1980-07-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. 1 am afraid my preamble may be a bit long, but it is very important.
Whereas the threat of extinction of many species of whales is well known, since there is no commercial whaling currently carried on by Canada, since Canada has voted against the moratorium on distant water whaling at the recent meetings of the IWC, in spite of the fact that 16 countries, including the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand supported a commercial moratorium, whereas Canadian officials have routinely ignored the recommendation of conservationists, and whereas the Department of the Environment has been given no role in formulating this important policy, all of which subjects Canada to growing international criticism, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That this House recognize the serious threat posed by commercial whaling to the survival of all species of whales and record its opposition to the actions of Canada in voting against the moratorium at the IWC meetings held yesterday and today in England and that this House direct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to make a statement on motions to explain the actions of his officials.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that the Metric Commission of Canada has a budget of $8 million for the fiscal year 1979-80,
given the fact that the metric commission in Britain has been abolished and given that the metric test centre of Peterborough is returning to imperial measurements in retail food outlets, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That this government immediately abolish the Metric Commission, thereby saving the Canadian taxpayer over $8 million this fiscal year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE DISCRIMINATION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I too rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. Whereas Canada signed the UN convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women last week in Copenhagen at the world conference of the UN decade for women, and whereas it will not be possible for Canada to ratify this convention as long as discriminating features exist in such federal legislation as the Indian Act, the Income Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canada Pension Plan Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instruct the government to introduce as soon as possible such amendments to the Indian Act, the Income Tax Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act and other relevant acts as are necessary to remove existing discrimination against women, thereby enabling the governmment to ratify the UN convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 22, 1980


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, I rise on an urgent matter related to the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), and under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Consumers' Association of Canada is investigating complaints by its members of price rip-offs at the retail level because of metric conversion, and since the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs funds the CAC in order for it to be vigilant on behalf of consumers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House requires the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to table the findings of the Consumers' Association of Canada report and to act on the CAC's recommendations if abuses are found as a result of metric conversion at the retail level.


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 HORIZONS PROGRAM
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker 1 rise on an urgent matter concerning special assistant Sheila Zimmerman's recent questionable dismissal by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) as the alleged author of a letter to Liberal members of Parliament on New Horizons grants, and now a further letter, a copy of which I have here, issued by Bill de Laat, special assistant to the former minister of national health and welfare, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), addressed to all Liberal members of Parliament and dated May 10, 1977.
1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That because the 1977 bilingual letter in the French version gives similar New Horizons grant veto power to all Liberal members of Parliament, as in Mrs. Zimmerman's recent letter, this House declares Mrs. Zimmerman wrongfully dismissed for a system in effect for years and, finally, the House requests a parliamentary investigation of awarding methods, not only for New Horizons grants but all grants under government jurisdiction, for the dual purpose of protecting reputations of ministerial employees and particularly to determine what extent such grants have been and are awarded by ministers against a background of shocking patronage shovels digging into public funds.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INFORMATION
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the systematic use made by the Quebec separatists of the phrase "le federal" to refer to the Canadian government, considering the frequent use of this phrase made by parliamentary reporters of the CBC French network and by the media in general, considering the disparaging connotation that such an overuse gave to the word "le federal", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lapointe):
That this House recommend that press gallery reporters and any other member of the CBC French network news team as well as other French media use the terms "Gouvernement canadicn" or "Gouvernement du Canada" instead of "le federal" to refer to the government of our country in any news coverage or documentary presented to Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last week made the novel and disconcerting statement that, while judges may not vote, it is acceptable for them to retain partisan political connections. This concept is diametrically opposed to longstanding principles of the common law respecting the independence of the judiciary. In view of the fact that one item on the constitutional reform agenda is the reorganization of the Supreme Court of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions as to the political allegiance of each member of the Supreme Court of Canada and whether his proposals for reorganization of the said court will involve the filing

i
July 22, 1980

by the justices of the court of an annual return declaring their respective political allegiance.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Minister of Agriculture has consistently described Canada's beef marketing system as "archaic" and "medieval"; whereas beef producers are busy attempting to produce beef under difficult and trying conditions and have neither the time nor the resources available to research and recommend changes to the system; and whereas the minister has marketing experts on staff and the resources of his department to assist him, 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo);
That this House instruct the minister to prepare and table a proposal outlining his ideas on an up-to-date beef marketing system.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has caused great anxiety and uncertainty for many western farmers by raising the question of whether he would honour a commitment by the previous minister of transport to guarantee service on some 30 branch lines by placing them in the permanent network. In view of the fact that this uncertainty is causing railway and elevator companies to postpone upgrading and maintenance programs until the government makes up its mind, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Transport end the uncertainty surrounding the future of these branch lines by stating that he will not change the status of any branch lines put into the permanent network by the previous minister.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and relates to the meeting to be held on Thursday of this week between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta regarding an oil pricing agreement. I wonder if the minister can tell the House if the Government of Canada, in anticipation of this meeting between first ministers, has prepared a detailed new proposal and whether that detailed new proposal, if prepared, has been presented to the producing provinces?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the government has indeed prepared a detailed proposal which the Prime Minister will discuss on Thursday with the Premier of Alberta.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister declined to indicate whether there is a new proposal after the failure of his negotiations with Mr. Leitch and whether in fact that proposal has been presented in advance to the producing provinces. The minister and the House will recall that the position of the producing provinces is that they want the same net benefits from a new agreement that they would have had from the agreement that was ready for signature by my government. We in this House are particularly interested in knowing whether the people of Canada will have the same net benefits from a new proposal as they would have had from the proposal that was near signature between the provinces and my government.
In light of achieving the same net benefits for the people of Canada, may I ask the minister whether the federal proposal includes some equivalent of a Canadian energy bank or an institution of its kind which can take billions of dollars from multinationals and use that money to help Canadians acquire ownership of energy resources?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to reassure the Leader of the Opposition that the offer-the proposition put forward by the Prime Minister-will be much better for

July 22, 1980
Oral Questions
Canadian consumers than the one contained in the last budget; that should not be too difficult.


Mr. Andre:: Is that an ironclad guarantee?


Marc Lalonde: As far as the other part of the question is concerned, I should also like to assure the hon. member that if any particular bank, to use his expression, is set up it will not be set up at the expense of the Canadian consumer, as the December 11 Conservative budget was proposing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, anyone who would believe what the minister has just said would also believe that a tax on home heating oil is better than no tax on home heating oil.
Let me ask the minister, again in the interests of having the same net benefits for Canadians that would have been realized under the agreement that was ready for signature with my government, if the proposal that is going to be put forward by the Prime Minister-if there is a proposal-includes a refundable tax credit to offset the impact of price increases for low and middle income Canadians?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will have to wait until those discussions have taken place with the Alberta premier and perhaps also until we have consulted with other premiers before we can announce in detail the contents of the proposals put forth by the government. I want to emphasize again, however, that to all intents and purposes the proposal made by the Prime Minister will be of greater benefit to consumers than what was contained in the December 11 budget.


POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT IF FAILURE TO REACH AGREEMENT
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister who confirmed to me several weeks ago that upon the expiration of the current agreement as extended, and in the absence of a new agreement, three scenarios are possible: unilateral federal action, unilateral provincial action, or the normal conditions of market supply and demand.
Setting aside that third scenario, the open market system, either federal action under the Petroleum Administration Act or in terms of provincial legislation the petroleum marketing commission act or the mines and minerals amendment act, obviously in the minister's mind, 1 am sure, raises problems of constitutional validity which would likely necessitate reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Can the minister confirm that these references have in fact been prepared in order that they may be acted upon expeditiously in the event of a failure of a new pricing agreement?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I have to advise the
hon. member that we are still working on the basis of an agreement, not a failure to agree. Therefore, no work has been done preparing references of the type he has mentioned to the Supreme Court of particular provincial legislation.
1 understand that some queries exist because of the constitutional validity of the Alberta acts in particular, but the federal government has not prepared any particular step to take these matters to the Supreme Court at this time. We are working on the basis that there will be negotiations in good faith and hopefully we will be able to reach an agreement. What we are going to propose, we believe, is a fair and equitable deal for the producing provinces. It is a fair deal also for the federal government which needs additional resources to meet its commitments and it is an excellent deal for the Canadian consumer.


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I understand the minister hoping for a new agreement; indeed, I think everyone hopes for that. What I do not understand is why, in the face of a potential horror story within six or seven days following the first ministers' meeting of this week wherein there is no regime in place for pricing, supply or delivery, let alone the impact on the constitutional discussions, no action has been taken in terms of preparing these references in the event the horror story does in fact unfold. Can the minister indicate to the House, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada does not normally sit in July and August, whether discussions have taken place between the Minister of Justice and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or between any minister and the Chief Justice, in terms of special sittings in August?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, 1 would like to tell the hon. member again that this government does not believe in confrontation for confrontation purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Especially you, Marc!


Marc Lalonde: Therefore, we have refused even to consider the possibility that we would not have an agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: If you are a dove, who is a hawk?


Marc Lalonde: We are going to work on the basis of an agreement.
As to the second part of the question, again there has been no consultation that I know of with the Chief Justice. As a matter of fact, I am sure there has been no such consultation between the Minister of Justice and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
July 22, 1980


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the government House leader. Is the government House leader in a position to report to the House on discussions that took place among the House leaders of all parties who were seeking to work out an arrangement so that there could be a vote on the fundamentally important question of a pipeline which is about to be constructed in this country?


An hon. Member:: Is Stanley not talking to you these days, Ed?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well what his party suggested. Last night I offered members of the New Democratic Party in the House to let them have the whole day today, to let them introduce the motion of their choice, with such motion to be voted upon, provided after that vote we could put the motion for adjournment. The New Democratic Party-since the question has been put to me by its leader- suggested two days of debate rather than one, and we have no objection to it.
However, a compromise may be achieved since the hon. member knows that tomorrow as on any Wednesday the House sits for three hours, that is from three o'clock to six o'clock and then adjourns. Thus, if we sit from six to eight tonight during suppertime and, if necessary, later on from ten o'clock to midnight we would then have four additional hours of debate instead of three. Further, as far as we are concerned, we would be prepared to allow the NDP to have one speaker out of three throughout the debate until midnight if necessary, so that with this alternative proposal I am making to the NDP leader, his members would have more time to speak today than they would have had otherwise if the House sat two days as suggested earlier today by them. Since we are talking about a meeting of parliamentary leaders, I do not intend to reveal the contents of these consultations. 1 do not want to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party but I have every reason to believe that the House would rather give unanimous consent to that proposal than to a two-day debate as proposed by the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the government House leader knows very well that we in this party disagree in substance fundamentally with the course the government is pursuing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Will the government House leader confirm that he has genuinely agreed to a two-day debate on a matter
Oral Questions
that is going to involve the expenditure of anywhere from $18 billion to $22 billion? We in this party think that is a reasonable amount of time for a debate and a vote. Will he agree the government party has gone along with that proposal, but that the Conservative party of Canada, because it does not want to be put on the spot, has turned it down?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have no right to reveal publicly the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party during the meeting of parliamentary leaders. It is not my intention to do so. All I want to say to the New Democra*-ic Party is that as far as we are concerned we are prepared to give them the two-day debate they seek. But I will also tell the hon. members of that party that it would be more advantageous if they condensed those two days of debate in one day to finish before midnight, and I think that they would have the support of the Progressive Conservative Party.


UNWARRANTED LIMITATIONS PLACED ON RIGHT OF DEBATE
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Will the government House leader also agree that in the course of the discussions we had indicated that we felt that the limitations being placed during the adjournment debate on the right of members to discuss a number of matters which are inherent in the right of members of Parliament were unwarranted? Will he also indicate to the House that during the discussions it was agreed that a question with respect to the matter could be put this evening, following which the question on the adjournment debate would be put, and that the government House leader was agreeable to that suggestion?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, since the question is put to me by the parliamentary leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, what was said during that meeting is no longer a secret, and I feel more comfortable talking about it. My problem is that I am prepared to subscribe both to the proposal of the New Democratic Party and to the proposal of the Progressive Conservative Party, but they do not agree among themselves. So, Madam Speaker, it is fair to say that we could finish the debate tonight or tomorrow evening whether we agree on the two-day or the one-day proposal. There is no problem, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party or the members of the Liberal party may deal with any other subject because the proposal on the table provided in its terms for the latitude to allow each hon. member to express his views on any other subject, and not necessarily on the northern pipeline.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, since the question is put to me by the parliamentary leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, we are prepared to agree to sit two days or to sit

July 22, 1980
Oral Questions
today until midnight, provided the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party come to an agreement.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM UNITED KINGDOM AND GOVERNOR OF STATE OF ANTIOQUJA, COLOMBIA
Madam Speaker:: May I at this time draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery of an important delegation from the parliament of Westminster, headed by Mr. Marcus Richard Kimball-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: -and also to the presence of Dr. Rodrigo Uribe, governor of the state of Antioquia, Colombia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The minister, because of his position while a member of the opposition, will be familiar with the subject matter covered by the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which was presented to the House last Friday. Because of his present position, he will be aware that the current commitments to all capital projects presently under way are in excess of $10,000 million.
When will the minister be announcing the establishment of a special committee of the House of Commons, as proposed by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and similar to that proposed by the Clark government, to review capital acquisition projects expected to have cost overruns?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am indeed familiar with the material. In fact, I was studying the report of the public accounts committee this morning and I hope to speak to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who is the chairman of the committee, with respect to my conclusions based on the very good work the committee has done. I hope there will be consultations in the very near future.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I thank the minister for those kind remarks. I know he is aware that Treasury Board rules are frequently ignored when it comes to the approval of capital projects. Is the hon. gentleman ready to announce that before final
approval is given to capital acquisition projects, in excess of $10 million, deputy heads of departments and heads of agencies will be required to certify in writing to the Treasury Board that all established procedures, as set out by the Treasury Board, have been followed and, in particular, that the proposal is supported by accurate and complete documentation?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows how supportive I am of the work the public accounts committee has done in this regard and of the work done by the Auditor General. He should also be aware that substantial improvements have taken place in procedures since the specific instances which were studied by the public accounts committee on capital cost overruns. As a matter of fact, the previous government introduced procedures last July with respect to the reporting and control of these projects, and similarly improved procedures concerning major projects are in effect and additional requirements with respect to monitoring these projects were approved by Treasury Board earlier this year. I shall look very carefully at the work of the public accounts committee to determine whether any additional safeguards are required.


AVOIDANCE OF WASTEFUL PROCEDURES REGARDING BUILDINGS UNDER TENDER
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. Given that carrying out changes in a structure after construction has started is costly, time-consuming and wasteful, and given that plans changed several times after construction started on the Calgary airport to the extent of 59 per cent, involving an increase of some 268,000 square feet, resulting in a cost increase of 255 per cent, or $54.4 million, may I ask what the government is doing to make sure that such procedures will not be followed in connection with buildings which are now under tender?


Donald James Johnston: It is apparent when reference is made to material that I have already made reference to during the course of my response to the questions of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra that procedures have changed since the Calgary airport was tendered for some years ago. In fact, one of the requirements of the Auditor General and one of the suggestions which arose from the Spice studies was that all these projects should be based on complete estimates and full information. I understand from the Department of Transport that this is what they are now doing.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The minister will recall that in the public accounts committee it was alleged, and not denied, that the man responsible in the ministry for the fiasco of wasted money at the Calgary airport was not disciplined other than by being promoted and getting an increase in pay. What is government policy now with regard to punishment and retribution in the event of unnecessary waste, carelessness and disregard for accountability on the part of civil servants?
July 22, 1980


Donald James Johnston: The hon. member will recall that one of the recommendations with respect to all these projects is that one person should be held accountable as project manager. That is one of the requirements of the major Crown projects guidelines which have been in effect now for some years. We hope that accountability and the performance evaluation of individuals involved in these projects and the fact that one can point to a single individual as having responsibility will go a long way to correcting the situation to which the hon. member has referred.


IMPLICATIONS FOR ARCTIC PILOT PROJECT OF NATURAL GAS EXPORTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given that the export of gas from southern Alberta will hasten the exploration and development of energy projects in the Canadian Arctic, would the minister agree that the export of environmentally secure southern gas has implications for the timetable of the Arctic pilot project and associated tanker traffic?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would not tend to agree with the hon. member but he might want to elaborate his question. The Arctic pilot project is coming up before the Energy Board some time this fall, I believe. There is a letter of intent with Tenneco of the United States which has been signed in which Tenneco has indicated its interest in buying Arctic gas. I submit we will have to wait until the Energy Board has held its hearings and reached a decision as to whether this application should be entertained or not before coming to any conclusion. But the hon. member may have more he wishes to tell us in this respect.


SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE CLAIMS PRIOR TO NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that in the other place the minister responsible for the pipeline did indicate that there would be implications involving northern development. My supplementary is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. An acceleration in northern development would have serious implications for native people who have outstanding claims against the federal government. Will the minister assure the House that native claims in the north will be justly settled prior to the approval of any massive development projects in the north?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that I have discussed this matter at considerable length with the native leadership and I have appointed negotia-
Oral Questions
tors. 1 have assured them that no development will be approved in areas where the government has jurisdiction or in which 1 have jurisdiction as Minister of Indian Affairs without assurances being given which will not preclude a just settlement of their land claims.

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Does the minister intend to help job creation as was the case in the past, and I am thinking of the Canada Works program? If so, what will be the closing date for project application and what will be the terms and conditions?
[English |


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have announced a direct job-creation program called "Canada development projects". It is my intention to announce the guidelines for that program next week, hopefully on or about July 28. At that time we shall submit to members of Parliament a package of information outlining the steps to be taken, but I can assure my hon. friend that the first principle is that the projects to be selected will apply to every constituency across Canada and will be based upon the views of an advisory group established by each of the members, so there will be a full grounding of local and community review and assessment as to the type of project most appropriate for those local areas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEW HORIZONS PROGRAM
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, as I cannot under the rules question the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to a former portfolio, 1 shall direct my question to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare. I refer to the recent firing by the current minister of her special assistant Sheila Zimmerman as the supposed author of a letter addressed to all Liberal members of Parliament giving them a virtual veto power over New Horizons grants. Will the minister confirm the existence of a further letter dated May 30, 1977, a copy of which I have in my
3200

July 22, 1980
Oral Questions
possession, issued by Bill de Laat, special assistant to her predecessor, addressed to all Liberal MPs and, in the French version, giving exactly the same veto power?


An hon. Member:: Read it in French!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would if I was permitted to do so under the rules; 1 would be glad to read it into the record. That letter gave exactly the same veto power to Liberal MPs as was given in Mrs. Zimmerman's letter, for which she was fired, for being the originator of something she had absolutely nothing to do with. Will the minister explain this situation?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to question the hon. member's attitude and the mud he is trying to throw at certain people and at a program. Facts are always a bit scary, especially when they are quite ordinary and easy to understand if one really wants to. I cannot personally confirm the existence of a memo which was circulating before I was in charge of the department. However, my colleague tells me, and I would have liked the hon. member to have the courage to read this document himself, that this memo, written in French, said textually that if members of Parliament have "any criticisms" to express, they are asked to raise them with whomever they may concern. All I can say is that never since 1 have been in charge has it been possible for an hon. member to interfere politically in any project or program of my department and to try to suppress it or to reduce its funding. The hon. member, who was present at the standing committee, did not have the courage to say what 1 said to the small group of hon. members in attendance. All hon. members of all political parties-


An hon. Member:: The Liberals!


Monique Bégin: Put your seat on the line! All hon. members of all political parties have always received on a regular basis notices advising them of each New Horizons project in their riding. I intend to continue that practice. The false scandal the Progressive Conservative opposition is trying to create is without basis.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INVESTIGATION INTO AWARDING OF GRANTS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, in prefacing my supplementary question, I see no purpose in replying in kind to a defence that is not a defence by distorting and muddying up the picture as the minister has done.


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: So in the hopes there is someone on the other side who may have a little more intelligence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Tell her to put her seat on the line.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: She obviously has her seat somewhere right now-I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I hope the Acting Prime Minister, who often gives very admirably smooth replies, will now also give us something that is not of questionable content. Will he specifically assure the House that cabinet ministers in the future will not be permitted to blame or dismiss staff for things they did not do, the Zimmerman case being an example? In particular, is the government prepared to agree to a full parliamentary investigation of the whole system of awarding New Horizons grants, other grants and even government contracts, to determine the extent that the dry rot of political patronage has eaten into the framework of awarding such things?


An hon. Member:: Yes or no, Allan?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam speaker, I thought the Minister of National Health and Welfare had dealt with the subject carefully and assured the hon. member that these projects are administered in a fair way, and that the citizens of all constituencies, regardless of the political affiliation of their members, are eligible and do receive benefits from the programs of Canada.


REQUEST OPPORTUNITY BE AFFORDED MEMBERS TO PRESENT CHEQUES TO GRANT RECIPIENTS
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the fact that the latest New Horizons grants involved some 20,000 participants and are in excess of $1 million, is the minister prepared to involve members of this House in the New Horizons program in a meaningful way by affording us the opportunity of personally congratulating the recipients and presenting the cheques?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, it is always moving to see a new member discover the mysteries of life. If he uses this gadget, I could recommend that he listen to the interpretation. He would then have understood that 1 have just said that during my first mandate, as well as this one, and if 1 am not mistaken during the five years under my predecessor, at which time the New Horizons program was set up, all members of all parties have received an official notice of each project, by letter, advising them of it. That is very clear. It has always been done. That will always be done. So, will he be kind enough to tell us what new proposal he intends to make? I must admit that in committee I added, about a month ago, that hon. members
July 22, 1980

who are interested in going one step further and in presenting a cheque, provided they do not forget it in the basket on their desk in the House of Commons, are most welcome.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I have one of the releases and it is very pretty. I feel that possibly-


An hon. Member:: You cannot even read the question.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I am sure the minister is not intentionally doing so, but either she is misleading the House or the standing committee.


An hon. Member:: Welcome to the House.


T.A. Bud Bradley: In committee three weeks ago she said this:
So can we conclude that you will all meet your New Horizons groups and give the cheques yourselves; then I will not have the problem.
And later she said:
But do not lose the cheques, because you will be in trouble.
I viewed this as an ironclad commitment of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question.


Walter David Baker: He is coming to it.


T.A. Bud Bradley: I was just getting to it, Madam Speaker. I was wondering if the minister could get up off her apathy and tell us whether or not she intends to carry out the commitment she made in committee.


An hon. Member:: She just answered that.
[Translation]	-


Monique Bégin: Luckily, since my knowledge of English is rather limited, 1 did not understand the expression which, if 1 understand correctly, 1 had better not know anything about. [English]
1 should like to repeat to the hon. member that he started his quotation dishonestly a line too far.


Charles Joseph Clark: Dishonestly?


Monique Bégin: He should have given the context. We were discussing the federal presence in the programs of the Government of Canada for the people of Canada. I said and will repeat that if members knew their New Horizons constituents and the groups in their ridings, we would not have the problem of having to remind them that they exist. We are close to the people and we are not ashamed of saying it.
Oral Questions


REQUESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NATURAL GAS RESERVE IN CO-OPERATION WITH QUEBEC AND ONTARIO
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I shall put my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the importance of natural gas for Canada's future, does the federal government intend, in cooperation with the governments of Quebec and Ontario, to purchase now natural gas from Alberta in order to set up a reserve or bank and keep it for Canada's future, as the government of Mr. Tommy Douglas did in Saskatchewan several years ago?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to remind my friend of the NDP that the government of Saskatchewan is now selling, if I am not mistaken, about 21 million barrels of heavy oil to the United States every year. So the idea of exports is not new. As to the suggestion of the hon. member, I must tell him that we are now reviewing our whole energy policy.
1 hope that when the oil pricing discussions are over, we shall be in a position to announce a whole series of measures which should make Canada self-sufficient in energy and ensure the Canadian people a much more secure supply of oil products in the future, which includes natural gas. So I must tell my friend he will have to wait for the official announcement of our policy to draw a conclusion of the specific question he asked about natural gas.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRICE OF NATURAL GAS WILL BE MAINTAINED AT ACCEPTABLE LEVEL
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He did not reply to my first question, but I shall ask him another one. Because of the decision of the federal government to export natural gas, this energy source will be more expensive for future generations. I would therefore ask the minister if the government will undertake to maintain in the future the price of natural gas at a reasonable level for the consumers and small businesses of Canada.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the price of natural gas will increase, as will the price of oil and this is not because of any exports, but simply because we shall have to pay more for our energy resources in the future. The authorized exports only apply to the resources recognized by the National Energy Board as surplus to Canadian needs, and the billions of dollars so obtained by the country and Canadian business will help us to discover additional resources which will, once again, ensure secure supplies for future generations of Canadians. As for the

July 22, 1980
Oral Questions
oil pricing policy, we are now negotiating with the producer provinces, and i wish to tell my colleague that we indeed want to maintain for natural gas a price which will be lower than the price of oil with regard to Btu's produced. Therefore, in the next decade, it will be in the Canadian people's interest to consume Canadian natural gas rather than any other oil product.


STANDING COMMITTEES
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council and government House leader. Following the numerous requests received in the last few months by the House standing committees to travel in order to hear the representations of Canadian organizations, for instance, several western farm organizations would like the Standing Committee on Agriculture to become more involved with drought-related problems, to show its awareness of the problems and to make suggestions regarding the appropriate special measures to be taken in these special circumstances, can the minister tell the House if he would be willing to authorize the committees to sit outside Parliament, and this, not only during the recesses of the House but also during the session?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, each case is studied on its the merits, and it is up to the House as a whole to decide whether a committee may on request travel or not during normal sitting hours. For my part, each case must be studied on its merits. If the circumstances warrant it, I am convinced 1 will have no objection to a committee travelling even when the House is sitting.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT DECISION ON NATURAL GAS EXPORT TAX
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. At a news conference in Edmonton last week Senator Olson said that an export tax on natural gas would hurt exports via the pre-build portion of the Alaska gas pipeline which has been approved by the federal government. To quote his actual words, he stated that "any tax is disastrous". Furthermore, Senator Olson is reported to have backed up Alberta Premier Lougheed's and B.C. Premier Bennett's joint declaration that
any gas export tax would cause alienation and division in western Canada.
As Senator Olson is a member of cabinet, are we to understand that the government has already made a decision that there will be no export tax on natural gas, or is this another example of Senator Olson resorting to political trickery in Alberta in that he is trying to be on both sides of the issue at the same time?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure my hon. friend would not want to mislead the House or misrepresent what Senator Olson said. I have before me a transcript of what Senator Olson actually said and, I suspect, from which the hon. member has attempted to quote. It says:
I think everybody would make an argument that any tax is disastrous. They don't like it. There is no question about that and I don't think there is such a thing as a popular tax.
So I think my hon. friend has, to say the least, given a very wide interpretation to Senator Olson's statement.


William J. Yurko: Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that the government is still considering an export tax on natural gas even though the minister, in replying to a direct question by the hon. member for Saskatoon West on April 17, indicated categorically that this is not part of the government's policy.
Is consideration of an export tax on the agenda for discussion between the Prime Minister and Premier Lougheed as a trade-off for other price concessions by the provinces?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 am surprised at the reference the hon. member has attributed to me. I suspect, if he looks at Hansard, he will find that I indicated that the government was considering many alternatives and that we were not closing up any alternatives.
As to the exact subject of discussions on Thursday between the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister, I will say only that they will discuss the price of petroleum products generally in Canada, and I am sure that they will want to cover a very wide range of items under this general heading.


NATURAL GAS EXPORT TAX-INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER HAS CHANGED POSITION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I just want to refresh the minister's memory by using his own words without any editorializing. I asked him a simple question as to whether one of his priorities would be to introduce an export tax on natural gas. I asked him whether that is a statement of government policy. The minister responded, "This is not part of government policy". I want to know whether he has changed his mind with respect to that categorical answer he gave to me, or are we observing another flip-flop on the part of the minister?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no change of mind. What I indicated clearly is that when government policy
July 22, 1980

is decided and when cabinet has made a final decision, it will be announced in the proper way. Until the government has made a final decision on the whole issue of energy pricing, gas and oil pricing in particular, we are examining all kinds of alternatives. 1 will leave it at that. The policy has not been determined in a final way until the cabinet has made a final decision.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Last year, 1 think, the federal and Quebec governments had apparently agreed on a modernization program for the pulp and paper industry. A few weeks ago, 1 believe the responsible minister in Quebec stated that by delaying his answer, the federal government hindered at least 15 industries which were very interested in this program from starting major projects. In such circumstances, could the minister inform us today on the progress of the negotiations and the expected starting time of this program in the light of his department's decision?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Madam Speaker, 1 must say to the hon. member that the federal government is particularly proud of this program, not only because it will contribute to modernizing the industry, but mostly because it was designed in answer to a request by the Quebec government for a $90 million DREE subsidy on the understanding that it would be enough for the implementation of that program. My predecessors have agreed to the Quebec government request and paid out that amount but, of course, the government of Quebec now claims that it is not enough. In the circumstances, I have briefed the cabinet on the situation and they will have very shortly to decide whether or not the funds allotted to that program should be increased.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. In view of the fact that the federal government had agreed I think, on $109 million funding, which figure went up to $259 million, I understand the government had to reassess their decision, but can the minister now indicate whether he recommended that the Canadian government share be increased on the basis of the same percentages, 60-40 if I am not mistaken? Could the minister further state whether his government will take a decision on the 15 projects, including an important one, a pulp and paper industry in my parish-and this explains my interest-the best papers in the world, Scott papers, that are still waiting? But how many other industries also are waiting? Would the minister be in a position to state at least when,
Oral Questions
approximately, he could announce the Canadian government contribution to that funding?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, 1 would remind the hon. member that his submission that projects are waiting is not accurate. A year and a half ago the Quebec government asked us for a certain amount. At that time they assured us in writing they would never ask for increases. And today the hon. member is telling me they are waiting for extra funds. So this is not quite accurate.
As far as the second question is concerned, as to when the federal government will announce a decision on that request for increases, I think this should come within two weeks at most.



LABOUR DISPUTES


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. We are into the second day of a disastrous strike and a lock-out which has virtually shut down the entire fishing industry in Newfoundland and which will bring, as the minister knows, disastrous consequences to the Newfoundland economy and potential tragic consequences to the fishermen.
Given the fact that the minister has-and 1 use the word advisedly-a form of concurrent jurisdiction here, surely he must realize that he has a role to play. Has the minister been in touch with the Newfoundland government during the past 24 hours? Does he intend to meet with his counterpart in Newfoundland to determine what role the Government of Canada can play in bringing an end to this disastrous situation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, after the hon. member's questions yesterday, I was informed that the Newfoundland cabinet was holding a special meeting. I felt that I should not intervene at that moment because we would learn from the Newfoundland government, under whose jurisdiction this matter lies, what position they were taking.
I was informed-and 1 hesitate to give this information because it may not be totally accurate-that the Newfoundland government has requested a cooling-off period of 30 days. Both sides would examine the matter for 24 hours and then express their position. I received this information second-hand and it is subject to correction. Just before I came into the House I attempted to obtain the latest information, but I could not reach the person. To answer quickly, I have not been in touch with the Newfoundland government since yesterday afternoon.
Business of the House EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

July 22, 1980



ALBACORE TUNA-APPROACHES MADE BY UNITED STATES NEGOTIATORS

[Stage Direction]
Mir. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Madam Speaker, on the same general area of fisheries, has the minister had time to consider the question raised yesterday about the albacore tuna on the west coast, and has he entered into discussions to find out at least what the Americans are prepared to offer in this particular case?
Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, 1 had some discussions after questions yesterday with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In fact, 1 expect that our officials may meet American officials for a preliminary "tour d'horizon" in the next day or two, and from that we will determine the course of action.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to House business and I suppose that this is as good a time to put it as any. You will recall yesterday that the government called Bill C-44:
An act to amend the Small Loans Act and to provide for its repeal and to amend the Criminal Code.
At that time, because of the inclusion within the matter of the Criminal Code, I reserved my position to consider it. You will also recall, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs requested that we do so. We have considered the inclusion of that aspect of the criminal law. 1 had a discussion with the minister, for which I thank him, in which he indicated that they would look at the operation of that bill after one year to determine how it was being utilized.
I think that he and 1 have some views with respect to the appropriateness of the Criminal Code which we could share privately.
In any event, as a result of that discussion, it would be agreeable, if the government House leader sees fit and considering the statements made to me by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that when we come to the calling of government bills, he call Bill C-44. We are now prepared to allow it to go through all stages. I thank the minister very much for his consideration with respect to this matter.


Mr. Rae:: On this point, Madam Speaker, 1 want to indicate to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that I am sure there are many credit unions and caisses populaires which are grateful for the fact that the Conservative party has decided to change its mind on this critical issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: We are extremely glad that this has happened. I want to indicate to the government House leader that if he does decide to call this particular bill, there will be no objections from this side. We would like to see it go through all readings in one stage.


Yvon Pinard: In view of that understanding. Madam Speaker, I have no objection to the legislation being dealt with today through all stages, without debate or amendment. Hopefully we can come to other understandings within the next few hours.



POINTS OF ORDER


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order in relation to the tabling of documents. I noted that in his response to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) quoted in part from a statement which he said was a transcript of remarks made by his colleague in the other place. Since the minister quoted from that document, would he agree to tabling that whole document in the House?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would be very glad to table the document as soon as I have a copy. Hansard has asked for the copy which I had, and as soon as it is returned I will be very happy to make it available. I must say that it is exactly that, a transcript of a press conference.



MR. HNATYSHYN-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) is present, I will raise my point of order. In the course of the question period I asked him whether or not he still stood by his categorical statement of April 17 which can be found at page 96 of Hansard, to the effect that it is not part of government policy to consider the imposition of an export tax on natural gas.
The reason why I raise this point of order is that in terms of the minister's response he indicated that that is not the position which he now holds. Last night during the late show I asked the same question of the parliamentary secretary who was representing the minister. When I brought the statement of the minister on April 17 and my concern over the subsequent statements made by the minister that the government was considering export taxes on natural gas to the attention of the parliamentary secretary, he told me that I could rely on the word of the minister. Those were his words.
It is not even 24 hours after I received that assurance from the parliamentary secretary, and we now have the minister standing in his place and not only trying to deny that he in fact
July 22, 1980

said that that was not part of his policy, but today completely reversing himself and swallowing himself. The point of order is in the terms of the ability of this House to rely on the word of a minister who purports to speak on behalf of the government on a very important issue, an extremely important issue.
From what the minister has indicated here, he has perhaps misled the House-and I would not suggest for a moment that it was intentional. The minister has made one statement and his parliamentary secretary reaffirmed, as recently as last night, after ten o'clock, that the minister's word could be taken. We now find that his word cannot be taken.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, to say the least, this is a most strange point of order which the hon. member has raised. I hope that you will allow me to put the record straight and very clear in order to show what the opposition is trying to do with statements which were made in this House.
On April 17, several months ago, the hon. member asked me whether it was government policy to establish an export tax. 1 indicated at that time that this was not the case; at that time it was not government policy. I indicated today that when government policy is firm and final it would be announced. That is the position. There is no hesitation as to where we stand on this particular issue. If my hon. friend goes back to my statement of April 17, 1 think it should stand quite clearly.
He attributes a statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Simmons) in this House last night. I should like to read what the parliamentary secretary said-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Read the last sentence.


Marc Lalonde: -as reported in Hansard at page 3188, as follows:
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.
It is no surprise that that government got into so much trouble when it was in office. My hon. friend cannot even make the distinction between gas exports generally and a gas export tax. I think the record speaks for itself. My hon. friend should be ashamed of raising the kind of point of order that he has raised.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Read the last sentence.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read it all.
Order Paper Questions MR. TAYLOR-STATEMENT MADE BY MR. RAE Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, to keep the record straight in regard to statements just made by the hon. member for Broadyiew-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), I should like to point out that on May 6, I presented a motion under Standing Order 43 to this House asking for the repeal of the Small Loans Act. On May 14, 1 questioned the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) and later discussed it with him. He said he would be repealing it at the earliest possible time.
I just thought we should keep the record straight.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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. 545 to 556 inclusive, 865, 944 and 1,039.
I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the Northwest Territories?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the territories?


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a)	(i)	7
	(ii)	76
(b)	(i)	8
	(ii)	115
(a)	84	were approved(b)	731	persons employed(a)	14	were approved(b)	209	persons employed
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.

July 22, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the Yukon Territory?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the territory?


Dennis Dawson: 1. (a) (i) 0 (ii) 0 (b) (i) 2 (ii) 6
2. (a)	1 8 were approved
(b) 121 persons employed*
(a)	2 were approved
(b)	14 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Ontario?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1. (a) (i) 44 (ii) 632 (b) (i)	56
(ii) 625
2. (a) 1,011 were approved (b) 4,604 persons employed*
(a)	58 were approved
(b)	255 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may very slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979. under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1. (a) (i)	13
(ii) 122
(b) (i) 20 (ii) 293
2. (a)	235 were approved
(b) 1,517 persons employed*
(a)	11 were approved
(b)	358 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Alberta?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1 * (a) (i)	14
(ii) 228 (b) (i)	41
(ii) 383
2. (a) 154 were approved (b) 970 persons employed*
(a)	5 were approved
(b)	42 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Manitoba?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1.	(a) (i) 21
(ii) 264 (b) (i) 51 (ii) 863
2.	(a)	248 were approved
(b) 1,706 persons employed*
(a)	18 were approved
(b)	120 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.
July 22, 1980


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Quebec?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1.	(a) (i) 32
(ii) 415 (b) (i) 52
(ii) 666
2.	(a)	2,070 were approved
(b) 11,317 persons employed*
(a)	162 were approved
(b)	1,025 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1.	(a) (i)	16
(ii) 128 (b) (i)	17
(ii) 148
2.	(a)	370 were approved
(b) 2,899 persons employed*
(a)	20 were approved
(b) 239 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Newfoundland?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1. (a) (i)	8
(ii) 117
(b)	(i) II (ii) 119
Order Paper Questions 2. (a)	411 were approved
(b) 5,010 persons employed*
(a)	31 were approved
(b)	453 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of Prince Edward Island?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1.	(a) (i)	10
(ii) 107
(b) (i)	13
(ii) 183
2.	(a) 115 were approved
(b) 707 persons employed*
(a)	134 were approved
(b)	730 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1. (a) (i)	9
(ii) 154
(b) (i) 13 (ii) 227
2.	(a)	493 were approved
(b) 3,651 persons employed*
(a)	227 were approved
(b)	1,723 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.
80088-S8

July 22, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	As of November 15 (a) 1978 (b) 1979, under the LEAP program, how many (i) projects were approved (ii) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province of British Columbia?
2.	For the same dates, under the Canada Works program, how many (a) projects were approved (b) persons were employed as a result of the program in the province?


Dennis Dawson: 1.	(a) (i) 27
(ii) 202 (b) (i) 44 (ii) 335
2.	(a)	557 were approved
(b) 2,893 persons employed*
(a)	73 were approved
(b) 332 persons employed*
*This figure represents number of jobs; actual persons employed may vary slightly.


Mr. Gass: 1.	Will over-the-side sales be permitted by the government and, if so (a) under what conditions (b) who will receive the benefits of such arrangements (c) will guarantees by the government be part of any such arrangements?
2.	Will government officials be involved in the negotiations at public expense and, if so, will the Crown be compensated for its involvement in the negotiations and, if so, by whom?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. Yes.
(a) East coast
"Over-the-side" sales will be permitted in 1980 where potential catches are surplus to the processing and marketing capability of Canadian industry or where no domestic market exists at acceptable economic return to fishermen. The program was initiated at the request of the fishermen, through their representative organizations. We do not permit as part of our general policy "over-the-side" sales arrangements to prejudice the existing markets of the Canadian industry. Preferential treatment is given to countries with which Canada has marketing or other special interests and foreign partners will normally be restricted to countries which do not use the purchases in direct marketing competition with Canadian products. Foreign vessels involved should be from countries which have a bilateral fisheries agreement with Canada. Sales "over-the-side" on the Atlantic coast in 1979 represented approximately one percent of the total landings, and less than 0.7 per cent of total value.
West coast
"Over-the-side" sales will be permitted in 1980 for Pacific hake as this species cannot be delivered to Canadian fishing plants without freezing-at-sea and as only one Canadian freezer trawler is available on the west coast, other Canadian fishermen must have the opportunity to deliver fish using "over-the-side" sales of fish to foreign vessels.
(b)	The benefits will be with the fishermen because they have a market for fish at an acceptable economic return which might not otherwise be the case. The British Columbia fishing industry is also directly involved and benefit from "over-the-side" sales on the west coast.
(c)	As an extension of the department's commensurate benefits policy, a direct allocation of fish which have not been traditionally fished offshore by Canadians, may be granted in return for firm commitments to provide freezer trawlers for a number of months and purchase fish at predetermined prices.
2. Yes-east coast. No-west coast. The Crown on the east coast will be largely compensated as the harvesting of the direct allocation, as per 1(c), will generate revenues, as an example, in the maritimes arrangement of approximately $125,000 as the foreign vessels will be required to pay all foreign access and fishing fees in accordance with Canadian regulations.


Mr. MacKay: What is the planned advertising budget for the 1981 census and have advertising firms been selected and, if so, what are their names?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: There is no planned advertising budget for the 1981 census. As a consequence, no firms have been selected to handle paid advertising. There are, however, plans for a public relations program which will in part seek free public service advertising. To assist in the program, four public relations firms have been selected. Contracts are in process for the following values:
Saga Communications Limited, St. John's	$ 18,400
Public and Industrial Relations, Toronto	$324,500
Francis, Williams & Johnson Limited,
Calgary	$	38,300
Wordsnorth Communications Services Limited,
Winnipeg	$s38,300


PROMOTIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss MacDonald: 1. How many foreign service officers in the Department of External Affairs classified as (a) FS-1 (b) FS-2 (c) FS-3 (d) FS-4 were (i) eligible for promotion (ii) promoted in each year 1970 to 1979?
July 22, 1980

Small Loans Act
2. In the department, what was the average number of years of experience among those promoted from (a) FS-I to FS-2 (b) FS-2 to FS-3 (c) FS-3 to FS-4 for each year 1970 to 1979?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Due to a public service requirement to destroy promotion competition records, the Department of External Affairs is only able to provide information on the number of foreign service officers eligible for promotion and actually promoted for the years 1976 to 1979.
	1976	
Promotion	Eligible Candidates	PromotedFS-1 to FS-2	137	44FS-2 to FS-3	153	37FS-3 to FS-4	97	7FS-4 to FS-5	28	41977	FS-1 to FS-2	148	38FS-2 to FS-3	148	38FS-3 to FS-4	86	8FS-4 to FS-5	Nil	No promotions1978	FS-1 to FS-2	137	32FS-2 to FS-3	133	17FS-3 to FS-4	87	11FS-4 to FS-5	28	51979	FS-1 to FS-2	173	17FS-2 to FS-3	Nil	No promotionsFS-3 to FS-4	Nil	No promotionsFS-4 to FS-5	Nil	No promotions
2. Based on a recently completed human resource study of its foreign service officers, the Department of External Affairs is able to provide information for the years 1974 to 1979 during which the average number of years experience in the government on promotion for career officers is as follows:
1974	1975	1976S-l to FS-2 S-2 to FS-3 S-3 to FS-4 S-4 to FS-5	6 years 15.4 years 25.6 years 33 years	5.6 years 14.6 years 23 years 29 years	5.6 years 13 years 22.8 years 30.6 years1977	1978	1979S-l to FS-2 S-2 to FS-3 S-3 to FS-4 S-4 to FS-5	4.8 years 10 years 23 years No promotion	5 years 12 years 20 years 30.6 years	6.3 years No promotion No promotion: No promotion
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, I believe that in the discussion between myself and the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) there is a possibility that she referred to me as being dishonest which, of course, would discredit me in the eyes of my constituents.


Charles Joseph Clark: She laughs at it.


T.A. Bud Bradley: 1 should like to inform the minister that if she were to read the minutes, she would see that not only was I not dishonest but that I was correct and she was possibly questionable when we were discussing singing "O Canada" prior to those statements.
1 should like to inform the minister that I intend to reserve my right to a question of privilege on checking the blues.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance) moved: that Bill C-44, to amend the Small Loans Act and to provide for its appeal and to amend the Criminal Code, be now read the second time and, with consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blaker in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read the third time. Now?


Mr. Knowles:: By leave.


Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, In accordance with the agreement I do not propose to debate the motion, but 1 should like to ask the government

July 22, 1980
Summer Recess
House leader a question with respect to this bill. Now that we are passing it in the House of Commons in the hope that it may soon become law, will the government House leader suggest, or do something else, that the senators come back so that they can pass the bill and it can become law? Surely he will agree with me that for the senators to have gone home until October 15 when this important piece of legislation is before us, is hardly doing their duty.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am convinced that if the Senate had known we would adopt this bill today they would have stayed. On the other hand, I am sure that they will suffer less, politically, for having left last week than any party on the other side of this House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I assume from his answer that the government House leader will bring this matter to the attention of the senators. When he does, I would ask him to inform them that he has our complete support and also the support of the man who wished he could be a senator, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thought my friend and neighbour on Commanche Drive was really a friend. To suggest that 1 would like to go to that other place is as unfriendly a thing as he could say!


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, July 21, 1980, 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 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. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few weeks and days many matters of tremendous importance have come before the House. One of the matters which has concerned me is the administration of the law by the ministers upon whom it is imposed. Specifically, 1 should like to deal with the whole area of discretion exercised by a minister, properly or improperly.
Every minister of the Crown has reposed in him by statute, certain discretions and to varying extents. For example, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) has the ability to choose the method of prosecution in income tax cases. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has the discretion to determine whether to bring a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada even after all judicial remedies have been exhausted. But nowhere is the discretion wider than that reposed in the minister of immigration.
The Immigration Act sets forth standards to guide in the admission of people into this country. Those standards are rigid, and they need to be, but they are general. There are a certain number of cases in which it is important, however, that we relax those standards. That is the purpose of the discretion. That is the purpose whereby a minister is able to give a ministerial permit. Accordingly, a wide power of discretion is vested with the minister of immigration so that he can relieve or give relief to worthy people who want to come into this country and who are not technically eligible under the act or the regulations.
There is no member in this House who has not pleaded on behalf of a constituent or some other person for the right of that person to be admitted to Canada even though in the circumstances he is technically disqualified. 1 say to this House that every minister, especially the minister of immigration, has to have a sense of compassion and a sense of humanity to deal with cases which, on their facts, cry out for admission. However, there are certain cases in which a minister abuses that right and abuses that discretion.
There has never been any necessary correlation between, on the one hand, a high degree of intelligence, and on the other, good judgment. How many people in this House have we seen with a high degree of intelligence but no judgment, or a lack of judgment?
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) in this session has consistently set a pattern which has demonstrated, certainly to me, a lack of capacity to exercise good judgment. When a prime minister looks for a minister, what does he look for? He looks for integrity. He looks for intelligence, and above all he looks for good judgment. As I say, we have some compelling examples which 1 shall bring before this House which I say to hon. members have rendered ineffective the minister of immigration's functions because of a serious lack of judgment in a number of instances.
It is far too easy to generalize because we all resort to our own sense of prejudices. We have to be specific and draw conclusions from specific instances. No instance is more compelling than the matter which I have drawn to the attention of the House on a couple of occasions, namely, the Calamusa matter. 1 wish to speak to the facts of this case. I know only certain facts but there are many others which are the duty of the minister of immigration to bring before this House in order
July 22, 1980

that we can have a proper accounting with respect to immigration policy.
Mr. Calamusa is 38 years of age. He has six children, three of whom were born in Italy. He came to this country in 1968. However, before he came to Canada he had a serious and long record of criminal activity in Italy. So that the record is clear with respect to this matter, the RCMP report which is reposed in the Federal Court of Canada shows that in 1961 Mr. Calamusa was convicted of aggravated theft in Cagliara, Italy. For this offence he was sentenced to a term of one year in prison and fined 12,000 lira. He said in his testimony that he only served a period of three months.
In 1962 in another part of Italy he was convicted of receiving stolen goods. He was sentenced to 15 days in jail, and fined 4,000 lira.
He was accused and acquitted of swindling in October, 1963. In 1965 he was again convicted of aggravated theft and jailed for a period of eight months and fined 10,000 lira, with a notation on the record "penalty remitted".
Mr. Calamusa came into this country illegally in 1968. He was expelled from Canada in 1970 because he was not eligible to be here. He came illegally, and as a result of his criminal record he was deported. However, he was not only deported on one occasion, he has now been deported on five different occasions.
In court terms, if a person disobeys an order of the court, we call that contempt of court. Mr. Calamusa has consistently shown an absolute disregard for the administrative orders that we know as deportation orders.
The last time that Mr. Calamusa was deported after a jail term, which 1 will refer to later, as a result of a violation of the Immigration Act, he came back here within days, using another name. He has consistently shown contempt for the administration of immigration law.
Far more significant than that is that Calamusa was convicted in 1977 of counterfeiting. He was arrested for counterfeiting in 1975. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest in 1976 by reason of his non-attendance in court; again a form of contempt of court. In 1977 he was picked up by the Metropolitan Toronto police. He was taken into custody, and he was represented by able counsel. At that time he pleaded guilty to possession of counterfeit money. He was sentenced also on an immigration matter and deported to Italy, but he returned to Canada within days.
There is no such offence known to law as just possession of counterfeit money. There is an offence of knowing that you are in possession of counterfeit money. For members in this House who have served in the criminal courts as prosecutors or as defence counsel, one knows that that is a very unique offence. We are not talking about a person who has committed a criminal offence while in Canada in circumstances where, for example, he might have smoked marijuana or where he might have shoplifted or where he might have committed any number of offences, such as impaired driving; we are talking
Summer Recess
about a person who knowingly had in his possession counterfeit money.
I ask the question where did Mr. Calamusa get the counterfeit money? Does the minister know? Has the minister examined the record completely in this case? We are talking about something in terms of the nature of the offence which is unique. But not only that, we have circumstances where Mr. Calamusa has completely exhausted the legal procedure. After he was apprehended the last time, he was again released on bail. A special inquiry was undertaken. It was one of the most exhaustive inquiries which the Hamilton regional people in the department of immigration had conducted. It lasted about 75 hours. The volumes of transcript are literally as long as your arm. The special inquiry officer decided on all of the evidence that Calamusa, who was again ably represented by distinguished counsel, should be deported.
What did Calamusa do after that? He resorted, as was his right, to the Federal Court of Canada, who turned down his appeal. What did he do after that, I ask? He appealed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration to exercise his discretion. At that time the Conservative government was in power and the minister of immigration was Mr. Atkey. I say thank God that in these horrible and rancid set of circumstances the minister decided that this was not a man worthy to be in this country.
Canada is a magnificent country. It has a relatively small population. Last year we took in just over 100,000 people. There was an exodus of approximately 85 so in my opinion we do not have an immigration problem. Canada is a country that holds out its hands. We are a country of immigrants, all of us. This is a great country and that is why we have so many applications to come to this country, but our immigration policy has to be realistic.
As 1 have said before, Mr. Speaker, there is no member of the House who would rather see a minister err on the side of compassion or humanity than myself. However, these circumstances are so outrageous that they bring the whole system of discretion into a state of disrepute.
There are many other questions I wish to raise with respect to this matter. After the expulsion order came about, we know that Calamusa was residing in Niagara Falls. There are certain compassionate grounds which the minister said he acted upon. One was the fact that Calamusa had three children who were born in Canada. We know that the special inquiry into Mrs. Calamusa indicated that she left Canada in 1972 and, when she returned with her husband, she herself was the subject of a deportation. I submit that played very little part in the decision.
The other matter which the minister brought to the attention of the press and the House when asked to account for his action was that he stated that one of Calamusa's sons had serious health problems. I checked that out. 1 went to the the major cities of Italy, whether it be Genoa, Venice or Rome, colitis could be treated as effectively there as in the Sick

July 22, 1980
Summer Recess
Children's Hospital. We know now that in Winnipeg the young Calamusa does not resort to the hospital there, or at least on the evidence he wanted to be close to Sick Children's Hospital for medical attention.
Many other factors rear their heads with respect to this matter. One which interests me is the fact that Mr. Calamusa drove, apparently without appointment, to see the Minister of Employment and Immigration one Saturday morning in June. He drove with his possessions and his family to Winnipeg. There was no phone call. He did not decide to come to Ottawa, but to attend in Winnipeg. He put forward a story which I am sure in his mind was a real plight. In these circumstances the minister answered in this House that he had a certain sense of feeling for the man, and he asked a respected man in the Italian community, Mr. Bova, what he should do in this regard. He also undertook, he said, an investigation with respect to this matter. I hope that discretion was exercised. The following procedure was adopted by the minister, or at least his department.
This family was conveyed by government automobile, limousine-type service, 100 kilometres away to Emerson. What notice was given immigration officials in the United States, as he was being deported from one sovereign country to another? What notice was given to United States officials as to whether they would accept him as a deportee? He was taken across the border for a period no more than five minutes where he was processed. He was then deported, and he and his family were given a ministerial permit to come back into Canada. This limousine service continued, and they were brought back to Winnipeg.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked certain germane questions of the minister as to whether this is the standard procedure accorded to every person deported to another country. It offends my sense of intelligence to believe that this is standard procedure. Do you take a person across the border, bring him back and drive him and his family back to where they came from? What representations were made in the meantime that were so compelling?
The minister said that the mayor, or at least the council of Niagara Falls, made certain representations on behalf of this man. I would like to know the nature of those representations. There are certain other people who also made representations, and we will speak more about that later. The point is this. In exercising his discretion the minister established a certain set of criteria. The immigration minister has a certain set of criteria.
The minister exercised his direction even with the flagrant contempt that Calamusa has shown towards the minister's department by returning to Canada, even though Calamusa had committed a serious criminal offence while in Canada illegally. As I mentioned in the House the other day, and the minister did not contradict me, Calamusa is subject to investigation, as are other witnesses. The RCMP are in charge of that investigation which is currently being conducted.
How are we to go back to our constituencies where there are so many worthy cases of people with unblemished records, and
tell them that they cannot come into this country? How do we do that?
Let me give by way of contrast a specific case which has occurred during this session. A man by the name of Gunther Seidel, who is now back in Germany, was a constituent of mine. Mr. Seidel did not have an enviable record when in Germany. He had been convicted of assault in 1976 and received a second sentence for carelessly inflicting bodily harm, and was sentenced to ten days in jail. In 1973 he was convicted of theft. He came to Canada with that criminal record. Mr. Seidel was issued permits to work. One time he forgot, he was a day late, and the permit had expired. As a result we had to resort to a ministerial permit.
During the period of time that Mr. Seidel was in Canada, he married a Canadian citizen and they had a child. He was always gainfully employed as a pastry chef. There was no problem there. The only thing was that he was indebted, like many of us here and many other people, to the tune of $18,000. He had never committed a criminal offence while in Canada and had not done anything to disqualify himself. He had married a Canadian citizen and was father of a child born in Canada. When the minister reviewed this matter, he certainly did not show him the compassion that he exhibited in the case of Calamusa.
When we go back to our ridings on Saturday mornings, we see that the bulk of the cases deal with immigration. I cannot speak for all members, but I can probably speak for the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) who has consistently taken a deep interest in the whole notion of immigration. Every member of this House is aware of many tear-jerking instances where people ask us to intercede on their behalf. We go to the minister to plead our case. We plead them personally, by mail, and by walking across the floor during question period. We care; everybody cares. However, if this is the way in which discretion is going to be exercised in future, I am going to send all my constituents to the Winnipeg office of Lloyd Axworthy.
I do not want to be misconstrued in terms of the necessity of exercising proper discretion; it is something that must be reposed. My very serious criticism is this: what type of minister, with such a flagrant set of circumstances, would decide in favour of a person who, in my submission, is not worthy of the compassion which the minister says that he extended? The minister's own department said that for very cogent reasons they would not recommend a ministerial permit. What questions do we ask when we hear about this limousine-type of service to Emerson, over the United States border and back? This is a horrible case in terms of the exercise of discretion.
There have been other cases, for example, the Leary case which though not as serious, is an indication of the same type of faulty judgment on the part of the minister of immigration. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that unfortunately, in terms of his track record since February, the minister of immigration, in the very important area of exercising discretion, has fallen upon bad times, if he ever had good discretion in the first place. There is
July 22, 1980

a nexus between good judgment and discretion. To exercise discretion properly demands good judgment.
Many matters have been raised in the last few weeks pertaining to subjects of great importance. The pipeline has certainly been one of the most pre-eminent topics as it well might be. But I say to this House that we have to keep a keen eye on the type of discretion which is being exercised, not only by the minister of immigration but by those responsible for other departments because the people who have the power to administer our laws are as important as the laws themselves. This is a case where I believe the Minister of Employment and Immigration has done a disservice to the House, a disservice to the Canadian people, and certainly a disservice to himself by such a flagrant misuse of his discretion.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, today's debate on the adjournment motion reminds me of the remarks made by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) who, at the outset, was wondering what he was doing in the House on July 21. I suggest several of our colleagues are also wondering what they are doing here. As a matter of fact, ever since our return on Monday, I have had the opportunity to tour various buildings on the Hill, to meet messengers and others servants of the House, and I have come to realize, from what 1 have seen, that the annual leave of a great many people has been delayed by the stubbornness of the New Democratic party-need I mention it-to extend this session which has proved most productive in terms of the adopted legislation. I am somewhat puzzled by the attitude of that party which always claims to favour employment and the work force. How can it justify its stand when on the one hand it is supposed to favour workers while at the same time depriving them of a well-deserved vacation?
During this session, Mr. Speaker, we have been dealing with indeed quite a number of bills, and I should like to mention some of them which are considered most significant. Of course all bills are important, but among those passed by the House, I suggest that the bill introduced by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to increase the income supplement for senior citizens is probably the most important, for it has made it possible for them to get assistance on top of their pension.
Unfortunately, however, some provinces, at least one I know about-I do not know what is going on in other Canadian provinces but I know that once again in the province of Quebec, senior citizens will only receive a SI5 increase and that the Quebec government will keep part of it, even though the Minister of National Health and Welfare sent a letter to Mr. Lazure explaining that this increase was intended for people in greater need and that the Government of Canada considered that senior citizens needed this $35 increase in the GIS. According to my information, Mr. Speaker, up to now, the situation is still the same, that is they do not actually
Summer Recess
receive the full amount. This is quite unfortunate for the senior citizens, because the Canadian government had decided that this amount was intended for the people in greater need and it is not being fully paid to them.


An hon. Member:: This is PQ piracy!


Jean-Guy Dubois: My colleague here says that it is PQ piracy, Mr. Speaker. That is right on. Each time the Canadian government makes payments to senior citizens, the Quebec government, in this case at least, lays hands on them and deprives the people of part of the money.
During this session, Mr. Speaker, we passed a bill concerning an employment tax credit which was voted by the House, and I was quite surprised to see that only one party was against this bill, namely the NDP. I think that NDP members voted once again against their own interests, because how can they be unaware of the situation? If workers are hired by various employers who benefit from the employment tax credit across Canada, these workers might be members of the CLC, and the wages earned by these workers might accrue to the CLC and indirectly to the NDP, since that party actually gets a very important contribution from the CLC. Therefore they really voted against their interests.
I have seen members of the Progressive Conservative Party during the debate on that legislation make representations, ask for explanations in Committee of the Whole to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and later on, when the question was put after they heard explanations from the minister, they voted with the government in support of employment tax credit program. The only party that voted against was the NPD, and I thought they were voting against themselves.
As far as other bills were concerned, Mr. Speaker, this past year, there has been, of course, the veterans' bill that was sponsored by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). It included substantial amendments granting our veterans very important rights that were lacking under the previous act.
And as stated by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), we have seen in this House since April 14, since the opening of this new parliament, 25 pieces of legislation that were introduced and passed, and I feel that this House can boast to all Canadians that we have been very productive. These were significant measures for the well-being of all Canadians, including, of course, the province of Quebec, all Quebeckers. Clearly then, after that period from April 14 until Friday last, that very productive period, hon. members from the Progressive Conservative Party also were in agreement that we should adjourn.
I listened yesterday to the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who asked what we were doing here. He was referring to the fact that he wanted a few days' holidays,

July 22, 1980
Summer Recess
as a number of other members to go and explain the measures that were enacted in this House to Quebeckers, to Canadians, to people in Saskatchewan, what the purport and the thrust of these measures were, and tell the people in our constituencies what benefits they can expect from these bills. Indeed, several programs were designed for the benefit of the workers. That could be explained. The only party, of course, that would not allow, as I suggested at the outset, the security staff, the pages or the messengers to take a well-deserved holiday, the only party bent on preventing that from occurring is the New Democratic Party who say they require certain guarantees and by the same token question the Congress, decision and President Carter's word.
Mr. Speaker, what conclusion can be drawn from such a situation? Is this normal, given the circumstances, when you look at the situation in which the messengers and other support staff of the House find themselves? I am told there are about 3,000 people working here as members of the House support staff and that probably 1,000 would be deprived of their well-deserved vacation as a result of this systematic blocking or whatever you may call this filibuster by the NDP members.
Is it in fact possible then-and we are praised for that and considered even as being on the workers' side but they are preventing workers from going on vacation. Where is the logic in all that? And they seem happy about it. Mr. Speaker, since April 14, we also had to pass a bill a few days before Canada Day-July 1-on the national anthem "O Canada". I believe it was one of the great moments of the House to see "O Canada" officially adopted as the national anthem of this country, and I remember quite well that on that day, in this House, we sang our national anthem to show that the passing of that bill was really desired by all parties in the House.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in the last days of the session, on July 17 to be more specific, the gas pipeline issue came up followed by the NDP request for guarantees. When we see that the New Democratic Party which is in office in Saskatchewan is against the position taken by the same party here in the House of Commons, we wonder where the logic is in the position taken by the NDP members in the House and we ask what their policy really is. When we refer to the official report in last week's Hansard more specifically that for July 17, and when we think of the economic fall-outs in Canada, the revenues could be used to create new jobs and increase productivity, we find that the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stated, as reported on page 3043:
According to estimates-
-the pre-build section!
-will result in direct capital expenditures in Canada of a total of $1.6 billion, the benefits of which would be fell right across the country in terms of jobs and output.
How can a party which claims to be fighting for the workers of this country be against such a project? That is the question all parties in the House except, of course, the New Democratic Party, are asking, for these members are working against themselves and against the workers they say they are proud to represent. I think perhaps they will have to consult Mr. McDermott, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, to know whether indeed he agrees with them when such investments are made on a national scale. Those people could perhaps help them in the next election campaign so that they can have more money at their disposal. Now they are again voting against them, and thus preventing their financial support from doing its job.
Of course it can be argued also that direct and indirect manpower needs generated by the pre-build and related works could mean 150,000 man-years between 1980 and 1984. What kind of a country can refuse such an investment, such an employment opportunity? I think, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible at this time to refuse that when knowing what guarantees are provided. We read in Hansard, page 3053, what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in this House when answering a question, and I quote:
I have heard one of my friends in the NDP saying that one Congress does not bind another Congress. He knows, or he should know, that there are only two parties in the United States, and after the election there will be either a Republican majority or a Democrat majority in the Congress. What is interesting in this case is that we have the unanimous consent of both parties in the U.S. Congress and a commitment to see to it that this line is completed by the end of 1985.
Mr. Speaker, as matters now stand it does not make any difference what happens in the United States after November, whether the Republicans or the Democrats are elected, they have unanimously accepted in Congress that the line should be completed before the end of 1985.
Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States wrote to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) assuring him that such was the situation. Is the New Democratic Party going to challenge the word of the President of the United States? Many newspapers editorializing on this issue conclude that we have in the House of Commons a party that is challenging the unanimous consent of the Democrats and Republicans in Congress and also the word of the President of the United States.
What sort of logic inhabits those people? I think they are trying to drum up some publicity, but it is turning against them, Mr. Speaker, because much of their credibility is being lost over the situation. Naturally, the west is involved. But what will happen to Quebec and Ontario? Many people have expressed concern over the situation. If we take Hansard for July 17, on page 3062 we find the following in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson). The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) replied, and I quote:
July 22, 1980

I have already indicated that Quebec and Ontario will share among themselves, simply from that first part of the project, $360 million. In addition, when the entire project is put in motion, Quebec and Ontario will benefit from an additional amount of $1.57 billion, for a total for those two provinces of $1.93 billion.
Mr. Speaker, such are the benefits which the provinces, some eastern provinces like Ontario and Quebec, will derive, an industry in Contrecoeur, which is not far from Sorel, I think it is in the riding of Vercheres or Richelieu, was even mentioned. An industry in that area would benefit from a substantial contract to build parts used in the operation of the pipeline. Mr. Speaker, the NDP has taken an unexplainable position. It is unexplainable because of contradictions in their data. This is what the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revel-stoke (Mr. Parker) said on page 3063 of Hansard on July 17, after saying that he is opposed to the project:
1 make that very clear, but I want to ask the minister whether there is any possibility that many of our residents who are not serviced by natural gas can have some of that natural gas for their use.
What can we think about such inconsistency? One day they are against the project and next thing you know they want to use it. What are we to make of such disagreement within their party? I suppose they do not all agree with their position. When I hear so many conflicting statements I think time has come for NDP members to rest. Sometimes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has to restrain those young backbenchers and tell them to keep quiet and stop yelling in the House because obviously they are getting nervous. So much so in fact that they really need a vacation. They have to rest, evaluate their position and seek to reach agreement among themselves.
When we read about it in the newspapers and especially when we go over Hansard on page 3063, I believe they need to hold a caucus not in this House but in their own ridings, and during the recess in order to consider their position and then return to the House to represent adequately the CLC membership from which they get their funds.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the type of guarantees- Thank you, Mr. Rae, 1 see that he is applauding, that he is willing to leave on vacation. Concerning the guarantees they are looking for, last Wednesday during the question period the Leader of the New Democratic Party was asking for guarantees in the House. But when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made his statement, the member was not here. He is often absent but on Thursday night he was not here to ask questions. He had passed the buck to one of his members. Maybe he had learned that President Carter had sent a letter of guarantees and knew of the unanimous agreement of the Congress and the position of the Republicans and the Democrats. Mr. Speaker, he was not in the House to comment on the situation. Why? Because had he been here he would have had to accept the government position and hear for himself what guarantees had been offered. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak about a memo from the Canadian
Summer Recess
Construction Association dated July 17, 1980, which all members of Parliament have received. This memo says the following:
TO: ALL MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
The 25,000 members of the Canadian Construction Association wholeheartedly support the message that the Pipeline Contractors Association of Canada sent to the Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, to the right hon. Joe Clark, to Mr. Ed Broadbent and to Senator Bud Olson on July 16. 1980, which reads as follows:
1 want to put this message on the record.
The Pipeline Contractors Association of Canada believes that pre-building of the southern part of the Alaska highway pipeline should start as soon as possible. This project could stimulate the rather stagnant activities of this sector of the industry and help fight unemployment in Canada. We hope that the Canadian government will authorize quickly the implementation of this project.
(Signed by Gordon R. Hodson, Executive Secretary of PLCAC)
Yours truly,
And it is signed by Mr. R. E. Nuth.
This is a letter sent to us by the Canadian Construction Association, which has its head office here in Ottawa, and which states that 25,000 of its members support the project wholeheartedly. We have here about 30 members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, who are still in caucus or rather, who are holding a real conclave. They have to rest because they must hold their caucus in the House. This is obvious. They want to hold a meeting to see what they will decide because they know that they are losing the floor, that they will lose their publicity, that things are going badly for them, and they feel that they have to-


An hon. Member:: Crocodile tears!


Jean-Guy Dubois: They are certainly going to complain later about the situation. So, Mr. Speaker, I think that in the circumstances I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West, that it is time to go back to our ridings, to explain the bills to the people to show them the telegrams and notes we received from the Canadian Construction Association which has 25,000 members and to make the NDP realize that they are working against their own interests, against the members of the House who are entitled to their vacations, who are working. Out of 3,000 people 1,000 will have no vacation, as I said, and they are asking us when the House is going to adjourn. Those people have been working all year with us and certainly want to take the vacation they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would urge the New Democratic Party to review seriously their position. They should go back to their ridings to see if they have the support of the people who are going to get some advantages as concerns employment, which would surprise me. Those people should tell them to go back home, to have some rest and to explain their views. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that we should adjourn as soon as possible.

Summer Recess


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I plan during the next few minutes to discuss some items-three, four, or five depending on the time-of concern to the people of Bow River and t believe also to the people of Canada. The first one is conservation of gas and oil. We hear much discussion about gas and oil, but there has been very little discussion about the conservation of gas and oil.
The other day I had the opportunity of asking the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question about the wastage of gas from pipelines. Some say we have in Canada half a million miles of gas and oil pipelines. Certainly we have well over 200,000 or 300,000 miles of them, and the law requires that they be traversed in some manner at least once every three years. Many companies are traversing these by helicopter or airplane, and unless oil or gas has leaked to the point where it has spread over quite a large area, it is not discernible. The lines are not walked except in a very few cases. Consequently it is very difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the large volumes of gas and oil lost in this country through complete waste, and yet we ask our people to cut down on their mileage and to conserve gas and oil in every way possible, and properly so.
1 suggest that the government and the corporations of this country set an example for the people by conserving these very valuable resources to the greatest possible extent. The other day 1 suggested one means which has come into vogue with regard to finding gas leaks, and that is through the use of dogs. Many people thought it was some sort of joke, but a large gas company in Texas telephoned my office about three or four days later wanting to get particulars of this method of detecting gas leaks. The Lone Star Gas Company has more than 3,300 miles of gas lines in Texas and the U.S.A. It is now in touch with the Avery Kennels to see what can be done in this regard. Wastage is no joke to the Lone Star Gas Company in Texas, and I do not think wastage from the lines in this country should be a joke either.
It has already been proved that dogs are able to find leaks with very little training. As a matter of fact, in 1978 dogs found ten leaks in a 30-mile line in the Redwater area of Alberta which had earlier been checked by helicopter. No leaks were found by helicopter, and then the line was checked by electronic flame packs. No leaks were found, yet the dogs found ten. How many thousands of cubic feet of gas are wasted through not detecting these leaks and not detecting them at an early stage?
Dogs have been able to do tremendous things. A brother of the dogs at the Avery Kennels is now doing narcotics work with the U.S. government. It is spotting narcotics and doing a splendid job, I am told. In Texas two similar dogs are involved with dope detection and doing a splendid job. If we can use our dogs to help conserve a few thousand cubic feet of gas, that would be a very valuable service to this country. We can talk about conservation all we like, but if we ignore some of the wastage which is apparent, then we lose all credibility with the
July 22, 1980
rank and file of the people who are asked to deny themselves in order to conserve gas.
I hope the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) are prepared to provide a grant which would allow the continued training and managing of dogs so that we can find out what their capabilities are to more distinct degree. Already there are a number of companies which are interested in this particular phase, but they want to make comparisons with dog detection, electronic flame and helicopter methods of detecting gas. The government has a responsibility to take the lead in providing the means for finding these gas leaks. Trans-Canada PipeLines Limited, Saskatchewan Power Corporation, Alberta Gas TrunkLines, Alberta Government Telephones, B.C. Hydro, West Coast Transmission, Norcin Resources plus some other 19 companies in the United States are interested in using dogs to detect leaks. There is a major need for a comparison study and for charts to guide these companies in the detection of gas leaks. It would require a grant of $70,000 to buy the modern equipment and to acquire the knowledge to work it with trained dogs and handlers.

We could also develop the method using flame ionization equipment as well as with dogs. This system has tremendous possibilities. I ask the government to give some very careful thought to the conserving of gas in this way. I am referring to gas which has already been produced and paid for. It is criminal to see it simply being wasted.
The next point of conservation which I have in mind deals with the carburetors in our cars. There was some brief discussion on this matter. My executive assistant, Joe Williams, and I have carried out some research. We find that in Canada the average mileage for a carburetor is 47.1 miles per gallon. In the U.S.A. the average mileage is 42 miles per gallon, and in Japan it is 62.4 miles per gallon. We all know that the weight of the vehicle, the carburetor and the pollution controls are the factors which determine the mileage, of a carburetor.
There are a number of anomalies which exist in this area. I have seen a much larger car give better mileage than a smaller car with the same pollution controls. It would indicate that in many cases, but not all cases, the carburetor is the answer.
Every once in a while we hear of people who claim to have knowledge of automobile companies buying carburetors from inventors. There are inventors who have claimed that they have invented carburetors which could get 50 miles or 60 miles per gallon. Some years ago while working for the highways department in Alberta, I received a letter from an individual in Montana telling me that he had a carburetor which would get 50 miles to the gallon. I was interested immediately and I wrote back to him. Approximately two weeks later I received an answer, and he informed me that he had sold the invention to one of the large automobile companies in the United States.
If these automobile companies are buying inventions, such as carburetors, which are designed to give better mileage, and not putting them in their cars, then it is criminal conspiracy
July 22, 1980

against the people of our country. There are also people in Canada who have claimed that they have invented carburetors, sold them, and then heard no more. There is some indication that the large automobile companies want to keep these carburetors and eventually bring them on the market some years down the road. That is not good enough. We are facing shortages. We are today trying to conserve natural gas even though we have a surplus. We are trying to conserve gasoline because we do not have a surplus.
When an automobile company has at its disposal, if indeed they have, carburetors which would double the mileage per gallon of their automobiles and which they are not using, then in my view that is criminal conspiracy. The government should carry out a very careful investigation into this whole matter, and determine whether or not these auto giants are holding these carburetors. If they are, then they should be prosecuted to the limit because they are certainly not acting as good corporate citizens should in the interests of the country.
The department is now doing something along these lines. They are now providing for an average and hoping to get 26.4 miles and 28.8 miles per gallon respectively by 1981 and 1982 in all passenger cars. We must also ask ourselves why it is that Japanese cars can get 62.4 miles to the gallon. Weight is one of the factors, but the carburetors, 1 think, provide a more complete answer.
The whole matter of conservation of gas and fuel, by whatever means, should be led by the government to encourage our people to conserve. I went into the home of a senior citizen a couple of years ago. It was at the time that the government was asking people to conserve energy. It was a chilly night and the house was cold. The father had a heavy wool sweater on, and his wife was wearing a similar garment, but they were chilly. I asked why their house was so cold. As a matter of fact, I kept my overcoat on. The fellow said, "Well, the government wants us to conserve energy, and we think that we should do our part". They were excellent citizens, trying to co-operate with the government by conserving energy.
When we hear of corporate citizens doing the reverse, it only discredits them in the minds of the people. Conservation is an important item and I do not think that it can be over-emphasized. But let us not put all the emphasis on asking our people to conserve energy before we are willing to do everything within our power to make sure we detect the wastage, whether it be in gas lines, oil lines, carburetors, or the use of the fuel itself.
The second item which 1 would like to discuss is somewhat agricultural in scope. While we were in government our minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), did a tremendous job during the few months he was there. As a matter of fact whenever 1 talk to farmers throughout western Canada, the name of Mazankowski is symbolic with action, sincerity, and help for the people of the land. Some of the things which the hon. member for Vegreville had done while in that position are still paying dividends. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), to his credit, is following along the lines in many areas which were initiated by Mr. Summer Recess
Mazankowski. He is on the same track in many things, but he has slowed down the train.
The people of western Canada want action with regard to the sale of their grain. They are not getting that action as fast as they would like. More hopper cars are coming, and the hon. member for Vegreville appointed probably the top man in Canada with regard to knowledge of the whole transportation system as it affects farming. Dr. Hugh Horner, to do a study on grain transportation.
I had the pleasure of watching Dr. Horner work in the legislature for many years, and I was always amazed at how he kept himself informed on all aspects. He knows agriculture like a book, and he knows the transportation system. If he is given a free hand he will do wonders for the transportation of our grain. The hon. member for Vegreville predicted a 20 per cent increase in sales. Statistics show that there has already been a 17.6 increase this year and that it will likely go to over 20 per cent if things continue to work well.
I think we should pay tribute to people like the hon. member for Vegreville who worked long hours and dedicated themselves to making sure they did something for the people who really needed help.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Our farmers need help. Many of them are living below the poverty line. They are not being paid as much as they should be for their grain. I hope the day will soon come when they receive a cost plus price for the crops they raise. Food is an important item, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot expect them to sell for less than it costs to produce, year in and year out. They should have a cost plus margin of profit in order that they may enjoy the good things of this country. We are making progress, and I hope we can do even better in the months ahead.
Branch lines are another matter of vital concern which the hon. member examined in a realistic way. He said, "Where there are elevators or where there is some sense in keeping a line, then we will keep those lines." He made no bones about it, and the farmers are thankful. If the present Minister of Transport were to accept the program outlined by the hon. member for Vegreville he would be on the right track, but if he starts talking about this line, that line, and the other line for some reason being not relevant to moving grain or coal or whatever has to be moved, he will be doing this country a disservice. Where there are elevators on branch lines that the companies are prepared to keep, elevators to which the farmers have been hauling grain for years, those lines should be kept. They are part of our transportation system and are necessary for getting the grain to market. Every extra mile a farmer has to haul his grain adds to the cost of production and the farmer must, of course, increase the cost of his product if he is to make a reasonable living.
I know of one branch line that was declared valid until the year 2000 under the jurisdiction of the hon. member for

July 22, 1980
Summer Recess
Vegreville, but it is now in jeopardy because his recommendation is apparently not being followed. There are active elevators on the line and the farmers want to haul their grain to them. The elevators are surrounded by coulees and it would be difficult for the farmers to go elsewhere, so I would urge the Minister of Transport to look again at that particular branch line abandonment. He would do himself credit if he were to follow the program initiated by his predecessor. If the Liberal party is looking for credibility in the west, this is one way they could get it-by doing what is right, and it is right to keep these lines operative.
Another matter that concerns me is the problem of level crossings, Mr. Speaker. I learned that at a western hearing the Canadian Transport Commission gave the CNR permission to remove a crossing that has been in service for many years. The village council, the elevator companies and the people in the area cannot understand why. The crossing has been there for 30 or 40 or even 50 years, and is still being used. Indeed, it is still required, but the CNR has been given permission to remove it. I have written to the commission asking for the rationale for moving the crossing, as in my view the decision does not make sense. This is the type of thing that brings discredit on the government, when it permits its appointed board to take such actions. Railway crossings should not be removed simply because the company wants them removed. If a crossing is being used it should be kept.
The next item I should like to deal with briefly is the matter of waste. People bring this to my attention at almost every meeting I hold in my constituency. I should like to deal with three or four items-and I do so respectfully, in the hope that it will have some effect on the program followed by the government.
The first item concerns a fishing vessel. This matter was brought to light by the Auditor General, but it is still in limbo. It is a fiasco that the government should take steps to set right. Apparently Cl DA decided to carry out additional work on a vessel which it had contracted to build for Argentina in 1973 at a cost of $308,000. But it cost an additional $357,000, making a total cost of $665,000. It was then delivered to Argentina but Argentina would not accept it because it was in terrible condition. In 1976 the government spent another $745,000 on it, bringing the cost up to $1,410,000. It was again presented to Argentina and again Argentina would not accept it as it was not satisfactory. Argentina would not even accept it as a gift, Mr. Speaker. In 1976 Cl DA applied to the government and got ministerial approval to spend $3.5 million on another fishing vessel. That second vessel was not acquired but CIDA took $720,000 of the funds allotted for it and spent that money on the first vessel. Now the price of the first vessel was $2.1 million.


An hon. Member:: Is this a true story?


Gordon Edward Taylor: This is a true story, Mr. Speaker. Ripley should have been told about it. In 1978 Argentina again refused to accept the vessel-after Canadians had spent $2.1 million on it! It rests in limbo and now the government is apparently
considering spending more than $2.1 million so that the vessel can be presented as a gift to a country that apparently needs it. If this is an example of CIDA's activities, then it should be abandoned. It should be held accountable and responsible.
Just today the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) asked the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) what was being done to make sure that the extravagance and waste evident in our buildings are curtailed. The minister answered that they were taking steps to appoint a project manager and to do certain other things to keep control and make government accountable. That is fine, but unless we start dealing with some of these items that are bringing discredit on Canada, something is wrong. The government should find out who is responsible. Do they know what they are doing or is some landlubber in charge of building these vessels? The matter should be investigated and whoever is responsible should be severely disciplined.
That is one example of waste that I am sure no member of the government is proud of, and as a Canadian I am not proud of it. We should correct it and make sure that it does not happen again.
Another example is the Calgary airport. I dealt with this subject briefly in question period today. The Calgary airport was started in 1967. As a matter of fact I was employed by the department of highways at the time and negotiated the price for the right-of-way with the Canadian government for the Calgary airport. The land was acquired by 1969 and the federal cheque came to the Alberta government approximately in 1970 or early in 1971. The actual planning started in 1967. The actual construction started in 1974. In spite of that seven-year time span to plan and prepare the plans and get concurrence by everyone involved, construction started only in 1974 and the airport was completed in 1977 and officially opened.
But here is the sad story. We have an excellent airport in Calgary. I am not complaining about the airport. In fact I commend the government for building the airport and having vision for the future in so far as the vision has gone with respect to that airport. What I am complaining about is the lack of planning to the point where alterations and changes are made after a building is under construction. A layman, whether he has ever had a hammer in his hand or not, knows that if plans are changed after tenders are let it will cost additional money. There will be penalties involved, things to change and additional materials to be bought.
What happened with the Calgary airport? In 1974 the plans were ready and the cost was estimated at $21.3 million. The square footage was 452,530. By the time that airport was completed in 1977, the cost had risen from $21.3 million to $75.7 million, an increase of $54.4 million, which is more than twice the original estimated cost. It is an increase of 255 per cent. The square footage had increased from 452,530 to 720,550, or an increase of another 268,020 square feet.
July 22, 1980

These are typical examples of what 1 am trying to point out.
1 know this situation happened in the past and under a Liberal administration, but that is not the point I want to make. My point is that people's money is being wasted. If we had wanted an airport consisting of 720,000 square feet, why was it not planned that way? Why did we not go to the various airline companies before letting tenders. Why did we not get a final plan, let it out to tender, and then stick to it after consulting with all parties involved?
I raise this point for two reasons. First, every year the government is building new buildings, new airports, etc. 1 say let us make sure that we do not change plans once we get the contract under way. Let us make sure we do all that work before, and present a final plan to the Treasury Board and then have the money allotted based on that amount.
When I served on the public accounts committee last year 1 was amazed to hear civil servants, when they were trying to explain this type of thing, say that to alleviate the problem we will have project managers. Project managers have not suddenly been manufactured or invented. In Alberta we had project managers oversee the building of highways in 1950 and in 1960. It was nothing new. The provinces used project managers to oversee construction of public buildings. So 1 ask why has it taken so long for the federal department to have someone on the job responsible for the construction of buildings? Although 1 am not a member of the public accounts committee this year, when I was a member last year 1 asked what happened to the man in charge and there was no answer from the civil servants. Someone suggested he was promoted and got an increase in pay. I do not know whether he did or not, but he should have been fired, and he should have been held responsible and accountable. 1 do not think it is right to simply pass these costs on to the people and just let it go at that. It is the people's money and we, as members of Parliament, are responsible for that.
I have another example of high level spending. When the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) raised the point a few weeks ago in this House about a representative of Canada getting lavish living accommodation abroad, it amazed me. This accommodation was reported to be costing $98,400 per year. The parliamentary secretary to the minister thought that was quite a joke. She wanted to know whether the hon. member thought a representative of Canada should live in a tumbledown shack. 1 say we do not want the admiral to live in a tumbledown shack, but we do not want him to be living extravagantly either.
When I became a school teacher and went into a new district there was a depression on and at that time 1 was on the negotiating committee for the teachers. One of the first things I told the school board was that the negotiating committee should not live above the standard of the people in our region. In other words, we should not have a higher standard of living than that of the boys and girls we were teaching. The school board agreed, and there was no difficulty in reaching an agreement on a fair salary for that time. It was not very much
Summer Recess
in those days. It was $750 a year, but it was a fair salary in the light of all conditions.
This admiral should not be living high and mighty above everybody else. An expenditure of $98,000 does not make sense. There are hundreds of people in this country who are not living in shacks but are living in homes they have worked on and improved. I am thinking of the renters, but these people are not renting at this high price. I was shocked at the minister for condoning this type of thing. That is the most serious part of the whole affair. Our civil servants should not be living high above the average of other Canadians. Certainly we want them to live well. They hold important jobs and are important people. But let us not go completely out of line by paying almost $100,000 a year for living quarters in addition to all the other expenses. In my view that is another example of waste.
There is one other item about which many people may not agree. Nevertheless, it bothered me when I read the report which came out the other day. It indicated that we are spending something like $5,000 a day on entertainment in the House of Commons on booze. 1 think that is going very far. 1 realize a drink might be nice for those who want to have a drink at social events, but $5,000 a day on the average, or $2 million a year on booze, is going too far.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we should get some accountability and respectability to the people. Thousands of Canadians like a drink and do not mind their members of Parliament having a drink, but they object very seriously to this kind of public money being spent on something that is completely unnecessary. That is the sad story of waste which I wanted to bring to the attention of this House.
When the parliamentary secretary supported the extravagance, she said that they realized neither a shack nor a lean-to were suitable accommodation for a man who represents the finest forces in the world. Neither the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville, nor anyone in this House was suggesting that this admiral should have a lean-to or a shack. We want him to live in good accommodation but not at $100,000 a year at the taxpayers' expense.
The next point I would like to raise is the matter of the two languages. We live in a country founded by two peoples, and the language to each is important. I do not find people in western Canada anti-French, anti-Polish, or anti-Hungarian. Our people come from almost every country of the world. I have a cosmopolitan population in my riding. What people object to are the inequalities which come out of these two languages.
I commend the government for what has happened in Alberta with regard to the two languages. Out of the 17 senior executive positions in Alberta, not one is required to be bilingual. That is proper because it is not necessary. We have a comparatively large number of people who speak French, fine people, but they also speak English. There is no need for both languages in that province. Of all the Canadians I know of French origin, 1 do not know one who does not handle English as well as I do, and many of them far better. Therefore there is no need to have the positions in Alberta calling for bilingual

July 22, 1980
Summer Recess
qualifications. That means that everyone in Alberta, of whatever origin or language, can apply for these positions.
Where the inequality comes is that many senior positions in the federal government are designated as bilingual. That is where many English-speaking people feel they are being discriminated against. They feel there is no opportunity for them to ever get to those positions. I know that some positions must be bilingual, and I agree with that. However, I suggest to the government that if we are going to be equal on both sides, it should review the bilingual positions in the federal government in the capital area with a view to seeing whether it is essential that each of those be filled by someone who speaks and reads French as well as English. If that is the case, it immediately disqualifies hundreds of good Canadians who speak English well, but not French. If it is essential, I do not think they can carry the judgment of our people anywhere. If it is not completely essential, we build up an inequality that helps to build up this wall between the peoples of the two languages.
One other item 1 wish to discuss is the teaching of language by the Public Service Commission. I have the 1977-78 figures. At that time $40 million was spent on language training, $6 million in the armed forces and $9.8 million, totalling $56 million spent on language training. There were 18,426 people who took lessons in the other language. Twenty per cent of these were English taking lessons in French and 80 per cent were Canadians of French or other origin taking lessons in English; 3,600 and 14,700, 18,000 altogether. I do not know how many of those people completed the course to the point where they could handle the language.
In teaching school I found that if I did not stop every once in a while and review what was going on, 1 did not know whether I was being successful or not. I suggest that the Commissioner of Languages is an excellent commissioner, a very fair-minded man who is doing a good job for the administration. If the government would give him authority to review this whole matter we could eliminate these small sections of dissatisfaction and inequalities that may be bothering some Canadians of French, English or some other origin.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are giving me the sign that my time is up. Two minutes? Fine. I want to deal with one other item, that of freight. This is of very deep concern throughout western Canada. In Alberta we pay the apex of freight rates, right at the very top. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not quite as bad, but almost.
The other day a farmer said to me, "When I ship wool east I pay freight on that; when I buy back the finished product, I also pay the freight." At the western economic conference, and I wish I had another half hour to go into that, the Prime Minister promised that something would be done about freight rates. So far nothing has been done. I ask the government and the Minister of Transport to give the matter of freight rates top priority if they want to build up some credibility in western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	B


Yvon Pinard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have	B
been some further consultations among House leaders of the	B
different parties in this House. 1 am glad to report that we	B
have come to some agreement on a House order that would	B
read as follows, if there is unanimous consent of this House:	B
Thai at 5 p.m. this day the member for Vancouver-Kmgsway shall propose a	H
motion, without notice, relating to the conditions respecting the proposed	H
summer adjournment of the House;	H
That during consideration of this motion no member shall speak for more than H 20 minutes;	H
That no later than 12 midnight the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings	H
before the House and shall put forthwith and successively all questions necessary	H
for the disposal of the said motion without further debate or amendment; and	H
That, if the motion is negatived, government order (government business) No. H 17 shall be called and the motion relating thereto shall be put and disposed of H immediately without further debate or amendment;	H
Provided that, for the purposes of this order, on July 22. 1980. there shall be	H
no private members' hour this day and the provisions of Standing Order (>( It	H
shall be suspended.	H


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it has been an	I
interesting period for all of us. You will recall that when the	I
period began, there was going to be general debate. We were	I
going to sit here until the cows came home. Now the NDP	I
have decided that they want to go home.	I
It has been an extraordinary day with four House leaders' I meetings and three	caucus meetings	We have worn out the	Irug in the office of	the President of	the Privy Council. I am	Idelighted to consent	to this motion if	for no other reason than	Ito relieve the NDP	of the terrible trauma in which they find	Ithemselves, as they so often do, on both sides of the issue at the I same time. Now they can be tested, so we consent.	I


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my friend, I the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, for the compliment he I has extended to me and to my colleagues, for surely he would I not have said what he did if he thought wc were easily	I
provoked. As he knows, wc are an even-tempered group of men	I
and women. We arc quite used to these taunts and so on. If it I were not for that, he knows that the things he just said could	I
result in someone saying "No" and then the agreement we	I
have reached would be off. Incidentally, I make no charge for I that little lecture to my hon. friend.	I
We have had an interesting day. it is one of the few days I	I
remember where we had four House leaders' meetings in the	I
same day, plus various caucus meetings and so on, but wc have	I
arrived at an agreement among us. I think we understand all	I
of the details of it. Wc are prepared to go along with this I proposition.	I
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is here, and if	I
this proposition is agreed to, perhaps wc could start right away	I
rather then	waiting until five o'clock.	My friend will be	Imaking the	motion and the speeches	will continue. It is	Iunderstood that no one will speak for more than 20 minutes.	IWe will take the break from six to eight for the usual dinner	Itime, but at	twelve o'clock midnight the	debate will be inter-	Irupted for a vote on what we think is a very important motion.	I
July 22, 1980

We would rather have had something more significant such as a bill from the government, but at least this compromise gives the House a chance to vote on whether the government should proceed with the building of the so-called pre-build before it gets certain guarantees. As I say, in the eyes of someone not as mild-mannered as 1 am, that speech might have been provocative. But I refuse to be provoked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have reached an agreement and we are prepared to go along with it. And if anyone accuses me of speaking for a minute or two now in order that my hon. friend from Vancouver-Kingsway can catch his breath, since he has just come over from the Confederation Building, it is an accusation 1 am quite prepared to accept. We agree to this proposal. We hope the five-hour debate which is to take place on the motion to be put by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway will be an important debate in this House, and we look forward to seeing how the members of the various parties vote at midnight tonight.


Walter David Baker: Just one point, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member was obviously asking for consent to begin now, somewhat before five o'clock-that we should call it five o'clock for the purpose of this order. We would, naturally, consent. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has caught his breath now and is ready to proceed.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as there is unanimous consent, I understand that the order of the House which I read earlier is now in force. I congratulate the opposition parties for having reached an agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 think I should seek consent from the House, by way of formality. The Chair takes it as implicit that the debate on the adjournment motion at ten o'clock this evening will not be called.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, hon. members have heard the proposition put forward by the President of the Privy Council. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered.
Northern Gas Pipeline NORTHERN PIPELINES


SUGGESTION GAS SWAPS BE CONDITION FOR PROCEEDING WITH PRE-BUILD PORTION OF ALASKA GAS PIPELINE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway) moved:: That before the House adjourns for a summer recess, the House calls on the government to declare that it will not proceed with the construction of the pre-build portion of the northern gas pipeline until complete financial guarantees for the whole pipeline have been obtained and 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I really do not need time in which to catch my breath. I have not really lost it, although I know some people across the way would like me to lose it.
1 am very pleased to move this motion and, in effect, to continue our discussion. We have already been debating this matter for some time. I am also pleased to say that we in the NDP have decided to end the debate with this motion, to deal with this very important issue and to state our position very clearly. We have stated our position before. We have been stating it all last week. Indeed, I have been raising this issue in this House ever since April 17, namely, that we in the New Democratic Party believe this pre-build should not go ahead unless Canada is guaranteed that later on there will be gas swaps of amounts equal to the gas we sell now at approximately equivalent prices, along with guarantees, ironclad, signed, sealed and delivered, that the whole pipeline will go ahead. That is the position of the New Democratic Party. We don't go this way or that way. It is solid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have been told that I am a grinch. I have been told I have delayed the summer holidays, that I have hurt members' children and all that. Mr. Speaker, had this party not pushed for a debate and kept Parliament here, the Canadian people would never have been able to understand clearly just what the government is doing. We are prepared to have every one of our members speak on this issue. But there is a better way of doing things. The better and more practical way is to make our point clearly, as we have been doing all along in this debate in the last few days, to make it strongly and, further, to make clear by our votes exactly where we stand. 1 might say I am proud of my colleagues, proud of what they have done in connection with this matter.
We often heard it said by members of the Liberal party during the election, in pamphlets and so on, that they are Canadian nationalists, that they are concerned about this country. But it is all talk and no action. The issues as I see them today are very clear. I see an hon. member shaking his finger at me as I say this. The main issue is that the Liberal party is gambling with the future of this country in going ahead with this pre-build. Hon. members on the other side obviously do not see this, but I believe the jury in the country is beginning to understand what is really at stake and just what the Liberal government has done.

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
The government and its supporters are gambling three ways. First of all, they are gambling with our energy security. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), in an eloquent speech last night, showed just how important this is to us as the basis of our future prosperity. But what does the government propose to do? It intends to sell it out to the Americans-to use a phrase favoured by the minister when he was opposition critic-at bargain-basement prices so that people in southern California can continue to use air conditioners.
The second gamble the government is taking is this: it is gambling with Canada's sovereignty.
The third gamble it is taking is with the rights of Parliament. There is a pattern to this, and I believe the country is beginning to see it even though we are only in the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament and it has not lasted very long. They saw the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) sneak in a mini-budget a few months ago. They saw the minister of energy sneak in a gasoline price increase. They saw the government try to sneak in a pre-build of the largest privately financed construction project in history-to sneak it through Parliament in the dying days of the session, to have it rubber-stamped by a senator, to have it considered by the cabinet behind closed doors, followed by a quick order in council and an Alice-in-Wonderland-proceedings before the National Energy Board. They tried to sneak it through Parliament, but we in the NDP will not permit that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This is a high stakes poker game, as my hon. friend from Regina will appreciate. I said the government was gambling with our energy security. They are proposing to export Canadian gas to the United States-not to transport 3.2 trillion feet of Alaskan gas but to export Canadian gas. We say it should have been kept here for use in this country. It is said that we in the NDP are not positive, that all we do is criticize. No. We say it could be banked. Today my hon. friend from Yorkton-Melville asked a question in French. He asked whether the minister had considered Quebec and Ontario and the federal government getting together and saying, "Instead of shipping that gas out we will bank it in Alberta and save it for Canadian consumers." During the debate last night two backbenchers heckled and criticized us. I found it absolutely incredible, since both of them were from ridings in Quebec that have over 15 per cent unemployment and are not connected up to Canadian natural gas. Because of this decision I predict they will probably never get Canadian gas and will have to rely on expensive power. It is incredible the Liberal party cannot see through that.
Instead of exporting gas to the United States, instead of selling it out, we could have extended the pipeline to the maritimes. I know there are maritimers in the jury I spoke about out in the country. I think they want Canadian gas in the maritimes so that they can get off expensive oil. It makes
sense to them, but it may not make sense to the government. The people in my part of the country and in the other parts of the country from where my colleagues come, such as Vancouver Island, rely on expensive imported oil. They would like to have Canadian gas as well. They will not get it soon, if the government does not build a pipeline. The government goes north-south instead of east-west. In our view that is a bad mistake.
It is clear that the government is relying on the energy figures of the National Energy Board. Can we really rely on the figures of the National Energy Board, considering that they are supplied by the oil and gas companies, most of which are not Canadian companies but multinational ones? In September, 1970, the Canadian government, on the advice of the National Energy Board, approved the largest natural gas deal in this country's history. Canada agreed to sell 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States, and it got $2 billion over the course of the contract. Today that gas is worth $25.2 billion, so Canada lost approximately $23 billion for that sell-out.
As a matter of fact, the oil and gas companies told the Canadian government in 1973 that we had enough oil to last 80 years and enough natural gas to last over 100 years. Acting on this information, the government allowed the sale of three billion barrels of oil between 1974 and 1978, and another three trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Less than a year later the industry returned to the Board and claimed that in eight years Canada would not be able to meet its own needs and therefore the industry needed massive tax cuts to find more oil. So, they told the Board one thing, then came back and told them something else. At the risk of sounding repetitive, let me say that a country must be rather silly to make a mistake once, but it must be crazy to make the same mistake a second time.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) asked the minister various questions. He asked, "Why not gas swaps? If we are to sell this gas now, then require them to give equal amounts later on." The minister said that it was technically impossible. The minister has not stood up and told us why we cannot have gas swaps. In fact no front bench Liberal, no cabinet minister, none of the big boys or the heavy guns, have stood up and told us why we cannot have gas swaps. They have not even taken part in this debate. That is what they think of Parliament and the Canadian public.
We asked for assurances from the United States. When the minister was in opposition he asked for ironclad commitments and assurances. There has been a little debate in the country in the last week about those assurances. I want to say what 1 think Canadians think about these assurances. They do not think they are worth the paper on which they are written. One can even be objective in that and say that one congress does not bind another congress, that President Carter does not bind the future president. The point is that it is not binding at all; there is no deal there at all.
We in this party tried to raise in the context of the debate last week and this week that there is a pattern of assurances in our dealings with the United States. Some of my colleagues
July 22, 1980

have raised this matter. The United States is our great neighbour and friend, but in the last few years there has been a pattern. The question is: can we really take these assurances as being there? We can look at what happened to the assurances respecting fisheries, the auto pact, acid rain and the action on acid rain. The point is that we are not getting anywhere. We had a trump card, we had an ace in our poker hand. What did we do? We went down there and threw it away by allowing the pre-build. We could have postponed the pre-build for at least one year, said that we wanted swaps and adequate assurances, and then we could have dealt with the new administration, whichever it is, in the new Congress. 1 submit we could have had that, but the government gambled that the whole line would be built. I do not think it is a gamble worth taking. It is a reckless gamble.
The government gambled with Parliament. Section 20(4) is not very complicated. Perhaps 1 sound like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or some Philadelphia lawyer in saying this, but really that section is quite simple. Parliament authorized the Northern Pipeline Act. It talked about a pipeline bringing gas from Alaska to the lower forty-eight. The government did not come back to Parliament, but it brought in an order in council which did not require a vote or any debate; it just made an announcement. We were the ones who forced the debate. The government was not going to have a debate. By order in council, rubber stamped by the National Energy Board, the government brought in a complete change. It talked about a smaller pipeline exporting Canadian gas to American markets. Last year or the year before, the present Minister of Finance said in the House of Commons that they would consult the House in every part of this act. Numerous ministers, including the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), before the Standing Committee on Northern Pipelines, said that it was the total pipeline, the whole pipeline.
One could cite chapter and verse, not to mention the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan), when he was writing committee reports for the government, said that they should not bring in legislation like this, that they should not do things like this, and that it was wrong for Parliament. I am a new and young member of Parliament, as are many of my colleagues, and do not have a great deal of parliamentary experience.
Except for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and a few other members, I do not really see any great concern in the House any more for the rights of Parliament. Maybe that is something in the past about which no one really cares. I care about it because Parliament is the last bastion of freedom. This is it, this is democracy, this is the bottom line. If we go around this, there is nowhere else to go. I see a member putting his head down. I do not think it is funny. 1 think it is important and I think the jury out there in the country thinks it is important too. 1 would bet on that.
Various telegrams have been sent. During the debate last night the minister and other members pulled out some of these telegrams. I looked at the telegrams as well, the ones orchestrated by Senator Olson. 1 say shame on the Liberal party that
Northern Gas Pipeline
it has to have a man who does not represent anyone, basically, because he cannot get elected, conduct this whole deal.


Mr. MacDonald:: He was elected.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am not saying anything against his personality or the man himself, but he does not represent anyone. He and Mitchell Sharp, the other sore in the continentalist wing of the Liberal party, negotiated this deal.


An hon. Member:: Liberal fossils.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They negotiated this deal with the Americans, and it is a bad deal. We get telegrams, but the telegrams are not from real people; they are from the Premier of Alberta and a few construction associations. There has been nothing from the province of British Columbia.
We have heard nothing from the 16 Conservative members from British Columbia. Where do they stand on this prebuild? They are hiding. We hear nothing from B.C. We have heard nothing from the other western provinces. We have heard only from Alberta, some construction associations and a few unions, but not many. 1 have telegrams too. I have a telegram from the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Dennis McDermott, who says that he stands by this. He sees no need in going into the pre-build without those assurances and without swaps. We have telegrams from the auto workers, 140,000 strong, saying "stand up" and "we encourage you to stand up and debate this and not to allow this."
There are telegrams from business associations, and I even received calls from small gas producers, believe it or not, who said that they would not benefit from this but that the big boys would. They said pro rationing should be brought in because they will not benefit from this.
I have a telegram from the city council of Toronto. By a vote of 15 to five the Toronto city council agreed that a cable should be sent to the Prime Minister requesting a full parliamentary debate on the pipeline pre-build at the earliest opportunity and that cables be sent to the leaders of the other two federal parties advising them of this action. The city council of Toronto passed that resolution by a vote of 15 to five because it is concerned. Why is it concerned? It is concerned because the people of Toronto know that as a result of this decision to go ahead and sell out this gas they will have to pay more for gas in the future. It is as simple as that, and that is why they are concerned.
1 have also received other telegrams, and 1 want to read just one because I think it is important. As a young member in Ottawa I have found that we get lots of material from lobby groups. We are approached by lobby groups which are well heeled and well represented. We very seldom hear from little people, consumers or ordinary people. It is very hard for them to have that kind of organized representation in Ottawa. Of course that is the role of a member of Parliament, but the following is a telegram I received from Oakville:

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
I and in particular my young children appreciate your gallant effort in regard to the Liberal and Conservative natural gas resource sell-out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Hon. members can laugh if they think this is funny.
We feel it is a disgrace. Be assured of our continued full support for your stand and from now on for the NDP.
There are many points to be made in the debate. I listened to hon. members opposite speak last night with some attention and care.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. I apologize to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I miscalculated the time in my own mind, and the 20 minutes accorded to him under the proposal put by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) have now expired. 1 presume hon. members would want the Chair to hold firmly to the 20-minute rule so that as many members as possible can enter the debate this evening. Since the fault was that of the Chair, I will accord one minute-not more-to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to wrap up.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the points have been made and will be made further in the debate. As 1 said, 1 am proud and pleased that we in this corner have forced this debate, and we are prepared to vote.
Canada is a northern country, and energy is the key to our survival. The matter goes more than just to air conditioners or whatever. It is a matter of our survival as a northern country, and we do not hesitate a moment to stand up, to talk about this gamble and say that the Canadian government should not gamble with the future of this country.
We believe-and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would quote from the Bible-that we must dream dreams and see visions about this country, and our vision is that of an energy-secure country and not a country the future of which the government gambles. That is why we propose this motion today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the introduction of the motion by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I know his area well because 1 am from Vancouver, as the hon. member is, and I am pleased to say that there was at least one sentence in his introduction with which 1 could agree, and that was the commitment of his party-as indeed of the government-to energy self-sufficiency. 1 think perhaps the hon. member had in mind oil self-sufficiency, since we have already achieved energy self-sufficiency in a broad sense, but we are committed to achieving oil self-sufficiency as well.
In other respects, I had difficulty following the statement of the hon. member in introducing his motion. He seemed to be eager to include in his remarks every possible allegation and distortion about the government's energy policy, and in particular about the reasons for the decision to proceed with the pre-build of the pipeline. I fear that it would take me more than the 20 minutes available to respond to his curious potpourri of allegations and distortions. However, let me, for a moment at least, say a word about one or two.
The hon. member alleged that the government is gambling with our sovereignty. He did not in any way substantiate that statement. In one sentence he said that the government is gambling with Canada's sovereignty. What does he mean? He made a statement and left it. There is no evidence whatever in the decision to proceed with the pre-build of the pipeline of any gambling with sovereignty or any sell-out. There is no evidence of that, and the hon. member could not substantiate his statement.
Speaking of allegedly devious acts by the government, he referred to a "sneak-in" of the Syncrude levy. If the hon. member had taken the time to look at the legislation governing the Syncrude levy, he would have seen that there is a formula which is followed and which relates the price paid to the Syncrude producers to world price levels. The other night when the minister introduced his ways and means motion in that regard, the government was simply continuing a practice which the House had accepted and which has been in place for several years.
The hon. member spoke of the need for more use of natural gas in Canada. That is a program which the government has been active in pursuing. The program includes the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Montreal to Quebec City which the minister recently announced. There is also a very real interest on the part of the government in overcoming the environmental problems which have, 1 trust, only temporarily delayed the construction of the pipeline into the maritimes.
The hon. member opposite noted his misgivings about National Energy Board estimates. I find that to be a curious statement on his part because, when NEB estimates substantiate his point of view, he is only too ready to use them. However, on this occasion we find that they are supposedly unsubstantiated and unreliable.
Finally, in his introduction the hon. member opposite referred to a series of letters or telegrams which the government and opposition parties have received on the subject of the pre-build, a question to which I would like to return in a few minutes. However, I do find it odd that we are not supposed to accept the Premier of Alberta as a "real person", that we are not to accept the views of the industry and of trade unions, that we are not to accept the views of university people or any range of Canadians as being in support of this decision, but rather that we are only to accept those who the hon. member says have been in contact with him.
The fact is that the government has decided to proceed with the southern section of the whole Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. The decision was taken to make the whole integrated pipeline possible, and it was taken to spread the construction costs and the demands which the construction will make on the
July 22, 1980

skilled manpower and other resources of this country over a longer period, a period when there will not be so much competition with other massive energy projects which lie immediately ahead for Canada.
Hon. members noted of course that yesterday the National Energy Board, subsequent to the government's decision, decided that the Foothills company has met the financing requirements under the Northern Pipeline Act. The decision to move ahead with the pre-build of the pipeline was not an easy decision. We have recognized, particularly the ministers involved most directly in the decision, that there are risks, but weighed against the substantial economic benefits which are inherent in the decision to proceed with the construction of the southern section of the total pipeline, those risks seem to us well worth the taking.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to the decision as a "judgment call". Indeed it is a judgment call in the sense that a wide variety of benefits and factors had to be weighed. But to govern is to decide, and the government has decided. I, therefore, find it particularly odd that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway would accuse the government of being all talk and no action. The fact is that the present government has taken action and made its decision, but apparently not to the liking of the hon. member opposite.
I think, through the discussions of the past week, that the benefits to Canadians of the pre-build of the southern portion of the pipeline have become evident. It is known, for example, that Canada will benefit through the construction of this pipeline section which will cost over $600 million. Perhaps more important, 90 per cent of that expenditure will be made in Canada. Indeed, 100 per cent of the expenditure on the pipe as such will be made here at home. Approximately 2,100 man-years of employment will be provided directly through the construction of the pre-build section. Moreover, it has been estimated that 150,000 man-years will be provided directly and indirectly over the period from 1980 to 1984 from the capital expenditures of $1.6 billion required to pre-build the pipeline and instal the necessary production and gathering equipment to support that section of the pipeline.
As I say, it must be evident by now to all Canadians that the benefits of the decision which the government has made and the subsequent conclusion of the National Energy Board to authorize proceeding with the pipeline will bring benefits to all Canadians. The geographic impact has been estimated. The benefits to British Columbia, for example, will be of the magnitude of $70 million; Alberta, $650 million; Saskatchewan and Manitoba together, $360 million; and Ontario and Quebec another $360 million.


Mr. Benjamin:: That is what Foothills says.


Roy MacLaren: However, as the spokesman for the party opposite, noted, many of the benefits flow toward those Canadian-owned gas companies, many of which are smaller in size, which can benefit enormously from this opportunity to expand their operations, to promote their further exploration of gas and to help provide yet further gas supplies to Canadi-
Northern Gas Pipeline
ans in the future. In terms of these benefits it must be evident to the House and to Canadians everywhere, as it is to the minister of energy of Alberta or the minister of energy of Saskatchewan, that the impact on our economy and on the future of Canada will be great.
The minister of energy of Alberta and the minister of energy of Saskatchewan have joined in the general support which has manifested itself across Canada in the last days and in the previous weeks for the pipeline decision. The member opposite referred to telegrams and letters which he and his colleagues have received, evidently in opposition to the decision. 1 would gladly offer the hon. member opposite, if he is interested, the opportunity to see the very large number of telegrams and letters from Canadians everywhere which we on this side of the House have received in support of the decision.
Of course, we might well recognize that the industry, with its participation and knowledge of the opportunities involved, would support the project, but I would willingly offer the hon. member opposite the opportunity to look at the correspondence which has been received from the United Steel Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, if he feels that this correspondence which we have received is one-sided or distorted in nature. In fact there has been a broad range of support across the country which has emanated from all sectors of our economy and our society.
There have been some misgivings expressed during the course of this discussion by our colleagues in the New Democratic Party about the forecasts of the National Energy Board, apparently so as to substantiate their fears that in taking this decision the Canadian government will somehow deny future generations adequate access to our own natural gas. The facts of course are somewhat different from such allegation. We have in Canada today a situation where almost twice as much new gas is being discovered annually than is being consumed and exported. We have more natural gas today than we had in the 1970s. For example, from 1977 till today the volume of Canadian gas surplus has risen from an estimated 800 billion cubic feet to a current estimate of 4.5 trillion cubic feet.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not a surplus.


Roy MacLaren: Yesterday my colleague, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), set forth at some length the three tests which the National Energy Board applies before exports are approved. He drew the attention of the House to the current deliverability test, the current reserve test and the future deliverability test.
It is not my intention to provide details of those three tests to the House again as the details are in Hansard. They do, however, test the conclusion of the National Energy Board that ample reserves are available to provide the export opportunity of which Canada is now availing itself.
There has also been some discussion about the guarantees which our neighbours to the south have provided. In the minds

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
of our friends in the New Democratic Party those guarantees are apparently inadequate. I would draw the attention of the House, as other members have, to the unanimous resolutions of the United States Senate and of the United States House of Representatives which, together, have formed a commitment to the completion of the total pipeline. This embraces both political parties in the United States and should assure any who fear, in the months before a U.S. election, that a change of the U.S. presidency might result in some withdrawal from the assurances provided. In fact, the Republican members of the Senate and the Congress, just as much as the Democrats, were in total support of the commitments and assurances provided in the unanimous resolutions. As the House is aware, those two resolutions have been followed by a letter from the President of the United States to the effect that the United States is ready to take "appropriate additional steps necessary for completion" of the pipeline. In the letter the President wrote as follows:
I recognize the reasonable concern of Canadian project sponsors that they be assured recovery of their investment in a timely manner if, once project construction is commenced, they proceed in good faith with completion of the Canadian portions of the project and the Alaskan segment is delayed.
I would submit to you that those resolutions and the commitment from the President of the United States provide the assurance on which a reasonable judgment can be based and a reasonable decision can be made to proceed now with the construction of the pre-build.
In addition to those assurances received from the United States executive and the United States legislature, we have the commitment of the companies participating in the pipeline project to proceed now with the final design and engineering studies necessary for the early construction of the pipeline.
We also have the assurances that are implied in the necessity of the United States to have access to its Alaskan gas. That is perhaps one of the greatest assurances that any country could seek. The United States itself is fully aware of its need for access to its own natural gas in the Alaska region. It is for those reasons that we share the view of the minister of energy of Alberta that we have received assurances that the United States will not back out of commitments to build the remainder of the pipeline.
It is also for that reason that, since I see my time has expired, 1 will conclude by noting that the government has decided, in essence, that there is a minimal risk in proceeding with the pipeline. We are assured that there is a very real commitment by all parties to proceed with the construction of the entire pipeline, and in the meantime, Canadians will receive substantial and extensive benefits from the pre-build portion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this matter-and I might say that there are innumerable other issues with which one could be preoccupied on this adjournment motion-I should like to use the short time available to me to talk about the oil pricing negotiations, or lack of them,
and the potential for doom that we face if those negotiations fail. I should like to talk about the development of other oil reserves in Canada which, it appears to me, are postponed for at least a year because of the failure of this government to reach conclusions. I should like to talk about conservation and about alternate sources, only within the energy field.
Indeed, in terms of the economy, in terms of our environment, in terms of our regional disparities, in terms of transportation and a variety of other issues, I could easily use up the 20 minutes allocated under the House order.
I wish to address myself, however, to the motion presented by the New Democratic Party. Since 1977, we in this party, to use the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence), have been supportive of a full, whole, complete northern pipeline. We have had that view since 1977. Then, in 1977-78, particularly during the House debate and committee hearings, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) prophetically pointed out that we could be in exactly the position in which we find ourselves today. It was his view at that time-and 1 do not believe events have changed it-that the pre-build facilities would be helpful, if not essential, to the financing of the northern section.
There will be those who agree and those who disagree with arguments of substance and integrity that may say the prebuild may hinder or prevent the ultimate construction of the northern section. Nevertheless, in 1977 the hon. member for Yukon pointed out to the Liberal government of the day, both in committee and in the House, that we might be faced with a situation where the pre-build would either facilitate or be essential to the eventual construction of the entire line. It should come as no surprise to hon. members opposite, therefore, to find themselves in this pre-build situation today.
On that basis, in approving of the whole, complete line in 1978, we tacitly said that we were in favour of the pre-build as part of that complete line. On December 6 the then minister of energy, mines and resources in our government, announced in this House approval of the National Energy Board recommendation to export a quantity of natural gas to the United States.


An hon. Member:: Treason.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not interrupt the pious mewings or grandstanding of the NDP for the last whole week because 1 did not think it was warranted. I do not need to be corrected or interrupted by the grandstanders to my left either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: We made a hard decision on December 6. To use the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), it may have been a "judgment call", and we were prepared to stake our government on that judgment call. So do not expect me to forget the events of that day when the hypocrite of the House took us to task on the basis of that difficult decision. He called it the greatest sell-out in Canadian history.
Before I come to that, Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to dispel something? I have a newspaper clipping here which
July 22, 1980

refers to Senator Olson. Its gives me precious little comfort to realize that Senator Olson is in charge of the pipeline. Quite frankly, that makes me more nervous than the NDP does. 1 remember Senator Olson. He crossed the floor and he became the minister of agriculture, the most forgettable minister we have ever had in that portfolio, I might say. 1 understand the senator's need for some publicity because he has languished over there without a headline for years. However, Senator Olson said this:
Progressive Conservative leader Joe Clark and his political associates did their best to prevent the pre-build from getting final approval.
"Their opposition in the House of Commons almost killed it," he charged.
That statement is blatantly untrue. I will forgive Senator Olson if all he needs is just a headline. Heaven only knows he needs one. I do not know why the Liberals need him in the cabinet, but I understand the regional problems over there. However, I will forgive him if he is just trying to grab a western headline or wherever he might get one. But if he is serious, I ask my good friends opposite: is this the type of minister you want in charge of an enormous project such as the pipeline? The sooner you get rid of him in terms of his responsibility, the better it is going to be, not in the Liberal's partisan sense-although I think that would help too-but in terms of the country, the pipeline, all our interests and the interests of all Canadians. If he has his headline now, I ask you, would you either replace him or tell him not to give any more press conferences because he does not know what he is talking about?
Let us now come back to December 6 and to what the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said, as reported at page 2101 of Hansard, and I can only interpret his words as establishing certain conditions under which he would permit the greatest sell-out in Canadian history. The first condition was stated as follows:
-we are faced with the situation where eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces,-
He says eastern Canada, the Atlantic provinces, which appears to me to emphasize it. He continued by saying:
-need more natural gas and need a gas pipeline to take gas to the homes and to the industries there.
That was a condition precedent, but he did not leave it at that because he went on to say:
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.
First, he established a condition precedent that there had to be a pipeline not just to Quebec, but through to Atlantic Canada. Second, revenues arising out of gas exports to the United States were to be used to pay for it.
We have no commitment of any kind despite election promises and despite this kind of rhetoric in the House of Commons. We have no commitment, let alone an ironclad
Northern Gas Pipeline
guarantee, that that pipeline will ever get anywhere near Atlantic Canada. That is deplorable and unacceptable to us as a party. It is completely unacceptable.
In terms of financing the pipeline, 1 do not know where the minister was expecting to get the revenues. He did not say. Would it be from a gas export tax on exports to the United States? Would he get them from the producers? I do not know where the minister is going to get the money. But his commitment to this House on behalf of his party as energy critic of the day was that not only would they build the pipeline, but they would finance it out of revenues coming from the export of gas to the United States. That was the commitment. Neither last week nor this week has there been one peep from the minister in terms of those commitments, not one.
Talking about swallowing words, the minister swallowed a whole pipeline at the expense of our fellow Canadians in eastern Canada. Let nobody be under any misapprehension about that. Then the minister talked about selling 3.7 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States as a clear indication that the former government had its priorities all wrong. He said:
-our bias as Canadians should be against any gas exports outside Canada.
The only thing that is different is that it is not 3.7 trillion cubic feet, it is more. He is approving more now.
The next point is with regard to swaps. There is no word in this statement about swaps and nothing about the eastern Canadian situation. The present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, at page 2101 of Hansard:
-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.
What do we hear about swaps? This was not two or three years ago, this was not even back in 1977 when we made our commitment to the whole line and the pre-build. This was in December, precisely December 6. This is not something which happened years ago since which time events have changed. What has changed between December 6 and now with respect to swaps? Absolutely nothing has changed except that the minister, after having swallowed and digested a pipeline to Atlantic Canada, has now swallowed swaps.
Finally, of course, we come to the notorious statement "an ironclad commitment, signed, sealed and delivered." So much for the hypocrisy of that minister. It is simply inconceivable that events have changed sufficiently to cause such a turnabout.
We are in the position we are because, if it is in fact a judgment call, as the Prime Minister said, nobody trusts this minister's judgment. How could anyone trust him after that December 6 statement and comparing it to what has happened in the last few days? The construction is being justified on the basis of jobs. I am supportive of the job-creation potential in the pre-build section of the pipeline. I am very sensitive to that. But if that is such a big deal, why do we not have a go-ahead on the Cold Lake and on the oil sands project, which are enormous projects in terms of jobs, not just in Alberta and the west, but in my riding and the riding of my Liberal friend

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
opposite, and all over central Canada? Time and time again the Prime Minister has said: "because Alberta will not agree". No province and no company will ever agree on those projects without an oil pricing agreement. They would be crazy to do so. The only people who would ever agree to someting like that is the New Democratic Party. That party would think that was super. But one cannot have those projects go ahead without an oil pricing agreement. It is not Alberta's fault. It is the fault of two governments. They have to agree. Now we have lost a whole year, and I believe it means 50,000 man-years in terms of direct employment.
Let me come to the motion. The motion is to provide that the building of the pre-build will not commence until complete financial guarantees to the whole pipeline have been obtained. From whom, I ask. I say to hon. members, do you expect a performance bond from the constructors of this? I say, do you seriously expect in the NDP that the companies responsible for the construction of the pipeline can put up a performance bond? No company can put up a performance bond. It is 100 per cent of the value of the project. Nobody can do that.


An hon. Member:: How about the ironclad guarantees?


William Herbert Jarvis: I did not talk about ironclad guarantees, nor did our minister of the day, because it is absolutely impossible. If the hon. members there demand complete ironclad guarantees,
1 say to them that they are against the pipeline. It is as simple as that. If you are for complete ironclad guarantees from industry, you are against the pipeline, and I say to you that you have to make up your minds.
I think it goes more than being just facetious to say that you in the NDP want a pipeline but you do not want to put any gas in it. There is more truth than fiction in that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: Let me go over the second point.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: I have listened to you for a whole week and now you can listen to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: Then you go on to say "an agreement" because you did not say anything. They did not say anything, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   de Corneille@Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would you kindly address the Chair?


William Herbert Jarvis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. 1 am glad to see you in the chair.
Their motion did not say anything about the complete financial guarantee from the United States government. They left that out. But the motion went on to say:
-an agreement has been reached between the government of Canada and the government of the United States that Canadian gas exported through the
southern portion of the proposed pipeline will be replaced by Alaska gas at an equivalent price.
That is a swap, replacing gas, whether we need it or not, and at an inflated price. Whether we need it or not, we are obliged to buy as much gas from the Americans as we export to them at an equivalent price, which I presume is today's constant dollar. Therefore, it will be at a price plus the inflation rate. I presume that is what they are saying.
Why would we ever commit ourselves to that? I can see a first right of refusal, or a call on it, but why would we want to buy gas that we may not need, and commit ourselves to buying it at an inflated dollar down the line? I do not understand that at all. If the NDP were serious about swaps, why would they not put it that Canada would have first call on so many trillion feet, or whatever? I could understand that, but this motion just does not make any sense. It ignores completely the fact that we may not need it.
The swaps position may be accurate. I do not know. My friends made a great point of saying the historic mistakes of the National Energy Board should give us cause for concern. Maybe they should, but it is by far the best information we have according to any expert I have ever talked to. They are confident of it.
I cannot imagine even this Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources committing himself to the off oil policy, and I have some real doubts about that one, unless he knew full well the gas was there so that he could accomplish this ten-year figure.
I find it hard to believe that this minister would stick his neck out, or perhaps stick his nose out, would be more accurate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Herbert Jarvis: I have been very calm in this debate so far. Let me have a little bit of luxury because I feel rather strongly about this. No minister in his right mind would stick his neck out that far unless he knew full well he had the surplus gas to implement his off oil policy, a reduction in ten years so that in ten years oil would form 10 per cent of the total energy consumption of residential, commercial and industrial. 1 think he has his gas.
No matter if we have gas coming out our ears-and I hope we do and I believe we may-under this NDP motion we would have to buy gas from the United States, an equivalent amount that we exported to them. That makes no sense. If they did something intelligent here, they might have some sympathy but, frankly, I cannot support this. This swap idea is absolutely ridiculous. In terms of financial guarantees, if the NDP had at least not been so cute as to try and exclude any reference to the U.S. government, because they are looking to industry for these guarantees, they would know that the only way they could get them is with a performance bond. No industry in the world can put up that performance bond, unhappily. I wish they could, but they cannot. We have to oppose this motion of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 22, 1980


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the House would be agreeable to calling it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that the House call it six o'clock. If the House is so agreeable, at eight o'clock this evening the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, followed by the hon. member for Chateauguay. Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the debate was interrupted at six o'clock the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there are only three members of this Parliament who were members of the House of Commons in 1956. They include the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and myself. Since the other two are not here at this moment 1 have the distinction of being the only one present this evening who was here for the historic pipeline debate in 1956. However, I am quite confident that most, if not all, members of this House know about that debate; some of them listened to it and watched it and read it from outside, some of the younger ones have no doubt read about it in the history books. It was dramatic and a traumatic occasion for the House of Commons. If you can imagine the House of Commons at two or three o'clock in the morning with persons standing out in the halls waiting to get into the galleries, that tells you how dramatic and how exciting that session was some 24 years ago. I thought I was already a veteran member of Parliament having been here for 14 years, and that was 24 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, why did the House of Commons have galleries which were full until three or four o'clock in the morning on four different occasions? Why did that debate drag out as it did? Why was there so much concern about it in the country? Why did it play a part in the defeat of the government of that day at the next election? The answer is that the government of that day chose to make a deal with persons whom the late John Diefenbaker called "Texas Buccaneers". In other words, the government of that day chose to lend our money to foreign persons so that they could make huge profits out of building a gas pipeline in our country. That was one side of the story.
The other side of the story was that the government of that day rode roughshod over the rights of Parliament. I doubt if
Northern Gas Pipeline
ever in the history of the Canadian House of Commons the rules of this place were so abused and so misused as they were in 1956. That debate lasted about two months and I suggest that those who are complaining that this debate has been going on for three or four days have the wrong perspective, especially when 1 make the assertion, sir, that what the present government is doing today is worse than what was done in 1956 on two counts. On the one hand the Liberal government of 1956 was merely lending $80 million-in those days that was a lot of money-to non-Canadians so that they could make profit out of Canadians. But this time the government is selling out for a fast buck natural resources which should be the preserve of our children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The sell-out today is far worse than it was in 1956. That has been clearly documented by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and others who have taken part in this debate. I emphasize that that is our concern, that this is the reason we have been so unwilling to let this Parliament close for the summer recess without a vote being taken on the central elements of this proposition.
I said that the Liberal government of 1956 produced that dramatic and traumatic situation in two ways, one, by the sell-out and the other, by what it did to the rules of Parliament. At this time we have a government that has gone further on the second count. It is abusing and violating the law of the land. It may be said that I am making an assertion and that others on the other side are just as capable of making the opposite assertion. They have done so but I intend, in the time 1 have, to demonstrate the point my caucus and I are making, namely, that the order in council under which the construction of the pre-build is going ahead is in violation of the rules regarding the making of orders in council. If it was bad in 1956 for the Liberal government of that day to abuse the rules of Parliament and to impose closure on debate-it was applied after one or two words and we were kept here until three and four o'clock in the morning on four different nights to bring down the Chair, if you will, to bring down the government itself in the next election because it abused the rules-how much worse it is now that it is violating the law of this land as enacted by Parliament.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, in answer to a question put by my leader, that subsection 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act gave the government the power by order in council to change condition 12 of schedule III; that this had been done, therefore the law now is as the government has changed it. It reminds me of an Old Testament story I used to tell in another profession years ago. When Moses complained about the golden calf, Aaron said to Moses, "It is not our fault, we put in the gold and out came the calf'. Today the Prime Minister said that it was not his fault, that the law as it now reads is there for him to use. The fact of the matter is

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
that it is his fault. He is the head of the government which agreed to an order in council which this government should not have passed. The government says that the authority is there under subsection 20(4). It is true that subsection 20(4) gives the board, subject to the approval of the governor in council, the power to rescind, amend or add to the terms and conditions set out in schedule 111 which are deemed to be such and such, and so on. Yes there is power to change the terms and conditions set out in schedule 111. In schedule III there is condition 12 which provides that the company shall do certain things respecting the pipeline. The pipeline is defined in clause 2 of the bill as a line for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska across Canada, along the route set out in the accompanying documents.
It is very clear that what this act is all about is the construction of one pipeline from Alaska across Canada into the United States for the transportation of Alaska gas- Alaska being part of the United States-to another part of the United States. That is all this legislation provides: it provides for nothing else. But the government, using its order in council power, has amended condition 12 of schedule III. The wording of that amendment is to be found on pages 3133 and 3134 of Hansard for Friday, July 18. I invite all members who take this matter seriously to read that order in council. It says that condition 12, as passed by this Parliament, is rescinded or is wiped out and that another one is put in its place. What does this other one include? It includes a provision for a portion of the pipeline. There is no reference in the act to the pipeline being in portions. It is the pipeline, the whole line.
Then in addition to that, the amended version passed by order in council says about that portion that it is to be referred to as the pre-build section, and 1 would rest my case completely on the following half sentence:
-that will be used for the transmission of Canadian natural gas to the United States prior to the completion of the pipeline;
By no stretch of the imagination is that merely the use of the powers set out in subsection 20(4) to amend the terms and conditions of condition 12; that is changing the act, that is changing the whole purpose of the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That act provided for a transportation unit to transport American gas from Alaska to the lower 48 states. The order in council turns it into an export pipeline for the transmission of Canadian gas to the United States prior to the completion of the pipeline.
Everyone knows that I am not a lawyer, but I challenge any lawyer in this place to try to make a case for that being simply an amending of the conditions for the pipeline set out in schedule III. Yet this has been done by order in council, and the Prime Minister stood up yesterday and, like Aaron to Moses said, "but it is the law, we are acting under the law." It is the law because he and his colleagues changed it illegally.
Then if one reads a little further in the same revised condition 12, one finds that whereas the one this Parliament passed said that the financing for the whole pipeline had to be
in place, now it is changed to read that the financing for the southern portion has to be in place. But, all the companies have to do with respect to the rest of it is to certify that it can be obtained. By no stretch of the imagination is that a mere amending of the conditions. That is changing the whole concept, that is changing the law. It is arbitrary use of power, if I ever saw it in this place-and I have seen it before-for the cabinet, in the rooms where it meets, to change completely the law passed by the House of Commons. What is the excuse for that? It is right in the order in council, apart from the fact that the Prime Minister admitted in his letter to the President of the United States a few months ago that the government had no power to build a portion of the line under the legislation which, of course, he now says got changed by the order in council. Apart from that, even the order in council gives a reason for it. Listen to this language:
Whereas the board considers that the provisions of condition 12 of schedule III-
The Board is the National Energy Board which made the recommendation the cabinet approved; that was as far as the Board could go; the cabinet had to turn it into an order in council.
Whereas the Board considers that the provisions of condition 12 of schedule II do not encompass the circumstances related to the pre-building of the southern section of the pipeline-
That is the excuse for making all these changes. If I may give a parallel example from a field in which I have a good deal of experience, the Old Age Security Act, with its provision for a spouse's allowance, says that no person, no spouse, can get an allowance under the age of 60. The reason for this is that a widow of an older spouse can get it, provided she was widowed after age 60. I should like to see an order in council which would say: "Whereas the legislation did not encompass the circumstances related to the difficulties a 59-year-old widow would experience because she lost her 67-year-old husband, the government amends the legislation and says that the widow concerned would get a pension."


Mr. Orlikow:: That will be the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "That will be the day", says my hon. friend. No, they stand up every time and say "you have to draw a line somewhere, and the line that is drawn in the law is the one which has to be observed." I could do the same with the veterans' legislation we passed the other day under which we will extend pensions to widows in the case where a veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent. We warmly welcome that legislation, and I commend again the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for the bill he brought in last December which broke the ice, but there is a six and one-half year staging-in period. We are going to have correspondence and messages from widows who have waited eight or ten years now but whose husbands' rates of pension were 30 per cent or 25 per cent, and they need it now. Will the government come in with an order in council which says, "Whereas the legislation passed on July 9 does not encompass the circumstances
July 22, 1980

faced by widows in this circumstance, we will give them their pension now"?


David Orlikow: That will be the day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Again my hon. friend says, "That will be the day". Do we in this place respect the law or do we not? We say over and over again, "Too bad, that is where the line was drawn". If we provide money for a dock in Prince Rupert, we cannot use it to build a grain elevator in Edmonton, Alberta. The law is specific, and I invite hon. members to read, if they have time to do it, an interesting document to be found in Votes and Proceedings of July 17. It is the report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. It is a lengthy and detailed report. It is a thorough study of the whole problem of the authority of Parliament to delegate legislation. It is a tremendous report. It makes the case that there has to be a lot of delegation because of the complications of parliamentary and governmental business today, but that the principle of parliamentary control must be retained. It questions, for example, the postage increases which were made by order in council under the Financial Administration Act, when there is a Post Office Act under which it should be done.
I remind hon. members again of the story I told the other day about the Conservative government's action in 1962 when it passed an order in council based on two different statutes under which it raised the customs duties on the one hand and then forgave them or reduced them a bit on the other and insisted that it was legal, just as the Prime Minister and the government House leader stand up in the House and say that their order in council is legal. But the Liberals who succeeded the Conservatives in 1963 found out that they were being taken to court on that and that they were going to lose millions of dollars, so the very Liberals who had criticized the order in 1962 came back in 1963 and brought in the necessary statute to legalize what had been done. We are dealing in something which is very important. I cannot quite hear what my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), is saying, but I think he is probably thinking about the same thing happening and that there may be again a reference to the courts on this very issue. As 1 said earlier, we are concerned about this matter because it is a sell-out of our children and grandchildren. We are concerned about this policy and the mistaken view of the government in going ahead with this.
However, the point I am making in the minutes which are' allotted to me in this debate is that we are also violating one of the basic principles of parliamentary government, that is, that governments cannot pass by order in council things they are not entitled to do, and my contention is that it is crystal clear that this government has no right to amend condition 12, as it has done. Therefore the whole operation is illegal and this government should be brought to task for violating an act of Parliament and violating the rights of this institution.


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


Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is convinced that he is correct in his interpretation of the law with regard to the use of an order in council to approve the pre-build of the Alaska gas pipeline. The best legal minds in the Department of Justice and the various other law officers of the Crown who advise the government from time to time are of a different opinion. The government and the official opposition believe that this pre-build is part of a whole unit. It is an initial construction phase, and if we do not get started on this initial construction phase this year, it may be one or two years before we can proceed to the construction of the full line. It is a judgment as to whether or not we take the word of our friends and allies south of the border. We have a situation where the President of the United States and both houses of Congress unanimously tell us that they are totally committed to the construction of the full line before 1985.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not one red cent.


Ian Watson: They have given us their commitment morally.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Morally.


Ian Watson: I am prepared to accept it. The hon. member is not. 1 am, and I think most members of this House are.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You guys are selling out this country.


Mr. Kempling:: Button your lip, you turkey.


Ian Watson: The American Congress has unanimously indicated support for the construction of the full line. The Government of Canada has taken the U.S. Congress and the U.S. president at their word and has treated this pre-build as the first phase of a construction project on which the full line will be completed by 1985 or 1986. If the American Congress cannot be trusted on this by the Canadian government and the Canadian Parliament, I am afraid it will never be trusted again, and the Americans are well aware of this.
I would like to place it clearly on the record that my confidence is with what the American Congress has promised, and I am certain that I will not be disappointed. The government is certain that it will not be disappointed. If we are, then the relationship between Canada and the United States will change permanently, and that will not happen, in my view.
I think we should run through a few of the points which have been made by the New Democratic Party because one by one they can be shown to be defective in at least a part of the reasoning behind each of the arguments. Let us deal first with swaps. The swap question was first proposed officially when in 1977 the National Energy Board included a swap proposal in one of its reports. At that time there was a small gas bubble, as it was called, which was predicted to occur in the period from about 1981 to 1984. At that time it was felt by the National Energy Board that with some 800 billion cubic feet available-this was in 1977-a swap arrangement would make sense. Two things have changed since then to alter the practicality of the swap proposal. First, the reserves of gas in
3232

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
Canada have increased enormously, and 1 will deal with that in a minute.
Second, there is the realization that the question of swapping is simply too complicated to allow an arrangement to be made now which would be of any use to get this pipeline project, which is so important for a number of reasons for both Canada and the United States, on the road. One of the complications would simply be the number of parties involved in the whole process, whether it be producing the gas, transporting the gas or selling the gas. There are so many parties involved that the swapping arrangement becomes very difficult.
A third reason is simply that the Canadian gas producers in Alberta-if we take as a direction the content of the NDP motion tonight and the result of what is being proposed in that motion-who are already strapped for cash, would be faced with the prospect, in the very near future, of having to take in or absorb all this gas from Alaska, if it were a short-term arrangement. If it were a long-term arrangement, the American gas producers in Alaska would be faced with the proposition of having to agree to supplying this gas back to Canada perhaps 20 years down the road.
Nobody would want to be involved in that kind of long-term arrangement, so for practical purposes, swapping cannot be arranged. It is just too complicated and it would mean, in effect, a delay in the project. So we are faced with that choice: not delaying the project or swapping. Swapping is just not an acceptable alternative for those people who have to make a decision.
Finally, to deal with a question which has been raised in the House of Commons frequently in the past few days by the New Democratic Party, that it is more sensible to buy the gas and to keep it in the ground-if the producers need money, why not buy the gas, give them the money, which will allow *them to keep on producing and exploring, and simply not export the gas but put it back in the ground and supply it to Canadians eventually? That particular argument has some merit because in effect Alberta is already doing that.
Alberta is using part of its heritage fund or part of the other funds available to it to purchase gas from gas producers to keep them solvent, and they will eventually put that gas into storage or keep it in the ground for use later. It may be a good investment if one takes into consideration that it is being done to keep those producers from going into insolvency. But if one looks at it from the point of view of the argument advanced by the NDP, one finds that they are into a situation where that kind of aid to producers has a limit. The limit is the capacity of the country simply to keep on putting billions and billions of dollars into gas storage. In effect, one has to make a judgment at some point, that exports are in fact a necessary evil, and that they are, at some particular point, necessary if we are to allow the most important exploration development and drilling to continue.
If we do not supply, in effect, the grease to keep this process going, then the whole machine slows down, exploration slows down and we end up in a situation where Canada has fewer gas discoveries, therefore fewer reserves, therefore less capacity to promise industry that 20 years down the road they can be guaranteed enough gas to permit them to convert from oil to gas.
This entire relationship between energy self sufficiency, between moving more rapidly to allow Canada to become self-sufficient and less reliant on foreign-oil imports is tied directly to the amount of reserves we have. The amount of reserves we have is tied to the ability of Canadian gas producers to find oil and gas. They can only do that if they have money. We are faced, therefore, with a decision. Do we simply go into a national debt and finance this exploration and development, or do we use the export of natural gas to the United States to help finance part of it?
This government has made a decision to use that export to finance a part of the project. It is a judgment which was made. I support it because I think it makes a lot of sense. We are not going overboard on gas exports. The government has shown its intentions to protect our natural resources by slowing down the degree of oil exports. We are down now to about 100,000 barrels a day from something like 400,000 barrels a day a few years ago. We have shown that our intentions are to reduce these oil exports down to zero. In the case of gas exports, we will do it if it is necessary, but not in a totally unrestricted manner.
I think we should run over some of the points which are the most important to remember when dealing with this pipeline question. We have the guarantees from the United States that they will move forward on the full line. Let us just look at the consequences of not moving forward this year. Think about them. First of all there is inflation. One year's delay will mean more cost for the entire line. If we do not start this year, we will end up with a more narrow spread in economic development, a more narrow time-frame in which to build, not only the whole line, but also the many other energy projects which are coming on stream.
Surely the NDP is in favour of solid economic planning. How does what they propose fit in if we end up in a situation where we bunch four, five or six major energy projects into three of four years in the mid-1980s? What we are doing now with this project is allowing a reasonable spread. It happens also to fit in with a downturn in our economic cycle.
I have made the point about the necessity to protect the largely Canadian-owned, independent gas producers in the west who are strapped for finances, and this project will help. It seems to me that the people in Alberta and in western Canada generally have a right to expect a little bit of consideration for their economic future in this decision. Their economic future will be strengthened by the move to build this pipeline, starting this year. Surely the NDP-and I know that they have received a number of telegrams to this effect-realize the economic ramifications to eastern Canada if construction on this pipeline starts this year. There are firms in the ridings of
July 22, 1980

almost every single member in this House which will be affected by the construction start this year. One hundred and thirty thousand man-years of work is certainly nothing to be cast aside.


An hon. Member:: A hundred and fifty thousand man-years, get that straight.


Ian Watson: One hundred and thirty man-years is the figure. Whether you believe it or not, that is what the economists are telling us.


An hon. Member:: Which ones?


Ian Watson: It seems to me as well, Mr. Speaker, that the use of natural gas in eastern Canada is going to be enhanced substantially by the decision to move this year. If there had not been a decision this year, it would have taken that much longer before eastern industry-they are the most important consumers-could be persuaded to use natural gas instead of the imported oil they are using right now. This guarantee of supply is important.
There is one little incident which 1 think we would all be wise to remember, Mr. Speaker, but no one has mentioned it so far in this debate.
Last February when the TransCanada pipeline broke down because of a valve problem in its major compressor, eastern Canadian supplies of natural gas were in jeopardy for three days. Replacement gas was supplied by the pipeline that goes south to Chicago and back up into Sarnia. This American pipeline was able to save eastern Canada from a shortage for those three days.
The eastern leg of the northern gas pipeline will allow the transportation into eastern Canada of additional quantities of natural gas in the event that the TransCanada system is not able to handle all the new demands that will be created in the east and also in the admittedly unlikely event of another breakdown in the TransCanada system. It is an additional bit of security for eastern consumers which, believe me, is very important.
Let us deal for a moment with the reserves that have really changed the picture in deciding whether or not we should move toward pipeline construction this year.
When the National Energy Board was talking about a gas bubble of 800 billion cubic feet in 1977, they were being conservative, but at that time they were not aware, nor was anyone, of the tremendous potential of what is now referred to as the deep gas play in northwestern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia.
This particular series of discoveries has increased the Canadian total of proven gas by only about five trillion cubic feet, but the potential increase in reserves for Canada ranges somewhere between 150 trillion and 200 trillion cubic feet of gas; an absolutely astronomical amount.
Northern Gas Pipeline
The National Energy Board figures-which, by the way, in 1978 were something like 66 trillion cubic feet of gas for the conventional areas of Canada-did not include the 20 trillion cubic feet which have been proven now in the frontier areas of the north, nor did they include the some three trillion cubic feet off Sable Island and they have not even touched on the gas discovered off Newfoundland.
We are talking of potential reserves of three to four hundred trillion cubic feet.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Ian Watson: That is not rubbish. It is combination-


An hon. Member:: Absolute rubbish.


Ian Watson: The NDP do not seem to be aware of either the discoveries that have been made-


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


Ian Watson: -of the discoveries that have been made over the last two years, nor are they aware of the technological advances which have permitted a much higher recovery rate in existing fields.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Ian Watson: The ignorance of the NDP in this area partly explains their position during the past two or three days.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: I wonder if the hon. member would quote the source of 300 to 400 trillion cubic feet of gas.


Ian Watson: I would be pleased to give the source, Mr. Speaker. The source for the deep gas play in northeastern British Columbia-


An hon. Member:: The only source of deep gas is you.


Ian Watson: -and Alberta is the company which is most deeply involved in this gas play.


An hon. Member:: Just quote the source.


Ian Watson: I would like to specify that this reference to a possible 200 trillion cubic feet relates as well to the price, and if the price is high enough, that kind of reserve could be recoverable. That is the kind of arithmetic we are talking about. The company involved in that sort of guesstimate-and I admit it is a guesstimate-is Canadian Hunter. On the east coast, Mr. Speaker, the latest analysis I have seen is by Merrill Lynch, and they estimate 74 trillion cubic feet potential on the east coast.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Val-ley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say in opening that I view the order made by the House just before the recess at suppertime to be almost a conspiracy against me. Until that time each member had 40 minutes to talk about many things, including pipelines, and then all the House leaders got together after a fairly active day and restricted the contribution of members to 20 minutes. That puts an almost unfair burden on one of such Irish intent and loquaciousness.
Be that as it may, I shall try, in the 20 minutes available, to say what I have to say. I should like to say to my friends in the NDP to whom I will give one bouquet, before some thorns, that we are debating an issue and there are sincere views on all sides of the House on this fundamental issue of pipelines.
I had one of the greatest speeches I ever prepared ready before we had your ruling to cut our contribution to 20 minutes. It was about the reform of Parliament and all the crazy mutations that members go through in the summertime to try to get out of this place and back to their constituencies. If implemented, these reforms would give every member a chance to speak and do many things. I am not going to speak on reform unless I have a few minutes available at the end of my remarks. I want to speak to the matter that is germane to all hon. members because there is no member with a monopoly on the interest in, and the knowledge of, the pipeline problems that face this land.
To quote or to paraphrase a famous Canadian, who unfortunately is not here tonight to hear my words of wisdom, as we "welcome the 80s"-I think those were the words used on some unfortunate night after an election win several months ago-it is perhaps appropriate that in this House of Commons as we try to move toward a summer recess, that we talk about pipelines and energy. Those matters were with us long before the eighties and they will be with us long after the eighties. They will affect the lives of people outside this House for generations and are not just subjects for the cut and thrust of debate tonight.
Ordinarily I could be very provocative toward both sides of the House. I could allude to my friends in the government, to what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has said, and to his flip-flops. In a facetious way I could suggest that this is one of the reasons why the export licence is going to be more than the 3.75 trillion cubic feet initially recommended by the government of which I was happy to be a member-even though in the backbench. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the reasons and I could be facetious but I wanted to add a little levity to the very serious subject. My friend, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), in a very eloquent and constructive contribution just before the supper recess in his assessment of the adjournment and the motion
with which we are confronted, said that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources not only swallowed the commitment to Atlantic Canada, an area of which I am proud to be a member, but he swallowed the Q and M Pipe Line and any financial assistance to build that pipeline as well. When a minister has such incestuous indigestion, it is no wonder there is a lot more gas around. Why not ship it out?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have to say this about one of the hon. members. He has fought a good fight. He is a new member and he has made an interesting contribution. In many cases I do not agree with him at all. But I give him full credit, as Thomas Paine said many years ago, before he swung, but he has a right to say what he said.
Talking about pipelines, we find an interesting connection with history. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who has contributed to this debate, in an interesting accident of history, has been the executive assistant, or the special assistant, to Mr. Justice Berger, whom I practised against and for whom I have the highest judicial respect. In my opinion-and I do not wish to saddle my party with this view-his report after two years is one of the reasons we are meeting tonight and wondering where we are going on an energy pipeline across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You could say, Mr. Speaker, that it was an unholy alliance between the NDP and the CBC. Every night, and every other night in the summer two years ago, I used to turn on CBC television broadcasts to watch the national news, as any faithful Canadian would do to try to keep in contact with the current affairs of this country. Every other night I saw Mr. Justice Berger playing ball with the Eskimos, looking at the caribou and doing many interesting things which we all wish we could do. But I suggest, in a serious way, that I am not sure about the future of the Alaska pipeline in view of what the government is doing tonight.
But I do say that when we move away and get a perspective on history, the assessment of the decision between the Mackenzie Valley and the Alaska pipeline is something which perhaps will not bring credit to this House of Commons.
Be that as it may. I was most interested in listening to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway today who based his argument on three points: that it was a sell-out, that it was a question of sovereignty of Parliament, and that it was the right of Parliament.
I am from Atlantic Canada, and I confess this on the floor of the House that when this debate started-not just here on the motions in the last few days, but over the period we have been talking about pipelines-I was one member who really wondered about the advisability of the pre-build section of the Alaska pipeline. I do not say this disparagingly about members, not just the NDP but members on both sides, not all of
July 22, 1980

whom have spoken in this debate, but I could wrap myself in a cloak about heritage, the future, selling of our birthright, and then ask what about the mess of pottage? I could say all that. I seriously, sincerely felt that way while this debate progressed.
1 must say that I am prepared and happy to be here in the House participating in this debate. Many other members will not have a chance to do so because of the ruling so I am trying to be serious.
The debate in this House has actually changed my opinion. Perhaps it is the judgment call which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to earlier. It is a judgment call that unless there is a pre-build section of a grand pipeline from the 49th parallel to Alaska, we in the east have even less chance of getting gas to heat our homes, to feed our fires and feed what little industry we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In tribute to my friend, it is not a sell-out. He knows as well as 1 do that the pre-build section is a "Y" type section. Part of it goes into California, he says, to heat the air conditioners there, but the other part of that "Y" goes east to Saskatchewan. It gets tied into the northern pipeline; it goes into the Chicago market and it ends up in Sarnia.
How can my friends to the left preach platitudes, which we all preach from time to time, and not get down to the practicality of how gas is put into a pipeline and transported to give us gas in eastern Canada who do not have gas today?
My NDP opponent is a fine citizen, but he was misguided. He kept saying that there is enough gas and energy being shipped offshore in the 3.75 trillion cubic feet that were authorized by the then minister of energy to light all the homes and all the Christmas trees in Atlantic Canada for 50 years. But I agreed with him.
However, how does one get the gas from the west to the east? Can it be done by wheelbarrow?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A pipeline is what is needed. How do you get a pipeline? Let us be reasonable. This pipeline we are talking about goes from the 49th parallel to Alaska. I know my friends to the left have many solutions to all of the problems. But 1 ask them how many of them have worked on a pipeline? Do they know how to build a pipeline that is over 1,000 miles long?


An hon. Member:: Do you?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: 1 have. 1 can tell you a pipeline is built in sections.
The interesting thing is that I sympathize a little with my hon. friends and I do not fault them for this because in terms of economic nationalism perhaps we should all be more economic nationalists. 1 heard some of them say they have worked on a pipeline. 1 wish I had the time to recite the story about when I worked in Seven Islands-it was called Seven Islands before being known as Sept-Iles-when I saw plans for the
Northern Gas Pipeline
iron ore carriers going through the St. Lawrence seaway three years before the St. Lawrence seaway bill ever came on to the floor of the House. Therefore, 1 have been a little suspicious of so-called sell-outs before. But there is an interesting paradox to this problem. My friends and all members want Canadians to own Canadian industry. We can quote figures, but I will not get into an argument about a trillion cubic feet of gas. I will go by the National Energy Board who are the experts and others who are more expert than I. I will confess my ignorance. I will acknowledge their wisdom. The National Energy Board does not allow export licences unless there is at least a 25-year surplus for Canadian needs. I am not going to talk about 400 trillion cubic feet because right now it is 75 trillion cubic feet, or whatever. There are 25 trillion cubic feet more in the frontier. But I say to hon. members, how can you have it both ways in economic nationalism?
We know about the multinationals who, in effect, control the oil industry. My friends to the left know that so far the gas industry in this country is basically owned, operated and controlled by Canadians and small Canadian companies. Unless those small Canadian companies get a cash flow to develop more of the frontier, then some time down the road we will be worried about where we go and how much surplus we have.
1 talked about the NDP. My friend from Vancouver-Kings-way said it is so simple. He says to bank the resource, in other words, leave it in the ground. Do my friends from the left want to bank the coal fields in Cape Breton and the iron ore from the smelter in Sydney? Do they want to bank the iron ore at Inco? Do they want to bank the steel from the smelter in Hamilton and leave the potash in the ground in Saskatchewan? And when we get to Trail, do they want to leave the lead there? We all know that these things will be more worth while after-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: When it comes to coal, 1 suggest if they have a sincere interest in the development of Canadian industry, they will get the lead out of their ideological position and not just be against business because it is business. Having made those few remarks about the NDP, 1 will now come to the government position in this matter which my friend from Perth handled so admirably. There is no question that when we talk about ironclad guarantees, that is where my friend opposite has to stand on the docket of public opinion, not just today but down the road.
I am not going to accept the act which says that the bearded senator in the other place, who is in charge of economic development, that Messiah trying to find a home and a tent to crawl under, who may be the economic minister today because the act says he is the minister who has to make a decision. I am not, as a member of Parliament, going to accept his responsibility or just put this on to the NEB.

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
My friends opposite are in charge now. They have been given a mandate by the Canadian people. They talked about the ironclad guarantees last December, the commitment to Atlantic Canada, the swap arrangement, all those matters. Unless this government produces, they are going to be in the docket of public opinion and we will have sold out the heritage of Canadians from coast to coast. However, at the moment 1 do not know all the things that have gone on in government. I was not in Venice, 1 do not know the assurances the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) received. However, I know this.
1 am not voting, in a sense, because this motion is a little funny, but the intent of the motion is to vote for or against a pipeline. As the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) said, you can talk about ironclad guarantees, but was the CPR built on an ironclad guarantee? Was the TransCanada pipeline, the Trans-Canada Highway or the Pine Point railway built on an ironclad guarantee? On this motion of my friends, we would never have any development in this country.
I am worried. The government has the responsibility. They were given the mandate. However, when I see what happened to the Q and M Pipe Lines which is not going beyond Quebec, with no. assurances and not even a study on the matter, when 1 see what happened to Georges Bank, an agreement between two administrations, and the American fishermen are still raping the Georges Bank of fish, 1 can say to you, Mr. Speaker, I am worried.
1 am not seduced by a letter from the U.S. president who may be a lame duck. 1 am not seduced by a congressional motion which is something like our 43s. We know how much effect they have. What 1 have faith in is not some ideological position of the NDP. 1 certainly have no faith in the ironclad guarantees of the minister, which were a sell-out in December of sensible policy in the summer of 1980. I have faith in the entrepreneurial skills of Canadians and in Canadian people. That is where the final test is going to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is much more I would like to say but will say in conclusion, and I say this very seriously, there have been other decisions of Parliament taken and perhaps the political process is filled with these types of decisions. 1 do not go along with the statistics given to me by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). All members know that more jobs will be created. My friends to my left say it is a short-term deal. There is an argument there. I do not go along with that. In terms of the long-term interest of Canada, and to build the first cornerstone and spur in a pipeline that is going to bring more energy to eastern Canada, I am prepared to go along with the pre-build.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Statistics that were quoted to me and have been quoted in the House may be accurate, but unfortunately some of the reasons that have been used to back up those statistics may be the wrong reasons.
In conclusion-and 1 wish everyone for about one minute would hearken back to this history-1 go back to something called railways. Pipelines are the railways or arteries in this day and age. Railways, even the CPR, were not built overnight in one line in east to west. They were built by spurs. Certainly the CNR was built this way. The spurs were connected.
While I have real, grave questions for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the so-called ironclad guarantees which are not ironclad guarantees, I suggest that the pre-build section of this pipeline is the cornerstone, by accident, of an energy policy that this government, for as long as it stays, is going to have to implement. If they do not implement it and check on those guarantees, the Canadian people will have a chance to turn things around and put a party in power which had an energy policy that was derailed for a short term, but we will be back in charge not too far down the road.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the importance of the pre-build issue and in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I want to say a word of commendation to that member because not only has he put this motion forward, but consistently, in the first part of this session, he has kept this issue before Parliament. He has ensured that Parliament has not been able to go to sleep on this very important question.
Last week, the Leader of the New Democratic Party referred to the American opinion that the Canadian government would be "damned fools if they went ahead with the pre-build without 100 per cent guarantees for the entire pipeline". But this is what we see happening. Just as someone once said, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics-


James Douglas Manly: -today we can see that there are fools, damned fools, and the Liberal government. The pre-build is not the first betrayal of Canadians in connection with this pipeline.
In 1977 the government appointed a board of inquiry under Dean Lysyk to examine the social and economic effects of the pipeline on the people of the Yukon. On many occasions the board explained to the people that this was only the first of a two-stage inquiry, that there was to be a second inquiry and, as a result of that, there would be a final statement, and all the terms and conditions for the pipeline would be based on that second stage.
However, the people of the Yukon were betrayed. The second stage was aborted. Its concerns were referred to regulatory agencies. Government assurances did not help the people of the Yukon. I submit that assurances from the American government have no more meaning and no more value than assurances from this Liberal government today.
In a similar way, Indian people of Alberta discover that proposals for the pre-build betray their interests. It provides no


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Then there is the NDP.

July 22, 1980

meaningful jobs for them, no training for skilled jobs as machinists or in heavy equipment. At best, some Indians will get a couple of minor contracts, jobs clearing a few miles of right-of-way.
Indian bands have no recourse if they disagree with recommendations of the pipeline agency with respect to the socioeconomic impact. Trappers who suffer economically can act only as individuals, coming before the company which decides both damage and compensation. The Indian people in the southeast corner of British Columbia have had to hire legal advisers to see what recourse they have because they can see that they are going to get all the negative effects of this pipeline and none of the benefits. In British Columbia numerous land claims are outstanding and nothing has been done to settle them before this pipeline goes through. No wonder Indians in Alberta and British Columbia are protesting the pre-build. Their interests are being completely overlooked.
Last Thursday night, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) what provisions had been made for native people to get jobs on the pre-build. The minister replied, in effect, that this was a very interesting question but that he did not know the answer and, in any case, was not responsible. Once again we find ourselves in a situation where no one on those benches opposite is responsible for answering to Parliament when basic questions are raised concerning the pipeline.
Because the pre-build will increase pressure to develop energy resources in Canada's north, native land claims in the region are bound to be affected, and the native people are concerned. I suggest that if the cabinet is able to change such a basic requirement as the need for financial guarantees, there is no assurance that the Canadian people will not be shortchanged in the same way when it comes to other conditions. In the debate on the pipeline which took place in 1970, we were given very inadequate assurances with regard to environmental protection, land claim settlements and the Canadian content of material which would be used in construction. Rather, the Liberal government took the attitude: trust us and we will look after everything. Today we hear a different story. The cabinet is relying on a very legalistic interpretation, a dubious interpretation, to avoid coming to Parliament with the changes it has made. Instead of a pipeline to transport gas from Alaska, we now have an export pipeline to send gas out of Alberta. Watching this government is like watching a soap opera. It lurches from one crisis to another and after a while onlookers have a good idea what is going to happen next.
Two years ago when the Northern Pipeline bill was being rammed through Parliament, Tommy Douglas objected that the House was
about to take part in putting on the statute books a piece of legislation in which there are glaring gaps and deficiencies, shortcomings which will become more obvious as the project proceeds.
He pointed to the lack of adequate protection for the environment, faulty financial arrangements, the lack of agreements
Northern Gas Pipeline
with native people on their land claims and the lack of guarantees of Canadian content. Then he went on to expose the real purpose of the bill. He said:
The primary purpose in the immediate future is not to take Prudhoe Bay gas to the United States. The primary purpose is to take Alberta gas to the United States.
Today we see that the government is doing just as Tommy Douglas said it would, two years ago.
Some of the members opposite have raised the question of the NDP's position in British Columbia. They see a contradiction between our federal policy opposing increased sales of natural gas and the concern of New Democratic Party members in British Columbia that the pipeline will lock in the B.C. natural gas supply. There is no contradiction, Mr. Speaker. If we found a family living on junk food, we would not help the situation very much by simply taking that food away. Something has to be provided in its place. That is the situation with respect to natural gas in British Columbia.
We face the same situation with regard to our forest industry. In spite of what people once thought, our forests are not an inexhaustible resource. We in the New Democratic Party believe that British Columbia must adopt a policy of more intensive processing of our forest resource rather than exporting huge squares of timber which will be further processed in the receiving country. In the meantime, though, the forest industry depends upon the export market. When that market takes a downturn, our people suffer. What we need is a phased-in policy of more intensive processing while we are phasing out export of raw or semi-processed products. It is the same with natural gas, Mr. Speaker. The New Democratic Party of British Columbia knows very well that our province depends very heavily upon the revenues from the sale of natural gas. After all, back in the seventies, it was Dave Barrett and the New Democratic Party government which demanded that while we respected existing contracts, the people of British Columbia should at least get a fair return from the sale of their resources.
We have to move away from dependence on the export of raw resources. But we have no intention of doing this in an arbitrary or unplanned manner. Our position is clear. Increased exports of natural gas from Canada-from Alberta-confirm Canada's position as a hinterland to the United States. We become more dependent upon the export of our non-renewable resources, but at the same time this places the economy of British Columbia in jeopardy by threatening to cut off our exports when the government has become so dependent upon them. What I want to know, and what the people of British Columbia want to know, is where the 16 Tory members of Parliament stand on this issue.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


James Douglas Manly: What is their position? Where do the members for Vancouver Centre (Mrs. Carney) and Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) stand on this question? Do they have any policy other than silence or skirting the issues?


An hon. Member:: They are hiding.

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I believe we need to debate the remarkable assertions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning swap agreements. On Thursday night the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) asked what provisions there were to swap present exports of natural gas from Alberta for an equivalent amount and at an equivalent price of Alaskan gas when it became available. I would like to quote the minister's reply. Ele said:
We discussed and reviewed this matter at great length and examined possible avenues, and it was concluded-unfortunately 1 have to say-that arrangements for swaps were not feasible and not administratively possible in this instance. I have gone into this matter to a great extent. We have tried, but I must say in that respect that I have been unable to achieve arrangements which would be satisfactory. I came to the conclusion myself that the objections and the problems which had been raised in considering such an arrangement were quite genuine and that it was impossible to make such arrangements.
I also came to the conclusion that the question of swaps was not as essential as it appeared in terms of supply for future Canadian needs. We have quite clear evidence that Canadian supply is quite large and that we can be assured that the future of Canadian supplies remains guaranteed.
We need to hear more from the minister about this. Instead of a simple admission that he had completely failed, he said that there were objections and problems attached to any swap arrangements-objections and problems that he considered genuine and which made swap provisions impossible. I say that we need to hear some of the details about these objections and problems. What were they? How did they come to have such an overpowering effect on the minister's mind, causing a complete turnabout of his former policy? We need a chance to debate these things. Further, the minister said that the question of swaps was not as essential as it once appeared. The minister began the discussion by saying that unfortunately arrangements for swaps were not feasible. He concluded it by saying they did not matter. Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of Aesop's fable about the fox which saw a fine bunch of grapes. The fox tried to jump up and get the grapes. It jumped again and again but could not reach them. Finally it gave up in disgust and walked away. It said: "Those grapes are sour." We have a case here of sour grapes. The minister tried to get swap provisions, and when he could not he said they really did not matter. The reason the minister gives for this is that the Canadian supply is quite large and we can be assured that the future of Canadian supplies remains guaranteed.


An hon. Member:: At what cost?


James Douglas Manly: Happy days are here again. We are back to the euphoric period of Joe Greene when he was minister of the same portfolio. Only nine years ago he stated that Canada had a supply of natural gas that would last for 932 years and a supply of oil for 390 years. We can forget all about those terrible years in the mid-seventies when it was predicted that we could be running short by 1985 and even 1983.
It becomes quite evident that estimates of gas reserves vary in accordance with industry proposals at any given time. In the early seventies the industry wanted to increase exports, and so we heard about reserve supplies which would last for hundreds of years. By the mid-seventies the push was on to rush through
the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. We heard that unless we got this pushed through in the next few months, we would all be freezing in the dark. Now when we want to go ahead with the pre-build which involves further exports, we hear once more about huge reserves.
It becomes increasingly difficult for Canadians to place any credence at all in the differing statistics given to justify these different projects. However, we should recognize that no matter how large our reserves, there is no such thing as a surplus of a non-renewable resource. Our reserves might be surplus to our needs for this year, or even for this generation, but when we consider the long-term future of Canada, there are no real surpluses of natural gas.
Today we hear the government talking about the jobs involved in the pre-build. We want those jobs too, but we want all of the jobs in the total pipeline. We do not want the pre-build jobs at the expenses of our children's future. We do not want them at the expense of future energy requirements, nor at the expense of future jobs that will depend upon those gas reserves. The lack of planning exhibited by the government poses a continual threat to the natural resources of Canada.
Back in the sixties members of the New Democratic Party opposed the terms of the Columbia River treaty with the United States. At that time we were shouted down by cries of cheap energy. Today the people of British Columbia are paying through the nose for that sell-out by Liberal, Conservative and Social Credit governments. In the sixties we sold our power down the river; in the eighties we are sending it down the tube.
The NDP heard the same story when it tried to modify the original auto pact agreement, legislation in which all the cards were stacked against Canadian people. As Tommy Douglas said, "We were shooting craps with loaded dice". Today our unemployed auto workers are paying the price for the refusal of that Liberal government to demand proper terms.
Going ahead with the pre-build without 100 per cent guarantees is only the latest chapter in this long, depressing soap opera, a soap opera in which the sponsor refuses to come clean by coming before Parliament with a bill to make it all legal.
The sell-out of our natural gas reserves reflects the continuing foreign domination of that industry.


An hon. Member:: And that party.


James Douglas Manly: And that party, right. In spite of the minister talking about the benefit of the pre-build to hundreds of small and medium-sized Canadian-owned producers, the fact remains that concentration and foreign control is only slightly less in the natural gas industry than in the oil industry. In 1979, four of the six top producers were foreign-controlled multinationals-Shell, Amoco, Gulf and Imperial. Perhaps this does not bother the Liberal cabinet too much. In spite of Liberal rhetoric about Canadian control of the economy, most Liberal cabinet members appear to be thinly disguised conti-nentalists. After all, it was only 11 years ago that the Hon. Joe Greene, in asking for a continentalist energy policy with more
July 22, 1980

exports from Canada, spoke of our boundary with the United States as the "imaginary border". Unfortunately, if all that separates Canada from the United States is an "imaginary border", the Liberal government suffers from a failure of imagination. It is unable to imagine a Canada not dependent upon exports of raw resources, it is unable to imagine a Canada in control of its own economic destiny, it is unable to imagine a Canada in the twenty-first century that will need these resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say how much I appreciate the opportunity of giving my maiden speech in the House at this time. 1 count it a great privilege to be elected to this forum and to be part of the Government of Canada. Many ask, "Why give up your business and your way of life to go to Ottawa?" Canada means much to me. Canada is more that geography although I like the writing on the portal of the main door, "from sea to sea". Canada is more than the natural resources with which we have been blessed in such abundance. Canada is more than beauty, although she has been endowed with so much-mountains and lakes, spaceless prairies, endless forests, farmlands; we have it all. Canada is still more. Canada is rich in her freedoms-freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice and freedom to worship God. Canada means security-a place to stand and a place to grow. That is what Canada has done for me. Canada is rich in her heritage for freedom and was always willing to give of her sons and daughters in the cause of liberty. Canada is rich in her compassion to those who need shelter in the time of storm. To me Canada is the beautiful pearl among nations.
I should like to thank those who elected me to represent the great riding of London-Middlesex in the Thirty-second Parliament. The London-Middlesex riding is situated in the beautiful farmland of southwestern Ontario. The city of London is the capital of that part of the country. My riding is the east half of Middlesex county and the eastern and southern portion of the city of London. The London-Middlesex riding completely encircles the ridings of London East and West represented by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), our party whip, and the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan). Middlesex county is farmland at its best, with over 90 per cent class 1 and 2 land backed by very diversified farming-dairy, beef, pork, poultry, grain, beans and fruits. It is almost like the garden of Eden. Also we have many small towns and villages that contribute much to the total community. A good two-thirds of the population of my riding is within the city of London. As with the rural, the urban part also is diversified with many well-kept subdivisions, with mainly single family homes, with many small businesses and the corporate giant, GM Diesel. The population is basically Anglo-Saxon, with many people from other countries coming to settle in the London area. We have Italians, Dutch, Greeks, Poles, Hungarians, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Germans, Croatians, Lebanese, French and many others. These folk have come to this
Northern Gas Pipeline
land with many technical skills and have certainly helped to build this country to what it is today.
1 was elected on February 18, 1980, to represent the riding of London-Middlesex as a member of the Liberal party. I promise to do my best, but more than that, I believe 1 became a director to the "Canadian company". Even as my riding is very diverse, so is Canada, and I intend to serve my country as a director in trying to see that the Canadian company does well. I have always said what I believe and taken an active role in issues which concern me. As a responsible representative of the people of Canada, my obligation as a director of the Canadian corporation is to make decisions which are best for the country as a whole, to make the right turn when faced with the inevitable fork in the road and to choose the path which is best for the long-term future of Canada, even though that particular road may be rocky and steep and, indeed, may contain potholes which pose the possibility of bottoming out. It really does not matter what level of government one is operating in; making the right decisions, not necessarily the popular ones, gains long-term respect and confidence. He who serves his country best serves his party best.
I would like to express my views, first of all, on the present state of our country's unity and wealth. I am all for the various provinces having good, strong, individual voices, but we must never forget that we are Canadians first. What world voice would we have if we each were intent on being known as Albertans, westerners, Ontarians, maritimers or Quebeckers instead of Canadians? As we look around the world, we realize we in Canada are very fortunate people. We have inherited a wonderful way of life and have vast resources at our disposal.
I would like to give an illustration of what I see is happening in Canada today. It seems to be like an old couple with lots of money who, having raised a large family suddenly die, and then the family begins squabbling over the will-or the constitution-and over who can grab the most. Can confederation withstand that kind of assault? Will there be any confederation left if we all "get our rights" and build our own empires? It helps to strengthen the country to broaden the base, but we should never forget that we are all members of the same corporate family. Our Canadian concerns should come first and our provincial second. Provincial governments are the regional outgrowth of municipalities, but the federal government is the Government of Canada responsible to the people of Canada.
1 would like to tell the story of a traveller in twelfth century Italy who came across two men laying bricks. "What are you doing," the traveller asked. The first man replied, "I am laying bricks". The second man answered, "I am building a cathedral". One was working for daily needs, and there is nothing wrong with that, the other one was working for daily needs too, but with a long-range plan for a better tcmorrow for the next generation. So I emphasize again that as each of us sit here in this board room, we must, for a time, doff our special
3240

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
ridings and even our provincial hats and accept the responsibility of wearing the corporate hat of a Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Let our object be our country, our whole country and nothing but our country.
As I have said many times, the challenge of the eighties will be energy and finances, and I am sure governments will be judged on how well these two great problems are handled. The solution to the energy question and the state of our nationhood seem to go hand in hand.
While I fully support the right of each energy producing province and private corporation to a fair return on their resources, somehow we must not lose sight of our over-all corporate goal: energy security at a fair price for all Canadians. As I have stated before, the price of oil must go up. We must narrow the gap between our price and the world price of oil, and while 1 do not expect Petro-Canada to solve all our energy problems, 1 have always believed that Petro-Canada is a small window into a very dark room.
Personally, I would not want to see Petro-Canada take over the oil industry, but I believe it should provide some stability and reliability in the oil business, to the extent that the government has some insight in the oil industry to ensure that the consumer is not being ripped off by the multinationals.
I sometimes wonder about the interlocking of board rooms, especially between oil companies and car manufacturers. I am not a socialist, but I believe that the government must keep an eye on what is going on in the private sector. 1 honestly believe that if oil companies are not members in the same club, there is certainly a definite family connection. It is amazing how often the directors or their representatives turn up in different board rooms, not only of our oil companies but also of our automobile manufacturers and our financial institutions. I am sure that if we traced the stock holdings of many, there could not help but be some glaring conflicts of interest which discourage healthy competition which, if left unfettered, could perhaps have led to lower energy prices for Canadians.
To achieve our economic goals, we must find ways of attaining energy self-sufficiency. That must be done through many different ways and means such as oil development, conservation, energy alternatives and switching to natural gas or hydro-of which we enjoy a surplus-to list some of the solutions.
If we Canadians could agree on an energy pricing policy which would give Canadians a long-term lower price than world prices, think of what that would do to give our industry an edge in the world market in manufactured goods.
I would like to give credit to the province of Alberta, for it has been sharing its resources with the rest of Canada at a price-much lower than the world market, but there are always two sides to every story. I go back in history to 1956 when there came on the scene of Parliament a very stormy issue. It eventually brought the Liberal government down because it pushed through legislation for the right to build a pipeline from the oil fields of Alberta to the market in Ontario. Ontario paid more for western gasoline for many years than if it had been brought in from offshore.
Pipelines are like railroads in that they link the country together. This most recent pipeline, known as the pre-build, is just the first phase of a line which will reach into the far northwest corner of our country when completed. This line will serve a dual duty in that it will not only transport Canadian gas from the far north but will also accommodate the United States in sending their natural resource to the lower 48. The spinoff from this project will be of tremendous benefit to the financial structure of Canada in terms of jobs and cash flow. I am sure time will vindicate the go-ahead on this pipeline. Who would suggest that the first pipeline from the west to the east was anything but a roaring success for Canada?
However, at this point there is simply no way we can develop alternative energy resources fast enough. Canadians will be dependent on oil energy for many years to come.
What about the energy potential in Canada? We have the oil fields in the west and the north, Hibernia off the east coast, and uranium mines, but where do we go from here? Do we harness the power of the ocean tides or recycle garbage? Gasohol and the development of energy resources is paramount to our survival. Some diesel tractors in the United States of America are being fuelled by an extract from soybeans. 1 believe the proposed alternative energy corporation should find itself a half dozen good scientists, lock them in a room and tell them to forget the word "oil". I am sure that if we have the capability of sending a man to the moon and taking pictures far out in space, we can find other sources of fuel to fire our machines. I look forward to the proposed alternative energy corporation supplying some of those sound choices in the years to come.
Another national resource important economically to every Canadian is our western wheat. 1 am greatly distressed when I hear about millions of bushels of wheat sitting in granaries and unable to get to world markets because of transportation problems. According to the Canadian Wheat Board, a while back it was losing $2 million a day in potential wheat sales because of mechanical and transportation bottlenecks. 1 want to see the grain terminal at Prince Rupert a fact in the near future. I support the notorious double-tracking, where necessary, and that is only in certain spots, 1 understand, but let us get on with the job. As a federal government, we should take definite steps somehow to get that grain to the ships and to world markets. If that means upgrading the railroad, the grain terminals or port facilities, then somehow let us do it. We cannot afford not to.
Another issue we cannot afford to neglect is our responsibility for the health and well-being of our most precious resource, our youth. A real health hazard in our society among our youth is the use of drugs. I believe we must be very careful of any change in our drug laws. We have seen what tragic results there were from lowering the drinking age. The same thing took place when we changed the laws on abortion. Many members have related to me that they would never have voted for the change had they known the detrimental effect that the new law would bring to society. I believe that we have history
July 22, 1980

to prove, especially over the last 20 years, what softening the laws will do to our country.
I believe young people need to know that somebody cares for them, has a genuine interest in them and that we do not want to see them destroy themselves and their future in the drug scene. Laws that have any meaning must have the support of society. They must be fair and just. They must be severe enough to be a deterrent and, hopefully, be strong enough to bring correction.
There are two other issues that I would like to touch upon briefly before I finish. The Government of Canada, through our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), had my wholehearted support in the boycott of the Olympics and in the buying of the new fighter aircraft. We all, I am sure, felt for the youth who looked forward for so long to the competition in Moscow, but what better way was there, short of war, to tell the Soviets that if they were going to act as barbarians in the world community, then they would have to pay a price.
The Russians, I am sure, were wanting, by hosting the Olympics, to demonstrate to the world what a fine, civilized and responsible Communistic government can be. By their intervention in Afghanistan, the Soviets vindicated those of us who believe that they still have world domination in mind.
Because of the recent happenings in the world, especially in the Middle East, and the continual build-up of the Soviet military machine, I believe that the free world has no alternative but to respond. War is unthinkable, but to be crushed by a ruthless dictator, would, in my opinion, be worse. George Washington once said, "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace".
I would like to suggest that we as Canadians are a very privileged people. We have so much in comparison with the rest of the world. While we are privileged, we must be responsible in ensuring that our freedoms and opportunities are retained in our society, and each generation must come to grips with these matters. A democracy does not have perpetual power. It is something that we must work at and struggle for, to be involved in, to make it a lasting thing. Democracy is everyone's business.
Democracy demands involvement. If left to itself, it rots and decays. It demands the involvement of all of us at all levels of government. Democracy makes each of us responsible for the future of our country, Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, when I left here this afternoon I had a potpourri of experiences from this first session of the Thirty-second Parliament in mind, and 1 had a collection of rather serious matters which had been left undone. 1 listened to my learned friend, the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer), this afternoon on matters pertaining to immigration. I have been conscious of our move toward a just society. I brought in a great package of unresolved questions pertaining to immigration matters of a compassionate nature from my riding which 1 have not been able to resolve.
Northern Gas Pipeline
I must be fair to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and thank him for one or two matters, but when I heard the story of the Calamusa affair as described by the hon. member for Cambridge this afternoon, I went back and reviewed my file and found that retarded children trying to be reunified with families were being denied access and that people were being deported who had compassionate grounds for staying, stories which were heart-rending. I just hope that as a result of the speech this afternoon and the awareness that many of us have gained, a great deal more compassion, consideration and humane judgment will be given to some of the applications and contacts which many of us will be making with the Department of Immigration through the summer break.
Before I get into the heart of my remarks, I would like to share a couple of concerns. Personally I am very concerned that we as a Parliament and a governing body have failed in updating the terms of reference under which the National Energy Board should be working. I believe that if they had more modern terms of reference and a better understanding of the concerns of members of Parliament and Canadians in terms of supply for our children and their children into the future, then perhaps debates of this nature would not be necessary.
I have a criticism of some of the data which is behind the decision-making base. It is really the lack of updated policy which the National Energy Board is using. In my remarks tonight, I urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to begin resolving this matter and to present to the beginning of the second session of this Parliament terms of reference for the Energy Board which can be perhaps debated in this House so that the importance of this issue can be impressed in the minds and hearts of Canadian people and can be resolved.
I think that is what this chamber is all about. It behooves all of us sitting during the Thirty-second Parliament to take an interest in this issue and to become involved in it. In my opinion we are using a frame of time which is too short in the calculation of reserves. I would like to understand the part of review or special committee of the House that perhaps can deliver what we want as a Canadian people and what our constituents want in terms of security of energy in the future.
I would also like to have better knowledge about the nonrenewable forms of energy and the programs which are ahead in that area. One of the most serious things in terms of the energy debate which is going on-and I speak with all the sincerity I can muster in my heart and soul-is the debate and the stance or the threats which are coming from not only the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but from this minister of energy in terms of the export gas tax to the western provinces. I want to tell the gentlemen opposite that there is nothing which is concerning the government in my province more than that one single issue and that one single constant threat.
The dollars which this government has threatened to take away from the B.C. treasury are in the order of $250 million to $300 million. I was told yesterday that if that export tax

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
goes through, as threatened by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources of the federal government, by 1985 the sum drain from the provincial treasury from the province of British Columbia will be as high as $1,200 million. Gentlemen, for goodness sake, hear this continuing plea from the western source of energy.
Those provinces have in their history the complete ability and they want to share with the have-not provinces of this country. It is the way in which they share. Allow them to have an input into the sharing. There has never been greed to any degree. But this federal government, if it intends to resolve the constitutional debate into which we are entering, a debate which will be at the hearts of every Canadian over the next two years, will have to back off on the stance that it is taking and the alienation it is causing in terms of a drain on the resource revenues of the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
It is quite interesting that all of us in the west, 1 believe, consider Premier Blakeney to be a man of very great, statesman-like ability, in terms of provincial premiers. 1 am sure that even he is having great trouble wrestling with the proposition of the federal government. If he intends to represent his province, he must join the no-stand of the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. I ask the government to please not expose this country to a strain which will break it by continuing on the present path taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
1 should like to point out one of the fundamental differences between the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal party in terms of what we are entering into in the Thirty-second Parliament. We hear a great deal about a national energy strategy, particularly from our friends to the left. We know that the hardworking Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is burning the midnight oil putting together a national industrial strategy.
I anticipate three major pieces of legislation that will come from this new Liberal government with their new mandate. 1 suggest to everyone in this House that we are moving into an era of highly structured type of law and legislation with bureaucrats, tribunals and agencies to control the decisionmaking aspect of our lives.
Our approach was different on this side of the House. Our legislation was going to direct itself to behaviour. We were going to spread the decision-making base of the nation into the board rooms, to the presidents and managers of industry. That way we could once again spark this country with the incentives so necessary to create wealth and to take care of the distribution problems that we have.
I see one of my friends on the government benches shaking his head. If he does not know what 1 am talking about perhaps he should do some reading, even if it is newspaper clippings. We are into a period of a highly structured type of law.
I can also warn every member of the House that we will be faced with a new set of regulations and instructions from
FIRA which will give more control over foreign corporations. I do not suppose anyone in the House will object to that, Mr. Speaker. 1 would bet, however, that that type of control will be exerted over Canadian corporations as well. We will be offered a competition act that will be highly structured. Business and the incentive sector will answer to tribunals, to committees and agencies.
We have moved away from a very sincere and energetic effort on the part of the Clark government toward incentives, tax credits on incremental increases for research and development so that once again the boardrooms of this nation could direct their monetary energies into high risk areas. In this way we could generate new technologies, new techniques, update productivity and start creating wealth so that we would be able to compete in the industrial world. All that has gone, Mr. Speaker. We are moving to the socialist approach of a highly structured economy where the bureaucrats are wiser than all the people gambling their own savings and making the decisions.


An hon. Member:: Tell them what they want to hear.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I should like now to make some observations about the NDP. This is the party that is always calling for a national industrial strategy. The only national industrial strategy they have ever offered is to impose state ownership on the production of goods and services.
I was very surprised the other night, and 1 mentioned my surprise, when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) spoke about the small business community. I wept at that; I was really moved. I have noticed in the election campaigns in which I have been involved since 1972 that the NDP always talks about taxes. Two-thirds of their campaign literature is directed to taxes. They want indexing removed from middle and upper income earners so that their level of tax is increased.
I know enough about Marxist doctrine, Mr. Speaker, to know that the method is to tax employers and merchants and take taxation from the workers. When the NDP preoccupy themselves with taxes, they are occupying themselves with matters that are of concern and importance only to merchants and employers. They are in turn attacking the business community and those who make it work. That includes the small and medium sectors to which, every once in a while, they like to promise something.
The tax question that they present by rote is for the bourgeoisie, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake about that. Workers are naturally concerned about deductions, negotiations and catch-up. The wage in the marketplace is the commodity of labour power. Competition assures that the take home pay is all that the worker gets. Herein lies one of the great challenges for each and every one of us in this House.
This party, Mr. Speaker, places a high priority on spreading the benefits of capitalism across to the work force. I personally will continue my efforts in all committee hearings, to encouraging share ownership and taxation plans like RRSPs
July 22, 1980

which allow workers to buy with pre-tax dollars more and more of the wealth-creating opportunities in this country.
The New Democratic Party is always crying for rent controls. It is interesting that Marxist activists always work against the landlords, Mr. Speaker-against the free market concept. This continuous attack delivers nothing but shortages. Anyone who wants to know what a housing shortage is should visit the west coast to find out. Incentives have been removed for those people who have saved, for the people who have capita], to invest it and to create shelters.
Therein lies another of the dilemmas which stems from the continuous attention to socialist dogma. We have delivered everything to consumerism. It is time that we returned to a balance between consumerism and supply. The shortage of goods is causing an inflationary pressure that will never be licked until some government policies move into this area.
These shortages do not serve man, Mr. Speaker. They do not serve the low income earner that the NDP is always championing. In my opinion, the NDP position on rentals is completely wrong. This is still a free enterprise system, 1 hope. If the incentive is removed, there will naturally be a shortage.
In all their activities during the elections and in this House, the New Democratic Party creates irritants, they never create cures. They only serve their own political ends with their activity.
The NDP does not really give a tinker's darn about tenants. They do not give a tinker's darn about the individual or the sense of individualism in our society and neither, in my opinion, do the mandarins of organized labour who are their bosses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Most of Canada's problems could be solved if we were to create the environment to encourage Canadian savings and capital. I do not see that happening in the moves taken by the Liberal government. The NDP programs destroy capital. How can any of their programs create capital, considering the way they want to spend and create deficits. They show no ability to take a risk. They agitate tenants and use their rancour and cliches only to gain political advantage for themselves. They offer irritants, never solutions. Industrial strategy and planned economy are but catchwords. Their industrial strategy is only state ownership of the means of producing goods and services. Can the NDP tell us what the alternative to capitalism is? What is the alternative, gentlemen? How do we achieve it?


An hon. Member:: Socialism is the alternative.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: They are long on listing the evils of capitalism but they never offer a correction or a solution that will lead man as an individual or man with the freedom to set the goals, to achieve and to create wealth.


An hon. Member:: You are running out of gas.
Northern Gas Pipeline


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Marxist doctrine has not survived the test of time because no situation has developed-


An hon. Member:: Groucho or Harpo?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -where the doctrine has been applied in its genuine form. Possibly the country that came closest to the Marxist ideal was the United States, a highly industrialized society. It is a society that was built on capitalism, free enterprise and taxation laws-


An hon. Member:: Argentina. Chile.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: -that encourages initiative.
I am really getting to them now, Mr. Speaker. This system of rigid forward planning, in my opinion, is totally false. 1 cannot see all the developing aspects of the future. But this is what they want in their industrial strategy. They want everything tied down into a framework that is immovable and entrenched.
Did Marx see the technological revolution which has taken the labour and the sweat out of the labour of man? No, he did not. That is one of the reasons so many of the doctrines and so many other countries have failed. An industrial revolution which we are in the middle of today will enlighten and reduce the labours of man, but Marx did not see that. Nowhere in a planned economy can you adjust to the exciting technological evolution that is coming out of man's mind today.
In my opinion, capitalism does make a beneficial contribution to human development. But we have not yet reached the stage where the benefit of capital is available for all. 1 think that that is the challenge which this government on the other side might pick up. I will certainly needle them as an opposition member because I think we need taxation laws which will allow the pre-tax purchase of equity and shares in the place of work of Canadian labour. If we can do that, capitalism will have a shot in the arm. It will put the socialist dogma into the garbage can once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this debate is somewhat arid for us all here in the House of Commons, first because of the very warm weather we have had in recent days and also because of the incessant work that the New Democratic Party has forced us to do in the past couple of days. Of course, we all need to be in our ridings as soon as possible to be able to discuss with our people, to know their problems a little better, to hear their points of view on the different policies we implement from here. Unfortunately, it seems certain members of the House did not understand that and decided to keep us here just to draw some publicity. Still 1 do want to be consistent, and I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to be able to speak tonight for several reasons.

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
First of all, this is the first time 1 have sat in this august chamber, as 1 was newly elected on February 18, and tonight I have a chance to tell you what I think, to sum up the work that has been done in the past few months. When you come here to work in the interest of your people, the first thing you try to do is to understand what people need and what the people you represent want. That is what I have tried to do. 1 tried to find out if my colleagues from all parties shared the same view. Of course, that becomes difficult because we are caught here five days a week, sometimes more, and at the same time we have to be at home to know what our people think.
From that context it is still easy to determine who in the House is serious and who is not. One thing that appears certain to me is that there are fundamental differences between what the Progressive Conservatives may think on certain points and what we may think on others. It is the same thing on the pipeline as on any other project. Our goals are different, and so are our views. Still, I noticed that the Progressive Conservatives are serious in what they do. When they ask a question and a minister answers, they listen to the answer. If they have criticisms to make, they make them. If they do not agree, they say so. As you know, Mr. Speaker, tonight there was a motion introduced on the pre-build section of the northern pipeline. It was introduced by a member of the New Democratic Party. I am pleased. It is part and parcel of the rights and rules of the House to be able to introduce motions when what has been done is considered inadequate. Be assured that I have deep respect for the parliamentary leader of that party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).

Mr. Speaker, 1 will try to tell you in English, and I hope that my friends will understand. Tonight is the first time that 1 have spoken in English in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: 1 am very respectful of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the knowledge he has of the rules of the House. 1 understood the point of view he gave tonight. He thinks deeply that the government is not acting legally by taking the position to commence the prebuild. We have received assurance from the government that all is okay. I respect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for telling us in the House that he does not agree. I want to tell the hon. member that I hope his friends in the NDP take an example from him. What we saw from this party over the last few days, and 1 do not want to go over it, but when his colleagues were asking questions of ministers they were speaking throughout the time a minister was answering those questions.
I remember quite well when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) made his speech announcing the decision. There was no one except the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and perhaps one or two others of that party, who were listening.
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, 1 will address you. I want to tell you more about this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Well done.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: If somebody wants to criticize or speak in the House, it is important to understand what a minister is saying. I can tell hon. members that the intervention given tonight by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the only one truly based on facts coming from the NDP throughout this debate on the pre-build. All the rest did it for publicity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: And I do not accept this as a member of this House.
I thought the letter "N" meant new. When you are new, you are usually aggressive, especially in the economy. I always thought the letter "D" stood for democratic. Democratic means that when you take a decision you go and see the people in your riding and listen carefully to the people in this country, including the workers and their unions. Usually the letter "P" stands for the party. But I am asking myself now that perhaps the name should be "Non-Development Party" instead of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, while addressing my colleagues through you, I shall say that this country called Canada, which has a very important neighbour called the United States, has always developed. It has always been in the forefront because, instead of waiting to see what our American friends would do, we often forestalled them, we provoked them, not with weapons but with ideas and actions, actions we took at the economic and social levels. Today they are looking at us, our American friends, they are looking at our health policies, and they are saying: How do they have social policies which are so strong, which are so good in that country? They want to do the same, but they are far behind.
Today, they look at us when they see that this country has succeeded in respecting its basic cultures, and tomorrow, they will look at us and say: How can you have so much energy at work and so much energy in the literal sense: Oil, gas, electricity, and so on? What this government has decided to do is to use the powers conferred by a bill which said that, provided the required guarantees were there, they could go ahead and build a pipeline. We are doing this because we know that Mr. Carter, in his capacity as President, and the Congress, which represents the American people, needed someone to show leadership to build the Alaska highway

******
July 22, 1980

pipeline. We are giving them this leadership and they will act as promised. Mr. Speaker, to do this, you need social and economic awareness.
I was listening to certain members say that we should keep for tomorrow the two trillion cubic feet of gas that we could sell to the Americans. When a country has one million unemployed in such a difficult economic situation for North America and the western world, it has no right to abandon investments of half a billion dollars which can produce $22 billion. If this is gambling, if this is playing heads or tails, as a young Canadian member of Parliament, I am ready to meet this challenge and to gamble, because I am sure that we shall win.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to say: We have enough; we shall keep our gas for tomorrow. However, you have to go and see those who are unemployed today, you have to go and see the industries. Even in my own constituency, there are industries directly related to this issue. I am from Lac-Saint-Jean, thousands of miles from where the pipeline will be built. Can we afford to put this problem aside, especially when the workers' unions are telling us to go ahead? These are the same unions for which this party is supposed to be working. They have never worked for the workers. I hear the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) shouting. 1 am not surprised. We are discussing a motion that he introduced himself in the House. Instead of listening, what is he doing? He is shouting. He can go on shouting, what he says will still be irrelevant. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker.
Just the same, seriousness must be exercised at some point. It is my belief that this government, the government built by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), one of the best this country has had and an extremely active one, shares the same concern as the other ones we have had over these last 12 years. And this includes our Progressive Conservative friends, because they did have just the same concern for pushing Canada forward. Even though we disagreed on programs and they made mistakes that at some point brought us back to the government, they had that concern and that seriousness.
Just the same, that concern for the well-being of all Canadians is shared by this government with every other one led by the right hon. Prime Minister, the concern not for the bulk of Canadians, not for Canadian corporations, not for the Canadian government, but for each and every Canadian to have what he needs. It is not good enough that today our young people have to shoulder the hardship of too few jobs. With the pre-build we want to help them, as we have helped them with various programs.
It is not good enough either to assume that future generations will lack some things. Because in my view the most extraordinary trait of pseudo-socialists on this earth is that they are pessimists. They are afraid of the future. We Liberals believe in the future, and to believe in the future one must believe in the present. And believing in the present is going forward. What are we doing here but making a step forward?
Northern Gas Pipeline
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if 1 continued this debate without mentioning something basic and I hope that all hon. members will understand the meaning of my remarks.


An hon. Member:: You blew it again!


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I wish to know if before taking a stand the leaders of the New Democratic Party consulted someone about this. Their own supporters, the unions are endorsing the position of the government. In our ridings the people have applauded this decision. Everyone here in Canada, except the so-called experts, understand that it is by co-operating with the Americans that we shall get results and also by co-operating with each other and by giving what we have to give to the modern world that we are going to develop as a nation.
When we call our American friends foreigners, we are talking about human beings like us. And someone who comes and tells me that, when we have a reserve of 71 trillion cubic feet of gas and that we cannot sell two trillion cubic feet to our neighbours, probably because they are foreigners, that person completely forgets that we owe most of our modern technology to those same foreigners. That person forgets that we live in the same world as they do and that we are only separated by a black line on a geographic map. They are human beings like us and we have been living side by side for 200 years. Of course, they are not communists, they are capitalists like us. If Mr. Carter was called by another name, if he was from a socialist country, our friends might have more confidence in him, but he lives in a democratic country and is not elected for life, as we know. We have confidence in those neighbours called Americans. Because they have been our neighbours for a long time and we have a good relationship. And they have always kept their commitments towards Canada and they will continue to keep them better than the people of the New Democratic Party, than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I am sorry but I do not refer to you and your experience when l say this-better than those people have respected their commitments to their electors at the time of the last election. I hope their electors remember that four years from now.
One thing is sure, Mr. Speaker, and that is that our country, under the leadership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, has become the country whose minorities are the most respected, the country whose social laws are the most balanced, the country whose economic development has best been achieved, the country where inflation has done the least harm to the poor, the country whose economy is developed the most, and now the country with the greatest energy resources; and there are only 26 million inhabitants in the wonderful country the Liberals have built and rebuilt from the bottom up in the last hundred years.
We will not allow a group of pseudo-socialists to set us back a hundred years every decade: that we shall not. We shall

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
continue to work toward the development of that country and make of it, no matter what our socialist friends think, a capitalist country, a country that is respected, whose social laws are strong, just and fair to all Canadians, no matter where they live.
You know, Mr. Speaker, though I cannot see the Rocky Mountains from my house, 1 can say one thing: I have never considered even for one moment that my country is limited to my Lac-Saint-Jean area. If there are people in this House who think that because gas is sold on the other side of the Rockies those who live on this side of them have to do without, they are mistaken, because the people in British Columbia will continue to sell gas, if they so desire, as will the people in Alberta. But the people in eastern Canada, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) said a few moments ago, will also be able to benefit from the pipeline we are about to build.
In conclusion, I want to emphasize the hard work done by each minister and by each member of Parliament in the last months. But never, Mr. Speaker, will I forget the filibuster orchestrated in committee by the New Democratic Party during the last few weeks, and the publicity that they have tried to get from the House in the past few days. I am going back to my constituents, I will try to listen to them and hope they listen to me.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the speech we have just heard is the type that we generally get during an election campaign, and not in a place where words carry their full meaning. It was similar to some speeches I heard during the campaign in Quebec, over gas and oil. It was very confused in some respects. However, I must say 1 admire the hon. member for his enthusiasm. Since he is a neophyte in the House I hope we will have the opportunity to hear him again in the future.
I would indicate especially to the party whip and the House leader that they should not be in such a hurry to muzzle government backbenchers. There is always that tendency. Tonight I do not really want to talk about the issue raised by the socialists, but 1 would like to address the question of the pipeline. However, since the person concerned speaks only English, I will continue in English. I will return to the discussion on an issue which concerns us all here in the House and in Parliament, the entire administration.

I do not want to say anything about the pipeline tonight.


An hon. Member:: You don't know anything!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, I have heard from some of those bayers in the NDP whose only connection with the petroleum business is when they drive up to the pumps with their cars and say "Fill 'er up!" And then they blast away with gas at subsidized prices. That is all they say, and that is all they know.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to talk about that other individual known as the hon. senator from southern Alberta who is a member of the cabinet and who last Saturday, in Calgary, at a press conference, would never have made a statement about all the Alberta members of this House and their stand on the so-called pre-build section of the Alaskan gas pipeline had he been looking at me or any of my colleagues face to face, because he would have been called a bare-faced and public liar, twisting for purely partisan purposes. That is a measure of the bankruptcy of the Liberal party in Alberta, and that is all I say.
I want to talk about something which affects hon. members of this House even more. Certain events have transpired during the last few weeks which highlight this problem. First, we have received the eighth report of the advisory group on executive compensation in the public service. This touches on salaries, allowances, and other conditions of employment in what is known as the DM-SX salary range which will be revised effective April 1, 1980. At the lowest level is the SX-I where the minimum of the range is $36,800 rising to a maximum of $50,600 up through six ranges to a DM-3- Deputy Minister 3-where the minimum is $68,900 to a maximum of $85,700. That is in the public service. The commission explained how it arrived at the increases-the 9.5 point increase at the mid-point of the various ranges.
Then there appeared Bill C-34 which is an amendment to the Judges Act, highly overdue, providing for increases in the numbers of judges, increases in pay, the changing of the pension structure of federally appointed judges, the salaries of the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Chief Electoral Commissioner. Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated that the maximum salary potentially paid to a DM-3 was $85,700. Under this act, the Chief Justice of this country will be paid $88,000, and variously down, so that justices of the Superior Courts of the Queen's Bench Division, the Federal Court, will be paid $70,000 per annum. There are two catch-up phases dated April 1, 1979, and April 1, 1980, each of $6,500.
However, there is an additional feature which some of us find disturbing-I do-and that is a provision whereby what had been a contributory pension scheme introduced in 1975 after a good deal of pressure from members of this House on both sides is now being revoked, and all that will be collected by way of pension contributions from federally-appointed judges will be a one per cent levy toward a supplementary remuneration act which provides for increases in the pension due to inflation.
I seem to recall-and at this point my figures are rather rough-that this non-contributory pension scheme is about the equivalent of another salary, because if tax were paid on that second slice it would yield tax dollars which, if invested in an annuity, would yield about the retirement pension of a federally appointed judge. Incidentally, the minimum period, now by right and not by consent of the minister as heretofore, will be 15 years, but in some cases only ten years of tenure will entitle
July 22, 1980

a judge to receive a full pension on retirement for whatever reason-it may be disability and so on. In any event, ten years is the minimum period. But the average period is 15 years of service.
The third event was a report during the past few days that there has been discussion among members of Parliament about changes to be made to our own pension scheme. The press talked about secrecy and so forth. Since I was involved, I want to say quite candidly that we have been looking at certain details and testing out members to see what their reaction was to certain proposals. This is the point the process has reached. The maximum pension payable to members requires 25 years of service which can be made up, in the case of ministers, on the basis that the salaries they touch as ministers may count as payments into the scheme. But an average working member of Parliament must put in 25 years of contributions.
When we consider that the average period of service in this House is somewhere between six and eight years, we can readily see that only a limited number of people will reach the 25-year mark. If the good Lord allows me another year or less, I will have achieved 25 years of service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Other colleagues of mine have achieved this, such as the very eminent chairman of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), and others. We speak with a certain amount of dispassionate interest because nothing that is done affects our pensions in so far as we are concerned.
When I came here 24.5 years ago, my salary as a member of Parliament, my expense allowance and my allowance as a parliamentary secretary, were in excess of the salary of an assistant deputy minister. Now an assistant deputy minister can buy me out twice. It was the same situation with the salaries of county court judges. My salary plus expenses actually exceeded the remuneration he received from the federal side. He was compensated in some way by the surrogate fees to which he was entitled under a provincial pay scheme. Now that self-same judge receives $65,000.
We in this House have a real problem respecting our salaries compared to those of heads of Crown corporations, the governor of the Bank of Canada, people appointed to the PMO under order in council, and ranking House officers on the administration side. A very disparate gap has crept in over the years, all because the different groups are marching at a different step to a different tune, resulting in these particular dislocations.
We know the salary scales in government agencies and banks. For instance, the salary of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is less than that of the Chief Justice or that of the Auditor General. The Auditor General receives $78,000 and the Commissioner for Elections receives not much less than that, as does the Commissioner for Official Languages. But there are very senior people, such as the governor of the Bank
Northern Gas Pipeline
of Canada and the president of the Federal Business Development Bank, whose salaries are tied into that of the Prime Minister. That result is in the middle-range salary levels where there is a total bleedout of trained personnel.
When I look at some of the agencies which perform essential services for government, I wonder how those at the top management level can possibly tolerate the situation where they train bright, young men and women, and lose them because they cannot pay adequate salaries. Where does this all lead? As I have a notice of motion on the order paper, I would advocate to hon. members that we follow the example of our friends in Australia. In 1973 they set up a remuneration review tribunal under the remuneration tribunals act, 1973. This body was named by the governor in council and headed by a state-appointed judge, not a federally appointed one. This tribunal reviews all salaries of judges, Crown corporations and public servants. Also they have a different tribunal which touches on what they call tertiary educational institutions.
I should like to refer to their report of 1979 which reads in part as follows:
We have followed the practice established by the tribunal in past reviews. Advertisements were placed in 16 newspapers indicating the coverage of the review and inviting interested persons, organizations and associations to submit in writing any reviews they consider should be taken into account in the review . . . Also, as in earlier reviews, letters were written to the Prime Minister (inviting an over-all submission from the government)-
The government does not make a decision in this regard. The government is merely a party making a submission to a tribunal. It continues:
-to the leaders of each parliamentary party (inviting a submission from each party), to each member of Parliament (including supplementary requests to each minister inviting submissions on holders of first division offices and holders of public offices within his portfolio), to the Attorney General (inviting a submission relating to judges), to the Chief Justice and to the chief judges of other federal courts, to all first division officers of the public service, and to individual statutory office holders or chairmen of statutory authorities covered by the act.
In 1979 they received 388 written submissions, which was an excellent review and testing of public opinion. Nothing was done on the quiet. They brought in a report. The government made certain comments with regard to the holding of salaries in certain branches, and the commissioner said:
We are not persuaded that we should follow this course.
Then, according to the act, the report is given to a minister who reports on behalf of the tribunal, and within 15 days of its receipt he must table it in the House. The report will take effect, unless within 15 days of its receipt or tabling there shall be passed a motion in either House objecting to it. If the motion objecting carries, it all stops. But the government itself is not party to the appointing of the commission, and it defers its own discretion to some time in the future. The beauty of this is that a professionally constituted and practised body examines the requirements of office and the salaries that should be paid. It is able to weigh them all, one against the other, and maintain a semblance of justice and continuity.

Northern Gas Pipeline
There is no question, as in the Judges Act, of appointing commissioners after three years who will then examine the situation with regard to judges over and beyond the cost of living clause which is included in the bill which will widen the disparity between, shall we say, this House and members of the judiciary or the public service, and it seems to me that we have to put some rationality into this whole system. And what better way, because members who were here in 1974 will remember the road to Calvary, preceded by the Gethsemane in their constituencies, with regard to proposed salary increases, which were modest enough as they were, but having been deferred so long they appeared to be inordinate at one time to some people.
Somehow the public got the idea that it was wrong for elected bodies to set their own salaries. Do the publishers and editors of newspapers, who are directors of publishing companies, not set their own salaries? Do directors who are officers in private corporations not set their own salaries? It is done every day, but somehow there is some sanctimonious clap-trap which drops out of academic circles and which is found in newspaper columns that it is wrong for people to vote generally about their own salaries. It is the same way, for instance, that I vote for changes in the War Veterans Disability Pensions Act. I am a recipient because of some difficulties which arose during war service, and am I wrong in advocating changes in that or changes in prisoners of war compensation legislation because I was a prisoner of war? Am I wrong? What is wrong there?
However, let us go along to meet the objection which appears in public quarters in an attempt to remove this inequality of compensation at this level. I hope the government will soon bring in a bill based upon the Australian bill so that we have a proper, independent remuneration review tribunal at the public level, and then we will be much better off. Incidentally, this must include pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I am very proud to be a member of this House and to be a Canadian, but 1 wish to say that I am not very proud of the government of my country this evening because it has perpetrated here one of the potentially greatest sell-outs and one of the greatest rip-offs we have seen in the history of this country. The government has made that decision without a discussion here in Parliament, without guarantees from the Americans and without input by this Parliament, and I think it is about time we, as parliamentarians, had more input in the decision-making in this country and that we built a Canada in which we used our resources for this generation of the Canadian people and for generations to come. We should have some kind of vision of Canada, Canadi-anism, sovereignty for our people, nation building and nationhood, and I am afraid I do not see it in the sell-out which was announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) just a few days ago in this House.
July 22, 1980
Why do I say that? We have heard many arguments made by my party already without regard to the fact that we have absolutely no guarantees that the rest of the line will be built. We have no guarantees whatsoever that the Americans will indeed spend money on the rest of the line. We have no guarantees with regard to a swap, and there is a possibility that in the future we will have shortages of natural gas in this country.
I said that Parliament was not involved, and i heard some mumbles in the back benches of the Liberal party. 1 heard mumbles from some of the quiet back benchers who never speak except from their seats. They are beginning to be a bit concerned, and I want to say to them that there is a Northern Pipeline Act, and there has been a number of people who have questioned whether the government has the legal authority or power to do what it is doing under that law. Many people have said that the government does not. However, leaving that aside, I want to say that the pre-build is the beginning-if it is to be concluded-of the most expensive project ever undertaken in this country. Its cost will be $23 billion, and yet this institution, Parliament, is having no say at all in the matter.
We have not had a committee of this Parliament. We have not had a committee to look at the question. We did not have a debate before the decision was made. What we are having tonight is a debate after the fact. We are asked to rubber stamp a decision which has been made by the government. It has been made by the minister in the Senate and by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What is Parliament? Are we a bunch of political eunuchs who do not have any real clout or say? Where does the power reside? Does it reside only with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the PMO and the PCO? Does it reside only with the cabinet and the senior bureaucrats and in the board rooms of some of the corporations of this country?


Mr. Blaikie:: Yes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The other thing which makes me rise in this debate after spending some 12 years as a parliamentarian is that I think more and more people are becoming cynical about the governments and politicians of this country, and they are becoming so with just cause.
I have taken the trouble to look up statements made by Liberals in the House in the last few months, and I think we would be doing the people a great service if we were to take the December 6 Hansard, frame it, and send it out to every single voter in this country to show voters the hypocrisy of the Liberal party which sits across the way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 will give a few examples. Old "ironclad" or "ironside", the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said on December 6 after the Conservative government announced the selling of 3.7 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States, and I quote:
July 22, 1980

I think that today we had another unbelievable statement from this government. I think this statement will be one that Canada will live to regret and that may go down in history as one of the greatest sell-outs we have seen.
The same minister six months later announced an even greater sell-out of natural gas to the United States. Is there any Liberal in this House who can justify that type of flip-flop and hypocrisy?
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) is walking out behind the curtain in shame. He is embarrassed and has a red face. Look at him.


Mr. Stollery:: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: He is back.


Peter A. Stollery: I would just like to point out to the hon. member who is speaking, who alluded to me and who said I was standing behind the curtain, that if there was any reason for me to have walked out, which I did not, it would have been the tedious boredom brought about by his speech.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Rose:: He is gone again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is about how serious the Liberal party is.


Mr. Cullen:: Let's try somebody else.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Somebody else?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Not me.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the same speech the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, and I quote:
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.
I asked the Liberal party how seven months later they can justify exporting even more natural gas to the United States without any guarantees whatsoever, except a letter from the President of the United States, which is hardly worth the paper it is printed on, a joint resolution of the American Senate and of the American Congress. 1 could go on and on about the sell-out, hypocrisy and flip-flops of the Liberal party. I have here a quote of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) which can be found at page 2103 in the December 6, 1979, Hansard. It concerns the sell-out of natural gas by the Conservative party. The hon. member weeps, groans, moans, and crocodile tears run down his face. He says:
Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask a question of the minister. 1 should like to know from him whether, in the export sale he announced tonight, he intends also to include in the bargain for export his mother and his father, his grandmother and his grandfather, his daughter and his son, his granddaughter and his grandson; all the children, sons and daughters and all the grandsons and granddaughters of the 23 million Canadians whose heritage he is supposed to protect? Will he answer this question, please?
Northern Gas Pipeline
I would like to see the hon. member for Davenport come into this House and vote on the motion which is in front of it this evening. Is he still concerned with the sell-out and with the heritage of his children and grandchildren? If he is, how can he sit in the Liberal party which now intends to sell even more natural gas to the United States than was authorized by the Conservative government a few short months ago? One can go on and on. One can find here a statement by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) who said, as it is reported in the same issue of Hansard, at page 2104:
I find this additional export permit a very, very dangerous thing. It disturbs me a great deal.
How can the Liberal party say one thing when they are out of office, but when they are in office say exactly the opposite? Is it any wonder at all why more and more people are growing cynical toward the Liberal party which sits across the way? Surely to goodness the two characteristics in politicians that are important are consistency and honesty. I see one or two Liberals nodding their heads. The Liberal party is exhibiting exactly the opposite to consistency and honesty. In fact, on this issue and other issues, that party has taken more positions than the very famous person Xaviera Hollander. I think that is an absolute crime, that the government of this country would get up and do such things.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: He is getting sore now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I notice that the trained seals are getting very excited. It is no wonder that they are very excited. We have had a debate now for several days and not one cabinet minister has participated in that debate. I ask why it is that the most senior person on the other side of the House to speak in this debate is the good old friend from Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), the famous old parachute from Lincoln? He is the only person of any stature in that party who has participated in this debate. Where is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Prime Minister, or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who is negotiating for the pipeline? I would like to know where these people are and why they are not participating in the debate which is before the House.
This is a very important debate, and the way in which the government is handling the matter and their disrespect for Parliament cause a great deal of concern. I can just see the way in which they are treating Parliament now that they are a majority. The opposition does not count any more. Members are nobodies once they are a few feet off Parliament Hill. It is not only the decision on the pre-build without a parliamentary committee, but it is the mini-budget in April brought in by the Minister of Finance without any consultation with the opposition parties and the oil tax announced a week or two ago without any consultation with the opposition parties.
There is a very serious constitutional discussion going on in this country without a committee of this Parliament looking at the constitution. This is very important, yet the government said that it would consider establishing a committee of this House to look at the constitution. We have had no special

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
debate at all in this House on the constitution, except for the one day on an NDP motion on about May 21 or May 22.
Will the government consult Parliament and involve Parliament in these matters? If it does not involve Parliament and parliamentarians, I suggest that it is a tremendous slap in the face to Canadian people, because if there is one place where we must defend freedom at its ultimate, it is in this institution of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suggest that the government is very arrogant in the way in which it is treating people in this country.


Mr. Foster:: It is too late for the news, Lome. Sit down.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: All the Liberal members can do is sit back and heckle. I would like to see one of them get up in this House and talk about the need of keeping our resources, our gas and oil, and developing them for Canadians of future generations. Instead, we have a lot of talk that we must sell out very quickly to the United States so that we may make a few bucks.
No hon. member in this House has mentioned the fact that both Canada and the United States are energy gluttons. We consume a great deal of energy, while two-thirds of mankind in the world live in countries that are very poor, where millions of people are going to bed hungry every day because they do not have enough food to put into their bellies. Yet this government is concerned about making a few bucks on the short term by selling our gas to the United States.
There are a number of risks in constructing the pre-build portion of the pipeline. A number of hon. members have mentioned many of them over the past couple of days, but 1 want to cover them very quickly again. The first risk is with regard to cost overruns. About three years ago when we began talking about the pipeline it was said that it would cost $8 billion to construct the pipeline in its entirety. The projection now is for a cost of $23 billion or $24 billion. That will make Drapeau look very insignificant. It will make the construction of the Olympic complex look like a Sunday school picnic in comparison.
Another risk concerns the investment of the Canadian people. I suggest that it is not a very sound investment when one looks at all the tax concessions given by this government and the government of Alberta to people who invest in the oil and gas industry. Approximately 90 per cent of every deal is written off in income tax, and only about 10 per cent is put out by the companies themselves. What we are doing is financing the takeover of our economy and our resources with our own money. Our control is vested in the hands of the large multinational corporations, many of which are from outside this country.
Need 1 remind the government opposite that the five largest exporters or producers of natural gas in Canada are Shell Oil, Gulf Oil, Imperial Oil, Hudson's Bay Gas and Oil Company, and Amoco. There is only one company which is controlled
and owned by the Canadian people, and that is Petro-Canada, which is now involved in producing natural gas.


William James Kempling: How about Husky Oil?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If we intend to use taxpayers' money to develop gas and oil in this country, then the taxpayers should own and control that company because we are paying for it with our own money.
Another matter which should be of concern to this House is the possibility that the Americans may never build the rest of the gas pipeline, because they are discovering more gas reserves in the lower 48 states. There are more and more gas reserves being discovered in Mexico, and there is the very fact that we are building the pre-build, which means that we will export more and more Canadian gas from Alberta to the United States. Because of that increased supply there will be less pressure on the United States to build the rest of the line. Why should they? They will get the gas from us, the cheapest possible source. If they can get it from us and if we are stupid enough to sell it to them, then, of course, they are going to be content.
There is a very good chance that history may be repeating itself. If you think back to the 1960s and early 1970s you will remember that we were selling very cheap oil to the United States then at $2.50 and $4 per barrel. Just a few years later, despite the fact that the National Energy Board and the minister of energy at that time, Mr. Green, said that we had a lot of oil in this country-enough to last for dozens of years, even hundreds of years-we are running short of oil. We are now faced with mining and refining the very expensive tar sands oil. We sold our cheap oil, and now present and future generations will have to pay world price for oil. That is the fault of the Liberal government sitting across the way. That government decided to ship out cheap Canadian oil in order to make a few bucks. They did it without foresight or plan, and now we have to pay high prices for imported oil from the United States or Venezuela.
I have one minute left, Mr. Speaker, so I want to say in closing that I wish this government had spent some of that money to expand the pipeline into eastern Canada. If they had, people in the Atlantic provinces, people in Halifax, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island would have access to Canadian gas. We could use that Canadian gas as a substitute for oil. If we have a good supply we can use it to make our industry more competitive, to heat homes across the country, and thus ease the pressures of the cost of living on ordinary Canadians. We should be saving it for ourselves and for future generations. We should be thinking about the future of Canada, Mr. Speaker, about building a nation and exerting our sovereignty and independence to build a strong country for Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 22, 1980


Mr. Doug Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to add my thoughts to this debate on the pre-build section of the Alaska pipeline. For the last seven days, and indeed in the last 24 hours, I have had the opportunity to hear from what I call the party of fiction in this House, the New Democratic Party.
As a backbench member of the Liberal party I welcome the opportunity to put forward some facts on the matter and to get away from the rhetoric of the last 24 hours.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), who spoke previously, said that having listened to members of the New Democratic Party in the last several days he felt they should switch their name from the New Democratic Party to the Non-Development Party. That comes as no surprise to me, Mr. Speaker. When I hear the hon. member for Yorkton-Mei-ville (Mr. Nystrom) referring to cynics on this side of the House, then, as a young parliamentarian who has only been here since February 18, 1 share the feelings of the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. When I came here I expected to find that most members in this House would deal with their philosophies and feelings. I agree with him when he says that the only speaker from the New Democratic Party with some credibility in the last 24 hours was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I do not know why that came as a surprise. 1 was not surprised to see the cynicism developing on the other side of the House.
When we went through the recent referendum debate in this House, two parties supported the federalist position on the Oui-Non issue in the province of Quebec. Only one party refused to take a stand-the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is not true and you know it.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I expect that to some extent the reason the New Democratic Party-the party that claims to be the social and political conscience of our country-refused to take a stand on the critical issue in the province of Quebec was that many workers for the New Democratic Party who reside in the province of Quebec supported the separatist faction in that province.
I am only going to dwell on two particular issues, Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight on behalf of the Liberal. Party of Canada. First, I should like to deal with our commitment in the Speech from the Throne when we stated that one of the key sectors of our economy, where we wanted to have greater Canadian control, was the petroleum industry. Unlike the New Democratic Party, when the Liberal Party of Canada makes a commitment, whether in the Speech from the Throne or in a policy statement made by a minister in this House, we at least put our actions where our rhetoric is. That is not like the rhetoric 1 have heard emanating from the New Democratic Party in the last few days.


An hon. Member:: Give us the facts.
Northern Gas Pipeline


Douglas Cockburn Frith: When the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said we should not sell our Canadian gas but save it for our own consumption-then I suppose if I were the member where Alice in Wonderland resided, I could understand his statement. But 1 do not live in a riding that represents the Alice in Wonderlands of the world, Mr. Speaker. 1 live in and represent a riding that has a good cross section of Canadian population. They not only have dreams about where this country is going but are prepared to accept reality in order to make those dreams come true. That, unfortunately, is the problem with the New Democratic Party. They are unable to face reality in order to attain the dreams that people on all sides of this House have for this great country of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has restated several times the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne to increase Canadian ownership of our petroleum industry. This was part of the complex decision to go ahead with the pre-build. The minister responsible and other members on this side of the House have admitted that this was a risk decision. I will say that the reason the Liberal Party of Canada has been the Government of Canada so often in the years since confederation is that we have been able to marry reality with dreams.
When we talked about increased Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry, one fact that has not come out in the debate so far is that 70 per cent of the exploratory wells are being drilled by small Canadian firms. It is not that they are not successful Canadian firms; they have been quite successful in finding new gas deposits. The problem has been the inability to send the gas to a market. As a result, these small Canadian firms have been squeezed by the banking community and others to the point that they have a cash flow problem. The government-the Liberal party-recognized that if we were not to proceed with the pre-build section of the Alaska pipeline, those who would suffer the most would be these small Canadian firms. One of two things would have occurred. They would have had to go further into debt to the banking institutions of this country, or they would have had to sell out to the large multinationals which can afford to wait for the decision.
The government made a very conscious decision to help the Canadian ownership content of our petroleum industry- unlike the New Democratic Party which has always mouthed that principle but when it is time to vote on a pre-build to make that a reality they had us go through a two-day debate. I welcome the opportunity at midnight to stand up and be counted, Mr. Speaker. We know where we stand, but I do not think that party ever understands where they are on any given issue.
There may be another definition for the NDP. Earlier we said it was a non-development party, but given their record in this House in the last three months perhaps we should call them the no-decision party. Whenever it has been convenient for members of the New Democratic Party to use figures from Statistics Canada they do not mind using them as long as they

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
fit in with their thinking. When the National Energy Board states that Canada, particularly as a result of the increase in exploration in the last five years-largely under policies developed by a Liberal government-has a significant excess of natural gas-


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that the Liberal government of Alberta?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Had the decision by the government been not to proceed with the pre-build section of the Alaska pipeline, foreign money markets probably would have resulted in a drop in the Canadian dollar which, in turn, would have made the oil imports to this country much more expensive and increased our deficit.


Bob Rae: Who am I to believe?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) has asked us to give the facts. Quite frankly, 1 think in the last two days the Liberal party has attempted to give the members opposite the facts but they choose not to believe them. We have in front of us telegrams from unions and companies. Several members have stoop up and stated that fact. They are all in support of the pipeline. They choose and they do not want to believe it. They do not wish to believe the statistics given by the National Energy Board.
Two weeks ago in this House I sat and listened to a non-confidence motion in this government put by the New Democratic Party. It said that the Liberal party had mismanaged the economy. The NDP complain every day about the size of the unemployment rolls in this country. But when we try to do something about it by going ahead with the pre-build, they are against it. When they talk about the very little real growth in the gross national product that has occurred in Canada or that is projected for the next year, they complain about it. When the Liberal Party of Canada attempts, through a decision made by the cabinet, to increase our gross national product-which this pipeline will do to the tune of 0.2 per cent this year and which will rise to 0.7 per cent in 1985-they sit there and vote against us.
When I hear the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) complain about the unemployed in his particular riding and all throughout southwestern Ontario with the auto layoffs, etc. and the Liberal government decides to go ahead with the pre-build which will add 23,800 man years of work in the Hamilton ridings alone, the hon. member sits there and votes against us. It is no wonder, as the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has stated earlier, that some Canadians find politicians to be very cynical. It is not from the actions or results of the Liberal party or this government; it is from the actions that I have seen taken by the members of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I am not going to belabour the point. The Government of Canada has come up with a policy which will
add to our gross national product. It will help us in terms of creation of manpower over the next several years. It has been able positively to help Canadian ownership of the petroleum industry in this country.
I will not be afraid to stand up here in 57 minutes time and vote with my conscience. I know exactly what I will do when I come to vote. It is more than I can say for the members of the New Democratic Party who sit in this House.
The reason I welcome this debate is that I am not afraid to face the Canadian people and give them the facts of the matter which contradict the fiction and Alice in Wonderland stories that I have heard emanating from the other side of the House for the last 48 hours. Perhaps when this is all finished the Canadian public will understand that the Liberal party stands for compassion in this country. It stands for a dream, but it also stands for a government which has the ability to govern and take gutsy decisions to make this country become the dream that we all have in this House.
Perhaps when it is all said and done and the vote is taken this evening, Canadians will see the New Democratic Party for what it truly is, that is, a party of opportunists and cynics.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want in any way to diminish the fervour of the rhetoric by commenting on the speech which the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) has made with respect to the Liberal party. If I have a few moments later on, I can tell everyone in the House about the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I hope my friends on the other side will listen, but what concerns me in this debate, and I think ought to concern every Canadian, is not the Liberal party at this point in the discussion but the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I want everyone to cast their minds back to about a week ago when there was a discussion in the media by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who unfortunately is not here tonight to take part in this debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He has gone to see Dennis McDermott.


Walter David Baker: He may be out talking to the United Steelworkers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: In any event, I draw everyone's attention back to that party over there with respect to this pipeline, with respect to the export of natural gas that they were going to fight on the beaches, they were going to fight on the landing fields, they were going to fight in the Rockies, on the backs of the poor and the disadvantaged, but today they
July 22, 1980

are going to fight there, but do not dare ask us to fight beyond twelve o'clock tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I agree with my friends over there. It is not often that I do, but from time to time 1 am overcome and I will agree with them. I agree with them now that they are the non-development party. With respect to any issues they are the peut-etre party-the perhaps party. They are the potential danger party. They are the party of concern. They are the rump of pity and compassion.


An hon. Member:: That says it all.


Walter David Baker: That is what we have.
Madam Speaker-Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I also apologize to Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: 1 do not want you to think that they are not above misleading the House-just a little wee bit. It is not enough to amount to that accusation of mine being a question of privilege because everyone knows how 1 love the rules of this place. But, just a little bit. What they tried to imply in the debate tonight was that at no time was Parliament consulted with respect to the Alaska pipeline. There was a long involved act of Parliament, the leadership for which was taken by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) with respect to the development of that act. The position of this party, my party, with respect to that act was clear in 1977. It is clear tonight, that it is in the best interests of Canada to have the Alaska pipeline built.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Even if the NDP would like to have it that way, even if they would like to have a bunch of helicopters carrying that whole pipeline and dropping it into place, that pipeline cannot be built that way. If we were paving the road in front of the house of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), we would have to pave it in sections. The same is true of the pipeline. We have to build a pipeline in sections, too. That should be obvious. It should be equally obvious to the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I really have them riled up. 1 did not intend to do that. I am sorry. I am glad to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has come into the House tonight. We can talk about the terms and conditions.


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


Walter David Baker: I have indicated clearly and the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) has indicated what the position is and how absolutely silly it is for us to regard this matter of pre-build in any other way but the first step in the development of that pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We might as well face up to it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been praised tonight. I will join in giving him the paean of praise that he deserves for his years of service. Sir John A. Macdonald told me he met him the first day he came to this place! However, his memory is a bit faulty. He tried to liken this situation to the pipeline debate in 1956. We all know what happened in the pipeline debate in 1956. There was a gross abuse of the rules in 1956. As a result, a Speaker resigned. As a result, the Speaker tried to turn back the clock. As a result of that, the late M. J. Coldwell, one of the heroes of socialism in Canada, got out of his seat, marched up there, and nearly grabbed the mace. I did not see the New Democratic Party doing that tonight.
The New Democratic Party says this is illegal. This government, in fact all governments, have to act on advice. If governments mislead the House, if governments get faulty advice and act on it, then governments are responsible. We have been told by a minister of the Crown and, as I said to him, he spun out his credit with that statement the other night, if he is wrong and misled the House, then he is in danger of losing his place in the ministry. That is why I am glad the Prime Minister is in the House tonight.
We were told by that minister that it was all legal and proper. We have to accept that advice. There is nothing else we can do. As the Prime Minister says, it is a judgment call. It is on his head if the judgment call is wrong. However, if the New Democratic Party is really concerned about legalities and illegalities, then the remedy is not in this Parliament. It is in the courtroom, and I ask them to put their money where their mouths are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is the clear position. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) says "politics is in the House." He is the first member I have ever heard to state that there was any politics in the House of Commons. If he is right, Mr. Speaker, "the politics is in the House" all right and the political publicity seekers are standing right over there to my left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The position is this. If that party really honestly believe in the principles and the position that they are taking, we would not be creeping out of this House at 12 midnight. We would be fighting in the battlefields, in the oil fields and in the gas patches. The hon.

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
member for Winnipeg North Centre would be up there swinging the mace around his head like you swing a cat by the tail and saying, "A pox on both your houses". He is not doing that tonight. He is sitting there meekly and quietly, waiting to spin out the clock until twelve o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Finally, let me deal with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). That hon. member was weeping his crocodile tears by the bucketful. He had to go out and change his shirt because it got wet. He said we ought to extend the pipeline into eastern Canada. Of course we ought to do that. The fact that it is not started now is as a result of the neglect of that government over there. The hon. member for Sudbury does not cheer about that.
Does the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville not remember what the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) said? He said that if there is to be that extension, and it has to happen of course, then the wherewithal has to come from somewhere. That was a commitment by that government as well. We intend to see the government live up to that commitment, to provide the wherewithal to develop that pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: What we are debating tonight, and let us not forget it even though it has developed into a pipeline debate, and other members have spoken on other subjects as they have the right to do-


An hon. Member:: Only Conservatives.


Walter David Baker: Other members have certain rights, even if the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville will not recognize it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Some don't speak at all.


Walter David Baker: Some don't speak at all, and some make their best speeches from their seats.
What we are dealing with tonight is a motion to adjourn the House, not a giant filibuster, not a fight to the death by the NDP but crawling out from the position they have been put in by the United Steelworkers of America and every other person in this country who is interested in development. That is what we have here tonight.


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


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), 1 nearly forgot what 1 had to say. In any event, I will be very brief and perhaps in a somewhat less partisan speech I would like to join with my colleagues and stress the constructive work done by all hon. members of the House during the period of the present session just ended.
I think we should pay tribute to all our colleagues for the good work they did in the House, and perhaps not only our colleagues but, in the final analysis, all employees of the House. Indeed, as was mentioned, over 25 bills were passed. This means we still did a good job in this latter part of the session. What is very offending and shocking is to see the New Democratic Party persist in wanting to keep this House working. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to remaining in here a week or two more, not at all. But what shocks us and what is offending is that they want to give the impression that we did not do our job. They want to give the impression that we have to stay here a little longer to earn our salary. That might be the case for the members of the New Democratic Party but certainly not for members across, the Conservatives, and the Liberals.
What is shocking is the impertinence of the members of the New Democratic Party in talking against the construction of the pipeline when you consider, Mr. Speaker, that the projections from here to 1985 show we are going to be importing an average of 730,000 barrels of oil a day. We are going to be importing that every day. And in return, we also have natural gas that we can swap. The NDP members do not accept this kind of deal. Imagine, we should import, pay with our money and keep the natural gas for the future, for our children. I find this impossible to understand. How can these people go to their constituency during the summer or during their holidays, Mr. Speaker, and look their constituents in the eyes and tell them: We have tried to take the bread out of your mouth with false principles and false scruples. In another context, since 1 am one of the last to have the floor this evening, I would like to take this opportunity to tell all my fellow citizens, whether from the east or from the west, in my capacity as a Quebecker, that they have all our affection, I wish them and all our hon. colleagues pleasant holidays. We must not forget those who cannot enjoy a summer vacation because they are in hospitals, and so on. 1 would therefore like to tell all our fellow citizens that they are my brothers and that we shall have to use the summer vacation, which may last two weeks or one or two months, to meditate on the future of our country. If this country must go on, Mr. Speaker, either we separate immediately and everyone will do his best to get the most for himself until the country breaks down, or else we must form a whole in this country. In closing, I would like to wish all my colleagues and all Canadians a very pleasant vacation.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very happy to rise tonight to speak in the pipeline debate. First, let me say that as a new member there are times when 1 am pleased with the role we all play as members of Parliament, in forging our country's future. At other times I am disappointed and frustrated at the length of time it takes to achieve the desired results.
July 22, 1980

Mr. Speaker, I have to say, as a new member, that 1 am disappointed and, in fact, alarmed at the filibustering nature of the New Democratic Party. I had assumed that these members, both individually and collectively, were interested in the orderly treatment of events. However, even though I know that some members of the New Democratic Party, especially new members, wish to contribute as much as they can, I believe that as a party they act neither for their constituents, their regions, nor for their country. This filibuster by the NDP, which has turned into a pipeline debate, is nothing more than an attempt by the New Democratic Party to attract and keep the attention of the media. If they could not retain the attention of the media in Canada I am sure they would be the first out of the doors. And when I say that they would be first out of the doors, I mean that they, too, as well as the rest of us, have commitments to their constituents.
All too often we all have the tendency to think that the world begins and ends here. But that is not so. As members of Parliament we have an equal commitment to our constituents, and we must never forget it. The NDP is only interested in grandstanding. It is only interested in waving flags of alarm. It is the party which opposes everything. It is the party which has sold its soul to the multinational unions. It is the party which, in 1979, received approximately $150,000 from one international union, and approximately $325,000 from another international union. It is the party which encourages strikes. It is the party whose leader stands in the strike line and says, "Do not go back to work-at least not until the press come".
This is the party which wants to see more unemployment in Ontario. It is the party which wants to see more unemployment in Hamilton. And it is the party which wants to bring industry to its knees. It is the party which wants to bring the Alaska gas pipeline to a halt, the party which believes we should not go ahead with the pipeline unless we can guarantee all the funds before we lift a shovel, guarantee all gas contracts, present and future, before we do any work, and guarantee that all gas prices, present and future, will never change. This is the party which does not believe in the future of Canada and that is why the Canadian people, year after year, election after election, reject them.
Let me state a few facts related to the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. Exports of natural gas from Canada are not approved by the National Energy Board until they have been certified as surplus to Canada's needs. Our gas exports to the United States are in no way a cut price sale. They are distinctly more expensive than domestic U.S. supplies. We are selling this gas at the highest price possible. Holding up the decision on the southern part of the total project, might just hold up the whole thing since the cash flow generated by the exports from Canada will help finance the northern part. More serious, though, is the attitude the Americans will take to indecision, an indecision which might force them to go elsewhere for their energy source. During 1980, 15 per cent of the total exploration budget for Canadian oil and gas will be invested in the United States. This amounts to $600 million and most of this money will be from small oil companies
Northern Gas Pipeline
departing to the United States. The U.S. gas reserves in Prudhoe Bay represent more than 10 per cent of our established reserves. Surely we recognize the importance of these reserves to the United States.
In Canada direct capital expenditure for the pre-build will be $1.6 billion. Of this, $655 million will go to the pre-build line, and another $935 million to the installation of production mills and other facilities. The pipeline will create employment opportunities between 1980 and 1984 of 150,000 man-years, of which 25 per cent will accrue to Ontario and Quebec, 25 per cent to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and the remainder to Alberta and B.C. Mr. Speaker, the boost to Canada's balance of payments will be approximately $2 billion a year. Surely we understand that this will help keep interest rates down.
Natural gas reserves in Canada at the present time amount to approximately 70 trillion cubic feet, and this does not include the 10 trillion cubic feet in the Arctic, the five trillion cubic feet in the Mackenzie Delta, and the three trillion cubic feet off the east coast. It is estimated that approximately 50 per cent of all gas wells drilled in Alberta are not tested or proven up, so they are not included in the National Energy Board's reserves. The pre-build pipeline will increase gas production in Alberta by 16 per cent or 18 per cent and the gas companies say they can easily increase it by 50 per cent.
The Alberta Energy Conservation Board now estimates that reserves of gas in Canada could be as high as 160 trillion cubic feet and could even go to 200 trillion cubic feet in the next few years. Mr. Speaker, if momentum is stopped on this pipeline with respect to exploration, development and sale of surplus natural gas, the industry will start to gear down. This will have an effect on the flow of capital, less reserves will be found, unemployment will increase in some areas, technological advances related to new methods for extraction and finding new reserves may slow and, strangely enough, this could be the way to prove the NDP are correct.
I am happy that the government is following up on yet another policy introduced by the previous Conservative government. As proof of this I would like to refer to the statement made by the Hon. Robert de Cotret who, as the minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency, spoke on December 13 last. He mentioned two main points: one, that the government was committed to this pipeline, and, second, that the pre-build was an important component in the completion of the whole line.
For some time now many Albertan members of Parliament have verbally and in written form pressed the government for a decision on the Alaska highway gas pipeline. Of course we are disappointed that it has taken so long to recognize the tremendous benefits to Canada. We are vitally interested in this project. I was more than a little shocked to read in a Calgary paper on July 19 that Senator Olson stated some Albertan members of Parliament were not in favour of this pipeline. I want that Liberal retread to know that no Albertan member of Parliament has opposed the pipeline. They have spoken out for

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
more action and better information on the details related to the proposed pipeline. It seems that the Senator from Medicine Hat is all wet once again. Certainly the constituents of Medicine Hat proved that some years ago when they did not re-elect him. Just last week I sent him a letter refuting his allegations that some Albertan members of Parliament were opposed to the pre-building of the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline. I see the Senator in the gallery. 1 hope he is not leaving, because I am not through with him yet.


An hon. Member:: Nor is he through with you.


Frederick William Wright: In that letter, I mentioned that on three separate occasions, June 26, July 3, and July 10, some Albertan members of Parliament sponsored motions under Standing Order 43 in the House of Commons requesting that the pre-build section of the Alaska gas pipeline be approved. I was co-sponsor of such a motion on July 10. I should like to read that motion because I do not think the honourable Senator reads his mail. It read:
That the federal government immediately approve all Canadian aspects of the pre-build Alaska highway gas pipeline, while concurrently continuing negotiations with the U.S.A. for guarantees in regard to construction of the northern and Alaska sections of the gas line.
In addition, in my letter I urged Senator Olson to support Albertan members of Parliament in bringing this decision to a successful conclusion.
As late as last week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked for representation from Albertan members of Parliament. 1 am assuming from the letters and telephone calls which Senator Olson received that he was successful in persuading cabinet to approve the pipeline. Also I wish to say that Albertan members of Parliament are conforming to the Speech from the Throne wherein western members of Parliament have a responsibility not only to represent their constituents to the nation, but to represent the nation to their constituents. The Speech from the Throne indicated that it was a task no one else could fulfil. Albertan members of Parliament believe that to this point we have achieved that goal.
In conclusion, the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline is a pipeline which will benefit all of Canada and will make the completion of other pipelines in the north and the east, to Ontario and the maritimes, not only a possibility but a probability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the wise words spoken this evening by the twin wings of the parties of reaction, the Liberals and Conservatives, I asked myself the following question: what is the difference between Canada and a banana republic?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: It seems to me that there is an important difference between Canada and a banana republic, because bananas are renewable! One can have a surplus of bananas from year to year because they can be renewed. One can have a surplus of
turkeys! After listening to the speech of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), we were reminded of the fact that it was quite possible to have a surplus of turkeys even in the House of Commons! But when the National Energy Board told the Canadian public that in 1980-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You will turn into a pumpkin in 15 minutes.


Bob Rae: If the hon. member wants to heckle, he should get into his seat.
When the National Energy Board told the Canadian public that we have a surplus of natural gas, it was making a fundamental conceptual error. Natural gas is a finite resource. It is a non-renewable resource. A cubic foot of natural gas sold is a cubic foot of natural gas gone forever.


Mr. Chenier:: No!


An hon. Member:: Are you sure?


Bob Rae: I know it upsets members of the Conservative and Liberal parties, but I should like to read to the House from The Oil and Gas Journal, which publication is not normally sympathetic to our party. Indeed it is the spokesman for the oil and gas industry. The journal referred to the views of Shell Oil, which is the largest gas producer in Canada, regarding the kinds of resources we have and the natural gas left in Canada. It indicated that we have 59.5 trillion cubic feet and 9.4 trillion cubic feet expected from known fields in the future. It continued:
Another 36 trillion cubic feet is believed to be discoverable in new fields in the established area, Shell points out. That would sustain production that could meet demand until the mid-1990s.
"After that, gas from the frontier regions could be brought to market to satisfy demand past the end of the century".
What will happen after the year 2000?


An hon. Member:: Biomass.


Bob Rae: There is lots of biomass in the Conservative party. There is more biomass and methanol being produced by the Liberal party. We hear about solar energy and other alternatives, but what about the hard fact of the matter? We heard all the projections made in the statements of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). The hon. member for Gloucester indicated that there was a lot left over, but how can Sudbury be used as an example when all its nickel is gone forever? There are no renewable resources left in Sudbury, yet that is the example they give.


An hon. Member:: Why did you lose the riding? What happened to Rodriguez?


Bob Rae: Hon. members opposite shout, "Watch out for your ridings". Let me say that there is no issue on which all
July 22, 1980

members of our party feel more one, comfortable and truly at home-and I think with a majority of Canadians-than on this issue at this particular time in our history.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speaks of guarantees. Let us look at the statements. Hon. members can read along, if they want to turn their editions of Hansard for July 18 to page 3128. They can read for themselves and Canadians can see for themselves the statement of intention of the producers at Prudhoe Bay. They can see exactly what the position is. They can see the conditions and the statement of intent of these producers. Hon. members should listen to the tremendous commitment that Sohio and Exxon are making to build the Alaska pipeline. Hon. members should listen to the extent of this tremendous commitment:
The producers have indicated willingness to participate in a substantial way with Alaskan northwest in the financing of the Alaskan pipeline and conditioning plan upon reasonable terms and conditions-
God knows what that means.
-provided they are not placed in the position of becoming, in effect, the ultimate guarantors of completion of the ANGTS and provided that their financial exposure is effectively limited.
That is some commitment: "Okay, we will go along with this plan provided we do not have to guarantee it, provided we are not exposed too much, and provided, and provided, and provided". These are the ironclad commitments the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) put down on Thursday night.
Listen to what they go on and say.
If the parties, or any of them, conclude that alternative approaches in financing, or waivers of law under the Alaskan Natural Gas Transportation Act are necessary to effectuate a feasible and effective plan of financing-
Which means they do not now have a feasible and effective plan of financing because, if they had one now, they would not be talking about what they will have in the future.
-such party or parties may develop alternatives and advise appropriate authorities of their conclusions.
That is not exactly what I would call a full-fledged commitment or guarantee. It is so hedged and couched in the terms of what may happen and provisos as to what might happen that it is not even funny, and there is a simple reason for that. There was a previous pipeline in Alaska. There was an oil pipeline in Alaska. Many members of this House from both sides have been to see that pipeline. That pipeline was supposed to cost $1.7 billion. It came in at over $11 billion, and the hard fact of the matter is that as long as Canada is providing the United States with reasonably secure and reasonably cheap supplies of gas, they will have no incentive to go to Alaska. Why should they when they can suck it off us at cost?
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, the Wizard of Ooze, came before this House and said, "You have to build a pipeline in stages". There is no argument about that, but what are the stages which are called for in the act? What is in the act which was brought before this Parliament? What is in the agreement which was signed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and James Schlesinger? It is right here in schedule I which refers to expeditious construction and a
Northern Gas Pipeline
timetable: Alaska, January 1, 1980; Yukon main line pipe laying, January 1, 1981. Other construction in Canada is to provide for timely completion of the pipeline to enable initial operation by January 1, 1983. Those are the stages of the line. It is to start in the north at Prudhoe Bay and go all the way south, and because it is starting in stages, one gets down to knowing that that in fact is what the Americans intend to do. They have reneged on that deal.
The Americans have failed to live up to their commitment to build the Alaska pipeline. And what is our punishment? The Prime Minister negotiates and says we are going to get the toughest deal we can on fisheries, on acid rain and on the auto pact, but what is the punishment we are going to mete out to the Americans? We are going to build our stage of the pipeline first so that we can finance the whole damned thing and sell out our natural gas in the course of doing so.
The final argument we get from the Liberal party is with regard to jobs. There is no member of Parliament in this House who is not concerned about jobs. The question is what is the best way to create permanent jobs, and not jobs which disappear as soon as the pipeline is built and not jobs which have no meaning because they are simply short-term jobs.
We are talking about jobs which are based on an industrial strategy because those jobs are renewable, and those jobs make sense because they are not part of some quick fix or reliance on a short-term construction project. When in doubt, build a pipeline: That is the policy of the Liberal party.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Tell that to the steelworkers.


Bob Rae: If the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) or any other Liberal wants to talk about investing $1.6 billion, there are ways of investing $1.6 billion which will make it come back, and come back and be here for the future of Canada. The result of the pipeline envy which Fixates hon. members opposite will simply be that the Canadian dollar will go up and up, and our manufacturing competitiveness and our manufacturing industry will be less and less competitive. That is the final bottom line implication of the policy which is being followed.
It was a former Liberal cabinet minister, in the days when there were Liberal cabinet ministers who were not afraid to speak their minds from time to time, Eric Kierans, who wrote an article entitled "The day the Cabinet was misled" published in the March, 1974 "Canadian Forum". I commend to hon. members who want to understand how the cabinet and how this government have been misled and led by their noses by the multinational oil and gas companies for the last 15 years. Mr. Kierans said:
We do object to heavy investments in projects which have the sole objective of selling and exporting our badly needed resources. It would be much wiser to invest our scarce capital in other projects and to negotiate a right-of-way for the Americans to build their own pipeline. That would protect our environment, safeguard native rights and would provide a percentage of the line's capacity to transport Mackenzie Delta gas to Canadian homes and factories.
There is a real difference between investment in a vast construction project which will have a highly distorted effect

July 22, 1980
Northern Gas Pipeline
on the economy and a program of industrial investment over the whole range of the economy which would provide the industrial structure and the industrial strategy we need.
Under this Liberal government we have a $17 billion deficit in finished goods. We have a government which has consistently increased the portion of our resources that is exported and the portion of our resources which makes up our total exports. The Prime Minister, who is sitting in his chair tonight, has presided over the systematic dismantling of the Canadian economy and its takeover by foreign multinational companies. Who are these multinational companies? Is it any surprise that Shell, Amoco and all those other American companies are buying up our gas and then going to the NEB and saying they would like to take our gas-which is really our gas because we own it-and export it back to their home country? Should that come as any surprise? The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), in a speech which was certainly interesting and vital if nothing else, said that the gas industry in Canada was Canadian-owned. That is a false statement because 70 per cent of the gas industry in Canada is owned by foreigners, the vast majority of them Americans.
The reason we are voting on this tonight is very simple. We are insisting on a vote and refusing to leave this House before we have a vote because we want to make it perfectly clear that the New Democratic Party is concerned about the future of our resources and the changing of our economy, and those other twin parties of reaction are concerned only about quick fix and short-term gain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being the witching hour, and pursuant to order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.
Hon. members can expect Madam Speaker to enter the chamber in a moment to put the question before the House. While we are waiting for Madam Speaker, may 1 on behalf of the Deputy Speaker of the House, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) and myself, the most junior of your servants, express our thanks and our sense of honour and privilege in serving Madam Speaker and all hon. members of this House. We will await Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In fact, with humility, I will put the question to the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now revert to government orders, item No. 17.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MOTION RESPECTING SUMMER RECESS Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council) moved:
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
Summer Recess
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 ail the purposes of this order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 15, 1980, at 2 p.m., under the terms of Standing Order 2(1).

1 wish everyone a very happy holiday with their friends and families. To keep up with the good tradition, I invite all members to Room 16 where we will hold a small reception.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.28 a.m., to stand adjourned until Wednesday, October 15, 1980, at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, October 6, 1980