1980-07-18

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that foreign feed grains are entering the prairie region, and that many farm experts believe supplies of wheat and feed grains are entering the system due to low prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House direct the minister to instruct immediately the Canadian Wheat Board to raise initial prices to bring on stocks in this and next year's crop year to meet our domestic and export needs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ARCTIC CENTENARY
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This year, 1980, is the centenary of the transfer of the Arctic Islands to Canada by Great Britain.
As the member of Parliament whose riding includes Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the birthplace of Confederation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That this House congratulate the people of the Arctic on their centenary and affirm its commitment to the Canadian north as a vital part of our country's territory.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 for which I ask the unanimous consent of this House.
Inasmuch as it appears that this House may rise today, and noting that the parliamentary pages will be leaving the House of Commons in September after a year of service in this chamber, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner):
That this House thank the pages for their outstanding service to the members; that it is our hope that some of them will return at a future date as members of Parliament; that they all receive copies of Hansard for the balance of this session of Parliament; and that a copy of today's Hansard, autographed by Madam Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister, the right hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, be presented to each page.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Canadian auto industry has, on the government's own admission, received less than its fair share under the existing U.S.-Canada auto pact in new technology, design, small cars and investment generally, and whereas this unfairness has caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):

July 18, 1980
That this government stands condemned, among other things, for its abject failure to know when to lose them, when to choose them, when to walk away and when to run, and in particular for its unilateral, unconditional sell-out of our natural resources without regard to Canada's bargaining position in, among many other vital areas, the North American auto industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GASIFICATION OF COAL-STUDY BY NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, as natural gas is now being marketed for export at prices exceeding $5 per million Btu of energy, a price at which coal gasification is economically possible, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), a motion under Standing Order 43 as follows:
That the government refer to the National Energy Board a request from this House for study and consideration of the possible inclusion of the selective gasification of Canada's vast coal reserves as back-up to our enormous natural gas reserves.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing importance.
Given the announcement this morning that double-digit inflation has hit the consumers of Canada for the first time since a former Liberal government imposed wage and price controls in 1975, after saying they could never do so, given that a substantial portion of this increase flows directly from the excise taxes introduced by the present Minister of Finance on April 21 last, and given the fact that much of this stems from the imposition of the excise tax on Canadian wines, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That this government begin its fight against inflation by removing the excise tax imposed on Canadian wines as contained within the mini-budget of the Minister of Finance introduced last April 21.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*
* *


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the United States is responsible for the majority portion of acid rain which affects Canada, and is currently planning a massive expansion of coal-based facilities without adequate pollution control equipment, and in view of the American refusal to enter into meaningful negotiations or agreements with Canada on this crucial health, environment and economic question, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House record its disgust with the Prime Minister and his supine cabinet for their continuing and ongoing sell-out of Canada to the United States on every major issue, including acid rain; and, further, that this House records the shame of a Liberal policy which promotes the sale of clean, non-polluting Canadian energy to the U.S. when they are daily responding with an attitude and policies that pollute and destroy the Canadian environment and health.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


INCOME TAX
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my motion is also under Standing Order 43 and it ties in with the motion presented by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan).
Having regard to the fact that the government has given recognition to the severe financial hardships which are suffered by people who live in northern and isolated areas of our country, and is therefore maintaining a very elaborate system through which employees of the federal government are compensated through northern living and isolation allowances, and having regard to the fact that the government has recently made the necessary changes to the Income Tax Act to provide for these allowances to be earned free of taxes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
July 18, 1980

That the Minister of Finance give serious consideration, in the course of preparing himself for a budget, to the establishment of a more permanent and universal system which would afford all taxpayers who live remote from the mainstream of life in Canada, which flows in a narrow corridor along the U.S. border, treatment under the Income Tax Act which would be to a degree more equitable and fair and in accordance with their ability to pay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-REQUEST FOR TAX-FREE STUDENT GRANTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. While thanking the Minister of National Revenue-I am pleased he is here to accept my congratulations-for his recent efforts concerning the taxation of northern benefits, it is necessary to point out that within the last few days Revenue Canada officials have insisted that certain NWT government grants to students attending university in the south, which previously were not taxed, are now to be taxed.
In view of the evident unfairness of a system which does not tax vacation travel allowances, but taxes allowances for travel to educational institutions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That NWT student grants be included as tax exempt items under the isolated posts' benefits and allowances remission order.


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 to the Prime Minister. It relates to today's consumer price figures, which show a 1.1 per cent increase from last year and show, most alarmingly, a year-over-year inflation rate that is over 10 per cent for the first time since November, 1975.
The government has indicated already that it will not bring down a budget. The House may well adjourn some time this
Oral Questions
weekend. I would ask the Prime Minister, even if his government will not bring down a budget, will he give us a commitment now to having published or made by the Minister of Finance or himself a clear and detailed economic statement which will spell out the economic policies this government intends to follow? Could we have an undertaking to have that before the end of the summer?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to discuss the suggestion of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition with the Minister of Finance.


Miss MacDonald:: If you can find him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would have preferred a firmer commitment from the head of the government on a question of policy which obviously is so important to a nation now facing ravaging rates of inflation. But let me ask the Prime Minister another question relating to the benefit his government expects to take from inflation and relating to the proposal to end indexing elaborated on by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in a speech the other day in Toronto.
Recognizing that inflation is back to double-digits and that the Government of Canada could reap windfall profits from an inflation that is damaging the lives and hopes of Canadians if they end indexing, will the Prime Minister, as this House prepares to rise, finally give us a commitment that the Government of Canada will not profiteer on inflation and will abandon immediately its proposal to end indexing?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a direct return to the question we have answered many times.


Mr. Stevens:: Not well, though.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Until the budget is brought down we are not prepared to reject any way of fulfilling our duty in that budget, and that includes looking at all forms of taxation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister is suggesting to the House and the people of Canada today is that the government, which forced an election by defeating a budget that was the first attempt in recent years, in recent memory, to deal directly with major economic problems, intended not only to take no action in the first months the House sat, but intends to forecast no action and to create uncertainty among investors, individuals and, particularly, low income Canadians who may well be drastically affected by any proposal to end indexing.
May I ask the Prime Minister to stop dodging and face up to his responsibility as the leader of a government which must send clear economic signals to the rest of the community, and give us a commitment that we will have answers immediately-this summer, before the end of August-on the policy of indexing; that we will have answers on the economic direction of the government; that we will have answers on the priority

July 18, 1980
Oral Questions
the Government of Canada gives to dealing with inflation, and the means-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: -by which it intends to bring Canada's doubledigit inflation down?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the evil of double-digit inflation, which we both regret, 1 can only remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that his own budget last December predicted double-digit inflation for this year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When he says that is the budget we combated, indeed we were against the budget which was not only predicting 10 per cent inflation-which we have reached-but was predicting 10 per cent inflation and announcing an 18-cent excise tax on all Canadians for all fuel they consumed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: False.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Get something right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was 18 cents on a gallon of gasoline, Madam Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not like Lalonde.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was the equivalent on the farmer, the fisherman and all those who consume diesel oil. We have exactly the inflation that the opposition budgeted for; but, as a difference, we are not socking it to the consumer on fuel.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As a second important difference, since the Leader of the Opposition asked for our priorities, we have had this House adopt a $35 a month increase for the people who need it most, and that is in line with our commitment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the fundamental difference was that our budget did not simply project rates of inflation: our budget proposed measures to bring those rates down.
When is this government of economic drift and economic carelessness going to indicate and spell out a policy that will bring inflation down in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, let us get the facts straight. The opposition party, when it formed the government, predicted 10 per cent, double-digit inflation for this year, and that is what we have. As to what we will do to bring it down in the years to come, I have just indicated in my answer that, first of all, we have ensured relief for those who needed it most-the aged; second, before the end of this year the Leader of the Opposition and this House will have a budget by this government which will do better to bring inflation down than his budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS WILL NOT BE INTRODUCED
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister forgets, of course, that the inflation rate does not take into account the oil price increases that are coming in Canada this year, while our forecast did.
The last time the Prime Minister was in power and inflation exceeded 10 per cent, he threw up his hands and introduced wage and price controls as his solution. We had them for three years. Now we are back at a rate of over 10 per cent inflation. Will the Prime Minister give this House an ironclad guarantee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -that he is not going to throw up his hands in defeat and bring in wage and price controls? Will he give us an ironclad guarantee, like his old friend here, "iron pants", the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


An hon. Member:: Better iron pants than mukluks.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that he is not going to bring in wage and price controls, which proved to be so ineffective the last time he did so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not quite fair to say that we just threw up our hands and did nothing and brought in wage and price controls. I remind the honourable blockhead from St. John's West-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that in the summer of 1974 the ten premiers met together and, seeing that they were unable to control inflation at the provincial level-something which constitutionally they have the power to do-they begged the federal government to take some drastic action.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Some of the new members do not remember this.
July 18, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We went through a whole year of trying to negotiate guidelines with the various economic decision-makers in the country. We held national conferences, and so on, and we are not able to get voluntary restraint. Following that, during next summer-in August, 1975-the premiers met again and said, "Don't just throw up your hands; do something." So we convened here in Ottawa, in October, and said, "For two years in a row you have been begging us to do something to strangle inflation and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Wrestle it to the ground.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, wrestle it to the ground first, and then strangle it. We said that under the constitution, prices and wages can be controlled by the federal government only in cases of emergency, by invoking the emergency powers. They said, like the hon. member, "Don't just stand there; go ahead and do it." So we brought in wage and price controls. The provinces have not yet begged us to step into their jurisdiction and impose controls on prices, contracts and wages, all of which are within their jurisdiction.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, we will have to get Ripley's "Believe It Or Not", to write the Prime Minister's history. I have been called names by far greater men than the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Collenette:: Name them.


John Carnell Crosbie: Joey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: From a blockhead to a pointyhead, let me ask a supplementary question. The Prime Minister said in January-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister said on January 12 that a Liberal government would reduce the deficit, "but not at the expense of jobs, growth and the attack on inflation". The government has not reduced the deficit; it has gone up by $4 billion. Unemployment is worse, and it is growing. There is no growth in the economy; in fact, there is decline. Inflation is worsening.
When will the Prime Minister deliver on his campaign promises; or will they go the same way as old ironclad's promises went last December 6? When is he going to start to deliver, because everything he said then has been contradicted-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think that the hon. member is getting argumentative.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, so I could know what standard of abuse is permissible with the hon. member, I would like to know what names he was called by these other people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dick:: "Mr. Honesty."


Charles Joseph Clark: The same names Claude Ryan has called you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as the statistics which the hon. member has just pointed out are concerned, I can understand why he is familiar with them because they are the very statistics which he announced in his budget. This is what he was budgeting for. As a difference, we have since then brought down the bank rate very considerably.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is busy over there studying his notes.


Mr. Nielsen:: Old ironclad.


John Edward Broadbent: The government has provided us with many pieces of paper on the question of the pipeline, but instead of ironclad guarantees on financing we have the promise of a 2 per cent feasibility study. Instead of legal contracts with the private interests involved we have a U.S. Congress motion of good intent. Finally, last night we were informed that President Carter had written to the Prime Minister urging us to export Canadian gas to the United States.
Considering that the minister earlier said that an agreement on the whole line had to be "signed, sealed and delivered" in advance, would he now confirm that the only thing which has been "signed, sealed and delivered" is the export of Canadian gas to the United States?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. member, who likes to refer to the 2 per cent figure, that the 2 per cent is $500 million of cash that is committed to be spent. I understand that may not be much for the NDP-


John Edward Broadbent: On a study.


Marc Lalonde: -but it is a lot of money for any private entrepreneur and for a lot of people in this country and in the United States.
80088 - 50

July 18, 1980
Oral Questions
What we have signed, sealed and delivered is a clear commitment by the President of the United States and by the Congress. Both houses of Congress unanimously adopted that they are going to see to it that the Alaska gas pipeline is going to be completed by the end of 1985. These are current commitments.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the minister does not know an awful lot about agreements that have existed in the past, but he does know that what the President has written is an expression of good intent, and nothing more.
Madam Speaker, I should like to go to the Prime Minister with this question, if I could get his attention. The Prime Minister knows that we do not believe the cabinet has authority to change a pipeline that was intended to export American gas to American markets into a pipeline that will export Canadian gas into American markets. We also agree with this point on policy grounds.
Considering the fundamental importance of this $20 billion, plus, energy project to the future of Canada, does the Prime Minister not think that such a major matter requires the government, in advance of any action, to submit a resolution to Parliament for approval, during which time all members in all parties would be able to express their views and their votes on this fundamentally important question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have not changed the nature of the pipeline. It was always understood the pipeline would carry some Canadian gas, which it will be doing, so there is no change in the nature of the pipeline.
In so far as debating the question is concerned, I understand the New Democratic Party has been doing that for several days in the House. It did it yesterday, and probably will do it again today, so that is sufficient debate.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that the asking of questions and the receiving of answers is no substitute for debate followed by a vote by the representatives of the people of Canada of all parties.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, because of the action that we are contemplating, which is very serious indeed in terms of delaying a recess that many members of Parliament, I think, have deserved, if he is telling us that the government will not submit this major decision to Parliament in advance of a recess, with a resolution so that we would have an opportunity to vote on it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the decision was announced yesterday. There is a day of debate today. But I would be happy to make arrangements through the House leaders that there be a vote at the end of the day. The NDP would be able to express its opinion, if that is what it wants. They can amend the adjournment motion, if they wish, and we will accept an amendment. I am sure the House would give consent


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, they do not want that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: A motion on the pipeline.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. Leader of the Opposition wants a debate and he wants a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: The NDP; Broadbent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry. We will accept an amendment on the pipeline and we can have a vote at the end of the day.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not the Leader of the Opposition; the Leader of the NDP.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, PHILIP M. KLUTZNICK
Madam Speaker:: May I draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery today of United States Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Philip M. Klutznick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and again pertains to the matter of the ministerial permit issued to the Calamusa family.
Will the minister please confirm that the investigation conducted by his regional office in this case was one of the most extraordinarily extensive and thorough investigations undertaken by that regional office? Will he also please confirm that allowing Calamusa to remain in Canada was contrary to the recommendation of the trial judge at the criminal hearing, to the findings of the special inquiry that dealt with the immigration and deportation matter, to the order of the Immigration Appeal Board and, most significantly, to the recommendation of his department at the regional level which was apprised of all of the facts, including the compassionate grounds?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that any investigation the department does is always very thorough and complete.
July 18, 1980

I would simply say to the hon. member, as I said to him last week, that in this case, as in all cases, we take recommendations and assessments from a variety of sources. It is the responsibility of the minister to make the final decision based on all the evidence, and not a regional office.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, 1 should like the minister to please confirm that he acted contrary to the recommendation of the regional department that conducted this investigation.
More significantly, in assessing whether to exercise discretion in favour of Mr. and Mrs. Calamusa, will the minister please confirm that he was aware, at the time of making his decision, of the fact that his department had recommended that certain charges of giving false or misleading evidence be laid against certain witnesses who testified at the special inquiry of Mrs. Calamusa, and that the RCMP is presently conducting investigations with respect to that matter?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in this particular case the judgment was not made on the basis of one series of recommendations. I can assure the hon. member that all the proper authorities were consulted-


An hon. Member:: Were you aware?


Lloyd Axworthy: -and all the evidence was weighed, and it was all given, including the RCMP which is always in on these cases, and on the basis of that conclusion the grounds for compassion still stand.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As I am sure he knows, after several months of very intensive negotiations an agreement is now ready to be signed by the Government of Canada and the western European nations who are users of Canada's uranium which will water down, or limit Canada's existing policies of inspection and consent to the final use of that uranium. Obviously, this deeply involves the whole matter of reprocessing; it involves plutonium and it involves the risk of nuclear proliferation.
Will the government be making any announcement, or will it provide an opportunity for debate before any such agreement is signed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I imagine the hon. member is referring to the INFCE study which was set up in London a couple of years ago and which recommends certain new types of safeguards. It has not been studied yet in cabinet.
I do know that we have current agreements with those to whom we export our uranium, which are valid to the end of September. I am not aware of what actions are planned, but I
Oral Questions
will inquire. I would think the House would certainly be given an opportunity to express an opinion on it.


INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE POLICY RESPECTING CREDIT INSURANCE PROGRAM
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It deals with the apparent changes of intent and policy to the program of credit insurance, which was intended originally to broaden the sources of capital available to medium and intermediate-sized businesses.
Can the minister tell the House why his department is now encouraging the chartered banks to enter this area of financial assistance to industry, and that with this encouragement of banks into the field he will not be discouraging the development of independent credit insurance companies and will not be restricting competition in this area? With this move is he now expanding the policy of guarantees to include the reinsurance of chartered banks' loan portfolios to medium-sized companies?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the regulations remain the same as they were when they were first adopted in early February. We are not ceasing to encourage the creation of independent, small credit reinsurance companies. We welcome them coming forward so that they can qualify and the program can get under way to assist the term lending of resources of pension funds in the interests of Canadian small business.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, further to the regulations of which the minister speaks, does the minister agree with his departmental advisers when they insist that provincially-con-trolled pension and savings plans be excluded as lenders, and that the majority of commercial enterprises in western Canada and the maritimes be excluded as borrowers under this plan; because most of the industries in these regions do not fall within the narrow definitions set by his advisers in manufacturing and processing?
In addition, the minister well knows, being familiar with the expanse of Canada, that most of the industries outside of Quebec and Ontario are tertiary in nature.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I want to see this program operate to give special attention to the needs of small business in the regions which my hon. friend has mentioned. That will be my direction to my officials.

Oral Questions NORTHERN PIPELINES


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-GAS SWAPS WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When the minister was in opposition last year, he was a very local proponent for Canadian consumers of gas. He said in this House on December 6:
-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-
Those were his words. My question to him today is this: what did he mean by gas swaps, and why has he abandoned the idea?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, indeed I stated that the previous government should have at least attempted to negotiate this particular issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not what you said.


Marc Lalonde: 1 refer hon. members to Hansard for December 6 and they can read what I said.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have read it, and your nose reaches across the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Watch out, Pinocchio.


Marc Lalonde: I indicated at that time that we should try and get an arrangement for swaps. As I said last night, I have had frequent meetings with my colleague in the United States and we have discussed this question at great length. Unfortunately, I have not been able to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement in this respect.


Paul Wyatt Dick: An ironclad flip-flop.


Marc Lalonde: It was established to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of my officials that it was not administratively possible or administratively wise in the current circumstances to arrive at such an arrangement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Am 1 to understand, and is the House to understand, that the minister came back empty-handed from these negotiations? One must ask why did he not wait for a year before playing his cards; in other words, giving this pre-build away? He could have waited for a year.
My supplementary question is this: would the minister agree with me that without these swaps, now that he has approved an export pipeline of Canadian gas to American markets, that in future the Canadian consumer is going to have to pay more for Canadian gas, if he can get it, or pay for expensive Canadian gas from the Arctic or for Alaskan gas, if he can get that?
July 18, 1980


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would have to disagree seriously with the interpretation of my hon. friend. First of all, this is the southern part of the Alaska gas pipeline. It is not an export gas pipeline by any means. It has only been approved as an integral part of the Alaska gas pipeline.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is not a guarantee.


Marc Lalonde: Second, as far as the question he has raised, at the present time we are exporting only gas that is estimated to be surplus to Canadian needs over an extended period of time. Canada is going to get a good price for that gas that it is selling at the present time. It will help Canadian industry to explore further and discover new resources, and make our future even safer in terms of the supply of natural gas.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he has personally satisfied himself that there is nothing in the background, either from a legal or a moral point of view, which would make it unsuitable for any of his ministers to continue serving as a member of his cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is with respect to conflict of interest in the policy of the government, and the Prime Minister particularly. It was revealed recently that Mr. Guy Gilbert, one of the three commissioners serving on the McDonald commission looking into the affairs of the RCMP, made a financial donation to the Liberal party, and he stated that the Liberal party was the party that he wanted to support.
The McDonald commission is a quasijudicial investigation set up to examine, among other things, the role of the Liberal government with respect to alleged wrongdoing by the RCMP. In fact, the former solicitor general, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace has expressed great concern with respect to such partisan statements tending to compromise the work of that commission. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he, in fact, feels it appropriate for Mr. Gilbert to continue as a commissioner on this inquiry which has been lengthy and expensive?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I take it that what the hon. member is objecting to is that Mr. Gilbert was candid and said what he was and what he did. There is nothing wrong in what he did. I think the hon. member is objecting to the fact that he said he was a Liberal. Being a Liberal is not a crime in this country.


An hon. Member:: It should be.
July 18, 1980


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It is morally offensive.


John Carnell Crosbie: When are you going to change the Criminal Code?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It does not disqualify one from any office. You can even be a Liberal and be a judge. The difference is that you cannot vote if you are a judge, but you can be a judge and be a Liberal. In this particular case, he is not a judge; he is a practising lawyer, a very honourable one and a very competent one. He made the mistake, in the eyes of the hon. member, to say he was a Liberal. 1 see nothing wrong with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the fact that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has said on many occasions that it will not finance companies to close down in one part of Canada to create jobs in another part of Canada, and that in 1971 A. Belanger Limitee, of Montmagny, Quebec, made an application-which was subsequently withdrawn in 1972-but closed down its subsidiary in Carleton Place, some 35 miles from here, costing some 220 jobs there, and in view of the fact that the federal government, with the provincial government, gave almost $2 million to A. Belanger Limitee in 1974-1975, and now that that company is owned by Admiral Corporation it is taking a further 270 jobs from Ottawa, is it the minister's view that losing 500 jobs in the Ottawa Valley through DREE grants to one company, namely, Belanger, making home appliances in Montmagny, is fair and reasonable for the Ottawa Valley?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the case which the hon. member has just mentioned is certainly one of the saddest cases that 1 have had before me. I would like to remind the hon. member of the situation. The announcement of the closing in Ottawa was made before that case came before us. Whether or not we gave a grant to the Montmagny location was really not at all in relationship with the closure which was announced about a year before.
Several departments in Ottawa have looked into this matter. 1 can say to the hon. member that I have looked closely at the distribution of the employees of that Canadian company. In two years from now, hon. members will see that the number of employees in the province of Ontario, which I think today is in
Oral Questions
the order of 1,200, will increase a 'ittle. But there is a problem of rationalization going on in that company.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It seems strange that having received quite a large amount in 1974-75 from DREE, the company should conveniently announce a closing in Ottawa and then make an application. It seems there are things working in tandem here.
Will the minister state-whether or not Admiral has more plants in Niagara Falls and Toronto is of no interest to the Ottawa Valley-that he will not approve a grant going to an Admiral subsidiary in Montmagny at this time to expand facilities down there, in view of the fact that it will replace existing jobs right here? That is what is going to happen.


Pierre De Bané: The problem, Madam Speaker, is that the plant in Ottawa is located at a particular site in Ottawa, and that for 30 years the municipal authorities have refused to issue a permit to expand. The company is in a location where it cannot expand.
The decision to close it was taken a long time ago, and the application to my department to open a plant in Montmagny was made a long time after that decision to close here was taken. There is really no relationship between the two. I would be happy to send the hon. member a thorough analysis of the whole question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the criticisms which have been directed by the Auditor General to government accounting procedures in relation to the superannuation accounts of the RCMP, the Canadian Armed Forces and the public service, and in recognition of the fact that the government is crediting interest to these accounts at a pitiful rate of only 4 per cent per annum, thereby enjoying a low-interest loan of about $9 billion financed by our public employees to cover a major portion of federal government debt, will the President of the Treasury Board agree to commission a full audit by the Auditor General of the superannuation accounts of Canada, and will he also put a stop to this blatant misuse by the government of the pension contributions made by our public employees?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, we are, of course, always interested in improving our standards of accountability. I have discussed a number of these issues with the Auditor General. It happens I am having lunch with him today, so I will raise the point the hon. member has mentioned.

July 18, 1980
Oral Questions


Thomas Edward Siddon: A related question, again to the President of the Treasury Board. What are the minister's plans with respect to revision of the indexing provisions of the superannuation accounts? Does the Liberal government intend to reintroduce legislation this session along the lines of its earlier proposal, which would have the effect of restricting or eliminating the present indexing provisions accorded to public employees?


Donald James Johnston: The hon. member is dealing with a very complex issue, one which was studied extensively, as he knows, before the committee last year. Bill C-12 is the bill to which he is referring. It is a matter of great concern to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has indicated that a national pensions' conference will be held to discuss a number of aspects dealing with pension plans, portability and, of course, indexing.
I understand that studies on indexation are being conducted by a number of private groups, including the Conference Board in Canada. The hon. member can rest assured that this is a matter of priority concern with us and that we shall be bringing forward a paper for discussion or further proposals for discussion, I hope at a relatively early date.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In making its decision to approve the pre-build of the Alaska gas pipeline, the government is relying heavily on assurances by the executive branch of the United States government.
Would the minister comment on the extent to which such assurances may prove reliable, in the light of the fact that less than three weeks ago President Carter approved further funding for the Garrison diversion unit after having assured Canada that the U.S. would live up to its obligations under the Boundary Waters Treaty?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the government is not relying exclusively on undertakings by the executive branch. We also have the motion which was passed by the U.S. Congress. It is precisely because of our experience with the United States in other instances that we felt we should get this assurance. 1 might say, with particular respect to Garrison, that we continue to rely on the assurance of the U.S. government that they will respect the Boundary Waters Treaty.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: My supplementary is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last month, when he visited Washington, the Minister of Employment and Immigration received personal assurances from his American counterparts that the Garrison appropriation would not be approved. He accepted those assurances in good faith; yet the appropriation was made.
In light of the inability of the executive branch of the U.S. government to ensure that its commitments are fulfilled by the U.S. Congress, can the Secretary of State tell the House what action he intends to take to protect Manitoba from the eventual completion of the Garrison project?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the assurances which were received by my colleague were in respect to the way in which the money to be voted by Congress was to be spent. We do have an assurance from the executive that the money which has been voted will not be spent on works which in any way affect the province of Manitoba or the transfer of waters from one basin to another.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask him whether he or his department are contemplating any significant moves or changes which, hopefully, would be of greater benefit to western Canadian grain production, agriculture and railways in terms of the Crowsnest Pass rate? If there are any changes forthcoming, will these changes be announced or will they be implemented or proceeded with some time between now and when Parliament comes back in the first part of October?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have spent a lot of time in contemplation on that subject in recent days and I have done a lot of consultation, also, as the hon. member is aware. 1 have drawn my own conclusions. 1 am due to present them to my colleagues in the course of a couple of weeks and will be guided by the consensus which will develop there.


DEVELOPMENT OF OIL SANDS-INVESTMENT THEREIN
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: My question is for the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker. It has been estimated that the approval of the pre-build portion of the Alaska pipeline is worth between $4 billion and $5 billion, resulting in a 1 per cent hike in the gross national product.
Will the Prime Minister explore with Mr. Lougheed in the upcoming negotiations the removal of the oil sands and heavy oil plant development from the pricing agreement so that $12 billion of funds which are ready to be invested in heavy oil and tar sands can go ahead immediately, thus securing the energy supply for Canada, creating 40,000 permanent jobs and probably increasing the GNP by between 2 per cent and 3 per cent?
July 18, 1980


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We on this side of the House share the hon. member's interest in seeing Canada as a whole, and Alberta in particular, profiting from the development of the tar sands and, of course, in the case of the oil sands, heavy oil, this applies also to Saskatchewan. 1 am sure I shall be discussing this matter with Premier Lougheed; it will be a very substantial part of our discussions.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister responsible for DREE and is a follow-up to the question which was asked by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.
Is the minister aware that there are a great many other industries in provinces which are not favoured by DREE, communities which are suffering the same disaster with industries going to more attractive parts of the country where the DREE program applies? When one province receives 43 per cent of all DREE grants there is a strong inducement for industries to leave one province to go to the province where they can qualify for a DREE grant. I find this throughout central Ontario with industries employing up to probably 200 or 300 people.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, my philosophy is essentially that we should try to build on the potential of each region. I, personally, do not think that we can play one region against the other.
If the hon. member is interested, I would be very agreeable to giving him all of the different figures for every region. He thinks his is not receiving enough. I am very pleased to say to the hon. member that I discussed this particular riding with several Ontario ministers of the provincial government to see to what extent both levels of government, and particularly through my department, can do something for his riding. However, I do not think we should criticize what we are doing in every region, because I think that would be quite counterproductive.
I could give examples. Just to give one, recently the province of Quebec asked me for a grant to build an industry in the poorest region of the province of Quebec, the Magdalen Islands. There is 60 per cent unemployment there. I said no because it would hurt two industries in the province of Ontario.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


RATIFICATION OF CANADA-U.S. EAST COAST TREATY
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As he is aware, and as the entire House is probably aware, there will be an interparliamentary delegation going to Washington next Wednesday to discuss the east coast fisheries treaty. This House approved that treaty over one year ago, and it is still waiting for ratification by the U.S. senate foreign relations committee.
In view of the minister's seemingly wholehearted approval of the sell-out of energy yesterday, I would like to ask the minister today, as he is sending that delegation to Washington practically naked, whether he would give some assurance to this House and the fishermen of Canada that he is not prepared to sell out the fisheries as he was prepared to sell out energy yesterday.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I thought when the hon. member's question began that it was a show of support and solidarity of all parties in the House on a very important and fundamental issue to the fishermen of this country.
Obviously, the hon. member chose to use one of the very overused cliches used by some of his friends on the west coast. Whenever negotiations take place, and whenever both sides arrive at an agreement, the hon. member's friends on the west coast always shout "sell-out". I am sorry to say so, but if we are going to negotiate boundary agreements and fisheries agreements, obviously there is going to be a level of grumbling on both sides, which probably means that there is a reasonable agreement.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I think there is just cause for calling "sell-out" in Canada when we look at the fisheries treaties. We on the west coast are getting no progress from the U.S. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake, indicated problems with the Garrison diversion. Acid rain has been a problem in Canada.
I would like to ask the minister whether at any stage he will indicate to his government that we should not be selling out our resources, and that we should be linking some of these fisheries resources with energy and those other things upon which the United States is dependent.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member's approach to these issues is. I am a little worried, because I would not like to see the Fisheries in the balance against some other regional interest in this country. If the hon. member is advocating that we should take this philosophy, I hope he explains that to his fishermen when he loses the next round. Thank goodness he will not, because he will not be in the government.
If the hon. member attended the briefing which was given to all members of the fisheries committee, he will have heard that the hope for agreement on the west coast salmon interception

July 18, 1980
House of Commons
problem is greater than it has been for a number of years. This is not just from my officials; it is from all representatives- except one-of the industry in British Columbia.


APPOINTMENT OF MR. ARTHUR STANLEY SILVERMAN AS ADMINISTRATOR
Madam Speaker:: Hon. members will recall that in April, 1979, my predecessor, after consultation with the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, invited the Auditor General to undertake a thorough review of the House of Commons administration. You will also recall that in October, 1979, the results of the preliminary investigation made by the Auditor General on the administration of the House of Commons were delivered to Mr. Jerome with a number of key recommendations under the form of an interim report. My predecessor immediately responded to that recommendation and accepted the proposal of the Auditor General to appoint Mr. Rheal Chatelain, senior deputy Auditor General, as acting administrator of the House of Commons. Mr. Chatelain took up his duties here at the end of November, 1979.

The dissolution of the House of Commons delayed the early consideration of the Auditor General's interim report, but 1 have now had an opportunity to discuss his principal recommendations with the commissioners of internal economy and with members of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. I thank them for their assistance to me in this very important and complex matter.
1 want to say to the House that, after giving very careful consideration to the various aspects of the administrative structure of the House of Commons, I have concluded that the Speaker and the House must be supported by a professional administrative staff to provide the services and systems necessary. Therefore, I have taken the necessary steps to create the position of administrator, whose authority will derive from the Speaker, and after careful consideration of the qualifications and experience of a number of candidates I have appointed Mr. Arthur Stanley Silverman to that position. Mr. Silverman is a certified general accountant with 15 years' experience in private industry and in government. He comes to us well qualified and very highly recommended, and I am sure that hon. members will give him every assistance as he assumes the important responsibilities of his new office.
[Translation)


TRIBUTE TO MR. RHEAL CHATELAIN
Madam Speaker:: On your behalf also, I publicly thank Mr. Rheal Chatelain who has enabled us to benefit from his vast
administrative experience in that temporary period and who, thanks to his sound expertise, has given us his unique assistance in developing administrative structures which hopefully will help us take up the challenge to make the House of Commons an institution which will more adequately serve the Canadian nation.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: On April 28 the hon. member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis) asked for leave and offered a motion to the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The question was put from the chair. The clerks at the table pointed out to the Speaker that the motion was not correct as to form. The clerks at the table exercised their editorial judgment and edited the motion accordingly. The hon. member was made aware of the changes and agreed with them.
Two days later the hon. member came back to the table to state that certain words in the motion were only meant for his introduction and should not have been included in his motion. On examining the situation the Clerk of the House decided that the hon. member was correct and, accordingly, a corrigendum was printed in Votes and Proceedings. Through an administrative error Hansard was not informed.
Hon. members move many motions under Standing Order 43, some of which are not correct as to form. Many of those motions are adopted and, if they are to be printed separately from their preamble, would make little sense to the reader and have to be changed as to form to make them complete.
I hope that this clears the matter for all hon. members, and I thank the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for his interest in ensuring that our administrative practices relating to this procedure are of the highest possible standards.


TRIBUTE TO RETIRING &quot;HANSARD&quot; REPORTER
Madam Speaker:: I beg also to inform hon. members that Mr. Charles Fisher, the senior Hansard reporter, will be terminating his service to the House of Commons on the day we adjourn for the summer recess.
Mr. Charles Fisher joined the Hansard staff in 1957. His talents are numerous and his reporting skill and dedication to Hansard immeasurable. I am sure all hon. members will join me in expressing best wishes to a faithful servant of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 18, 1980


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, the matter of privilege which 1 wish to raise arises out of this morning's question period, in particular the answer which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave to the leader of this party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I should like to say that I think this point of privilege touches one of the most important issues in the operation of Parliament, namely, the relationship between the executive and Parliament. This relationship shows up most prominently in the instances where the government uses its order in council power.
What we have before us at the present time is an example of the use of that power by the government under the Northern Pipeline Act in a way which some of us think is questionable. Let me say immediately that I recognize there is a debatable point, but the difficulty is that if the government has used an order in council authority which does not exist and goes ahead with the construction of the pre-build of the northern pipeline, it will soon be the case that it will be too late for Parliament to exercise its authority.
I recognize, Your Honour, that all regulations and orders passed by the government are referred in due course to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, and I assume, therefore, that this order in council will eventually get into the hands of that committee. But if the House were to adjourn soon, there is no telling when that consideration might be given. In other words, the construction of the line could be undertaken before anybody has had the opportunity to consider the question as to whether or not it is legal.
1 remind Your Honour that there have been occasions when orders in council passed by the government, which the government claimed were legal, proved to be otherwise. 1 have in mind, in particular, an order in council passed by the Diefen-baker government in 1962 having to do with the increasing of import duties and certain other taxes. I will not take the time to tell the House the story of that incident, but the matter was taken to court and, as a result of its being taken to court, the Liberal government which followed a year later found it necessary to introduce a statute to legalize what had been done by the Diefenbaker government under an order in council.
I am prepared to admit that the question of whether it was legal or illegal never was settled; the Liberal government took no chance on the courts deciding against the order in council because, if that had happened, the amounts of money to be paid back would have been tremendous. But the fact that the government of that day did act as it did suggests that it certainly had doubts about the legality of that order in council.
I say that this situation confronts us now. I know the arguments that are made both ways. We contend that the Northern Pipeline Act provides-and the definition is very clear-for the building of one pipeline from Alaska across
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
Canada into the lower 48 states. We contend that the building of only a portion of that line is not consistent with the provisions of the act. In fact, we contend that what was intended to be a transportation medium for American gas to move from Alaska to the rest of the United States has been turned into an export pipeline for the purpose of exporting Canadian gas to the United States.
The government's argument, on the other hand, is that it has authority under section 20(4) of the act to amend the terms of condition 12 in schedule III. 1 do not agree but I am prepared to admit that there are arguments on both sides. But my point of privilege, Madam Speaker, is this, that unless something is done now, it can be too late. Perhaps down the road somewhere the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments will find that the order in council exceeded the authority set out in the act or that there should be court action about it, and by that time, of course, the construction could be under way and it would be a very costly proposition to alter it or change it at that time.
I feel therefore, Madam Speaker, that the time to get this matter settled is now, before the pipeline is started rather than afterward. I shall indicate what I suggest. I suggest that the matter should be referred to a standing committee of the House. If you find, either today or on Monday, that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move such a motion. The usual motion when one raises a point of privilege is to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, but because this order in council would eventually go to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, 1 think it might be appropriate for the motion to read that it be referred forthwith to that committee so that it can investigate it right away.
As I say, Madam Speaker, this touches on a pretty important matter in our parliamentary relations. There is no doubt about our position and that we have views about the pre-build; I do not deny that for a moment. But I am speaking now as one who is concerned about how government and Parliament operate and I just do not buy the idea of government arguing by assertion, saying that it has the right to do under section 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act what it has done. I just do not buy the argument that the government has the right to say that a bill which provided for a transportation link between Alaska and the lower 48 states can now be turned into authority to build a southern Alberta pipeline for the export of Canadian gas to the United States.
I submit, Your Honour, that Parliament has the right to have this legal question at least reviewed by some body responsible to us, and I hope that you will give the matter serious consideration.
The Prime Minister suggested today to the leader of this party that he would accept an amendment which we might move to the adjournment motion. I would remind the Prime Minister that you, Your Honour, are the one to decide on whether an amendment is acceptable, I can also tell him and I can tell you that since that suggestion was made I have tried to

July 18, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
draft one; 1 have one ready for the hon. member for Oshawa when he speaks later. 1 can see procedural problems about it, but in no case can we draft an amendment to a motion to adjourn the House for a recess in such a way that it gives the government the authority to act by order in council with respect to a matter that is spelled out so clearly in a statute of Parliament.
1 hope that this amendment which I have drafted will be accepted and we can have a debate on it and vote on it at some time, Monday, Tuesday or whenever we get around to it. But in the meantime it seems to me the basic question of the right of the executive to say to itself that it can do this under the terms of the act must be reviewed.
I go back to an incident which I hope will not annoy my Conservative friends because I am referring to something that happened in their time; it is just the one that comes to my mind. I recall so well how, on the floor of this House in 1962, we challenged the then prime minister, Mr. Diefenbaker, to get a court consideration of the matter. He just stood up and said, with all the power of assertion the late right honourable gentleman had, that it was in order, that the government had the authority to use two statutes-one was the Customs Tariff and the other was the Financial Administration Act-to raise duties considerably on the one hand and then forgive them and put them back a little on the other. In fact, however, changing the rates of duty cannot be done by a government unless it has the authority of Parliament.
I am making the point that this sort of thing has been done. Just because the prime minister, whether it was Mr. Diefenbaker or the present one, stood up and said, "What we are doing is within order in council powers", does not make it such.
When the Hon. John Turner was minister of justice, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments was set up. It is a very important committee. The government argued then that the power of regulation or the power to do things by order in council had to be put within certain limits. One of the limits he proposed, which supposedly would protect the rights of Parliament under this, was this standing joint committee to which all orders and regulations would stand referred. That committee has been a joint committee of both Houses. It has had opposition persons, at least from our side, in the chair of the committee. It has done some awfully good work, and I would be quite happy to accept the judgment of that joint committee on this. But there is not much point in getting that judgment some time after October 15, which is the date that it is proposed we come back.
I present this matter to Madam Speaker as a very serious question of privilege. I do not deny my bias and the bias of my party in so far as the policy is concerned, but I ask Your Honour to join with me in looking beyond that to the importance of an action by the government which, in my view, transcends its authority to act by order in council under a statute. One of the basic principles around here is just thatyes, governments can pass orders in council but only if they are given that authority.
I well remember back in the days of World War II that we used to be astounded by the things the government could pass by order in council. It was able to do so because of the War Measures Act under which it could do anything. I remember we came down here in November, 1944, for a special week's session to deal with the conscription crisis. At that point the pay of members of Parliament was only $4,000 a year, and we had had our $4,000. Most of the members who had come for that week in November were finding it pretty difficult to get enough dollars together on which to live, but the government solved the problem by using the War Measures Act to pass an order in council giving us $25 a day for seven days. As I say, the War Measures Act was all pervasive; the government could do anything under it. But once that is no longer there, no order in council can be passed by the government unless there is authority for it in a statute.
Now, the Prime Minister said that the government have the authority under section 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act. We question that. Their argument may prevail over ours if it gets before a proper court, but I deny the right of the government simply to stand up and argue by assertion that they have the right and therefore Parliament just has to take it.
Therefore, I raise this matter as a serious question of privilege. If Your Honour Finds either now or after you have reflected on it that I have a prima facie case, I would be pleased to move that the matter be referred to whichever committee Your Honour advises, either to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has couched this as a question of privilege. I do not know whether it is a question of privilege in the sense that Your Honour has defined it, but I think whether or not it is a question of privilege is academic at this point.
The hon. member has really said that he takes the view that orders in council or other instruments which have been issued, promulgated, passed or whatever by the government, are passed without authority in the statute. It is a matter of elementary parliamentary law and elementary law that there must be power in the statute before such orders can be passed.
The minister has not yet tabled the documents respecting other matters which he undertook to do today. But if that is the issue in terms of the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then I think whether or not it is a question of privilege the issue regarding the power to pass that order in council can be settled, and I respectfully suggest should be settled, at least in the parliamentary sense.
Of course, the place for the settlement of that issue is in the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments; I think that would be the appropriate one. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to possibly
July 18, 1980

two committees, but I think that is the appropriate committee. It is important that the issue be settled, at least in so far as we can settle it here in Parliament from the points of view of the government on the one hand, and members of Parliament on the other, respecting the relationship of the executive to Parliament and, of course, respecting the producers and users of the facility which is the subject of the argument and was the subject of the statement last night by the minister.
Our hope is to facilitate the early settlement of that point in so far as Parliament may be able to settle it. From our party's point of view, we would be prepared to consent to a reference now of that matter to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, that that reference take place, that the committee convene quickly next week whether or not Parliament is sitting, and that the issue which has been placed squarely by the member go to committee so that in a parliamentary sense it can be settled and dealt with.
In my judgment and in my respectful submission, that does not take away any other rights that are there. Let me be clear about that. It does not take away the right of a citizen to go to court. Whether that citizen is a member of Parliament or otherwise, he has that right. But at least it would settle that issue.
If we could agree upon that today, then I think the business of the House could proceed and at least there would be some certainty put on the question of the legality or illegality of what the government has done. I am not passing any judgment on that because I have not seen the documents; they are to be tabled later on today, according to the undertaking of the minister. At least it would settle the question that has been put squarely and was the subject of a considerable amount of debate last night.
I just want to make it clear that we would be prepared to consent to that kind of arrangement and to negotiate that kind of an arrangement if that were the case, because I think it is important that it be settled.
[ Translation}


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the experience of the hon. member who rose on what he called a question of privilege, I must unfortunately differ from him with regard to the substance of his intervention. Basically he claims that the order approved by the governor in council should be subject to examination by this Parliament, or a committee of the House, before being applied; that is to say, he would like the order in council authorizing the construction of the pre-build, as an integral part of the whole pipeline, to be studied by Parliament-there is a standing committee of the House-before construction starts.
1 must say, Madam Speaker, that it would be contrary not only to the letter but to the spirit of the law, as well as contrary to the opinion requested and obtained from the law
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
officers of the Crown, for us to proceed in that fashion. My colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), indicated that, as far as his party is concerned, he sees no objection to the order in council and supporting documents being examined by the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments as soon as possible, even next week if need be.
Personally, I do not see why that committee could not meet today, or early next week, to study the order in council of the government. Still, I would hate to see that study delay the start of the pre-build construction. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, very pertinently, I must say, indicated that the Canadian people, whether it be companies or individuals, have other recourses, which the government does not deny them, and that if anyone should claim that the government has acted illegally, the matter could in various ways be referred to the courts. An injunction could be requested to prevent the start of operations if that upsets the NDP too much.
Be that as it may, there are ways and means of having recourse to the law when people doubt the legality of an order in council, or a government decision or policy. But resorting to a question of privilege because the government has applied section 20(4) of Bill C-25 is splitting hairs, not in four but in eight, 16 or even 32. Basically there is no substance to the question of privilege brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Madam Speaker, I deem it advisable, for the record, to quote a very brief excerpt from the law under which the government has acted: section 20(4) of the act to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency stipulates as follows, and I quote:
The board or the designated officer may rescind, amend or add to the terms and conditions set out in schedule III or deemed to be set out therein but no rescission of or amendment to such a term or condition or addition of a term or condition is effective without the approval of the governor in council.
Madam Speaker, what NDP members and especially their House leader are referring to is an amendment to section 12 of schedule III, something covered by section 20(4) of the act. It cannot be any clearer that the government had the authority through an order in council to do what it did. This time, Madam Speaker, we are not dealing with the legislation of a foreign parliament, a foreign country, or the government of another land. This is legislation of the Canadian Parliament. Hon. members of the House are those who at a given time had to examine it, clause by clause, and when they reached clause 20(4), they realized that in a democratic fashion, following their election by the people, they were giving through a majority mandate to the government the power to do essentially what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is now reproaching it with doing. He is going against the will of Parliament, of a previous parliament, when he questions the right of the government or cabinet to act as it did through an order in council.

July 18, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
Madam Speaker, it is therefore obvious that there is absolutely no substance to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In my opinion, this is undoubtedly a ploy to air the New Democratic Party's views or its disapproval of the government's policy in this case, but they ought not to use the House's time to pretend that there is in fact substance for a question of privilege and force hon. members to debate a question as to whether, after adopting such an explicit legislation giving the governor in council unequivocal powers, they can take the time of the House to argue that we have now given the governor in council authorization but we wish to go further and have this legislation studied once again in committee.
This is more or less the nature of the request made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I say that it is an abuse of procedures, a traditional means which dates back to the war of 1914 or the last war to which he referred earlier. But this is 1980 and we wish to administer laws in an efficient manner, we have lots of work to do and there is absolutely no legitimate basis for his request.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, even if I endorse the excellent proposal made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to ask the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments to meet as soon as possible in the next days or in the next few weeks, to which we do not object because it would allow members from both sides of the House to make an in-depth study of the order in council, to review our legislative texts, to see to what extent the government application of this Parliament's previously adopted act is carried out democratically, even though I am not opposed to a referral to the appropriate committee, I want to make it clear that in the name of the government I am formally opposed to any reference which might in any way delay the construction of the portion of the pipeline which must be an integral part of the whole project before the end of 1985.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, in concluding, this is what we on this side of the House are submitting: the question is very simple, very clear and what we have done is to respect the legislation adopted by this Parliament. There is absolutely no basis to the question of privilege and I understand that members of the New Democratic Party will have ample time to discuss the motion which will be moved soon to adjourn the House and to express their opinions, just as they have done since the beginning of this week.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would like some clarification on the government's attitude. We agree that a study should not delay the implementation of a decision such as the one which was announced last night by the Government of Canada. But the government House leader knows that if there is to be a reference to a committee he is the one who had to make it. I think one thing that all parties recognize is that such reference is desirable.
1 agree, as I have said and I repeat, that we do not wish to delay the implementation of the decision announced last night, but I think it is essential that all members of the House, through committee, take part in a study on the validity of government actions. I have not heard the government House leader say whether or not he is prepared to make such reference to the committee, to recommend such a reference. I have heard no such commitment and I think it would be useful if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) made such a commitment. If he does, he can be assured of the Progressive Conservatives' acceptance and agreement.
In my opinion, it would be quite worth while to have the House leaders of all three parties get together and draft some terms of reference that would be acceptable to all. We in our party are prepared to discuss the terms of reference later today. The President of the Privy Council might indicate today, now, whether he would be willing to recommend such a reference to the committee.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 think that earlier I made myself clear enough. Some time this afternoon, before we close this first part of the session, hopefully before four o'clock, I shall be very pleased to have a more thorough discussion with the House leaders and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), if they so wish, so that we might try to agree on a reference and have the order in council, which in any case will eventually come under the consideration of the Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, examined sooner than it would be under the normal conditions we all know, without, as the Leader of the Opposition said, causing any delay in the building of the pipeline. So I shall be pleased to work in co-operation with the House leaders during the day to try to reach an agreement in that regard.


Madam Speaker:: I would not like this question of privilege to degenerate into a long debate. I have heard many arguments and I will entertain one more. After that, I will give my decision to the House as to what I intend to do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I was amazed at the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) for two reasons. Firstly, it occurred to me that if it is against the spirit of Parliament to refer this matter to the committee, why do we have the committee? Is that not what the committee is for, to examine these matters?
Secondly, and more fundamentally, I would draw to the minister's attention a speech during the debate when the Northern Pipeline Act was passed. We not only have in the House one flip-flop, but now there are two flip-flops. If the minister will examine his speeches, he will see that he comes out quite squarely for the concept of having guarantees that the whole line be built.
Furthermore, the President of the Privy Council comes out along with his predecessor, the Minister of Finance (Mr. July 18, 1980

MacEachen), who had this to say in Hansard for April 4, 1978, at page 4120:
From the very beginning I undertook in the House to ensure that Parliament was brought in at every stage-
Indeed, the government did that. I researched the matter extensively over the last couple of weeks. I looked at all the speeches then and at all the debates in the pipeline committee. I talked to some of the participants, in particular to the Hon. T. C. Douglas who was then a member of this House. I am told by Mr. Douglas that the government then rejected the concept of a pre-build. The concept was brought up and rejected and the act was passed as the Northern Pipeline Act. That was all in the spirit of the act, and hon. members recognize that.
The minister stood up and said that we have the power under section 20, subsection (4). Again, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, that is just an assertion that the government has the power. The minister may be right. I think he is wrong and that it is illegal. I do not see how an apple can be changed into an orange by an order in council, but that may be a matter for the courts.
I appeared at the National Energy Board hearings as an intervener to challenge the power of the board to take this action. There has been a slight misleading, perhaps unintentionally, in the House on this matter. At the hearings, the counsel for the government of Ontario supported my proposition that the board did not really have any jurisdiction in this matter. That was the position of the government of Ontario.
Last night we were told that the government of British Columbia also opposes the pre-build. Perhaps Ontario and British Columbia will bring legal action. I am told that the B.C. Union of Indian Chiefs has also taken that position, and they were at the hearings. Will they bring action? Of course I have, in my status as an intervenor, the right to bring legal action if I so determine. However, the better and ideal remedy would be for the government, as the Minister of Finance said in 1978, to consult the House at all steps and to bring back an amendment to the Northern Pipeline Act. That would be the proper parliamentary procedure, and that is what the government should do if it is really concerned about Parliament. What is the big hurry to go home today? We are paid to be here, and it is our job. We will sit down while the government brings in an amendment. Then we can vote on the amendment and we will see whether the government backbenchers or the Conservatives will vote for the amendment. Then it would be legal.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, three members have spoken on behalf of the opposition, and the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is the fourth member. Only one member has spoken for the government side. You, Madam Speaker, have already ruled that the present speaker will end the debate. While I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member's right to intervene at all, I would respectfully submit that the hon. member is ranging far from the question of privilege itself. He is getting into the substance of the debate.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
If the hon. member wishes to get into the substance of the debate, I submit that we on this side should be allowed to refute some of the arguments put forth by the hon. member, which have nothing to do with the question of privilege. The hon. member has suggested that the government should introduce an amendment to the legislation. 1 would argue that such a step would be a recognition or admission by government and by Parliament that we will support the notion of a pre-build which is separate from the whole Alaska gas pipeline. This would be the worst possible step the government and Parliament could take.


An hon. Member:: It is what you are doing.


Marc Lalonde: The government has indicated that it proposes to stick to building the whole Alaska gas pipeline, not the type of pre-build which the hon. members are proposing. I submit that if the hon. member is permitted to carry on this kind of argument, then we should be allowed to engage in the substance of the debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 will conclude. Madam Speaker, now that the minister has made his speech, so he will not have to follow me. 1 want to say that what we are dealing with is a matter of privilege. 1 sincerely ask the minister, what is more a matter of privilege than whether the government has the right to take this action by order in council? It is what Parliament is about. It is not, as the President of the Privy Council has said, "splitting hairs"; it is a whole concept.
The concept is, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, that there is disagreement as to the legality. Also, it is not enough for the government to stand up and make the assertion that it has the power. As I tried to point out, if the minister would listen, there are a number of parties outside this House in Canada, including some governments of the provinces, which may indeed challenge this move. Then we will be in a real pickle if we lose that law case.
What I am saying is that the matter is indeed a question of privilege, that this matter should come back before Parliament and be dealt with in the House, and that the government concede, before construction goes ahead, that this question will be dealt with in Parliament.
[Translation\


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is asking me to proceed on the basis that a certain government action could be illegal. I have already stated that the Chair should not have to rule on the legality of government actions. I would even remind hon. members that governments must accept the consequences of their actions, whether good or bad, and that it is not up to the Chair to save them from any possible disaster. The proposal of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) seems acceptable to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).
I do not know if it is acceptable to the representatives of the other party in the House, but in any case it would seem a good idea to allow some time to the House leaders to negotiate

July 18, 1980
Union is taking its time on this. By the time we get an answer from them the man is likely to have died in prison.
I say sincerely, Madam Speaker, that I think this is a case within the purview of the Chair. I hope that we may receive an answer in the very near future.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is right in saying that I often act for hon. members of this House.
I would have to look at the wording of the Standing Order 43, but depending on that wording the Chair or someone else would act, depending on what the resolution said. I do not know as I do not have it with me, but I shall look at it to see whether it would come under my purview or that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan).
At any rate, I would not want to be found in neglect in my responsibilities. The hon. member has raised a very serious point of order and I shall look into it. If there is something that I was supposed to do and have not done, 1 will look into it immediately. I am not sure that it is really under my purview but I will look at it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There was unanimous consent-


Madam Speaker:: I have not given the hon. member the floor. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Point of Order-Mr. Paproski
referral of the issue raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to the appropriate committee, and I shall give them time to negotiate this matter. Outside this proposal from the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, the question of privilege remains entirely open. I am well aware that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not raise a question of privilege without very serious motives. His knowledge of parliamentary procedure is very extensive, and the House has often benefited from his interventions in this regard.
Because I am aware that his arguments are certainly very serious, I would like time to reflect on the issue and to examine further the arguments he has raised. I would like to take time to examine the blues, and I shall give my decision on this question of privilege some time later today.


POINTS OF ORDER
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker. My point of order concerns two motions under Standing Order 43, one of which was passed on November 3, 1978. It was moved by the hon. member for Windsor-Walker-ville, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), and was seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon Biggar, now Saskatoon West, (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and concerned the release of Danylo Shumuk. That motion received the unanimous consent of this House in view of the fact that after 34 years Danylo Shumuk is still in prison in the Soviet Union for his defence of human rights.
The same motion under Standing Order 43 was presented on July 14 by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).
I believe this matter will come under the purview of the Chair. After all you, Madam Speaker, as the first commoner, may write to the Soviet embassy and ask them what they are doing about this particular case. You represent all of us in this chamber. This is a very serious matter. The man is dying in prison. We have not heard anything since November 3, 1978, when I believe Speaker Jerome wrote a letter. I do not know whether you, Madam Speaker, have had the opportunity to write a letter or to contact the ambassador from the Soviet Union.
On behalf of this gentleman and all of us in this chamber who have had a great deal of correspondence regarding this case, I think something should be sought from the Soviet ambassador. I sincerely hope that when you do receive such correspondence you would pass it on to all members of this chamber who are concerned in this matter. I think the Soviet


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I do not want to cut off my colleague from Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), but I think we accept your undertaking to look into the matter. I know that Your Honour shares the feeling of all members of this House that this is a matter of very real importance, that Your Honour or the Department of External Affairs will act with dispatch and that there will be a reply to the House.


MR. CLARK-IMMIGRATION-REQUEST FOR LIST OF MINISTERIAL PERMITS ISSUED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to an exchange, reported at page 2799 and 2800 of Hansard for July 11, between myself and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I think this is the first time we have both been back in the House since that exchange. I gave the minister written notice only a few minutes ago that I would be raising the matter again.
Madam Speaker, my point of order relates to an exchange regarding the Calamusa case. On July 11 when I asked him for the identity of persons making representations in the case, the minister indicated that I should seek them out. He also said that if I could secure their agreement to have their names published, that would probably proceed.
I raised with the minister the very practical difficulty that I cannot seek these people out until I know who they are. I raised the question of whether, on a private basis, he would make available to me the names of those individuals upon whose advice, in part, he had acted in this very important and
July 18, 1980

contentious case so that I could get in touch with them to see if they would agree to have their names brought forward.
The minister's reply to me, shown on page 2800 of Hansard, was that he would take the position that I had raised as notice and see what would be made available. It may well be that the House will rise today. I know the minister would not want any suspicion to exist that he was acting in a deliberate way to try to keep information relating to this highly contentious case from my attention or the attention of Parliament.
I raise this point of order now, Madam Speaker, so that the minister may have an opportunity, after a week's reflection and after having received my note 30 or 40 minutes ago, to indicate whether he will give me those names so that I can seek the consent of those people to have their names published. In that way we would have a clearer understanding of exactly what went on in this case.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak to this point of order both to clear up some suggestions made in the statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and to respond to the point of order itself.
First, I think we should understand very clearly that the facts of the case are absolutely open and clear. A decision was made purely and simply on the grounds that I explained to Parliament-that there is a serious family problem involved, and that we did not want to break up the family or cause undue hardship or further personal tragedy. Those are the only grounds for the decision.
Any suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition or his colleagues attempt to make that there was anything further is a disservice to the family involved and to me. I would like to have that stated very clearly. I think it is unfortunate that there is an attempt to try to suggest that something took place other than that which was explained in this House. Those are the grounds upon which a decision was made and those are the only grounds.
Whatever the motives of the Leader of the Opposition may be-and I am sure they are multiple-he can be assured that those are the only prima facie grounds upon which the decision was made, and he should be assured of that fact.
As far as the question of names is concerned, the Leader of the Opposition knows that I have been overseas. I asked my department to compile a list and to comment upon the advisability of that. I have not had an opportunity yet to review their recommendation on the list but as soon as I have had a chance to do that, I will be in communication with the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Edward Siddon: On this point of order, Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the minister what the circumstances are that make this family situation somehow unique. Members of Parliament receive pleas from new Canadians and immigrants from all over the world who argue on behalf of their relatives for very legitimate reasons.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Committee Reports


Thomas Edward Siddon: I should like to know what the specific, exceptional circumstances are in the present case, which led the minister to grant this application.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, this is somewhat irrelevant to the point of order but I think it deserves a response.
All kinds of cases come to my attention and each has its own unique characteristics. If the hon. member wants, I will be glad to sit down with him and recount for his interest and education the number of cases I have received from members on both sides of the House and the variety of circumstances upon which judgments are made.
I would also point out to the hon. member and for the interest and education and edification of all members of that party, who seem to ignore a basic fact, that section 19(2) of the act sets out a large category of inadmissible evidence where people are allowed to come in under order in council. That accounts for hundreds of cases on an annual basis. Those reports are tabled in Parliament. I suggest that the hon. member look at that report before he and his leader and others make such suggestions. It has been a well-established practice and pattern in this House for many, many years that those are the grounds and that comes within the purview of the act.
I would point out to the hon. member that each case is considered on its merits and its circumstances. Many members ask that this kind of evaluation and assessment be made and I have been very open and accessible to them in making it.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in both official languages-Mr. Clarke.

Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present in both English and French the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Dubois.
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.}
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Do 1 have permission not to see the clock so that we can continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.
for Winnipeg North Centre, and I must say that having examined all the arguments put before me I do not find there is a prima facie case of privilege.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling in the House in both official languages the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. May I also add that, with the consent of the House, I intend to move that the report be concurred in later today on motions.
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) if the House is agreeable.
The Chair was invited to act on the basis that an action of the government is illegal. I would repeat that this is not within my purview, but even if it were I would have one minor difficulty in that the document referred to is not now before the House. However, even in that case I would have to remind hon. members that it is not for the Chair to determine the legality of an action of the government; 1 am not expected, nor should I be expected, to place a legal interpretation on such a document, as it relates to a statute.
The hon. member is probably not wanting me to rule on the document itself; he would wish me to send it to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. But this is something the House itself should decide. Perhaps at some future time it will decide on such a course but must do so of its own volition, not from some action on my part. If the House wishes to make a reference to a committee it must do so on its own.
Before I would give priority to a debate on such a motion 1 would have to be convinced that there is an element of privilege involved in the question raised by the hon. member


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, last night I was asked to table certain documents and I undertook to obtain them. Among them there was a letter which the Prime Minister sent to the President of the United States back in March. We have been authorized by American officials to allow the tabling of this document so as to make it public. I am therefore pleased to table a letter sent last March 12 by the Prime Minister to President Carter. I will have other documents to table in a few moments. However, Madam Speaker, several members on both sides of the House have asked me whether it would be possible that the documents tabled last night as well as these letters be printed as appendices to today's Hansard, so as to make them readily available. We have no objection, and if such is the wish of the House, then we would agree that the letters exchanged by President Carter and the Prime Minister of Canada, the Congress resolution, the agreement signed, and the memorandum of understanding between the American oil producers and distributors be printed as appendices to today's official report, that is the documents I tabled last night as well as this letter.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House?


Walter David Baker: If the hon. gentleman is asking for consent to that suggestion, he has it.
July 18, 1980


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Madam Speaker, we give that consent as well.
While I am on my feet and we are discussing documents, may 1 draw the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to the statement made a few moments ago by Your Honour, namely, that the order in council which changes condition 12 is not yet before us. Can the minister table that as well?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Madam Speaker. I was also asked last night to table a series of documents, including all orders in council relating to the decisions of the government. That included the order in council concerning condition 12, several other orders in council pursuant to recommendations by the National Energy Board and the orders in council to which reference was made in my statement last night. With the permission of the House 1 would like to table all those orders in council immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a question. I do not have Hansard in front of me; because of the lateness of the sitting last night I think Hansard is not available. My recollection of the questions and answers, and particularly the answers given by the minister, was that he was asked to table a wide range of documents. I do not have a list of them here. Is it the position of the minister that he is tabling all of the documents he was asked to table yesterday?


Marc Lalonde: I was coming to that, Madam Speaker. I have reviewed the whole exchange of last night and the commitment I made. In some cases I said I would inquire whether there were additional documents. I know of no other documents, and I want to give the assurance that if later on I was to find one I would table it. But I am assured by officials that there are no other documents than those which are being tabled which are relevant to the decision which has been announced.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the minister is going to table these documents, but since we do not see them right away, and as a matter of interest, 1 wonder if the minister would inform the House of the date of the order in council which changed condition 12.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the document is at the table, I do not have it with me, but the order in council was adopted last night at the cabinet meeting at roughly six o'clock. I think perhaps it was five minutes to six. I might mention that the order in council is, I think, in terms identical to the proposed order in council put forward by the National Energy Board last April, and it was made public at that time. So it is the same document.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I wonder if while the minister is tabling documents he would be prepared to table the
Business of the House
financial guarantees that, first, the pre-build can be built and, second, that the whole line can be built. Would he ask his friend, Mr. McMillian of the United States, to give us the financial guarantees so that he could table them today?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend wants to put his own financial guarantees behind it, 1 think the two of us together could do pretty well.


Madam Speaker:: By unanimous consent, the documents referred to during the exchanges that took place last night and today will be printed and appended to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.
[Editor's Note: See Appendix for above documents.]


PROHIBITION OF INTERNATIONAL AIR SERVICES ACT
Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (for Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: that Bill S-7, from the Senate, to provide for the prohibition of certain international air services, be read the first time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I wonder if 1 could ask a question of the President of the Privy Council with respect to the bill to repeal the Small Loans Act. I am sure the President of the Privy Council knows full well that there have been discussions with the New Democratic Party and the Conservative party. We took it to be the position of the Liberal party that this was one item which would proceed prior to adjournment. It was one item on which there was unanimous agreement that we would in fact repeal the Small Loans Act and provide relief to those credit unions and caisses populaires which have been so ravaged by the effects of high interest rates and the policies of various governments.
1 would like to hear from the President of the Privy Council why it is that this bill is not proceeding with unanimous consent, which is what we agreed on some time ago in discussions with representatives of both parties. We agreed that we would proceed in that way.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in answer to the question of the hon. member, a suggestion was made earlier this week

July 18, 1980
Business of the House
during the discussion of a private member's bill which had the same effects as the one the government intends to introduce since we gave notice of it today. But to set things straight, first, 1 want to say that I told the Progressive Conservative member who had raised the point of order that I was going to consider his suggestion, and indeed I believe we are giving notice today of our intention to introduce eventually a bill to repeal the Small Loans Act.
At the same time, I want to make it quite clear that there never was any agreement between the parliamentary leaders to dispose of that legislation at any time. I would not want the hon. member to mislead the House. It is probably an oversight on his part, but he only has to check with his parliamentary leader and he will find out that this bill has never appeared on the list of bills to be passed before the summer recess. But, in any case, we are giving notice today of our intention to introduce such a bill, and I am convinced that with the support of opposition parties, the government will be able to dispose of this bill at the first opportunity within a very reasonable period of time.


Mr. Darling:: Madam Speaker, following upon the matter raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, I point out to the President of the Privy Council that I spoke specifically to the minister responsible, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the day before yesterday. He gave me an undertaking that that bill would be brought in Friday morning. I assured the minister that I had talked to the leaders of both opposition parties, that there would be little or no debate and that it would go through. The credit unions have been waiting for this bill and, with all due respect to the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs gave me an undertaking that that bill would be introduced today and be disposed of through all stages.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague misunderstood what the hon. minister told him. The minister told him the truth. The minister told him we would give notice of the bill today, and that is what we are doing.


Stan Darling: Certainly not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could put it through all stages on Monday.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the indulgence of the House. Since the President of the Privy Council will in a few minutes be moving a motion to adjourn the House for a recess, I wonder, out of courtesy to 30 hon. members who have questions on the order paper, if we could proceed to questions on the order paper before we consider motions.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 8, 17, 21, 24, 26, 104, 237, 248, 262, 265, 559, 595, 603, 638, 712, 713, 714, 723, 830, 866, 909, 945, 946, 949, 970, 975, 1,046, 1,195, 1,199 and 1,438.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government have plans for improving and extending facilities at the Ottawa international airport and, if so, what are the details and what is the estimated cost?
2.	Does the government plan to improve the facilities so that the airport can adequately handle international flights?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Transport Canada is currently undertaking two studies in the national capital region: one is called Eastern Ontario/Gatineau Area Aviation Development Plan; the other, Ottawa Airport Master Plan.
The first will develop the most appropriate alternative locations and roles for the airports and aeronautical system components for the area; the second will provide a master plan for the development of the Ottawa airport.
Concurrently, a study to develop the passenger terminal complex, including the modification and expansion of the terminal building, associated aircraft parking apron, access roads, public car parking and utilities, to meet the forecasted demand to 1990 design year, has just been completed. The study is being reviewed by Transport Canada headquarters officials.
The passenger terminal complex development is limited to an immediate improvement program which will allow it to meet travel demands up to the year 1990. The long-range development options required to meet the demands beyond this time-frame will be addressed by the airport master plan which is being developed at the present time.
During the airport master plan process, additional studies are being carried out. These will be based on the airport role and airside requirements established as part of the area aviation development plan. The extent of details and costs associated with the additional facilities required to meet the long-range demands cannot be estimated at this time. Order of magnitude costs will be identified when the conceptual alternative airport plans are developed. The order of magnitude cost for the terminal complex development in the pre-design stage is approximately $35 million.
2.	The present inspection service facilities meet the forecasted demand for scheduled international/transborder traffic. However, a possible expansion of the international inspection facilities to meet the demand of the charter operations is to be taken into consideration in developing the terminal concept.
July 18, 1980


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is or was Mr. Marcel Racette an employee of the National Research Council and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) was he associated in any way with the office of the former Solicitor General, the hon. member for Nipissing (c) did he at any time assist either the hon. member for Nipissing, former Solicitor General, or any of his office staff, specifically a lawyer, in any way, including with translation?
2.	At any time after May 22, 1979, did Mr. Racette visit any offices of the former Solicitor General and, if so, for what purpose?
3.	To the knowledge of the government, were any documents in the custody of the former Solicitor General or any member of his staff shredded after May 22, 1979 and, if so, was Mr. Racette present at the time and what part, if any, did he play in such activities?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, did Mr. Racette state to certain employees of the National Research Council that he assisted in the shredding of documents in the custody of the former Solicitor General, the hon. member for Nipissing, after May 22, 1979?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the National Research Council and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. Yes.
(a)	Translator (translation of technical documents).
(b)	No, but his friend, Louis Gerard Alberti, was a special assistant to the former Solicitor General.
(c)	Yes. Assisted, from time to time, Mr. Alberti with some translation terms, usually by telephone.
2.	Yes, to help Mr. Alberti move out of his office.
3.	No.
4.	No.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the exact origin of the name "Featherbed" including all the reasons why the file was designated by this name by the security services of the RCMP?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: The exact origin of the name "Featherbed" is unknown. Files are codeworded to maintain confidentiality of the investigation so that only persons working on the file with a proven need-to-know have access. The file could just as easily been called Christmas Tree as the name has no significance to the subject matter.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer given to a question by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on Friday, November 23, 1979, at page 1638 of Hansard, which stated in part that the Featherbed File "has been dormant for a number of years", has the file been dormant since 1974-75 and, if not, since what year has it been dormant?
2.	On what grounds could such a file and the information which it contains be considered dormant after four or five years?
3.	What are all the reasons that the government considers it dormant when it is of such recent vintage?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The "Featherbed File" has been dormant since 1975.
Order Paper Questions
2.	When the RCMP are satisfied that an investigation has been pursued as completely and comprehensively as possible, the file is placed in a dormant or non-active classification. Should new information come to light concerning any investigation, they have no difficulty in reopening the appropriate file.
3.	The government considers the "Featherbed File" dormant because all necessary investigative action has been taken.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the "Featherbed File" contain between 240 and 275 names and, if not, how many names does it contain?
2.	Are some of them names of academics, members of the media, federal and provincial government public servants and certain professional people?
3.	How many of the names were/are connected with the Department of External Affairs and how many were connected with the Prime Minister's office?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. The policy of the RCMP is to maintain the confidentiality of names and organizations it maintains in its files. For this reason it is not considered advisable to disclose the precise number of names mentioned in the "Featherbed File".
2.	It is the policy of the RCMP to maintain the confidentiality of names of people in their files. This policy extends to releasing any clearcut detail which would assist others to breach this policy.
3.	The policy of the RCMP is to maintain the confidentiality of names, organizations, and areas of the public service their investigations encompass. No need is seen to abrogate this policy.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the reply by the Prime Minister given to a question by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on November 15, 1977, at page 873 of Hansard, which stated in part, that he had never heard of the "Featherbed File", are any records in existence showing how the hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, the former Solicitor General, was able to state in the House in reply to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville at page 927 of Hansard, that there was a Featherbed File and was able to give some details about it one day after the Prime Minister denied any knowledge of such a file?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned, records indicate that an aide memoire was prepared on November 16, 1977, and the deputy director general (Operations), RCMP security service, briefed the Solicitor General that day.


Mr. Herbert: How many square feet of building space was (a) owned (b) rented by all departments as at March 31, 1979, and what amount of the space was not occupied?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: In so
far as the National Capital Commission is concerned:

July 18, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(a)	16,068.448 m2 of owned building space all occupied.
(b)	6,343,769.4 m2 of rented building space all occupied.
In so far as Public Works Canada is concerned: As at March 31, 1979, with respect to accomodation under the jurisdiction of Public Works Canada:
(a)	Total Crown-owned accommodation: 5,598,547 m2 Total Crown-owned accommodation: 644,684 m2
(not occupied)
(b)	Total Crown-leased accommodation: 2,512,740.8 m2 Total Crown-leased accommodation: 58,497.6 m2
(not occupied)
Note: The 644,684 square metres of Crown-owned space not occupied on March 31, 1979, consisted of the following: 455,696 square metres of non-marketable space, i.e., space under active consideration for disposal, space in locations where no market existed, space in buildings undergoing major renovations, etc. 123,529 square metres were assigned to client departments and action was underway to prepare lay-outs and fit up the space for occupancy. The balance of 65,459 square metres was the vacant marketable space at that time representing a vacancy rate of 1.2 per cent of the total Crown-owned inventory. The 58,497 square metres of leased space not occupied on March 31, 1979, included 8,954 square metres in space for which a federal government use no longer existed and where practical efforts were being made to negotiate quit leases with the landlords concerned. Of the remaining 49,544 square metres, 42,332 square metres had been assigned to client departments and action was under way to prepare lay-outs and fit up the space for occupancy. The remaining 7,212 square metres represents the vacant marketable space at that time which represents a vacancy rate of 0.3 per cent of the total Crown leased inventory at that time.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the government discontinue the printing of the maple leaf emblem on the green first class mail stickers and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Is it intended to replace the emblem with another indication of the country of origin?


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: 1. Yes. Originally these stickers had an "old style" maple leaf with the appropriate text on either side in a symmetrical design. With the introduction of the corporate identity and federal identity programs, these "public use" forms were some of the first redesigned. Design consultants to Canada Post provided an asymmetrical design utilizing the earlier text and the "bar and leaf'. After those stickers were in
use for about a year, Information Canada objected to the irregular use of the "bar and leaf' without the deparmental identification "Canada Post-Postes Canada". A number of prototypes incorporating this additional text were tested but proved to be too complex. Returning to the original "leaf' either centred or in an asymmetrical design was rejected by Information Canada. The only alternative then was to print the stickers without the "bar and leaf' or "leaf'. Printing only the text allowed the sticker to be reduced in size, achieving some economies.
2. It is not the intention of Canada Post to replace the emblem with another indication of the country of origin.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Minister of State for International Trade receive a letter dated June 14, 1979, from the chairman of the Canadian Construction Association in which it was stated, regarding the proposed move of the Canadian embassy to Jerusalem, "The hidden cost is the number of business people who will now hesitate to seek out work in that area. The hidden costs of the proposed move, therefore, are substantially above the visible costs"?
2.	Did the Canadian Construction Association estimate the value of current construction activity in the Middle East at approximately $2.5 billion, not including the Bell Canada contract?
3.	Did the minister reply to the letter and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of State, Trade):: In so far as the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The Hon. Michael Wilson, PC, MP, Minister of State for International Trade: Yes.
2.	The Canadian Construction Association (CCA) estimated that the financial impact of the proposed embassy move on the construction industry was of $2,479 billion. The CCA letter did not indicate whether the above figure included the Bell Canada contract.
3.	On July 27, 1979, the Hon. Robert R. de Cotret, PC, MP, Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wrote to the CCA to inform that the government had appointed the Hon. R. L. Stanfield to undertake consultation with all of those who have an interest in government policy regarding the Jerusalem issue.


Mr. Herbert: What was the (a) gross (b) net import of capital into Canada in each of the past ten years?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: Data are not available on disaggregation of capital transactions between gross and net flows. Flows related to Canadian assets abroad and Canadian liabilities to non-residents in the last ten years are given below.
Year	Assets* 1	Liabilities	Net	Net errors and omissions-1970	-1,219	+ 500	-719	-3871971	-1,747	+2,664	+917	-1,3481972	-2,607	+4,448	+ 1,841	-1,4551973	-5,545	+6,087	+ 542	-6501974	-2,774	+5,101	+2,327	-867
July 18, 1980

Year	Assets'	Liabilities	Net	Net errors and omissions1975	-1,638	+7,598	+5,960	-1,2031976	-5,390	+ 12,890	+7,500	-3,6581977	-3,193	+9,343	+6,150	-1,8511978	-8,325	+ 15,364	+ 7,039	-1,7371979	-7,753	+ 17,174	+9,421	-4,4021	minus sign means an increase in assets.2	the balancing item representing net errors and omissions in the recorded estimates of both the current and capital accounts.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the former Prime Minister state on December 7, 1979, in a press conference, that he had had the opportunity to learn the contents of the two RCMP reports concerning a CBC producer's involvement with a KGB agent and, if so, is the government prepared to release full details of both reports and, if not, would it agree to turn the reports over to top management of CBC for consideration and possible action?


David Michael Collenette: It would not be appropriate to comment on an alleged statement made by a former Prime Minister.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has there been a change in the security group of the services branch of the Department of Supply and Services of any kind?
2.	Was security chief Russell Knox given the title director and, if so, what is the significance of the title?
3.	Did Mr. Larry Fry, deputy minister, in a memo to staff members in March 1980 state in part that it was desirable "to relocate the security function from the operational function to the policy sector" and, if so, for what reason is this desirable?
4.	Is it planned to add additional personnel and, if so, what are all the details ?
5.	What are all the details and a full description of the duties performed by all security personnel with the department and how many persons are involved?
6.	Has any security work been contracted out and, if so, to whom and at what cost?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
security section was located within payments services branch and reported through a director general to the assistant deputy minister. It now reports directly to an assistant deputy minister.
2.	Mr. Knox has been given the title of director to signify his reporting level within the services organization.
3.	A memo on security was issued on January 18, 1980. It stated "Recent organizational changes and the consolidation of operational roles within services make it desirable to relocate the security function from the operational sector to a policy sector. Such relocation is in keeping with the concept that branches with operating responsibilities be separated from those with policy formulation responsibilities." The concept is
Order Paper Questions
of particular significance in a predominantly financial operation.
4.	There are no plans to add additional personnel.
5.	(a) Services security: under the direction of the ADM
planning and finance, is responsible for the protection of the assets and facilities involved in the payments process of the Receiver General and other services operations involving auditing, consulting and computing. It is also concerned with the protection and safety of our employees. Services security consists of a total of six persons.
(b) Supply security: under the direction of the ADM, commercial supply, is responsible for the planning and implementation of industrial and government protective security for the supply administration. It advises the minister, deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers on security matters to ensure protection of information and materials. It also provides personnel security clearance arrangements for the department. Supply security consists of a total of 42 persons.
6.	(a) No security work has been contracted out by services administration.
(b) Supply administration has contracted out as follows: Contractor	Amount
Corps of Commissionaires	$ 996,446.93
National Protective Service Ltd.	$ 13,265.00


Mr. Howie: Flow many lawyers are employed on staff in the Department of Finance?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State, Finance):: In so
far as the Department of Finance Canada is concerned:
A.	There are six members of a Canadian Bar Association who are employed on the staff of the tax policy division of the department. These employees are however working as tax policy officers, not as lawyers.
B.	The Department of Justice provides 11 lawyers to a single legal branch which furnishes legal services to the Department of Finance Canada, Treasury Board Canada, the office of the Comptroller General of Canada, and the inspector general of banks.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of National Defence?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The Department of National

July 18, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Defence has a total of 83 persons engaged in the functions of public relations, publicity and media relations composed of 38 military officers, seven civilian information officers, eight military photographers and 30 military/civilian support staff, covering every region in Canada and overseas (Lahr, West Germany), as well as NORAD and NATO Headquarters.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Environment in footnote number 5 at page
12.62,	volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances were the magnetic tapes transport lost and (a) who was culpable (b) was the equipment replaced (c) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of magnetic tape transport?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. Theft during 1977/78 fiscal year at the Chemical Control Research Institute, 25 Pickering Place, Ottawa, Ontario.
(a)	The Ottawa Police apprehended two individuals in connection with the thefts. All records are confidential but can be obtained by legal officials.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	Yes. The thefts occurred in the Chemical Control Research Institute located in the Dustbane building, Ottawa. The security at the Dustbane building was adequately handled, but the building was not burglar proof and was easily accessible by thieves as stated in the police report showing how entries were made into the building, i.e. through the ceiling, over walls, etc. The Chemical Control Research Institute now known as the Forest Pest Management Institute is, now, located in a departmentally-owned facility at Sault Ste Marie. The new location provides for better measures of security.
2. Used to carry magnetic tape for the storage of data and information. The one referred to in this text was used in conducting forest pest control research.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Environment in footnote number 5 at page
12.62,	volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada (a) what is a recorder pen and how is it used by the department (b) did the department undertake steps to ascertain the present whereabouts of the equipment and, if so, what were they (c) was the thief apprehended (d) in what location did the loss occur?
2.	Did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so. what were they?


Roger Simmons: 1.	(a) This should read "pen recorder". A pen recorder is
an instrument attached to a computer or other analytical piece of equipment which prints or writes data from the analyses being carried out by the instrument or computer. The one referred to in this text was used in conducting forest pest control research.
(b)	Yes, the Chemical Control Research Institute contacted the police, who conducted an investigation and police reports are on file.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	The loss occurred at the Chemical Control Research Institute, 25 Pickering Place, Ottawa, Ontario.
2. Yes. The thefts occurred in the Chemical Control Research Institute located in the Dustbane building, Ottawa. The security at the Dustbane building was adequately handled, but the building was not burglar proof and was easily accessible by thieves as stated in the police report showing how entries were made into the building, i.e. through the ceiling, over walls, etc. The Chemical Control Research Institute now known as the Forest Pest Management Institute is, now, located in a departmentally-owned facility at Sault Ste Marie. The new location provides for better measures of security.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Environment in footnote number 5 at page
12.62,	volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada (a) what is a spectrophotometer and how is it used by the department (b) did the department undertake steps to ascertain the present whereabouts of the equipment and, if so, what were they (c) was the thief apprehended (d) in what location did the loss occur?
2.	Did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?


Roger Simmons: 1. (a) A spectrophotometer is an analytical instrument for colorimetric quantitative analyses of chemical compounds. The one referred to in this text was used in conducting forest pest control research.
(b)	Yes, the Chemical Control Research Institute contacted the police who conducted an investigation and police reports are on file.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	The loss occurred at the Chemical Control Research Institute in 1977/78 at 25 Pickering Place, Ottawa, Ontario.
2.	Yes. The thefts occurred in the Chemical Control Research Institute located in the Dustbane building, Ottawa.

July 18, 1980

The security at the Dustbane building was adequately handled, but the building was not burglar proof and was easily accessible by thieves as stated in the police report showing how entries were made into the building, i.e. through the ceiling, over walls, etc. The Chemical Control Research Institute now known as the Forest Pest Management Institute is, now, located in a departmentally-owned facility at Sault Ste Marie. The new location provides for better measures of security.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Environment in footnote number 3 at page 9.60, volume I of the 1977-78 Public Accounts of Canada and the losses recorded in footnote number 5 at page 12.62, volume I of the 1978-79 Public Accounts of Canada, in what way does the department explain the similarity of the losses described in both years of (a) one Nikon camera with lenses-$2,000 (b) one recorder, pen-$1,855 (c) one magnetic tape transport-$4,000 (d) one spectrophotometer-$3,000?
2.	Did such losses actually incur and (a) if not, was a clerical error made in preparing the Public Accounts (b) if so (i) what steps has the department undertaken to ensure that such losses do not recur (ii) in each case, in what location were the losses sustained and under what circumstances?


Roger Simmons: 1. These losses were reported in the 1977/78 Public Accounts in the year in which the loss occurred and were reported again in error in the 1978/79 Public Accounts in the year in which the losses were written off. Public Accounts Instructions Manual states: "Individual losses of $1,000 or more must be reported in the year in which they occur rather than when approval for the write-off is obtained."
2. Yes, such losses actually occurred in 1977/78 but not in 1978/79.
(a) An error was made in preparing the 1978/79 Public Accounts.
(b) (i) The thefts occurred in the Chemical Control Research Institute located in the Dustbane building, Ottawa. The security at the Dustbane building was adequately handled, but the building was not burglar proof and was easily accessible by thieves as stated in the police report showing how entries were made into the building, i.e. through the ceiling, over walls, etc. The Chemical Control Research Institute now known as the Forest Pest Management Institute is, now, located in a departmentally-owned facility at Sault Ste Marie. The new location provides for better measures of security.
(ii)	Thefts at the Chemical Control Research Institute, 25 Pickering Place, Ottawa, Ontario.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: What was the total cost for (a) educational aids (b) advertising with regard to the 1979 individual tax return (i) on television (ii) on radio (iii) in printed publications (iv) by other means and what were such means?


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: (a) Educational aids: Teaching Taxes Program, $34,000,
Volunteer Tax Information Program, $12,000.
(b) Advertising: There was no advertising campaign related to the 1979 tax return. The department prepares tax materials and provides these free of charge to the media for use in public service programming. Departmental costs for materials related to the 1979 tax return were:
(i)	television: $35,000, (ii) radio: $10,000, (iii) print: $3,000 and (iv) none.


Mr. Gass: 1.	(a) What is the function of the Atlantic Salmon Board (b) who are its members (c) how often has the board met?
2.	What recommendations, if any, have been issued by the board?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. (a) Purpose and Objective
As the official focal point for federal-provincial, commercial, recreational and native people consultations relating to resource management, the Atlantic Salmon Board provides to the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans advice and recommendations on broad policy matters governing conservation, enhancement and utilization of atlantic salmon as it relates to the five Atlantic provinces.
Duties and Responsibilities
In addition to providing responses to matters specifically referred to the board by the department, the board is expected to consider and provide advice and recommendations on the following:
(i)	Establishment of policy guidelines upon which the department can base decisions on matters pertaining to access to and utilization of the salmon resource, while providing due consideration of such factors as types of fisheries, interception, community impacts, seasonal parameters, markets for salmon products, social and recreational benefits, international implications and developmental or enhancement techniques and strategies; and,

July 18, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(ii)	review of policy options respecting conservation measures and resource management priorities including specification of alternative policy options and assessment of the implications associated with each option.
(b)	The board has representatives of five provincial governments, commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen, native peoples and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The board is constituted as follows:
-a chairman, appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
-a vice-chairman, appointed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
-four members representing the department -one representative from each of the five Atlantic region provincial governments -six members representing commercial Atlantic salmon fishing interests
-five members representing Atlantic salmon sports fishing interests
-two members representing native fishermen -one member acting as scientific adviser to the board
(c)	The board has met twice:
(i)	Fredericton: February 13, 1980
(ii)	Quebec City: March 27, 28, 1980
The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for mid-June in Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
2. On February 13, at Fredericton, New Brunswick, three recommendations were issued:
(i)	The Atlantic Salmon Board recommends that compensation to bona fide commercial salmon fishermen be continued during 1980 in order to give the board time to evaluate alternative proposals relating to future commercial Atlantic salmon fisheries.
(ii)	The board recommends that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans prepare initial recommendations to reduce interceptions of Atlantic salmon in distant fisheries for discussion at the next Atlantic Salmon Board meeting.
(iii)	The board recommended that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans encourage his provincial counterparts in Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to enter into an Atlantic salmon tagging program comparable to the program that will be initiated in New Brunswick in 1980.
On March 27 and 28, 1980, at Quebec City, P.Q., it was recommended under the following headings:
(a) Terms of Reference It is recommended that:
(i)	the terms of reference as proposed, be amended to ensure that the board report to the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
(ii)	that the board be free to hold the number of meetings necessary, and that funds be allocated to enable the board to respond to its needs, and that the frequency of board meetings should not be unduly restricted by budgetary or other constraints.
(iii)	that the proposed terms of reference be amended to ensure that reports to the hon. minister be made available to the public on a current basis.
(b)	Interceptions
(i)	to reduce the Newfoundland commercial fishing effort by eliminating all but bona fide fishermen.
(ii)	to standardize the type and quantity of gear used by bona fide fishermen.
(iii)	to licence and control the gear of the cod, mackerel and herring trap fishermen.
(iv)	that the opening of the Newfoundland commercial salmon fishing season be delayed until June 1, or later in coastal areas of Newfoundland where data indicates that such a delay in the opening could help achieve the objective of minimizing the interception of Atlantic salmon of mainland origin.
(c)	Enhancement Task Force
The board recommends the establishment of a Federal-Provincial Atlantic Salmon Board technical team from the five Atlantic provinces to identify the potential for enhancement, identify objectives, coordinate strategy and to report back to the board by October, 1980.


Mr. McKnight: 1.	For each year 1976 to date, what was the total number of staff assigned to the grains group under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?
2.	(a) What is the total budget allocated to the grains group (b) what amount was allocated for (i) travel (ii) accommodation (iii) other expenses for each trip in the years 1976, 1977 and 1978?
3.	What was the total budget allocated to the grains group for research into potential markets for grain in (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978 (d) 1979?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. From 1976 to date-Six.
2. 1976/77-$2,005,200 was allocated to the grains group for operating costs; of this amount $119,000 was provided for travel and accommodation and all other expenses related to travel.
July 18, 1980

1977/78-$695,500 was allocated for operating costs, with $45,000 provided for travel and accommodation.
1978/79-$585,800 was allocated for operating costs, with $30,000 provided for travel and accommodation.
3. The grains group is a policy co-ordinating body and does not undertake any research into potential markets for grain.
Note: In the fiscal year 1976-77, the Grain Handling and Transportation Commission was appointed and additional funds totalling $1 million were included in the grains group estimates for that year. The grains group also undertook a Grain Handling and Transportation Information program which was estimated to cost $500,000. These funds were provided for that fiscal year only.


Mr. MacKay: For the fiscal year (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80 (c) 1980-81 (estimate), how many survey interviewers were hired by Statistics Canada pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Statistics Act and what remuneration did they receive on an hourly or daily rate?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
number of survey interviewers hired by Statistics Canada pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Statistics Act for fiscal year:
(a)	1978-79
(b)	1979-80
(c)	1980-81 (estimated)
2268.
The remuneration received was on an hourly basis.
Dollars/hr
1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th(a)	1978-79	Level	Level	Level	Level	Level(i)	Senior enumerators	5.95	6.05	6.25	6.55	6.80(ii)	Enumerators	(a) Type "A"	4.30	4.45	4.60	4.75	5.00(b) Type "B"	4.65	4.85	5.10	5.30	5.55(b)	1979-80	(i)	Senior enumerators	6.30	6.45	6.65	6.95	7.25(ii)	Enumerators	(a) Type "A"	4.60	4.75	4.90	5.05	5.30(b) Type "B"	4.95	5.15	5.40	5.65	5.90(c)	1980-81	(i)	Senior enumerators	6.75	6.90	7.10	7.45	7.75(ii)	Enumerators	(a) Type "A"	4.95	5.10	5.25	5.40	5.65(b) Type "B"	5.30	5.50	5.75	6.05	6.30
Order Paper Questions STATISTICS CANADA-1981 CENSUS


Mr. MacKay: How many enumerators and commissioners will be required for the 1981 census pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Statistics Act and what remuneration is planned for such employees on an hourly or daily rate?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: For the 1981 census it is planned that 33,924 enumerators and 1,895 commissioners will be employed under subsection 5(1) of the Statistics Act. Census enumerators will normally be paid a piece rate determined by the type of questionnaire, geography and density of dwellings. This planned piece rate is based on an hourly remuneration of $5.43. The 1981 census commissioners will be paid $58.00 daily for up to 75 days.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1974-75 (b) 1975-76 (c) 1976-77 (d) 1977-78 (e) 1978-79 (0 1979-80, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT) or any successor program under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP)?
2.	For the same fiscal years, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the department's Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program (SIAP) or any successor program under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP)?
3.	For the same fiscal years, by province and territory, what was the total export financing assistance provided by the Export Development Corporation?
4.	For the fiscal year (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80, by province and territory, what was the total in grants and contributions by the department's program for Export Market Development (PEMD) or any successor program under the Enterprise Development Program (EDP)?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Please see the list below for reply to questions 1, 2 and 4.
Program for Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT) and Successor Program (EDP) Provincial Distribution of Contributions Approved
	FY 74/75	FY 75/76	FY 76/77	FY 77/78	FY 78/79	FY 79/80
			($000)			
Alberta	1,002	5,691	1,413	561	2,367	1,891British Columbia	1,931	5,954	3,641	1,122	8,935	3,832Manitoba	103	42	1,540	587	942	1,421New Brunswick	-	52	214	55	468	106Newfoundland	-	90	227	22	301	617Nova Scotia	289	43	1,013	15	90	1,332Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	-	-Ontario	18,139	11,147	22,453	12,144	21,135	59,531Prince Edward Island	139	-	38	95	167	422Quebec	5,399	6,270	4,968	3,220	4,689	13,770Saskatchewan	-	17	27	180	495	1,096Yukon	-	-	-	-	-	-
Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program (SIAP) Provincial Distribution of Contributions Approved
FY 74/75	FY 75/76	FY 76/77 FY 77/78 ($000)	FY 78/79	FY 79/80Alberta	247	148	127	-	-	-British Columbia	9,951	17,529	4,027	2,300	8,271	25,563Manitoba	37	157	-	76	-	-New Brunswick	14,089	3,613	34,489	-	2,161	12,924Newfoundland	1,916	1,125	1,110	2,849	3,189	8,973Nova Scotia	10,196	-	15,082	628	1,649	2,035Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	-	-Ontario	10,160	5,687	10,109	11,116	13,045	23,335Prince Edward Island	103	-	-	-	-	822Quebec	46,024	51,392	4,668	4,139	26,874	18,845Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-	-	-Yukon	-	-	-	-	-	-
3104

July 18, 1980
Order Paper Questions
Program for Export Market Development (PEMD) Provincial Distributions of Contributions Approved
	FY 78/79 ($000)	FY 79/80
Alberta	821	639British Columbia	864	957Manitoba	241	628New Brunswick	40	90Newfoundland	35	46Nova Scotia	148	420Northwest Territories	-	-Ontario	4,613	8,092Prince Edward Island	32	58Quebec	6,567	8,490Saskatchewan	218	242Yukon	-	
ministers' recommendations for policies and programs, and have been delegated authority by cabinet to take decisions in their areas or responsibility, subject to cabinet ratification procedures. All ministers attend weekly full cabinet meetings. The list of cabinet committees, together with the names of the ministers and alternatives, where applicable, who serve on the committees, was tabled on July 10, 1980. The names of the cabinet committees indicate the areas of policy with which they are concerned. The cabinet committee system is closely integrated with the government's policy and expenditure management system. The committees which manage resource envelopes, and their respective envelopes at the present time, are as follows:
In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned:
3. For each of its financial years mentioned below, the total of its export financing loan agreements with foreign borrowers and financial guarantees signed to finance the sale of capital equipment and services sold by Canadian exporters was:
Year	Corporation account section 29 of the Export Development Act	Government account section 31 of the Export Development Act(a)	1974	$ 502,240,000	$157,236,000(b)	1975	$ 885,000,000	$250,000,000(c)	1976	$ 763,021,000	$ 24,523,000(d)	1977	$1,087,498,000	$ 94,897,000(e)	1978	$1,671,978,000	$ 87,756,000(0	1979	$1,992,131,000	$ 80,683,000
Committee
Economic Development Foreign and Defence Policy
Government Operations
Priorities and Planning
Social Development
Envelope
Economic Development Externa] Affairs and Aid; Defence
Parliament; Government Services
Fiscal Arrangements;
Public Debt Social Affairs; Justice and Legal
The loans are made to foreign buyers and are not export financing assistance applicable to a province or territory since the network of suppliers and subsuppliers spreads the benefits beyond provincial boundaries; as a result the corporation does not keep its records or statistics in the manner contemplated by the question. There are no statistics maintained which would permit ready retrieval of the information requested. In addition the corporation provides export credits insurance which may be used by exporters to facilitate bank financing.


Mr. McKinnon: Is the Department of National Defence buying "guns through 30mm" for $23,873 and, if so, what type and how many of each type?


Ursula Appolloni: Yes. Thirty each .22 calibre rifles complete with slings, magazines and other accessories. These rifles are specialized biathalon rifles used for practising skiing and shooting and because of the special balance needed are essentially hand-made.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What are the names of the cabinet committees and what are their functions?
2.	What are the names of the ministers who serve as (a) members (b) alternates on each committee?


David Michael Collenette: 1 and 2. Cabinet committees are an extension of cabinet, which remains the focus of decisionmaking in government. Committees enable ministers to consider issues coming before cabinet in greater detail than would otherwise be possible. The committees review and examine


Mr. Riis: Will log hauling contractors be treated the same as logging contractors for tax purposes and thus be eligible for investment tax credits on the purchase of logging trucks?


Pierre Bussières: as transportation equipment and be eligible for an investment tax credit at the rate of 7 per cent.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On or about the end of May, 1980, did Admiral Robert Falls fly to Canada from Europe with the final destination of the aircraft being Trenton, Ontario?
2.	Did he or anyone acting on his behalf issue an order that the aircraft be diverted for a landing at Greenwood, Nova Scotia, so that he could personally make an exit and, if so, what was the cost involved in an additional landing and take-off?
3.	For what reason did Admiral Falls make an exit in Greenwood, Nova Scotia?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes. The additional cost was $1,132.
3.	This landing permitted Admiral Falls to make his last official visit to maritime command as chief of the defence staff.


Mr. Wise: 1.	How many weight scales have federal inspectors inspected in each of the past five years?
2.	How many inspectors does the government have for the purpose of inspecting weight scales?


Aideen Nicholson: 1.	1975/76 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80
2.	There are 152 inspectors i
140,378
139,091
122,655
123,907
135,000 (estimate) the department.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How does the government decide what is or what is not "in the public interest" to reveal on any specific matters?
2.	Who exercises such authority and what are the criteria used?
3.	Are any political considerations involved and specifically is consideration given as to whether revelation of any particular information would help or harm the Liberal Party of Canada or the government?


David Michael Collenette: 1 and 2. This is clearly a matter of judgment by the minister or ministers responsible for answer-
Business of the House
ing any question or notice of motion for the production of papers.
3.	No.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AGRICULTURE


Claude Tessier: On
behalf of the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Canadian farm producers, I ask the House that the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture 1 had the honour to table today, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Tardif), be concurred in unanimously without debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*


Coline M. Campbell: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, before moving the adjournment motion, 1 want to say that we have had consultations following questions asked in the House yesterday. I understand that there would be agreement if motion No. 4 in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) could be introduced today and debated by one spokesman for each

July 18, 1980
NORAD Agreement
party, with a time limit of five minutes each. If all parties agree, we shall introduce this motion immediately.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. gentleman is bringing that forward. There have been discussions and we are agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are we, Madam Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


J. Gilles Lamontagne: That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence and consider Canadian policy with respect to future defence co-operation with the United States in the North American region with particular reference to air defence and related arrangements embodied in and flowing from the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) agreement, and it shall report thereon no later than December 31, 1980.
He said: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the other parties in the House for their co-operation in allowing this committee to discuss this motion, probably at least during the summer, to prepare for resumption of the session in the fall.

The North American Air Defence Command agreement between Canada and the United States was first concluded in 1958 and then renewed in 1968, 1973 and most recently in 1975 for a five-year period which expired on May 12, 1980. On that date, by means of an exchange of notes, the 1975 agreement was extended for a period of one year. The purpose of the extension is to allow a review by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of the NORAD agreement and related arrangements as set forth in the accompanying motion.
The agreement provides for the joint North American Air Defence Command through which Canada and the United States co-operate in aerospace surveillance and warning systems and integrated operational control of North American air defence forces, but it does not specify the nature or level of the resources each country should contribute to the common aerospace defence effort. National contributions are determined by each government, often following intensive bilateral consultations.
NORAD operates within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty, and it has always been perceived by both
countries and by our NATO allies as a symbol of Canada-U.S. co-operation and as a valuable contribution to the over-all security of the NATO area.

At the present time, NORAD has highly effective and economical land, air and space detection and communication systems which can signal the attack of missiles or bombers against North America, prevent unauthorized aircraft from entering the North American airspace, monitor strategic and tactical space operations, and detect the re-entry in the atmosphere of objects from space which represent a hazard for human beings and the environment.

In its deliberations following from today's motion, the SCEAND may wish to examine or receive evidence on the following topics which are relevant to our co-operation with the United States in the Canada-U.S. region of NATO, and in particular to the arrangements flowing from the NORAD agreement: the changing strategic balance and implications for the stability of mutual deterrence; prospects for strategic arms control and the peaceful use of space; the strategic-aerospace threat to North America: past, present and future; strategic-aerospace defences in North America: air defence, passive space defence, active space defence ballistic missile defence; the place of NORAD in strategic defence: recent and planned or potential changes to the organization, roles and force structure of NORAD; Canada's contribution to NORAD; responsibility and cost sharing in NORAD; other elements of Canada-U.S. defence co-operation in the North American region; North American defence co-operation linkages: Canada-U.S. relations generally, defence outside North America, control of civil air traffic, surveillance of space.

1 am sure, Madam Speaker, that in considering those matters and all others they will deem necessary to consider in order to fully understand the agreements on the defence of North America, the committee will be doing something very useful for Parliament and the Canadian people as a whole. The government hopes that the committee will report without delay, so that their recommendations will prepare the ground for the negotiations regarding the ongoing Canada-U.S. cooperation on defence.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, the minister did not read the wording of the motion, so 1 assume it is exactly the same as motion No. 4 under government business on the order paper which is, for all practical purposes, exactly the same as an entry on the order paper of December 7, 1979, in happier days. So we cannot complain too much about the wording of the order, it being so close to identical to our own. The only change is in the date. Instead of being returned by the end of March, 1980, the committee is to finish its findings by December 31, 1980. It seems as if there is more time, and yet 1 doubt it will be enough and perhaps the
July 18, 1980

minister would be willing to entertain some amendments to that later in the year.
I should like to say a few things about this motion. Besides the change in date there are several other things which need to be considered by the committee. I am particularly concerned, and tomorrow will be looking at today's Hansard, over the number of extra things which the minister added in his remarks, particularly with reference to space. I take it that by space he means generally outer space, the peaceful uses of space, space defence, and space surveillance. These are words which trigger a reaction in me, and I am sure in most hon. members-that we are moving quite a bit beyond the air defence of North America, and if we are going to do that we want to understand what we are getting into.
Among other things, we are getting into a very expensive infrastructure possibility. One only needs to worry about that by looking at the airborne warning and control system which the Liberal government got us into a couple of years ago, following which we found out that we have no control over expenditures. We are faced with paying a fixed percentage of an unfixed amount and we have no Auditor General who would look at the AW ACS agreement whithin NATO and no Auditor General, so far as I know, who might look at a treaty change with NORAD, if there were such a change, which would leave us paying a fixed percentage upon unspecified costs of the NORAD infrastructure. The committee should be particularly alert to that possibility and the danger of committing us to unfixed amounts.
One thing that we need to get from this committee is a much clearer definition of the roles of the various appointments to and parts of NORAD than we have at present. There has been a vast change in the organization of NORAD in the last five and a half years since we last looked at this, such as the disappearance of the air defence command and the changed roles of the strategic air command because that command has changed completely. These changes were made without Parliament being consulted. 1 should like to see the new treaty or the re-signed treaty which this party supports in general. I do not know what my friends to the left might have to say about that, but in general we support the re-signing of the treaty now, subject to these suggestions.
The problem that we have is that NORAD have made changes in their organization without our getting them back for consideration by the Parliament of Canada. I should like to see that worked into the re-signed agreement.
The most important thing we established five and a half years ago is that this treaty should always be subject to parliamentary review. The minister of the day was opposed to that and thought it should run along until there is some reason for changing it or having it considered by Parliament. I will certainly encourage the committee to come up with a fixed term of probably five years when it should be reviewed by Parliament.
NORAD Agreement


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on this referral. I am particularly pleased that this matter is being opened up for review by members of Parliament, because since taking office the government has shied away from reviews of our country's over-all policy in both foreign affairs and defence. Instead, the government seems to change its policy on a day to day basis. In this week alone we have heard from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) that he favours the increased build-up of a new sophisticated nuclear weapon for use as a deterrent, and then a day later we heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that such is not the case and Canada is as firmly committed to disarmament as it ever was. There seems to be an interesting dynamic in the Liberal caucus, a dynamic that perhaps could best be resolved by a clear, definite policy toward defence in the form of a white paper review.
I should like also to draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that presently my party is undertaking a thorough review of its foreign affairs and defence policies in order to make sure that they are in tune with changing world affairs and events. Circumstances do not remain the same in perpetuity. We in the New Democratic Party realize this and hope that the government, and perhaps the members to our right, would also realize this and not dismiss such reviews as being boring and a lot of needless paperwork.
I believe the traditional reservations of the NDP concerning NORAD are well known to members of the House. We have often in the past questioned the need to defend ourselves against manned bomber attack from the Soviet. In the time it would take such a bomber to reach its targets, the world would have been destroyed four or five times over by intercontinental ballistic missiles. The role of intercepting manned bombers in an age of ICBMs is nearly as useful today as the armour worn by English knights would be as protection against the bullets from a machine gun.
Others have said that the existence of military alliances such as NORAD are contributing factors in heightening world tension. Indeed, recent events where a computer mistaking a goose or a flock of geese for an enemy bomber put North American air defence on red alert and brought the world to the brink of self-annihilation should give us all cause to question how appropriate NORAD is in its present form.
Canada has only limited resources, and we must be careful that they are spent as wisely as possible. We have assigned such a wide array of tasks to our military forces that they are now strained to the limit of their capabilities to cover all bases. Canada is not now and is not likely ever to be a military superpower. There are those in this House who believe that we need all the trappings of a military superpower. A country the size of Canada, with its population accepting all the trappings of a military superpower, is similar to a young boy who dresses up in his father's work clothes. Because he is not big enough, everything hangs strangely and looks out of place. The boy looks like a caricature of the person he is trying to imitate. So

July 18, 1980
Summer Recess
too, 1 submit, Canada would look like a caricature if it were to surround itself with the trappings of a superpower.
We must take a serious look at our role in world affairs and the contribution we can make with our limited resources. We should not try to be all things to all people, but instead should concentrate our defence efforts in those areas that would best serve our national interest.
The process of reviewing our alliances such as NORAD is a positive one. It gives us the opportunity, at least in this area, to review our present commitment of resources. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this government should be reviewing its entire policy on defence. However, this faltering first step at least is acceptable and I welcome it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

Yvon Pinard: That, when the House adjourns on July 18, 1980, 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.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: If it is carried, we will go on to the next item.
[ Translation]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not yet-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, today is the sixty-fourth day of the first part of the first session of this Thirty-second Parliament and I am delighted to be able to say that during those 64 days we have accomplished more work than we did in the course of both preceding sessions. I shall explain myself, Mr. Speaker. During those 64 days the House of Commons had to face the commitments which had been emphasized very eloquently in the Speech from the Throne. You will remember that the Speech from the Throne stated, and I quote:
Canadians expect much of this Parliament. The country asks for action and action now. The first task is to clear the accumulation of essential legislation left from previous Parliaments. This backlog must be dispatched expeditiously so
that the affairs of the state may be put in good order. To that end, my government is relying on the good will of members and senators of all parties.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to say publicly that indeed the wish expressed by the Governor General in the Speech from the Throne has been fulfilled thanks to parliamentary spirit and co-operation of all members on both sides of the House. Of course, some would have liked to see additional legislation or measures other than those which were introduced to be debated and passed. However, in our responsibility as government we had to take into account the fact that the country had held two elections within a year and that Parliament having failed to sit without interruption, there was an accumulation of legislation. There was disorder in the House in the sense that it was absolutely essential and urgent to pass at least 15 bills which had acquired a technical urgency.
As an example, and to quote only a few of them, it was urgent to adopt Bill C-2 to amend the Immigration Act. It was equally urgent to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Employment Tax Credit Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act. All these measures, Mr. Speaker, were necessary to meet the needs of the people and of various classes of society, so that people could benefit from funds made available to certain categories by virtue of some acts which were expiring. So, at first we were facing that accumulation of legislative measures resulting from two elections, and it was our responsibility as a government and it was the responsibility of all of us as parliamentarians to try in the first few weeks, in the first few months, to prevent this new Parliament from making mistakes, to help it be responsible and to pass those pieces of legislation after reasonable debate. This is what happened.
I am pleased to confirm and to report what most of my colleagues know by now, namely, that since April 15 the House has permitted royal assent to be given to 25 bills instead of the 15 mentioned. Among those bills are not only those which were technically urgent but some which enabled the government to implement the most important electoral commitment they made, namely, to increase the guaranteed income supplement for older citizens. We succeeded through all those accumulated pieces of legislation, with the co-operation of all parties, to pass that bill which raises the guaranteed income supplement of our senior citizens, of those who are least able to protect themselves against inflation and the economic problems countries such as ours are experiencing. We have also succeeded in the present constitutional context, besides more technically urgent legislation, in securing the contribution of all parties to adopt "O Canada" expeditiously, after all those years, as the national anthem of a country we all want to be united and stronger.
And, Mr. Speaker, we have also been able to rearrange the parliamentary schedule of supply business. If I were asked as government House leader to point to the most important
July 18, 1980

measure, policy or agreement during this first session, I would not hesitate at all to indicate the major agreement concluded about supply business. My colleagues the House leaders of the other two parties will agree that the most complex procedure in our rules is that of supply.
Because there have been two elections in one year, not only had estimates for last year not been approved by Parliament but those for the current year could not be approved either, outside a time frame like that which is normally provided for under our Standing Orders. To put it another way, because the estimates for the current year had not been tabled in due course on account of the date the election had been called and the date Parliament had reconvened, none of the provisions of the many sections and paragraphs of our Standing Orders dealing with time limits and fixed dates for the adoption of supply bills, and none of the provisions providing for natural, legal and time honoured cutoff dates could apply, due again to the fact that the election had been held on a certain date and that the main estimates had not been tabled at the proper time.
Parliament was therefore in a very confused state. Theoretically, the opposition parties could have taken this opportunity to debate endlessly any item of the estimates, under any department, without any time limit. Parliament could have sat for weeks and months, without any control other than that provided for under Standing Order 33, which is not the most popular section on Parliament Hill, namely, that the government has the authority to use closure to put an end without notice to any debate in the House, thereby preventing members of the opposition from expressing their views as fully as they would care to.
So fortunately we did not have to use Standing Order 33. The opposition parties through their parliamentary leaders, after lengthy but harmonious discussions, made it possible to reach in due time that major agreement I referred to earlier. I say it is a major agreement because we were in a situation where there was absolutely no order possible in this House on the business of the House unless we used the real guillotine which would have created a commotion, poisoned the climate and compromised seriously, 1 have no hesitation to say, the passage of other bills which had become urgent. What made that major agreement possible and was making it even more important is the fact that we needed interim supplies by May 15 when the Governor General's warrants allowing the government to spend and administer expired.
There again, the agreement was all the more crucial as it had to be reached in the month following the opening of the session, that is before May 15, and we were limited by time and the understandable psychological predispositions of opposition members, following the change in government, but despite all those obstacles, those time limitations, that psychological stress, the parliamentary spirit prevailed-and I have no hesitation to say so-and the parliamentary leaders came to
Summer Recess
an agreement which deserves to be pointed out and which made it possible not only to put order in the business of supply, but we were able to set a very orderly parliamentary timetable to work in a reasonable and to a certain extent innovative way. Indeed the House will have to sit for six days in Committee of the Whole this fall to consider estimates but not only was some order put in the business of supply but at the same time allowed the climate to remain favourable to doing legislative work and, as I mentioned earlier, the passage of 25 pieces of legislation that were absolutely essential for most of them and the others will allow the House to be free this fall to dispose of other measures such as the ones we introduced yesterday, namely, the access to information bill, the bill to turn the Post Office into a Crown corporation, and many other economic and social measures to come.
So, Mr. Speaker, I put my finger on what 1 consider to be the major development in that first session. Even if there is agreement on the business of supply, that is no excitement for the public. Even if there is nothing glaring about that agreement, it is not a scandal, it is not a sensational measure but a parliamentary measure that is basically essential, crucial, not only to draw up our schedule so that we can dispose of the business of supply, but also to develop a spirit of co-operation, a true parliamentary spirit such as we have known in the last weeks.
As concerns the achievements made in this first stage of the first session, I referred to the 25 bills that have been passed, I referred to the parliamentary schedule for the business of supply. There is also our experiment with parliamentary task forces that my knowledgeable colleague from Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) likes to call, quite rightly, special committees of the House of Commons. And the House knows that they are actually parliamentary task forces consisting of a smaller number of members. There are six now at work in six different fields of public interest and they are instructed to act rapidly and report to this House within a limited period of time, by December 19, and they may help us to find out how we can make full use of the talents of all hon. members from every region of the country, and more particularly from western Canada.
I think the conclusion of this agreement for the setting up of parliamentary task forces in the course of the first part of the session is an event which deserves to be underlined because it was the result of co-operation between all parties in this House. We must stress that the climate in which we worked has been unusual. Several of us have worked twice as hard, Mr. Speaker, as we were actively involved in a campaign of major importance for the future of our country and I am talking of course of the referendum campaign in Quebec. The first part of the session ran parallel with the pre-referendum campaign and the referendum campaign itself and a very large number of hon. members representing all areas of Canada

July 18, 1980
Summer Recess
have directly or indirectly helped bring about the wanted results of the Quebec referendum either by way of their personal and direct involvement in the field or by way of their attitude here in the House or by way of the very nature of their contributions in this place or by way of the things they did or refrained from doing. I take this opportunity to stress the merit which the parliamentarians of this House deserve for having contributed to our victory in the Quebec referendum.
We had the twofold responsibility of putting our country's affairs in order, at least with regard to the backlog of procedures and legislations. We had the twofold responsibility governing the country on the one hand and on the other being involved in a crucial campaign in order to secure Canada's unity and this country's survival. I think that on both sides of the House we have all taken our responsibilities to heart, and we did make the necessary effort which was met with the success we all know and which is a credit to all parliamentarians. But I would be remiss if 1 did not emphasize the tremendous work done by the very great majority of the hon. members for the province of Quebec in that respect.
Then, when we consider the volume of business 1 just summarized, this first part of the session may not appear to be sensational for certain people. They would say that Parliament did some business but it was dull. For sure, there has been nothing outstanding, there has been no scandal nor perhaps the kind of debates we have seen when the Canadian flag was adopted. However, there is a fact we all must admit, and it is that during its first two months of existence this Parliament has been very efficient. This government has behaved responsibly. This has to be said of Parliament also, not just of the government. And when I say that Parliament has behaved responsibly, this implies that members on both sides of the House who of course do not always agree with what we are doing, who have criticized some of our bills but have never abused their right to criticize, considering that the country had been through two elections and that it was urgent to dispose of some business to which I referred earlier.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to convey my special thanks not only to members of this House but also to the senators, Madam Speaker, her assistants, the officers at the table and all the officials of the House of Commons as well as the pages who have all been very efficient and quite devoted and who at this time of the year, either on account of their children, their parents, their families, their spouses feel the need to withdraw and lead a normal life, whether they be members, employees of the House of Commons, members of the Press Gallery, the media or the public, most of whom are already on holidays or are going to be soon.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all those people who helped make Parliament during this first stage of the first session so productive and responsible and 1 am sure that all my colleagues on this side of the House will join me in extending to
all those who deserve them and whom I have just mentioned my very special thanks.
Finally, I wish to deal with one question but I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is absent-no, he is here. I am addressing my remarks especially to his party through him who knows the parliamentary spirit which induced us to co-operate as parliamentary leaders during this session and this comment, of course, is also aimed at the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.
He knows the extent to which there has never been any desire on this side of the House, neither, I believe, on the Conservative side, but my colleague will speak on their behalf, will be tricky. Admittedly, it would be hard to fool the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre where procedure is concerned, in view of his long experience and wide knowledge of the rules. However, we have always refrained from attempting to take advantage of hon. members by resorting to procedural games, and as House leader it has always been my policy to use an open and straightforward approach, which up till now has been producing results. 1 would like to tell him this afternoon with the same open and straightforward frame of mind, that I am fully aware, after hearing the statements made up to this point by his leader, for whom I have much respect, by himself or by other hon. members, that he is looking for a way to tell the public at large, for reasons known to his party, his opposition to a government policy very well known to him.
The adjournment motion is a means by which his fellow members can make their points. One of many means, because up to this point, this week at least, during the question period, on the eighth day of the throne speech debate yesterday, following the statement made by the minister yesterday evening until 11.30 p.m., when every contribution had been made and nobody asked to be recognized, and today again, at least until four o'clock and later if his party so desires, he can have all the time required to fully express his views.


John Edward Broadbent: Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday!


Yvon Pinard: So what I would like to tell the hon. member and his colleagues, and the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), is that there is no rule we could apply to prevent the New Democratic Party from requiring the hon. members on both sides of the House, the staff employees of the House and all those who are interested in our debates, either the media or the public, to come back next Monday, if such is the wish of the New Democratic Party. Clearly then, there is no authority whatsoever in our rules under which I, as House leader, or any member here could force the hon. members to adjourn today. In other words, if NDP members want to return next Monday at all costs, nobody can prevent them. That is quite clear and 1 am aware of it. However, there are rules which allow members to sit beyond the regular sitting
July 18, 1980

hours. Today is Friday. It is the last day of the week and usually the House does not sit on Friday evening. I for one, and I speak only for my party because I do not wish to involve the Progressive Conservative Party, believe I speak for all my colleagues on this side when I offer, if NDP members deem it necessary, to extend the sitting hours indefinitely today so as to allow all members who want to speak today to do so. My learned colleague, the House leader for the New Democratic Party, is well aware that any matter of government policy may be dealt with on the adjournment motion. NDP members may take advantage of that motion to speak on any other subject, either on the veterans' pensions we willingly granted a short time ago with the co-operation of all parties, or on the Alaska pipeline or on the $35 paid to pensioners by the Liberal government. I repeat that we are prepared to allow NDP members to sit indefinitely today until they have fully made their point on one or several government policies. Once again, they are free to accept or reject our proposal, that is their political judgment. We, as members of Parliament, shall have no choice but to return next Monday, if such is the wish of NDP members.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reiterate my thanks to all those who deserve them, and remind the House of the parliamentary spirit that has prevailed until now, banking of course on that of the New Democratic Party, so that we can, in orderly fashion, without abuse and humanely, discuss fully a matter of interest to them, without in any way penalizing unduly people who do not share their views, all the more so when their objections concern measures that have been passed according to parliamentary rules and an act passed by this Parliament.
So, once again, Mr. Speaker, in closing I express the wish that, with regard to the future, hon. members of all parties will take advantage of the summer break, whether it starts today or next week, to reflect seriously on what amendments could be made to some of our rules with a view to ultimately making this Parliament, while respecting its spirit, of course, more efficient, more modern and also more humane.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks on this motion may I take the opportunity while I am on my feet to correct what might have been a misimpression flowing from remarks I made on a procedural matter earlier this day. I was commenting on the fact that I did not at that moment have in my hands copies of Hansard. I would not want that to be interpreted as a criticism of the Hansard staff. As the House well knows, we sat exceptionally long hours last night, and if there is fault to be assigned for Hansard not being ready for the 11 a.m. session, it is with those of us who speak, rather than with the reporters who record the proceedings of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Summer Recess


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me make some beginning remarks in response to the observations of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I think that he will allow me, and that the House will agree, to congratulate him on a very graceful act of self-congratulations for the manner in which matters have been proceeding through the House. I will have a little more to say on that in just a moment.
Before doing that, however, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to the proposition that he has made to the New Democratic Party regarding the possibility of this House not seeing the clock tonight and allowing members of Parliament who want to speak on the adjournment debate to have an exceptionally long Friday. Certainly, on behalf of my colleagues in the official opposition, I can say that arrangement would be acceptable to us. We would agree to a procedure of that kind if it were to be proposed and necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me deal now with some of the matters that the President of the Privy Council, the House leader of the government, raised. He talked about the legislation that has been brought forward. I will say on his behalf that he had the good grace to admit that most of the legislation was proposed and prepared by governments other than his own. He admitted that indeed what this government has done, primarily, in this first session of a majority Parliament, when the nation faces urgent issues, is deal with housekeeping matters, with matters that were already prepared, with matters that would have been brought forward in any event. There has been very little indication of any new initiatives by this government.
I must say in passing that I noted with a certain humour that the President of the Privy Council took credit for the special committees of Parliament looking into matters which are of interest to members of this House. He well knows, and members well know, and students of the parliamentary process should know, that what this government tried to do was run around the rules of Parliament by establishing task forces that will report to ministers and not to Parliament. It was only after pressure from this side of the House, and this party in particular, that the government followed the rules and practices to respect the privileges of the House of Commons. Instead of having task forces which answer to ministers and could then be forgotten, the government reverted to establishment of special committees of the House of Commons which will report to the House and whose recommendations will be debatable by the whole House under the eyes of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who speaks much more often and much more eloquently from his seat than on his feet-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
3112

July 18, 1980
Summer Recess


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 can anticipate the hon. member's point of order, and I am prepared to hear him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. With respect to the comment of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that he can anticipate the point of order, so can I, but it is the right of the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to put his point of order.


Mr. Benjamin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what I want the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to do is to expand upon the business of task forces reporting to ministers and governments only. He could also explain about the task force of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) last year.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 correctly anticipated and I am interested to note that the hon. member for Regina West is continuing to try to put obstacles in the path of efforts taken by my government to increase rail line service and grain transportation movement in the prairies of Canada. That was a major initiative taken by our government. It was an initiative that was opposed throughout by the hon. member. I am pleased to see that he continues to take his position against the interests of the grain producers of western Canada on his last day in the House this session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina West on a point of order. May 1 indicate to the hon. member that he, or any other member of the House, has the right to call upon the Chair to recognize a point of order. In courtesy to whatever member may be speaking, however, and in the present case it is the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, one hopes it is a point of order and not a point of debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is true, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Leader of the Opposition has just distorted the entire position of the party of which 1 am a member, as well as my own position.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Our position was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina West sought the floor on a point of debate, not a point of order. 1 specifically requested that if there is to be a point of order it ought to be just that-a point of order. That was not a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition quoted me as saying that 1 continued to oppose the position of the prairie grain producers. I said no such thing at any time.


An hon. Member:: Get up and debate it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is totally out of order. He is not telling the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Leader of the Opposition only has to reply to the point of order that I originally raised about task forces that report to ministers only, which is exactly what he had last year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I say again that the hon. member for Regina West is entering into debate. I would ask him to be so kind as to co-operate with the usual procedure of the House and permit the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was not distorting the position of the hon. member. I was simply reviewing it and recalling it to his mind. I am not at all surprised that he is unhappy when that is done. He would also be unhappy were I to recall to his mind the positions, in the plural, of his party on NATO, the positions, in the plural, of his party on NORAD, and the positions, in the plural, and the contradiction of his party on the Quebec referendum. We could do that, but I do not intend to spend very much time reminding the New Democratic Party of the inconsistencies that have become a way of life with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What I wanted to deal with instead was some of the records of the government and indeed, in my opening remarks, some of the matters that were prepared and ready to be introduced by the government I had the honour to lead. For some peculiar reason those things have disappeared and have not made their way to the legislative agenda of this House. 1 think, for example, of the beef import law which was ready for introduction last year and of which nothing has been seen. In light of the references of the President of the Privy Council to his interest in parliamentary reform, 1 think of the very comprehensive package of parliamentary reforms that had as a purpose not the convenience of the government but the powers, the rights and the respect of individual members of Parliament. That package was introduced by our government, but nothing has been seen of it.
I think, for example, of the proposal we made to have an open, public inquiry, into all aspects of nuclear energy in this country, instead of a silent, quiet, private, hidden inquiry by officials of the Government of Canada who have the most to hide. We believed in openness. We acted on openness, and they have acted in the exact opposite direction. Or we could have spoken about the committee on voluntarism designed to try to have the Parliament of Canada recognize the great damage that is being done to the spirit of Canadians by the growth of bureaucracy, both public and private, to have the Parliament of Canada address directly the problems and the potential of encouraging more individuals through voluntary organizations to play a larger role themselves in the development and in the improvement of our Canadian society. That was a parliamentary special committee proposed by the government of which I had the honour to be leader, a parliamentary committee on a
July 18, 1980

matter which apparently is of no interest to the government now in office.
There is a long list again. I am reminded of the report of the public accounts committee today. The Conservative government established a special committee to look into the very serious problem of cost overruns. That was a committee which would have allowed full public discussion of that important public question which this government has abandoned. It has ditched that idea. I note with interest the unanimous report of the public accounts committee of this House of Commons which was brought down today. It recommended again explicitly that the committee on cost overruns which we established, which this government abandoned, should be established again and established immediately. Certainly that is a view which this whole party supports, as well as being the unanimous position of the public accounts committee of the House of Commons.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: I have to draw the attention of the President of the Privy Council to the fact that, though a number of bills have been passed by the Canadian Parliament, several others mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and others proposed by ministers during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, have yet to be introduced. We were promised amendments to the legislation on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; we have yet to see them. Proposals were made on setting up a Crown corporation for exporting agricultural products; no bills have been introduced. Other legislation was promised by the government which, to date, has not yet been introduced in the House of Commons.

I must say one thing about one piece of legislation that was brought in yesterday, and I will say it in a complimentary way.
I am very pleased by what I have seen. While I have not had an opportunity to review the freedom of information law tabled yesterday by the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), I think it is also true to say that there is no doubt in the world that that freedom of information bill would not have been introduced by this government in this Parliament had it not been for the work, through several Parliaments, by the former member of Parliament for Peace River, Mr. Ged Baldwin-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and the presentation as a priority measure of a freedom of information bill in the name of my colleague, the House leader of the official opposition, the then president of the privy council, namely, the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker).
Summer Recess
There is one other matter on which I must comment, and perhaps I will return to it a little later on in my remarks, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Privy Council talked about what he called the campaign for the future of the country. He suggested perhaps that campaign occurred at a point in the past in this session. I make it very clear to him the view of this party and that of my colleagues, that the campaign for the future of the country is not at all a thing of the past. It is not at all a period of the past. The campaign for the future of the country is a matter which must be a preoccupation of all of the members of this House of Commons. I add this: that it is not simply a question of dealing with matters raised in a referendum, and it is not simply a question of dealing with concerns that were raised in the province of Quebec.
The campaign for the future of this country must be a campaign which takes real account of the special requirements and the special sensitivities of Canadians in all regions of this country, and of times that are not limited by a referendum debate established by one party, one government in one province. That campaign for the future of this country continues. I must say, as I will be indicating a little later on, as someone who had the honour to take part in the referendum debate in the province of Quebec, that I am personally concerned that many of the actions of this government have reflected an insensitivity to the problems and to the aspirations of western Canada that could do very serious damage to the capacity of Canada to heal and to grow together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The President of the Privy Council indicated that the government had made some progress in clearing up what had accumulated in the past. This Parliament, of all parliaments, should not be content with clearing up what had accumulated in the past. We have here a majority government, a government that does not have to be preoccupied with the matters that preoccupied my government that ultimately brought us down. This is a government that has a mandate, not as to platform because it ran without one, but at least it has a mandate to act, a mandate as a majority government in this House of Commons to face directly the major problems and the great potential this nation faces. That is the mandate, and that is the unique and historic opportunity which this government has.
The President of the Privy Council quoted from the Speech from the Throne and the reference which spoke then about much being expected of this Parliament. As I said earlier in this session, much is expected of this Parliament. But, in particular, much is expected of this government. This is a majority government. This is a government which has not yet changed the rules of Parliament to democratize Parliament, so consequently this is a government which controls Parliament. If this government is not prepared to show leadership, this Parliament will not be able to show leadership. I make the point to the President of the Privy Council and to such of his colleagues as who are here that there is an onerous obligation upon him and upon his colleagues in government to do much

July 18, 1980
Summer Recess
more than housekeeping. They must face the urgent problems and the potential that exists in this country. I do not want to have another session of this Thirty-second Parliament that dedicates itself to anything but housekeeping.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think it worthwhile reviewing the manner in which the Liberal government has acted in the last seven months, seven months of a majority government, to correct the problems which it faces as a nation and which challenge this Parliament. In the seven months since the Trudeau government was elected and assumed power, the deficit in Canada has grown by $3.7 billion. Since February alone another 51,000 Canadians have become unemployed. Inflation, as the figures cited today indicate, has now reached double digit proportions in Canada for the first time in almost five years. Virtually every economic forecast concludes that the economic situation will worsen significantly before it improves. The point which the government apparently does not understand is that one of the major contributing factors to economic problems in this country is the absolute lack of clarity as to what are the economic intentions of this government.
What does it intend to do? What is the government's attitude toward inflation? What policies will this government introduce? When will we have a budget? When will there be an economic statement? What is going to happen to indexation? All of these questions which deal directly with the ability of individual Canadians to make their plans, to live their lives, to build the country, all of these questions are cast in shadow. Since February the Liberal government has given no indication of any consistent economic plan or program. Neither has it given an indication of having any on its agenda.
Of course one of the other major problems which the nation faces is that both consumers and producers of energy in Canada are faced this many months after the election in February with increasing uncertainty regarding the price of petroleum-prices are being increased by stealth two cents at a time-and regarding security of supply. Any government confronted with these difficulties ought to be prepared to act honestly and openly to correct the problems. In fact, as I mentioned, the throne speech held out for Canadians the hope and the promise that this government was finally prepared to act. It promised and 1 quote, "that the deficit would be reduced in a planned and orderly way". That was one promise in the throne speech. Another promise in the throne speech was, and I quote, "security of energy supply at a fair price for all Canadians". Security of energy supply at a fair price for all Canadians! Again quoting from the speech, "the burden of economic sacrifice would be shared equally". Well, the record of this government on any of those questions has not borne out its promises.
What has this government done with its brand new majority mandate? There has been no budget. There has been no energy agreement. There has been no sense of direction, no
effort to correct the drift of the last seven months. What has the government been doing? Well, Mr. Speaker, the largest amount of legislative time in the House of Commons has been devoted to a bill to borrow an additional $12 billion. I make the point that this comes from a government which said, a brief six months ago, that only $3.5 billion was required. In opposition they said $3.5 billion; in government they want $12 billion. That is the legislative item which has consumed the greatest amount of time in the House. The spending deficit of the government will be $14 billion. Apparently that is a "planned and orderly reduction" as promised in the Speech from the Throne!
What else have they done? Well, they have introduced, perhaps in a way which is illegal, perhaps in a way which violates the law of the land and would hold the Crown open to suit, a levy on Syncrude products which would increase the price of gasoline by two cents a litre but also applying to home heating oil and other fuels which were exempted from the taxes and the levies anticipated and announced by the Progressive Conservative government last year.
My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) raised a question eloquently the other day about members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. Why were they not speaking out in protest against the increase in home heating fuels for elderly Canadians in Atlantic Canada, for elderly Canadians in the province of Quebec, for elderly Canadians anywhere whose circumstances are too straitened to allow them to adjust to this increase in the cost of home heating fuel, snuck in by a government that won its way to office by promising there would be no increases, or smaller increases in the cost of energy? That promise to the widows of Wolfville, to the low income Canadians across this country, has been cavalierly broken and broken in a way which may breach the laws of this land.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: They introduced as well an employment tax credit which provides no incentives to target the creation of employment for women, for young people, for natives, for the handicapped. So much for the promise of this government- and I quote again-"to meet the needs of these groups who face special problems in finding jobs". Those people are talked about at the time of campaigns and talked about by the Liberals at times of throne speeches, but their concerns are not reflected in the legislation brought before the House of Commons. That is shameful neglect and shameful duplicity by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Finally, the government smuggled in an economic statement which failed to provide any new initiatives to get the country working again. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) at that time told the House he would-and I quote him-"consider measures that will distribute the burdens of both unemployment and inflation more equitably." Yet in that smuggled budget he brought in he neglected the
July 18, 1980

opportunity to introduce tax incentives brought forward in my government's budget which would encourage the growth of industry and the creation of jobs in areas of regional disparity already bearing much more than their share of unemployment.
What measures has the government introduced to deal with inflation? What have ministers been considering? Well, they have been considering one item in particular on the question of inflation, and that has been the prospect of bringing to an end the system of indexing in this country. This will have two effects upon the people of this country. One, it will swell the revenues of the Government of Canada by a back-door tax, a tax that makes the Government of Canada a profiteer out of the inflation it is supposed to be fighting. That is one thing it will do.
The other thing it will do is this: the attempt by the Liberal party to end indexing, the attempt they are studying and planning to implement today, the attempt they refuse to repudiate, this attempt by the Liberal Party of Canada to end indexing will place a particular burden upon lower income Canadians. It is a most inequitable tax, it is a tax upon the poor, and I am shocked and chagrined to find that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) should sit laughing in his place while we discuss a tax which will put a special burden on low-income Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Look, he is just sitting there laughing about it!


Charles Joseph Clark: In fact the typical taxpayer in Canada would see his or her taxes rise by $1,564 between now and 1985 if the Liberal government proceeds with this proposal which it is actively considering now. This proposal would sneak in a tax increase which would hit hardest at the poorest in the country.
Mr. Speaker, I want now to talk at some length about a major question which has not been addressed by this government, one which has not been addressed since February, a problem which our government addressed directly and fully during the period in which we held office. That is the question of energy. This Liberal government has been guided in its energy policy by two considerations which have nothing to do with the energy security of Canada and which have nothing to do with the energy opportunities for Canada. 1 suspect, with the deepest of regret, that one of those considerations is the temptation to use legitimate differences over energy prices as a means to inflame the opinion of the majority of Canadians who live in consuming provinces against the minority of Canadians who live in producing provinces. To do this cynically in the interests of building a case for a certain kind of constitutional reform is totally unacceptable.
There is so far no firm evidence that that is the motive of the Liberal party. However, in recent days we have heard Liberal members of Parliament proposing that fundamental national policy on pricing be directed by public opinion polls on resource jurisdiction, however deeply that might rend this country, however deeply it might divide us. 1 can find no other reason for the failure of the federal government to negotiate seriously an energy agreement with Saskatchewan, with Alber-
Summer Recess
ta, with British Columbia, until a week before the expiry of the June 30 agreement; 1 can find no reason whatsoever for the failure of the federal government so far to have made any reasonable proposal to the producing provinces when there are only about two weeks left in the extended agreement. If there is a reason, it is well hidden. If there is not a reason, then there has been an absolute dereliction of responsibility, not simply to the citizens of this country but to the security of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What is your policy?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am asked by members of the NDP what is the Conservative policy on energy matters. They know. They know, because they voted against it on December 13. What they voted against was more Canadian control over Canadian energy. And they applaud voting against that. They voted against security of supply for the Canadian community. And now they are applauding themselves for voting against security of supply. They voted against a tax credit for low income Canadians who needed the help to meet the price increases for energy which are inevitable. And now, that New Democratic Party, that haven of hypocrisy, is congratulating itself for voting against the poor, for voting against security, and for voting against Canadian ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I notice that now Liberal members of Parliament opposite are applauding. They are applauding their action in voting against Canadian ownership, as the Liberal party voted against Canadian ownership on December 13. The Liberals are applauding themselves for voting against low-income Canadians because they voted against tax credits to low-income Canadians on December 13. The Liberal party, naturally, given their policy, is congratulating itself for voting against security of supply because that is what Liberal members voted against, and in that, clearly, they knew what they were doing on December 13 because they have shown no interest at all on any day since in making this country secure in our domestic supply of energy or in protecting this country against being a hostage to foreign nations in energy policy.
That brings me to the second consideration. It is a consideration which has nothing at all to do with energy security and nothing at all to do with taking advantage of the great energy opportunities of Canada. The second consideration which is guiding the Liberal government is simply Liberal party politics.
In the last campaign the Liberal party proposed an energy policy which hon. members opposite knew was dishonest. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) admitted that last night when he introduced a gas export that he had opposed absolutely in opposition, and when he broke his word at least four times in relation to promises he made before the February election. Before the election the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Liberal party said

July 18, 1980
Summer Recess
that gas exports of 3.7 trillion cubic feet to the United States were too high. That was what they said before the election. Last night they said they were too low. They broke their word on that question.
Before the election the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, and I quote:
Everything has to be signed, sealed and delivered, particularly the financing plan or the financing guarantees, before we start exporting one cubic foot of gas out of this country to the United States.
That was what he said before the election. Last night he broke his word and told us that the only thing which needed to be signed, sealed and delivered was a non-committal letter from the President of the United States.
Before the election, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, and I quote:
There must be an arrangement for swaps in this agreement with the United States.
Last night and again today he broke his word and said there would be no swaps.
Before the election he called for, and I quote:
-the initiation and completion of the Quebec and maritime gas pipeline.
Last night he admitted he had broken his word and is so far proposing a pipeline which goes only as far as the city of Quebec.
Those specific misrepresentations are important, and there no doubt are more misrepresentations. But what is even more fundamental is the attitude toward honesty of the Liberal party. I said often during the election campaign that in energy policy the difference between the Progressive Conservative and Liberal parties was not really a difference on price and not really a difference on exports but that it was a difference on honesty. We took an honest position, and the Liberal party took the opposite position.
Unfortunately, a casual attitude toward honesty has become the hallmark of this Trudeau government. There is, for example, an honest way to introduce a budget and there is another way, and this government chose the other way and not the honest way. There is an honest way to amend the Northern Pipeline Act and there is another way, and this government chose the other way and not the honest way. There is an honest way to change the levy in the Petroleum Administration Act and there is another way, and this government chose the other way to change that levy.
1 will not give a long list of the commitments which were broken, but some come to mind. 1 was reminded the other day about the minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I wonder if there are government members here from the Niagara Peninsula. I see at least one. The Minister of Agriculture made a firm commitment to Ontario grape growers that he would change a tax to which they objected. It was a firm, unequivocal, and clear commitment. He then came back to office, and he broke his word.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that his spending would not exceed the real increases in gross national product. That was his promise during the election campaign. He broke his word, as it has become the habit of the Liberal party to break its word to the people of Canada.


Mr. Chenier:: Look who's talking.


Charles Joseph Clark: That casual attitude toward honesty damages the very fabric of Canadian democracy, but in no field does the failure to face facts honestly more endanger the future of this country than in the field of energy policy, because we are a nation with immense potential and immense good fortune. We are also a nation which is blessed by individuals who have gone out to acquire skills and who have turned their skills to innovation, to creativity, and to opening and building a land. That is part of the legacy of this great nation, but our good fortune cannot be allowed to obscure two fundamental facts. The first is that no one else will look after Canada. We Canadians have to build on our good fortune, and we have to do it ourselves. Sometimes that means taking hard decisions, and always that means honesty. If we back down from hard decisions, our country will slide down the scale of nations.
The second reality is that energy, which can be the source of Canadian security and success, can also be the cause of Canadian decline. If we build on our own resources, we can be the strongest nation in the world. That is if we build on our own resources, but if we expose ourselves weakly to the world, we can be cut down by revolutions in Iran, by invasions in Afghanistan, and by national decisions of foreign governments taken for their own reasons and with no thought of Canada in mind.
Any of us in this House of Commons who are honest and knowledgeable about the facts know the frailty of the world energy picture. We know that demand is rapidly exceeding supply in the world. We know that the foreign policy of the Soviet Union is focusing more and more upon securing energy supplies at whatever cost to world stability. Hon. members of this House of Commons also know that we in Canada are unique among nations in our ability to protect our future against hostile foreign decisions and to protect our future by making realistic Canadian decisions here at home. That is the reality facing any Government of Canada, but the response of Canada's two recent governments has been dramatically different. My government faced those facts and for the first time in post-war history in Canada prepared a comprehensive national energy policy which would build upon the energy strengths of this energy nation. A federal-provincial agreement on that package was two days away when the Liberals and the New Democratic Party combined again to bring our government down.


An hon. Member:: Poor Joe!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since then there has been no comprehensive energy policy at all advanced by the Liberal government. Negotiations on a narrow but important part of energy policy, the part concerning price, are apparently under way. The
July 18, 1980

producing provinces, naturally enough, are insisting that they receive the same net benefits from this government that they would have received from the agreement we had prepared. That is understandable, but the point for this Parliament to underline is that all the people of Canada also have the right to expect that Canada will get equivalent benefits from the Liberal agreement, equivalent to those benefits Canada would have received from the agreement two days short of signing by the Progressive Conservative government defeated last year.
The Prime Minister is apparently meeting the premier of Alberta. He may well have a proposal to make. He has an adjournment ahead of him. I want to suggest some items for his agenda during that adjournment as they relate to energy policy. I would like him to bear in mind, as 1 believe the Canadian people are increasingly bearing in mind, the important elements of the comprehensive energy proposal which we made and which the Liberal party and the NDP, for their own narrow political reasons, voted against.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Those elements of that proposal were designed to build Canadian security, were designed to ensure Canadian supply, and they included some of the following. First, they included a pricing regime which would be sufficient to lead to exploration in this country, including non-conventional exploration in areas where exploration has not occurred successfully before, and which would lead the producers of this country to go forward and to guarantee security of Canadian supply, because we believe that Canada, with the resources available to it, with the initiative of its people and of its industry, is eminently capable of becoming self-sufficient in energy by the year 1990. That was our goal, that should be the goal of Canada, that can be the goal of Canada, and that is a goal which apparently has been abandoned by the Liberal government and which I recommend that they adopt, not in my interest but in the interest of the nation that they will govern for a few years more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Second, that energy package put together to secure Canada's energy future, to take advantage of the rare resource we have as an energy nation, provided- and I say this for the special information of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who, unhappily is absent-a force maj-eure clause which would have permitted the Government of Canada to separate Canadian price, to an even greater degree than was in the agreement spelled out, from the changes that might occur in world price, in prices by OPEC. That force majeure clause was an item of protection which was in our agreement, and we have no way of knowing what protection, if any, will be in the agreement signed by the Liberal government, if indeed there is one.
Third, we recognized as a fundamental element of an energy policy for Canada that there had to be help to those Canadians who were going to be hit hardest by the increases in price that
Summer Recess
were inevitable in a modern world economy. So we introduced an energy tax credit which would have been available to the lower income and harder hit Canadians across the country, an energy tax credit, I would remind the House, voted against by the NDP and voted against by the Liberal party, but introduced by this party, introduced by the government we formed, as a fundamental element of a national energy package-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 am being heckled by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier). I wanted to say the hon. member for Hollywood, but it is Timmins. His interjection was a complaint against the tax credit. I am not surprised that he should interject against the tax credit since the other night he applauded the imposition of an increase in the price that his constituents have to pay for home heating oil, an increase they would not have had to pay under our government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We introduced those measures of aid to help Canadians who would be hardest hit. That was another major element of that program. Again we recognized that there were in some parts of Canada energy generation which depended excessively upon petroleum. So we offered special help to the province of Nova Scotia and to the province of Prince Edward Island so that they would be better able to deal with the increases which were inevitable in the current international energy situation. We proposed an energy self-sufficiency tax which would have yielded some $6 billion. We proposed a tax that the NDP voted against which would have taken $6 billion from the large multinational oil companies of this country. The NDP voted to spare multinationals from a $6 billion tax burden which we proposed to introduce.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That energy self-sufficiency tax imposed upon the energy industry was to have been directed entirely to energy supply and to developing conservation in this country.
We proposed the establishment, as part of that package, of a Canadian energy bank which would encourage individual Canadians and Canadian controlled companies to invest in Canadian energy projects. Again there has been no mention of that important factor, no similar instrument spelled out by the Liberal party. This party stands committed-and we proved it with the energy bank-to the concept of Canadian ownership of the Canadian energy industry. That is a principle which was voted against by the NDP, it was an initiative which was voted against by the Liberal party, but we believed in it and we set it forth in the energy package which was brought forth by us as a government. We believe in Canadian ownership of Canadian energy resources, and we gave Canadians a program which would have accomplished that goal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are some of the elements of our energy package, and the NDP was caught in the act of voting against

July 18, 1980
Summer Recess
Canadian ownership, of voting against low-income Canadians, of voting against energy security, so they are making a great deal of noise in this House. No doubt they are trying to shout down the relevation of their record, but as a party they voted against lower income Canadians, they voted against Canadian ownership, and they voted against Canadian security of supply. If they do not like hearing this now, they had better get used to it because they are going to hear a great deal more about their actions against Canadian interests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, as one of my colleagues pointed out, they will be hearing a great deal more about their actions against the steelworkers, their actions against unions.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the record clearly shows that it was the Canadian people who in fact voted against the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Clark).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a point of debate, not a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret that in the uproar which was being caused by the hon. member's colleagues I did not hear his remarks, but my colleagues who did hear him tell me I missed nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 want to speak for a moment not simply about the contents of that energy package, important as they were because they faced, for the first time since the war in Canada, the great possibilities that existed for this nation to become self-sufficient in energy. I want to speak for a moment, for the benefit of the Liberal party, about the process that was followed in working out that package because I happened to read a most extraordinary chronicle in the life of Canada the other day, an interview given by one Pierre Elliott Trudeau to, of all people, the Toronto Globe and Mail. I thought that wonders would never cease when I read the account of that interview, until it became clear why exactly that interview had been given by that individual to that particular medium. The reason was that he wanted to build up the idea that there is no alternative approach to the confrontation politics which he has practised for so long at such a high cost here in Canada.
He suggested that what he termed as the non-confrontation-ist approach of my government has not worked. I want to give him one instance where it did work, and I wish him as much success as we had. When we began the process of working out an energy agreement which would speak to supply and security of supply for Canada, we consulted with the premiers of the country, Premier Buchanan, Premier Blakeney, Premier Davis, Premier Hatfield, Premier MacLean, and Premier Lougheed. We consulted with the premiers of the country. We did not take them a package which was a fait accompli, but we said, "Look, here is the goal for this country, a goal for a price which Canadians can afford and will have to face, but a goal
also which will take advantage of the great resources that are here and will build upon those resources."
I went to them as prime minister to premier and I said, "This is not a closed book, this is an arrangement, an agreement which conserves the interests of the whole community of Canada which we commonly serve." I received from those premiers several proposals that became part of that agreement and that were very helpful to the final package which was proposed. For example, it was the Premier of Ontario who suggested first that there be a relation that would not go above 85 per cent of world price and would naturally be protected after that by the force majeure clause.
We did not go to a province, as the Trudeau government so often does, and say, "Take this or leave it". We said, "Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?" Premier Davis made a suggestion that improved it significantly. We went to the Premier of Nova Scotia and said, "Here is a proposal. How can it be improved?" Premier John Buchanan and Premier Angus MacLean of Prince Edward Island co-operated with us in having the energy package that was brought forward reflect the special requirements of their parts of Canada. There were other items where we went to the premiers and listened to the advice of other governments, because we wanted a package which would not simply be a package that bore a party name, that would not be something that was forced down the throats of Canadians by a national government, but in effect would be a genuine national package reflecting a genuine national consensus and pursuing genuine national goals.
That kind of consultation will work in this country. That kind of consultation came within two days of working out a national energy package. If that package had been adopted this country would be much more secure in energy supplies than we are now, this country would be much better protected against the vagaries of the international market and against political changes which may occur in countries we cannot control, than it is now. That was a national policy worked out by a national government that was prepared to treat the provinces as partners sharing common goals, rather than as enemies who are there only to be confronted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: One other dimension of the energy negotiation which is important to recall to the attention of the House and the Canadian public at this time is that we recognized, as I think most Canadians do, that the question of pricing cannot be separated from the question of changes in the equalization formula of the country. 1 will say to the House that we received advice from public servants and from others that the only way to approach that problem was to approach the two issues together. I considered that advice and I knew it would fail.
I knew the only way we could get agreement on those two important and fundamental questions in the country was to approach them in the proper sequence, and to recognize that in
July 18, 1980

western Canada for a variety of reasons there had grown such a deep suspicion of the national government that there would not be a ready agreement on equalization until there was seen to be a fair agreement on an energy package first. That is why we proceeded in the sequence of getting agreement first on energy. We would have had that agreement on the Saturday after the government fell, and on the Monday after the government fell we had scheduled a first ministers' conference at which we had prepared for presentation to the premiers the proposal of a new review of equalization in the country based upon the Rowell-Sirois report, recognizing the fact that 40 years after Rowell-Sirois it was necessary for us to re-examine root and branch the equalization system in this country.
We proposed the innovation that instead of just simply being a commission imposed upon the provinces by the government, it should be a commission jointly appointed, with members appointed by both provincial and federal government, because that is the way to make a federal system work-not to argue about commas in a law but to recognize we share a common country and we want to build this common country together. That was the approach we took to equalization.
1 know we have heard nothing of the reforms in the equalization agreement which will expire in less than two years. We have heard nothing of that from this government. To our knowledge and to the knowledge of the House of Commons, it is doing nothing about that fundamental problem. Had we been successful-and we were not; that is history-not only would we have had an energy package that would have moved this nation toward energy self-sufficiency by 1990, also I firmly believe we would have had an agreement on an amendment to the equalization formula which would have taken account of resource revenues in a way that would have truly shared, not by imposition but by agreement, the resources and wealth of this whole nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have thoroughly discussed national unity during recent years. 1 think, however, that we may have overlooked some means available to a national government. We have decided, for example, that it was not sufficient to convene the provinces and the federal government merely to discuss constitutional matters. We must also co-operate to consider modernizing other Canadian institutions.
This is why we have advocated the establishment of a national conference on economic development in Canada. The purpose of such conference would be to gather for the first time in Canadian history all the representatives and spokesmen not merely of the federal and provincial governments but also from the industry, the unions, the credit unions, the farmers and other individuals concerned with the economic development of Canada.
Summer Recess
It is by working together that we can have a united country. The constitution alone or discussions dealing exclusively with legal matters will not do it. I referred earlier today, Mr. Speaker, to the actions of the Liberal government on energy matters and I indicated and there was evidence of it as recently as last night, that the word of the federal government is worth nothing or is not acceptable and that the people cannot rely upon it. Finally, the Liberal government is specializing in policy flip-flops and we just had a new example with energy. That is very serious, particularly when we think of what the Prime Minister said during the referendum campaign. He solemnly committed himself to achieve a new Canadian federalism. He promised it to Quebeckers and other Canadians.
But now that the referendum campaign is over, can we truly believe that he has really changed, that his attitude is different from what it was in the past and that the proposals made by his government constitute the slightest opening onto a genuine reform? Unfortunately, the answer is no. In fact, all the Prime Minister has managed to do up to now is to cause a lot of people to worry, from Claude Ryan to Roy Romanow. It augurs no good at all for the future, and I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to pull himself together in the next few days and will realize that the time has come at last to keep his word and to take concrete steps toward the renewal of the Canadian federation.

I close by reminding this House that we are a nation with great opportunities. We are a nation which, as well as its natural wealth, also has a wealth of good will and a wealth of common interest. We are a nation which can be brought together, but also we are a nation which can be driven apart. We need, as a nation, national projects. We need, as a nation, co-operation among levels of government and among individual Canadians. We need, as a nation, national leadership. We have had none from this government in the first session of this Parliament.
They have sought and are receiving an adjournment. I would hope their agenda for an adjournment would include having a budget ready for the early days after we come back in mid-October, would include having an energy agreement concluded which gives the people of Canada at least the benefits that would have been available under ours.
Having regard to the time, I wonder if I might conclude my remarks by moving, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House continue to sit this day beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment in order to complete its consideration of the motion of the President of the Privy Council now under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion. Will those who object to the motion please rise in their place.

July 18, 1980
Atlantic Veterinary College
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Ten or more members having risen to object, pursuant to Standing Order 6(5)(b), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the Elouse will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Item No. 8, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand by unanimous consent.


AGRICULTURE
Thomas Michael McMillan: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of supporting the establishment of a fourth veterinary college in Canada, which will emphasize preventive animal and marine health, to be located in the Atlantic provinces.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to sponsor and support this motion and to participate in the debate on it. As hon. members will appreciate, the motion itself will not cause the Atlantic regional veterinary college to come into existence. However, the debate on the motion is an opportunity for the House to express itself on the issue which is of great importance to the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, to all of Canada. My remarks will be relatively brief in that 1 have no desire to talk out the motion. By the some token, I am hopeful that support for the motion will be so widespread among all members that there will be an opportunity this afternoon to vote on it, and to do so favourably.
In my own remarks, I wish briefly to talk about the great regional and national need for a fourth veterinary college in Canada, about the nature of the proposed college and the requirements associated with it, and about the history of the proposal. I also wish to suggest a course of action, if there is time.
At the outset, may I make it clear that I do not have in mind the popular conception of a veterinary college. What I am
referring to, instead, is a modern centre for animal and fish health. Too often we in Canada, especially lay people, including politicians, think of veterinary colleges in terms of the training of people for private practice. We have some notion that veterinarians have nothing more to do than to neuter cats or to hold Aunt Bessie's pregnant poodle while the dog is giving birth. However important these activities may be, veterinarians do much more. Seen in a very different light, a fourth veterinary college for Canada would give a much needed boost to the economy of the Atlantic region, especially in the areas of agriculture and fisheries.
Many members on all sides of the House will know that we in Canada have not been singularly successful in eliminating or even alleviating regional disparities. The Atlantic region lags far behind the rest of Canada. For example, the relationship between the per capita income in the Atlantic region and that in the rest of Canada is not unlike what it was as long ago as the 1920s. That is true despite the establishment of DREE in 1969, and despite the fact that under that program, and others, the federal government has been spending millions and millions of dollars to give the Atlantic region an economic lift. The trouble is we have been essentially engaged in the provision of welfare in various forms. Our approach has been one of "welfare augmenting". We have concentrated largely on transfer payments, whether they be equalization grants or unemployment insurance. What is needed are not handouts but, rather, assistance to the Atlantic-


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, private members' hour is rather precious. It is not to be interrupted by a conclave of blabbering NDPers who do not have the good grace to get out of here to hold their meetings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: I thank my colleague for that intervention. Perhaps, because we are talking about veterinary medicine, the NDP thinks it appropriate to act like a bunch of animals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that they claim this is such an important and proper motion when they have only 40 members in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has not made a point of order.


Thomas Michael McMillan: If I may continue without further interruption, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the required approach is one of helping the Atlantic region to become self-sufficient. In particular, what is needed is help in the agricultural and fisheries areas-the traditional base of economic activity in the Atlantic region. At present livestock and livestock products account for 55 per cent to 60 per cent of total farm cash receipts in the region. But only between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of the food now consumed in the Atlantic region is produced there.
July 18, 1980

There is a tremendous opportunity in Atlantic Canada for a major impetus to food production. Canada itself is very much an underdeveloped country. If it is not underdeveloped, it is fast becoming underdeveloped in so far as food production is concerned. We cannot even feed ourselves much less engage in the export of food on a large scale. We as a country import something like $4 billion of agricultural goods year. That is equivalent, according to the experts, to one out of two meals.
The situation in agriculture per se is paralleled by that in fisheries. The world demand for fish has not diminished, but the supply has dramatically diminished. This is another opportunity for the Atlantic region to become a food basket for the rest of the world. The Maritime Farmers' Council has made a commitment to itself and to the country to triple agricultural production over the next 15 to 30 years. The goal is to help make the region self-sufficient in food production, with enough surplus to enable the Atlantic region to become a net exporter of food as well.
The Atlantic regional veterinary college that 1 am proposing today in my private member's motion is essential in that over-all strategy, because it can play an important role in encouraging and stimulating production efficiency in animal agriculture and in farming of marine species-or aquaculture as it is called-throughout the four Atlantic provinces.
1 would like now to talk about the particular role I have in mind for the Atlantic regional veterinary college. A couple of examples are obvious. The first example which 1 wish to mention is that of preventive medicine. Traditionally veterinary medicine has been geared toward "salvage practice", as it is called in the profession, or concentration on sick animals. More and more, however, the direction of veterinary medicine is toward improving the general level of health of the animal population. In other words, the emphasis is on prevention.
In the United States the total value of livestock and poultry exceeds $35 billion. The estimated losses from animal diseases is $3 billion in that country. Disease in cattle alone results in a $1 billion loss per year. Swine losses are over $800 million or 20 per cent of the gross income of swine breeders. A similar situation exists in Canada, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. The goal should be to reduce waste. It is estimated that 12 to 15 per cent of every dollar spent on food production is wasted because of disease. This is an area where a veterinary college could play a vital role in assisting the Atlantic region to become more efficient and more productive as it strives toward the goal of food self-sufficiency.
Moving on from agriculture for a moment to fisheries, the goal of improved husbandry in fisheries and in other marine life is relevant to veterinary medicine. Unfortunately, the tools for the prevention, the control, and the eradication of fish diseases are still very few in the Atlantic region, throughout the rest of Canada and, indeed, in many parts of the world. The Atlantic regional veterinary college would give a huge boost to the fisheries industry by strengthening this area of weakness.
Atlantic Veterinary College
We need to improve harvesting techniques in fisheries. We also need to improve diversification of production, quality control, marketing, modernization of handling methods and professional training. The marine aspects of the proposed college are among the most unique and futuristic parts of the plan, and they are a vital part of the rationale or the justification for an Atlantic regional veterinary college. The recent establishment by Canada of a 200-mile offshore limit makes fisheries all the more economically significant and the proposal which we are debating today all the more relevant.
Quite apart from the offshore fisheries is the question of fish farming. In the next ten to 15 years this area could have a major economic impact. In some countries, such as the United States, fish farming has surpassed the offshore catch of some of the main species of food in a period of less than five to six years. In all those ways which I have mentioned, and in others which I did not, veterinary medicine could play a key role in training, direct service, research, extension and continuing education.
The college would not only be for the benefit of the people directly involved in the food industries, the farmers and fishermen, but also for the benefit of agrologists, veterinarians, biologists and many others, in fact, everyone involved in food production. The Atlantic regional veterinary college could become a vital ingredient in the economic infrastructure of the whole area.
I would like to talk for a moment about a specific dimension of the problem which we have at hand. Despite the importance of veterinary medicine to the Atlantic provinces, the region is not now directly served by a veterinary college. It is the only region of Canada which is not directly served by such a college. At present, there are three colleges. One is the Ontario Veterinary College at Guelph, the only English-speaking veterinary college in eastern Canada. The second college is the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at Saskatoon, on the campus of the University of Saskatchewan. The third is the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Saint-FIyacinthe in the province of Quebec.
Each is a regional school. These colleges have a national role, but essentially they are designed to serve their respective regions. The Western College of Veterinary Medicine, for example, serves British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Its operating costs are met by all four provinces, just as all four contributed to the capital costs originally. That particular college does not accept, as a general rule, although there are exceptions, students from outside the region. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of Guelph and Saint-Hyacin-the.
The Guelph veterinary college has an unwritten quota of something like six students for the Atlantic region. It is the only English-speaking veterinary college in eastern Canada. Yet it accepts only six students each year from my region. No wonder there is a dire need for vets in Atlantic Canada, in private practice, in government and in teaching. In 1975 the number of vets per 100,000 in the Atlantic region was 7.81. In the rest of Canada the corresponding figure was 14.45. The number of students entering a veterinary program per million

July 18, 1980
Atlantic Veterinary College
population for the Atlantic provinces was only 3.7. In the rest of Canada the corresponding figure was 11.9. Hon. members can appreciate the disparity. With only six students accepted every year from the Atlantic region, mostly by Guelph, we are not even holding our own. We need 26 graduates every year just to conform to the national average, but we are falling far short of that figure. You can see why we have a short supply, Mr. Speaker.
A similar situation is true nationally, regarding supply. The three colleges combined take in about 260 students. A recent study of manpower conditions conducted by the provincial veterinary associations predicts a national shortage of 100 veterinarians per year in the foreseeable future.
There is a special need in the area of teaching, Mr. Speaker. If my memory serves me correctly, there are 3,900 registered veterinarians in all of Canada. Forty per cent of them are employed outside private practice. At Western College of Veterinary Medicine only 40 per cent of the 75 professionals on staff are Canadian. The college is finding it extremely difficult to attract Canadian faculty. Dr. Ole Nielsen, Dean of Veterinary Medicine there, states the case graphically when he is quoted in an article which appeared in the June-July 1980 issue of University Affairs, which reads in part as follows:
'There's a cutthroat competition for faculty right now', he states. The college must compete for faculty with veterinary schools in the rest of Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. In the U.S. eight new veterinary schools have opened, or are in the process of opening, during the last 10 years, says Dr. Nielsen, and at times the situation for MCVM is 'absolutely desperate'.
It is a dire situation indeed, Mr. Speaker. If such is true in the western provinces where there is a regional veterinary college, you can imagine the situation in the Atlantic region where there is no college. We in Canada have been importing 30 or 40 veterinarians every year, between 1964 to 1976. The experts indicate that, in the foreseeable future, we will need to continue importing 20 to 30 veterinarians every year.
The irony and the scandal is that, at the very time we are going outside Canada for veterinarians, the three existing Canadian colleges must turn away qualified students in droves. About 1,000 applications are received at Guelph every year for the first year of pre-veterinary medicine. But the college is able to accept only about 120 people.
The situation was described very well in a report prepared by Dr. R. G. Thomson, Planning Co-ordinator for the planned Atlantic regional veterinary college. He refers to the irony 1 am talking about. On the one hand, Canada is recruiting veterinarians outside Canada; while, on the other hand, we are denying qualified Canadians access to veterinary education. If 1 may paraphrase what he says in that report, Mr. Speaker, Canada should be specializing in veterinary medicine, rather than depending on other countries. We should be producing veterinarians to take care not only of our own needs but also the needs of other countries, especially the developing countries.
The Atlantic regional veterinary college that I have in mind would be a regional resource but, at the same time, a national resource. It would be modest by Canadian standards, even by Atlantic regional standards. It would accept about 50 students per year, in contrast with the 70 or so students accepted every year at the Western College of Veterinary Medicine. If we allowed for a growth of six per cent per year as a result of establishing this college, we would be close to meeting our regional needs providing the graduates were available as early as 1987. In other words, the Atlantic regional veterinary college would allow for an average growth of 6 per cent per year to the year 2000, starting in 1987.
The need in veterinary medicine that I have referred to concerning fisheries, agriculture, preventive medicine, research, continuing education and other areas was recognized by the atlantic region and by the federal government some years ago. In 1975, the Maritime Province Higher Education Commission engaged Dr. D. G. Howell, who was then the Dean of Veterinary Medicine at Guelph, to produce a report on the subject. This report strongly recommended the establishment of the Atlantic regional veterinary college. He documented, in great scientific detail, both the feasibility of such a college and the need for it. The commission deliberated on the report, accepted Dr. Howell's recommendations and took some action.
Among other things, Dr. Howell recommended that the college be established in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island-which is in my riding of Hillsborough-as the logical site by academic criteria. That is not the point that I wish to address, however. Naturally, 1 have an interest in the college being established and particularly in it being established in my riding. But my main concern is that it be established in the region because of our great need, irrespective of site. The council of maritime premiers has been trying, ever since Dr. Howell reported, to reach a consensus on the need to establish the college and especially on a site for it. For obvious political reasons, they have become bogged down to a degree. Each premier has been subjected to a good deal of pressure within his own province to have the college located there.
While they have recognized the regional need, they have- to an extent which I think is unhealthy-risked losing the whole project altogether because of failure to reach a consensus. There is cause for optimism, however; there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. At their meeting recently on Prince Edward Island, the premiers went a long way toward agreeing on the need for the college and on the site.
I should like to mention a few details about the college that is shaping up, Mr. Speaker. It would cost about $25 million. The estimated annual operating cost would be about $4 million. The proposal contemplates that the federal government would meet 50 per cent of the total capital costs, with the rest being met by the four provinces on a per capita basis. The operating costs would largely be met by the participating provinces, again on a per capita basis.
Mr. Speaker, from time to time issues arise in this House which transcend parties, transcend politics, and transcend
July 18, 1980

partisanship. The Atlantic regional veterinary college is such an issue. It would not be just an education facility but is a proposal for a major ingredient in the economic infrastructure of the Atlantic region. It would especially complement fisheries and agriculture, but it would have multiplier effects right across the board. As such there is a lot to be said for it.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), when he was a member of an earlier cabinet, took steps to bring the college into existence. I would like to pay tribute to the leadership role he has played and continues to play in that connection. Because this is a non-partisan issue I urge all members- regardless of politics, regardless of party, and regardless of where they sit-to support the motion and to do so vigorously.


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would very briefly like to respond to the questions raised by my hon. colleague on the other side, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), concerning the establishment of a fourth veterinary college in Canada, to be located in the Atlantic provinces.
That college would, of course, be located in the Atlantic provinces and would aim its courses of study on preventive animal and marine health as well as fish hatcheries. It could of course extend preventive medicine to all other forms of agricultural production. This issue is of great interest to the government at present, Mr. Speaker, and in particular to the Department of Agriculture, and has been so for several years, since Agriculture Canada is quite aware of the situation which exists at present in the maritimes. Everybody can appreciate the importance of having enough veterinarians to satisfy the needs of the agricultural sectors in these areas and to ensure the training which may be necessary.
Agriculture Canada employs a good many veterinarians who have always had an important role to play in developing Canadian agriculture, especially in the fields of livestock and poultry production. Veterinary medicine will also have a role to play in developing fish hatcheries, a field which up until now was in the hands of biologists. But first of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review briefly the situation as to the possibility of establishing a fourth veterinary college in the maritimes.
As mentioned by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) a national survey was made in 1970 and 1971 of manpower resources in the field of veterinary medicine and techniques which revealed a general shortage of veterinarians across Canada. The committee, therefore, recommended an increase in the number of annual inscriptions at Canadian veterinary colleges. Two years later, cabinet agreed to negotiate an increase in the number of veterinary colleges by accepting, in principle, the setting up of a fourth college. In 1974, the federal government signed agreements with the provincial
Atlantic Veterinary College
governments concerned accepting, in principle, to finance up to 50 per cent of the costs incurred to expand the three existing colleges, namely, those of Guelph, Saint-Hyacinthe and Saskatoon. On the other hand, in 1975, the governments of the maritime provinces, as pointed out by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough, asked Dr. Howell, dean of the veterinary college of Ontario, to conduct a study on the needs of their area and the possiblity of establishing there a fourth veterinary college.
At the time, Agriculture Canada paid half the cost of the studies. In his report, Dr. Howell recommends the creation of a school of preventive animal and marine health at the Prince Edward Island University located at Charlottetown. Later on, the council of ministers of the maritime provinces studied Dr. Howell's recommendations and set up a committee to look into the situation further. By that time, the P.E.I. government had contributed $200,000 to finance the study. Throughout that period, it had opposed the recommendation to set up the veterinary college in Charlottetown. It wanted the college built in Truro.
Besides, it was on January 28, 1980, that the matter was withdrawn from the agenda of the council of maritime premiers because Premier MacLean thought Prince Edward Island could not afford the financial cost of the project. Mr. Speaker, how is the study and planning for the establishment of that fourth college progressing? The development program of the Ontario veterinary college is completed while the Saint-Hyacinthe school of veterinary medicine in the riding I have the honour to represent in the House, expansion and development work is moving very nicely. At the Saskatoon veterinary college the development or expansion project is still at the planning stage.
So I think that with the expansion of actual colleges, until this fourth college is established, it will be possible to meet the demand for veterinary education better. It must also be pointed out that every year the Guelph college reserves a minimum of six places for English-speaking students from the maritime provinces. As far as the Saint-Hyacinthe veterinary college is concerned, the University of Montreal has reached an agreement with the New Brunswick education department to take at least-and that is not many-two students a year from that province. As you can see, students from the maritime provinces are not totally devoid of opportunities of registering in veterinary medicine colleges. They are not totally deprived, Mr. Speaker, but I am convinced-and I believe my colleagues in the maritime provinces know it quite well-that there are a lot more young people in 1980, in this coming decade, interested in going into that field of education.
Mr. Speaker, recently we learned that new regulations on brucellosis in the United States had been amended and that that amendment to the amendments to those same regulations helped Canadian exports of livestock to the States. And the new set of regulations introduced by the Department of

July 18, 1980
Atlantic Veterinary College
Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-and that is to the credit of the representatives of the maritime provinces-recognizes the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland as areas exempt of brucellosis. The cattle shipped from the Atlantic provinces to the United States will only have to be accompanied by a certificate attesting they come from an area recognized as exempt of brucellosis and reacted negatively to a anti-brucellosis test. Those exports will have to be accompanied by a certificate signed by an Agriculture Canada veterinarian.
That shows in any case that there is already a lot of work being done in Atlantic Canada in preventive veterinary medicine. And quite recently, again with a view to having more veterinarians, the convention of the order of Quebec veterinarians took place and was held, of course, in Saint-Hyacinthe at the veterinary school, and the theme of that convention this year was "The Vet and the Environment-a soul-searching experience". And, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to quote a few words by Michelle Alie of the faculty of veterinary medicine who says, and I quote:
When one day it is too late to talk of "negligible residues" and we can talk about real contamination of animal and man, we will look for those responsible for the problems of production and reproduction in our herds, or at man's level, so-called "civilization" diseases.
Mr. Speaker, this was in the spring, at a convention of the order of veterinarians. Obviously, we need more veterinarians as we are continuously increasing our agricultural output. We just need to think about our hog production which increased considerably, by 27 per cent in the seventies. And thank God, we did not have any serious diseases in that sector.
Very recently during the study of supplementary estimates I asked the director of Agriculture Canada if our veterinarians would be ready if there were an outbreak of contagious disease among hogs as we have become a country which produces hogs of very good quality, a very good meat, the best hog produced in North America. He told me that they would not really be ready if there were an outbreak of contagious disease in the pork industry. So you will understand why we raised the number of registrations. We must supply more and more veterinarians and I think that the people from the maritimes are entitled to it. Their request is perfectly justified. Dr. Howell's study recommended the establishment of a fourth college of veterinary medicine in the maritimes.
I think of the slaughterhouses we have everywhere in Canada. I think of the slaughterhouses in Quebec. I want to tell you about some experiences in my province. Some slaughterhouses have the seal "Quebec approved" and others the seal "Canada approved". Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that all slaughterhouses in Quebec would like to have the "Canada approved" seal. Why? It is very simple. The competence of our veterinarians is certainly more recognized, more advanced than in some other sectors.
So, to conclude, I shall say that the proposals concerning the creation of that fourth college for veterinarians are still to be considered and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and that the Government of Canada are perfectly aware of this, but it should be considered, of course, in the context of the budgetary restrictions of the federal government for the 1980s.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise to speak on this motion to consider the advisability of a fourth veterinary college in Canada in the Atlantic provinces.
New Democratic Party policy states very specifically that we should and must develop the kind of education which is required to enable the agricultural industry in Canada to develop in the direction which is best for Canada. Along with that total factor of education we must include veterinary colleges. As an educator myself I find I am really prepared to give some advice about the development of any kind of college, but after listening to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), I am of the opinion that any advice I might give is probably superfluous because, quite obviously, he and his colleagues in the area who are looking toward the development of a veterinary college in the maritimes have done their homework and know quite a bit about what they are getting into.
Planning any kind of a college or any kind of educational institution must be done well, and be thorough if it is to produce an effective institution. The needs must be well defined if it is going to do what the people want it to do, or think it should do, for that particular area. In my career as an educator I have too often watched the development of institutions which were not well planned and where the objectives were not well defined. Those kinds of institutions in many cases have been funded by federal money, and sometimes it has been my belief that the money was available and the use of the money was more the objective of the development than the educational benefits which would accrue from it.
A second factor which I think should be recognized is that a college of this type must look into the kinds of areas which are not being well taken care of by the present three colleges. The example of western veterinary colleges has come up on several occasions and I think that the maritime provinces could learn a lot by discussing with the people who were responsible for the development of the regional colleges in the west the problems they experienced in getting together to form a team to develop the college in Saskatoon.
In the party to which the hon. member for Hillsborough belongs there are a couple of westerners who could contribute a considerable amount to this project. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), during his period as minister of agriculture, was very instrumental in getting the four provinces in the west together, leading to the kind of co-operation which allowed them to get a regional
July 18, 1980

college in Saskatchewan. The negotiations resulted in Edmonton getting a library and college, and Saskatoon getting the veterinary college, etc. I think it is necessary for the maritimes to follow this kind of approach if they wish to get the kind of college proposed.
The agricultural proposals which were brought forward by the hon. member for Elillsborough are very interesting. This is an area which I am sure none of the other colleges have gone into in any depth. Research in this area should be developed as much as possible. The other member in the party of the hon. member for Hillsborough is the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) who, at the time of the development of the western regional veterinary college, was a member of the board of governors of the University of Alberta. He, too, was very instrumental in getting the kind of college which the western provinces wished to have.
On behalf of my party I would like to say that what we have done is part of our policy in the west. We have put forward as strongly as possible the idea that such institutions must be developed so that rural youth can get the type of training which will make them good members of the agricultural industry. Too often decisions are made at government level based on the idea that one can farm or carry on in agriculture without the training that is necessary in other industries. This is far from true, and it is good to realize that the maritimes are attempting to put forward for their use the kind of institution which would allow them to have the kind of training which they need. Therefore the New Democratic Party supports this proposal and if the maritime provinces can get together on what kind of institution they want, and where it should be located, we would support them in every way we could.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I hear members on the other side of the House calling for the question. I am certain they would not want to prevent a member from New Brunswick from speaking on such an important project, which I support in principle. 1 want to make this clear right from the start. However, Mr. Speaker, there are certain things that I want to mention as a citizen of New Brunswick, a member from New Brunswick, and also in my special capacity as a French Canadian, of which I am proud.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made in the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan) is most worth while, and I wish to underline this, because, as stated by the previous speaker, the residents of the four eastern provinces have to beg to be registered at veterinary colleges in other Canadian provinces.
As concerns French-speaking Canadians in the Atlantic region, the Acadians, the Francophones originally from Quebec who settled in the maritimes five or six generations ago, for instance the Brayons of the Republic of Madawaska, I would like to note that not only is there no veterinary school in
Atlantic Veterinary College
the Atlantic region, but also that there is only one French school in the entire country, and as noted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy), it is located in the lovely city of Saint-Hyacinthe in Quebec. This is still quite far from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and even farther from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
What I want to point out especially in this debate is that not only French-speaking Canadians of the Atlantic region have fewer opportunities than anyone else, but they must also submit to the good will of an institution in a neighbouring province. I do not know exactly how many places have been reserved at the Saint-Hyacinthe veterinary college, Mr. Speaker, but I do know that students from New Brunswick get the remaining places if there are any, so that in the Madawaska area there are only four or five veterinarians, some with the provincial government, others with the federal government. All of them come from the province of Quebec. Not only young people from our area cannot register in a French language veterinary college but we have also to rely on graduates from Quebec to fill the minimum positions available in our area. That obviously supports the arguments of the hon. member for Hillsborough that the veterinary college be established as soon as possible.
There is an aspect of that project which is very interesting and that is aquaculture. All members of the House of Commons are aware that Acadian people, French-speaking people from New Brunswick, from Prince Edward Island and from Nova Scotia have a special interest in developing fisheries, research in fisheries, as many of them make a living from that resource. I would have hoped that in the spirit of comprise which we usually succeed in developing in Canada between the two major language communities, I would have hoped that in the consideration of the Atlantic region veterinary college they could have recognized the needs of the French-speaking people in the area. Unfortunately, it seems this has not been done. I would have hoped that in my own province of New Brunswick, whose premier is a member of the council of maritime premiers, the premier would have spoken for Francophones so that in the course of the negotiations and talks with the two other premiers, he could have ensured a minimum of Frenchspeaking participation in that institution. I am sure that my hon. friend from Hillsborough would not object to that kind of concept, that kind of participation of the two main linguistic communities in the area. I feel there is still time to consider this. At any rate, 1 rise this evening in this House to request it. I ask that this be considered, and that in co-operation with the University of Prince Edward Island in our own University of New Brunswick, they hire French-speaking and French culture professors, and researchers, in order that our French-speaking citizens in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia may use the excellent teaching facilities and research opportunities that will exist, so that we, Frenchspeaking citizens of New Brunswick, are not eternally forced to go to Quebec to get a minimum of services in our language.

July 18, 1980
Atlantic Veterinary College
We are citizens in our own right and we want to have at home, in our own province, as much as Quebeckers have in their province-our own services and our own facilities.
I would conclude on this. It is unfortunate that we do not have another hour to discuss this, because one of my colleagues, himself a veterinarian, the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder), wishes to contribute.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Elillsborough (Mr. McMillan) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House because it gives me an opportunity to say some things about my profession which 1 think the House should hear.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to mention the fact that 1 know Dr. Reg Thomson, who is doing a feasibility study on this college in the maritimes. He is a former student of mine, and also a personal friend. 1 also would like to mention that Dennis Howell, who did the original study, also was a colleague of mine and again a personal friend. I think we are very fortunate in this country to have men of this calibre who have been making these kinds of studies.
Rather than go on record as saying that I favour or do not favour the establishment of this veterinary college in the
maritimes, 1 would like to put in perspective what it really means to be a veterinarian, so that if hon. members are going to vote on the establishment of a veterinary college, they really will have some idea about what they are doing.
I suspect that few hon. members know that one of the main reasons for the shortage of veterinarians in Canada today is that four of them are now members of Parliament in this House of Commons, so there has been a loss there. I suspect it would be rather immodest of me to say that not only are we losing quantity but that we are also losing quality from the profession to the House of Commons.
One of the things which happens in professions is that they become popular for reasons of which we sometimes are not really sure, but I suspect that one of the things which makes veterinary medicine popular in this country is the book written by James Herriott, "All Creatures Great and Small". When 1 was-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
July 18, 1980


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
(See p. 3095)
Ottawa, July 17, 1980
The Right Honorable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, P.C., Q.C., M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
1 have been asked to convey to you the attached letter approved by the President of the United States regarding ANGTS assurances. The original signed letter will be forwarded as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Curtis *qcAmbassador
July 17, 1980
The Right Honorable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, P.C., Q.C., M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
Since you last wrote to me in March, the United States Government has taken a number of major steps to ensure that the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System is completed expeditiously.
Most significantly, the Department of Energy has acted to expedite the Alaskan project. The North Slope producers and Alaskan segment sponsors have signed a joint statement of intention on financing and a cooperative agreement to manage and fund continued design and engineering of the pipeline and conditioning plant. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently has certified the eastern and western legs of the system.
The United States also stands ready to take appropriate additional steps necessary for completion of the ANGTS. For example, 1 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. In this respect, they have asked that they be given confidence that they will be able to recover their cost from U.S. shippers once Canadian regulatory certification that the entire pipeline in Canada is prepared to commence service is
secured. I accept the view of your Government that such assurances are materially important to ensure the financing of the Canadian portion of the system.
Existing U.S. law and regulatory practices may cast doubt on this matter. For this reason, and because I remain steadfastly of the view that the expeditious construction of the project remains in the mutual interests of both our countries, 1 would be prepared at the appropriate time to initiate action before the U.S. Congress to remove any impediment as many exist under present law to providing that desired confidence for the Canadian portion of the line.
Our Government also appreciates the timely way in which you and Canada have taken steps to advance your side of this vital energy project. In view of this progress, I can assure you that the U.S. Government not only remains committed to the project; 1 am able to state with confidence that the U.S. Government now is satisfied that the entire Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System will be completed. The United States' energy requirements and the current unacceptable level of dependence on oil imports require that the project be completed without delay. Accordingly, I will take appropriate action directed at meeting the objective of completing the project by the end of 1985. 1 trust these recent actions on our part provide your government with the assurances you need from us to enable you to complete the procedures in Canada that are required before commencement of construction on the pre-build sections of the pipeline.
In this time of growing uncertainty over energy supplies, the U.S. must tap its substantial Alaskan gas reserves as soon as possible. The XXVI trillion cubic feet of natural gas in Prudhoe Bay represents more than ten per cent of the United States' total proven reserves of natural gas. Our governments agreed in 1977 that the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System was the most environmentally sound and mutually beneficial means for moving this resource to market. Access to gas from the Arctic regions of both countries is even more critical today as a means of reducing the dependence on imported petroleum.
Successful completion of this project will underscore once again the special character of cooperation on a broad range of issues that highlights the U.S./Canadian relationship.
I look forward to continuing to work with you to make this vital energy system a reality.
Sincerely,
(Signed: Jimmy Carter)
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1980

[Stage Direction]
Joint Statement of Intention
Atlantic Richfield Company, Exxon Corporation, and Sohio Alaska Petroleum Company (the Producers), and Alaskan Northwest Natural Gas Transportation Company, a partnership (Alaskan Northwest), enter into this Joint Statement of Intention at the request of the United States Department of Energy.
Preliminary Recitals
The Producers and Alaskan Northwest have a common interest in the efficient and cost-effective construction and operation of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System (ANGTS) including the conditioning plant at the earliest practicable date. Alaskan Northwest has developed a construction schedule for the ANGTS which would result in completion of the system in 1985.
The facilities to be constructed in the State of Alaska which are necessary to placing the ANGTS in service require immense capital investment, and private sector lenders who will be asked to advance funds for the construction of Alaskan facilities will require reasonable assurance that the facilities will be completed and placed in service, and their debt serviced.
The President's Decision and Report to Congress describes the plan for private financing of the ANGTS to be implemented by Alaskan Northwest. Alaskan Northwest has indicated that the Alaskan segment of ANGTS can be financed in the private sector, if there is meaningful participation by the Producers in the financing structure. 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, 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.
In an effort to move forward in surmounting the acknowledged difficulties presented by this project, the parties have entered into a Cooperative Agreement for continued design and engineering of the Alaskan gas pipeline and the conditioning plant which will prepare natural gas produced from the Prudhoe Bay unit of Alaska for transmission through ANGTS.
Statement of Intention
It is the mutual objective of the Producers and Alaskan Northwest that the ANGTS be completed and placed in service at the earliest practicable date, and, accordingly, the producers and Alaskan Northwest intend to use their best efforts, on a joint and cooperative basis, to expedite design, engineering and cost estimation.
The Producers, together with their advisers, will work with Alaskan Northwest in an effort to develop its financing plan in such time and manner so that necessary governmental approvals may be obtained and construction commenced and completed as scheduled by Alaskan Northwest.
It is recognized that in order for the financing plan to be acceptable to the financial community the project must be economically sound and the financing plan must accommodate reasonably desired protections for the interests of potential lenders. 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, such party or parties may develop alternatives and advise appropriate authorities of their conclusions.
This statement of intention shall be signed after approval thereof by the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Statement on June, 1980.
Original Signed June 19, 1980
Concurrent Resolution Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Importance of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System
Whereas, the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System is a critically important energy project that will tap Alaska's North Slope natural gas reserves which constitute more than ten per cent of this nation's entire proven natural gas reserves;
Whereas, the System, when complete, will supply the United States with five per cent of its annual natural gas demand, displacing over 400,000 barrels of oil thereby greatly reducing this nation's excessive dependence on foreign oil;
Whereas, the Congress has already expressed its overwhelming support for the System in approving by joint resolution the President's 1977 Decision on the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System;
Whereas, a portion of the System known as prebuild can be constructed by the end of 1981 to bring Canadian gas to this nation until the entire system is complete in 1985;
Whereas, pre-build will contribute to completion of the entire system by spreading demand for capital, labor and materials over several years, and will enable this nation to obtain Canadian natural gas to displace 200,000 barrels of foreign oil a day;
Whereas, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued decisions granting certificates for the prebuild facilities in the United States;
Whereas, the Sponsors of the Alaskan segment of the system and the North Slope natural gas producers have entered into an agreement to fund and manage jointly the design, engineering and cost estimation for the Alaskan segment and have
July 18, 1980
[Stage Direction]
made a joint Statement of Intention to work to develop a financing plan for the Alaskan segment with the object of completing construction by the end of 1985; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring) that it is the sense of Congress that the System remains an essential part of securing this nation's energy future and, as such, enjoys the highest level of Congressional support for its expeditious construction and completion by the end of 1985.
OTTAWA, K1A0A2 March 12, 1980
Mr. Jimmy Carter,
President of the United States of America.
Dear Jimmy,
Two and a half years ago, representatives of our two governments signed the agreement on principles for a northern natural gas pipeline project. The pipeline offers substantial economic advantages to both our countries and provides the United States with access to Alaskan gas. The Canadian Government remains committed to the pipeline and I know from statements you made when we last met March 3 1979 in Washington, and since, that the United States Administration remains determined that the project proceed as quickly as possible.
The lack of progress on the financing of the Alaska portion of the line is, however, a cause for concern. Failure to establish a basis to assure the financeability of the Alaska portion will lead to delays that could jeopardize the entire project.
For some time now efforts have been directed to beginning construction of the pipeline in the south, rather than in Alaska as was originally intended, the so-called "pre-build" concept. Flearings are under way before the National Energy Board in Canada and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the United States to authorize construction of these pre-built sections to carry Alberta gas to United States markets prior to the completion of the line and the arrival of Alaska gas. Both governments have expressed support for the pre-build concept. However, the Canadian Government cannot, under the Northern Pipeline Act, authorize the construction of any part of the line, including pre-build, until it is assured that the entire line will be completed.
The Foothills Company, owner of the pipeline in Canada, has expressed, to our government and to yours, grave concern about the delays and is reluctant to invest more money until the uncertainties are resolved. Failure to resolve the Alaska financing promptly could add more than a year's delay to the construction of the pre-build sections and, therefore, could conceivably lead to the indefinite postponement of the whole project.
1 know that you will continue your efforts to resolve this serious problem standing in the way of the pipeline project.
With warm regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed: Pierre E. Trudeau)
P.C. 1980-1969 17 July, 1980
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the National Energy Board Act, is pleased hereby to approve the variations in Licence No. GL-56 by:
(1)	deleting the phrase "at a place on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Emerson, in the Province of Manitoba" where it occurs therein and substituting therefor the phrase "at places on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Monchy, in the Province of Saskatchewan and near Emerson, in the Province of Manitoba".
(2)	adding the following condition:
"8. Of the total quantity of gas authorized for export during each of the periods specified in condition 2, the quantity of gas that may be exported near Monchy, Saskatchewan, shall not exceed:
(a)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1981, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1982, 2,613,700 cubic metres in any one day, or
954.000.	000 cubic metres in the period;
(b)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1982, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1985, 4,849,400 cubic metres in any one day, or
1.770.000.	000 cubic metres in any consecutive twelvemonth period ending on the 31st day of October;
(c)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1985, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1986, 4,249,200 cubic metres in any one day, or
1.550.000.	000 cubic metres in the period;
(d)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1986, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987, 2,124,600 cubic metres in any one day, or
775.000.	000 cubic metres in the period, or
(e)	for the six year period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1981, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987, 7,648,500,000 cubic metres in the period."
P.C. 1980-1968 17 July, 1980
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the National Energy Board Act, and section 8 of the National Energy Board Part VI Regulations, is pleased hereby to approve the following:
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1980
A.	Orders Nos. AO-2-GL-58 and AO-2-GL-59 issued to Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. in the form attached hereto,
B.	Order No. AO-2-GL-61 issued to Consolidated Natural Gas Limited in the form attached hereto,
C.	Licences Nos. GL-62 and GL-63 issued to Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. in the form attached hereto.

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act and the Regulations made thereunder; and IN THE MATTER OF a variation, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the National Energy Board Act, of Licence No. GL-58 issued to Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., filed with the Board under File No. 1537-P23-3.
BEFORE the Board on Monday, the 14th day of April, 1980 UPON an application by Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. (hereinafter called "the Licensee"), dated the 12th day of February, 1980, for an order varying Licence No. GL-58 so as to allow the Licensee flexibility in its deliveries of quantities authorized for export under the licence,
AND UPON a public hearing having been held, commencing on the 18th day of March, 1980, at which the Licensee and other interested parties have been heard,

[Stage Direction]
THAT Licence No. GL-58 be and the same is hereby changed, altered and varied by:
(1)	revoking condition 1 therefrom and substituting therefor the following:
"1. The term of this licence shall commence on the 1st day of November, 1981, and end on the 31st day of October, 1988."
(2)	revoking paragraphs (d) and (e) of condition 2 therefrom and substituting therefor the following paragraphs:
"(d) for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1986, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987, 6 232 100 cubic metres in any one day, or during the period, 2 073 600 000 cubic metres plus an "additional" quantity of gas, subject to condition 8, equal to the difference between the quantity of gas authorized for export under paragraph (a) during the twelve-month period ending the 31st day of October, 1982, and the quantity of gas actually exported under this licence during that twelvemonth period, up to a maximum quantity of 13,605,100 cubic metres in any one day or 4,526,800,000 cubic metres during the period.
(e) for the "extended" period commencing on the I st day of November, 1987, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1988, and subject to condition 8, 24,928,500 cubic metres in any one day, or a quantity of gas during the period equal to the difference between the quantity of gas authorized for export under paragraph (a) during the twelve-month period ending the 31st day of October, 1982, and the quantity of gas actually exported under this licence during that twelve month period, less the quantity
of such gas exported during the twelve-month period ending on the 31st day of October, 1987.
(f)	37,324,800,000 cubic metres during the term of this licence."
(3)	adding the following condition:
"8. the additional quantity of gas specified in condition 2 paragraph (d) and the gas authorized for export during the extended period, condition 2 paragraph (e), shall be subject to having the quantity authorized for export during the respective periods reduced by the Board should deliverability be insufficient to meet the Canadian requirements and authorized exports."

[Stage Direction]
Brian H. Whittle, Secretary

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act and the Regulations made thereunder; and IN THE MATTER OF a variation, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the National Energy Board Act, of Licence No. GL-59 issued to Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., filed with the Board under File No. 1537-P23-3.
BEFORE the Board on Monday, the 14th day of April, 1980
UPON applications by Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. (hereinafter called "the Licensee"), dated the 12th day of February, 1980, and the 12th day of March, 1980, for orders varying Licence No. GL-59 so as to allow the Licensee flexibility in its deliveries of quantities authorized for export under the licence and to amend condition 5 of the Licence,
AND UPON a public hearing having been held, commencing on the 18th day of March, 1980, at which the Licensee and other interested parties have been heard,

[Stage Direction]
THAT Licence No. GL-59 be and the same is hereby changed, altered and varied by:
(1)	revoking condition 1 therefrom and substituting therefor the following:
"1. The term of this licence shall commence on the 1st day of November, 1980, and end on the 31st day of October, 1988."
(2)	adding the following paragraph to condition 2:
"(f) for the "extended" period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1987, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1988, and subject to condition 8, 7,478,600 cubic metres in any one day, or a quantity of gas during the period equal to the difference between the quantity of gas authorized under paragraph (a) for export during the twelve-month period ending on the 31st day of October, 1981, and the quantity of gas actually exported under this licence during that twelve-month period."
(3)	revoking condition 5 therefrom and substituting therefor the following:
July 18. 1980
[Stage Direction]
"5. Gas exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall be delivered to the point of export near Kingsgate, in the Province of British Columbia, through the pipeline systems of Foothills Pipe Lines (Alta.) Ltd., Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited and Alberta Natural Gas Company Ltd."
(4)	adding the following condition:
"8. The extended period of the licence (see condition 2, paragraph (f)) shall be subject to having the quantity authorized for export during the period reduced by the Board should deliverability be insufficient to meet the Canadian requirements and authorized exports." NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Brian H. Whittle Secretary

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF the National Energy Board Act and the Regulations made thereunder; and IN THE MATTER OF a variation, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the National Energy Board Act, of Licence No. GL-61 issued to Consolidated Natural Gas Limited, filed with the Board under File No. 1537-C29-1.
BEFORE the Board on Monday, the 14th day of April, 1980
UPON an application by Consolidated Natural Gas Ltd. (hereinafter called "the Licensee"), dated the 26th day of February, 1980, to amend Licence No. GL-61 by adding Monchy, Saskatchewan as an additional export point,
AND UPON a public hearing having been held, commencing on the 18th day of March, 1980, at which the Licensee and other interested parties have been heard,

[Stage Direction]
THAT Licence No. GL-61 be and the same is hereby changed, altered and varied by:
(1)	deleting the phrase "at a place on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Emerson, in the Province of Manitoba" where it occurs therein and substituting therefor the phrase "at places on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Monchy, in the Province of Saskatchewan and near Emerson, in the Province of Manitoba".
(2)	adding the following condition:
"8. Of the total quantity of gas authorized for export during each of the periods specified in condition 2, the quantity of gas that may be exported near Monchy, Saskatchewan, shall not exceed:
(a)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1981, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1982, 1,742,500 cubic metres in any one day, or 636,000,000 cubic metres in the period;
(b)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1982, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1985, 3,232,900 cubic metres in any one day, or 1,180,000,000 cubic metres in any consecutive twelve-month period ending on the 31st day of October;
(c)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1985, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1986, 2,832,800 cubic metres in any one day, or 1,034,000,000 cubic metres in the period;
(d)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1986, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987,
1,416,400	cubic metres in any one day, or 517,000,000 cubic metres in the period, or
(e)	for the six year period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1981, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987, 5,099,000,000 cubic metres in the period."

[Stage Direction]
Brian H. Whittle Secretary

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. (hereinafter called "the Licensee") pursuant to the provisions of the National Energy Board Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a licence under Part VI thereof for the exportation of gas, under File No. 1537-P23-4.
BEFORE the Board on Monday, the 14th day of April, 1980.
WHEREAS an application dated the 12th day of February, 1980, has been made by the Licensee to the National Energy Board under Part VI of the Act for a licence for the exportation of gas at a place on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Kingsgate in the Province of Saskatchewan,
AND WHEREAS a public hearing has been held, commencing on the 18th day of March, 1980, at which the Licensee and other interested parties have been heard,
AND WHEREAS the Board has satisfied itself that the quantity of gas to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada,
AND WHEREAS the Board has satisfied itself that the price to be charged by the Licensee for gas to be exported by it is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest,
NOW THEREFORE the National Energy Board, pursuant to section 82 of the Act, hereby issues this licence to PanAlberta Gas Ltd. for the exportation of gas at a place on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Monchy in the Province of Saskatchewan.
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1980
This licence is subject to the following terms and conditions:
1.	The term of this licence shall commence on the 1st day of November, 1984, and end on the 31st day of October, 1987.
2.	The quantity of gas that may be exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall not exceed:
(a)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1984 and ending on the 31st day of October, 1985, 6,232,100 cubic metres in any one day, or 2,073,600,000 cubic metres in the period;
(b)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1985, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1986, 12,464,000 cubic metres in any one day, or 4,147,200,000 cubic metres in the period;
(c)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1986, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987, 5,091,300 cubic metres in any one day, or 1,694,000,000 cubic metres in the period, or
(d)	7,914,800,000 cubic metres during the term of this licence.
3.	As a tolerance, the amount the Licensee may export under this licence may, in any 24-hour period, exceed the daily limitation imposed in condition 2 by two per cent of such amount.
4.	(1) The price to be received for gas exported in each month comprised in the term of this licence, including all transmission costs of moving gas to the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America, shall be not greater than and not less than the Canadian dollar equivalent for each such month of $4.17 in United States currency per gigajoule of gross heating value.
(2) The Canadian dollar equivalent for each month comprised in the term of this licence shall be an amount in Canadian dollars equal to the price in United States dollars specified in subcondition (1), converted to Canadian dollars at the rate of exchange for each such month, which rate of exchange shall be the average of the noon spot exchange rates for the United States dollar in terms of Canadian dollars in each month, as published by the Bank of Canada.
5.	Gas exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall be delivered to the point of export near Monchy, in the Province of Saskatchewan, through the pipeline systems of Foothills Pipe Lines (Alta.) Ltd. and Foothills Pipe Lines (Sask.) Ltd.
6.	The quantity, relative density and gross heating value of all gas exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall be measured by the Licensee in a manner approved by the Board.
7.	The Licensee shall, within 15 days of the end of each month comprised in the term of this licence, file with the Board a report setting forth the daily quantities, relative
density and gross heating value of the gas exported hereunder.

[Stage Direction]
Brian H. Whittle, Secretary.

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF an application by Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd. (hereinafter called "the Licensee") pursuant to the provisions of the National Energy Board Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for a licence under Part VI thereof for the exportation of gas, under File No. 1537-P23-4.
BEFORE the Board on Monday, the 14th day of April, 1980.
WHEREAS an application dated the 12th day of February, 1980, has been made by the Licensee to the National Energy Board under Part VI of the Act for a licence for the exportation of gas at a place on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Kingsgate in the Province of British Columbia,
AND WHEREAS a public hearing has been held, commencing on the 18th day of March, 1980, at which the Licensee and other interested parties have been heard,
AND WHEREAS the Board has satisfied itself that the quantity of gas to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada,
AND WHEREAS the Board has satisfied itself that the price to be charged by the Licensee for gas to be exported by it is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest,
NOW THEREFORE the National Energy Board, pursuant to section 82 of the Act, hereby issues this licence to PanAlberta Gas Ltd. for the exportation of gas at a place on the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America near Kingsgate in the Province of British Columbia.
This licence is subject to the following terms and conditions:
1.	The term of this licence shall commence on the 1st day of November, 1980, and end on the 31st day of October, 1987.
2.	The quantity of gas that may be exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall not exceed:
(a)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1980 and ending on the 31st day of October, 1983, 931,500 cubic metres in any one day, or 340,000,000 cubic metres in any consecutive twelve month period ending on the 31st day of October; the total quantity of gas
July 18, 1980
[Stage Direction]
exported under this Licence during this period shall be taken from and reduce by the same amount the quantity of gas authorized to be exported during the balance of the term of this licence;
(b)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1983, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1984, 1,869,700 cubic metres in any one day or 622,100,000 cubic metres in the period;
(c)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1984, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1985,
3.739.400	cubic metres in any one day, or 1,244,200,000 cubic metres in the period;
(d)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1985, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1986, 2,528,300 cubic metres in any one day, or 841,200,000 cubic metres in the period, plus an additional quantity of gas subject to condition 3 of 3,080,700 cubic metres in any one day, or 1,025,000,000 cubic metres in the period;
(e)	for the period commencing on the 1st day of November, 1986, and ending on the 31st day of October, 1987,
5.786.400	cubic metres in any one day, or 1,925,300,000 cubic metres in the period, plus an additional quantity of gas subject to condition 3 of 1,692,000 cubic metres in any one day, or 563,000,000 cubic metres in the period;
(f)	6,220,800,000 cubic metres during the term of this licence.
3.	The additional quantities of gas authorized for export during the periods specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) of condition 2 shall be subject to having the quantities authorized for export reduced by the Board should deliverability be insufficient to meet the Canadian requirements and authorized exports.
4.	As a tolerance, the amount the Licensee may export under this licence may, in any 24-hour period, exceed the daily limitation imposed in condition 2 by two per cent of such amount.
5.	(1) The price to be received for gas exported in each month comprised in the term of this licence, including all transmission costs of moving gas to the international boundary line between Canada and the United States of America, shall be not greater than and not less than the Canadian dollar equivalent for each such month of $4.17 in United States currency per gigajoule of gross heating value.
(2) The Canadian dollar equivalent for each month comprised in the term of this licence shall be an amount in Canadian dollars equal to the price in United States dollars specified in subcondition (1), converted to Canadian dollars at the rate of exchange for each such month, which rate of exchange shall be the average of the noon spot exchange rates for the United States dollar in terms of Canadian dollars in each month, as published by the Bank of Canada.
6.	Gas exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall be delivered to the point of export near Kingsgate, in the Province of British Columbia,
through the pipeline systems of Foothills Pipe Lines (Alta.) Ltd., Foothills Pipe Lines (South B.C.) Ltd., Alberta Gas Trunk Line Company Limited and Alberta Natural Gas Company Ltd.
7.	The quantity, relative density and gross heating value of all gas exported under the authority of and in accordance with this licence shall be measured by the Licensee in a manner approved by the Board.
8.	The Licensee shall, within 15 days of the end of each month comprised in the term of this licence, file with the Board a report setting forth the daily quantities, relative density and gross heating value of the gas exported hereunder.

[Stage Direction]
Brian H. Whittle, Secretary.
P.C. 1980-1967 17 July, 1980
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency, pursuant to subsection 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act, is pleased hereby to approve the annexed Order No. NPO-2-80 made by the National Energy Board on the 2nd day of April, 1980.

[Stage Direction]
IN THE MATTER OF the Northern Pipeline Act and the Regulations made thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF amending condition 12 of Schedule III, pursuant to subsection 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act.
BEFORE the Board on Wednesday, the 2nd day of April 1980.
WHEREAS the Board may amend any condition set out in Schedule III to the Northern Pipeline Act, pursuant to subsection 20(4) of the Act, subject to such amendment being effective with the approval of the Governor in Council;
AND WHEREAS condition 12 of Schedule 111 of the Northern Pipeline Act does not provide for the commencement of construction of a portion of the pipeline where the financing of the whole has not been obtained;
AND WHEREAS the Board considers that the provisions of condition 12 of Schedule 111 do not encompass the circumstances related to the pre-building of the southern sections of the pipeline and without in any way changing or altering the requirements under paragraph 4 of the Agreement set out in Schedule I of the Northern Pipeline Act.
[Stage Direction]
July 18, 1980
NOW THEREFORE the National Energy Board, pursuant to subsection 20(4) of the Northern Pipeline Act, hereby amend Schedule III of the Northern Pipeline Act in accordance with the schedule attached hereto.
DATED at the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, this 2nd day of April, 1980.

[Stage Direction]
Brian H. Whittle Secretary

[Stage Direction]
Condition 12 of Schedule III to the Northern Pipeline Act is rescinded and the following substituted therefore:
"'12. (1) The company shall, before the commencement of construction of the pipeline,
(a)	file with the Minister and the Board evidence that the company has been incorporated in Canada and is not a non-eligible person within the meaning of the Foreign Investment Review Act as that expression was defined in that Act on April 13, 1978;
(b)	establish to the satisfaction of the Minister and the Board that financing has been obtained for that portion of the pipeline, hereinafter referred to as the pre-build sections, that will be used for the transmission of Canadian natural gas to the United States prior to the completion of the pipeline;
(c)	establish to the satisfaction of the Minister and the Board that financing of that portion of the pipeline other than the pre-build sections, hereinafter referred to as the northern section, can be obtained to enable the pipeline to be completed before the end of 1985 and that protection can be provided against risk of non-completion of the pipeline and interruption of construction on a basis acceptable to the Minister and the Board; and
(d)	file with the Minister and the Board documents relating to the financing obtained for the pre-build sections and such documents shall include all relevant contracts and instruments.
(2) The company shall, before commencing construction of that portion of the pipeline other than the pre-build sections,
(a)	establish to the satisfaction of the Minister and the Board that financing has been obtained for the northern section and such financing includes protection against risk of noncompletion of the pipeline and interruption of construction on a basis acceptable to the Minister and the Board;
(b)	file with the Minister and the Board all documents relating to the financing of the pipeline not already filed pursuant to 12(l)(d); and
(c)	provide evidence to the Minister and the Board that debt instruments issued in connection with the financing of the pipeline do not contain a provision requiring the consent of the holders of those debt instruments to the financing of the construction of the Dempster Line referred to in the Agreement or any other provision, apart from normal trust indenture provisions generally applicable in the pipeline industry, that would prohibit, limit or inhibit the financing of the construction of the Dempster Line."

[Stage Direction]
This note is not part of Condition 12 but is intended for information purposes only
The amendment to Condition 12 of Schedule ill to the Northern Pipeline Act requires that Foothills Pipe Lines (Yukon) Ltd. establish to the satisfaction of the Minister responsible for the Northern Pipeline Agency and the National Energy Board that financing has been obtained for "pre-build" facilities and can be obtained for the remainder of the pipeline in Canada so as to complete it by 1985.

[DOT][DOT] ~r". ' .
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 21, 1980