in terms of jobs and output.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Of this amount some $655 million would be spent on the pre-build facilities themselves and another $935 million on installation of the production wells, conditioning plants, and the gathering and other facilities required to deliver the gas to the Foothills pipeline. The pre-build project and associated developments would create employment directly and indirectly over the period between 1980 and 1984 of 150,000 man-years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: That applies not only to Alberta but also to British Columbia and to Ipsco in Saskatchewan, n'en deplaise my hon. friends in the NDP. It applies to Sault Ste. Marie, it applies to Hamilton, it applies to Contrecoeur and it applies all across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Alaska Gas Pipeline


Marc Lalonde: The National Energy Board itself has concluded that pre-building alone and the flow of Canadian gas to the United States can generate national economic benefits of some $4.5 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: A substantial portion of those benefits will come through the potential sale over the life of approved export contracts of around $17 billion worth of gas and natural gas liquid byproducts, which in turn will provide a positive boost to Canada's balance of payments position of some $2 billion a year.
The export of natural gas through the pre-build will provide a substantial benefit to hundreds of small and medium-sized Canadian-owned producers, many of whom at present have substantial shut-in reserves because of the absence of markets either in Canada or in the United States. The opening up of markets for these supplies which are surplus to Canadian needs will provide the cash flows such producers require in order to maintain exploration at the high level required to develop additional reserves with which to meet our own requirements over the long haul. For some of these Canadian companies at least, a failure to secure early access to U.S. markets could leave them with little choice but to sell out their interests to large multinational oil companies which can afford to hold gas in the ground for a long time. Such an alternative would clearly be contrary to our policy of greatly increasing domestic ownership and control of the petroleum industry in this country.
The pre-build, though, is just a part of the story. The total project, both northern and southern portions, according to best estimates, will in and of itself result in a 1 per cent gain in Canada's gross national product, with benefits including $2 billion in pipe orders to Canadian mills, 350,000 direct and indirect man-years of employment for Canadians, and the development of Canadian expertise and export capability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Given the nature of the U.S. assurances and given the very substantial benefits which pre-building will provide-for example, facilitating the completion of the entire project and immediate returns to Canada in terms of jobs, output, producer revenues and balance of payment inflows-I do not believe that there can be any doubt that our national interest lies in proceeding with this important undertaking at the earliest possible date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The government is convinced that this decision is good not only for Alberta and not only for the oil industry but that it is also good for all Canadians and all Canadian workers in each and every one of the provinces of this country.

July 17, 1980
Message from the Senate


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The government has been considering this matter at length these last few weeks and took a whole series of measures to make sure that the whole pipeline would be built in the coming years and particularly by 1985. Today the American administration provided us with the final necessary assurances to convince us of the United States commitment to complete the proposed Alaska gas pipeline by 1985. From the immediate construction of the southern section of the Alaska pipeline will flow enormous benefits for the whole Canadian economy, not only for Alberta oil producers and the Alberta government, but also for manufacturers and particularly workers in each and every province of Canada, especially those involved in the steel and pipeline equipment industries. The construction now of the southern section is just part of the process toward the construction of the entire system of the Alaska pipeline that for the most part runs through Canada. The pre-build section will enable us to spread over several years the work and revenues necessary to build this pipeline. This project, on top of the one we have already announced regarding the extension of the gas pipeline to eastern Canada, particularly as far as Quebec City for the time being, will give a tremendous shot in the arm to the Canadian economy, in eastern as well as in western Canada, and that is the main reason that made the government come today to this decision which, I am sure, will benefit all Canadians.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, the following bills: Bill C-3, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971; Bill C-4, an act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes; Bill C-26, an act to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the Province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve; Bill C-31, an act to provide for the imposition of certain economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran; and Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House Ottawa
July 17, 1980
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Brian Dickson, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 17th day of July, at 9.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request that the necessary arrangements be made so that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod will not knock at the door until the statements and the questions with respect to this matter have been concluded.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, after the royal assent ceremony, I have no objection to continue with this statement of the minister and the questions which may follow, should you so decide. However, it would be unacceptable under present circumstances if the ceremony to which your referred did not take place at nine o'clock, in view of the fact that we already had royal assent earlier today and that we have asked the hon. Justice of the Supreme Court to be here this evening.


An hon. Member:: He can wait!


Yvon Pinard: He is available at nine o'clock as a replacement for the Governor General. After the ceremony, Madam Speaker, we will go on with the interventions on the minister's statement. The House has agreed earlier to sit after ten o'clock to allow us to go to the bottom of this issue and then go on with the adoption of the motion on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, even after ten o'clock tonight. I suggest therefore that this is simply a matter of elementary courtesy. I would expect that from members of the New Democratic Party-


An hon. Member:: Courtesy! He can wait!
Madam,
July 17, 1980


Yvon Pinard: -who are usually so courteous, so that we would have royal assent at nine o'clock and continue the debate a little later.


Madam Speaker:: I should have liked to accommodate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I can see that we have no choice in this instance, for the substitute of the Governor General would not be available after nine o'clock. However, 1 agree that we should return and sit late if necessary.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have never in my time here seen nor heard a triple flip-flop such as the one I have observed tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We heard a minister just now make a statement, a minister who was a member of the government in 1977 and 1978, and who was in office when the Northern Pipeline Act was passed, which act required the construction of a pipeline. During the debate a discussion arose with respect to the pre-build and the necessity of that pre-build to finance the whole. The same minister in opposition made statements of which I am going to remind him in a moment or two because he has fallen far short, in his statement today, of coming up with those ironclad commitments of which he spoke last December.
Now he has flopped again-a flip-flop-flip. He is now on the side of the virtuous in reverting to the position of his government in 1977-78. It is a magnificent performance, Madam Speaker, a magnificent act. He really should, this ironclad man, be attending the Olympics as an acrobat.


Walter David Baker: A trampoline artist.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, a trampoline artist. Seriously, I have to reserve at least two positions here. One is a very serious one with respect to the amendments to section 12 of the conditions set out in schedule III of the act. There is no way that we on this side can exercise a value judgment as to whether or not the changes which are being made to section 12 are intra vires and are legal until we see those changes. They have not been made available to us, although I do thank the minister for instructing his office to make available to me at 15 minutes to eight o'clock this evening a copy of the statement he intended to make. Unfortunately, there were no copies of the president's letter attached to that statement, nor were there any copies of the changes to section 12 attached to the copy of the statement
Alaska Gas Pipeline
which I received, so we are unable to comment on these two very vital aspects of the minister's statement.
The reservation that I want to make-and I have not yet received copies, although I have requested them from the Table-is the so-called commitment of which the minister spoke in his statement, made by way of the letter which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) received from President Carter today. We must see that letter, and we must see the changes in condition 12.


Mr. Lawrence:: We should have a copy.


Erik Nielsen: As my friend, the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) says, we should have had a copy. That has been the weakness of the NDP position all along. They have been trying to judge this matter on the basis of an hypothesis. Always there was an "if'-if the government changes condition 12, will they not agree that it would be illegal to do so without debate? We do not know until we see the extent to which the government intends to change condition 12, and we do not know until we can make a value judgment on the legality of those changes. But their position is even worse than that. In 1977 and 1978 the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was their spokesman on energy matters. Madam Speaker will recall that he is now one of the officers of Husky Oil, I believe it is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: They then took the position-and if there could be any act that exceeds the act of the minister in the art of the flip-flop-flip, it is that party over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They took the position in 1977 and 1978 that there will be no pipeline. Also their position is very clear that there will be no exports of gas. Now they are trying to have us believe that they are opposed to the pre-build but they are favourable to the pipeline. That is one flip-flop. "But if you can assure us that the guarantees are there that the whole line will be built-I am still not going to let you put any gas through it because that is not in accordance with our policy- go ahead", they say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They say, "No pre-build, but if the guarantees are there, we will change our position of 1977-78 as long as you build the whole gas pipeline. But for God's sake, don't put any gas through that gas pipeline". What act can exceed that kind of position?
There have been no changes in substance between now and last December when the minister spoke on an announcement made by the then minister of energy, mines and resources which is almost on all fours with the announcement made tonight. The only difference is that instead of 4.5 trillion cubic feet that we are being authorized to export, the figure was 3.7.

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
When the minister made his announcement on December 6 last year, he made it quite clear that the exports were being authorized on the recommendation of NEB for transmission through the pre-build sections of this line only. At that time the now minister had some very startling things to say. But I point out that apart from the letter from President Carter, which I have not yet seen, there have been no substantive changes between the position of last December 6 and the position today, not one.


Marc Lalonde: $500 million.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, there is the change from 3.7 to 4.5; that is the only substantive change. In so far as commitments and the rest of the matters of which he spoke last December, there have been no changes. The 1985 delay was present last December, indeed it was present long before that. What he is trying to do in his own inimitable convoluted way is to try to justify his own swallowing of himself and his words of last December.


Walter David Baker: What a mouthful, that would be impossible.


Erik Nielsen: As the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said, it would almost be physically impossible. 1 really do not see how he can get past his iron head.
Condition 12 indicates that they have to be satisfied that the financing requirements for the whole line have been met. Now obviously that has been altered. It would be interesting to see just how it has been altered. Last December the minister made six conditions. The minister makes a moue, 1 will read those conditions to him to refresh his memory. In response to the minister's announcement on that date, he said:
I think this statement will be one that Canada will live to regret-
Essentially it was the same statement as the one made tonight. He continued:
-as one of the greatest sellouts we have seen.
That was the minister's value judgment on December 6 of last year as reported at page 2100 of Hansard for that year. He said that we should assume six points to be necessary prerequisites prior to the approval of the export and of the pre-build. He certainly laid his party's reputation on the line when he was making that statement speaking on his party's behalf. As reported at page 2101 of Hansard, he said:
-we are faced with the situation where eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces, need more natural gas and need a gas pipeline to take gas to the homes and to the industries there.
I ask the minister to respond to this when he is replying to questions. Is it still the Liberal party's position that extension of the Q & M Pipe Lines to the maritimes must come before the pre-build which he has just announced, because that was his position of last December? Referring to page 2101 of the same issue of Hansard, he imposed a second condition. He said:
-with regard to revenues arising out of gas exports to the United States. They should be used to ensure the initiation and completion of the Quebec and maritime gas pipelines-
That is what he said last December, a few short months ago. Let me put this question to him: Is it still the government's position that revenues from gas exports to the United States be used to construct the full Q & M Pipe Lines? Are these government or private sector revenues that will be used to construct this eastern Canadian pipeline? That was his position and the position of his party when he was spokesman last December. He set forth a third condition then. As reported on the same page of Hansard, he said:
-we have an announcement that we will sell 3.7 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States. That certainly is a clear indication that this government has its priorities all wrong.
Later on the same page he said:
Therefore, if we have to have a bias, our bias as Canadians should be against any gas exports outside Canada . . . That should take place only on the basis of an overriding national interest-
The factors, the elements and the circumstances have not changed in the interim between last December and now. What has changed? I ask Madam Speaker what has changed since December 6 except that presently the now government wants to export more than 3.7 trillion cubic feet? Or, does the government agree with its socialist friends to my left, their position that we should build a pipeline and not put any gas through it at all? If there is to be any logic in what the minister said last December, that has to be the compelling result of that logic.
He laid down a fourth condition then which is very interesting. Referring to the same page of Hansard, he said:
-there must be an arrangement for swaps in this agreement with the United States so that down the line, if Canada were to need natural gas, we would be in a position to obtain natural gas from the Alaska gas pipeline which we might need in exchange for the gas we are now providing to the Americans.
That was a very clear statement of his party's policies on the question of swaps which he does not mention at all in his statement tonight. I do not know whether it is an ironclad flop or whether he has increased his dexterity to a flip-flop, flip-flop, because he has already done it three times here.
I know that my harkening back to the rather rash statements which the minister made last December are certainly not comfortable to him, but it seems to me that they should be exposed in the light of the need for Canadians to assess the integrity of the kind of party that now sits there and .then sat here.
With respect to the fifth condition, Madam Speaker, that was imposed-and in this connection I refer to page 2101 of Hansard of December 6, 1979:
In our view, exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all-
-and the minister will remember the following words vividly. The sentence continues:
-an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline.
July 17, 1980

He went on to say that he was not satisfied with that firmness of statement, although the word "ironclad" cannot sound any firmer, but he went on to say:
Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered-before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.


An hon. Member:: What about that, Marc?


Erik Nielsen: That is what he said last December.


Mr. Nowlan:: No wonder the gas has increased.


Erik Nielsen: It is very obvious. Where is this commitment of which he speaks that has to be signed, sealed and delivered before one cubic foot of gas is exported out of the country?
I have not had an opportunity to read the letter from President Carter, but my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), has read it, and he has informed me that there is no commitment, guarantee or anything approaching the words of the minister in his statement, tonight contained in that letter.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you read it?


Miss MacDonald:: Why don't you?


Erik Nielsen: I usually rely on my friend from Nepean-Carleton.


An hon. Member:: Read page 2.


Mr. Harquail:: Madam Speaker, this is a very important occasion. I would like to intervene and plead with you, Madam Speaker, that the very representatives from that section of the House who moved an adjournment debate to have this subject dealt with, and who have been calling for a statement, interrupted the minister's speech almost entirely throughout his speech. Now when this member is speaking, and he is saying some important things about Atlantic Canada and mentioning other important aspects relating to the speech, I wonder if we could have an opportunity to hear him since we were unable to have order while the minister, due to the interruptions and the fractious attitude of the NDP-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Children.


Maurice James Harquail: I hope we can bring some order back to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The childish NDP.


Erik Nielsen: In any event, Madam Speaker, so much for the president's letter which has been read by my friend. There is nothing approaching a commitment, the nature of which was contemplated by the minister, when he spoke last December.
Alaska Gas Pipeline
Regarding financial commitments, he went on at page 2102 of Hansard for December 6, 1979, to say this:
-we should have a commitment from the U.S. government in this respect, as well as from private industry.
I suggest to the minister that it would be stretching the truth beyond all recognition for him to even leave the inference that there is any financial commitment for the construction of the whole line. The conditions set forth in schedule 3, namely condition 12, make it abundantly clear that the minister-that is the Senator in the other place-must be satisfied that the financing is available for the construction of the whole line and not just part of it.
One thing which the minister did not touch upon, and he will recall that last December when the minister then made the announcement on December 6 of a seven-year time span over which the export would run, and he said-he, the minister now-at page 2102 of Hansard the following:
Our preference . . . has been for five-year agreements on exports. We are surprised that the government has been considering seven-year agreements.
He might address himself to that matter when he is replying to questions. Those are the views, Madam Speaker, which the minister expressed last December when he was out of office. Now he has suddenly become responsible again in the swallowing of himself.


Walter David Baker: The ironclads have turned to mush.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The ironclads have turned to mush. I think in an announcement as important as this one, if the minister really believes what he is saying now-


An hon. Member:: Who knows?


Erik Nielsen: -in the extent and the nature of the commitments, which he seems to believe are commitments from the United States with respect to financing, that the whole line is going to be built and is going to be within a 1985 time-frame, then he should put his seat on the line if he has any doubts about it at all.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Marc Lalonde: Would the hon. member run against me in Outremont?


Erik Nielsen: I will certainly come and run against the minister in Outremont if he will try the same act with me in the Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: No conditions.


Erik Nielsen: The last ten minutes or so of the minister's 30-odd minutes' statement dealt with economic benefits. They
3048

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
have always been there. Those economic benefits were spelled out when the act was before Parliament and before committee, and there have been no changes in circumstances whatsoever. 1 do not know what has taken the government so long in their shilly-shallying, delaying and fumbling in coming up with this decision.
I have one more point to which I want to address myself. It has to do with the response of the Prime Minister today when he was being questioned by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), and I am referring to commitments that were given by Mr. Schlesinger. My friend from Perth asked him to table the current assurances and the Schlesigner commitment of some months ago in order that the House may see what differences, if any, are contained in the United States commitments. The Prime Minister must have been in receipt of that letter from President Carter when that question was answered. We did not have any tabling of that letter this afternoon in response.
More seriously, the Prime Minister in responding to the first part of the question said that, "on the Schlesinger commitment 1 think I made it clear at the time that the then secretary, Schlesinger, had told me verbally that we would not be wise to proceed with the pre-build if we did not have guarantees that the whole line would be built. So, I cannot table anything."
But last December 7 when the Prime Minister led the questioning for that day, he questioned the then prime minister, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and he said this at page 2123 of Hansard:
Could I remind the hon. gentleman that our government obtained from the United States a commitment that if there were to be any pre-build of the Alaska gas pipeline, it could only be authorized if there were a commitment to build the entire line? Could I hear from the Prime Minister whether that commitment obtained from Mr. Schlesinger last March still stands?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that commitment stands.
The present Prime Minister said later on in his second question:
This phrase obviously indicates that there is no firm commitment, that we are asking them for a firm commitment and that we have authorized the export before obtaining this commitment.
We want to compare that statement of the present Prime Minister with the lack of any commitments, I am informed by my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, who has read the letter, or anything approaching a commitment in the letter from President Carter. The decision to go ahead is bound to result in immeasurable economic benefits to this country. We have always been of that view.
However, the government has fallen far short of obtaining that degree of commitment to the construction of the whole line which the minister certainly expressed, in no uncertain terms last December, and which when they were in office previous to the last administration, they expressed just as strongly. They have fallen far short of obtaining the kind of commitment which will ensure the completion of the whole line. I very much doubt whether the time-frame of 1985 will be met. Indeed, when I took part in the debate in 1978, I
forecasted then delays which I anticipated would go to 1985 and beyond. From what I have heard tonight, those doubts have not only not been allayed, but my conviction has been firmed, that we are looking at a considerable piece beyond 1985 before we can see the construction of the whole line, indeed, if we see it at all.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of our party to speak on this issue which I regard as the most important issue of this Parliament so far. The minister during his speech looked across the floor and yelled at us on this side of the House words to the effect, "Do you guys feel sick or something?" Well, I do feel sick tonight.


An hon. Member:: You look it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is unbelievable that it is the same minister who is sitting across the floor tonight when one year ago, while he was in opposition and was the Liberal energy critic, he said | that the pre-build would be one of the greatest sell-outs in Canadian history. Tonight he has turned around and made a statement which is exactly the opposite. What makes me really sick is that the statement is sheer hypocrisy. Those are our feelings toward his statement tonight.


John Carnell Crosbie: Tough luck.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to set out briefly and summarize I the position of our party because, unlike my friends to the right, I think it is very, very clear. What we have tonight is not a decision to build a pipeline, but a decision to export more Canadian gas which we think should stay in Canada to meet Canada's future needs.
There is no firm guarantee, none at all, that the rest of the pipeline will ever be built. The only thing which is guaranteed is that the United States will get our gas. Clearly, the government has failed to stand up for our interests. It has failed to get the ironclad guarantees which the minister so properly demanded when he was in opposition. The minister has failed to get the guarantees which would ensure the financing for the whole line. He has failed to get any swap agreements so that when we sell out the Canadian gas we receive, later, gas to replace it at the same prices from the Americans. The minister has failed to get that guarantee.
When I saw the minister receive a standing ovation for his speech of sheer hypocrisy, I wondered how the members opposite will go back to their ridings and say to their constituents, "Well, you have to pay more for gas in the future, because we are selling it all out now." In 1978 Parliament authorized a transportation pipeline to help the Americans transport Alaska natural gas from Prudhoe Bay through Canada down to the lower 48. What benefits were we to receive? We were to receive some jobs, to receive some contracts and so on for helping the Americans. We also were to receive a link up to the Arctic gas through the Dempster lateral. That is why Parliament passed the Northern Pipeline Act.
July 17, 1980

However, it was an act to transport American gas to American markets. Now, the government, without parliamentary approval or debate-and we have sought a special debate to have the matter brought before the House to find out about the guarantees-the government comes forward tonight, by order in council behind closed doors and against the real intent of an act of Parliament, brings in this announcement. It is clear to me, if it is not clear to the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that the government has brought in an order in council which will authorize an export pipeline to export huge quantities of Alberta gas, Canadian gas to American markets. We on this side of the House say that this is a sell-out. Let us call it what it is. It is a sell-out of relatively cheap Canadian gas. Later Canadian consumers will have to pay higher prices, if we can get the gas. There is no guarantee that the whole pipeline will ever be build.
Some hon. members have raised in the House the fact that, according to the Prime Minister, even the Americans said that we would be damn fools to go ahead with the pre-build. Yet the minister receives a standing ovation for going ahead with the pre-build. That is what the Liberals think. I have never been more proud than tonight that I am not a Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The minister, when he was the energy critic in opposition of course said, and the hon. member for Yukon gave us the words-they are familiar to this House-"Let us not sell out for a fast buck, let's have ironclad guarantees." Tonight the minister went against that statement totally. Not only has he flip-flopped, but he has given up the whole basis of his energy policy. As I recall, the minister's energy policy is to get Canada off oil. That part of his policy makes sense to me. Does it not make sense to use cheap Canadian natural gas to replace that expensive imported oil? That is a good policy and one with which I agree.
The problem is that when Ontario, Quebec and the other eastern provinces are ready to convert, they will ask, "Where is the gas?" It will all have been sold to the United States by this pre-build. I draw to the minister and hon. member's attention the Liberal party policy of 1980 which reads at section 124(a):
As far as practicable, a distribution network should ensure that all regions of Canada are linked to the provinces rich in energy resources.
It goes on to say in subparagraph (b):
Exports of energy or energy sources should be very carefully assessed to guarantee Canada's long-term interests.
There goes the policy right out the window. Where is the new Liberal party? Where is the nationalism and the concern for Canada's energy security? It is gone.


An hon. Member:: It was never there.


John Carnell Crosbie: They fooled you.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We asked questions in the House with respect to whether there were any swap provisions in this agreement. Swap provisions are very simple and can easily be understood
Alaska Gas Pipeline
by Canadians. That is, if we intend to sell off all this gas now, let us make a deal with the United States that we receive some of that Alaska gas when it comes down. But there are no swap provisions. The minister said as recently as last week that he was still negotiating with the American secretary of the interior, but there are no swap provisions and there are no guarantees.
Look at the guarantees. First of all, we have a resolution of the Congress. The minister knows and members know that one Congress does not bind another. Hon. members know Congress does not commit one cent to construction and that it is the private companies that build the pipelines, not the American Congress, and they are not going to guarantee it.
The second thing is that there is a letter from the President: "Dear Marc, Go ahead. Signed, Jimmy." What is this letter worth? I say with respect to the President, what is this letter worth, Madam Speaker? It is not committing Congress or the administration to one penny. It is certainly not committing any President afterwards. Does the government call this "guarantees"?
The third guarantee is that the pipeline companies, the oil companies, have spent some money; they have spent 2 per cent. On projects? No, on studies in Alaska.
Those are the ironclad guarantees, Madam Speaker. Those are what the minister comes to the House with tonight. He says they are jobs. They are jobs for one-tenth of the project. The project is going to cost about $600 million and upwards in Canada, plus the spin-off benefits. The whole line in Canada would cost $8 billion and the total line would cost $22 billion. Why should Canadian workers settle for one-tenth of the loaf when they can have the whole loaf? That does not make any sense. No, Madam Speaker, on this side of the House we think that line will never be build.
There is another matter at issue here but before I deal with it I heard something from my friends to my right. What is the position of the Conservative party on this? They are in favour of the pre-build.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


John Carnell Crosbie: The same as it always was.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This pre-build is going to hurt British Columbia, my province, substantially. It is going to end their gas markets in the United States. There are 16 Conservative members on this side of the House from British Columbia but not one of them has got to his feet to oppose this pre-build.


An hon. Member:: You are not just from British Columbia. Be a Canadian.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Unfortunately we do not have any members from the maritimes-yet-but I hear some of them yelling from across the floor. What happens when you extend the pipeline to the maritimes?

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline


Mark Willson Rose: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. A moment ago the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) chastised members of my party and others on this side of the House generally for rudeness. 1 wonder if the same kind of courtesy that was requested by the hon. member could be extended to our spokesman.


An hon. Member:: But he didn't get it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think what I was saying, Madam Speaker, makes good sense. If we export all the gas through this new pipeline, then where is the gas for the maritimes and where is the gas for Vancouver Island to take them off oil?
We heard today as a result of a question I put to the minister that the industry is thinking of looping the pipeline and putting more gas in it. Where do we stop these exports?
Evelyn Gigantes, who is the MPP for this area, and I proposed to the minister and to the Ontario government that Ontario buy some Alberta gas. If the producers have a cash flow problem, then we will help them and buy that gas. We will not export it but will bank it in Alberta. That makes sense to me as an energy policy. We could use that gas later in Ontario when the people need it. That is what an energy policy is like. I thought the minister was moving toward that.
I want to conclude, Madam Speaker, by dealing with one other matter, and that is the challenge to Parliament in this whole issue.


An hon. Member:: Cabinet dictatorship.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We have asked for a debate in Parliament. We have asked for an amendment to this act-this act which may be illegal. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House the other day, "We are just building this northern pipeline by stages like you build the St. Lawrence Seaway- one lock at a time." The problem is that it is more like authorizing the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway and then building the Erie canal! It is totally different. It is comparing apples with oranges.
This is a very fundamental matter for Parliament, if we take Parliament seriously. Parliament authorized a transportation pipeline and then the government-not by coming back to Parliament but by order in council-authorizes an export pipeline. I hear it said that Parliament does not matter any more, that it is useless, that in this new age what we have is really cabinet dictatorship between elections.
It is up to us. Madam Speaker, to decide if we are going to let Parliament not matter any more. This is a fundamental issue that we in the NDP are going to continue fighting for.
At the conclusion of his remarkable speech when he was urging the building of a Canadian transcontinental railway, Sir John A. Macdonald, as reported at page 494 of Hansard, volume one, of the debate of 1880-81 said this:
"I can trust to the intelligence of this House, and the patriotism of this country. I can trust not only to the patriotism but to the common sense of this country to carry out an arrangement which will give us all we want, which will satisfy all the loyal, legitimate aspirations, which will give us a great, an united, a rich, an
improving, a developing Canada, instead of making us tributary to American laws, to American (gas companies) to American bondage, to American tolls, to American freights, to all the little tricks and big tricks that American (gas companies) arc addicted to-"
I have changed two of Sir John's words, Madam Speaker. In two places I changed the word "railway" to "gas companies". Otherwise that is a verbatim statement of Sir John A. Macdonald in this House in discussing the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I did that purposely, Madam Speaker, because in the Speech from the Throne the government said the same thing. They said that pipelines are really the railways of the twentieth century. I agree with that. That is why this matter is so important tonight. That is why we must not stuff this "railway" full of Canadian gas to go to the United States. That is why we must get rid of this colonial attitude or we will always remain a colony.
What we are doing is taking all our jobs and our gas and stuffing them into a pipeline and exporting them. That is the fundamental issue here. When hon. members opposite stand up and give the minister the kind of ovation they did, they should really think about that.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I will not take too much of the time of the House, but with all the exuberance that is in evidence tonight with the announcement, there is one forgotten group of people who are directly going to be affected by this line. I had hoped that the government in the past several weeks would have been able to have brought the Bill S-12 forward. That would have given a certain amount of protection to those people who are directly involved with the building of this gas pipeline.
My question to the minister would be-and I would hope that some time during the interim he would be able to answer this: Will those farmers on whose land this pipeline is going to pass over be given protection? Can we have a commitment from the government that these farmers will have the protection that Bill S-12 would have given them? Bill S-12 should be known to the government members because it came out of the Senate in the Thirtieth Parliament. It affects the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). We are responsible to those people.
At this time I have to give warning to the government that these farmers are going to be very difficult to deal with until we have an assurance from the government and the contracting firms that they are going to be protected. When you go on a farm, tear down the fences and mess up the surface of the land entirely, certainly those people are deserving of very direct consideration. Up to the present time the government has ignored this. I cannot state emphatically enough that consideration must be given to this question.
I spoke to the government House leader with regard to having Bill S-12 passed during this session of Parliament. Up to this time it has not been passed. Even if that bill cannot be
July 17, 1980

passed during this session of Parliament, 1 hope the government will be in a position to give those farmers the protection that bill would give them.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the hon. member for his interest in the subject and remind him that Bill S-12 was introduced at the instigation of the government in the Senate. I also remind him that Senator Olson has repeatedly brought this matter to our attention, requesting urgent consideration on the House side of the bill that had been considered by the Senate. As the hon. member knows, the session is far from over. I am advised by the government House leader that he will give urgent consideration to this issue.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I have a short statement first and then I will follow up with a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Benjamin:: Ask your question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member should restrict himself to questions. Statements have already been made by representatives of the different parties.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, whereas the former minister of the previous government made the following statement to this House on December 13, 1979, I have to repeat the statement by way of news release before 1 put my question-


Some hon. Members:: No.


William J. Yurko: It was a statement by the Hon. Robert de Cotret which was issued on December 13, 1979. The statement was as follows.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Ask the question or shut up.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable House attend immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[ Translation]
And being returned:
Madam Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971-Chapter No. 35.
Bill C-18, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods-Chapter No. 36.
Alaska Gas Pipeline
Bill C-4, an act respecting grants to municipalities, provinces and other bodies exercising functions of local government that levy real property taxes-Chapter No. 37.
Bill C-26, an act to implement an agreement between Her Majesty in right of the Province of British Columbia and Her Majesty in right of Canada respecting the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of minerals in the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve-Chapter No. 38.
Bill C-31, an act to provide for the imposition of certain economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran -Chapter No. 39.
Bill C-40, an act to amend the Pensions Act, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of Wars Act, the War Veterans Allowances Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act-Chapter No. 19.
Bill S-8, an act to revive Pyramid Communications Limited.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, my question relates specifically to a portion of a news release of last December 13 by Senator Robert de Cotret, then minister of industry, trade and commerce. I would read just a very short part of it to come to the section pertinent to what I have in mind. The Senator stated:
I have had discussions with the principals in the Alaska gas pipeline project and have given them the assurance that the Government of Canada remains fully committed to the implementation of the Canada-U.S. agreement for the transportation of north slope gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. Along with the significant industrial benefits to Canada, this project facilitates access to Canadian gas reserves in the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea.
This is the pertinent section I am referring to:
Furthermore, the government is of the view that the pre-building of the southern sections of the system for the export of Alberta gas to the U.S.A. market in advance of the arrival of the Alaska gas is an important component of that project, both for its early completion and for the substantial benefit-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sit down!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to ask his question right now, as I have already been quite tolerant with him.


William J. Yurko: 1 share the views expressed by the previous government when it agreed with the United States government-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member was going to ask a question. He must do so right now because he has already made quite a lengthy statement.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, I do not know how to ask the question unless I put the-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just admitted he does not know how to ask

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
a question. He has taken all these minutes making a speech and I suggest that you do not hear him any further.


Madam Speaker:: 1 think I have to apply the ruling to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). The period following a statement by the minister is set aside for questions to the minister thereon. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question immediately I will give him the floor one more time.


William J. Yurko: Does the minister agree with the statement I referred to, and has he addressed himself to the need to export additional quantities of gas to the United States through the pre-build to ensure the completion of the entire northern gas pipeline? Has he addressed himself to that question at this time in connection with the following statement, that that government made-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


William J. Yurko: -back a few years ago, which was as follows-


Some hon. Members:: No!


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, can I-the statement was as follows, made on March-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I have three questions for the minister. The first is with respect to the agreement which was signed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on behalf of the Government of Canada in 1977 and was also signed by Mr. Schlesinger. The schedule provides for expeditious construction in section 2, that the line will be begun in Alaska on January 1, 1980, will be begun in Yukon on January 1, 1981, and that other construction will start on January 1, 1983. My first question to the minister is a very simple one. When is the line going to be started in Alaska? It is already behind schedule. Can he please tell us when that line is going to be started in Alaska since it was signed in the agreement?


Marc Lalonde: It is expected, Madam Speaker, that the Alaska line will have to be started in 1983, for completion by November, 1985.


Bob Rae: I am sure the minister will also be telling us in his answers what steps the government plans to take if the line does not in fact start in 1983. I think it was the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who suggested he resign his seat. That should be the least of his punishments.
The second question I have is with respect to swaps. Yesterday and the day before in answer to questions from our party the minister said he would have a statement to make with respect to swaps when he made his statement in the House tonight. Does he have that kind of statement to make tonight?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am ready to make comments on this, as I indicated. Indeed, it was my view that we should negotiate for swaps, and that is what I have done. I have had extensive discussions with the American authorities, particularly the American secretary and the deputy undersecretary, especially during the summit in Venice. We discussed and reviewed this matter at great length and examined possible avenues, and it was concluded-unfortunately, I have to say-that arrangements for swaps were not feasible and not administratively possible in this instance.


Marc Lalonde: I have gone into this matter to a great extent. We have tried, and I must say in that respect that I have been unable to achieve arrangements which would be satisfactory. I came to the conclusion myself that the objections and the problems which had been raised in considering such an arrangement were quite genuine and that it was impossible to make such arrangements.
I also came to the conclusion that the question of swaps was not as essential as it appeared in terms of supply for future Canadian needs. We have quite clear evidence that Canadian supply is quite large and that we can be assured that the future of Canadian supplies remains guaranteed.


Bob Rae: Old "ironclad" has become "Mr. Playtex", Madam Speaker. He has been playing strip poker with the President of the United States, and the emperor has no clothes on tonight.
The Northern Pipeline Act states specifically-and the word is used throughout the act-that "pipeline" means the pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska across Canada along the route set out in annex 1 to the agreement. I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to table tonight the legal opinion of the law officers of the Crown with respect to the fact that the pipeline, on the government's own admission, is not a pipeline which goes from Alaska to the 48 states but an export gas line which is located solely in the province of Alberta. Could he please tell us what the legal justification is for that transformation?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very sorry about the terrible damage the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood are doing to my reputation for being an inflexible, arrogant and tough negotiator.


Bob Rae: You are only tough when they are weaker than you are.


Marc Lalonde: I hope that after this they will laud my understanding.
Let me answer the question raised by the hon. member, which is very important, very major and very basic. Again I want to say quite clearly that this pre-build is authorized and


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have been had again.


Erik Nielsen: You did it yourself.
July 17, 1980

can be authorized only as part of the construction of the total Alaska gas pipeline. It cannot be authorized as a mere export line or a mere line for the export of Canadian gas. That is provided for under the treaty. That is provided for under the act passed by this Parliament, and that has consistently been the view and the policy of the government.
We have acted on the basis of the advice of the law officers of the Crown. We have had the necessary legal opinions, but the hon. member knows that it is a well-established tradition in this House as well as in the British Parliament that, legal opinions of the law officers of the Crown are not for tabling in the House of Commons. That is a rule which Parliament has followed over the centuries. However, I can assure the hon. member that the proper legal opinions have been obtained, and they confirm that everything the government has done in this respect, respects both the letter and the intent of the law. I cannot be more emphatic in that respect.


Bob Rae: See you in court.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Cote for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Madam Speaker:: It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 38(5), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Yvon Pinard: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Madam Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister just a couple of questions. My first question relates to the rather curious, if not deplorable, timing of this announcement tonight with respect
Alaska Gas Pipeline
to what the minister previously required, namely, an ironclad commitment that the whole of the pipeline was to be built before any part of it would receive permission to be built.
The question I am really asking is in relation to the dillydallying which has been going on in the cabinet room over the last few weeks and the great amount of agonizing over this question by the cabinet tonight. Obviously the cabinet has really been sweating murder over the last few days to try to get a commitment out of the United States government with respect to the announcement made tonight.
The minister's timing is bad. I am sure he should have realized that President Carter has been glued to his television set all week and probably would not want to commit himself in writing to any matter, but is this halfhearted letter tonight the commitment-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I also have to ask this hon. member to put a question to the minister. That is what this period is for.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am asking the minister if this halfhearted letter tabled tonight, which we had some trouble getting and which my hon. friend did not have the opportunity of having during the course of his remarks, is now considered by the minister to be the ironclad commitment to build the whole of the pipeline? Obviously it is not a commitment.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to answer the particular question raised by my friend. The decision of the government is essentially based on three factors, three clear elements which are specific, and a broader one which is general. The first one is the undertaking which we have been able to obtain in the United States between the producers and the distributors to commit $500 million for the engineering and the beginning of the work in Alaska; that is $500 million on the line.
Second, we have a letter from the President, on the interpretation of which I disagree strongly with my hon. friend. The president indicated a very strong commitment of the administration to the completion of this pipeline before the end of 1985.
The third commitment, the third element which has been the basic decision of the government, has been the unanimous resolution by both parties of Congress, committing Congress to the completion of that line by 1985.
I have heard one of my friends in the NDP saying that one Congress does not bind another Congress. He knows, or he should know, that there are only two parties in the United States, and after the election there will be either a Republican majority or a Democratic majority in the Congress. What is interesting in this case is that we have the unanimous consent of both parties in the U.S. Congress and a commitment to see to it that this line is completed by the end of 1985.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline


Marc Lalonde: There are three very specific steps that have been taken during the last few weeks which did not exist before. In addition, there is the broad element that it is quite clear now that the construction of the whole pipeline has become vital to the national security and interest of the United States. In a way you could have a fully unquestionable commitment only if you had the line actually built, because until it is actually completed you never know what can happen, and even when it is completed you do not quite know what will happen. We have seen this in Come By Chance where a great refinery was built and the parties walked away from it. But what we have in this case is a clear, complete commitment of the U.S. Congress as well as the U.S. administration, plus $500 million on the line from the partners. I think that is an ironclad commitment indeed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my second question to the minister really should relate to his request enunciated in December of last year with regard to a pipeline to the mari-times and a pipeline to the eastern portion of Quebec beyond Montreal. He indicated that that pipeline should be built first and paid for before any other facility to export gas is considered. That was my second question, but I am intrigued to find out the actual wording which the minister says is a financial commitment on the part of the United States government, which he required also on December 6, in this rather barren letter which he has tabled here tonight. He can take either one of those questions, I do not care.


Marc Lalonde: I will answer both, and I do not care. With regard to the first one concerning the pipeline to Quebec and the maritimes, if the hon. member has been in the House he has heard that the government has already approved the construction of the pipeline to Quebec and that the completion of the second part of that pipeline to the maritimes remains indeed a third option and a very high priority with this government.


Harvie Andre: Paid for by the proceeds of the gas sale.


Marc Lalonde: That is our commitment. We have already delivered on the first half of this commitment which we made in the statement in which we said there should not be approval of the pre-build until that aspect of the pipeline to the east has been addressed.
So far as the second point is concerned, the question is not whether there is financial commitment but rather whether we have a commitment of the U.S. Congress and U.S. administration. Whether it is financial, legislative, administrative or otherwise, we have the commitment of the two branches of the U.S. authorities which have to deal with this matter, and that is good enough.


An hon. Member:: They have double-crossed you before, they will double-cross you again.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, by no stretch of the imagination, I say with respect to the minister, can anything that is held in the letter to the United States be
called a commitment upon which he would want to bet any of his own money. I think that is the position with respect to that.
I want to ask him a question with respect to the approval process. I am referring to page 17 of the text of the minister's statement which says:
However, it still remains necessary for the board and Senator Olson to make a judgment as to whether Foothills is, in fact, capable of meeting the requirements of condition 12, as amended, with respect to financing of the project in Canada.
I expect that both the board and Senator Olson will be in a position to reach a decision on that question within the next few days.
The senator is a non-elected official, notwithstanding the fact that he is a member of Parliament, generally speaking, being a member of the Senate. I want to understand the process. Has the senator, by today's decision of the cabinet, been authorized, after consultation with the National Energy Board and the decision by it, to make the decision now by himself, or does he have to bring his findings preparatory to his decision back to cabinet and have cabinet make the final approval on something that, by the minister's statement, is still outstanding?


An hon. Member:: What is the difference whether he does it or the cabinet does it?


Marc Lalonde: On the first part of the hon. member's question I will tell him that if I had money, I would indeed bet on the construction of the whole pipeline, and I would not hesitate to do so.


An hon. Member:: How much?


Marc Lalonde: Everything 1 had, if I had any money.
So far as the main question raised is concerned, the hon. member knows the Northern Pipeline Act very well. The act states that the matter has to be examined by the National Energy Board and the NEB will make a recommendation to the minister responsible for the northern pipeline, and that is Senator Olson. That is the law. Senator Olson is a full member of the government, a full member of the cabinet. He has the same authority as any other member of the cabinet, and when he acts under the law he acts for the government.


An hon. Member:: Whom does he represent?


Marc Lalonde: That is the way it is going to be followed.


An hon. Member:: He is a loser.


Marc Lalonde: I am sorry, but the hon. member opposite seems to have had a very good dinner tonight.


An hon. Member:: He should have been eating crow like you.


Marc Lalonde: He wonders whom Senator Olson represents. He represents the people of Canada because he is a member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is a loser.
July 17, 1980


Marc Lalonde: As a member of the cabinet, he will make a decision under the law. He may consult whomever he wishes. 1 am not in a position to say whether or not he would want to consult other colleagues in the cabinet, but under the law he has authority to act.


Walter David Baker: If the minister thinks about this he will realize that he has already bet all he has on the outcome of the pipeline; that is his reputation and his credibility. He did that last December. In any event, the minister has made it clear now that, in his judgment, Senator Olson is only obligated now to consult.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or fall.


Walter David Baker: Or fall. The minister indicated in the affirmative to that question by nodding his head. Would the minister undertake to table in the House tomorrow the orders or other instruments which approve of this decision today by the Government of Canada, so that the House can see, as cabinet saw today, those matters beyond the statement of the minister which concerned cabinet, and the precise terms and conditions of the legal instruments setting this process in motion?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, indeed 1 will be very pleased to obtain all those documents and table them tomorrow. Reference was made to the amendment of condition 12. I believe those amendments to condition 12 were made public by the National Energy Board in April. 1 have copies of them here, but they are not the actual text of the order in council approved today by cabinet. I am quite willing to give copies to my friends if they wish, but I suspect we might as well wait and table the order in council itself tomorrow. If my friends prefer, I can also table the NEB recommendation of last April.


Walter David Baker: I thank the minister for that. It would be quite agreeable if he tabled them all tomorrow, if they are available.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to this one. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) asked part of the question I was going to ask. 1 refer the minister to page 8 of the statement which he provided to me where he said:
-the government has had before it information on a number of steps that have been taken in the United States to encourage and facilitate the commencement and expeditious completion of the project by late 1985.
Apart from the material tabled this evening by him, would the minister undertake to table any other information upon which the government made its decisions, in particular, any notes which might have been exchanged between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States that I understand are necessary, if any amendments are to be made to the international agreement signed by both countries which forms part of the legislation?
Alaska Gas Pipeline


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate whether there are any further documents than those to which 1 referred in my opening statement or to which we have referred tonight. 1 will let the hon. member know what the documents are, if they relate or if they are pertinent to the decision of cabinet. As far as I know, the only documents are those that have been tabled tonight and the orders in council to which we referred a few moments ago.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. I notice the President's letter of today refers to a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in March. I do not know whether that letter has ever been tabled in the House. If not, I wonder if the minister would see to it that that letter is tabled, because it may be that this half-hearted letter by the President simply rose to the level of the letter written by the Prime Minister. I would like to make that comparison. The minister has heaped hope and praise on the congressional resolution by the joint Houses. Does that resolution have the force of law?


An hon. Member:: No, it does not.


Marc Lalonde: It has the same force of law as any commitment made by this House of Commons or by this Parliament when it adopts a resolution, a motion, any action, statement of intention or statement of action. It is an act of Congress. As with any decision formally passed here has the authority of this Parliament, this is the Congress of the United States speaking unanimously.


Benno Friesen: The resolution reads that it is the sense of Congress. Tonight the minister said that we must begin to build the American section in 1983 if it is to be completed by 1985. In the interim between now and 1983, there could be at least two elections in the United States changing the character of Congress. Is it not possible that the sense of Congress could change in the United States and that another resolution could be passed unanimously withdrawing from that commitment?


Marc Lalonde: It is the same as saying that this Parliament could go back and reverse a formal resolution passed by the Senate and the House of Commons, and supported unanimously by every member of Parliament in both Houses, which affected directly the relation of Canada with another country. If we found ourselves in a situation where, after an election, the same parties were back as before, I do not believe the Parliament of Canada would do any such thing without hurting tremendously its reputation internationally as well as nationally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I do not think Parliament would do that.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have three very short questions for the minister. 1 am sure the government examined the cost of a western-eastern gas pipeline as compared to the cost of the northern-southern gas pipeline. I should like to know what the difference in

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
cost is between building one to eastern Canada to supply the markets there from western Canada, as opposed to the cost of exporting our gas to the United States, as opposed to self-sufficiency in energy. What is the difference between the cost of those two pipelines?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 would only say that it is a rather strange question because at the present time we have a gas pipeline which goes as far as Montreal and will be extended as far as Quebec City hopefully next year.


An hon. Member:: What about Halifax and Moncton?


Marc Lalonde: It will be extended to the maritimes as soon as possible. That is the situation at the present time. The option or the alternative is not between pre-building the southern section of the Alaska gas pipeline and alternatively building a new pipeline across the country. I do not have that figure. If the hon. member is interested, I will try to obtain a figure for him. I do not think any particular study has been made by any of the pipeline companies or any other agency of which I know that would have tried to cost the building of a whole new pipeline across Canada. At the present time no such project exists. I could inquire of my officials and give the hon. member a ball park figure, but indeed it would have to be at best a guesstimate unless TransCanada PipeLines, for instance, has already made such an estimate. No doubt it would be several billions of dollars; there is no doubt about that.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. In fact I would like that information so that I can do a comparison myself. Would the minister please tell me how the announced pipeline this evening helps achieve energy self-sufficiency for Canadians from coast to coast, whether they be in the maritimes or in British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: It will happen indirectly, obviously not directly. Indirectly it will generate a very large cash flow to Canadian producers, producers of Canadian gas. That cash flow will allow them to expand their research and exploration for new resources and reserves. We will achieve the same thing as that which happened in the past, whether it was in the sixties or the seventies, when we were able to allow the sale of gas otherwise shut in. We provided the industry with a lot of cash with which it was able to explore further. It spent that money in trying to find more resources-more gas, more oil. If the member looks over the last 30 years, he will see that this has been the history of the development of oil and gas in the country. I have no reason to believe that it will not be the same thing following this decision tonight.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I would like to ask the minister about two conditions. First, if that northern section of the pipeline is not built yet you say the Americans have an ironclad guarantee to use it at will; second, when our gas is depleted to a point where we are in an importing position and the Americans will not give us that gas from Alaska at a comparable rate, will the minister resign if he is still involved in public life at that time?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Resign now.


Marc Lalonde: On one hand my hon. friend says that the rest of the pipeline will not be completed. On the other hand, he is asking me to get Alaska gas in exchange out of a pipeline that does not exist. I think that party will have to make up its mind: it wants a pipeline without gas going through it, and it wants gas without having a pipeline to carry it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that Canada desperately needs the economic activity which will be generated by the construction of the southern portion of the Alaskan pipeline. The minister indicated that jobs will be located right across Canada. What studies were done regarding the economic spin-offs in the provinces across Canada? Where will these jobs be located, and were any studies done?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is indicated that indeed there will be benefits for most regions in this country. First of all, in terms of direct benefits, and these can be easily identifiable because they are direct expenditures, it is estimated that British Columbia will see expenditures of $70 million; Alberta will see expenditures of $650 million; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec expenditures of $360 million.
The Canadian manufacturing benefits-and there one cannot precisely identify them by regions, one has to assume that they are spread very broadly indeed-are estimated to be $750 million, and the Canadian manufacturing expenditures are expected to be in the range of $400 million.


Erik Nielsen: All those were there last December.


Jack Wendele Shields: I would like to ask the minister one final supplementary. Will he be requiring the contractors or the builders of the pipeline to award contracts for pipe, materials or whatever, on any basis in Canada other than the lowest bidder?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all if I may come back to the previous question, I mentioned British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, but 1 must mention that the other provinces in the rest of Canada will also get $10 million estimated expenditures out of this pre-build.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, as he knows I am not the minister responsible for the pipeline. I will inquire and give him the information. I have no reason to believe that the awarding of contracts is not done on any other basis than competition. These contracts are let out by private industry, namely Foothills, which is the company responsible for the building of this pipeline. I have never received any information to the effect that there was ever any discrimination in terms of awarding contracts for supplies or otherwise. I will inquire if there is any justification to be concerned about this. If there are causes of concern, I will certainly inform the hon. member.
July 17, 1980


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief supplementary. I think that it is quite clear and I believe we all know that on occasion this is done where contracts are awarded on other than the low bid. That might not necessarily be bad, but I wonder if there would not be the possibility to examine the spread of contracts and maybe allow some of the contracts to reach farther into the maritimes and some other provinces. Which also need this economic benefit? As the minister has indicated, the maritimes will get $10 million compared to $360 million going to Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, and $750 million to manufacturing, and so on. I wonder, therefore, if the minister would perhaps look at that.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it would only be with the greatest reluctance that we would want to go into this particular approach of almost allocating contracts for the private sector.
I would remind the hon. member, however, that in the east we have a large expansion in pipeline capacity with the authorization of the pipeline to Quebec City at the present time. I hope that we will be able to see the construction also of the pipeline to the maritimes before very long. The construction of the pipeline to Quebec City is quite clearly giving a competitive advantage to firms in the maritimes, in Quebec and the neighbouring area of Ontario which is in close proximity to the actual building site. I would expect from the building taking place in the east that there will be substantial benefits to the eastern areas.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions, and I will try to be brief. The first question relates to the position of the government of the province of British Columbia, from which province I come. I must say, both as a British Columbian and a Canadian, this is a very sorry day in the history of our country in terms of the sell-out of our natural resources. I would be interested to hear from the minister what is the present position of the government of British Columbia with respect of the sell-out of our resources? Can the minister tell us what the benefits are for the people of British Columbia in this particular sell-out? But, most important, what position has the government of British Columbia taken?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the hon. member that the government of British Columbia has expressed reservations about the construction of this southern section of the gas pipeline. However, it has not been a reservation because it was, as he calls it, a sell-out of Canadian resources. It was a concern because the government of British Columbia would not be able to sell to the United States as much gas as it would like to sell, which is a very different story.


Yvon Pinard: Right on.


Marc Lalonde: 1 might remind the hon. member that we have an NDP government in office in Saskatchewan and it is very happy to see sales of oil and gas to the United States when they are evaluated as surplus. I might also remind the hon.
Alaska Gas Pipeline
member that when the NDP was in office in British Columbia there were large gas sales from British Columbia. My hon. friend is asking me what is the position of the government of British Columbia. The government of B.C. has expressed reservations as to the effect of those sales upon sales from British Columbia into the United States.
I also raised this issue with the government of Alberta because it was a matter of concern to me. I can tell the hon. member that this is one aspect which we weighed very carefully in our discussions in cabinet on this very issue, whether or not there would be damage to the markets of British Columbia through the United States. We have been assured by the government of Alberta that they do not feel that this is the case.
When 1 met with my colleague, Mr. McLellan-last Monday we reviewed the situation again-he indicated to me that the government of Alberta and the government of British Columbia had agreed to set up a joint committee to examine the possible impact of the pre-build if it were to proceed, and that there was recognition by the government of Alberta that, if necessary, some steps would be taken to avoid damage to the exports from British Columbia to the United States. I indicated that as far as we in the federal government are concerned, we are ready to co-operate in whatever way possible to make sure that the province of British Columbia will not be prejudiced by this particular decision with regard to its exports to the United States.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a very clear statement, at least to the extent that it is possible for the minister to be clear on this subject, that the government of British Columbia is indeed opposed to the pre-build. I would point out, if the minister is bringing in history, that it was an NDP provincial government which made sure that the people of British Columbia received a reasonable return on our own natural gas and raised the price to a sensible level.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 would bring to the hon. member's attention that under the rules he is permitted to ask questions. I suggest that he do so.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the minister took some rather great liberties in his reply and I was merely attempting to take the same kind of liberties.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ask the question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My second question relates to the guarantees which we supposedly have for this important project. The minister has specified three guarantees. He has specified a congressional resolution, a statement of intention for the spending of 2 per cent of the total cost, and a letter from the President.

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
Did the minister consider that all three of these particular conditions were essential before he decided to recommend to cabinet the approval of this particular project? If not, which conditions were not essential? Finally, what avenue will there be to enforce any of these conditions should the government of the United States decide that they wish to change their mind?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member has recognized that the NDP government of British Columbia encouraged the export of natural gas when it was in office.
With regard to the question by the hon. member, indeed the three factors were a major determinant in our decision. The hon. member refers to only 2 per cent of the cost, but that means $500 million. I have yet to see even large businesses who think they can throw to the wind $500 million and say that it does not matter; we are not obliged to proceed with anything. Why should they waste $500 million? It may not be much money to the NDP, but we believe that it is a lot of money and a large downpayment even for a project such as this.
We wanted a commitment from the American administration and also a commitment from the United States Congress, because we did not want a repetition of the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to the fisheries.


An hon. Member:: We are in the same situation.


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend must study the situation wher he says that we are in the same situation, because he is completely wrong. We never received a commitment from the U.S. Congress concerning the fisheries treaty before we made an agreement with the United States in that regard. In this instance, we received a clear commitment from both the administration and Congress, and then $500 million from the industry. In our view, that is quite a commitment and quite good enough.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my final question relates to a corollary issue. 1 would point out that the minister has not answered my question about how these guarantees can be enforced, and 1 hope that the minister will do so. If the United States decides in the next two or three years that it is cheaper or, for any other reason, more advantageous to move Alaska gas rather than by pipeline, by tanker down the west coast of British Columbia, what can the government do to ensure that the pipeline will in fact be built? What enforceable guarantees do we have that the United States will not decide down the line that tankers are more advantageous?


Marc Lalonde: The points raised by the hon. member in his previous question and in this question are related. The Government of Canada is not without defences and without means at its disposal. If it were to find at any time that both Congress and the administration, in addition to the private sector, intended to renege on their commitments, there are a number of-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I can see that my friend has never played poker before. I thought he was a great player, but I think he needs some practice.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You threw away your aces.


Marc Lalonde: I think that it would be silly and irresponsible at this time to assume that the Congress of the United States, and that the President of the United States, will not live up to their word. It would be completely irresponsible and it is not the type of assumption 1 am ready to make.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Look at their words.


Marc Lalonde: What I will say, however, is that if such a thing were to occur, it would probably be the greatest breach of faith committed by the United States on Canada in the last 200 years. 1 am not one to assume that the Congress and the presidency will not live up to their word.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his statement and in answers to some of the questions has mentioned the rich industrial spin-offs during the construction phase. However, he has not mentioned anything of the presumably equally rich tax windfall which will come to the federal treasury as a result of this project.
In light of this windfall tax benefit, and in the interests of energy self-sufficiency, particularly through substitution, 1 am wondering whether the government will be disposed more than it is now to assist, if asked, in the construction of a gas pipeline from, for example, the mainland to Vancouver Island or the extension and the conversion of the M and Q line into a Q and M line.


Marc Lalonde: I am very happy to tell the hon. member that those issues are being considered at the present time. However,
I am not in a position to give a definite answer at this stage, for the very good reason that we have not concluded our discussions concerning the sharing of revenues, particularly with the producing provinces.
I want to assure the hon. member that our purpose in trying to enlarge the share coming to the federal government is, indeed, aimed at centering those additional moneys which would be raised on energy initiatives. I can tell the hon. member that the two points which he has raised are two points which we have very much in mind.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I understand, or we are led to believe, that the letter received by the Minister of Energy was in response to a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the President of United States. The minister has tabled the letter from the President of the United States. Would he do the House the courtesy of tabling a copy of the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I forgot to answer this point when it was raised previously by another hon. member. Indeed I will inquire. The letter may have
mm
July 17, 1980

already been made public. Even if it has been made public, 1 will inquire as to whether or not it can be released. I assumed they will. 1 will try and get it ready for tomorrow, and I will table it at the end of the question period if there are no particular problems with it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Has the minister given any consideration to double-piping or twinning this pipeline?


Marc Lalonde: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. If I may, 1 will come back to a question raised by another hon. member concerning the possibility of building LNG tankers later as an alternative.
In 1977, the United States government carried out a study of this particular issue and came to the conclusion that it would cost at least 30 per cent more to transport natural gas by tanker than by pipeline. As my hon. friend knows, using tankers also implies continuing costs that tend to inflate very substantially, while a pipeline, once built, has only a comparatively small operating cost.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Has the minister received any representation from the province of Saskatchewan, which imports natural gas from the province of Alberta, to generate hydroelectric power? Has the government of Saskatchewan made any representation on how this could affect their purchases of natural gas from Alberta?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen any such representations. I will inquire from the minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency, and if there have been such representations I will inform the hon. member. But to my knowledge no such representations have been made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the minister. Also, I will inform the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) that Saskatchewan bought gas in Alberta many years ago and a Liberal premier sold it off. It might be smart for Ontario to buy surplus gas in Alberta right now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When a resolution is passed by the United States Congress or by the Parliament of Canada, unless and until the administration implements those resolutions they carry no force or weight, and unless and until the administration implements the resolutions of Congress we are relying only on their word. We have nothing in writing: we have no treaty or anything else.
My second question is, would the minister advise the House what the division is on the pre-build, let alone the whole line, of construction of pipe, since the federal government has put money into the expansion of a plant in Regina? My steelworkers telephoned me today telling me they would be just as interested in making pipe for a line to Halifax and Sydney and Vancouver Island as they would be to the United States. What
Alaska Gas Pipeline
is the proportion of steel for a pre-build, and what is the proportion if, by some accident, we get the whole build?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty in following the hon. member's two questions and I hope I will be able to answer them properly. On the first question, I would remind the hon. member that we have a treaty with the United States. He said we do not have a treaty, but we do have a treaty with the United States. Now we have the commitment from the President and we have a unanimous commitment from Congress, both houses, both parties in the United States. I think that is a very significant development. I will not go any further with that, because I think it would be repetitious.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You cannot say that with a straight face.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the plant in Saskatchewan is concerned, the Liberal government was very happy indeed to help. I can only tell the hon. member that under the pre-build itself, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would be the beneficiaries of about S360 million. I think a significant part of this would go to the Ipsco plant in particular. If the total line is built, it will represent $1,520 million of expenditures in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
As far as the other part of the question is concerned, I am glad the workers of Ipsco will be happy to have work and good jobs in building this pipeline. I am sure, in spite of what the hon. member has said, that they will be happy to contribute also to the Vancouver Island pipeline and to the Quebec and maritiines pipeline. I do not see why the hon. member would want to refuse those workers the right to have jobs in building the pre-build also. These are not exclusive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 guess all the steel workers in Regina want to know is, when will the Government of Canada have a policy, since the Americans have to come to us for their gas and for our gas: when is Canada going to stand on its feet and say to the Americans, "We will be glad to be a good neighbour. We will build a pipeline to carry your gas and our gas. But first we are going to provide our gas to Canadians and Canadian steel workers are going to make pipelines for that gas for Canadians."
When are you going to quit running around with your nose at the backside of Yankee traders, who are going to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are going to betray you. I wonder if the minister has checked with Mr. Reagan, or if Mr. Carter can give him any assurance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you would, I would like you to outline the exact procedure with respect to what we are doing now. That is very important, because a member can ask a simple question while the minister can

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
answer at some length. I understand that is the way the procedure works, and I should like Your Honour to confirm that. I do not want the House to think that what we are doing tonight is a substitute for a full debate on this issue.
Could Your Honour guide me on that and tell me that this is not a debate but is simply questions being put to the minister? If it is otherwise, then hon. members should be allowed to debate this very important issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will quote the rule of the House, Standing Order 15(3), which reads as follows:
On Statements by ministers, as listed in section (2) of this Standing Order, a Minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon and members may be permitted to address questions thereon to the minister. Mr. Speaker shall limit the time for such proceedings as he deems fit.
The Chair has shown a certain latitude tonight and wishes to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that their privilege at this point extends to putting questions to the minister. I hope the questions will be short and to the point, and I presume the answers will be also.


Walter David Baker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that you have read that important rule. We are now moving into an extended period of time which I think is quite appropriate, given the importance of the subject.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not a debate.


Walter David Baker: I think the discretion of the Chair has been well exercised, if I may say so. With respect to the period of time within which members may question the minister, I hope the minister would agree, and that members would agree, that with this matter now before the House, the Chair should know it has the support of the House if it allows this question period to continue for some considerable period of time. I think it is important that members of the House, regardless of the party to which they belong, have the right to an exhaustive question period on this important matter.
1 see the minister nodding his head in agreement, and I would hope the House would agree that the Chair be supported if it exercises its discretion to allow the continuation of the question period for as long as there are questions on this issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is the intention of the Chair to recognize all those who are seeking to ask questions. However, the Chair has not yet engaged on a second round of questions. We are still on the first round of those who have not been recognized. The Chair has permitted supplementaries, and hopefully this is with the consent of the House, and hopefully they will be within some time limitation and some restraints.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, after the intervention of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I can understand the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) wanting to create a diversion. In the first part of his statement
the hon. member stated the Liberal government policy perfectly well. Indeed, this is government policy and Liberal policy. We are not authorizing, and we are not going to authorize, any exports unless we are sure that Canadian needs are going to be met first and the needs of future Canadians are going to be protected. This is our policy.
Of course our policy is also to make sure that Canadians benefit first from the building of the Canadian sections of the Alaska gas pipeline. I think the announcement made tonight is very good evidence of our concern to ensure that all Canadians benefit from such a decision. As far as the latter part of the diatribe by the hon. member is concerned, I do not think it deserves an answer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has permitted supplementaries by the hon. member for Regina West. At this stage the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Victoria.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, according to the act, before this construction can begin the federal government must conclude agreements with Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon and British Columbia to permit the construction. I understand these agreements have been concluded with Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon, but not with British Columbia. Can the minister tell us what is the stumbling block there? Does he have hope of concluding them soon, and what will he do if he cannot conclude them?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member is right, Mr. Speaker, the agreement with British Columbia has not yet been concluded. There are still discussions concerning some of the benefits the government of British Columbia would like to have. In particular, it deals with the clause on non-discrimination that is provided for in the treaty regarding domestic tariffs for the Alaska gas pipeline. Up to this stage the government of British Columbia has not agreed to guarantee to the Canadian section of the Alaska gas pipeline the same treatment that is being provided for the intra-B.C. pipeline. This is where there are still discussions in some areas of disagreement. Discussions will have to continue.
I presume the government of British Columbia will eventually reach an agreement along the same lines as the other two provinces and the Yukon territory have already reached agreements. I think the agreements reached with the other provinces were fair. They were in conformity with our treaty with the United States. Again, I have no reason to believe that the government of B.C. will not want to co-operate in the construction of the whole pipeline since it is going to benefit all Canadians, including Canadians in B.C.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: British Columbia is in a rather different position than Alberta in this, which I presume is well known to the minister. They are in danger of this going through and being priced out of their own market, due possibly to a difference in the royalties that are rather modest in Alberta.
July 17, 1980

Can the minister advise if that is the reason he is having difficulty concluding this agreement with British Columbia? If not, what is the real reason?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not the minister in charge of those negotiations. Those negotiations are being carried on by the minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline and the Northern Pipeline Agency. I do not know that these are the reasons. I do not believe they are the reasons that have been invoked up until now, but I will inquire and let the hon. member know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria on a final supplementary.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like, if 1 might, to have two supplementaries. That would finish me for tonight.
I notice in the letter from the President to the Prime Minister he starts off by saying, "Since you last wrote to me in March". We have been under the impression, gathered quite a bit from the minister, that we had been putting great pressure on the United states to give us commitments and so on, yet we find out that we wrote to them three to four months ago, and it took three to four months to answer. Can 1 infer from this that the Prime Minister has not written to the President of the United States on this subject for some three to four months, and that it just lay fallow for that length of time?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member would be quite wrong in his conclusion, Mr. Speaker. There have been numerous discussions at the administrative level. Senator Olson has participated in some of these, and I have participated in some. I spent more than seven hours in meetings in Venice discussing this matter with the American secretary of energy and his undersecretary. The Prime Minister raised the matter with the President when they met in Venice. Therefore this matter has been very much on the mind of the government and, I expect, on the mind of the American authorities because, as the hon. member knows, significant steps have been taken on the American side in the last few months.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, there may have been a lot of discussions, but there seems to be very little in the way of the written word as a result of those discussions. We noticed how meagre the paper was that was tabled tonight. To get to the letter, the minister said just a few moments ago that we have a commitment from the President of the United States. The letter is eight paragraphs long. It is rather heavy on commiseration rather than commitment. It gives opinions. There are lots of them. However, 1 find no commitment, particularly no financial commitment. Nowhere does it say "we will commit the financial resources of the United States to ensure this", or "we will back the loans necessary by the companies", or anything like that. If there is a financial commitment, and surely that is the commitment that is important, can the minister tell us what paragraph he thinks it is in?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member has a rather limited view of what a government can do. It seems that the only thing he
Alaska Gas Pipeline
thinks a government can do is spend money. The government has a lot of means at its disposal. What was important to obtain from the American government was that firm commitment that they would see to it that the pipeline would be built. Whether they do it by financial commitment, legislation, or other means, that is for the American government to decide. What is important is that we have that commitment. I refer the hon. member to page 2 of the letter, where the President clearly says, and I quote:
In view of this progress, I can assure you that the U.S. Government not only remains committed to the project; I am able to state with confidence that the U.S. Government now is satisfied that the entire Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System will be completed. The United States' energy requirements and the current unacceptable level of dependence on oil imports require that the project be completed without delay. Accordingly, I will take appropriate action directed at meeting the objective of completing the project by the end of 1985.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has placed a great deal of confidence in the assurances of the different levels of the United States government.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


James Douglas Manly: I would ask the minister whether or not he considers that the government of the United States has always lived up to its commitments and assurances. For example, has it kept its commitment to the Indian people with whom it made solemn treaties in order to obtain their resources?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking me to interpret a situation which concerns only the United States. I must tell him that we have to make a decision in this case based on the facts that we have before us and on the commitments we have obtained from the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States and the private sector concerned. I did point out that the commitments obtained from these three sectors are sufficient to convince us that the United States are truly committed to the construction of the whole Alaska pipeline, and I cannot see why my hon. friend raises doubts as to these commitments at this time.


James Douglas Manly: It might help, Mr. Speaker, if the minister had a chance to talk to some American Indians about this. Since the pre-build route will pass through Indian reserves in Alberta and British Columbia, I would like to ask the minister whether or not there are provisions for affirmative action which will provide for Indian employment. If there are, what are they, and do they provide more than simply labouring jobs?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member raises a question which is surely of great interest and the government has already made

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
known its policy to promote employment among minority groups through positive programs, Indians as well as women. As in the case of the tar sands, we have already let the interested parties know that when the Canadian government contributes or participates through Petro-Canada, we request that measures be taken to protect those groups.
As for the project itself, as the hon. member knows, I am not the minister responsible for the pipeline as such but I will refer the matter to my colleague, Senator Olson, and report to him later. As the hon. member is aware, Senator Olson hails from Alberta, knows the situation and this is a matter which is of great interest to him.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that I have been getting up and down and keeping in shape for the last 15 minutes, I shall ask three questions, with your permission, and make no comments before or after at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Since the surface rights procedures have not yet been approved by this House and likely will not be until this fall, and since the right-of-way buying will start almost immediately, what protection will be given to surface rights owners who might sign up prior to the passing of the bill we now have from the Senate?


Marc Lalonde: The question raised by the hon. member for Bow River is one which has been raised before. The Senate has, indeed, passed the bill as I have indicated. My colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), has said he is giving thought to expediting consideration of this measure by the House. I shall inquire of my colleague, Senator Olson; I know Senator Olson had great interest in this measure himself, so I would presume that he will want to discuss this matter with Foothills and since this bill has passed, shall we say, half of Parliament, I would be inclined to think he would request Foothills to act as if the bill had been passed. But I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister, and I am sure he will give it full consideration.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Since the decision made tonight will keep scores of small and medium-sized independent companies in business and will permit them to remain Canadian instead of being absorbed by American firms-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: -has there been any apparent opposition to this pre-build by any of the multinationals?


Marc Lalonde: None that I know of, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I have received no personal representations. As a matter of fact, all the recommendations I have received from the producers, both small and large, have been to the effect that this particular decision was very much needed in the interests of the industry as well as in the interests of Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: My third question has been partially answered, but I would ask this: will the Canadian content, in regard to equipment and materials, be 100 per cent or 90 per cent? Will definite steps be taken to make sure that Canadians have first right of refusal on all equipment?


Marc Lalonde: If the hon. member will give me a few minutes I will check with officials of the energy board to see what exactly the provision is in this respect. I will provide the answer to him in a few minutes. I will try to get the information.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated tonight that all of Canada will benefit from the construction of that pipeline. Could he then give us some examples of the benefits the provinces in eastern Canada could derive from that program?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the province of Quebec, for example, will benefit substantially from the announcement that was made tonight. I have already indicated that Quebec and Ontario will share among themselves, simply from that first part of the project, $360 million. In addition, when the entire project is put in motion, Quebec and Ontario will benefit from an additional amount of $1.57 billion, for a total for those two provinces of $1.93 billion.
So these are expenditures made in Ontario and Quebec in relation to a project that is taking place mainly in Alberta and British Columbia-expenditures that could reach up to $2 billion. In terms of specific examples, I am told, for instance, that Quebec firms, particularly a firm in Contrecceur, has a substantial contract for the manufacturing of parts used in the operation of the pipeline, whether it be engines, compressors or all sorts of other instruments used both in the manufacture and the operation of the gas pipeline. I think this is indeed a very good example of what Canadian federalism is all about and that a project like this which, even if it is carried out only inside a province, or seems to be carried out far from people living in eastern Canada, well, thanks to the existence of the Canadian economic union and the Canadian tie, all those firms can participate in the benefits involved and workers in Quebec as well as in Alberta will be able to benefit substantially through the contracts their employers will be getting in connection with the construction of that gas pipeline. So this is not simply a matter of welders or technicians from Quebec, for example, or Acadia or northern Ontario going down to work on the construction of the pipeline in Alberta and British Columbia but also of workers remaining in Montreal, Con-trecoeur, Trois-Rivieres, Sudbury or Moncton being able to get down here substantial benefits from the decision that was announced tonight.
July 17, 1980


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, a large portion of this pre-build is going to run through my riding, and [ oppose the project. I make that very clear, but I want to ask the minister whether there is any possibility that many of our residents who are not serviced by natural gas can have some of that natural gas for their use.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire again on this very specific matter raised by my hon. friend. 1 am surprised that at the same time, as he opposes the pipeline he asks that his residents benefit from it. I am afraid this is another example of a typical NDP position. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The hon. members of the NDP should make up their minds.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking as a true Canadian. 1 realize the benefits to all of Canada, and I know the people in my riding would also state this same kind of concern.
If this project is going to go ahead, what kind of protection will there be? I asked the minister over a month ago if he would hold hearings in the riding so that the concerns of the people could be heard. I asked for public hearings. 1 was told that the National Energy Board made those decisions, so I therefore ask the minister here and now what kind of compensation there will be if this project is to go ahead. There are people in the tourist industry who will be affected. There will be an influx of workers coming into communities. What kind of protection are they going to have?


An hon. Member:: Do you know what you want?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of the hon. member's riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke will benefit substantially from the construction of this pipeline, notwithstanding the hon. member's opposition. They will benefit whether they are in the service industry or in the tourist business. They will benefit from this. Workers will be coming from other areas, and they will stay there. There will be work there for weeks and months building this pipeline. This will create revenues for all kinds of stores, shops, restaurants, hotels, you name it. I can only tell the hon. member that his constituents will indeed benefit very substantially from this measure.
Mr. Speaker, 1 now have some information for the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). 1 am advised that Foothills has estimated that the Canadian content on the project will be at least 90 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: My hon. friend knows that there are provisions in the treaty ensuring that Canada will achieve economic benefits from this, and I am pleased to advise the House, including my hon. friend in the NDP, that to date, particularly
Alaska Gas Pipeline
in the pipe area, we have achieved figures of 100 per cent Canadian content.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Do you want 110 per cent?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the minister that 1 have seen these projects, and I have seen the benefits. I am asking explicitly, since there is another TransCanada highway which goes a different direction, what kind of protection is there in this agreement for the communities alongside this highway which could be affected by the construction of this highway? Since there were no hearings, I ask the minister what kind of protection or guarantees these communities can have.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as to the previous question raised by my hon. friend, I am pleased to advise him that the United States-Canada agreement provides for the drop-off of Alaska gas in Canada to serve remote communities, and its replacement by Alberta gas in the key pipeline farther south, so it will be a matter of deciding at the time, 1 suppose, whether the residents in my hon. friend's constituency come under this particular aspect. I must have misunderstood the hon. member's question. He talked about a highway. We are not building a highway. We are building a pipeline.


Mr. G. M. Gurhin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, although many hon. members have questioned supply factors with regard to our natural gas situation and others have questioned the security of the guarantees which are offered, I take it that the minister is giving us an absolute certainty that we have supply, and I take it he has given us an absolute guarantee that the guarantees we are getting are adequate, so I will not question that part of it.
However, it seems to me that what strikes at the hearts and minds of people in areas like Ontario is that even though we have a pipeline coming through Ontario, they do not have access to this gas. What strikes their minds and hearts is whether they will be able to have access to this gas and whether the capacity is there in the pipeline as it exists now, even as it travels through our province and into other areas. They are not so much concerned about whether we build a major pipeline from Montreal to Quebec, or even into the maritimes, but whether in fact we can deliver this gas and, if we do, whether the capacity will be there to serve the homes and industries across Ontario. Can the minister tell us what the flow rates are? Can he tell us whether the opportunity will be there? Can he tell us what price factors will be there? In other words, it is not what we are doing with the pre-build which is concerning many people; it is what we are not doing in other areas which might concern them.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right in expressing the concern of people in areas not served at the

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
present time about being served by Canadian natural gas. As the hon. member knows, this government has announced in the last couple of months a policy whereby we would want to reduce to 10 per cent the dependence on oil in the residential and commercial sectors. This would mean a substantial increase in the amount of gas and electricity used for residential, commercial and manufacturing purposes over the next decade. This would mean a substantial enlargement of accessibility to Canadian gas. In particular this will mean the construction of a gas pipeline in Quebec, and a trunk line in the maritimes also which will either bring gas from the maritimes west or western gas to the maritimes.
With regard to the particular point raised by my hon. friend, this is an area in which we are working with the provinces to get full endorsement and full support for our 10 per cent oil dependence in the commercial and residential sectors. That is our off-oil policy, and I am pleased to report that I have had, up to now, complete support from every provincial government I have talked to in this regard.
With regard to serving individual communities, if I am not mistaken this is a matter which comes under provincial boards, and this is why it is important to work closely with the provincial governments. Our responsibility is to make sure that the trunk lines are there and that the gas is there. I have inquired of National Energy Board officials this afternoon with regard to the very question raised by my hon. friend, and I am assured that we have supplies-foreseen supplies-which are not only adequate to meet fully the future needs of the Quebec and maritimes gas pipeline, but we also have ample supplies-and we expect to have ample supplies-to fulfil the needs of our off-oil policy and make sure that Canadians can have access to natural gas.
As far as individual residences and individual communities are concerned, this, I believe, is a matter which comes under provincial regulation.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the question really pertains to price and the price that these communities and so forth might expect. I think that would have some direct relationship to how the federal government looks at the whole pricing situation for natural gas. Can the minister comment on that and on how this might be an opportunity for people who are not serviced now?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have had in operation a program for the pricing of natural gas, as my hon. friend knows. Gas is now priced at about 85 per cent of oil Btu equivalent. I do know what the new arrangement will be under the current discussions. But again my friend knows, I believe, that in each province the provincial regulatory authorities also have a role to play in terms of the pricing of gas.
I have been told, for instance, that in Ontario the provincial board has a policy which has a tendency to favour the residential consumer rather than the large users. They have a tendency to distribute the cost in a way which would tend to favour individual residential consumers of gas. I am not in a position to confirm or deny this, but this is a piece of information that I have obtained. If my friend wishes to refer to specific communities, he would have to refer to the situation in that particular province and obtain information from the provincial board.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The price of the natural gas as it goes into the pipeline is, I think, under federal jurisdiction. Can the minister comment on whether he expects it would be maintained at 85 per cent of the Btu equivalent, or whether he is looking at something different from that, or what is happening?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question a while ago when I said that at present the arrangement is that it is set at 85 per cent of oil Btu equivalent. We are now discussing with the producing provinces more especially with Alberta. We are considering different possibilities, but I am not yet in a position to indicate to the hon. member if the future policy will be exactly the same or different from the present one in the sense that there will perhaps be measures, various prices according to the circumstances. I am afraid we will have to wait a few weeks until our discussions are concluded.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. minister can tell the House whether, in his opinion, this decision concerning the Alaska pipeline construction will have an impact on the construction or the extension of the pipeline between Quebec and Montreal as concerns either the availability of materials, the question of financing or other construction delays. Could this affect or delay construction or could it even have favourable effects?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform my colleague, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) that we do not believe that tonight's decision will have any unfavourable effect on the construction of the Quebec pipeline. On the contrary, the action we are taking will have the effect of phasing the construction of the Alaska pipeline over several years beginning immediately, and this will enable the steel companies and the pipeline material suppliers to schedule the production of steel and other products required for the pipeline operation over several years and prevent production hold-ups, which in general considerably increase the costs and sometimes even cause product shortages and can prevent the construction or the completion of other projects.
As for the construction of the Quebec pipeline, I have been informed recently that the Quebec government has asked

July 17, 1980

TransCanada PipeLines, which is not the same company as the one building the Alberta pipeline, once again to change the proposed route for the pipeline in Quebec. I must say that this decision worries me and that I am afraid it might substantially delay the construction of the Quebec pipeline. I hope that I am wrong.
1 also hope that the decision made by the Quebec government as concerns TransCanada PipeLines can be implemented very quickly, as we have already lost several very precious months because of the way the Quebec government has postponed essential decisions, and if this new decision delays even more the building of the pipeline, Quebeckers will be the ones to suffer. First of all, they will have to pay more for heating
oil.	They will be prevented form burning Canadian natural gas instead of oil and Quebec consumers are the ones who are and will be suffering from the way the Quebec government is delaying, exaggeratedly in my opinion, its decision in this matter.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the minister a couple of questions. First, can he tell me what percentage of the natural gas that was approved for export to the United States in 1978 and 1979 was actually exported?


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member raises a very good question in the sense that at present the level of exports to the United States is well below the authorized level, so that when the hon. member talks about a large amount being exported he has to remember that these are authorized levels, they are not necessarily actual levels. I believe that at present, for instance in British Columbia, the percentage of exports is as low as 35 per cent of the authorized level. I might be wrong by a few percentage points, but it is in that area. So far as Alberta is concerned or so far as the average production is concerned, 1 think it is slightly above 50 per cent. I will inquire and give my friend the exact figure.


Erik Nielsen: Fifty-eight per cent.


Marc Lalonde: My knowledgeable friend from the Yukon says it is 58 per cent. In spite of his great expertise, I think I will inquire from my officials.


Albert Glen Cooper: Can the minister tell me if any of the reasons for this gas not being exported have to do with the price of the natural gas?


Marc Lalonde: It is a combination of several factors. As the hon. member knows, we had an extremely mild winter last year which resulted in a level of consumption, both in Canada and in the United States, that was much lower than had been the case before.
Second, the United States has experienced a rather deep recession in the last year and a half, which is still continuing and which has resulted also in a lowering in the consumption of petroleum products generally, including natural gas.
Alaska Gas Pipeline
Third, there is obviously a particular problem in certain sections of the U.S., particularly the northwestern states where there is an oversupply of residual fuels being used for commercial and industrial purposes as a substitution for Canadian gas in particular. In effect, our gas at present sells for about $4.47 at the border. I am told that it is possible, in view of the situation with residual oil, to get the equivalent perhaps for about $4.07 or $4.10. So there is an advantage which we believe is temporary in favour of residual fuel in the northwest states of the United States. We are confident that this is a passing phenomenon and that with the increase in the cost of oil on the international market, and the expected resumption of activity in the U.S. economy, the demand for Canadian gas will soon pick up, particularly with an increase in the price of residual fuels.


Albert Glen Cooper: In light of the minister's answer, I wonder if he could tell me if, in the discussions with his colleagues today, there was mention of a possibility of a tax on the export of natural gas.


Marc Lalonde: I apologize to the hon. member, but the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was in a great conversation with me and I did not hear his question. Would he ask his question again?


Albert Glen Cooper: Can the minister tell me if his colleagues discussed today the possibility of an export tax on natural gas?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have always followed the policy of not only not revealing discussions in cabinet, but refusing to confirm or deny whether any question was discussed in cabinet. So I am afraid my hon. friend will have to look elsewhere for an answer.
To come back to his first question concerning the exact percentage of exports of natural gas, I do not have the exact figure tonight. I am told the average current level would be about 60 per cent. I am sorry I do not have exactly the same figure as the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I was closer than you.


Marc Lalonde: Maybe he was right; we will see.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion about the economic impact on the western part of Canada. I should like to elicit from the minister what type of impact we will see in the Atlantic area. At the same time, may I inquire as to the status of the much talked about and proposed MEB, the Maritime Energy Board, as well as to the status and attitude of the various provinces within Atlantic Canada, particularly the province in which my constituency resides, New Brunswick. What is the attitude of Premier Hatfield, and the over-all economic impact of the minister's announcement?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my information is to the effect that Atlantic Canada would benefit from this particular

July 17, 1980
Alaska Gas Pipeline
announcement, roughly to the extent of $10 million. With the construction of the whole line, it is estimated that an additional $200 million will go to Atlantic Canada, for a total of about $210 million for the line which will be constructed in Alberta, British Columbia and the Yukon. Certainly, that is not a negligible sum. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, I believe the hon. member was asking about the maritime pipeline.


Maurice James Harquail: The Maritime Energy Board.


Marc Lalonde: The Maritime Energy Corporation?


Maurice James Harquail: Yes.


Marc Lalonde: 1 am afraid I have to report that at the present time this particular corporation is somewhat in limbo. There appear to be very conflicting views among the various maritime governments. 1 hope we will be able to get the situation back on the rails. In particular, I hope the provincial governments concerned will agree to sit down and work out an arrangement which would be beneficial to the entire mari-times. 1 am sorry to say that we have been unable to get this corporation going at the present time.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. For the benefit of the House and the residents of New Brunswick, does the minister anticipate, from the information he has to date, any difficulties or problems in terms of the eastern pipeline going from Quebec into New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the construction of a Montreal-Maritimes pipeline was the preferred and privileged option of the government. The National Energy Board has recommended the construction of the pipeline up to Quebec City first of all. We have authorized the implementation of this recommendation of the board, and that will imply the construction of the first phase of the maritime pipeline. Hopefully, the environmental concerns that were raised, the questions regarding the environmental studies and
certain reservations expressed in particular by New Brunswick, all this will be quickly settled. The NEB also indicated that it was interested in knowing more about the reserves found off Sable Island. I must add that the government is following the situation very closely and we want to make sure that the pipeline gets under way as quickly as possible. In the meantime, as I have indicated, the decision we have announced tonight and the eventual construction of the Alaska pipeline will represent benefits of almost $200 million for the Atlantic provinces.
Very shortly then when we build the pipeline to Quebec City and obviously also to the maritimes, I am sure that businesses and workers in the Atlantic provinces will derive substantial benefits from this decision, as well as all consumers in the maritimes.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, could the minister confirm that the pipeline he announced tonight will have the capacity to transport natural gas through the United States to eastern Canada, in case the TransCanada system proves inadequate to meet the requirements of eastern Canada consumers?


Marc Lalonde: I am advised that the pre-build now under construction could occasionally be used to supplement our requirements. This is a situation which, I hope, will not occur, but should it occur, there will be ways apparently, following certain adjustments and detours, to supplement the needs of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 11.25 p.m.-


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am advised that in answer to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) 1 referred to reservations by the government of Nova Scotia. I am sorry; I meant reservations by the government of New Brunswick.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 11.28 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
July 17, 1980


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
1,	Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Y ugoslavia
Belgrade, October 24, 1973 In force May 17, 1977 CTS 1977/18
2.	Cultural Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico
Mexico, January 25, 1976 In force provisionally January 25, 1976 In force definitively February 9, 1977 CTS 1977/9
3.	Convention between Canada and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income
Ottawa, February 24, 1976 In force December 15, 1977 CTS 1977/5
4.	Convention between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income
Singapore, March 6, 1976 In force September 23, 1977 CTS 1977/3
5.	Convention between Canada and the Philippines for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income
Manila, March 11, 1976 In force December 21, 1977 CTS 1977/6
6.	Air Transport Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Polish People's Republic
Ottawa, May 14, 1976 In force provisionally May 14, 1976 In force definitively October 28, 1977 CTS 1977/31
7.	Convention between Canada and the Dominican Republic for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital
Ottawa, August 6, 1976 In force September 23, 1977 CTS 1977/4
8.	Convention between Canada and Switzerland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital
Berne, August 20, 1976 In force August 19, 1977 CTS 1977/2
9.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Transit Pipelines
Washington, January 28, 1977 In force October 1, 1977 CTS 1977/29
10.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning reconstruction of Canadian portions of the Alaska highway
Ottawa, January 11 and February 11, 1977 In force February 11, 1977 CTS 1977/7
11.	Treaty between Canada and the United States of America on the execution of Penal Sentences
Washington, March 2, 1977 In force July 19, 1978
12.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America constituting an Agreement to provide for the establishment of an experimental Loran-C power chain in the vicinity of the St. Mary's River in Ontario and Michigan
Washington, March 29, 1977 In force March 29, 1977 with effect from August 1, 1975 CTS 1977/14
13.	Development Loan Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Honduras
Tegucigalpa, March 31, 1977 In force March 31, 1977
14.	Long Term Grain Agreement between Canada and Poland
Ottawa, April 19, 1977 In force April 19, 1977 with effect from January 1, 1977 CTS 1977/16
[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1980
15.	Agreement, dated April 22, 1977 between the Government of Canada (hereinafter referred to as "The Government") and the international Development Association (hereinafter referred to as "The Association") to provide for the administration by the Association of certain funds to be made available by the Government for Specific Development Projects
Washington, April 22, 1977 In force April 22, 1977 CTS 1977/13
16.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Trinidad and Tobago relative to the Canada Pension Plan
Ottawa, April 26, 1977 In force April 26, 1977 with effect from January 1, 1974
17.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Cuba on Mutual Fisheries Relations
City of Havana, May 12, 1977 In force May 12, 1977 CTS 1977/17
18.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Finland for Air Services between and beyond their respective territories
Ottawa, May 16, 1977 In force provisionally May 16, 1977 In force definitively November 7, 1977 CTS 1977/32
19.	Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Antigua relating to Canadian Investments in Antigua insured by the Government of Canada through its agent, the Export Development Corporation
Bridgetown, Barbados and St. John's, Antigua, June 8, 1977 In force June 8, 1977 CTS 1977/19
20.	Development Loan Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Honduras
Tegucigalpa, June 14, 1977 In force June 14, 1977 CTS 1977/40
21.	Development Assistance Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Afghanistan
Kabul, July 5, 1977 In force July 5, 1977
22.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America to further extend the Agreement concerning Joint Participation in the Augmentor Wing Flight Test Project of November 10, 1970
Ottawa, May 31 and July 18, 1977 In force July 18, 1977 CTS 1977/22
23.	Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the State of St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla relating to Canadian Investment in St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla insured by the Government of Canada through its agent, the Export Development Corporation
Bridgetown, Barbados and Basseterre,
St. Christopher, August 19 and 20, 1977 In force August 20, 1977
24.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America constituting an Agreement concerning the establishment of a Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan
Ottawa, July 28 and August 30, 1977 In force August 30, 1977 CTS 1977/25
25.	Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on Principles Applicable to a Northern Gas Pipeline
Ottawa, September 20, 1977 In force September 20, 1977 CTS 1977/26
26.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the United Nations concerning the Headquarters and Operations of the United Nations Audio-Visual Information Centre on Human Settlements
New York, September 27, 1977 In force September 27, 1977 CTS 1977/27
27.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria on Mutual Fisheries Relations
New York, September 27, 1977 In force September 27, 1977 CTS 1977/28
28.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the German Democratic Republic on Mutual Fisheries Relations
Berlin, October 6, 1977 In force October 6, 1977 CTS 1977/30
29.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania for Cooperation in the Development and Application of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purposes Ottawa, October 24, 1977 In force June 14, 1978
July 17, 1980
[Stage Direction]
30.	General Agreement for Development Co-operation between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Zaire
Kinshasa, November 11, 1977 In force November 11, 1977 CTS 1977/34
31.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America relating to the Agreement for Co-operation concerning the Civil Uses of Atomic Energy signed on June 15, 1955, as amended
Ottawa, November 15, 1977 In force November 15, 1977 CTS 1977/35
32.	General Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Bolivia concerning Development Co-operation
La Paz, December 29, 1977 In force December 29, 1977
33.	Exchange of Letters between the Government of Canada and the European Atomic Energy Agency (EURATOM) to amend the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the European Atomic Energy Community for Co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy of October 6, 1959, particularly insofar as it relates to Safeguards (with additional Exchanges of Letters)
Brussels, January 16, 1978 In force January 16, 1978
34.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Socialist Republic of Romania on Mutual Fisheries Relations
Bucharest, January 17, 1978 In force January 17, 1978
35.	Technical Assistance Agreement on Military Training between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Ghana
Accra, February 14, 1978 In force February 14, 1978 With effect from June 1, 1976
36.	Development Loan Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of El Salvador
San Salvador, February 15, 1978 In force February 15, 1978
37.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of Japan concerning the establishment of a Temporary Satellite Support Facility at Churchill Research Range
38.	Agreement dated March 8, 1978, between the Government of Canada (hereinafter referred to as "The Government") and the International Development Association (hereinafter referred to as "The Association") amending the Agreement dated April 22, 1977, between the same Parties, to provide for the administration by the Association of certain funds to be made available by the Government for specific development projects
Washington, March 8, 1978 In force March 8, 1978 With effect from April 22, 1977
39.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, together with the Annexed Memorandum of Agreement, providing for a Revised Schedule of Tolls to be levied for the use of the Navigational Facilities of the St. Lawrence Seaway
Washington, March 20, 1978 In force March 20, 1978
40.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (with attached Memorandum of Understanding) concerning co-operation in the development of Space Remote Sensing for Global Crop Information
Washington, March 31 and April 10, 1978 In force April 10, 1978
41.	Parcel Post Agreement between Canada and Japan
Tokyo, April 11, 1978 In force October 1, 1978
42.	Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of Canada and the Government of Japan
Tokyo, April 28, 1978 In force April 28, 1978
43.	Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on Film Relations
Ottawa, May 30, 1978 In force August 16, 1978
44.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning commercial development of an area of the United States Naval Station, Argentina, Newfoundland
Ottawa, June 6, 1978 In force June 6, 1978
45.	Exchange of Notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America amending the Agreement on Principles applicable to a Northern Natural Gas Pipeline signed at Ottawa on September 20, 1977
Ottawa, February 16, 1978	Washington, June 6, 1978
In force February 16, 1978	In force June 6, 1978
[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1980
46.	Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Independent State of Western Samoa relating to Canadian Investments in Western Samoa insured by the Government of Canada through its agent, the Export Development Corporation
New York, September 29, 1978 In force September 29, 1978

[Stage Direction]
1.	Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
Done at New York, August 30, 1961 Entered into force December 13, 1975 Canada's Instrument of Accession deposited July 17, 1978
Entered into force for Canada October 15, 1978
2.	Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
Done at Paris, November 14, 1970 Canada's Instrument of Acceptance deposited March 28, 1978 Entered into force for Canada June 28, 1978
3.	Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972
Done at London, October 20, 1972 Canada's Instrument of Accession deposited March 7, 1975, accompanied by the following declaration:
"1. The Government of Canada considers that the provisions of Rule 10, 'Traffic Separation Schemes', do not provide the compulsory use of the adopted schemes. The Government of Canada considers that the compulsory routing of ships is necessary to avoid collisions between ships and the resulting damage to the marine environment.
2.	The Government of Canada notes that there are no exceptions to Rule 10(b), (c), and (h) for vessels engaged in fishing with nets, lines, trawls, trolling lines or other apparatus, or for vessels engaged in special operations such as survey, cable, buoy, pipeline or salvage operations, and that the exceptions in Rule 10(e) are not broad enough to adequately provide for vessels engaged in special operations. The Government of Canada considers that the practical application of Rule 10 would be complicated without realistic exceptions for fishing vessels and for vessels engaged in special operations.
3.	The Government of Canada therefore does not consider that it is prohibited from providing for the compulsory use of traffic separation schemes or providing for such exceptions to Rule 10(b), (c), (e) and (h)."
Entered into force July 15, 1977 Entered into force for Canada July 15, 1977
4.	Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will
Done at Washington, October 26, 1973 Canada's Instrument of Accession deposited January 24, 1977, with the following declaration-
"the Government of Canada accedes to the Convention providing a Uniform Law on the Form of an International Will, done at Washington, D.C., on October 26, 1973, subject to the following declaration:
1.	The Government of Canada declares that pursuant to Article XIV of the Convention, the Convention shall extend only to the provinces of Manitoba and Newfoundland.
2.	The Government of Canada further declares that it will submit, at any time after accession, other declarations, in conformity with Article XIV of the Convention, stating expressly the additional provinces to which the Convention shall extend, when such provinces have enacted the necessary implementing legislation".
In force February 9, 1978
5.	Statutes of the International Centre for Registration of Serial Publications
Done at Paris, November 14, 1974 Entered into force January 21, 1976 Canada's Instrument of Accession deposited March 28, 1978
6.	Agreement establishing the International Fund for Agricultural Development
Done at New York, December 20, 1976 Signed By Canada, February 10, 1977 Canada's Instrument of Ratification deposited November 28, 1977 In force November 30, 1977
7.	Agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Spain and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the application of safeguards
Signed at Vienna, February 10, 1977 In force February 10, 1977 CTS 1977/8
July 17, 1980
[Stage Direction]
8.	Protocol suspending the application of Safeguards under the Agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Japan for the application of Agency Safeguards in respect of the Bilateral Agreement between those Governments for co-operation in the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy
Done at Vienna, December 2, 1977 Entered into force December 2, 1977 CTS 1977/37
9.	1978 Protocols for the Fourth Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 1971
Done at Washington, April 26, 1978 Signed by Canada May 17, 1978 Canada's Instrument of Ratification deposited May 31, 1978 In force June 24, 1978 and July 1, 1978
3072
[Stage Direction]
July 17, 1980

[Stage Direction]
WHEREAS the situation of Indian women is so deplorable and because they are so blatantly discriminated against under the INDIAN ACT we, the federal women Members of Parliament of all three political parties, have joined together, and with Indian women, to request that Parliament urge to finalize immediately the negotiations with all Indian organizations and with the Indian Bands throughout Canada to amend the INDIAN ACT to grant Indian women and their children their full status and rights in Canada.
WHEREAS this is the first time in history that women Members of Parliament of all political parties have taken a united stand on an issue that affects all women, indeed all Canadians. WHEREAS Canada leads most other countries in human rights and in its treatment of minorities, and provisions of article 12( I)(/?) of the INDIAN ACT are detrimental to our image all over the world:
1.	We, all women parliamentarians therefore request that the Parliament of Canada apply a moratorium on the application of article 12(1 )(Z?) as it affects Indian women and their children with the approval of the Indian Bands until the Act is revised.
2.	All women in Parliament, regardless of their party, are committee to redress this discriminatory situation and are urging both Parliament and the Indian Bands to treat their sisters as equals and be ready to amend the Indian Act next fall.
[Stage Direction]
RE: Office Consolidation INDIAN ACT R.S., c. 1-6, c. 10 (2nd Supp.) 1974-75-76, c. 48, 1978

[Stage Direction]
4.	(1) A reference in this Act to an Indian does Application of not include any person of the race of aborigines Act commonly referred to as Eskimos.
(2)	The Governor in Council may by proclama- Act may be tion declare that this Act or any portion thereof, declai'ed
[DOT]	-**'*1	.,	, i, A ,	inapplicable
except sections 37 to 41, shall not apply to
(a)	any Indians or any group or band of Indians, or
(b)	any reserve or any surrendered lands or any part thereof,
and may by proclamation revoke any such declaration.
(3)	Sections 114 to 123 and, unless the Minister Certains otherwise orders, sections 42 to 52 do not apply to sectlons
.	.. inapplicable to
or in respect of any Indian who does not ordinarily Indians living
reside on a reserve or on lands belonging to Her off reserves Majesty in right of Canada or a province, R.S., c.
149, s. 4; 1956, c. 40, s. 1.
Liberal Members	Conservative	NDPThe Hon. Monique Begin	The Hon. Flora	Miss Pauline Jewett
MacDonald
The Hon. Judy Erola	Miss Pat Carney	Mrs. Margaret Ann
Mitchell
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet
Miss Coline Campbell Mrs. Eva Cote Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette
Mrs. Therese Killens Miss Aideen Nicholson

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean Margaret Anderson Hon. Ann Elizabeth Bell Hon. Florance Bayard Bird Hon. Elsie Florence Inman
Hon. Renaude Lapointe Hon. Joan Neiman Hon. Margaret F. Norrie Hon. Yvette Rousseau Hon. Dalia Wood Hon. Martha Bielish.
12. (1) The following persons are not entitled to be registered, namely,
(a)	a person who
(i)	has received or has been allotted halfbreed lands or money scrip,
(ii)	is a descendant of a person described in subparagraph (i),
(iii)	is enfranchised, or
(iv)	is a person born of a marriage entered into after the 4th day of September 1951 and has attained the age of twenty-one years, whose mother and whose father's mother are not persons described in paragraph 11(1)(«), (b) or (d) or entitled to be registered by virtue of paragraph 11 (1 )(e),
unless, being a woman, that person is the wife or widow of a person described in section 11, and
(b)	a woman who married a person who is not an Indian, unless that woman is subsequently
Persons not entitled to be registered
July 17, 1980
[Stage Direction]
Protest re
illegitimate
child
Certificate
the wife or widow of a person described in section 11.
(2)	The addition to a Band List of the name of an illegitimate child described in paragraph ll(l)(e) may be protested at any time within twelve months after the addition, and if upon the protest it is decided that the father of the child was not an Indian, the child is not entitled to be registered under that paragraph.
(3)	The Minister may issue to any Indian to whom this Act ceases to apply, a certficate to that effect.
(4)	Subparagraphs (I)(a)(i) and (ii) do not Exception apply to a person who
(a)	pursuant to this Act is registered as an Indian on the 13th day of August 1958, or
(b)	is a descendant of a person described in paragraph (a) of this subsection.
(5)	Subsection (2) applies only to persons born idem after the 13th day of August 1956. R.S., c. 149, s.
12: 1956. c. 40. ss. 3.4:1958. c. 19. s. 1. cvc
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 18, 1980