1980-07-21

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a subject which I feel is sure to be supported by all members of the House. Whereas the special committee of the House of Commons on the disabled and the handicapped has published its proposed itinerary in which it plans to travel to every province in Canada and to the Yukon Territory but for some reason has declined to visit the Northwest Territories, and whereas the Northwest Territories, which has always taken a special interest in this subject, takes serious exception to this exclusion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), in the absence of the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the special committee of the House of Commons on the disabled and the handicapped travel to the Northwest Territories as well as to other territories and provinces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INSTALLATION OF MOBILE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my motion also is being put under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and arises out of the fact that we are here today on Monday, July 21. In order to destroy once and for all the hollow myth that the NDP is so fond of nurturing to the effect that they and they alone are the great defenders of the working people of this country, and in particular of the staff of Parliament, and yet it was the NDP which, on its own, took action which will extend unduly this session of Parliament and
require the staff to remain at their post through the muggy heat of Ottawa's humid summer weather, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall):
That during this NDP motivated prolongation of the current session of Parliament, mobile air conditioning units be installed in the English and French Hansard offices and the interpreters' booths where working conditions can best be compared to those to which Dante condemned mortal sinners in Inferno into which is injected superheated steam.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Nanaimo Commonwealth Association, the financial arm of the Nanaimo NDP Association, is planning on building a $4.5 million complex and signing a joint venture agreement with the U.S. multinational Ramada Inn for a $12 million hotel in that city, and in view of the fact that the Canada Elections Act provides for a return on expenses to local executives at the expense of the taxpayer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this House call upon the national Leader of the NDP to explain this obvious contradiction between that party's stated abhorrence for multinationals and their profit-seeking venture with them and do further request from him assurances that no moneys which have come to the riding executives by virtue of the Canada Elections Act be invested in this profit-making venture of the NDP.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
3136

July 21, 1980


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. At the end of June of this year, the Regina handicapped manpower centre was closed down. This centre, funded by the Outreach program of the Department of Employment and Immigration, successfully placed over 1,500 physically handicapped people since its inception in 1973. Its success can be attributed to the fact that handicapped people helped to find employment for other persons in the same position, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House condemns the government for its backward attitude in not providing further funding for the Regina handicapped manpower centre, and that this House urge the government to employ handicapped people's organizations to provide placement and counselling services for the handicapped.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on an urgent and pressing matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas carburettors and the weight of the vehicle are the two main factors in determining gas consumption, leaving out pollution for the moment; whereas carburettors in Japan provide 62.4 miies per gallon and in Canada we are aiming at 28.8 miles per gallon; whereas periodically individuals claim they have sold rights to carburettor designs to multinational automobile companies that would give a much higher mileage per gallon gasoline ratio, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the Department of Transport undertake an investigation for the purpose of ascertaining if indeed the automobile giants have purchased and are holding designs for carburettors that would conserve large volumes of gasoline and, furthermore, if such is found to be the case, that any said company be charged with criminal conspiracy, irrespective of how much money they paid for the said design.


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. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the knowledge that the British Columbia salmon industry is experiencing its worst year in a decade; given the additional knowledge that part of the decline of fish stocks results from widespread violations of the Fisheries Act by some users and abusers of the resources and by habitat destruction; given the fact that fisheries officers find it increasingly difficult to carry out their complex enforcement work as well as their administrative and survey work; recognizing that government restraint has resulted in a totally inadequate number of fisheries officers to protect the salmon industry of British Columbia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly):
That this House urge the government to implement immediately a program that will radically increase the number of fishery officers in the field, form teams of investigation officers for the purpose of collecting evidence and laying charges, and to introduce changes in legislation that will give fisheries officers confidence that their work indeed will be productive in protecting our salmon resources.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last week the Supreme Court of Canada threw out the convictions of three major sugar companies for conspiring to lessen competition between 1969 and 1973. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) previously has been involved in contempt of court proceedings concerning the sugar conspiracy prosecutions, and while this cabinet may now contain more men of conviction than any other cabinet in the history of Canada, in order to support the contention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Friday that being a Liberal is not a crime in this country I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
Thai this House direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to desist from making any comments with respect to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on prosecutions of certain sugar companies for conspiring to lessen competition between 1969 and 1973.


Madam Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
July 21, 1980

Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLICATION OF SITTING DATES FOR HOUSE AND COMMITTEES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is as follows. The lack of firm sitting dates for the House of Commons, such as are found in other legislative forums, denies members of Parliament of all parties the ability to plan properly constituency activities which in many instances are frequently as important as activities within the House of Commons. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the government announce by the first week of each session the dates upon which the House shall sit and that the calendar year allocated for sittings of House and committees be published one year in advance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RECYCLING OF NEWSPRINT DISCARDED FROM PARLIAMENTARY OFFICES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since it is in the interests of all Canadians that we conserve and reuse resources to the largest extent possible; since a successful paper recycling project is at present in place on Parliament Hill but does not include newspapers; since members of Parliament and their staffs now use many newspapers which at present must be discarded; since there are now successful newspaper recycling projects in operation in at least two communities in the national capital region, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the House recognize the need to take all possible steps to conserve our natural resources and request the officials of the House to take such measures as are necessary to ensure recycling of newsprint discarded from their parliamentary precincts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Campbellville post office in my constituency of Halton has taken upon itself to return all mail not marked "general delivery", even though the names, addresses and postal codes are marked properly thereon, and because the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) has failed to respond to my request to investigate this matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House direct the Postmaster General to have his officials look into this matter forthwith and at the same time instruct the Campbellville postmaster to have all mails delivered in accordance with general postal regulations.


Madam Speaker:: The motion can be put to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As he knows, the fishing industry in Newfoundland is virtually at a standstill as a result of a legal strike by the fishermen's union at two plants, triggering a lockout at the remaining plants and thereby placing 12,000 plant workers and 8,000 fishermen out of work. Have the hon. gentleman's good offices or those of his department been called upon to assist the government of Newfoundland, which exercises principal jurisdiction here, in putting an end to this very costly dispute?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has recognized the jurisdiction of the provincial government of Newfoundland. About a month ago I met the Newfoundland minister of fisheries and, in view of this looming deadlock between the fishermen and the processors, I put to him a suggestion that an industrial inquiry or some other form of inquiry might serve to cool tempers down and put all the facts on the table. 1 offered the full co-operation of my department in terms of making statistics and personnel available to inform the public, the fishermen and the processors of everything we knew. I regret very much that the Newfoundland minister of Fisheries and the govern-

July 21, 1980
Oral Questions
ment of that province did not see fit to follow through that idea and I regret very much that the fishermen, especially the inshore fishermen, will find it very difficult to dispose of this catch of cod which is rather plentiful at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Now that we have a full-scale shutdown of the industry at the height of the inshore season, and given the tragic consequences this could have for our fishermen, especially this coming winter, has the minister considered making provision to enable the Canadian Saltfish Corporation to buy over-the-side fish which could be salted, given the excellent market for good quality saltfish?


Roméo LeBlanc: When events seemed to forecast a strike I asked the corporation to make sure that the extra supply of salt which might be required was put into reserve. This was done. I also asked the corporation to envisage the measures it would undertake if, in fact, there was delivery of fish to its agents which they could not handle. As hon. members know, through an act of this Parliament the corporation must buy all the cured fish offered to it by fishermen. Of course, I will support the corporation in its endeavour to meet the needs of the fishermen. This being said, 1 must add that if the industrial dispute is prolonged even the best efforts of the corporation will not fully meet the needs.


James Aloysius McGrath: Has the minister measured the impact which this costly shutdown could have on our principal, indeed our only, market for frozen groundfish-the U.S. market?
This leads me to ask the minister if he is in a position to tell the House and the country whether or not he has succeeded in reopening negotiations with the European Economic Community which, as he knows, went off the rails a few months ago, in an effort to get tariff concessions to have access to Canadian groundfish and to that very important market?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, negotiations with the community have not gone as well as we would have liked. The fact is that in terms of bargaining for access to the Canadian zone as against access for Canadian products entering the community, we felt the price which was asked was a bit high. Our industry representatives, both union and processors, felt that we should take some time to reflect and re-examine market conditions. It is obvious that we may find ourselves with a very low inventory if the plant closures predicted by the hon. member and which appear to be inevitable take place right now.
The problem with the community is really one of judgment as to whether the price which has been asked of Canada is reasonable or is too high. That certainly must be a subject of discussion with all representatives of the industry, and I hope they will take place in a more serene atmosphere than what we now have in Newfoundland.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary, but it is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There are fairly reliable indications that the albacore tuna will again be in Canadian waters within the next ten days or so. If these tuna are followed by U.S. fishermen, the fishermen could be arrested. There are also indications that the U.S. negotiators on fisheries and boundary matters on the west coast have made offers, on at least one and possibly two occasions, to enter into negotiations with regard to the albacore tuna to avoid a head-on clash.
Could the minister tell the House whether or not he is aware of these approaches and, if so, what his response has been and, if not, what steps he will take to ensure himself that we are not faced with a head-on clash once again?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have not yet begun negotiations with the United States. We are hoping to do soon. The American position has not been entirely satisfactory to us, but we look forward to good negotiations.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware that a head-on clash at this time with the arrest of U.S. fishermen in Canadian waters could extend the embargo against the landing of fish, not just of tuna but of other species, in U.S. ports to the detriment of all fishermen on both coasts?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there is considerable question as to whether U.S. action of that kind is legitimate under GATT. We are investigating our rights in that respect.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans consult with his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in order to determine the state of play here on the albacore tuna matter- because it is only a few days off-rather than have a head-on collision and the possible danger which he recognizes, if the Secretary of State does not and, also, in order to give the Canadian tuna fishermen an opportunity to reap some of the harvest which will be available on the west coast.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, obviously, 1 have been in close consultation with my colleague. This situation exemplifies the sort of support one can find on one coast for negotiations on another coast. In fact, it is the New Brunswick industry which has been the subject of tariff impact from the United States. But recognizing the importance of these negotiations for Canadian fishermen generally, there have been very few complaints from New Brunswick. Of course, we recognize the importance of the issue, but surely the hon. member does not advocate giving in to the sort of pressure which he is advocating.
July 21, 1980


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, we have had a weekend to read the interesting set of letters tabled on Friday afternoon by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his letter to President Carter of March 12 when referring to the United States portion of the Alcan pipeline, the Prime Minister indicated that the United States should "resolve the Alaska financing promptly."
Considering that it took more than four months and an impending parliamentary recess in our country to produce a totally non-committal letter from President Carter last Thursday that included no specific guarantee of the Alaskan portion of the pipeline either in the form of annual timetabling for the construction or for the financing, why, in the face of a refusal to meet his request, did the cabinet agree to the pre-building of a portion of the pipeline only?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, 1 think it is important for the hon. member to realize that this letter which, as he says, took four months was not the first reply that I had from President Carter. I was writing him in March in answer to a letter from him dealing with the Olympics matter at that point and other subjects. I said "That is fine, we are going to look at that, but 1 also want you to look at certain things too". He phoned me at least a couple of times before writing this letter and 1 talked to him in Venice on it. This was a series of answers by the President. The final letter, 1 think, brought together in one place as strong an affirmation and commitment to policy as one could expect to get from the President of the United States, who is not himself involved in the financing but who expresses the political will of the administration after it had been obtained from Congress, to ensure that the whole pipeline be built. That is the context in which this letter was written.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it may present to us what the Prime Minister describes as the political will of the President, but 1 repeat, it contains not one word of guarantee either in terms of timetabling on an annual basis of the construction or guarantee in terms of the financing which the Prime Minister said in his March 12 letter was important to him. So what he asked for, he did not get.
1 should like to put a second question to the Prime Minister. Last year, as the Prime Minister may be aware, the then secretary of energy, Mr. Schlesinger, as reported in the document entitled "Report to the Congress" by the comptroller general of the United States, in reply to a question about the level of guarantees, said that "S>2 to $3 billion would appear to be an adequate level of guarantee" in financing the $8 billion portion of the pipeline that is in Alaska alone.
Considering that Mr. Schlesinger said a year ago that $2 to $3 billion were required as a guarantee for that portion, a small part of the pipeline, why did the Government of Canada
Oral Questions
accept as a guarantee required by the law of Canada an amount of money that is a mere fraction of this $2 billion to $3 billion as a guarantee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I quoted Secretary Schlesinger myself earlier saying words to that effect. That was in the context of building the whole pipeline. Naturally, if the whole pipeline were going to be built more or less at the same time, this type of guarantee would have been forthcoming and there would have been no need to amend condition 12 of annex 3. It is because the government had to respond to a particular request for building just part of the pipeline, which request was entertained and accepted by the National Energy Board, that the government then had to make the other decision, in view of the fact that the whole thing is not going together at the same time, namely do we have enough guarantees (a) that the pre-build will be financed, and (b) that the whole thing can be financed?
It seems to me the hon. member is begging the principle when he argues that indeed if the whole thing were going ahead we would have had more money on the table. But the whole thing is not going ahead at the same time. We are dealing with the question of building one part of it. It is the financing of that part which is necessary and required and which is present. It is the expression that the whole thing can be financed that this government had to make a decision on. That decision was based on the fact that we had more, in a sense, than financial guarantees about something that would happen two or three years down the road; we had the absolute guarantee of the President of the United States and of the Congress that they had the political will to see this thing proceed. That is the position of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in the Prime Minister's letter, he himself states:
-the Canadian Government cannot, under the Northern Pipeline Act, authorize the construction of any part of the line, including pre-build, until it is assured that the entire line will be completed.
Mr. Schlesinger said that $2 to $3 billion was required as a guarantee for a small part of the line. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, I would suggest to him that if $2 billion to $3 billion is required for a small part, even more than that sum should be required as a guarantee for the whole, which is an essential pre-condition for building the part of the pipeline on which the government is going ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As a final question, since clause 21 of the new freedom of information bill, introduced recently by the government, will enable Canadians to have access to cabinet documents that are relevant to the government's decision-making process, keeping in mind that that bill, of course, is not yet law, but to test the spirit of the Government of Canada and its willingness to comply with those principles, I would like to ask

July 21, 1980
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister if he will now table in the House all the documents that were relevant to the cabinet in reaching the decision that it made last Thursday?


Mr. Lalonde:: They were annexed to Hansard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the preamble to the question, 1 just want to point out to the hon. member that he is right in saying when 1 wrote in March that those were the laws which then stood. He knows, because he has been told many times and it has been debated in this House, that that law, being condition 12 of annex 3, has since been changed, under the provisions of the act, by the National Energy Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If Parliament authorized the law to be changed under certain conditions and those conditions are fulfilled, then it is the law that applies. I repeat to the hon. member that since my letter was written in March, talking about the financing of the whole, there have arisen conditions where the NEB and many interests in Canada have said "Okay, that is for the whole line, but we want the government to address the problem of the pre-build," which we have done since then.
As to the question about tabling of documents, I understand that most of these documents have already been annexed to Hansard. But if there are other documents which, under the freedom of information act, should be made public, 1 can assure the hon. member that they will be made public.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSERVATION
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In 1975 at the beginning of the first attempted major energy conservation program, the then minister of energy, the hon. Donald Macdonald, was quoted as saying:
The government is not asking Canadians to shiver in cold houses, stumble about in the dark or suffer hardship.
Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, after we have had five years of increasing oil imports and prices, international shortages and decreasing domestic oil supplies that have left us on the brink of crisis, be willing to admit to the House that his government has not had a real national energy policy?


Marc Lalonde: No, Madam Speaker.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister admit to the House that his conservation program
is really just an off-oil program and that during this parliamentary recess he is going to spend $12 million on PR to explain it instead of bringing forward major conservation efforts?


Marc Lalonde: Again, Madam Speaker, I would have to answer no. However, I might expand by saying that we have a conservation program and policy in this country which has been examined and lauded by many other countries. Whether it is in the area of the home insulation program, the area of substitution off-oil, the area of helping citizens, and industry in particular, to reduce the energy component in units of output, the Government of Canada has been providing leadership with the co-operation of industry and of private citizens in this country. 1 hope that in the weeks to come the government will be able to enlarge and expand those opportunities. I hope also that we will be able to start the alternate energy corporation in such a way that Petro-Canada will have a subsidiary which will provide additional leadership in this area. 1 could go on enumerating other actions of this government and other very good developments which have produced excellent results for this country.


FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL SOLAR PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware that the National Research Council solar program could not fully use its allocated $10 million budget in the last fiscal year?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, for the most part this would have been under the Conservative administration, and I will have to inquire from my predecessor as to why he allowed such a situation to develop.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Spend, spend, spend.


Marc Lalonde: I can assure him that when the alternate energy corporation is set up we will have an organization that will be concentrating exclusively on new forms of energy, and that solar energy will be one of the areas where that corporation is going to be able to concentrate.


Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, that sounds like another flip-flop on the part of this government. The minister of energy should know that the fiscal year ends in March. As this shows a failure to appreciate the requirements of managing a research facility and also demonstrates in part the reasons why we are falling behind in energy technology, will the minister consult with the Minister of State for Science and Technology to help him understand and make better use of resources already allocated?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again I would have to put the blame on the previous minister of science and technology under the previous government for what happened last year. I
July 21, 1980

can assure the hon. member that the present Minister of State for Science and Technology is very much aware of the situation in this regard. He is very conscious of encouraging research in the energy field and increasing research and development generally in this country, as was made clear when the minister announced increased funding in the area of research and development generally in this country under this government.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I gather from statements made by the minister that he recognizes the infinite value of energy self-sufficiency. If I read the statements of the minister and his colleagues correctly, they appear to appreciate the immeasurable potential for economic development if we in Canada were able to provide a guaranteed source of competitively priced energy from coast to coast.
I ask the minister on what day in which year will the government proceed with the building of a pipeline linking the natural gas fields of Alberta and Saskatchewan to consumers on both the east and west coasts, so that we get the benefits that I have mentioned and which the minister has mentioned, and in addition get the benefit of both short and long-term employment opportunities?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Where do you stand on the pre-build?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note the interest of my hon. colleague in energy self-sufficiency and independence. I remind him, however, that the government has already announced the extension of the natural gas pipeline to Quebec and we have indicated that its extension to the mari-times and to Halifax was a high priority of this government and it was the option that we favoured.
However, the hon. member is aware of the reservations expressed by the National Energy Board about it. We are considering the situation and we hope to be in a position to announce later some specific decisions in that respect. As regards conditions on the west coast, especially on Vancouver Island, 1 have already met twice my colleague the British Columbia energy minister and I hope that the project will be carried out in the very near future. Indeed, the appropriate British Columbia board will be holding hearings on that issue this fall, if I am not mistaken.
Oral Questions
On both aspects, whether on the east coast or the west coast, this government is indeed very involved. We are talking to the people concerned. As I said, we are attaching very great importance to this.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the minister appears to recognize that energy is now, and no doubt will remain, the single most important resource any country can have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tell us about the pre-build.


Ian Deans: Recognizing that economic development, employment and quality of life would be directly affected by the availability of competitively priced energy, not only now but into the future, how then can the government speak about Canada having a surplus energy resource that we could well use to develop our country for the next 50 years?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Tell us about the steel workers.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this government indeed attaches a great deal of importance to energy, but before saying that energy is of the most important value in this country, as far as this government is concerned the people of Canada are the first value.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: That means providing the people of Canada with jobs and income that are fair, preventing inflation from going too high and ensuring growth in this country. If I may leave the preamble of the hon. member's question after this important clarification as to at least the difference between our respective parties, I remind him that energy exports like other exports are related to a broad economic policy. You have to take into account the benefits for the whole of Canada. This is something that the hon. member may not understand but that the NDP government of Saskatchewan understands.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The NDP government of Saskatchewan has approved very substantial exports of heavy oil.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to press reports of mounting opposition

July 21, 1980
Oral Questions
with the U.S. government to the final phase of the Garrison diversion project, can the minister tell the House whether he has received official assurances that the project is unlikely to be completed?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the assurances that we have received have not been as to whether the project will go ahead, but that the money which has been voted by Congress this year will not be spent on any aspect of it which will affect Canada injuriously.


ECONOMIC SUMMIT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Canada will host the 1981 summit conference. He did not bother to address us when he came back from the last one. Can the Prime Minister indicate why only Montreal and Vancouver are being considered as a site for that conference? Will he give some consideration, as the previous government did, to recognizing that there are other parts of Canada, including Atlantic Canada? The city of Halifax would make an excellent site.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is news to me that Montreal and Vancouver are being considered in any specific way. 1 believe that various sites are being looked at. Consultations will then have to take place with the other participants in the summit as to the type of locale we would want to propose.


J. Michael Forrestall: Obviously the Prime Minister is not interested in the location of the summit. 1 would direct a more specific question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is there a short list of locations for the economic summit? If so, will he give us an indication of what that list is? At the same time, will he tell us whether this government is prepared to recognize that Atlantic Canada exists by considering the city of Halifax, with all of its amenities, for the site of the 1981 summit?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, not only does this government recognize that Atlantic Canada exists, but the people of Atlantic Canada recognize that this government exists, as evidenced by the number of Liberal members here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: There is not yet a short list. We are at a more preliminary stage. I understand that the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have suggested to the federal government that they each would like to host the summit. Our consideration is not limited to those provinces; we are looking at the whole country.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance whom we welcome back to the House. We all join in wishing him a complete recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: I wish to ask him a question with regard to a commitment made by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne, namely to make certain fundamental changes to the Income Tax Act in conjunction with certain principles of equity and fairness. Is it the minister's intention, in the preparation of a budget and preparing the changes to the Income Tax Act, to take into account the discriminating aspects of the Income Tax Act as it applies to northern residents? Are there any changes that would establish a two or three tier tax system similar to that in Australia to help northerners achieve a greater degree of equity and fairness?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his words of welcome on my return to the House and to tell him that I find the House easier to bear when I am here rather than when I am away.


Mr. Nowlan:: For us it is just the reverse.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to tell the hon. member that this very morning I had a discussion with the Minister of National Revenue on the subject of taxation of northern benefits. We both agreed that it was a matter that ought to be discussed before the preparation of a budget. I am glad to know the hon. member shares that opinion.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my question relates to a more universal approach than simply compensation for federal public servants and an elite group of northerners who happen to work for large corporations. Will the government consider a more universal approach which takes into account a section of the Income Tax Act that requires the levy of income tax in accordance with one's ability to pay? In other words, is the government considering a more universal approach which would give certain concessions to northerners on a more universal basis, not just to an elite group of northerners?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member means by a "universal approach" that we ought to take into account all the broad factors relating to income, then that is the intention of the government.
July 21, 1980


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for supply and services. Can the minister update us on the interministerial meetings which have been taking place pertaining to services performed and delivered to the letter of the contract, for which payment has not been received? I am specifically asking for further information on the Maritime Agencies affair. Perhaps at the same time the minister could advise us as to why the Metric Overview Board has not received its final payment for services rendered.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, with reference to the involvement of the Metric Overview Board I would be pleased to look into that matter and advise the hon. gentleman further.
In terms of the MAL matter, as the hon. gentleman is very well aware because of his own interest, that matter is under constant supervision. 1 am in contact and my office is in contact with the officers of MAL on almost a daily basis. 1 hope to be able to advise the hon. member on progress in the very near future.
The hon. gentleman may be interested in knowing that the third ship, the Jasmine, has now completed loading and is on the high seas.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, the issue here is very serious. The carriage contractor, Maritime Agencies Limited, has performed all services to the letter of the contract, and 1 have had that word from advisers directly to the minister. The problem is that the Canadian Wheat Board did not deliver the product to the ship as it lay in the berth. Is there something which is interfering with respect to the sanctity of contracts here? Every time we come back to this issue, something new comes in from left field to interfere with the process of payment. Surely the minister has had enough time now since 1978 to bring into place a payment mechanism which would relieve this company from serious potential damages?


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman has identified that there have been some matters in contention since 1978. He is also aware that indeed legal process has been commenced, and therefore he understands that I cannot comment in terms of the 1978 events. In terms of more recent events, as the hon. gentleman knows, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and I are presently in consultation in order to reach a solution as rapidly as possible.
Oral Questions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. I believe I heard him say that he had been having discussions with a cabinet colleague regarding budgetary preparation, I believe he said this morning. Does that mean that the Minister of Finance is now involved in budgetary preparation, and can he give the House of Commons a date on which a budget will be presented to this House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, the process of budget preparation is a long one. He knows that probably better than I do. I am engaged in that process at the present time but, unfortunately, I am not in a position today to indicate when the budget will be presented, although it has been my desire to present such a document as soon as all the complex factors can be brought under control.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I take that as a commitment for a budget by 1990, but the Minister of Finance will know from having watched the question period that his Prime Minister was unwilling to give us a commitment the other day. Even given the rate of inflation and the rate of unemployment in the country he was unwilling to give us a commitment that, if it was not going to be possible for us to have a budget in the early fall, there would be an economic statement indicating the general policy directions of the Government of Canada before the end of the summer. I wonder if the Minister of Finance has now had an opportunity to reconsider that exchange and whether he could give us a commitment that, if there is not a budget in the early or mid-fall, there will be an economic statement before the end of August.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 remind the right hon. gentleman that on April 21 I presented an economic statement to the House. Hon. members opposite have insisted on calling it a budget. Incessantly it is called a budget, and I wonder why another one is required. But I remind the right hon. gentleman that just very recently the New Democratic Party presented a motion to the House which included a vote, and on that occasion I gave quite an extensive summary of the economic situation and certainly the present attitude of the government. I remind the right hon. gentleman further that that happened within three or four months of our election to office, which did not happen in the government of which he was the leader.


LABOUR DISPUTES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the present fishing industry dispute in
3144

July 21, 1980
Oral Questions
Newfoundland which has closed some 70 fish plants around the province and left some 30,000 people out of work, and in view of the minister's comments to the hon. member for St. John's East regarding the role of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation in this dispute, 1 wonder if the minister can tell this House whether he is considering empowering the Canadian Saltfish Corporation to acquire additional vessels or boats to buy even more of the surplus fish which no doubt will be available in the days and perhaps weeks ahead during the course of the strike.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, as 1 said earlier, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation by law must buy all the fish offered to it by fishermen. In fact, there are precedents in which the corporation has utilized foreign vessels and trawlers to act as receiving stations for fish made available to it by Canadian fishermen. Of course, I would be quite willing to look at this proposal, and 1 might indicate that I would look at it pretty favourably.
As to the other suggestion that we should allow sale over-the-side for other fish products besides cod, this suggestion has been made in a telegram to me by the head of the fishermen's organization. I have not yet indicated what would be my reaction because I want to ascertain all the facts before I make a decision of this importance. However, at the moment this is neither accepted nor rejected.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is also addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As I trust the minister is aware, between 1946 and 1965 quantities of radioactive waste were dumped off the British Columbia coast into the ocean by such institutions as the University of British Columbia and the Pacific Naval Laboratory of British Columbia. In light of the fact that roughly 47,000 barrels were dumped off San Francisco during the same period of time and the fact that over 10,000 of those barrels have now burst and dumped their contents into the environment, would the minister tell this House what is the monitoring process, what responsible agencies are looking into Canadian radioactive ocean dumping and what have been the results of the monitoring of the site off British Columbia since 1965?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I do not know if I could give details to the hon. member from memory, but certainly this Parliament legislated in the area of ocean dumping some years ago. Permits must be obtained before dumping takes place, and I might say that the recent judgment-I believe it was only last Friday-of the Supreme Court of Canada sustaining part of the Fisheries Act which was being challenged also, in my view, gives the Department of Fisheries and Oceans greater leverage
in imposing good behaviour on those who would dump or throw into the water substances which hurt fish.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is essentially the same as my first question. I wonder if the minister could tell the House and the people of British Columbia what the monitoring process is and has been with regard to the radioactive waste which was dumped into the ocean between 1946 and 1965, and whether he would confirm that there is still radioactive waste being held in the city of Vancouver.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I will undertake to look into this matter and answer the hon. member, possibly tomorrow.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In September of this year Air Canada again will embark on a series of seat sales whereby travellers can fly at greatly reduced prices. This is, of course, good for the airline, and it is good for travellers as well. However, as some of the destinations are foreign cities, I wonder how much good these seat sales are for the Canadian travel industry.
In order for the government to promote tourism and travel in Canada will the minister agree that a review of the destinations for seat sales would be useful?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I do not know what my hon. friend has in mind to demonstrate by this question. Is he looking for ways of preventing foreign carriers from coming to Canada? Is that what he is trying to prevent?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: No.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would he then kindly repeat the question and make the point?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, I will again pose the question to him. Air Canada is to have a seat sale starting in September. As I have said, this is good for the airline and good for travellers. However, some of the destinations are to foreign ports. How good is this for the tourism industry in Canada? In order for the government to promote tourism and travel in Canada, which we should be doing, would the minister agree that a review of these seat sale destinations would be useful?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only answer by expressing a number of generalities. The first point obviously is that we want Canadians to travel in Canada, but when my hon. friend tells me that there are special sales for Canadians to go abroad, I could say to him that there are similar opportunities for other people from abroad to come to Canada. This freedom
July 21, 1980

of travel, not only domestically but internationally, obviously is one of the objectives of Canada.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, it appears that the minister is flying by the seat of his pants-


Walter David Baker: At a discount.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: -on his answer to the question I posed, and 1 am surprised. I will try another question. Will the minister consider asking Air Canada to introduce seat sales from foreign ports to Canada? Let us have it that way, tit-for-tat, then.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what 1 said. I said that 1 thought there would be similar opportunities, and there are many of them. 1 have a group of French people coming from France in the fall, for example, at extremely favourable cost.


An hon. Member:: On what airline?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is done by Air Canada. Obviously Air Canada does it both ways. But to be absolutely pleasant to my friend, 1 will deliver his question to the president of Air Canada and wait to see if he has a better answer than I.


An hon. Member:: No doubt.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, after consultation with all parties I understand there is unanimous consent to change the words in motion No. 17 in the name of the government which deals with the adjournment of the House. 1 should like to change the words in this motion which reads, "on July 18, 1980", to the words, "on the day that this order is adopted". It would be understood that making this change at this time would not prevent any member from subsequently proposing a motion to amend exactly this part of the motion.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been those consultations. The purpose of this is to put the form of the motion more in accordance with the facts. That is agreeable to us.
Introduction of Bills


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that there have been such consultations and that there is consent to make this change in the motion so that it will make some sense when we come to debate it today. Also I should like to confirm that our consent is given on the understanding that, when the revised motion is under debate, it will be in order to amend it to change the very words to which we are now agreeing. Indeed, as everyone knows, that is precisely what will be done in an amendment to be proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Madam Speaker:: With the reservations expressed by the hon. minister, does the House agree to this proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

Benno Friesen: for leave to introduce Bill C-611, to transfer control over certain lands commonly referred to as Gundersen Slough from the Fraser River Harbour Commission to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I never thought I would live to see the day when I would be willing to sponsor a bill to turn something over to the government, but really that is what this bill is intended to do. Since the Fraser River Harbour Commission was formed the fishermen in Gundersen Slough have had to live under the paternalistic care of a very capricious harbour commission. I should like to see this taken out of the control of the harbour commission and put under the care of the minister.


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

[ Translation]

Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-44, to amend the Small Loans Act and to provide for its repeal and to amend the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
July 21, 1980
Introduction of Bills
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 want to say with respect to this piece of legislation that, speaking on behalf of our caucus, we are prepared to have this bill read a second and third time today without debate.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, speaking in the name of our caucus, we also are ready for the bill to be put through all stages as long as there is no amendment.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. My party has been on record throughout this session of Parliament as trying to have repeal of the Small Loans Act. Unfortunately this bill is not a repeal of the Small Loans Act but an attempt to deal with a very complicated subject, the calculation of interest under the Criminal Code.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We would like to see the Small Loans Act replaced immediately without debate. We have said that on a number of occasions. Indeed there is a bill in my own name, Bill C-610 in the private members' bills, to accomplish just that purpose.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This bill presented by the government requires a great deal of evidence, consultation, and debate because it is not an easy bill to understand. It is a bill that deals with the calculation of interest, but interest itself is not an easy concept. This bill should have full and complete parliamentary discussion, including evidence before committee with respect to this part of the legislation. The bill is not an easy one, and it is unfortunate that the government refuses to take the bull by the horns and abolish the Small Loans Act and do the thing the trust companies, the small loans companies-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is entering into argument. I think he has made his point, that there is no consent to put this bill through all stages at this time.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I regret we cannot get the support of the Progressive Conservative Party because the purpose of this bill is first to repeal the Small Loans Act, second to ensure that current loans under the law are continued and, third, it adds a provision against setting a prohibitive, criminal interest rate; 1 am sorry we cannot get unanimous consent to help our credit unions and caisses populaires by repealing the Small Loans Act and by passing this bill this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think it should be made quite clear to the House and to the government, and particularly to the government because everybody else understands it, that if the government brings in a bill the purpose of which will be to repeal the Small Loans Act, or change the wording a little in the hon. member's Bill C-610 which repeals the Small Loans Act, that bill will go through today without debate.
The problem-and I think it is important since the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) is involved-is that the minister of state has for the first time introduced into the jurisprudence of the country the idea of controlling interest rates through the criminal law. That is the issue. There is no issue at all with respect to the repeal of the Small Loans Act. If the minister of state will bring in a bill later today which carries out the intention of Bill 610, it will go forward without debate because these are matters which have already been discussed. 1 see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) nodding his head. He is aware of this issue as well.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, 1 greatly appreciate the remarks of the House leader of the Progressive Conservative opposition, but I must remind him that a provision is needed on a criminal rate precisely because there already is one in the Small Loans Act, the act we want to repeal, which authorizes police officers in Canada to prosecute those who are known as loan sharks. I would therefore ask hon. members of the Progressive Conservative Party to reconsider their objection to that clause of the bill because the only thing it does is to make sure that police officers can continue prosecuting those who charge usurious rates in Canada, and allow them, under the Criminal Code, to continue prosecuting loan sharks.
I believe that, in light of the exchange of views we have just had in the House, perhaps later on in the day the caucus of hon. Progressive Conservatives members could meet and reconsider their decision.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A further point, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already made his point. I understand there is no consent to putting this bill through all stages. It is up to the House to decide when it wants to call that bill, but I understand it will not be today.
July 21, 1980


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. 113, 904, 907, 963 and 998.
1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: In the past six years, did the government contribute money by way of grants or loans to the government of Jamaica and, if so (a) in what amount (b) in each case (i) on what dates (ii) in what amounts (iii) what is the total to be repaid (iv) what is the interest rate being charged, if any (v) are any interest payments or principal payments in arrears and, if so. what is the amount?


David Michael Collenette: See reply to question No. 963 answered this day.


Mr. MacKay: For the year (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978, what revenue was generated for the government by the inclusion of capital gains in corporate and individual income for purposes of calculation of income tax payable and what was the additional administrative cost to the government?


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: (a) See question 1,699, Thirtieth Parliament, third session, tabled October 10, 1978.
Individuals ($ millions)
Corporations ($ millions)
Total
($ millions)
(b)	160	150	310(c)	225	190	415(d)	Estimates for 1978 are not yet available. The above are estimates of amounts of revenue received by the government attributable to the taxable portion of capital gains, based on calculations by the Department of Finance.
Since capital gains are not taxed separately, information is not available as to additional administrative cost.
PATROL VESSEL [DOT]'HOWAY"-REPLACEMENT


Mr. Siddon: 1.	Did the Department of Fisheries and Oceans commission a high speed patrol vessel to be built in Vancouver to replace the patrol vessel Howay and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost (b) who is constructing the vessel (c) were tenders called before a contract was awarded and, if not, for what reason?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Was a meeting of senior masters of the west coast convened to discuss the replacement vessel or vessels for the Howay and, if so (a) on what date (b) what were their recommendations?
3.	Is the vessel an aluminum-hull, shallow-draft vessel and is it suited to deep-sea work off the west coast?
4.	What is the name of the company which holds the licence to construct this type of vessel on the east coast?
5.	Was any money paid to the company which holds the propriety rights to the design and. if so, what was the amount?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1.	Yes, the contract was signed on March 30, 1979.
(a)	At a firm price of $6,447,033.68
(b)	John Manly Shipyard, Vancouver, B.C.
(c)	Tenders were not called. Only two Canadian shipyards are licensed to build this type of vessel and the licensees are not permitted to compete. Therefore the Department of Supply and Services entered into a negotiated contract on behalf of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
2.	The Howay replacement did appear as an agenda item at the annual meeting of masters and chief engineers held in February, 1979. As in previous meetings where large groups of masters and chief engineers gathered, several opinions were expressed as to the suitability of a Breaux boat for the west coast fishery. The input from the masters of our vessels is highly valued and is one of the many factors considered when developing the specifications for new and replacement vessels. Our masters are kept informed on all decisions with respect to new and replacement vessels. This information is provided throughout the procurement process.
3.	Yes, the vessel has an aluminum hull with a draft of 2.5 metres which is suitable for the particular fishery in which this vessel will be employed. Experience with two similar vessels operating out of St. John's, Newfoundland and Halifax, Nova Scotia has been entirely satisfactory.
4.	Breton Industrial and Marine Limited, Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia.
5.	Yes, $120,000 has been paid to Breaux Baycraft Limited by John Manly Shipyard. This has been included in the contract price.


Mr. Cossitt: Since April 20, 1968, were funds given, loaned etc. to the government of Jamaica and, if so (a) in what amount (b) in each case (i) on what date (ii) what were the terms including interest, if any (iii) what was the purpose (c) what was the interest rate and have payments of interest and principal been received on time and, if not, what is the status'?


David Michael Collenette: In so far as the Department of Finance is concerned: On November 9, 1976, Canada entered into a loan agreement with the government of Jamaica to provide a Canadian $25 million loan front the Department of Finance, with repayment in full six months thereafter and interest payable at the average annual rate of interest on

July 21, 1980
Order Paper Questions
six-month treasury bills, namely 8.93 per cent. Principal on the loan was rolled over three times due to Jamaica's financial difficulties, but interest was kept current. On August 9, 1978, the loan was converted to a three-year loan at the Crown corporation rate of interest on three-year money, namely 8.875 per cent, with the entire principal due at term, subject to interest being paid annually and to maintenance of a standby arrangement with the IMF. Jamaica has been current with respect to interest payments since conversion of the loan into a medium-term instrument. In the past six years the Export
Development Corporation has extended six loans to Jamaica, two under government account (section 31) and the remainder under corporate account (section 29). Total value of these loans was Canadian $8.1 million under section 31 and Canadian $42.6 million under section 29. There are no arrears in payments to EDC. Because of commercial confidentiality, EDC cannot disclose its rates of interest. Attached is a detailed schedule of these loans indicating dates signed, amounts of financing and principal outstanding, and purpose of each loan. In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned:
(a) Development assistance grants and loans totalling approximately $62.4 million for the purchase of services, goods and commodities by CIDA or its executing agents for delivery to Jamaica have been made since April 20, 1968.
Amounts	Date	Term Purpose	To be	Interest	Payments($000)	Repaid	Rate	In Arrears1000.0	1968/69	Grant Technical Assistance (trainees, educators, advisers)*	Nil	N/A	N/A1500.0	Mar. 28/69	Loan Water Resources Development (studies)	1298.8	3 per cent	Nil1630.0	1969/70	Grant Technical Assistance (trainees, educators, advisers)*	Nil	N/A	N/A242.5	June/69	Grant Civil Service Reclassification (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A1300.0	Mar. 6/70	Loan Jamaica Development Bank (line of credit)	1290.3	3 per cent	Nil500.0	Mar. 12/70	Loan Port Antonio Water Supply (materials/equipment)	500.0	3 per cent	Nil20.0	June 5/70	Grant Ferro Cement Boat Building (study)	Nil	N/A	N/A290.0	Oct. 9/70	Grant National Water Authority (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A450.0	Oct. 9/70	Grant Ministry of Works (advisers/equipment)	Nil	N/A	N/A355.0	Oct. 13/70	Grant Planning Agencies (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A5.2	May 19/71	Grant Collector General's Department (training)	Nil	N/A	N/A3000.0	June 9/71	Loan Road Transportation Studies	3000.0	3 per cent	Nil525.0	July 6/71	Loan Bridges (material)	525.0	3 per cent	Nil1000.0	Nov. 15/71	Loan Hospital Equipment	1000.0	3 per cent	Nil74.0	July 11 /72	Loan Bridges (Material)	74.0	3 per cent	Nil800.0	Dec. 21/72	Grant Technical Teacher Training Facility-CAST	(educators/trainees)	Nil	N/A	N/A510.0	Dec. 21/72	Loan Technical Teacher Training Facility-CAST	(equipment/material)	390.0*	3 per cent	Nil175.0	Jan.31/73	Grant Civil Service Reclassification (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A1020.0	Jan. 31/73	Loan Bridges HI (material)	1005.1	3 per cent	N/A220.0	May 1 /73	Grant Teacher Education (educators)	Nil	N/A	N/A300.0	July 3/73	Loan National Literacy Campaign (paper)	294.9	3 per cent	Nil2000.0	Oct. 25/73	Loan Jamaica Development Bank Ordinary Operations	(line of credit)	2000.0	3 per cent	Nil500.0	Oct. 25/73	Loan Jamaica Development Bank Venture Capital	(cash contribution)	500.0	3 per cent	Nil2000.0	Nov. 8/73	Loan Primary School Construction	2000.0	3 per cent	Nil2.2	Jan. 11/74	Grant Government Printing Plant (adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A0.5	Jan.31/74	Grant Government Printing Plant (adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A23.0	Mar. 11/74	Grant Management Information Systems (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A10.0	June 6/74	Grant Ministry of Mining & Natural Resources	(feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A60.0	June 20/74	Grant Mico College (cash grant)	Nil	N/A	N/A25.0	July 2/74	Grant Luana Development (oil industry adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A400.0	July 15/74	Grant Jamaica Railway Corporation (advisers/training)	Nil	N/A	N/A150.0	July 26/74	Grant Organization and Methods (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A5.0	July 31/74	Grant Status of Women (adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A1.3	Aug. 14/74	Grant Department of Statistics (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A25.0	Sept. 4/74	Grant Legislative Drafting (training)	Nil	N/A	N/A834.0	Sept. 17/74	Grant Ministry of Works (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A800.0	Oct. 4/74	Grant Skim Milk Powder	Nil	N/A	N/A5.0	Dec. 3/74	Grant Bureau of Standards (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A55.0	Dec. 11/74	Grant Jamaica Railway Corporation (advisers/training)	Nil	N/A	N/A112.0	Dec. 18/74	Grant National Water Authority (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A60.0	Jan.19/75	Grant Department of Statistics (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A3.0	Feb. 7/75	Grant Pig Industry (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A980.0	Mar. 25/75	Grant Management Information Systems (consultant services)	Nil	N/A	N/A25.0	April 14/75	Grant Primary School Survey (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A80.0	April 23/75	Grant Jamaica Airport Authority (adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A2.0	May 7/75	Grant National Water Authority (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A185.0	June 16/75	Grant Pig Industry (Consultant services/training)	Nil	N/A	N/A395.0	Sept. 16/75	Grant Bureau of Standards (advisers/training)	Nil	N/A	N/A1600.0	Sept. 16/75	Loan Bridges IV (material)	1600.0	3 per cent	Nil
July 21, 1980

Order Paper Questions
4.0	Oct. 2/75	Grant	Ministry of Mining & Natural Resources (study)	Nil	N/A	N/A5.0	Nov. 20/75	Grant	Jamaica Development Bank Evaluation (study)	Nil	N/A	N/A2.0	Dec. 31/75	Grant	Survey Equipment	Nil	N/A	N/A90.0	Feb. 1 /76	Grant	Garment industry Training School Adviser	Nil	N/A	N/A1.5	Feb. 11/76	Grant	Science Research Council (training)	Nil	N/A	N/A125.0	Mar. 13/76	Grant	Sugar Industry Research Institute (consultants)	Nil	N/A	N/A1.0	Mar. 25/76	Grant	Status of Women (adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A7.5	May 3/76	Grant	Potato Industry Technician (training)	Nil	N/A	N/A345.0	May 27/76	Grant	Technical/vocational Planning Unit	(advisers/training/equipment)	Nil	N/A	N/A100.0	June/76	Grant	Mission Administered Fund	Nil	N/A	N/A23.0	June 2/76	Grant	Administrative Training (training)	Nil	N/A	N/A1500.0	June 25/76	Grant	Skim Milk Powder	Nil	N/A	N/A1.7	Oct. 7/76	Grant	Bovine Fertility (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A300.0	Oct. 21/76	Grant	Ministry of Mining & Natural Resources	(advisers/training/equipment)	Nil	N/A	N/A10000.0	Oct. 29/76	Loan	Development Line of Credit	10000.0	0 per cent	Nil0.2	Feb. 23/77	Grant	Survey Equipment	Nil	N/A	N/A200.0	April/77	Grant	Mission Administered Fund	Nil	N/A	N/A375.0	May 5/77	Grant	Bovine Fertility (advisers/equipment/training)	Nil	N/A	N/A50.0	June 7/77	Grant	Organization and Methods (advisers)	Nil	N/A	N/A1.0	Oct. 20/77	Grant	Holstein Reproduction Research (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A25.0	Nov. 21/77	Grant	T/A Food Quality (traning)	Nil	N/A	N/A45.0	Dec. 9/77	Grant	Holstein Reproduction Research (consultant/equipment)	Nil	N/A	N/A11000.0	Dec. 21/77	Grant	Food Aid 77/78	Nil	N/A	N/A6.0	Feb. 17/78	Grant	Craft Industry (feasibility study)	Nil	N/A	N/A70.0	April 21/78	Grant	Garment Industry Training School Adviser	Nil	N/A	N/A200.0	May/78	Grant	Mission Administered Fund	Nil	N/A	N/A7000.0	Nov. 20/78	Loan	Food Aid 78/79	7000.0	3 per cent	Nil100.0	July 21/78	Grant	Mission Administered Fund	Nil	N/A	N/A7.0	Sept. 20/79	Grant	Legislative Drafting (training)	Nil	N/A	N/A4000.0	Dec. 13/78	Loan	Commodity Line of Credit	4000.0	3 per cent	Nil3000.0	Dec. 13/79	Loan	Food Aid 79/80	3000.0	3 per cent	Nil100.0	Mar. 31/80	Grant	Garment Industry Training (adviser)	Nil	N/A	N/A63939.6	39,478.1
* funds at this time were not approved for specific technical assistance grants (yearly allocation provided only) ** approval received in 1977 for conversion of some loan funds to grant
Export Development Corporation Loans Signed with Jamaica
Loan No: 0005 (Section 29)
Borrower: Jamaica Ministry of Finance Amount of Financing: Can. $ 1,160,084.28 Principal Outstanding: Can. $ 1,160,084.28 Date of Signing: March 31,1976
Loan No: 0018 (section 29)
Borrower: Jamaica Telephone Co. Ltd. Guarantor: Jamaica Ministry of Finance Amount of Financing: Can. $ 2,500,000 Principal Outstanding: Can. $ 1,504,000 Date of Signing: July 19, 1976
Loan No: 0114 (Section 29)
Borrower: Jamaica Ministry of Finance Amount of Financing: U.S. $ 31,500,000 Principal Outstanding: U.S. $3,045,373.22 Date of Signing: October 29, 1976
Loan No: 0051 (Section 31)
Borrower: Port Authority of Jamaica Guarantor: Government of Jamaica Amount of Financing: U.S. $ 5,196,900 Principal Outstanding: U.S. $ 819,270 Date of Signing: October 16, 1979
Loan No: 7429 (Section 29)
Borrower: Government of Jamaica Amount of Financing: Can. $ 1,676,655.88 Principal Outstanding: Can. $ 815,895.88 Date of Signing: October 9, 1974
To finance the export sales of 6 locomotives and spare parts by M.L.W. Worthington Limited.
To finance the export sales of telephone equipment by Northern Telecom Limited.
To finance the export sales of the upgrading and expansion of electrical power transmission and distribution system by Montreal Engineering Company Limited.
To finance the export sales of a container port complex by Dominion Bridge Company Limited.
To finance the export sales of railways and related equipment by M.L.W. Industries Division.
Loan No: 0558 (Section 31)
Borrower: Jamaica Railways Corporation Guarantor: Government of Jamaica Amount of Financing: U.S. $2.0 million Principal Outstanding: U.S. $2.0 million Date of Signing: 29 May 1980
To finance the rehabilitation of a rail line from Alcan's bauxite mine to the port, by Canron/Sysco.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the required or customary advance public notice that is to be given by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in connection with public hearing and is this approximately 50 days?
2.	Did CRTC announce a hearing for June 25, 1980, in connection with an application for renewal of a cable television licence for Brockville Cable Ltd. also known as Brockville Amusement Company Ltd. and, if so (a) on what date was it first advertised in the news media of Leeds-Grenville (b) what publications carried the notice and on what dates (c) were the notices given within the required time for those who wished to register objections or interventions and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission that the reply to the above question is as follows: 1.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
When an application is set down for public hearing, a notice of the application is published in The Canada Gazette not less than fifty (50) days before the day fixed for the commencement of the public hearing and in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the area normally served or to be served by the broadcasting undertaking to which the public hearing relates.
2. The licensee of the broadcasting receiving undertaking for Brockville does not have an application in the commission to be gazetted for a public hearing and no application from the Brockville licensee is on the June 25, public hearing.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 18, consideration of the amended motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard):
That, when the House adjourns on the day that this order is adopted, it shall stand ajourned until October 15, 1980, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time. Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 want to begin my speech this afternoon by raising the question of why we are sitting here at this particular time.
Prior to certain developments which took place last week, the New Democratic Party was prepared to join with other parties in this House in agreeing to the adjournment motion which was put down-supposed to be put down-last Friday. But as a result of a decision made by cabinet last Thursday the NDP believes the Liberal Government of Canada has placed our energy future in jeopardy and has done so by using what we regard as an illegal process, both of which are objectionable.
Madam Speaker, if we in this Parliament are about to change the law of Canada which was passed two and a half years ago and which made provision for a pipeline to transport
American gas to American markets into one authorizing an export pipeline carrying Canadian gas to American markets, the very least that should be done is to bring a measure to that effect before the Parliament of Canada for decision. The cabinet acting alone, either in legal terms, in terms of the provisions of the bill concerned, or, certainly, in moral terms, ought not to be making such a fundamentally disastrous decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We believe that in certain conditions this export pipeline, euphemistically called a pre-build, should be proceeded with. If the government had obtained assurances that the whole line was going to be constructed and if it had negotiated with the Americans swaps of gas in exchange for the gas we were going to export from Canada when gas from Alaska becomes available, we in this party would be supporting this export pipeline. But under given circumstances there should be no misunderstanding; the New Democratic Party is 100 per cent opposed to the course of action taken by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What we are witnessing in the course of action being pursued by the Liberals in the energy matter now is exactly the kind of indifference to the serious long-range concerns of the people of Canada as we see in their ignoring of the claims of our fishermen on the east and west coasts at the present time, in their selling out of the auto workers through their failure to implement the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement since 1965, in their indifference to the people of Manitoba when it comes to discussion and effective action with regard to the Garrison dam project, in their indifference to the people of Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes through failure to take action with respect to the massive increase in acid rain which will fall on Canada due to the conversion from one type of energy in the United States to another.
What we see, in short, is the perennial approach of the Liberal Party of Canada-indifference to the long-range needs of Canadians, always sacrificing long-range gains to the short, quick fix, a few bucks which will come in over a limited period of time; they think this will compensate for loss of benefits in the long run. As one of our members from the Hamilton area said yesterday, we in this party do not believe, when it comes to energy resources, that we are living in a time when we can agree to the export of any more oil and gas. Such energy resources should be kept for the long-range development purposes of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has come back to the House. I have been here for some 12 years, now, and 1 know why he is here. Whenever the Government of Canada is in trouble, the minister could be off sailing, he could be dying of tuberculosis, he could be indulging in some frivolous pursuit in Venice or seeking out the
July 21, 1980

muses in the beautiful wilderness of Cape Breton; whatever the case may be, one thing is as certain as anything in this universe: the call will go out from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "Allan MacEachen, get back. We need you." That is why the Minister of Finance is here in the House today, and 1 am sure that we will hear from him later. I particularly want to hear from him because he was the minister who brought in the original pipeline bill which this government is thoroughly emasculating. 1 also want to hear what the Minister of Finance wants to say about this government's course of action. What was the original purpose of the bill which the government is now changing so fundamentally?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) shortly in this debate will devote his whole speech to the illegality of the government's actions. However, I will not dwell on that subject; 1 will deal with the policy matter. What is the government changing so fundamentally? The original bill, as I said, was to provide a service to our American neighbours. We defended that service. We said that the Americans do indeed have a need for gas, that they indeed have gas in Alaska, and that if we can facilitate the transmission of that gas from Alaska to the United States as good neighbours, then we ought to do so.
An agreement was reached with the United States the central purpose of which was to export gas from Alaska to the United States. That was the principal objective and the overwhelming purpose of the pipeline legislation. 1 would like to say in passing that the New Democratic Party of Canada was the first party in Canada to propose the all-Canada route. We did so when the Hon. Tommy Douglas was energy critic for this party. We made the suggestion in advance of both the other parties. 1 do not say that in a boastful manner. I say to my Conservative friends and 1 just want to make it clear because of our objections which I will outline today, that at one point in terms of the original purpose of the bill we were front and centre in the energy debate in this country on the necessity of getting a feasible and desirable method of transmitting American gas to the American market, from the north to the south.
What were the benefits to Canada? This must also be kept in mind, because they are being completely undermined by the course of action taken by the Government. Canada was to have access, because of the possibility of a spur line, to some five trillion cubic feet of natural gas in our Arctic. That was one of the benefits which the Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues argued for at the time. A second benefit was that the people of Canada-and I am referring to the negotiations which went on with the Americans at the time, and which I remember very vividly-would be able to make swaps if, as it was hypothetically raised, at any point we should decide to export more Canadian gas to the United States.
It was argued by the Liberals at the time that the pipeline, as it was then debated and approved by Parliament, would make it possible for us to swap gas at an equivalent value. If
Summer Recess
we sold cheap Canadian gas from the south now, then at some point in the future, and at the equivalent value, when American gas came on stream from Alaska we could take advantage of a commitment to obtain that gas in exchange. That was another potential advantage for Canada if the whole pipeline were built.
The third advantage was jobs for Canadians. Steelworkers in Saskatchewan, Ontario and elsewhere, and construction workers in the provinces directly affected would benefit from the building of the pipeline. If these were the intended benefits for the United States and for Canada, what have we ended up with in terms of what the Liberals are now about to do?
Before 1 come to that subject 1 want to say that at all times, uo until as recently as a few days ago-and it was confirmed here in the House this afternoon by the Prime Minister-the Liberals said in and out of the House of Commons that there would be no partial pipeline. They never even talked about the export of Canadian gas through that pipeline. They were always insistent that the whole pipeline from the Canadian border in the south to Alaska would have to be built. There would have to be ironclad guarantees.
This position was repeated as recently as December 9 when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) used the phrase, "We have to have ironclad guarantees". He will become known in history as "old Mr. Ironclad". It merely goes to show just how flexible the meanings of words are to Liberals. Then in the letter of which we received a copy on Friday, which was written on March 12 to President Carter by the Prime Minister and in which he asked for prompt action, he again reasserted the need for guarantees for the whole pipeline. He did not need to spell it out for the American President, but for Canadians the reasons for the guarantee were just as I have indicated; we need the whole pipeline in order to have access to our gas in the north at some point and in order to take advantage of the possibility of swaps of American gas from Alaska if we were to export our gas from the south.
On the same point, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the same debate on December 9, made reference to the need for swaps. So the government's position was very clear, or at least it has been up until the last few days. On the one hand ministers wanted the same guarantees on the whole pipeline as we are talking about today, and, on the other hand, they too thought that swaps were essential to any kind of feasible and practical pipeline proposal. Swaps is the second subject on which I will be talking at length and which will be in the motion at the end of my speech.
What are we getting instead, as the result of last Thursday's cabinet order in council decision? First, instead of getting what the law of Canada provided, which was a pipeline to transport American gas to American markets, we are getting a pipeline that is conceptually and entirely different. We are getting a pipeline which is being built only in the southern part of Canada to export Canadian gas to American markets. In addition, this exporting will go on for some 15 years and will

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
involve some 4.75 trillion cubic feet of our gas which will be gone forever.
Secondly, as a result of that cabinet decision, there are absolutely no guarantees on the financing for the whole pipeline, which is something that came out in its most open form today in the answers provided by the Prime Minister. The original project ought to have been guaranteed in the United States. The then secretary in the United States said that some $2 billion to $3 billion would have to be put up just for the Alaskan portion alone if there were to be any real guarantees. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had the nerve to say in the Elouse a week ago that his obtaining some $500 million for feasibility studies of one kind or another really constituted a guarantee. That may go over in the Liberal caucus, but that will sure not go over in any home in any part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Another result is that inevitably we are selling off relatively cheap natural gas in the south of Alberta with no guarantee of swaps at all, not even a sincere effort. The Senator responsible for the pipeline provided a truly ludicrous spectacle on television the other night when he had to admit that the only way swaps were talked about in discussions with the Americans was in the form of a casual conversation. When the visiting American responsible for energy was asked about the matter in the same television interview, during the same evening news, if 1 recall correctly he shrugged his shoulders and said, "What are swaps?" He said that that was the first time he had ever heard about the subject.
Swaps were serious for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources when he was in opposition, but of course, now that he is in government, and like so much of what the Liberal party stands for, he has completely forgotten the matter of principle. So we have no swaps.
Secondly, it is going to mean, in terms of prices, that Canadians pay inevitably higher gas prices because we are using up the low cost gas from the southern part of Alberta; it is going to mean to the United States that the more expensive gas will come from the Canadian Arctic, or the gas we may be forced to buy from the Americans at some point down the road if they will sell any, is going to cost us much more. That means the people of Atlantic Canada, Quebec and everywhere in the land, are going to have to pay more for energy. It also means that Canadian industry-whether we are talking about Ontario or Quebec or the emergence of industry in western Canada-is going to have to pay more. That reduces their competitive position. In addition, it means that we will not have-if we do not have a guarantee for a northern part of the pipeline-any access to our own gas in the Arctic.
What are we going to do? Are we going to construct our own pipeline? If we are going to have to go after that gas in the Arctic it looks as if we will have to construct our pipeline
now. The cost to get that gas down to the Canadian market will be massive because without the guarantee and the northern portion of the pipeline we have no access to our own gas.
Finally, on the question of jobs, what does it mean? It is true that steelworkers in certain parts of Canada now will get some jobs because of this decision to build an export pipeline. It is true that if the government did not make this decision, some of those jobs would not exist. But I want to point out two things, Mr. Speaker. The first is that if we got the commitments that are written into the original bill for the original pipeline, there would be ten times the number of jobs that we are going to get from this pipeline.
Second, as leader of the party that probably associates itself with the trade union movement, I do not hesitate to say that one of the things that distinguishes this party from the present party in power, is that we are prepared to take a long-range view of this country. We are not prepared to sell out our energy resources in the short run even if it means a few more short run jobs. We believe in the long-range development of this country. The time is long since past when the country should have been given a long-range industrial strategy that would make that possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Instead of getting that from the Liberals, we have their traditional "in power" solution. The quick-fix boys are in action again. Yes, we are going to make money, in the hundreds of millions-indeed billions of dollars-from selling it off. But at what cost, Mr. Speaker? The Liberals are going to sell off $17 billion worth of irreplaceable natural gas. It will be gone-gone forever. That means that if we need it, as I have just indicated, it will not be there. It is the archetypical Liberal solution. It is, indeed, no solution at all to the long-range needs of our country.
In this part of my comments today I want to deal with something that I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will deal with in his argument, because to me it is crucial, and that is the reasons why we in this party believe either the pipeline in the north will never be built at all or, if it is built, will not be built by 1985. You can bet on that, Mr. Speaker. Instead, it will be built at some distant point in the future when it suits American, not Canadian, purposes. At this time I want to set out our reasons for believing that.
First of all, it has not been brought out up to this point, because we have not had the debate, that a lot of American investors for very good reasons are skeptical about the project because of the costs involved. They know, from the Valdez oil pipeline experience in Alaska, that the cost estimates are likely to be well in excess of the original estimates. Right now the pipeline which when we debated it a couple of years ago in the House was estimated to cost $8 billion, has jumped to an estimated cost of $22 to $24 billion. That, for a very large multinational corporation, ain't hay; it is a lot of money. It is the reason why the companies involved have indicated to American congressmen and to a lot of people that they may
July 21, 1980

never proceed with the northern portion of the pipeline because it is simply too risky.
In that context I want to quote something that I wish the government would read. It is a report prepared not by the research staff of the New Democratic Party but by the Comptroller General of the United States Congress, and not two years ago, but just six months ago. Referring to the feasibility of the project this report, at page 13, reads as follows:
The project's sponsors have estimated a one-in-three chance the project will be abandoned in 1979. This estimate is almost three times higher than the 1978 estimate.
Put differently, the risks have gone up by some 300 per cent. That, Mr. Speaker, is scaring off, quite reasonably, a number of potential investors. That is one reason for having doubts about the northern part of the pipeline.
The second reason, which is connected, is that the American government has refused guarantees. I say that if the President of the United States took the Primer Minister's letter of March 12 in which he asked for guarantees seriously, and if he really intended to lay it on the line in terms of a commitment to the northern portion of the pipeline, the letter tabled in the House on Friday afternoon would not have contained vague expressions of good will. What President Carter ought to have said, if he really believed in the project, was that he would lay it on the line, and take a request for financial guarantees for the project to the U.S. Congress. That would be meaningful action, but that was not in President Carter's letter.
That is another reason why not only the private financial community is skeptical about the northern part of the pipeline but that, I suggest to you, the U.S. Congress is skeptical. It is the President of the United States himself who has severe reservations about the ultimate building of this pipeline, no matter what he says is his intent in the letter that the Prime Minister no doubt requested very hastily by telephone at the end of last week.
The third reason we give for being dubious about the building of the northern part of the pipeline pertains to the level of money put up by the private companies. Only $500 million has been put up, and note, Mr. Speaker, it is for feasibility studies-for assessments about the pipelines. It is not hard cash. There is no commitment, for example, to build, as the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) suggested, foot by foot, or that if we started a Canadian line in the south the American investors would commit themselves to so many millions of dollars and build-every time we put in a mile in the south, they would commit themselves, at least in principle, to build a mile in the north, which is one possibility, or at least to put up a substantial amount of money, something in the order of, as Mr. Schlesinger said, a $2 billion to $3 billion commitment. If that kind of money were put up there would be some reason to believe in the seriousness of this multibillion dollar project, for in terms of a project that costs $22 billion to $24 billion in terms of guarantees, $500 million is peanuts. 1 want to stress that these feasibility studies could be used ten, 15 or 25 years down the road as well, and we should keep that in mind.
Summer Recess
After all our gas is gone, the $500 million may not be wasted because the feasibility study could show to the Americans that when they really have need for their gas in Alaska, when ours is all gone, they can go ahead with the project after all. But no money has been put up in terms of a commitment to build the pipeline in the north at this time.
A fourth reason for skepticism about the northern portion of the line is that the Americans have been discovering in their country since 1978 a lot of relatively inexpensive natural gas. They have discovered also that the Mexicans have come upon deposits of substantial proportions of inexpensive natural gas. And another country, to the north of them-dear old Canada, the perpetual supplier of resources to the United States-has also discovered substantial new reserves of natural gas since 1978.
I would like to quote to the House again from page 19 of this report to the United States Congress on that question. In discussing why the pipeline perhaps is not so desirable in the north, here is what is reported to members of the U.S. Congress:
Publicity concerning possible alternate natural gas supplies have further undermined public confidence in the project's future. The sponsors specifically mentioned optimistic reports about the potentially vast Canadian and Mexican natural gas supplies, the domestic surplus that unexpectedly developed in 1978-
That is the United States. The report continues:
-and optimism about potentially substantial lower 48-state reserves.
That is an American source which tells Americans that perhaps they do not need the northern pipeline after all because they can get Canadian gas, Mexican gas, or cheaper American gas which has been discovered since 1978 in their own country.
A fifth reason is this: the very acts of increasing exports of natural gas to the United States, first by a Conservative administration during the past winter, and subsequently by the Liberals-although they denounced the Tories at the time- undermine from an American point of view the desirability of proceeding quickly with the pipeline in the north.
With respect to the Conservatives, I will always remember the then prime minister of the day answering questions in the House about the shortage of heating fuel in Atlantic Canada and on the very same day as he was announcing potential shortages in Atlantic Canada, he announced the increased sale of 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States. That is a sell-out. That is a foolish, short run sell-out of Canadian energy resources.


Mr. Waddell:: That is why he is not in the House.


John Edward Broadbent: We said that. We were not the only people who said that, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals, too, said that. The Minister of Finance took on that demeanour of sober seriousness, as is so appropriate when he is denouncing the Tories. If I recall, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that this increase in exports of natural gas was one of the greatest sell-outs in Canadian history.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
Of course the Liberals then had an election and they formed the government. I ask hon. members, did the Liberals come in and say that that was a terrible sell-out? They could have. They could have said that they would change the situation and would not allow the gas to go to the United States. But no, they did not do that at all. Having described this as the greatest sell-out in history before the election, one of the first things the Liberals did after they assumed office was to increase the level of exports of natural gas to the United States by .75 trillion cubic feet.
I do not know who wants to sell out this country faster, the Liberals or the Tories. You make your choice, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals win by a nose.


John Edward Broadbent: What I do know-and this is the point 1 want to make and the argument for the pipeline-is that the Americans know that they can buy our gas. And if you were an American-and 1 do not blame them one bit-why would you be interested in building a line that is going to be a very risky venture in the northern part of Canada and into Alaska which will cost many billions of dollars, if Canadian political parties are suckers enough to sell natural gas?
Specifically on that point, in case one is inclined to think that this is simply New Democratic Party partisan politics, I refer you to a source, hardly a socialist source, Mr. Speaker, it is once again the Comptroller General's report to the United States Congress. 1 ask you what does he say about this? This is what he says about the Alcan pipeline:
While this project could supply 800 billion cubic feet of gas a year to help close the 1985-90 gap, conservation and non-traditional domestic sources could possibly produce significantly larger amounts than have heretofore been anticipated. In addition, foreign sources-
And guess who he has in mind? The Comptroller General's report continues:
could supply at least 2 trillion bucib feet yearly, assuming favourable government policies (see table 3 on page 27).
The Americans have no doubt that either with the Liberals or the Tories in power they will get, from their point of view, favourable government policies. These are just the opposite from the Canadian point of view.
The sixth reason we have for believing that the pipeline is not likely to proceed in the north is the very building of what 1 have euphemistically described as the pre-build section. This accurately describes the gas export pipeline project on which the Liberals are now embarking. This act ironically goes against the building of the whole pipeline in the north itself because we are providing a facility in the south to get them good cheap Canadian gas. The more we provide them with good cheap Canadian gas, the less interest they will have in extending the pipeline to the north to get access to their own much more expensive gas. For anyone but a Liberal, that, 1 think, makes elementary economic sense.
Now 1 come to reason number seven. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, do large petroleum companies have an interest now in getting that Alaskan gas down as quickly as possible to the lower 48 states?


An hon. Member:: Not a chance.


John Edward Broadbent: That is right, not a chance. They do not have an interest. 1 ask why? Because the oil companies want to do for their purposes what the New Democratic Party says that we as a nation should be doing for our purposes. The oil companies have an interest in keeping the Alaskan gas in Alaska for the present time. The reason for that is because they do not want to increase the supply. They do not want to flood the market and bring down the price. There is already what is called in the trade a bubble appearing in gas supplies in the United States. The very fact the American government has given in to the multinational oil companies, that is the big oil companies which control basically the development of this natural gas, and the very fact that they do not have a long-range interest in increasing the supply of the natural gas because it will reduce their profit margins, make it very unlikely indeed, in our judgment, that they will be proceeding quickly with the development of the northern portion of the pipeline.
Finally, there are certain regulatory barriers which were created by the American government itself in 1978 which have forced Foothills to say it will not go ahead with the northern portion of the Canadian part of the pipeline until these regulatory barriers have been changed. 1 think it is very interesting- and 1 will not go into them in detail-that the wording of President Carter's letter which was tabled in the House on Friday obliquely makes reference to these barriers. But does President Carter say that he will take immediate steps to change these barriers? Does he say with determined, decisive action that they will meet their commitments overnight? Not at all. He makes a general reference again to the future that if there should be problems, then he would take action. According to Foothills, the problems will not exist at some time in the future. They exist now. Once again, if the American administration were serious about getting the northern portion of the pipeline built, it would be taking concrete action today rather than making vague promises about the future.
What do these eight reasons add up to? I have taken time, because it is central to this debate and to our concern, to demonstrate the implausibility of building the northern portion of the line, whether it is going to be built on schedule or, conceivably, not even built. What these points add up to is precisely the conclusion that our energy critic and others in our caucus have been alluding to for many days now. They mean that we are certainly not going to get the northern portion of the pipeline built by 1985. In my judgment it is quite possible that the northern pipeline will not be built at all. That is what it means.
It also means that with this measure the Liberal Party of Canada have done once again what they are so capable of doing, namely, selling out our resources. Canadians will recall that it was the Liberals in the early seventies who told us that we had-what was the figure-390 years' supply of oil. We had centuries' supplies of oil. Then they proceeded to sell it
July 21, 1980

off. I looked at the figures this morning. The Liberals sold more than 1,700 million barrels of Canadian oil in the early 1970s.
When Tommy Douglas, our energy critic at the time, pointed out that it was a mistake, he was laughed at by the Liberals. They said, "They are the gloom and doom boys". Well, Tommy Douglas happened to know what he was talking about.


Mr. Kempling:: Good old Husky.


John Edward Broadbent: The Liberals sold our oil in the early 1970s and, as a result, we are now importing oil. What they did with oil in the seventies they are about to do with gas in the eighties. That is exactly what they are doing. The Liberals are the masters of the short-run, quick-buck solution, which always ignores the long-range interests of the people of Canada. Just to turn around a phrase used by the colourful, if incompetent, former minister of finance, the Liberals really do believe in short-term gain for long-term pain for the people of Canada. That is what this sell-out amounts to.
I want to conclude by saying that if there is one party which can accurately be described as a collection of phony nationalists, it is the Liberal Party of Canada. They suddenly discovered in the latter days of the last election campaign that Canadians were concerned about resources, wanted an industrial strategy, and wanted a Canada that in the long run we owned and controlled. We got the nationalist rhetoric. That is the nationalism of the Liberal party in essence, nothing more than rhetoric. The time has come, and the people want this above all in the energy field, to replace rhetoric with substance. The people of Canada want something entirely different from what they get from that cynical crowd across the chamber. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the motion be amended by deleting the words "on the day that this order is adopted", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"after it has voted on a government motion providing that the building of the pre-build portion of the northern gas pipeline will not commence until complete financial guarantees for the whole pipeline have been obtained and that an agreement has been reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States that the Canadian gas exported through the southern portion of the proposed pipeline will be replaced by Alaska gas at an equivalent price".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to reserve judgment on the amendment. It certainly has some substantive aspects to it. If, however, there is a disposition on the part of the House to accept such an amendment unanimously, that might be considered. Is there any indication that there is unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent of the House to accept the amendment as proposed for debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I had presumed that the reservations which the Chair had put were reservations as to the propriety of the amendment under the
Summer Recess
Standing Orders. The Chair has nodded yes. It is in agreement. I presume the Chair, with those reservations, will have to take its own counsel. I further suppose that every member of this House is in exactly the same position. We will be looking at the amendment from that point of view.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would invite further comment. Does the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) care to comment on the propriety of the amendment?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we have absolutely no objection to this amendment being moved by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. We do not support it, but we have nothing against the amendment being accepted for debate in the coming speeches.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the motion be accepted for debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent. In that case-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not know whether that question really arises because, as I understand the practice, it has always been that if the Chair had some reservations about a motion, which reservations it has now indicated it has, debate could continue while the Chair considered those reservations. If that is the normal practice, and I believe it is, we have no objection to that practice being followed. However, when the Chair expressed reservations about the substance of the motion, I was reserving the right of the House to do what the Chair is doing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will reserve judgment on the motion, and debate will continue.


Walter David Baker: That's better.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this matter, I would simply ask that you consider this, Mr. Speaker. 1 distinctly heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House the other day propose or agree with a motion in this line. I would ask the Chair to note that, and to note there is no one in the House objecting to the motion.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested that the New Democratic Party propose an amendment along the lines of this one, provided the debate be terminated last Friday, but that was not the case. However, I am certain that the Prime Minister will not object to such an amendment being moved. We object to the merits of the amendment but not to its acceptability, if it meets with the approval of the Chair.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The concern expressed by the Chair relates to the substantive nature of the amendment, and I will reserve judgment. Meanwhile we will recognize speakers in the debate.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have been able to listen to this debate, which in reality began on Friday, continued today, and may possibly extend over most of the week, on what I think is an extremely important subject. I could not help contrasting the contribution to the debate of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) with that of the leader of the socialist party. While I did not agree, naturally, with everything the Leader of the Opposition had to say, I did find myself moved and impressed by the sensitivity with which he discussed this problem. He spoke eloquently about the reception he received in Quebec during the referendum. I, too, was pleased at the reception paid to the right hon. member, if only because of the determination and skill with which he has mastered the other official language of this country. I think it is no secret that the Leader of the Opposition is welcome in any riding in any part of that beautiful province.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke also of the sensitivity of the unique problems of Alberta, implying, I suppose, that we in the east should understand a little more some of the problems and economic problems of Alberta. It is perhaps time that we in the east understood that not everybody in the province of Alberta is a millionaire or near millionaire, that there are people in Alberta who are very dependent on the prosperity of this country for their own economic survival, and that everybody in Alberta is not necessarily linked to the gas and oil industry.
What I got out of the message of the Leader of the Opposition is that if there are any regional considerations being advanced here by hon. members from Alberta, they are being advanced positively, logically, and in the spirit which 1 think has to prevail in this country over the next ten or 20 years if we are going to mend fences, so to speak, and bring this country closer together rather than farther apart. I think the Leader of the Opposition stressed that energy and the way it is handled in the next ten or 20 years can be a positive force but that it can be an equally divisive force and that at this present moment we need to be a little more considerate, tolerant, and understanding of regional problems.
Perhaps it is in that vein that I approach the whole issue of the pre-build pipeline and what it means to segments of the economy of Alberta. I am thinking particularly of people in the natural gas industry. I know a little bit about this in the sense that 1 have been in the riding of the Leader of the Opposition, I have been to Blairmore, 1 have entered the Coleman collieries and I have seen the coal industry, their horizontal shafts, and people working extremely hard for their livelihood. I know the frustrations of people in the natural gas industry, the independent producers of natural gas who sit
with thousands-not hundreds-of natural gas wells capped because there is no market or, more properly put, no access to the markets which are there. We would not be discussing this at the moment if the National Energy Board had not clearly indicated that there is a surplus of natural gas at this moment, and a market ready.


Mr. Orlikow:: How many times are they wrong?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. doctrinaire socialist on the front bench, who constantly interrupts with the same diatribe each and every time somebody wants to approach a debate on a different plane.
If it is a matter of trading insults with the hon. gentleman, I can do it, because if we carry his logic to a conclusion, nothing which is not renewable should be exported from this country until sometime in the twenty-second century. That is true of copper, silver, gold, iron and coal. It is equally true of the 22 million barrels of crude oil which the province of Saskatchewan exports every year. We do not hear a word in the debate about the 22 million barrels of crude oil which are exported from Saskatchewan. Sixty thousand barrels are exported daily.
I happen to agree with the policy. I think it is logical. I think that the province of Saskatchewan has acted wisely and with restraint, but the fact still remains that to some hon. members in that party there is no valid excuse for selling one barrel of crude oil today.
It is obvious and inevitable that ten, 20, 50 or 100 years from now, if we still need crude oil or gas, its value will be increased that much more. The false logic of all the arguments on Friday and today, including that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) today, is based on the false premise that because it can be demonstrated that natural gas and crude oil or energy of any type will have a greater monetary value ten, 20, 40 or 50 years from now, we should wait for 50 years. The Leader of the NDP does not tell the independent producer of natural gas what the people in this business should be doing in the meantime with their inventories or their supplies. It should be sold if it can be clearly demonstrated that in selling it the national interest of this country is not affected.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell that to your energy minister. Read Lalonde's speech of December 6.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The problem with the New Democrats is that everything must be discussed and weighed on the basis of their doctrinaire approach that private enterprise has no place in our society, that multinational corporations-or indeed any corporation of any size-should not exist and that everything should be state-owned, including all forms of energy, all retail outlets and every service station on every corner. It is extremely difficult to debate with people who begin from that premise. In his speech the Leader of the New Democratic Party had to admit that there will be some negative effects on steel workers, but he rationalized that away. He said that there will not be too many. Let him tell that to the steelworkers in Lincoln. Let him say to the steelworkers of Hamilton that there will not be
July 21, 1980

too many. Let him tell unemployed steelworkers that the New Democratic Party says that factories being out of work is not important because there are not too many steelworkers involved. There is always one too many if one person is unemployed.
Even if we were not creating jobs with this project, I would stand with the NDP if I felt that we were exporting natural gas that we need. Of course we will need natural gas in 50 years, 100 years or 200 years. In the early seventies I had the same misgivings about selling gas and oil, and expressed them quite publicly, but I have to say I was wrong because since the sale of natural gas and since the sale of oil in the seventies, the effect those sales have had on research and development and on exploration has been obvious. We have more natural gas now than we had in the early seventies. The incentive under the private industry system is profit. That is not a dirty word in our party, nor in the Conservative party. It is a dirty word only in the NDP. They do not tell us where they would get the capital if the state were to own all sources of production. That is something they skim over. In the last year or two when members of the New Democratic Party were pretending to be liberals, they could skim over it, but never again.
They cannot any more. So despite telegrams from the leader of the Canadian Labour Congress, subtly worded, and the head of the steelworkers, subtly worded, 1 am more impressed by the steelworkers, employed and unemployed, 1 met in my riding on Saturday morning. They expressed concern and anger at the New Democrats for blocking a project which means the difference between survival and prosperity and poverty in that particular part of the community.


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The member over there does not care about the rank and file.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Name one.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member wants me to name one. 1 have a telegram signed by Len Stevens, Director, District 3, United Steel Workers of America.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I will read it into the record because the hon. member has asked me to read one. It reads as follows:
For your information following telegram sent to Ed Broadbent by Dick Martin, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour:
"The Manitoba Federation of Labour representing over 76,000 Manitoba workers requests your support of approval of the construction of the western Canadian section of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline, while at the same time pursuing guarantees and environment safeguards. Jobs are badly needed by Canadians, particularly in view of the increasing unemployment and forecast of a bleak economic winter".


An hon. Member:: Read it all, Bryce.
Summer Recess


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It does not please them. They think that the labour movement is homogeneous. They cannot elect a member in Windsor despite the concentration of the labour force there. It is because they treat unionized members as robots. The NDP said that this project was bad. They asked, "Why is it bad?" The NDP said, "Because we tell you it is bad". They fail to appreciate that workers today are educated, sophisticated, and knowledgeable as investors. They will make their own minds up as to whether this is a good project or a bad one.
What we have heard today is total disdain for the word of the President of the United States. That amazes me, because I grew up in a period when there was great respect for the United States and for the office of president.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I cannot understand it. Obviously they do not have that respect. They would rather salute some other country, which is their privilege. But I was brought up that way and I cannot see any politician, because politicians are people of integrity, sending out a letter over his signature as did President Carter-and restating it verbally on the weekend-a statement which clearly implied that the pipeline would go ahead as scheduled-


An hon. Member:: You cannot guarantee that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Nor can the hon. member guarantee that it will not. That comes down to the differences in our philosophies and convictions. Maybe the hon. member is right, but he does not know if he is right. If he is wrong, he should think of the harm he is doing to the country at the moment.


An hon. Member:: You are gambling.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The other day I read an article by someone in the steel industry. It pointed out quite logically that this country, as was pointed out by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, is truly a great one. It needs a little vision, a little leadership, and a little entrepreneurship. As many members in the House will remember, when we were building the Seaway we procrastinated, delayed, and waited for the Americans, and finally got it through. I can think of other projects that were dealt with in the same way. But this gentleman, in a well-reasoned speech, made the point that in the matter of a very few years by necessity this country will be dealing with a half dozen massive projects, not just one. There will Beaufort, Hibernia, further development of the tar sands, the eventual pipeline to the Atlantic provinces once we see the quantity of gas available off Sable Island, and of course the Alaska pipeline.
If all these projects come on stream simultaneously in two, three, four, or five years, one should think of the problem we will have. It will be as much as we had in the late sixties with the building of the subway in Montreal at the same time as Expo was being built. One must remember the impact it had on the economy, wages, and salaries. There were shortages of skilled labour, professional labour, engineers and capital.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
inflation hit badly, and we reaped it in the seventies because of the lack of co-ordination, planning or scheduling in the sixties.
Apparently the byword of the New Democratic Party is "industrial strategy"; a great phrase that, "industrial strategy". Another great one is a "manpower policy". It amazes me that they cannot understand how beneficial it is for us to have an opportunity to begin the pre-build now rather than five years from now when we may begin simultaneously the whole pipeline. At this moment the country is badly in need of such a project. If this was not the project, logically we should look for another one.
The average Canadian who is out of work through no fault of his own, and this includes the high number of unemployed people in the greater Hamilton area, would prefer a steady job. He would prefer to work instead of receiving a handout, unemployment insurance, welfare, LIP, OFY, make-work, or call it what you want. There is no real substitute for these types of projects properly handled and properly introduced.
I am sure the opportunities for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) are obvious. With the injection of capital from the United States at the beginning of this project, the dollar should be strengthened. If he wants to lower interest rates and if he wants to bring the value of the dollar down so that it will not affect our exports in the pulp and paper industry, he can then do so. He needs this kind of a project badly. We need it to help Alberta, the people in the natural gas industry and the independent producers who are essentially Canadians. They need this cash flow. There is nothing wrong with stating that. They will take that cash flow, reinvest it, explore some more and bring other wells on stream.
In a country with the energy surplus we have but an oil shortage, obviously natural gas is one source of surplus energy. It happened to be a byproduct of oil in the old days and now it is coming into its own. We have a tremendous surplus, and will for five or ten years, if we believe the National Energy Board, and that is its responsibility. We have the need, the customers, the gas and the will power. Only the NDP with its reactionary approach cannot see the benefits of a project of this size. This is why they will never get out of the corner. They cannot think nationally. They never could; they never will. They do not even have the freedom to think because they are fettered by their convictions that something about private enterprise is bad, that we should own everything.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It has been proven so many times it is obvious. Perhaps the Leader of the NDP is not quite that doctrinaire, but he does what his backbenchers tell him. That is why he is there. That is why he came hustling back to the House on Friday to find out what was going on. One only has to go back to the auto pact. They were against the auto pact in the sixties-I remember that like yesterday-then they became the greatest supporters of it. Even the statement of Dennis McDermott today is a reasonable one. It embarrasses that party with the type of faint praise you and I know we could do without.
What are the economic benefits of this project? They have been restated over the weekend in every newspaper, by the minister, and by the hon. senator in the other place. I know statistics bore all of us, but if one looks at the figures of the Department of Finance, the pre-build itself will represent a $2 billion positive impact on our balance of payments. That is a greater sum than the main line, because the main line will be built in the other country. It means 150,000 man-years of work, none of which would be worth it if this was a bad project. It is not a bad project. It means 150,000 jobs which will be spread right across this great country of ours. I have to be a little selfish and suggest that it is more than a hope that they will find their way into Welland, Hamilton and the Niagara Peninsula where unemployment is much too high.
I cannot get up in the House on a debate like this and suggest that it is relatively unimportant to the unemployed in Hamilton, that in the name of false economic nationalism we should postpone this project for five, ten, or 20 years until there are some Utopian-type guarantees. I am more concerned about the unemployed workers in my riding than that.
The statistics indicate that we will knock about one half of one per cent off the unemployment figure just with the prebuild, and two-thirds of 1 per cent when the total project is over. As the minister mentioned, we will have upwards of 90 per cent Canadian content in most of our purchases, and 100 per cent Canadian content in the pipe. It means an injection into the economy of $1.45 billion at a time when the economy needs such an injection. Ironically, this is quite in line with the NDP's change in policy, with which I do not necessarily differ. If we were to come along during any other period of unemployment and suggest, "We are going to inject $2 billion right now into the economy. Let's change it"-that is the policy which the eloquent financial critic of the NDP has been talking about for months. He wants to get it through a greater deficit, which is the same thing. We, fortunately, happen to have a $2 billion project available. The problem, of course, will be to make certain we do not fan the fires of inflation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What happens two years from now?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Calm down. Relax. That $2 billion should have a beneficial effect on the dollar. The minister, his advisers suggest, will have more flexibility with regard to the setting of interest rates. If he is worried that the dollar is going too high he can lower interest rates and bring the value down so that our exporting companies will not be affected.
I was particulary interested in one telegram which came in; I think it was an honest appraisal of the impact. The company in question is Dofasco in Hamilton; it does not benefit directly from the project because it does not make pipe of the size required. But they endorse it. I will just read the first paragraph:
Approval by the federal government of construction of the pre-build portion of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline will provide a much needed boost to the Canadian economy both with respect to maintaining existing jobs in Hamilton and
July 21, 1980

creating new ones. In addition to the direct impact of this undertaking there are also immense spinoff benefits which will come from ancillary developments.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the exciting concept of injecting $2 billion into a badly depressed economy at this time. I am amazed at the position taken by the New Democratic Party. On one hand we have the National Energy Board telling us of the surplus which exists because of the initiative of private enterprise and Petro-Canada in a mixed economy from the early seventies onward in finding excess gas. Since 1977, as the hon. senator, the minister responsible for the pipeline in 1977, mentioned, the volume of Canadian gas surplus to our needs and available for export has grown from 800 billion cubic feet to around 4.5 trillion cubic feet. How did it happen? Did Santa Claus wave a wand? Did the socialists insist on it? No. It was discovered because people with initiative and incentive went out and explored for it. Canadians, through their willingness to invest and participate, provided the capital which enabled these independent firms to find, since 1977, natural gas which under the socialist banner would remain in the ground until hell freezes over-a long time.
That is what has changed since 1977. The National Energy Board has been subjected to a lot of ridicule from time to time. It is doing a difficult job. It has stated we have 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas to export. The idea that anybody is likely to come along in ten or 15 years time and return those 4.5 trillion cubic feet of gas at today's prices is very unrealistic. That amount probably will not even pay for the transportation 20 or 30 years from now. What we have, in other words, are reserves. We have the willingness, we have the need, we have the correct economic conditions in the sense that a $2 billion injection would work against our best interests if it were brought in four or five years from now when the economy is, perhaps, at its height, when it would be nothing more than inflationary, when we could not spare the steelworkers, when the mills would be doing something else and the craftsmen would be doing something else, when the professionals would be busy with some other phase of our expansion. This is needed now, and the only thing that should hold us back is the presence of any real evidence that private enterprise does not intend to continue the pipeline in a few years. The NDP has not the slightest bit of evidence to that effect. What they have advanced is some skepticism about the value of the letter from the President of the United States. They have talked about the need to keep the gas in the ground for 20, 30 or 50 years. But note this: there has not been one protest about the millions and millions of barrels of heavy oil which flow out of the beautiful province of Saskatchewan. Not a word. Nor do they dare say a word, because Mr. Blakeney would tell them to get lost.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If we listen to them we would never export copper. Because that is not renewable.


An hon. Member:: Potash?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was saving that for the end, but you have spoiled it!
Summer Recess


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I was around when the NDP tried to seduce everybody in the House of Commons in an effort to get some agreement to get potash out of this country. Mr. Blakeney made trip after trip to the United States to talk to private enterprise so as to come to an accommodation about shipping out potash. And he did well.
What are the jobs I am talking about? Are they limited to steelworkers? If they were, it would be unfair. British Columbia is getting $70 million; Alberta is getting $650 million; Saskatchewan and Manitoba, $360 million; Ontario and Quebec, $360 million. Stelco in Hamilton will be providing 12,000 man-years-that is an interesting figure if you are listing steelworkers in Hamilton; Welland, 1,800 man-years; Regina, 10,000 man-years. Little wonder the steelworker labour unionists of Regina do not want anything more to do with the NDP. And we are talking about introducing a greater degree of industrialization to the west as inevitably must happen as natural resources become depleted, as they will one day. Camrose and Edmonton-I will not say too much about that particular area, but the benefit there will amount to 2,700 man-years. It is not just pipe.
Turbo-compressors costing $20 million will have to be installed, creating 500 man-years of employment in the industrial heartland of Ontario. Three units will be purchased from the Cooper-Rolls Corporation in Montreal providing 100 man-years employment in the Rolls-Royce plant in Montreal; 80 man-years in Stratford, at the plant of Cooper Energy Services, and that is just one company-I cannot go on to list them all because so many companies are breathing sighs of relief today having learned that the government is courageous enough, with support of the official opposition, to bring forward a $2 billion project at a time when Canada needs it.
The only thing that is creating the slightest reserve in anybody's mind is that the signature of the President of the United States and his letter are not worth the paper they are printed on. I happen to have a greater respect for the office of the President of the United States and for that country than do the New Democrats. If you share their philosophy, you can understand their cynicism and disdain. I do not happen to share it. I can understand their concern. Their concern is that they are becoming superfluous.
I made a few notes on the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He wiped out $500 million as if it were nothing. He referred to a feasibility study. That $500 million is not going to a feasibility study. It is going for an engineering and conditioning plant in Alaska. The Leader of the New Democract Party called it a feasibility study. That would be some study if it were to cost $500 million. I wonder what the whole project would be worth.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!

July 21, 1980
Hummer Recess


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: They are a spent force. The Leader of the New Democratic Party referred to higher prices later on. Of course, prices will be higher later on. The independent gas producer in Alberta needs the cash now. Ask him if he would rather leave his gas in the gound. As a matter of fact nobody in Alberta has to sell their gas. If they prefer to store it for their grandchildren or their great grandchildren, they can do that. They can leave the cap on the well, even though they may have an opportunity now to dispose of their gas to eastern Canada and to the United States.


Mr. Paproski:: We want to share it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If the Alberta producers want to leave their gas in the ground and take advantage of higher prices five years, or ten years from now, they can do that. After all, the oil is not state owned. The people who own it still have rights and they do not have to sell their gas if they do not wish to. We do not have the kind of regime which one might find in a socialist country and, certainly, if the producers in Alberta want to hang on to their gas and take advantage of higher prices later on, they can do so.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party said that there would be more jobs if the whole pipeline were built. That one really got me. Of course there would be more jobs if the pipeline is built, and of course the pipeline will be built. That is the difference. When it is built, there will be more jobs. The thought that possibly the project will go through bothers these prophets of gloom and doom in the corner. Of course the project will go through, and as the Leader of the New Democratic Party so aptly and so logically put it, there will be more jobs when the pipeline is built. I can assure the hon. gentleman that my instincts are as good as his, and I am sure that the whole pipeline will be built. I may be mistaken, but I believe that the NDP voted against the Alaska Pipeline Act. Perhaps they were not too concerned about the jobs which would be created or they could not see the need for them a few years later.
According to my notes, the NDP leader said that the pipeline will be built not at all, or only some time after 1985. Again he totally ignored the $500 million which has been committed, the unanimous commitment of the Senate, the unanimous commitment of the Congress, and he ridiculed the president of our greatest friend.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if I might be permitted a slight recollection at this point in this debate and do a double-take, if I might, with respect to the government's position vis-a-vis the amendment which has been proposed by the New Democratic Party, I recall rather vividly the furor and shouting match which went on at the time I made an announcement with respect to the export of natural gas from Canada, a very sensible decision and one which has now received the acclaim of all straight-thinking and forwardthinking people in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Except the voters.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Indeed, I am fascinated to watch what is happening now with respect to the statements which have been made by the government.
Most of us are probably asking ourselves, "What are we doing here today?" I had made all the necessary arrangements to move back to my constituency of Saskatoon West to serve at the local level and to work directly within the constituency. What are we doing back in Ottawa at this point in time? It is a rather curious situation which has caused the continued sitting of the House during the summer. Of course it is the motion brought down by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). It is a very bold and imaginative gesture which he has taken in order to grab the attention of the newsmakers of our country while everyone else in the country is away on vacation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Unfortunately, I had to go back to Saskatoon on Friday, so I did not have the opportunity to hear the very excellent speech which was made by my leader. However, a very interesting development took place. The NDP were talking about the urgency of this matter and saying that the country was about to fall apart, action had to be taken, and Parliament had to sit on a continuous basis, but when the NDP was given the opportunity to continue the debate into the weekend on this very urgent matter, they turned the invitation down and went away from here to contemplate and consider whether or not they were on the right side of this issue as far as the newspapers were concerned.


Bob Rae: We wanted you to be here, Ray.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In fact, what really happened, was that the Leader of the New Democratic Party went to see the real leader and had a long talk over the weekend with Dennis McDermott. It was a very informative discussion in which the Leader of the New Democratic Party engaged at that time because he was worried about the vibrations he was receiving as to whether or not there was total support for his proposition.
Today, he stood up in the House and said that there was 100 per cent unanimous support on the part of the New Democratic Party for the proposition which he put forward. Unfortunately, the statement of the Leader of the New Democratic Party is simply not correct because a very substantial and important part of the New Democratic Party, in terms of its support and power within the party, is adamantly opposed to the position put forward by the Leader of the New Democratic Party today. I refer, of course, to the Saskatchewan New Democratic government.
I have just returned from enjoying a weekend in beautiful Saskatchewan.


John Edward Broadbent: There is good government there.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Notwithstanding the provincial government there. At the same time I was amazed to read in the newspaper the position taken by the New Democratic Party there. We
July 21, 1980

must put this into context and perspective because we know that the NDP is the only party which does not have its leadership chosen on the basis of representation from every constituency in Canada on an equal basis. What they do in terms of their leadership selection is based upon membership. For example, the trade union movement is a very important faction in the consideration of party policy. The province of Saskatchewan has a large membership and a large delegation in terms of the national party and the support which the hon. member for Oshawa receives.
The voice of the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan is very important in terms of party policy, and they came forward on the weekend and said that they were absolutely opposed to what was said by their leader. The headline in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix of Saturday, July 19, reads "Messer lauds pipeline pact". For those who are uninformed, Mr. Messer is the minister of energy for Saskatchewan. The article goes on to say:
Saskatchewan has welcomed the federal decision to proceed with the pre-build portion of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline, mineral resources minister Jack Messer said Friday.
He said that the concerns which have been expressed by the NDP in Ottawa have, according to him, been resolved and settled to his satisfaction. He has no concern now. I am not putting these words in the mouth of the New Democratic Party of Saskatchewan. I am simply quoting what a very important segment of the New Democratic Party hierarchy says with respect to this policy which we now hear is 100 per cent the position of the New Democratic Party. I would like to hear an explanation from one of the spokesmen of that party, if there is to be another speaker from that party during this debate, on how they stand with regard to that particular policy.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the Socreds in British Columbia.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I should put the rest of this article on the record, because it is interesting and because it has allowed me to hear both sides of the story. From there 1 can make up my mind with respect to this issue and determine how 1 want to vote. 1 want to know what both sides are saying.
I listened to the Leader of the New Democratic Party making a speech in Ottawa, and for the other side of the story I go to Saskatchewan to hear what the New Democratic Party there is saying. The article I referred to earlier goes on to say:
Despite provincial concerns, Messer noted the government has been fully supportive of an expansion of the Interprovincial Steel and Pipe Corporation (IPSCO) plant in Regina aimed at supplying pipe for the line, and it would be 'ridiculous' for the province now to be opposed to the project.
I wonder whether the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)-I don't see them in the House at the moment-are twitching to get involved in this debate. And what about the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)? Where does he stand? Why has he been silent?
Summer Recess


John Edward Broadbent: He speaks next.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hallelujah, brother! We are finally going to hear, after this delay, what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, who has so many steelworkers in his constituency and relies so much on their support, what position he takes and precisely where he stands in respect to the position put forth by his leader.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't want that pipe order.


Ian Deans: Why don't you sit down?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply want to put forth a calm and logical approach to this very complicated issue. I know members of the New Democratic Party will listen and take note, and be very interested in what I am saying.
What else does Mr. Messer have to say? He is the minister of energy in the New Democratic government of Saskatchewan. That information is for those who are just tuning in, in other parts of the country. I know it is getting close to the dinner hour and a lot of people will be watching this very interesting debate. Dealing with Mr. Messer's comments again, the article ended as follows:
Messer noted the provincial environment department is inviting comments from the public on the Saskatchewan portion of the line before final provincial approval is issued.
But he said he is not aware of any pressing environmental concerns in that area of the province which might significantly delay the project.
1 have looked through this article and I have tried to contact my NDP friends in Saskatchewan to find out whether there is a dissenting point of view. The only one I have heard is with respect to the speech made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party in this House this afternoon. There is obviously a serious breach on this as on many other issues in the New Democratic Party. It is almost an article of faith now that if the hon. member for Oshawa says something in the House of Commons with respect to the position of that party today, someone else in the New Democratic Party elsewhere will say exactly the opposite. I can give a list of instances where that has happened. They came out against the proposal made by this party with respect to the home owners' grants and exemptions and the grants for taxes and mortgage deductibility.


Mr. Nystrom:: Petro-Canada.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: At the same time that the Leader of the New Democratic Party was on his feet, Mr. Blakeney in Saskatchewan was introducing legislation which was the very same as the legislation we had proposed. It was incredible. There was a double-take by the people of Saskatchewan, I can assure you.


John Edward Broadbent: Wrong again.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just been handed a note to the effect that there is a feeling by some of my advisers that 1 should not take this amendment too seriously. I am trying to take it very seriously.

July 21, 1980
Summer Kecess
What about uranium? The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) has made reference to the position of this party on renewable resources. 1 wonder about the question of uranium exports. The Premier of Saskatchewan has been to China and Japan to discuss the export of uranium from Saskatchewan. He has not suggested that the uranium should be left in the ground or that it be used only domestically for energy purposes. To the Japanese he said, "We are prepared in Saskatchewan to give you a guaranteed supply of uranium-a guaranteed supply of uranium, exporting that commodity from our country". The New Democratic Party speaks with one mouth in terms of its political attempts on the floor of this House, keeping this House in session, and yet with another mouth its key supporters across the country take a diametrically opposed position.


An hon. Member:: They are full of potash.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to address myself to some of the broader aspects of this matter. As we consider whether this House should adjourn, I think it is important to review what has taken place during this session and consider the challenges that will face us when we return.
We have been very much preoccupied with matters relating to energy. I think it would be appropriate to consider the prospects held out to us by the government and to review the progress made toward an energy policy. The people of Canada could take advantage of the adjournment to advise members on both sides of the House on how they think the government has performed and what positions they think should be taken. It might be useful, in that context, to review some of the undertakings given by the government in the Speech from the Throne.
The speech contained several items relating to energy. Without according them any priority 1 should like to take them individually and comment on each.
The Speech from the Throne, read by the Governor General on behalf of the government on April 14, stated:
A new blended price is to be established which will progressively incorporate the costs of the oil import compensation program, while at the same time maintaining a single national price for consumers.
1 do not believe that new blended price has materialized either by way of legislation, agreement or substitution. We are still trying to find out what this blended price is all about- trying to figure out if it was as stated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) who was asked during the election campaign what was meant by a blended price and who replied:
If the price of conventional oil is x, you will have a price of x plus y for the non-conventional oil, and then the international price-you know what it is-but we have indicated we will continue to subsidize the price ... So what you would end up with would be a mix of these prices.


An hon. Member:: Say that again.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There is erudition unequalled in terms of political pronouncement, statements and explanations of policy in the history of our country. Not only has no legislation been
introduced or the policy been brought in in any way, but we do not even know what it means.
The second item in the Speech from the Throne was this:
The blended price will reflect the right of producing provinces and corporations to a fair return for their resources and their investment.
They have been silent, Mr. Speaker. We have no knowledge of any statement. Five months have passed since the election but there is not a tittle of evidence on this new idea of fair return. At a press conference the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested in a rather jocular fashion that they were going to give an arm and a leg but there would be no tradeoffs. We still do not know precisely what they mean by a fair return to provinces and corporations, however.
The third thing brought out in the Speech from the Throne was that the government did not intend to impose the 18 cents increase in excise tax on transportation fuel. It has not done that yet-directly, 1 should say. But we can rest assured, on the basis of what is happening in terms of international prices and general commitments in principle, that we in Canada are faced with the highest increase in the price of oil on the basis of the cost of imported oil and growing dependence on that. The 18 cents will look like a paltry sum in the eyes of Canadians by the time this government has finished its mandate in office.
I come to another point. Under the heading "Security of Energy at a Fair Price" we find the following paragraph:
A petroleum price auditing agency will be established to investigate and report to the government and people of Canada on oil company costs, profits, capital expenditures and levels of Canadian ownership.
There is no legislation, nor was any reference made in the House today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to this new commission. I simply wonder aloud. When I asked the minister a week ago last Friday about this particular commission, he seemed to be under the misapprehension that he already had the powers for this agency on the basis of the petroleum monitoring act which now allows the government to make a full audit of the oil companies' books. We have not had any decision with respect to this new agency. We have no idea what the government is talking about with respect to the mandate and what is happening. So there is another item promised in the Speech from the Throne on which there has been absolutely no action nor any indication of action planned in the immediate future.
I hope I have 40 minutes to carry this out because the promises are rather lengthy. Generally speaking, I can get rid of my part of the speech very quickly because I can tell you in advance that when I go over these things my reply will be either: no action, no action taken, or none contemplated in the immediate future.
The Speech from the Throne goes on to say:
In spite of Canada's large energy resources, which put this country in the extremely favourable position of being a major energy exporter, we remain partially dependent upon imported oil.
July 21, 1980

That is the understatement of the year. It continues:
My government is determined to reduce that dependence by promoting conservation and by stimulating the production of new domestic energy supplies.
Not one initiative has come to pass. There has been nothing taken of a novel nature in terms of the new initiative on energy conservation nor in obtaining newer and other supplies of this precious commodity. Another item says that mandatory fuel efficiency standards for automobiles will be established. Policies will be designed to improve home insulation. Where are the legislative enactments with respect to these initiatives? What are we looking forward to? Does the manufacturer of automobiles in this country know what kinds of constraints will be placed on him with respect to the production and manufacture of automobiles? When will the home owner become apprised of what additions and benefits will be available to him or her? I suspect this will probably be just after the heating season commences next winter so they will be unable to take advantage of it for at least another year.
Here is another item:
In co-operation with provincial governments, other steps will be taken to encourage more rapid substitution from oil to other energy sources in order to substantially reduce the significance of oil in meeting our energy needs.
There is nothing; there is not one indication of any movement in this direction.
Here is another item:
Policies will be introduced to encourage consumers to switch from oil to natural gas or electricity for home heating.


Ian Deans: That is in the United States.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am glad for that intervention, Mr. Speaker, because it gives me cause to consider that it may be that we have heard the speech from the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain already, if that is the extent of his contribution. I hope not. I hope we will hear from him and I hope we will find out where he stands on this important issue so he can go back to his steelworkers in Hamilton and get their unblemished support.
I shall now continue. The next item says:
My government equally favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritime provinces-
I guess I have to give the government a C-minus for this item because if I had left off the words "and maritime provinces'' 1 suppose that might have been some indication that they had taken some steps. The maritime provinces are out on a limb again as usual with this government. There is no consideration with respect to the long-term energy requirement for that part of the country, and I would say we would have to give them a C-minus with respect to that. It is very encouraging to see at least in one of these items there has been some small statement of their policy.
Here is another item:
Petro-Canada will be maintained and expanded as an instrument of public policy.
Summer Recess
Further in the same paragraph it says:
-our national oil company will also receive a renewed mandate to engage vigorously in oil purchase negotiations and agreements with foreign suppliers.
That is a nice statement of intention, but again I have to state regretfully that there has been no indication that that policy will be introduced in the immediate future. There has not been exactly, from what 1 hear, a plethora of Petro-Canada people rushing around trying to get external contracts. As far as I know, the initiatives that have taken place while I was minister are still the only initiatives that are being undertaken by this government.
We are almost at the end. I just want to conclude and make another reference to the Speech from the Throne as follows:
You will be asked to approve a new Canada Oil and Gas Act, which will provide new preferential rights for Petro-Canada and other Canadian companies-and establish new and more demanding requirements for exploration and development of these promising frontier areas.
This has not happened yet. Maybe it will happen later on. Maybe when we get back and the government has had a chance to consider its priorities, we will have some idea of what the government is going to do with the Canada oil and gas act and the regulations which are now in effect.
The last item to which I shall bring your attention is this:
An alternative energy corporation will be created with a mandate to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy sources to replace oil.
There is nothing except some suggestion in question period today that this is one of the things which the minister was giving serious thought to. It may be, indeed, a subsidiary of Petro-Canada. But there is nothing too precise. No action has been taken. All we hear is promise after promise, without the suggestion of any sort of movement with respect to all of these undertakings made by this government in the Speech from the Throne.
The government came into power on the basis of introducing, at an early date, an energy policy to meet the crisis we face in our energy situation in Canada today. It has been virtually inactive in any area of energy development and energy policy.


Ian Deans: You tell us what your policy is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have one final point. I believe the time allotment is 40 minutes, and I have another ten minutes, and then I will be finished.


Ian Deans: You are not going to use the ten minutes, are you?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, I am.
I know that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is interested in getting into this debate, so I think it is only incumbent upon me to take the initiative that will allow him to speak so we can hear him and allow the New Democratic Party to carry on.


Ian Deans: I will speak at eight o'clock.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I move, seconded by, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the House continue to sit this day through the dinner hour in order to consider the motion of the President of the Privy Council now under consideration, including any amendment or amendments proposed thereto.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I should interrupt the hon. member and advise all hon. members that it is the intention of Madam Speaker to enter the chamber in a moment or two in order to give a ruling with respect to the amendment put by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party. 1 might add that perhaps the best way to proceed is for the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to continue. I have another problem however, in that it becomes private members' hour at five o'clock. I note that the hon. member's amendment proposes that the debate continues this day through the dinner hour, but it does not deal with the subject of private members' hour. However, that matter is easily handled by unanimous consent.
Momentarily 1 think I would have to put the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon West. But I think the best way to proceed is that 1 suggest we continue with the hon. member in debate if the House gives it unanimous consent-


An hon. Member:: Five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is incumbent upon you to put the motion immediately you receive it, according to Standing Order 6(5). This motion cannot be put in private members' hour. The assumption is that we will come back at six o'clock and continue debate on the adjournment motion. That will not interfere with private members' hour in any way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is understood. Nor can the present motion be debated. 1 will have to ask for the yeas and nays.
Those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being ten or more members who have risen in opposition, the motion is considered to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, since the NDP are more interested in eating than debating-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -I will call it five o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has offered an amendment to the adjournment motion which is currently under debate before the House.
There is no question about the importance of the matter referred to in the hon. member's amendment. However, the Chair sees a serious difficulty with its procedural acceptability. What the House is now debating is strictly a motion to adjourn for the summer recess. The amendment of the hon. member for Oshawa is a distinct proposition, asking the House to pronounce itself on certain matters relating to the construction of a portion of the northern gas pipeline and on the financial guarantees relating thereto.
In the opinion of the Chair, this is a new proposition of a substantive nature which could only be brought forward before the House after the required notice. As hon. members are aware, there are many precedents in the Journals of our House to support the position of the Chair in this instance. May I refer hon. members to such a ruling as appears at page 330 of the Journals for July 7, 1967.
I might also refer the House to citation 437 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, which reads as follows:
(1)	An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved.
(2)	An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Energy- Export of natural gas to United States; the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-Air Transport-Scheduled jet air service to Brandon, Manitoba; the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Environmental Affairs-Movement of oil by tanker-Government representation at U.S. hearings.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.
July 21, 1980


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 8, in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 11, in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 12, in the name of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is item No. 14, in the name of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Dave Nickerson: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the special representatives of the Prime Minister on constitutional development in the Northwest Territories.
He said: Madam Speaker, maybe I should wait a few minutes until all the assembled multitude depart. I see they are on their way out.


Gordon Edward Taylor: In more ways than one.


Walter David Baker: The steelworkers' friends.


Dave Nickerson: The report of the Prime Minister's special representatives on constitutional development is this turquoise coloured report which has been circulated to all members of Parliament and widely circulated throughout the country. It is a particularly important document in that in the latter part of the twentieth century it surely must be apparent to Canadians that certain parts of this country are still subject to what we must call semi-colonial rule.
Canada is a federal country, but part of the population, those living in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, are
Northwest Territories
deliberately excluded from this great confederation. The rights and privileges of citizenship which everyone else in Canada enjoys, and which in fact are taken for granted in the provinces, are not available to those who live in the northern part of Canada.
In the area from which 1 come and among the people I represent, these constitutional issues are probably the most burning ones we have. The constitutional issues in the north impinge on all the other issues with which we have to contend. How can you really talk about land claims and economic development proposals if you divorce them from the overriding constitutional ideas? Our situation is in one way comparable to and in another dissimilar from that in Quebec. In Quebec they are trying to get out of confederation; in the Northwest Territories we are trying to get into confederation.
Maybe I should delve a little into the history of how the Drury report came into being. About 12 years ago, 1967-68, the report of Mr. Dean Carrothers was made available. That was one of the first studies into constitutional issues in the territories. Some of the recommendations made by Mr. Carrothers, those concerning the wholly elected territorial legislature, development of a cabinet type system of government in its very earliest stages, were put into effect. The government of the territories was transferred from Ottawa, where it had been previously, at least in the war years, very much a committee of senior bureaucrats. It was transferred physically to the Northwest Territories.
Ten years later, and this in a time period recommended by Carrothers, people again started to look into the question. At that time the legislature did not want somebody else to come up and make yet another study. Therefore, the proposal at that time was to set up a negotiating committee, on the one hand comprised of members of the territorial legislature, those with executive positions, and on the other hand ministers of the federal Crown.
At that time the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) was minister of Indian affairs and northern development. Unfortunately that gentleman did not really understand the mandate given to him under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Act. He did not know what he was supposed to do. He was in a daze. He really did not understand the issues. Because of his failures the matter was taken out of his hands by the Prime Minister of the day. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-I think originally just to prolong matters or to put them to one side-appointed the Hon. C. M. Drury as his special representative. 1 think we must be pleased that the Prime Minister did take that action because in the opinion of just about everyone in the Northwest Territories Mr. Drury did a very good job. He was one of the first people to come into the Northwest Territories on behalf of the federal government and really talk to the people there and find out what they want. His report reflects their views more

July 21, 1980
Northwest Territories
than it does, possibly, the privately held views of Mr. Drury before he undertook this exercise.
I think there are many comparisons between the Durham report of 1837 and the Drury report of 1979. Both of them were compiled by eminent statesmen with many years of political and administrative experience. Both gentlemen used competent staffs. They went out of their way to hire competent people and put them to work. Just as the Durham report was the landmark document of the middle of the nineteenth century as far as Canada was concerned, 1 think the Drury report will be the landmark document, as far as constitutional issues in the Northwest Territories are concerned, in the third quarter of the twentieth century.
The present constitutional state in the Northwest Territories leaves much to be desired. It is somewhat comparable with the state in the old Northwest Territories around 1895. The old Northwest Territories, which comprised that part which remains today and also what are the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, received, prior to provincial status in 1905, responsible government in 1897. This is what we in the Northwest Territories would like to achieve within the next two, three or four years. 1 think it has to be that close if people there are not going to lose faith altogether in the government here in Ottawa.
When the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were withdrawn in 1905, we went back to the constitutional dark ages in what is presently the Northwest Territories, and since that time we have been evolving. Of late, within the last ten years, that rate of evolution has accelerated, and we who live in that part of the country want, as I said, to be able to look forward to responsible government within the next two or three years. We would like to be able to look forward to provincial status either for the whole of the existing territories or for parts thereof within a reasonable period of time; let us say ten to 12 years. In the old situation it took from 1897 to 1905- that period from responsible government to full provincial status-and I think we should aim at that same time frame today.
1 have made some general observations with respect to this report. Now let us look at some of the recommendations which have been made and some of the questions Mr. Drury has addressed. Of course this will have to be a very cursory overview. First he has looked at the question of division of the territories. As hon. members are probably aware, geographically and demographically the area is pretty well divided into two. The western area, which is not dissimilar from northern Alberta, has a developed infrastructure and is much more financially self-sufficient than the eastern area and the High Arctic part. The question of whether those two should remain together or whether they should be separated has been a matter of debate for at least the last 15 years of which I know.
This is one of the few areas in the report where I take exception to the recommendations of Mr. Drury in that he feels that for the time being division should not take place. I know many people who would take exception to that view. However, Mr. Drury does not say that the combination should last forever. He thinks that the ultimate choice should be made by the people who live there, and proposes institutions such as a constituent assembly to make these decisions.
He addressed himself to the sticky problem of land claims. Every new minister of Indian affairs and northern development who comes along says that he will settle these things within six months. At least the last five ministers have said that, but I am afraid that the problem is a little more difficult than they originally anticipated.
Mr. Drury has laid down a few principles. He thinks that the agreements in principle are mainly a matter between the federal government and the claimant groups, whereas the implementation of these agreements and principles is primarily a matter between the government of the territories and the claimants themselves. Mr. Drury would take exception to the overriding collective nature of some of the settlements which have been proposed.
Mr. Drury made some valid observations about government in the territories as it exists today. He said, and I quote, "The present system hides real authority and diffuses responsibility," and I think that that is a very valid observation. People do not really know where to go to get things done. Authority is partly here in Ottawa, partly somewhere in Yellowknife and partly somewhere else, and one can never nail down the person who is ultimately responsible or who has ultimate authority.
The perception of government in the territories leaves a little to be desired because of the paternalism which has existed. The idea of government amongst many people who live there is one of delivering of services, welfare services, educational services, etc., but not the alternative or the other part of government, the decision-making or the deciding of policies to be followed. At .present I am afraid that that is not really there, and this is due in part to another observation made by Mr. Drury that what we have is a strong administration, both federal and territorial, and a rather weak political system, so we must strengthen the political arm of government in the territories, and 1 think this indeed is taking place.
Mr. Drury addressed himself to municipal affairs. He proposed, for instance, that minimum municipal powers be placed in a new Northwest Territories act of this Parliament of Canada. He takes as his example for this what is going on in Switzerland. A proposal was made by the Swiss commission of experts in 1977. He makes a recommendation, which makes eminent sense, regarding the ownership of land within a municipality, and that land which is not presently privately held should be transferred to the ownership of the municipality.
July 21, 1980

Because of the time 1 have available to me-I see it is only another five minutes or so-I will make a rather quick run through of the other matters which 1 would like to bring to the attention of the House. Mr. Drury proposes-and this is one of the more important items for us as federal politicians-some rather sweeping reorganizations within the federal government. He thinks a minister of federal-provincial territorial relations should be appointed. In fact there was a minister of federal-provincial relations sometime ago. He no longer exists and another one has not been appointed. Instead of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that minister at the federal level should be responsible for the administration of the Northwest Territories Act. He should be the person to whom the commissioner of the territories should report in the interim.
He thinks the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should divest himself of the northern development side of his portfolio, become the minister for native peoples and be the spokesman in cabinet for the native peoples of Canada, and that those things now done by that department in the north should be transferred to the legitimate branch of government which takes them over. Of course some could be transferred to the government of the territories. There are other things such as the administration of oil, gas and minerals. Would it not be logical if that were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Is it not logical that the responsibility for major public works projects should be transferred to the Department of Public Works? Is that not what it is there for? Similarly, would it not be logical for environmental matters, agricultural matters, etc.?
I should like to refer to the transfer of those areas of responsibility presently under the jurisdiction of the federal government which, in all honesty and all right, should be transferred to the territorial government. I am referring to areas of provincial nature such as forests, the environment, agricultural matters, inland fisheries and justice. We should have our own attorney general instead of being dependent upon the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Chretien). Also, there are labour matters, certain remaining health matters, matters dealing with territorial waters and housing. These things could be easily and justly transferred. Mr. Drury touched on the problems relating to education and housing in the north.
Another very important matter is the transfer of land and resources. If we in that part of the country do not control our own land and resources, we never will have those revenues with which to finance provincial status. As an interim measure the administration of the land, if not the ownership of it, could be transferred. We could devise a system of resource revenue sharing whereby as an interim measure, again, we would be prepared to put a cap on those revenues accruing to the people of the territories. After that cap has been reached, then the
Northwest Territories
revenues could be shared on a 50-50, 75-25 or "you name it" basis with federal authorities.
These land items are extremely important. The executive arm of the government of the territories must be made more workable. The situation is that the present commissioner is the chairman of the so-called cabinet and a federal civil servant. This situation just does not work. As an interim measure the commissioner must become a federal agent, not a departmental employee. His position must evolve into that of lieutenant-governor. The executive council of the territorial governments must evolve into full provincial-type cabinets.
There are a number of very important financial recommendations which Mr. Drury made, but in 60 seconds I cannot get through many of them. The main idea is that the territory should negotiate with the federal government very much the same as a province does in matters of financing. They should not have operating and capital grants. They should take part in the equalization payment system and the revenue stabilization program. These are some of the very, very important recommendations made in this report. Mr. Drury has done a good job. He is showing us the way. Now, let us have the fortitude to carry out some of his recommendations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to Motion No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) which reads in part:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing the recommendations contained in the report
That refers to the Drury report. The hon. member ought to ask himself whether he really does any justice to the cause he espoused in the House this afternoon.
Given his stated concerns on this particular matter, concerns which I share with him and I believe are shared by every member of the House, I am rather surprised that in stating those concerns he chose to use this particular vehicle to have his concerns implemented. If the House were to adopt this particular motion, it seems to me it would in some respects fly in the face of the very authority he quotes, the Drury report. Contrary to what the member suggested, I am sure in good faith in the last few minutes, the report acknowledged that there was no consensus on the substance or process of change. That was one finding the hon. member did not mention this afternoon, that is, that there was a lack of consensus on the very subject we are talking about. A lot of good ideas came from the report, as well as a lot of good suggestions and concrete recommendations which I will come to in a few moments. But I believe the first thing which needs to be said is that the hon. member for Western Arctic may well be defeating his own purpose if he persists in getting the kind of decision from the House he advocated this afternoon.
3168

July 21, 1980
Northwest Territories
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) within three or four days of taking office showed clearly his commitment to this particular issue. One of the first press releases or public statements the minister issued dealt with this very subject. It reflected his particular priority for the issue and the concern of the people of the Northwest Territories. He said then that he was anxious to get on with the job and that he would not tolerate any undue delay on this particular subject. Having said that he would not tolerate any undue delay or procrastination, I am sure the hon. member for Western Arctic would not want to see the government rush into something and lock the people of the Northwest Territories into a mechanism which time will prove may not serve them very well.
I should like to say just a word or two about background. Most of us will know that by the late 1970s the territorial government in Yellowknife had been in place for a decade or so. With the support of elected territorial councillors, it was pressing for evolution of responsible government along the traditional Canadian provincial pattern. On the other hand, native associations have sought through their land claims to establish unique political jurisdictions and processes aimed at protecting their positions in northern society.
Large-scale resource development projects were imminent. This placed increasing pressure on native associations, the territorial government and the federal government to find a means of settling land claims and charting a course for future constitutional development. Against that particular background, in August, 1977, the federal government appointed the Hon. C. M. Drury as special representative to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to consult with the residents of the Northwest Territories about modifications and improvements to existing government institutions in the north, and to seek a consensus on future constitutional development which could then be co-ordinated with the land claims process 1 have already mentioned.
One point needs to be reiterated. For approximately two years Mr. Drury canvassed opinion in the Northwest Territories by travelling extensively throughout the Northwest Territories and meeting with various groups of individuals. After all that process had been gone through and after the findings had been recorded, one key factor still stands out, the one I alluded to at the beginning, and that is the lack of consensus on the substance and the terms of the change required. Surely, that alone is argument enough not to delay unduly but to proceed with caution, and that is what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave notice he intended to do on March 7. 1 shall not take up the time of the House unduly because the hon. member for Western Arctic has done a good job in providing hon. members with some of the cardinal principles involved.
I wish to turn to consider the government's intentions as far as the Drury report is concerned. As I said, it covered a wide range of proposals. Some were of a purely administrative
nature. Others would involve quite sizeable shifts of responsibility both within the federal government and from the federal government to the territorial government. Local government is also involved. Because of the complexity of many of these proposals the government has not yet concluded its deliberations on this matter and is not prepared to make any definite announcement of action at this time. Indeed, in my view, it would be presumptuous of the government to decide hastily on questions of such vital interest to residents of the Northwest Territories and to us all. The territories has its own legislative assembly and we are anxious to have the views of that body on many of Mr. Drury's recommendations. Right now, we would have to reach decisions without hearing the views of that body. Surely, it is illogical to suggest we ought to give greater jurisdiction to a group of people without asking them to offer considered opinions as to the kind of government they want. Hopefully, the views we are seeking will be articulated in the session of the legislative assembly scheduled for Frobisher Bay in October. In particular, the government is anxious to have the report of the Unity Committee established by the legislative committee to review, among other things, the proposal that the territories be divided, and that a new territory of Nunavut be established which would include, basically, that part of the territories lying north of the tree line. This question is of great importance to all territorial residents and, indeed, to all Canadians, and it must be studied carefully.
The federal government is moving with all due haste, in concert with NWT residents and institutions, to determine the direction in which constitutional development should be going in the Northwest Territories. No clear consensus has been made manifest. There are very real differences of opinion held between segments of the territories' diverse population. The government wishes to reconcile these divergent views, insofar as this is possible, before determining upon an appropriate course of action. Complicating the situation to some degree, as you know, Mr. Speaker, are the land claims negotiations being held or to be held soon, with the major native associations in the territories. Senator Davie Steuart has been appointed to conduct these negotiations with COPE. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will announce very soon the appointment of a negotiator for the claims by Inuit Tapiri-sat. All of these balls are in play, and all impinge one upon the other.
1 repeat that the government is moving as quickly as possible to determine appropriate responses to Mr. Drury's recommendations. The issues are as important as they are complex, and the greater good will not be served by moving precipitously. There is no disagreement that a greater degree of responsible government should be provided to the Northwest Territories. This objective is entirely consistent with the government's policies.
The problem is one of timing and one of degree-one of endeavouring to satisfy the aspirations of as many residents of the territories as possible. This takes time. Surely, residents of the Northwest Territories cannot criticize the government for ensuring that any changes ultimately made will have the
July 21, 1980

support of as many as possible of those who live in the region. As I say, this will take time but it is our view that it should take as little time as possible. We shall address ourselves to that aspect as well.
As hon. members know, Mr. Drury did not recommend any specific model of government for the territories of the future. This must be developed in co-operation with the territorial government, other territorial organizations and interested residents. I repeat that a solid and lasting framework is more likely to be achieved if due consideration is given to all points of view. This process is now in train. The hon. member has my assurance on behalf of the minister that he is pursuing this process as quickly as possible with a view to accommodating the real concern expressed today by the hon. member for Western Arctic. Our difference is not one of substance. We disagree with the vehicle by which he seeks to achieve his objective. For that reason we shall oppose the motion he has put down, though we do not question the sincerity of his clearly stated concerns for the future.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 am quite pleased to be speaking today on this motion put forward by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). It is one with which 1 think the people of the north in general would not agree.
It is a very small group in the Western Arctic which actually supports the hon. member's motion. As a matter of fact, most of the contents of the report we are discussing were devised by the bureaucracies of Yellowknife and Ottawa. On many occasions the native people in the Northwest Territories refused to speak with Mr. Drury when he approached them about writing his proposal. I myself had the experience of meeting with Mr. Drury on a couple of occasions when he asked me questions about my ideas about political change in the Northwest Territories. He rejected my views. He rejected outright ideas proposed by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Dene Nation of the Western Arctic and others. These included recent permanent residents of the territories.
I would like to comment on the Drury report by posing three questions which we feel are important in discussing the report. The three questions are: why was Mr. Drury appointed in the first place, what are the principal features of his report, and what should be done with his report. I have already stated what should be done with his report but, in all fairness, 1 shall delve into the matter of the history of his appointment and why he would choose to take the course of action which he proposes.
1 would like to look initially at the first question. When Mr. Drury was appointed, it was at a time when the future of the Northwest Territories and its peoples were causing considerable consternation in Ottawa and in Yellowknife. The Berger inquiry had been revealing to southern Canadians what many people in the north had known for years, that in many ways the Northwest Territories more closely resembled a colony of
Northwest Territories
the south than an integral part of the Canadian political framework. I believe the hon. member for Western Arctic on that.
The popular sentiments expressed before Judge Berger were being stated to the federal government at the time by leaders of the Dene Nation and leaders of the Inuit. Both Dene and inuit had rejected Ottawa's interpretation of land claims negotiations as a process by which the federal government assumed clear title over the areas of traditional use by aboriginal peoples in exchange for small strips of land and money-in other words, beads, trinkets, blankets, and what have you, were indexed for inflation.
The aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories had stated clearly that land claims negotiations could not be pursued to successful completion if they started on the premise that negotiations constituted some kind of giant real estate transaction. Northern natives wanted to accomplish what had not been attempted up to that point, an accommodation between the needs and aspirations of northern peoples and the concerns of the federal government-a government mandated to speak for Canadian citizens as a whole.
1 should like to be quite honest and say that statements made by many native citizens before Justice Berger and the ideas articulated by the leaders elected to head representative native associations scared many people, particularly in Yellowknife and some in Ottawa. The newly heard native leaders were perceived as a threat to the status quo, a status quo which may have satisfied Ottawa and the Yellowknife bureaucracy, but which was less than satisfactory to the people whom it governed. Thus, in late 1977, the federal government faced the problem of what to do about land claims negotiations when the native peoples involved insisted on talking about political development as well as ownership of the land and resources. I might add that most people in Canada enjoy the freedom of being able to talk about political change, a freedom which would have been denied to native people if the Drury report were implemented, at least in the Northwest Territories.
The federal government tried to resolve this problem with the appointment of Mr. Drury as special representative for constitutional development in the Northwest Territories, thereby deferring questions of political development until the completion of the report. At the same time, Dene and Inuit leaders were informed that matters of political structures brought up during land claims negotiations would be, in the words of the personnel employed at the office of native claims, a "non-starter".
This 1977 policy has resulted in a three-year impasse in negotiations between the federal government and the Inuit Tapirisat and between the federal government and the Dene Nation in the Western Arctic. It is apparent that land claims negotiations in the north have been delayed by the Drury process. With this in mind, I would like to review the major features of the Drury report.
The report contains a wide range of recommendations with respect to the discharge of government services in the Northwest Territories. Many of the recommendations, particularly

July 21, 1980
Northwest Territories
the ones regarding the transfer to local government of as many functions as can be effectively handled at that level, are commendable. We admit that. The report's concentration on the nitty-gritty of government services, however, is at the same time its chief strength and its chief weakness. While the report contains many comments and conclusions about the need to build on existing experience and success with its local self-government, these comments and conclusions would be equally germane to any outcome of the debate on division.
The tone and substance of the report is based on Mr. Drury's acknowledged premise that the manner in which government programs are administered is more important to the people of the north than the nature of the political structure. This premise is totally at odds with reality. It is at odds with the events which have taken place in the north during the last few years, and it is at odds with the position of the Dene and Inuit organizations which speak for the majority of the residents of the Northwest Territories. It is at odds with the position endorsed by the aid to legislative council of the Northwest Territories and at odds with the statements made by members of the ninth legislative council of the Northwest Territories in seeking to formulate a consensus position on political change. It is at odds with the pronouncements of all candidates for the riding of Nunatsiaq and Western Arctic during the last federal election campaign, and that includes the hon. member for Western Arctic.
People in the north have disagreed, sometimes bitterly, about the proper direction of political change and the kind of political structures which should be set in place, but seldom has there been disagreement on the fact that the political questions framed in the north go far beyond tinkering with the provision of government services. In his report, Mr. Drury recognizes that the question of division is a serious one. Nevertheless, he recommends that wide-ranging powers, including full or partial control over Crown lands and resources, should be transferred to Yellowknife. Following this, he suggested that a debate should be initiated in the north to determine whether powers should have been transferred to Yellowknife and whether the Northwest Territories should have been divided. We believe that this is a case of putting the sled before the dogteam.
The report suggests that the people living north of the tree-line should suspend their age-old commitment to a new political unit called Nunavut, watching passively while the Yellowknife bureaucracy is strengthened, and then question the appropriateness of this bureaucracy. The implementation of this report would be totally unacceptable to the people of Nunavut.
Some years ago the Government of Canada committed itself to the settlement of native claims through a process of negotiation with the office of native land claims in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All aspects of claims, political, economical and cultural, must be considered in those negotiations, as well as many other aspects, such as equity participation on development, and so on. The federal government's appointment of a special representative for its
constitutional development, Mr. Drury, in 1977 bypassed this legitimate process by demanding that the political aspects of claims be channelled through his office and not through these legitimate negotiations. This was, and still is, unacceptable to the Inuit and certainly to the Dene of the Western Arctic.
At the time, this move was somewhat discouraging. However, since then the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has made substantial progress in negotiating the framework for negotiations through which land claims and political development will be settled in the Northwest Territories. This is in direct contradiction to the advisability of implementing the recommendations of the Drury report, and this is the process which we will continue.
I believe I speak for the New Democratic Party when I say that the implementation of the Drury report would result in denying the constitutional right of those peoples to determine their own political future. Therefore, we must oppose the motion of the hon. member for Western Arctic.


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on a subject which has been of interest to me for a long time. I want to speak against the motion of the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). The suggestion that we should now, immediately, without further ado, implement the report prepared by Mr. Drury is, to say the least, premature. There are some good things in Mr. Drury's report, some things with which I agree and some with which 1 do not agree.


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure that the hon. member would not want to mislead the House. The motion does not say that the report should be implemented at this time or any other time. The motion very specifically says:
-consider the advisability of implementing-
How can a government possibly go against considering the advisability of implementing its own report? The motion says nothing about implementing the report at this time, just about considering it. I am sure that the hon. member would not want to mislead the House.


Ian Watson: I will speak against the advisability of implementing the report, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of points which are consistently made when this topic is discussed in the House of Commons and which I feel should be dealt with.
The hon. member for the Western Arctic, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), and occasionally others in the party opposite, referred to the state of colonialism that exists in the north. The hon. member for Western Arctic was a little more moderate-1 believe he said quasi colonialism.
The leader of the Conservative party in the Yukon, Mr. Pearson, who for a short period was designated by the former minister of indian affairs and northern development as premier, used the term first-class and second-class citizen. Yukoners apparently are not first class citizens, and the same
July 21, 1980

argument, presumably, would apply to people living in the Northwest Territories. Let us examine this for a minute, Mr. Speaker.
1 would ask the forgiveness of the hon. member for the Western Arctic for my continual reference to the Yukon, but I use the Yukon argument because the Northwest Territories is perhaps a few years behind in constitutional development, but not too many years, so the arguments which apply to the Yukon may apply, two or three years ahead, to the Northwest Territories.
Let us look at the argument that people in those two territories are somehow second-class citizens and are being colonized by the rest of the country. The total population of the Yukon, 23,000, and of the Northwest Territories, 45,000, represents percentages of the Canadian total which do not stand up to comparisons between the situation when Manitoba entered confederation and the situation today, vis-a-vis the total population. The Yukon's percentage of the total population is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of our total. When Manitoba entered confederation, 1 believe the province's percentage of the Canadian total was around 1 per cent, ten times higher. Yet the argument is made that the comparison with Manitoba, which had something like 25,000 people when it became a province, favours the immediate move for the Yukon, and later the Northwest Territories, toward provincial status. That is not the case; things have changed, Mr. Speaker.
When Manitoba entered confederation, her population was about to explode. That is not going to happen in the Yukon unless, of course, the kind of thing occurs that is being proposed by certain politicians there who would like an immediate move toward provincial status, in that case, a completely artificial situation would occur. In order to justify provincial status there would be an artificial stimulation of a population move into the Yukon.
This is where we come to the root of the quandary about development in the north. The people who want development per se are usually those with the most political clout who can make the most political noise. Through chambers of commerce and businessmen's associations, they are able to exercise pressure on politicians in the north for an immediate move toward provincial status. They are primarily interested in all the business activity that is anticipated if they could somehow achieve control via the provincehood vehicle.
That is a very dangerous concept indeed from the point of view of the native people. I think the hon. member who comes from the eastern Arctic expressed this in the hesitation he showed in embracing the idea of provincial status. In effect it would mean that with the province in full control of immigration and stimulating economic development in a way that would not necessarily make economic good sense but would bring people in to justify the apparatus being set up, native people would be overrun by a larger population coming in from the south. This is a demographic fear which is well based and well justified, in my view. This is probably the most basic reason why there should be no movement toward provincehood now in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories.
Northwest Territories
There are a host of other reasons why we should move slowly in the direction which, for a time last year, seemed to be toward creating a province within the next three years. The then prime minister indicated that he intended to create a province in the Yukon before the end of his first term in office. Fortunately for everyone in Canada, that did not happen. I say "fortunately" because when we are talking about the north we are talking about something which, in the minds of a lot of people in the country, helps tie Canada together.
There is a common heritage which we all share in the north. We share it on the land mass in the north and we share it on the offshore areas of the north. No one in this House would suggest that northerners should not have first call on the resources of the north, the extent of which we do not yet know. As far as I am concerned, they should have first call on them in order to assure themselves of a standard of living second to none. Beyond that, however, I think the rest of Canada should participate in whatever riches are found there.
Until now-and for the foreseeable future-the Canadian taxpayer has been footing a major portion of the bill. We pay 60 per cent of the public service costs in the Yukon and a higher percentage for the Northwest Territories. All Canadians have made these contributions and in fairness, over the long run, we should expect a return.
The path for constitutional evolution should not necessarily be provincehood, it seems to me. It may be provincehood, but we should not bind ourselves to that single objective.
From my experience and through talking to northerners over the years, 1 believe that the one idea that keeps coming back is, "Let's get rid of that federal red tape." 1 quite agree. If we could somehow rid the northerners of their impression that they are always tied up in federal tape, we could solve a lot of problems. I would point out as well that politicians in the two northern territories have become as adept as separatist politicians in Quebec at pointing out deficiencies in the federal government. In addition, they point out how in some instances, where there are perfectly normal, legitimate reasons for slowness in achieving results, the federal government is somehow totally to blame because of this insensitive, slow, lethargic public service which looks after relations between the people there and the government here in Ottawa. They point out distances and bring all these reasons together and point out that somehow the system is not working.
We should be aiming for a solution in the north which could be used as a model for future constitutional developments in the rest of Canada. Let us keep our minds open. Fortunately, the report does not specify a single constitutional objective. I would hope that all members of this House could take a new look at just where we are heading in the north. 1 feel there are other solutions which will help the people in the north better than anything that has been proposed so far and yet will preserve this kind of cement which the common heritage represents for all of us as part of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this day.
At 6.03 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 amended motion of Mr. Pinard:
That, when the House adjourns on the day that this order is adopted, it shall stand adjourned until October 15, 1980, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Madam Speaker after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time. Madam Speaker may give notice that she is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Madam Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees or the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in her stead for all the purposes of this order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate on the motion was interrupted at five o'clock, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) had the floor.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had the opportunity of dining, the NDP will go up to the dining room to get a few more members into the House to make sure that they have ten here so that any motion which might be contrary to their interests of having a full meal can be overcome.
1 want to carry on my remarks. Before the adjournment for the dinner hour, 1 had the opportunity to consider the position vis-a-vis the record of this government on energy matters as a whole, about which we should be concerned.
I am glad the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is here to listen to this because rarely does he have an opportunity of hearing good, simple, common sense. He should stay in the House more regularly where he will have the opportunity to hear these contributions. Then he would not be in the position to delay and waste the time of the House as he now does.
Before the dinner adjournment, I stated that it was a rather abysmal record with respect to this government in terms of energy policy. We have had virtually no initiatives at all respecting our energy policy, and no legislation. None of the
initiatives mentioned in the Speech from the Throne have been brought forward.
It is amazing that we now have a situation where, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so often puts it, the natural allies of the government, the New Democrats, are making a big ruckus so that it will appear they have a main difference in terms of policy. We know that the Liberal government, for all intents and purposes, over the course of the administration of this Prime Minister, has been kept in office by the very same NDP. Therefore, it ill behooves them to stand up now and pretend they are speaking on behalf of the interests of Canadians when they themselves kept the Liberals in power over the past 12 years by constantly voting, particularly in minority situations, to keep them in power. The people of Canada will reflect on this during the adjournment debate. It will allow them to think about whether there is a trace, or a touch, of hypocrisy in what the NDP are doing in terms of this debate.
What concerns me is that this very government, supported by the NDP, has made no progress at all in terms of energy policy. What is even more distressing and disturbing is the fact that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), in terms of our energy policy and domestic oil pricing, left the whole issue until a couple of weeks or months before the expiration of existing arrangements in Canada. In fact, we have now passed the expiration date on June 30 and are faced with an extension, which has been agreed to by the producing provinces and the federal government, until the end of July.
One would have expected all sorts of activity during the month of July in which negotiations on a new arrangement would have been carried on, but no, we are going to adjourn this House. The meeting of the Prime Minister and Mr. Lougheed will not take place until July 24, a mere six days before the conclusion of the extension period. Many people in Canada do not fully understand the implications of the federal government and the producing provinces not arriving at an agreement. There are certain central issues preoccupying the government in terms of this negotiation.
The central issue, in my view, is the whole question of revenue sharing and the recycling of funds that has been and will continue to flow to the producing provinces. They like to concentrate their attention on the province of Alberta because it is by far the largest producer of oil in this country. We have to look at what is going on in this negotiation.
From my reading of the situation and observing it, unfortunately from the sidelines now, the parties are very far apart in terms of an agreement. The federal government is trying to achieve some process by which there will be a bigger take on the part of the federal government with regard to revenues on oil. There are some suggestions that that is what the federal government is trying to do in this connection. They are talking about a number of prospects through their blended oil price, blending some combination of old and new oil. Through this processing, the Oil Import Compensation Act, to equalize the cost of imported fuel, will continually be reduced through some sort of charge to the refineries. This is something the
July 21, 1980

federal government is considering with respect to its negotiations with the producing provinces.
1 am concerned about the prospect of no agreement having been reached by the end of this month. Unless there is an awful lot of change in position, there is a very distinct possibility that this will take place over a very short period of time. We face the potential prospect of there being no agreement between the federal and provincial governments.
It is very easy to consider different scenarios as to what might transpire if an agreement is not reached. I suppose everyone can make his own scenario, but there are different possibilities we should consider. Conceivably we could stay here if the members of the New Democratic Party decide to speak indefinitely over the course of the summer and bore everybody to death. There are some possible scenarios, and these would involve either the federal government or the provincial governments taking some initiatives with respect to the important question of oil pricing.
One scenario could be that, if there is no agreement, the federal government will decide unilaterally to announce its own energy policy, including a set of oil prices. Let us assume that if the federal government takes that initiative, the province of Alberta, being the largest producer of oil in our country, could either follow those prices or take its own initiative, with instructions to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission to offer Alberta oil at a particular price set by it.
Conceivably the price could be higher than the one suggested by the federal government because the federal government, 1 suppose, is interested in carrying out its election promise of low prices or cheap energy for Canadians. The federal government price would be imposed under the provisions of the Petroleum Administration Act, part II, and if there were this conflict, another distinct possibility could be a very serious confrontation in the courts. There could be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the constitutionality of pricing on the part of the federal government as opposed to the provincial governments, and to determine which should prevail in constitutional terms.
Another possibility is that the province of Alberta could consider using as its weapon the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Amendments Act of 1980 to limit the movement of crude oil out of Alberta. A question could arise as to whether that would be sustainable as being within the jurisdiction of the provincial government to take that option. However, the consequences would be very serious, whether we are talking in terms of conserving a resource which is a depleting resource or using this as a vehicle for strife with the federal government.
Another possibility might be that the Alberta government might consider taking steps with respect to provincial Crown leases or royalty land and simply not allowing any oil to be lifted from royalty land or Crown land. In any event, this could lead to very long, protracted and difficult legal action which would have serious consequences for our country.
Summer Recess
In addition to that there is the whole question of whether we in Canada would become more and more reliant on offshore oil. That matter would very quickly come to the forefront because of the uncertainty caused by lack of agreement and because of the possibility of action taken by producing provinces with respect to oil in their jurisdictions, and there is no doubt that if this takes place, there would be two consequences. One would be increased reliance on offshore imports, which would create serious economic consequences for our country, especially in view of the international price and the fact that the oil import compensation program is now in such a horrible deficit position. The second consequence would be the implementation of the Energy Supplies Emergency Act passed in 1979, and we in Canada would be faced with the propect of allocation and presumably rationing of petroleum products.
These could be some of the consequences of the drift and the almost cavalier attitude the federal government has taken in energy negotiations. We should be greatly concerned, as we participate in this adjournment debate, about what is going to transpire, whether or not the adjournment will be until October next. In light of the possibility of there being no agreement, there is the prospect of this kind of confrontation. Notwithstanding the New Democratic Party, we could be back here, if there is no agreement, sooner than we think and sooner than anticipated by this motion.
I am giving the House a report card, so to speak, on this government's record in terms of energy policy. Its record is dismal. There has been literally no action or initiatives taken since this government came to power. We face a very serious prospect of a breakdown in terms of agreement between the federal and provincial governments. The negotiation of an agreement has been left, not to the eleventh hour but to the thirteenth hour. An agreement is past due already.
In a non-partisan and serious way I question the effectiveness of the government, and 1 question very seriously the New Democratic Party for its continued support of the Liberal government over a long period of time. I know there are arguments and a lot of shouting, but marital breakdown is always very distressing.
With the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party fighting as they are, I want to close my remarks by telling a story told by a person who has been quoted over and over again by speakers from the New Democratic Party. I refer to the Hon. T. C. Douglas. Mr. Douglas is now one of the corporate boardroom bums referred to by the New Democratic Party. It will be interesting to see whether members of the NDP will take advice from Mr. Douglas now as they have in the past. He is a member of the board of directors of Husky Oil. He is with all the bigwigs of the oil industry. He sits with Husky Oil directors and others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Murphy:: Filibuster.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to hear the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Deans said no.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to leave the wrong impression. I did not refuse the hon. member the right to proceed. I was just shaking my head at the pitiful effort he put forward. I could not imagine wanting to inflict any more of that on the House.
I have been listening with interest to the speakers who have preceded me. 1 listened to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) with considerable interest, hoping to grasp or to hear some indication of what the Liberal party really believed. I listened to the hon. member for Saskatchewan West- Saskatoon West-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Saskatchewan is the province; Saskatoon is the city.


Ian Deans: I realize that. I listened to the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with interest because he seemed for one reason or another to want to address himself more to the NDP than to the issue. As I listened to him and tried to compare what he was saying with what has been said by other Conservative members over the course of the last week, or perhaps week and a half, with regard to energy policy and this particular problem of the pre-build, I came to the conclusion, in the words of a close colleague of mine, that the Conservative party, on this issue at least, has more positions than Masters and Johnson.


John Horton McDermid: Bill Davis used that line three weeks ago on you guys.


Ian Deans: It is a shame that we have not really addressed this very crucial problem. This is an important day in the history of Canada. We are debating an issue which could well decide the economic future of the country. We are talking about whether or not this country will be self-sufficient in energy, with energy available from coast to coast in years to come. We are talking about the single most valuable resource any country can have. We are very privileged as a country because we have energy in various forms and in sufficient quantities to allow us to be self-sufficient. We have energy which very few industrialized countries in the world have available to them, we have the capacity right in this country to develop an economy, job opportunities and a quality of life second to none. Yet, the government makes a decision which allows some of that very valuable energy, which no doubt we will need some day in the future, to be exported out of the country to the United States without any consideration for how it will be replaced, what it will cost to replace it, or for the fact that future generations will require that energy for their needs. That is what the issue is all about today, and that is what we should be talking about.
I thought for a while that the Liberal party understood the issue. I listened with interest to the comments made by Liberals over the course of the last year. 1 read with interest what was said by the Liberal party during the debates in the House of Commons prior to the last election and on the hustings during the last election. 1 read with interest the comments of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). Here is a nationalist if ever I saw one, or at least so he says. As reported in Hansard of December 12, 1979, he said:
The Conservative answer to our balance of payments problem is to encourage more exports of unprocessed non-renewable raw material. This, in fact, is what their decision to allow larger exports of natural gas really means. Rather than use it to build up and expand our petrochemical industry, rather than use it as a substitute for imported oil, Conservatives have agreed to export it, and they have done so without getting any commitment that American gas will be available later for Canada on a swap basis at the same price.
He then went on to say:
They have done so without getting any commitment in return from the United States for greater access for our manufactured goods. The Conservatives have allowed these exports, without getting any final commitment on the building of the northern gas pipeline. They do not have any final commitment from the gas producers that they will finance and ensure the building of a natural gas pipeline to Atlantic Canada. Instead, through this budget, Canadians are being asked to pay higher fuel prices and higher taxes under the guise of helping Canada reach energy self-sufficiency.
He went on to say:
But to the extent any of this money is used to find new oil and new natural gas, I ask the House what assurance Canadians have from the Conservative government that any new reserves found at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, middle and lower-income Canadians, will not simply be exported to the United States.
This is happening with much of the reserves of natural gas found in recent years in Canada, natural gas reserves found with money put up by Canadian taxpayers through higher prices and tax expenditures. That was the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce speaking in the budget debate. When one reads that, one says to oneself, "Now, there is a man who knows what the problem is". My colleague sitting beside me said under his breath, "What a phony". I wish he would say it louder.


An hon. Member:: What a phony.


Ian Deans: Thank you. It is quite clear to everyone exactly what that was. Of course it was not only the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He is not the only phony on the Liberal benches.


John Edward Broadbent: Do not forget the Tories.


Ian Deans: We will get to the Tories. I should like to refer to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). He said before the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines on March 20, 1979:
It is the policy of this government that we will insist upon a guarantee that the total line be built, that the financial arrangements for the building of the entire line be in place before we give the green light for going ahead with the pre-build.
That was the Minister of Finance speaking. There was another phony, if I ever heard one. Then there was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde),
July 21, 1980

kindly soul that he is, speaking on behalf of Canadians and looking after our best interests, so to speak. As reported in the record of the House of Commons for the fall of 1979, he said:
In our view, exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all, an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline. Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
Well, we have the phony Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the phonier Minister of Finance, and now we have this kindly gent who poses as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and tries to tell us that, all of a sudden, as if by some magical means, a new light has dawned and he sees a new truth. Now he is really speaking on behalf of the Liberal party and in the best interests of Canadians. What kind of nonsense is this? What kind of nonsense are we faced with? We are faced with a bankrupt political party which sells out the country, a political party which turns around and allows development to take place which in fact will cause untold hardship in years to come. We are faced with a political party which does not protect the interests of Canadians, a political party which says one thing that suits it one day and an entirely different thing another day.


An hon. Member:: And your party supported them last December.


Ian Deans: It does not even marginally alter its position, but it changes 180 degrees every time. One has to wonder about this political party; in office and out of office they are a very strange bunch.
Not only did they say those things while they debated in the House of Commons, not only did they put these positions forward in an attempt to embarrass the easily embarrassed Conservative party, but then they went out on to the hustings and told Canadians that they would put in place an energy policy which would work in the best interests of Canadians.
On January 25, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in Halifax, he said quite clearly that the Liberal party would put in place an energy policy that met all the requirements which guaranteed Canadians access to their resources, which would make available to Canadians the energy resources they needed at a price they could afford, that we would see the kind of energy policy coming from them, if they were re-elected, which would satisfy the needs of Canada now and into the future. For example, they said that there would be a natural gas pipeline to ensure access by all Canadians to their resources. The Liberals would take immediate action to begin negotiations for the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the maritimes. Initially it would carry natural gas east, but when the maritime supplies were ready, the pipeline would be like a natural gas railroad with a return delivery facility as well.


An hon. Member:: Double tracking.


Ian Deans: Perhaps he was talking about double tracking. He went on to say that the Liberals would ensure that
Summer Recess
Canada's energy sector became more Canadian-owned and controlled. Also he said that industry would be developed close to energy sources, so that producing areas in the west and elsewhere would have first chance at processing the resources. Where will it be developed? Will it be in the southern United States? Is that the government's policy? The Liberal party was stumping around the country trying to gain support during the last election campaign. When the Conservative party approved of 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas being sold to the United States, on January 9 the Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, said:	.
By just approving that export without conditions, it lost another great chance for our industrial development.
He was referring to the Conservative government. Hon. members are bound to ask themselves: What is it about this political party? What are the people supposed to believe about this political party? This Liberal party, when out of office, says anything it can to get into office and when it is in office, does anything it can to get rid of the resources of Canada. 1 had a colleague in the legislature and he sometimes used a phrase which 1 shall repeat-no doubt members have heard it before. He used to say that putting the Liberals in charge of resources was like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
There are problems attached to the course the government is about to embark upon and there are risks which Liberal supporters have failed to recognize. I watched with a sick feeling as Liberals leaped to support the minister of energy as he made his statement the other evening. 1 watched as they euphorically applauded the sell-out of our resources, the building of the pipeline from resources we are going to need, to provide for the greed of the United States. I watched it happening. I said to myself: surely they do not understand the position; surely they do not have the evidence before them; they cannot know what it is all about or they must be very easily led. Accordingly, I thought I would put on record tonight some of the reasons for which I believe that this proposal is bad for Canada now and will be bad for the nation in the future.
To begin with, it has been said that the rate at which natural gas is being discovered, not only here in Canada but in the lower 48 states and in the Gulf of Mexico, makes it quite possible, if not quite probable, that given the high cost of bringing gas from Alaska to the market the project will not be pursued-that at some point in time there will be more readily-available and cheaper gas for exploitation by the United States, not only in that country but here, where they are getting access to our supplies of natural gas. So there is no reason for them to spend many billions of dollars pursuing an expensive source of energy after we have given them free access, as it were, to cheaper energy sources.
In addition, there is no question that once we have committed ourselves to the pre-build, Canadians will have to finance the entire operation by continuing to export the natural gas which belongs to us for far beyond the short term envisaged by
3176

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
the present decision. Further, there is no question but that the history of the last decade is repeating itself. The same Liberal government as we see there today made all kinds of grand predictions in the past about the availability of oil and then proceeded to sell it off as quickly as they could at a cheap price until we were forced to go into the marketplace and buy back what we needed. At that point, of course, the price was way out of proportion to the cost of production.
1 suggest the same thing is about to happen again in the case of natural gas. The Liberal party is certainly consistent in this regard. We shall find ourselves in the position of having to buy natural gas from other sources in the not too distant future and in so doing we shall be paying ten or 20 times what we might have paid had we held on to our own supplies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: The minister says there is a surplus of natural gas. Mr. Speaker, there might be a surplus of commodities which can rot; there might even be a surplus of products which can go out of date. But there can be no surplus of energy. We do not even know at this point what kind of economic development will take place in Canada in the future. Bear in mind that so far we have been unable to provide natural gas for the people in our own country who so desperately need it. We are being forced today to pay something like $3.6 billion to subsidize the purchase of oil from offshore though we could have used our own natural gas to replace expensive foreign oil. Until such time as we have an industrial strategy in place and until such time as gas is available to people all across this country, bringing them energy at a price they can afford, there is no one in this government or in the National Energy Board who can prove to me that there is in fact a surplus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: There is no surplus.


Mr.   Gimai@: You have to prove it.


Ian Deans: I do not have to prove it. It is as plain as the nose on your face. We do not have a national energy policy. The Liberal government has no idea how they are going to integrate our energy resources, no idea how they will be used. They do not know what proportion of our energy needs will be met by oil or what proportion will be met by gas or what proportion will be met by electricity or what proportion will be met by coal, not to mention new resources. Until such time as an energy policy is in place, how can we determine that there is a surplus of one of the components? What the government is doing, supported by its inadequate backbenchers, is this: it is rushing ahead to sell off our gas reserves for a quick buck today without any consideration for the cost of replacement or for the needs of people in the future.


Mr. Rossi:: How can you say that without smiling?


Ian Deans: Anyone looking at this so-called energy policy would have to agree that the decision to go ahead with the pre-build is an ad hoc decision based on nothing of any
consequence, based on the creation of a certain number of short-term jobs. Mr. Speaker, if we were to embark on providing a means of moving the gas from the existing natural gas fields to the east and the west coasts, we would be able to provide even more short-term jobs but, in addition, we would be able to set up an infrastructure which would allow us to encourage the industrial and economic development needed to bring about long-term jobs for Canadians. And that should be the goal of any government in office these days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: 1 am sure Liberal backbenchers are impressed enough now by the arguments-


Mr.   Gimai@: I don't think so.


Ian Deans: -which have been put forward by many speakers this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is difficult to hear in the chamber if hon. members interrupt.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that you cannot hear me. I am trying to speak directly to you, and if the Liberal backbenchers would sit quietly, 1 could have you listen.


An hon. Member:: Just like you did last week.


Ian Deans: You are insulting the Speaker. He wants to hear. Since they do not care, Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to you. Since it is quite obvious that the Liberal party does not give a damn about Canada, you and I will talk about it. There are certain facts about the pipeline which cannot be overlooked. To begin with, we all understand that the total cost of the project will be in excess of $20 billion, perhaps even $30 billion or $40 billion, before it ever gets under way, if it ever gets under way. Over 80 per cent of that cost will be borrowed by the principals from normal lending sources.
This is the largest single financial investment which has ever been undertaken in the private sector. It is clear that the people or institutions lending the money will demand explicit and comprehensive assurances. They will want to have guarantees that their loans will be paid with interest according to a pre-arranged schedule.


Mr. Bosley:: Just like Chrysler.


Ian Deans: The simple fact is that the Alaska highway pipeline sponsors cannot provide those guarantees because the pipeline costs considerably exceed their assets.


An hon. Member:: Give us a figure.


Ian Deans: The figure at the moment is about $30 billion and the total assets of the sponsors do not come close to half of that.


An hon. Member:: You're guessing.
July 21, 1980


Ian Deans: The pipeline will be financed on the strength of the transmission of gas through the pipeline. Because there are risks that the pipeline might not generate sufficient revenues to cover the debt interest and the generated costs, institutional lenders will demand guarantees.
The guarantees will have to be provided by government at one level or another. There is the serious risk of non-completion of the pipeline. That becomes clearer with every passing day. There is the serious risk, and it is almost a guarantee, of cost overruns on a project of this size. There is of course the interruption or, if you will, the reduction of the service. A Wall Street investment banker, quoted in Energy Daily of November 4, 1977 said:
Remember, this is the largest single project ever undertaken by anybody in private industry. For every institution that takes part in it, it will be the largest investment they ever made in anything. No one will move an inch-
No one will sign, no one will put out a penny, no one will sign a document until the guarantees are in place for every single step of the project through to its completion. When one stops to think about it, one says to oneself, "The guarantees, obviously, must come from government". They must come primarily from the federal government of the United States because it is, after all, a pipeline for the United States to bring gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. That is what the pipeline is all about. Therefore, the United States must find a way to guarantee the financing.
The U.S. department of the treasury has maintained since 1975 that the pipelines' beneficiaries-Prudhoe Bay, Exxon, Sohio, the state of Alaska, the natural gas transmission industry-which, most notably, includes Northwest Pipeline in the U.S. and Foothills in Canada-would have to provide the guarantees required by lenders. In a report prepared for the Alaska state legislature by Dr. Arlon Tussing and released in April, 1979, the following conclusion was drawn:
The Alaska highway gas pipeline cannot be financed and built unless the United States government guarantees at least part of the project debt.
However, Northwest Pipeline Company of the U.S. will find it difficult obtaining financial guarantees from the U.S. government. The report of the U.S. Senate energy committee accompanying the congressional resolution endorsing President Carter's pipeline decision in October, 1977, stated:
It is essential for the project sponsors to proceed with their financial arrangements as promptly as possible. The state of Alaska, the producers, and most of all, the project sponsors should bear in mind that the door to the federal treasury has not been left open to them-
That is the federal treasury of the United States. But much more persuasive, from my point of view, than the rather innocuous self-serving letter put forward by the Prime Minister, is the fact that President Carter in 1977, in his decision and report to Congress on the Alaska natural gas transportation system, rejected government guarantees on the following grounds: one, serious questions of equity result from the transfer of risks to taxpayers, many of whom are not gas consumers and will not receive additional gas supplies as the result of the Alaska project; two, federal financial support substitutes the government for private lenders in the critical risk assessment function; three, the incentive for an efficient
Summer Recess
management of the project is reduced; and four, the government is placed in conflicting roles as guarantor and as regulator of the project.
President Carter made it clear that on these grounds he would not recommend that the federal government of the United States embark on many guarantees or in any direct way become involved in the financing of the Alaska Highway pipeline. When one stops and weighs that against that quite inadequate document produced in the House last Thursday-


An hon. Member:: Unsigned.


Ian Deans: -unsigned and which was supposed to sell us on the commitment of the President of the United States over and against a carefully thought out position put before his own legislators, 1 think, if I were to make the judgment, I would believe his original statement, and I believe that the government should believe it as well.
One must also bear in mind that even if the Northwest Pipeline approaches institutional investors with a financial package before the end of 1980, with a presidential election this year Congress will likely not address the question of government guarantees until at least 1981. This pushes the completion back to 1986 at the earliest, and that is already one year later than we heard on Thursday.
If 1 were to make judgments about the intention of the U.S. government to do something which we must have if this project is to be successful, 1 would have to come to the conclusion that, on a number of very valid grounds backed up by their own statements, there is no likelihood that the United States will be able to proceed with the development of the pipeline in its entirety, that they will syphon off what they can get from us at the lowest possible price, that we will receive nothing in return other than today's dollar value and that we will inevitably have to purchase gas to replace that gas, for which we will have to pay the price of the day, and that may be five years, six years or ten years from today. That, my friends, constitutes a rip-off of Canadian resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I do not wish to suggest that this is only my opinion-


An hon. Member:: Stanley is leaving because he is getting a headache.


Ian Deans: Stanley, please come back.


John Horton McDermid: I could not sit there in front of that either.


An hon. Member:: He does not want to listen to you any more because he is fed up.


Ian Deans: Actually, in keeping with his former colleague, he has gone out to do some missionary work among you.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have found that you have exactly ten minutes left.


Ian Deans: I have ten minutes yet, so wait for it.
We ought to look at what others are saying. We have looked at what the Liberals have said when out of office, when in office, at the flip-flop, the fact that you cannot trust the Liberal government, that you never know where they are coming from or what they will do. We have looked at the sell-out of our oil resources in the early seventies when they were well warned that the result would be higher costs for Canadians. We have looked at the potential of providing at least an equal number of jobs for Canadians, and of building an east-west facility rather than a north-south facility. We have suggested that in the best economic interests of the country and its future, and the need to provide energy at the lowest possible cost for the use of Canadians, we should be building an east-west pipeline rather than a north-south pipeline.
We have suggested that when in 1978 a bill was passed by this Parliament to approve the northern Alaska highway pipeline, it was intended to be a transmission line from Alaska to the United States and that this decision does not conform with that legislation. We have pointed out, I think, that the possibilities of getting this pipeline completed are slim if they exist at all. It is clear that the government in the United States recognizes all the pitfalls I have set out and that the President of the United States has quite clearly set out for his own Congress the fact that they cannot possibly undertake the financing of the pipeline because of a number of factors which I have enumerated.
It is therefore clear to me, and I now suggest to many Canadians, that the decision being taken by the Liberal government today is not in the best interests of Canada. It is that simple, Mr. Speaker. It is that simple.


An hon. Member:: What do you suggest, then?


Ian Deans: I think, instead of talking, if the hon. member had listened, he would have heard. Let me tell him that the learned commentators of the media have set out some very clear positions on this. Almost without exception editors across this country have said that the government's decision is wrongheaded; that the government's decision, if it has to be taken at all, should not be taken now-that it should be delayed and there should be an opportunity for careful review. They have said that if by any chance the decision turns out to be in the best interest of Canada, this should be clear to everyone before the project is proceeded with.
On every open line program, the overwhelming majority of people who have phoned in have made it clear that they want to develop their own resources for their own needs and for the future. There is something wrong with a government that does not listen to anyone.


An hon. Member:: There is something wrong with your party.


Ian Deans: Let me address myself to the mouthy member in the back row. There is an opportunity to do useful things for this country. To begin with, the government should put an end to this now. They should say that the decision was hasty-that they are going to reconsider and make sure that whatever is about to be undertaken is stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Second, the government should make a decision today to build a pipeline from the natural gas fields in Alberta, British Columbia and other parts of the west, to both Vancouver Island and the maritimes. That would provide the shortterm jobs everyone says we must have. That would be a concrete decision and would go toward meeting the third goal.
The third goal would be a move toward reducing the need for importing oil to the east coast, a considerable financial burden to the Canadian public, and would enable us to undertake a replacement program which would allow this government and this country to transfer its dependence from offshore oil to natural gas.
The fourth point is that with those things in place it would be possible to start a concerted effort for economic development across the country because we would have an assured supply of energy from coast to coast at a price that we in Canada could regulate. We would have an assured supply of energy coast to coast that would guarantee that our industry could, if we so desired, be more competitive-could be competitive with anyone in the world.
We should be following the example of other oil producers and other energy producers of using our energy and oil to develop the country where we have jurisdiction so that the people of Canada can benefit.
That is the kind of program that I suggest this government should follow. Unfortunately, the government does not appear to have what it takes to make the tough decisions. It is always easy to turn around and give things away-to go for the buck right now, no matter what the end cost will be. That is what this government has done every year it has been in office. That is why this government will, in historical perspective, stand indicted for the moves taken over the last few days.
They will go down in history known for the sell-out of our natural resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of speaking in this debate which I think is an important debate. I suppose the debate could have taken some other form but the NDP decided to filibuster the adjournment debate and take the opportunity to discuss the advantages or disadvantages of the government's decision taken last week to authorize the construction of the pre-build section of the Alaska gas pipeline.
After about a dozen years in Parliament one begins to understand that whenever someone has a position on which he or she is safe, normally they will come forward with facts and
July 21, 1980

do away with dogma, the doctrinaire attitude and the bombast. But all we had from the hon. member from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) this evening was bombast. He did not deal with the facts. He kept repeating, "You are selling out the resources of this country. You are not protecting the industrial future of this country." He kept predicting, " The line will not be built. You do not have the guarantees."


Ian Deans: You are obviously deaf as well as dumb.


Herb Breau: The hon. member should realize that repeating a falsehood never brings the truth.
What the NDP should come forward with is evidence on which to base their judgment that the announcement last week by the government was as bad as they say. Why do they not come up with evidence on this? All they come up with is dogma and doctrinaire bombasting. 1 know the NDP well enough to know that whenever they rely on bombast, it means they do not have a case.
The NDP members in the country normally stick together. Whenever somebody from the NDP says something in this Parliament, normally at least, on ideological grounds, in principle, the provincial NDP parties agree with them. There are a few NDP members from B.C. here. The critic on this issue is the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). He is here blasting the government and saying that this is a bad decision, that we are selling out the country. But it is funny that the leader of the New Democratic Party in B.C. is not saying that.


An hon. Member:: Yes, he is.


Herb Breau: Here is what he said in the July 18 edition of The Citizen.
B.C. NDP Leader Dave Barrett said Thursday the decision leaves his province threatened by Alberta's access to markets "which naturally should be ours."
He does not talk about too much gas being exported. He is worried about B.C. losing its markets.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Herb Breau: He goes on to say:
The southern section will serve U.S. areas now served by B.C. gas.
He goes on to say that in B.C. apparently this thing is an issue. It is an issue because B.C. is worried that it will lose its markets. He goes on to say:
The prospect of a drive by Alberta to sell natural gas in the market B.C. had staked out is a worry to the B.C. government, facing a shortfall of as much of $300 million in export revenues this year because of a slack U.S. appetite for Canadian gas.
So here we have the leader of the NDP in British Columbia supporting the B.C. government and worrying because this is going to be competition for B.C. gas markets.
Summer Recess
Here we have a group of NDP members saying something totally different. I think that is sheer hypocrisy on the part of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: It is funny that the NDP, a party which normally stands for jobs, more socioeconomic benefits for Canadians, would adopt the position they have on this issue when it has been proven by the competent authority, the National Energy Board, that there is a surplus of Canadian gas. Whenever the National Energy Board speaks in matters which the NDP agree with, they laud the National Energy Board. But all of a sudden because the National Energy Board's facts do not happen to agree with the NDP's fantasies, they do not agree with the National Energy Board.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like the Liberals on December 6.


Herb Breau: Yet when it has been proven that there is a surplus of Canadian gas, the NDP say we should not export it, that we should not go ahead with this pre-build section, we should not create the jobs and industrial benefits which this construction will provide.
For the first time 1 hear the NDP say more unemployment now, less industrial activity now, maybe industrial benefits or prosperity 25 years from now.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) made the suggestion this evening in his speech that instead of going ahead with the construction of this pipeline, we should build pipelines in Canada from west to east. We agree with that, of course. The position of the government is that there should be a gas pipeline from coast to coast. That is the position of this government. But, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain compares this project that we are talking about, involving investments of over $20 billion, the Canadian section of the pre-build alone worth close to $10 billion, with a pipeline from west to east in Canada, the hon. member is really in dreamland.


An hon. Member:: The whole party is in dreamland.


Herb Breau: How can he expect the construction of the pipeline from west to east will create the industrial activity and the jobs which this pipeline will provide?
The amount of gas which will be carried in the pipeline from west to east to serve Quebec and the maritimes. is infinitely small compared to the amount of gas that we are talking about now and the amount of proven gas reserves in Alberta. Why does the NDP all of a sudden, a party which apparently believes in the labour movement, suggest that the labour leaders of this country are now speaking for the unemployed? Whatever is said, written on paper, signed by credible labour leaders in the country, some of whom are from the constituency of the member who preceded me, namely the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain who is now saying that is not important, that they do not know what the hell they are talking about-

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess


An hon. Member:: They are in Disney World.


Herb Breau: I have copies of a few telegrams here. One is from Mr. Stewart Cooke, District No. 6, Director, United Steelworkers of America in Ontario, who says:
On behalf of the 100,000 members of the United Steelworkers of America in Ontario, I wish to add my voice to that of Director Len Stevens, District No. 3, of the United Steelworkers of America, urging the government to proceed with the Foothills Alaska highway natural gas pipeline.
I have three other telegrams from labour leaders in the country.


Walter David Baker: Who are they?


Herb Breau: There is one from a Mr. Norm Rousseau, representing the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 103.


An hon. Member:: Read it out, Herb.


Herb Breau: I have another one from Mr. Len Stevens.


Bob Rae: Read it out.


An hon. Member:: Read them all out.


Herb Breau: Do I understand that the hon. members from the New Democratic Party cannot read? Do they want me to repeat the telegram for them? The telegram from Mr. Rousseau, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers reads as follows:
Our brotherhood is deeply concerned with the possible hold-up of the pre-build of the Foothills pipeline. We need the jobs here in Stratford to build the compressors and turbines.


Mr. Chenier:: What do you think of that?


Herb Breau: The NDP does not agree with that.


An hon. Member:: What do you say about that, Bob?


An hon. Member:: Read them all.


Herb Breau: The telegram from Mr. Len Stevens, District 3 Director, United Steelworkers of America reads as follows:
United Steelworkers of America, District 3, representing over 30,000 Canadian steelworkers in the four western provinces and the two territories, requests your support of approval for the construction of the western Canadian section of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. Any further delay will only add fuel to the present recession, causing more unnecessary unemployment.


An hon. Member:: Listen, Bob.


Herb Breau: We have had telegram after telegram from the labour movement and industry coming in to the government-


An hon. Member:: Read the rest.


Herb Breau: -urging the government to approve the pre-build.


An hon. Member:: You do not believe it anyway.


Herb Breau: The NDP knows better. The NDP knows better than the labour leaders and the workers of this country. Normally when the NDP says it knows better than industry, one can excuse its members because they do not know how the economy works or how the industry works.


An hon. Member:: But you do?


Herb Breau: But when the NDP is suggesting that the labour leaders of the country do not know what they are talking about, really I think the NDP has gone overboard.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party does not understand. There was a delay in the proposed pipeline to move natural gas from Alaska to the United States through Canada. There was a delay in the original design of this project for certain reasons that are entirely outside the control of the Government of Canada and of the Canadian company responsible for construction within Canada.
And the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had not gone ahead with the approval of that section of the pipeline called the pre-build, those delays would have meant that Foothills (Yukon) would have found it impossible in the present circumstances to meet the requirements to set up the financing of the line within Canada unless the Government of Canada approved that construction. Once the Canadian energy agency said there was a surplus of natural gas in Canada, the export of that natural gas meant more money for the Alberta producers who are now in a situation where they have shut-in gas that is capped; that gas cannot be exported, so this decision allows the export of more natural gas, but it also allows Foothills Pipelines to generate revenues and pay not only for the pre-build now but the whole section of the pipeline that will be on Canadian territory. And without that decision at this moment, Mr. Speaker, we were running the risk that this project, at least as far as the Canadian section is concerned, might never take place, but the NDP were prepared to run that risk.
Mr. Speaker, the surplus of natural gas in Canada as indicated not by just anybody, not simply by Liberal members, not simply by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), but by the National Energy Board which made an appropriate study, the competent authority in Canada on energy-that agency said we now had in Canada a surplus of about 4.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Mr. Speaker, the NDP say we are selling out Canada. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? 1 checked how much surplus natural gas Canada has and here are the figures obtained from the National Energy Board. The export commitment for the pre-build, which was authorized last week and which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced in the House last week, will mean 2.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas between 1980 and 1987. At the present time, up to 1980, the total gas export commitments allowed in Canada amount
July 21, 1980

to 14.5 trillion cubic feet. You will note that we are only talking here about 2.3 trillion, but the total up to 1980 amounts to 14.5 trillion cubic feet.
Canadian needs during the next decade will amount to 21 trillion cubic feet. In other words, total requirements between 1980 and 1990, that is for export and for Canadian needs, will be 35.5. trillion cubic feet. At the present time, western gas reserves amount to 71.8 trillion cubic feet. NDP members are confused by the facts, and because this time the facts are the opposite of what they would like, they are trying to hide them. They speak one after the other and make ideological and philosophical speeches without stating the facts. When they say that there will be a shortage of natural gas in Canada, where do they get their facts?
It is certainly not from the NDP leader in British Columbia, because he is not worried about this decision. What concerns him is that Alberta will now be competing with British Columbia. He did not say that there would be a shortage of natural gas. 1 have said that the total requirement for Canadian needs and exports during the next decade will amount to 35.5 trillion cubic feet. Canadian supplies amount to 71.8 trillion cubic feet, which means that we shall have a surplus in the next decade of 36.3 trillion cubic feet. This means that, in spite of the exports that we have authorized, we shall have a surplus, and this is in addition to new potential reserves of 46 trillion cubic feet. Moreover, these new potential reserves do not include the substantial reserves which can be developed in what is called the deep basin area of Alberta. There are still enormous reserves in that area which are not even included in our potential reserves.
Moreover, to ensure that we shall have adequate reserves to meet Canadian needs in the future, it should be noted that present production for domestic and export markets amounts to 2.7 trillion cubic feet. Natural gas is now being discovered in the west at a rate of over 4.5 trillion cubic feet. Where, then, are the facts used by the NDP, Mr. Speaker? I would like to hear facts-
I heard the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) bombast the government about how we are selling out the resources of this country. Why does he not come up with the facts to show that the National Energy Board has found that we will be short of natural gas in the future? He does not give them, not at all.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Where is the oil?


Herb Breau: I thought the hon. member would know enough about the difference between oil and gas to know that you cannot put oil in a gas pipeline, and we are talking about the gas pipeline. I do not foresee that we will be exporting oil through this gas pipeline.


An hon. Member:: Just give us the facts.
Summer Recess


Herb Breau: I just quoted some figures on the absolute number. What about the test which the National Energy Board has? I again mention that the National Energy Board is the competent authority in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, (Mr. Waddell) who is just arriving in the chamber, will know that a few years back when the National Energy Board began saying there was a possibility of an oil shortage in the future and the government should restrict exports of oil, the then energy critic, the former member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, Mr. Douglas, said that whatever the National Energy Board stated was competent and factual and when the NEB spoke on this matter, the government had better listen. All of a sudden the National Energy Board does not count, the NDP knows better than the NEB.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Herb Breau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is the hon. member aware that the National Energy Board gave its gas price forecast of our surpluses in December, 1979, and the minister came along in May with his policy on off oil-from oil to gas-which will increase our demand substantially? Is the hon. member aware of that? Will he agree that that throws out the forecast of the board?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not have a case. He is bringing in a red herring that does not have anything to do with what I am saying. I am talking about surpluses of gas. I am not talking about oil. If the hon. member has any facts-


Bob Rae: Do you have any facts?


Herb Breau: I hear the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood interjecting. He will speak in this debate. He can give us the facts.


An hon. Member:: He will be speaking a week from next Monday.


Herb Breau: If the hon. member says we are going to be out of gas, he can tell us how much gas we have. When the National Energy Board approves an application for the export of gas, they use three tests to determine whether Canadian requirements can be met by current reserves and if the export should be approved.
I gave the absolute figures a while ago regarding what the reserves are, what the potential reserves are and what the domestic requirements would be in the next decade. The first test is the current deliverability test. It is based on the level of deliveries possible each year from established reserves. For there to be a surplus, the deliverability from these reserves has to be able to meet annual Canadian requirements plus current-

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
ly authorized exports for a minimum period. This period is five years.
The second test is the current reserves test. This test compares the inventory of established reserves with 25 times the first year's Canadian demand, plus currently authorized exports. That is the second test before exports are approved.
The third test is the future deliverability test. It is based on the level of deliveries possible each year from established reserves and from estimated future additions to these reserves. Deliverability from these reserves has to be able to meet forecast annual Canadian requirements plus currently authorized exports for some ten years into the future. The most stringent of the three tests governs the amount of gas declared surplus.
Those are the facts. That is how the National Energy Board arrives at decisions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Who provides the figures?


Herb Breau: If the NDP wants to provide facts to the National Energy Board, all its members have to do is to go to the NEB and produce the facts. If the NDP has facts to show that this is not correct and that the numbers the NEB has found to be surplus are incorrect, why do its members just stand up in the House and make dogmatic speeches? Why do they not take their facts to the NEB and tell the NEB, as Canadian citizens, that the NEB does not know what the facts of the situation are? They do not do that. My friend does not have the facts.


An hon. Member:: You have nothing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You guys are stupid.


Herb Breau: Canadians will always have priority with regard to access to their own gas. That is because, under section 83 of the National Energy Board Act, gas cannot be declared surplus until Canadian needs are met. In addition, new exports will stimulate drilling activity, and more gas will be found.
The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain has said that this decision could endanger the construction of a gas pipeline from west to east because there might not be enough gas. In its decision in December, the National Energy Board set aside ample reserves to protect Quebec and the maritimes before declaring gas to be surplus for the purpose of this pre-build.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: What about oil?


Herb Breau: The hon. member comes back to oil. He loses the debate on gas, so he comes back to oil. If he wants to raise a question about oil, he can do that, and I will answer him, but today 1 am talking about gas.
I have all sorts of information I could put into the record to prove that the NDP just does not have the facts, but let us look at the decision and the benefits this decision will bring to Canada. The total and indirect employment generated by the
entire $8.4 billion pipeline project in Canada is estimated at 350,000 man-years.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Baloney.


Herb Breau: The hon. member says "baloney". He wants workers to eat just bologna because he does not want the pre-build.
There will be capital expenditures of $1.6 billion for prebuilding the western and eastern legs, and gas production, conditioning and gathering systems at a cost of $935 million are estimated by the company to create 150,000 man-years of employment directly and indirectly. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain worries about the future. He does not worry about the workers of STELCO in the city of Hamilton. This is going to create 12,000 man-years of employment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not in Hamilton.


Herb Breau: 1 am a member of Parliament from a high unemployment area in the country. I do not understand how a member from prosperous Hamilton could reject 12,000 man-years of employment. It baffles me.
The export sales revenue from this project will be $17 billion. The change in the gross national product of Canada in 1980 will be .2 per cent. By 1987 it will be .5 per cent. The change in the unemployment rate will be .4 per cent, and the NDP says no. They want more unemployment now to protect tomorrow's prosperity, so they say. The approximate average per year balance of payments will be improved by $2 billion.
Potential Canadian content, something the NDP was very worried about when we had the debate on the bill in 1978, is 90 per cent, and they say they want to help Canadian industry. They do not want to help Canadian industry. All they want to do is to bring forward their doctrine and their dogma. They think they have an issue here with which they can fool the Canadian people, but the Canadian people will not be fooled by the bombastic NDP. There will be Canadian manufacturing benefits of $750 million. There will be Canadian manufacturing expenditures of $400 million. There will be plant expansion of $365 million. There will be research and development amounting to $35 million.
I do not mind staying here a little longer and discussing this because the NDP will be laughed at by the country. I do not mind staying here. I do not mind coming back this week or next week, because if that is all the NDP is going to bring forward as its position, its members will be laughed at. The NDP could tell it all to us now, but its members do not have much to tell. They can be bombastic about everything this evening and keep us here all this week. That does not mean very much, so under Standing Order 6(5)(a) 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That the House continue to sit this day beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment in order to complete its consideration of the motion of the President of the Privy Council now under consideration, including any amendment or amendments proposed thereto.
July 21, 1980


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed to the motion will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: More than ten hon. members having risen to oppose the motion, the motion is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity of getting into the debate on the pipeline question, and if 1 have time tonight, 1 intend to do so, but I would also like to speak, because we are basically on the adjournment question, about another matter first.
Certainly during this session charges and countercharges have been hurled back and forth in this House, and in the press, especially between two successors of mine, the attorney general and solicitor general of Ontario and the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan), respecting the evidence and testimony taken before the McDonald royal commission relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police activity known as Operation Checkmate of the early 1970s.
It is not my intention to deal in any way with the actual evidence which came before the commission relating to Checkmate in either its public or its private sessions, except to say that obviously if the various alleged acts of the police had been committed by anyone other than police officers in the line of duty and the evidence had been brought to the attention of the proper law officers of the Crown, charges would certainly have been laid by now.
As solicitor general of Canada in the Clark administration, my interest was whetted by some newspaper reports of what the royal commission had heard. Therefore, on taking office 1 asked for a series of briefings on what evidence had been heard and what was still to be heard. Due to time strictures, those briefings were not completed by the time I left office, but I did have a partial report on Checkmate. To put it mildly, 1 was more than surprised and angered. That partial report was presented to me in late October just before the then minister of justice, Senator Jacques Flynn, and 1 jointly convened a federal-provincial meeting of ministers of justice, ministers of correctional institutions, attorneys general and solicitors general of all the provinces. Indeed it was the first time that all provincial and federal law officers of the Crown had been together in a single federal-provincial conference.
I must say that I was deeply concerned then, as 1 am still deeply concerned, that my provincial colleagues did not know the full story nor have the full facts on those operations.
Why, one might ask, is it any business of any provincial minister what a federal police force does or what happens before a federal royal commission? It is simply this: in my view a provincial attorney general under our constitution is the
Summer Recess
chief law officer of the Crown charged with the administration of justice for that province and is almost exclusively responsible for bringing to justice anyone, anyone who commits a criminal act in that province. This is very clearly a provincial responsibility. I am also old-fashioned enough to believe that it is the duty of any citizen, no matter what his rank and position, whether he is a royal commissioner, a judge sitting in any capacity, a prime minister, a minister of justice or any other officer of the court or of the Crown, and certainly any solicitor general or any policeman or peace officer, to lay before the proper officials any evidence they may have about anything which could in any way be illegal and certainly any facts or circumstances which could involve criminal activity. Those facts should be given as soon as possible to the person or his agent who is charged with enforcing the Criminal Code in the courts. In this country, that person is the provincial attorney general. In my mind the facts in operation Checkmate indicated to me that at least four provincial attorneys general should have been informed long before I came on to the scene of the evidence that either had been or was about to be presented to that royal commission.
Members should appreciate as well that in most instances a curious solicitor general can find out in advance what is going to be presented to that particular royal commission, because the source for almost all the information that goes to the McDonald royal commission is either RCMP files or testimony from RCMP personnel or ex-personnel. If the facts known to the RCMP were transmitted to my provincial colleagues, as I think they should have been, it then would have been their job and it would be within their discretion to decide what to do with them. That is their responsibility. It is not left to the discretion of the federal Solicitor General, it is not left to the discretion of the federal Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), it is not left to the discretion of the royal commission, but it is at the discretion and the responsibility of provincial attorneys general to decide to prosecute or not to do so.
Ideally that information, with sworn statements naming names, dates and location, all available to the federal solicitor general, should have been collected, collated, and because of the belief that criminal acts had been committed, should have been sent to the provincial attorneys general. The reasons why I was unable to transmit that information to my provincial colleagues in October were fourfold. First, not all of the facts known to the RCMP had been presented to the royal commission. Second, because the commission itself had not completed taking testimony on Checkmate, as I indicated, further acts, or indeed extenuating circumstances, might still be presented to the commission, and therefore, either or both the royal commission or the provincial attorneys general might end up with information denied the other. Third, we were about to convene a federal-provincial conference when the matter could be discussed. Finally, the complete transcripts of the royal commission relating to Checkmate were not available, obviously, because the testimony was not completed. It was the transcripts, not the solicitor general's versions of the facts, that the provincial attorneys general wanted.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
At the federal-provincial meeting at the end of October, to the surprise of some federal officials, but on behalf of the federal government, 1 gave to the provincial attorneys general what 1 thought was an ironclad commitment, to use a hackneyed phrase around here, that as soon as the Checkmate testimony before the royal commission was completed and the transcripts made available, the uncensored, unedited testimony, along with any other evidence, knowledge or facts pertaining to those occurrences in the RCMP files or within the knowledge of the solicitor general, would be turned over to the provincial attorneys general, in advance of any public disclosure of the testimony, so that my provincial colleagues could perform their constitutional responsibilities before the courts and under the criminal law, and also from a practical point of view and for the sake of courtesy, so that they could have a reasoned response once the fat hit the fan. The attorneys general were appreciative. I think they left that conference last October secure, having received the commitment 1 had given them on behalf of the federal government.
Some time around the end of the year I was informed that all the testimony and evidence relating to Checkmate was in and that the royal commission had moved on to other matters. As far as 1 am aware, the Checkmate occurrences were the only, if not the main, allegations of potential illegalities by the RCMP outlined to the royal commission in the period between June 4 and December 12 when the Clark government fell, and therefore comprised the only testimony and allegations that 1 felt I could transmit at that time to the provincial officers of the Crown.
As we all know, on December 13, the government was plunged into a general election. The full transcripts were not received by me before then, or indeed since then. During the election campaign, I believe some time early in January, I was surprised to learn from my departmental official that within a few days, but certainly before the end of January, edited and censored versions of the McDonald transcripts were to be released to the public by the commission, edited and censored, 1 may add, not by the government, not by the Solicitor General, but by the McDonald commission itself.
I was truly incensed. My officials knew, but perhaps did not approve, of my commitment; the royal commission knew of my commitment, although they might not have agreed with it; and certainly the provinces knew of my commitment, and that I intended to live up to that commitment. The relationship between a minister of the Crown and a royal commission is hazy, to say the least. I had no means of enforcing any order, desire or command 1 might want to issue to the commission, and in any event unlike prior solicitors general I had attempted to establish a pretty good relationship with that particular commission. But I certainly did not want those transcripts released until the provinces received them first. If anyone was going to vet anything from a security point of view, that was my job as a minister primarily responsible for national security and not theirs. I strongly believed that as with the commission's first report I would probably have been willing to release the whole testimony, unedited and uncut, to the attorneys
general and to trust their judgment which, quite frankly, 1 am sure is as good as my own and certainly as good as that of any royal commission, confident that matters affecting national security, civil rights or individual privacy would be respected by them-and by "them" I mean the provincial attorneys general.
At my insistence, and I had to insist, the edited versions were therefore not released in January. The whole matter was put off until after the February election at which time, once re-elected and reappointed as solicitor general, 1 had determined to make sure that the provincial attorneys general had all of the information, not just the information the royal commission thought they should have or just the information that a federal solicitor general thought they should have. Well, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we did not win and I was not the solicitor general any longer. I noted with interest that within hours of the change of government severely edited and censored versions of those transcripts were released to the public by the commission and to this day, in defiance of the commitment given by me in good faith on behalf of the federal government, the provincial attorneys general as the proper officers of the Crown have not yet received the full facts or the full, unedited, uncut, uncensored transcripts or any of the facts or evidence contained in the RCMP files on this matter. I can only term this a very real dereliction of duty on the part of the present Solicitor General of Canada and I consider it a very real abuse of the system of Canadian justice and a continuing blow to the reputation, spirit and morale of the members of the RCMP who would, I am sure, whether they are implicated or not, want to get the whole thing over with.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few brief words on the pipeline question. Our policy in the Conservative party has been consistent throughout. Unlike the Liberals, unlike the NDP, our position throughout on this matter, going right back to the time of the original concept of the northern pipeline to take Alaskan or northern gas down through to the states or the southern part of Canada, has been consistent. Sir, we want the full, whole, complete northern pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There is no question about that. It will provide jobs, it will provide investment capital. It will put a spark to the Canadian economy that it badly needs today. It is a facility which can help enormously to develop Canada's northern potential and help solve some of North America's energy problems.
The question before the House comes down to this: What can we do to encourage the building of the pipeline? There are those who state that by going ahead and building the lower portion only, we are removing the incentive to build the line as a whole. This is obviously the view of the New Democratic Party and they are entitled to that view. They may be wrong, but they are entitled to hold that opinion. The government's view is that at a time of economic recession, construction of
July 21, 1980

the pipeline will provide the revenue, the experience, the technology and the expertise needed to move ahead with the whole line at a later date.
Speaking only for myself, I must confess that I am not happy with either position. 1 just wish there was a more recognizable thrust or anxiety on the part of the Liberals to make sure that the whole line is built. I hope we are not being "conned". I think, quite frankly, that the arm of the United States could have been twisted harder, that public and private pressures could have been exerted to obtain those "ironclad" guarantees the minister used to huff and puff about. But the Liberals have not done this. We have no guarantees and, frankly, this worries me. The government, with all the information it now possesses, obviously feels we should go ahead with the pre-build now and with construction of the whole line afterwards. So be it. 1 am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. If that is their policy, we agree to go along with them after earnest consideration. Indeed, I think the mass of the Canadian people is willing to go along with the government's policy now. In deciding upon this procedure, the government is in possession of information which is, perhaps, not available to us. Very well. But the die is cast. The ball is in the government's court. The pre-build will go ahead in accordance with the government's decision. But 1 say this by way of warning to members opposite: If, by any chance, the rest of it, the whole of the northern portion, is not started by the end of 1983, then, to put it mildly, all hell is going to break loose. We will go along with the pre-build scheme only because it is apparent the government has decided that this is the best way to get the whole of the line built. But if this does not happen, if they are pulling the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public, if somehow or other they have been bought, if this is a con job, then by golly, if that line is not started by the end of 1983, 1 say to them: Look out, the assurances of this government will be one of the greatest traitorous "con jobs" ever perpetrated on a trusting Canadian people.
We are going along with the government only because we feel this will be a help, not a hindrance, to the building of the whole line.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this debate. I agree with the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), when he stated that this is the single most important issue to come up at this session of Parliament, but that is where our agreement ends. He sees only the negative side, while I interpret the decision as positive.
In my short time in the House I have formed certain impressions. The role the NDP sees for itself is one of negative criticism. 1 know that our democratic system is based on criticism from the opposition. But opposition should be objectively critical and have positive alternatives to suggest. My impression is that the members opposite rarely have a positive suggestion to offer. Perhaps this is conditioned by the fact that
Summer Recess
they know they are never going to be in a position to govern and therefore need make no positive suggestions.
I submit that a good example of negative thinking was held up last week when the member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) stated that on this issue he was never so proud "as not to be a Liberal". Why wouldn't he say rather, that he was proud to be a member of the New Democratic Party? 1 think the answer is obvious. He cannot be proud to be a member of such a negative party.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, since the members of the New Domocratic Party have been the obstructionists in the House and since they brought in the motion, will they at least follow one word in the title of their party, which is "democratic" and at least be democratic enough to let the hon. member be heard.


Ian Deans: You were the heckler when I spoke.


Maurice James Harquail: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could invite you to demand order. The hon. member is a new member in the House and perhaps the NDP should show sufficient common courtesy through their leader to at least allow the hon. member to be heard. Since they do want to hold up Parliament and hold up the country, and since they do want to create unemployment in this country and since they do want to be absolutely opposed to what they are supposed to stand for, I think they should at least be democratic enough to let the hon. member be heard.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Listen to who is talking about being democratic.


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a Liberal. I am proud to be a member of a party which has men of the calibre of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) who are showing great leadership in this Alaska gas pipeline solution. 1 am proud to be a member of a party which recognizes the importance of jobs which will be created by the immediate construction of the pre-build pipeline.
I am pleased that the community of Hamilton and other neighbouring cities to my constituency will be the major beneficiaries. As a result of the help which this project will be to the steel industry, 1 know that the effect will ripple into my own constituency. Also, on the positive side, there will be new jobs created. This is vastly in contrast to the negative attitude of the NDP, who would rather preserve their right to think they are right than to support a project which would create jobs which we need right now.
I am proud because we are giving encouragement to those people in western Canada who have faith in our economy and our country. As private entrepreneurs, they have found gas in abundance and can now market that gas and begin to get a return on their investment, thus creating the possibility for them to stay in Canada as viable Canadian companies and to have the capital resources to further their successes by finding more oil and gas. This will ultimately help to ensure our energy independence.

July 21, 1980
Summer Recess
While being sensibly responsive to the need of assurance about the intention of the United States to keep their part of the bargain, we recognize the natural market for our gas. We are aware of the need our neighbour has for this gas and we are willing to share what we have in abundance. Energy disruptions in the U.S.A. are at the heart of American economic problems. It is clearly in our best interest to assist our best ally when it has a need.
I am sure hon. members have heard the quotation "When the United States catches a cold, we in Canada catch pneumonia". Political realism makes it necessary for all countries to be careful and vigilant with respect to agreements and promises. 1 believe that while we may sometimes lose faith in politicians and governments, we must never lose faith in people. For that reason our very survival dictates that we learn to share what we have. Where better to start than with our friends and neighbours? Sharing, once begun, can lead the way to a mutual sharing on this continent which can serve as a model to other parts of the world, places that do not have the basis of understanding which is natural to our two great nations.
I am positive about this pipeline. 1 base my evidence not on the past and not on past decisions, but on the evidence which 1 see now. There is such evidence as even according to the NEB, the volume of Canadian gas that is surplus to our needs and available for export has grown from some 800 billion cubic feet to around 4.5 trillion cubic feet. 1 am impressed by the fact that the United States has said that it has an absolutely vital national interest in securing access to its gas in Prudhoe Bay in Alaska because it represents more than 10 per cent of its total reserves. Tapping these reserves is essential to the United States for security of reliable supply. 1 am impressed because, according to Foothills' calculations, pre-building would lead to direct capital expenditures in Canada of some $1.6 billion-$665 million on the pipeline itself and a further $935 million on associated gas production, conditioning and gathering facilities. Together these outlays would provided an estimated 150,000 man years of employment between 1980 and 1984. These are jobs. I am impressed by the fact that, given the nature of the U.S. assurances, the government has decided that there is minimal risk of non-completion or long delay in the construction of the entire Alaska gas pipeline.
On the other hand, there are substantial benefits which pre-building will provide. Facility and completion of the entire project will bring immediate returns to Canada in terms of jobs, output of producer revenues and balance of payment influences. I do not believe that there can be any doubt that our natural interest lies in proceeding with this important undertaking at the earliest possible date. My mind is made up and convinced by the facts. Do not try to confuse me with fiction.
In contrast, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in no way answered the question with facts, but instead tried to throw up a smoke screen to cover the fact that this party's position will not lose jobs for his riding. He talks about
somebody being phony. Since he brought out the facts, he just confirmed that what he wants to do to the workers in his constituency is what Masters and Johnson is all about.
New jobs are important, the development of industry is important, and the encouragement of Canadian-owned resource development is important. 1 am convinced that the pipeline should be built now by Canadians for Canadians because in the end it will be Canadians who benefit most from this imaginative project.


Mr. Speyer:: Mr. Speaker, may 1 call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order respecting the business for tomorrow and any other days there might be. I put it as a question to the government House leader. Madam Speaker found our amendment which was moved today to be out of order. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated the other day, and the government House leader indicated today, that the government would like to have a debate on the proposition contained in our amendment, so that there could be a vote.
Will the government House leader discuss with the Prime Minister the possibility of the government presenting a motion to this House tomorrow or the next day-but preferably tomorrow. 1 am suggesting a motion which might incorporate the two principles that were in our amendment of today, a financial guarantee for the whole line and the guarantee of a swap or, even better, a bill to amend the Northern Pipeline Act.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to allow the New Democratic Party, with consent, to introduce tomorrow the motion of their choice on the pre-build section of the Alaska pipeline, with such a motion to be voted upon, provided indeed the debate is limited. If such is the wish as 1 understand it of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, we are willing as far as we are concerned, to let that party introduce the motion of their choice in respect of the Alaska pipeline, and have that motion debated tomorrow, with division tomorrow at 9.45 p.m., as requested by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Provided of course the division is automatically followed by a division on the adjournment motion.
1 believe this meets the wishes of the New Democratic Party but requires unanimous consent. 1 am ready to give consent this evening. If this is more or less to the liking of the New Democratic Party, tomorrow at 9 a.m. 1 am ready to meet the House leaders in my office to finalize the formula. There would be a debate on the subject chosen by the New Demo-
July 21, 1980

cratic Party, but a limited debate nonetheless. There is no question of spending the whole summer in this House to please 30 members out of 282. If this is what the New Democratic Party really wants, the opportunity to vote on the pre-build section of the Alaska pipeline, they will have their debate tomorrow, they will have their vote tomorrow, and then we will adjourn tomorrow night. Mr. Speaker, this is what we would be agreeable to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to discuss the matter at a meeting of House leaders but 1 suggest that to propose to a free Parliament that a matter such as this should perforce be dealt with in one day is going a bit too far. We are prepared to discuss the matter tomorrow morning and we will then see what can be done to get a vote on an actual proposition or preferably to put before the House a bill to amend the Northern Pipeline Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 should like to say to the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) who rose to speak in the debate, that he will be recognized on the resumption of the debate on the adjournment motion tomorrow, whenever it occurs during the day.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the question 1 want to raise this evening is relevant to some of the matters that have been discussed today. Indeed, it is rather coincidental.
On April 17, the second day of this sitting, I directed a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) asking whether he maintained the position he took on December 6 last in opposition to the export of natural gas to the United States. I also inquired, in the course of my questioning, about the minister's policy with respect to natural gas and whether he had made a statement that one of his priorities would be to introduce an export tax on natural gas. I also asked him whether, if that was a statement of government policy, it continued to be so.
In response, the minister gave a rather unsatisfactory and vague statement to the effect that the government was looking into the matter. Subsequent to that date, we have had a statement by the minister with respect to the Alaska natural gas pipeline, but we still have not heard from him, by way of a
Adjournment Debate
policy statement on the question of an export tax on natural gas.
I think it would be useful to look back at what was said on December 6 and put on the record again exactly what the minister said at that time when he was the Liberal party critic on energy matters.
1 quote from page 2101 of Hansard for December 6. At that time the minister said:
In our view, exports of natural gas to the United States should be authorized only on the basis of, first of all, an ironclad commitment regarding the building of the whole Alaska gas pipeline. Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing plan and the financing guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
We have had the statement with respect to the assurances of the completion of the total project. But the second interesting ironclad requirement which the minister indicated at that time was as follows:
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 which we might need in exchange for the gas we are now providing to the Americans. That would be the second point.
The minister continued by saying:
The third point is 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 pipeline so that eastern Canada would be fully served in terms of gas service and so that people in the maritimes and eastern Quebec would be assured of getting natural gas at a reasonable price.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, what I consider to be some fairly firm and unequivocal statements made by the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would be interested in finding out on three very important points precisely whether or not he still holds that position. We have heard nothing with respect to the whole question of swaps. That was a fundamental question. We have heard nothing at all with respect to the completion of the natural gas pipeline to the maritimes which was to be financed out of the moneys to be made on the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
The third point is that we had a statement in response to my question by the minister on April 17, with respect to an export tax on natural gas. It can be found in Hansard at page 96, and it reads as follows:
Madam Speaker, I do not recall ever having made such a statement.
He goes on to say:
If the hon. member has such a quote, I would like to see it.
The important words are these:
But this is not part of government policy.
We have had innumerable reports that the minister is seriously considering an export tax on natural gas. He says now that he is considering not only natural gas but an export tax on other resources which are exported out of the country, including electricity. He has been somewhat quieter lately with respect to this proposition because he is receiving a lot of opposition on the latter proposition from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

July 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate
If the parliamentary secretary is going to answer for the minister tonight, 1 would like to know whether or not these items are still fundamental with respect to the Alaska natural gas pipeline, whether we can take the minister at his word- his word has been considered very leniently up to this point but we expect him to be consistent-that an export tax on natural gas is not part of government policy. I would like a clear and unequivocal statement. I would like to have that reaffirmed by the parliamentary secretary tonight.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to the question which the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raised on April 17. I would point out to him that it is that particular question to which I propose to respond, not the new twist which he put to it tonight relating to taxation on gas exports.
I propose responding to him on the matter of substance which he raised on that particular date because we assume full well, knowing the gentleman as we do, that that was his concern, and we shall attempt to address ourselves to that tonight.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources responded to the question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West last April concerning the undertaking that would be required before gas exports could be approved, the minister stated that the government at that time had decided to postpone any action concerning approval of gas exports until a clearer indication was obtained from the United States government than the previous government, led by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), had been able to obtain with regard to the United States commitment to the Alaska pipeline project.
We have now obtained the necessary assurances, subject only to confirmation from the sponsoring pipeline group, that financing can be completed for the pre-build section and for the rest of the pipeline within Canadian territory.
As the minister stated in the House of Commons on July 17, the assurances received from the United States have been expressed in several ways. First, there were the decisions by the federal energy regulatory commission, a U.S. government agency, certifying the pre-building of the western and eastern legs of the northern pipeline system within the U.S. for the initial purpose of transporting surplus Alberta gas and for the transportation of Alaska reserves when the system is completed from Prudhoe Bay.
Second, on June 19 there was an agreement between the major gas producers in Alaska and the northwest Alaskan Pipeline on the sharing of $500 million worth of expenditures to complete the final design and engineering work that will be necessary preparatory to constructing the pipeline and the
various related facilities in Alaska. This was a clear intention of the sponsoring companies to proceed with the project.
Third, on June 19 the oil companies holding the reserves in Prudhoe Bay and the pipeline company also signed a statement of intention in which they undertook to work together to facilitate the financing of the pipeline and related facilities in Alaska with the objective of building the entire system by 1985.
Of course, there have been other assurances since then, including a resolution by the United States Congress and the letter from President Carter to which reference has been made in this House in the last few days.
Based on these formal assurances, and an assessment of the importance of the project to the Canadian economy, the Canadian government has taken the decision to proceed with the project. The widespread support of the government's decision to approve this major pipeline project, and the related gas exports, has been evident in the past few days through many messages of support from a broad spectrum throughout the Canadian economy.
And, finally, may 1 say to the hon. member, yes, you can take the minister at his word.


AIR TRANSPORT-SCHEDULED JET AIR SERVICE TO BRANDON, MAN.
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening on behalf of many of the residents of southwestern Manitoba and southeastern Saskatchewan who have been without air service connecting them with points east and west in Canada. Brandon services a large number of people. The city is made up of about 40,000 people. It services some 130,000 people in southwestern and western Manitoba. It has been without regular scheduled air service to points east and west for a considerable period of time.
Prior to 1969, Brandon was linked to Winnipeg and Regina by turbojet. This service was transferred to TransAir which in turn terminated flights from Brandon in 1972. Since then, the residents of Brandon and area have been effectively stranded when it comes to travelling to either Calgary or Toronto.
When a resident of the Brandon area wishes to travel either east or west, he must somehow get to Winnipeg. If he is going west, he must overfly Brandon in order to get to either Regina or Calgary. Going east, someone living in Brandon has to travel approximately 130 miles to Winnipeg, worry about parking, and board an aircraft travelling to eastern Canada.
Brandon is a very progressive area. A year ago it hosted the Canada Winter Games, and did an outstanding job. In 1982, Brandon will be hosting the Labatt's Brier, an event of national significance. A city which will be hosting that kind of event obviously must have the services available to do a proper job. The city of Brandon has approximately 1,000 hotel units. It is capable of attracting conventions. It is, from my own experience, home of one of the nicest livestock sale pavilions, and
July 21, 1980

when it comes to cattle, it has some of the best breeding stock in Canada.
It seems to me that air service into Brandon would provide an impetus to that area and link it not only with points in Canada but also points in the United States on which we depend for buyers.
Brandon is also an agricultural and a very large commercial centre. It is the centre of a large grain-growing area. The retail sales in the Brandon area in 1979 were some 30 per cent above the national average. To my mind this is all a way of saying that Brandon is a growing and energetic city which needs-in fact, deserves-the added impetus of regularly scheduled direct flights to other Canadian trade centres.
I raised this question with the minister in the House back on May 29 when I had an opportunity to ask him about this. I will eliminate some of the preamble and read into the record what 1 asked him back on May 29, as follows:
Would the minister tell the House and the people of that area what the government's position is in terms of this service, which is very much in need in that important area of Manitoba?
Among other things the minister said the following:
However, I am trying to help matters move faster.
That was nearly two months ago. We have not seen action on this since that time. In a supplementary question to the minister 1 tried to point out to him that this was an urgent matter, and he responded by saying, and I quote:
I would prefer the CTC to make an objective appraisal of the situation, knowing full well that I and the government as a whole can change that decision if judged necessary.
The implication I drew from that was that once the CTC had held hearings and if it was not satisfactory to the people of Brandon and area, the government would be willing to take another look at it. Since then, as I said, nothing has happened.
What did happen when we were the government was that back on November 21 the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), while on a trip to Brandon on which I had the pleasure to accompany him and when he was speaking to the annual convention of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, said that he had cleared the way for regional air carriers to apply for this route. I will read part of the press release which accompanied his speech, as follows:
Without this announcement, Mr. Mazankowski said, there could otherwise have been concern that a licence application for such a service might be rejected by the Canadian Transport Commission as being incompatible with a provision in the regional air carrier policy that regional carriers should not expand as potential transcontinental operators.
By making this announcement the then minister made it possible for regional air carriers to apply for that route without violating the transportation policy of the government. It seems to me that the position of the government should be to set policy, and it should then be the position of the CTC to enforce it or see that that kind of policy is carried out. What I find unfortunate today, despite the fact that there have been 350 petitions from the area in support of that kind of service, is
Adjournment Debate
that this government has seen fit not to push the CTC to set a date for hearings. What we did have a week ago was a situation in which Frontier Airlines, a foreign air carrier based in Nevada, made an application for a route to fly into Saskatchewan to pick up passengers at Saskatoon and Regina and then to carry on to Minot and Denver. This application was made and this route was granted without a hearing. What 1 find disturbing is that in the case of our own country, the government has not even pushed the CTC enough to set hearings. The application before the CTC for this route is made by Pacific Western Airlines. It is a Canadian company which is willing to provide this service on a daily basis without a subsidy.
The air terminal at Brandon is a controlled terminal. There is a new building there. The runways are of sufficient length that the service could be commenced without any additional moneys being spent. There is a small problem. On hot days during the summer, the 737s which PWA proposes to use may not be able to take off at full load and have enough fuel to get to Toronto going east. However, in its submission to the CTC, TWA said this, concerning that rather minor problem:
Operationally, the length of this runway will occasionally impose payload restrictions on a Boeing 737 operation between Brandon and Toronto. However, on such infrequent occasions, the applicant is prepared to make an en route technical stop at Winnipeg on eastbound services between Brandon and Toronto.
We have a situation in which an area of Canada is very much in need of, and deserves, this kind of service but is without it. A Canadian air carrier has applied for this service, and we have a government which is not prepared to go ahead and see that a hearing is set so that a Canadian company can provide services for a very important area of the country. 1 urge the government to go ahead and set a date for the hearings as quickly as possible so that we can have this kind of service which is much needed and overdue in western Manitoba.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the eagerness of Brandon and of the communities surrounding Brandon to obtain jet service to the east and west. I also know that many people in the area have been trying to achieve this objective for some time. I can therefore appreciate their impatience, now that PWA has formally applied to the CTC for a licence to provide the jet services desired.
1 understand that the application was filed with the CTC on January 21 of this year. The fact that the application is still under consideration by the commission makes it inappropriate for me to comment on the case lest my comments be interpreted as prejudicial to an unbiased consideration of the matter by the CTC. All that 1 can say at the moment is that the CTC is required by law to follow certain procedures in considering applications for new air services. For example, the application must be advertised in the newspapers of the area to allow anyone interested to intervene in support of or against the application. These parties must then be given adequate time, as specified in the CTC regulations, to file their interventions,

July 21, 1980
Adjournment Debate
to which the applicant is then given the opportunity to reply. In the case of the PWA application to serve Brandon and Toronto, this process was not completed until late March. The CTC then had to examine all the submissions made, which included complicated arguments about the economic viability of the proposed service. As a result of this examination, the CTC determined and announced in early July that it will hold a hearing in Brandon on the application of PWA. Because of other commitments, the CTC is unable to hold the hearing before the fourth quarter of 1980 and will announce the exact dates as soon as these are set.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-MOVEMENT OF OH. BY TANKER-GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION AT U.S. HEARINGS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my concern is with the proposal to have an oil tanker superport at Port Angeles, Washington. On different occasions since the February 18 election, 1 have asked different ministers about their stand on this in the House. Also I have written letters to the ministers. In neither case have 1 received satisfactory answers.
1 should like to outline briefly some of the reasons why the people in my constituency and all the people on the coast of British Columbia are so concerned about this tanker traffic. First, there is a distinct possibility-perhaps I should say a statistical inevitability-that there will be a major superspill sometime off the coast of British Columbia which will result in ecological disaster.
Dr. Andrew Thompson in his final report for the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry said:
Time is on your side only until a spill occurs; an Amoca Cadiz could ground in Rosario Strait tomorrow.
This is a worldwide problem. Between 1969 and 1973, a total of 82 losses occurred. There were hundreds of other minor mishaps in which a great deal of oil was spilled.
Second, we are concerned about the incremental damage which will come through small spills, through seepage from hook-ups, and from illegal flushing. In many areas, this incremental damage is even more serious than the threat of one major spill, because this is something which is going on day after day, week after week, year after year. It is destructive of marine life.
Third, there is the danger to fishing vessels and other small craft in the shipping lanes. There are numerous instances, in areas where there is tanker traffic, of trawlers and other fishing vessels just mysteriously disappearing. We do not need to have a Bermuda Triangle to explain that sort of thing. In many cases they have simply been hit by supertankers which did not even know they hit these vessels. They just kept going and lives have been lost. I do not want to see that kind of situation prevailing off the coast of British Columbia.
Finally, the presence of a major tanker terminal less than 20 miles from the city of Victoria could create a serious air pollution problem. In his statement of proceedings before the West Coast Oil Ports Inquiry, Dr. Thompson talked about this aspect and said:
It is possible that the emissions from the tankers, docks and storage tanks mixed with the air pollution from the existing forest industry operations at Port Angeles would exceed established standards with such frequency as to place in question the continuing viability of the oil port operations. If authorities enforce air quality standards by closing down offloading operations when violations occur, the resultant queuing of tankers in the Strait of Juan de Fuca could seriously heighten navigation and oil spill risks.
For these reasons and others we are very concerned about this proposal. The government claims to be aware of these facts and has declared its opposition to a superport, but when asked specific questions about the manner in which they are expressing their opposition, when asked what they are doing, they are entirely too casual. For example, in response to my question on April 28, 1980, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) refused to have Canadian representatives present at the environmental hearings held in the State of Washington at its capital in Olympia. He had no answer to give to my request that the Department of the Environment should be conducting independent studies in this area. Two years ago, Dr. Thompson put his finger on the problem. He said:
The public concern in British Columbia is that these negotiations are not being given the priority they deserve.
Liberal policy seems to be best summed up in the phrase "Leave it alone; maybe it will go away, perhaps after the presidential election in November." As I say, the attitude of the government is entirely too casual. For instance, when asked about a Canadian presence at the site hearings in Seattle, the minister said:
The consulate general ... is keeping us fully informed of events and allowing us to assess continually the situation.
I had a similar response from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), but when I asked him in committee to give us an update, he could not do so. I do not expect the minister to be in possession of detailed information on every subject under the sun, but we in British Columbia think this is an important subject, a priority, and that we should at least know what is happening.
So my question is this: What co-ordination is there between the various ministers involved? Who is really in charge here and what is the Department of the Environment doing to help face this threat?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for raising this important issue and pursuing it on a number of
July 21, 1980

occasions. I want to assure him on a personal basis that it is a matter of some concern to me. It is only a year or so ago, April, 1979, 1 believe, that the Kurdistan broke up off the Atlantic coast. One of the results was that several hundreds of fishermen in my own riding of Burin-St. George's found their activities disrupted; they were subsequently compensated for loss of gear but in other ways they were seriously inconvenienced. I fear that should another spill come, it might well involve more than temporary inconvenience or interruption of income. For this reason alone I share the concerns he has raised.
The hon. member said he has not been receiving satisfactory answers. 1 am not sure that what 1 have to say tonight will satisfy him either, though I believe it will satisfy a number of people who may have occasion to hear it.
For this reason, and with the strong support of the government of British Columbia, the Canadian government has publicly expressed its concern about, and opposition to, increasing tanker traffic on the west coast. We have repeatedly made our feelings known to the United States on this matter. For example, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) personally made his position clear to the United States secretary of the interior when he visited Washington back in April. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stated this position to the energy secretary of the United States, Mr. Duncan, when he visited Ottawa last March. Even since then, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) underlined our concerns again during the visit to Ottawa of the former United States secretary of state, Cyrus Vance.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Northern Tier Pipeline for which President Carter has expressed a preference, would be located totally within the United States. Tankers may, if necessary, proceed to and from the proposed oil port at Port Angeles entirely in the United States and international waters.
Adjournment Debate
Hearings under the Washington state permitting process with respect to the Northern Tier proposal are under way and are expected to continue until late this year with a state decision unlikely before the end of 1980. These hearings are long and involved but officials of the Department of the Environment and External Affairs are following them closely. Contrary to the statement made by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, we are sending specialists to the hearings as it becomes necessary.
1 can assure the hon. member and this House that the government is continuing to do everything possible to discourage additional tanker traffic on the west coast. We have also made a number of co-operative arrangements with the United States to reduce the risk to the citizens of the west coast from existing tanker traffic. For example, the provision for compensation for Canadians in the event of a spill of Alaska oil, scientific research into the marine environment and the impact of oil spills, the development of a joint oil spill contingency plan and the installation of sophisticated navigation and traffic management systems are all efforts to reduce the risk.
Finally, we recently signed a vessel traffic management agreement with the United States which, when fully implemented, will provide the Juan de Fuca region with one of the best systems of marine safety found anywhere. While we can never entirely eliminate the risk of an oil spill, we are at least working to increase the odds against it and to minimize the possibility of serious environmental damage.
I would suggest to the hon. member that the examples which 1 have given with regard to the situation can hardly be, "leaving the situation alone", as he phrased it. We are very much on top of the situation and we are conscious, as he is, of the seriousness and magnitude of the problem. We pledge to continue working on these problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.33 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 22, 1980