1967-10-23

Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-169, respecting Canadian dollars and coins (effigy of the sovereign).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is twofold; first, to give the members of the House of Commons and, through them, the people of Canada an opportunity to show in a simple, practical way their high regard and affection for the person of the Queen of Canada; and second, to act as a constant reminder of the role of the sovereign, a role which throughout Canadian history has served in large measure to protect the rights, the freedoms and the just aspirations of both founding nations and of all minority groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Andras: 1.	What is the performance of the branch of the Industrial Development Bank at Port Arthur-Fort William, Ontario, relative to the mean average performance of all I.D.B. branches, in terms of (a) number of loan applications received (b) number of loans approved (c) total dollar amount of loans made (d) average dollar amount per loan (e) loan repayment deliquency percentage?
2.	Are all requests for I.D.B. financial assistance to the Port Arthur-Fort William branch formally recorded as applications, or are some rejected verbally before reaching that stage and, if the latter, approximately what percentage of such requests are rejected without recorded investigation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	Data of the kind requested are prepared only for internal management purposes and it is not regarded as desirable that such statistics be made public on a branch basis.
2.	It is the policy of the Industrial Development Bank to issue an application form promptly when it appears that a proposal may meet the criteria set forth in section 15(1) of the Act. Completed application forms are the subject of investigation.
Question No. 384


Mr. Andras:: What Is the average lapse of time between formal application and approval or rejection of loans by the Port Arthur-Fort William branch of the Industrial Development Bank compared to the average for all I.D.B. branches?


Mitchell William Sharp: Data of the kind requested are prepared only for internal management purposes and it is not regarded as desirable that such statistics be made public on a branch basis.


SUCCESSION DUTY PAYMENTS ON ANNUITIES BY WIDOWS OF JUDGES
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has an arrangement been made whereby the estate tax or succession duties attributable to the annuity payable to the widow of a judge or retired judge may be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund subject to reimbursement by instalment deductions from the annuity?
2.	If so, what precisely is the nature of the arrangement?
3.	Is there any similar arrangement available to the widows of other public servants?
4.	If so, to the widows of what classes of public servants?
5.	If not, what is the reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	Yes.
2.	In accordance with the Judges Act (widows' annuities) regulations, passed by order in council P.C. 1967-1261 dated 22nd June 1967; published as SOR/67-326 on pages 1045-1046 of the Canada Gazette part II dated July 12, 1967.
3.	Yes.
4.	Widows of persons who where contributors under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
5.	Not applicable.

Ociober 23, 1967
Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS UNDER PUBLIC SERVICE ACT
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Since the Public Service Staff Relations Act was proclaimed, have any crown corporations, boards or agencies been excluded from the operations of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and brought under the Public Service Staff Relations Act?
2.	If so, what ones?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: 1. Yes.
2.	The Canadian livestock feed board.


SALARIES OF SENIOR PUBLIC SERVANTS
Mr. Allard: As of July 1, 1967, what is the annual salary of the following senior public servants: deputy minister, forestry; deputy minister, defence production; government film commissioner, National Film Board; president, St. Lawrence Seaway authority; under secretary of state; dominion statistician; deputy minister, fisheries; associate deputy minister of justice; president, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?


Edgar John Benson: As of July 1, 1967, the annual salary of the following public officials was as follows:
Deputy minister of forestry, $26,500; Deputy minister of defence production, $26,500; Government film commissioner, N.F.B., $24,840; President, St. Lawrence Seaway authority, $26,500; Under secretary of state, $26,500; Dominion statistician, $26,500; Deputy minister of fisheries, $26,500; Associate deputy ministers of justice, $26,500; President, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, $21,600.


DRUG PURCHASES FROM SYNTEX CO. LTD.
Mr. Schreyer: In each of the last three years, has the government of Canada purchased any drugs or other chemical products from Syntex Company Limited and, if so, for what amount were such purchases made?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: In so far as the Department of Defence Production is concerned:
Year	Estimated expenditure
1964	$ 1,250
1965	6,250
1966	48,064
1967	to date	57,690
[Mr. Sharp.)
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1965, $1,911; 1966, $3,847; 1967, $1,857.
In so far as the Department of Veterans Affairs is concerned: Fiscal year 1964-65, $7,884.46; Fiscal year 1965-66,	$16,492.03;
Fiscal year 1966-67, 33,745.56.


SALE OF CENTENNIAL COIN SETS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-: Kingsway):
1.	Did the Royal Canadian Mint or any other agency of government sell or otherwise make available, in 1967, centennial coins in denominations of $1, 50 cents, 25 cents, 10 cents, and 1 cent, to a coin packaging firm or firms in the United States?
2.	If so, what is the name and address of each such firm and the value of such coins sold or made available which each firm received?
3.	What percentage of those sold to the United States was returned to Canada in plastic packages for resale?
4.	Did the government of Canada authorize the resale in Canada of these coin sets containing $1.91 in face value at a retail price of $5.95?
5.	Did the government take steps to provide other outlets where Canadians could buy these centennial coin sets?
6.	If so (a) what were they (b) at what price were the sets sold?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.
5 and 6. Centennial coin sets as follows were available upon application to the Royal Canadian Mint: (a) Gold presentation coin set-containing $20 gold coin and one each of all the subsidiary coins from one cent to one dollar, enclosed in a special leather presentation case. Orders were accepted from May, 1966 to September 30, 1967, and the price of each set was $40. (b) Silver medallion presentation coin set-containing a sterling silver centennial medallion and one each of all the subsidiary coins from one cent to one dollar, enclosed in a standard leather case. Orders were accepted from July 1966 to September 30, 1967, and the price of each set was $12. (c) Uncirculated coin set (enclosed in pliofilm) containing one each of all the subsidiary coins from one cent to one dollar. Orders were accepted from January 1, 1967 to September 30, 1967, and the price of each set was $4.
October 23, 1967


POST OFFICES CLOSED
Mr. Scott (Victoria (Ont.) ): How many post offices have been closed, by province, since September 1965?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Revenue Sub
Province	post offices post offices
Newfoundland	20	2
Prince Edward Island	6	
Nova Scotia	55	3
New Brunswick	37	
Quebec	97	30Ontario	70	31Manitoba	26	1Saskatchewan	54	2Alberta	39	7British Columbia	29	12North West Territories	1	Yukon	1	Total	435	88


PURCHASE BY C.B.C. OF FILM ON &quot;DESERTER&quot; PROBLEM
Mr. Hamilton: For what reason did the C.B.C. decide not to proceed with the purchase of Canadian telecast rights to Mr. Jean Zoller's films dealing with the so-called "deserter" problem?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the C.B.C. that film footage by Mr. Jean Zoller was screened for possible use in an early evening C.B.C. television program. This footage as a whole was not particularly good by C.B.C. standards and was rather expensive in relation to its possible use by the C.B.C.


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS OF IMMIGRANTS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Are immigrants permitted to enter this country without a basic knowledge of English or French?
2.	If so, are they encouraged to settle in communities where there are sizeable numbers of people speaking their native language until they learn to adjust?
3.	In the case of the Rasanen family which settled in Nova Scotia, did either of the parents have a working knowledge of English or French?
4.	Was the family advised by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to locate in areas of Canada where there were people speaking the language of Finland?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1.
Questions
Yes. It has never been Canadian policy to confine immigration to the English and French languages, though knowledge of one or both is a consideration in selection.
2.	Not necessarily. Immigrants without English or French have a strong tendency to go initially to areas where their native language is known, and departmental encouragement is not normally required for this purpose. The department tries to advise people where, on the balance of all considerations, they are likely to settle most easily.
3.	No.
4.	No.


IMPLEMENTATION OF GLASSCO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many of the 151 recommendations of the royal commission on government organization described in the Auditor General's report of 1966 as "not yet disposed of" have been implemented?
2.	What are the government's intentions with reference to the recommendations not yet implemented?


Edgar John Benson: 1. Fifty seven recommendations of the royal commission on government organization have been approved by the government since the Auditor General's report of 1966.
2. The government is studying a further list and it is expected that more recommendations will be given consideration shortly. It is anticipated that the public accounts committee will be consulted with regard to the balance of these.


MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
Mr. Orlilcow: Is the advisory committee which is being set up under Bill C-150, "an act to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council" to have a secretariat staff and budget and, if so, how many people is it proposed to employ in such a secretariat, and what is the proposed budget for the first year?


John Carr Munro: The proposed Canada manpower and immigration council and its advisory boards will have a secretariat staff and budget. The same staff will also provide secretariat services for federal-provincial and interdepartmental meetings initiated by the department. The proposed staff is five persons. The proposed total budget is $120,000.
October 23, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry TASK FORCE ON LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	What progress has been made by the task force on labour relations?
2.	Will it submit an interim report?
3.	If so, when is such interim report anticipated?
4.	When is it anticipated that the task force will conclude its work?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. The task force has well under way the necessary research program and has now received a number of preliminary reports or working papers embodying the results of this research.
2 and 3. The government expects to receive an interim report from the task force before the end of the year.
4. It is expected that the work of the task force will be completed in 1968.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Davis: With regard to federal-provincial cost-sharing programs (a) how many are now in effect (b) what was the federal contribution, in total, and by program, for the fiscal year 1965-66 (c) what was the federal contribution, in total, and by program, in each province, for the fiscal year 1965-66?
Return tabled.


POLLUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the C.B.C. cancelled its normal program and substituted a program startling and frightening in its revelations, which dealt with the dangers of air pollution. May I ask the Prime Minister to indicate what action the government will take during the present session to deal with the problem which is becoming increasingly urgent?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to look into the question to see whether it will be desirable to make an early statement on the whole subject. As my hon. friend knows, the subject has been referred to during the present session. I shall look into the possibilities of making a more comprehensive statement.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his statement will the Prime Min-

ister also say what the government intends to do to deal with the increasingly dangerous effects of air, water, chemical and insecticide pollution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course, but for any such statement to be effective it will have to deal with the provincial aspect of the matter as well the federal aspect.


Michael Starr: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the dangers inherent in this problem, is the Prime Minister willing to take the lead and co-operate with the provinces on these matters.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since at the last two meetings between the legislators of the United States and Canada the subject of pollution was thoroughly discussed, have recommendations which the legislators of the two countries made been brought to the attention of the government or to the attention of the responsible minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to check into that question, Mr. Speaker. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, the subject matter to which my hon. friend has referred has been and is being considered by the International Joint Commission.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the discussions between the legislators of both countries went beyond the terms of reference of the International Joint Commission, would the Prime Minister look into the entire question and see which of the recommendations might be implemented?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that it is a year since the conference on pollution was held in Montreal under the council of resource ministers and since no mention was made of this in the program referred to in earlier questions, can the minister tell us when he can make a definite statement to the house concerning the proposals he intends to put before parliament arising out of the guide lines developed at that conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the question asked by the hon. member is closely related to one asked earlier this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition.
October 23, 1967


POSSIBLE HEALTH HAZARD FROM FERTILIZER PLANT AT DUNNVILLE, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether any federal officials are investigating the report of possible health hazards to man and livestock from polluted air caused by a chemical fertilizer plant in the Dunnville area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this question might be considered when the government's general statement is made on the question of pollution.


NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has he any information to give the house about the discussions which are going on with Dosco and with Hawker Siddeley? Has the government reached a decision about paying part of the cost of keeping the steel plant at Sydney in operation until a more permanent solution is found? If so, what contribution to this end is the federal government prepared to make?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have nothing further to report on the discussions which have taken place. I hope that later this week it will be possible for us to discuss this matter with representatives of the provincial government. With reference to the second part of the question, that particular matter is under consideration.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister tell the house whether the government has information to the effect that Dosco has signed an agreement with a Dutch firm to supply the ingots for their Contrecoeur operation, and is this why the operation at Sydney is being closed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no information which would support the statement that an agreement has been signed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister know
whether such an agreement is in the process of negotiation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would have to get
more information before I could answer that question categorically.

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


MIDDLE EAST-ARMS SHIPMENTS TO ARAB NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since all reports indicate that the missiles which sank the Israeli destroyer Elath were of the latest Russian design and were fired from a Russian warship recently supplied to the United Arab Republic, can the minister tell us what, if anything, the government is doing in an effort to prevent or dissuade the Soviet union from providing massive shipments of the latest weapons to the Arab states?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I have already indicated the position of the Canadian government in answer to questions by the hon. member on this subject. We ourselves are not supplying arms to this particular area, and we have joined with others who have asked that there be a limitation on the shipment of arms.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister has made this reply before. I should like to know whether Canada is doing anything more active in an attempt to mobilize support from other countries to persuade the Soviet union not to supply further arms.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know of any way by which the Canadian government could compel another country to limit its exports of arms to sensitive theatres, but the hon. member may be assured that this is a matter whose seriousness I fully appreciate.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: In
view of the reports appearing in Saturday's press indicating, on the basis of figures supplied by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, that unemployment in this country has increased by 6.8 per cent during the past 12 months, does the government intend to introduce measures in this session of parliament to reverse this trend?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a great many measures will be introduced this month and in the months ahead to deal with this and other matters.
October 23, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Can the Prime Minister give us some indication oi the nature of these measures? This is a very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON OVERDUE BONUS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and according to recent reports for internal affairs as well. Has the minister received a telegram from Prime Minister Bennett of British Columbia accusing the federal government of owing the government of British Columbia $12 million since July 1 in respect of the early completion of the Duncan dam, and 6J per cent interest since that date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have received a telegram from Premier Bennett.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have also been in touch with a spokesman for that administration. The Canadian government, as I said last week, takes the view that the principal payment by the United States must be made as soon as possible, and we share the view that under the terms of the treaty there are interest charges which should be levied and accepted by the authority which has not yet made the principal payment, namely, the United States.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the report of the study made by Professor Lith-wick of Carleton University, which appeared in Saturday's press, showing that Canada's industrial productivity is 36 per cent below that of the United States, our greatest competitor, does the government intend to introduce measures in this session of parliament to correct this imbalance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a very similar question was

asked during our last sitting day, and I gave the only answer I am in a position to give at this time.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister for housing; in his absence perhaps my question may be taken as notice. In view of the fact that the government of British Columbia has now approved the 12 long delayed public housing projects for the city of Vancouver, could the minister say when they will be approved by the federal government?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take that question as notice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures indicate an increase in the sale of cigarettes in spite of information available through newspapers and medical journals pointing out the hazard of this habit. In view of the fact that processes have been developed which will remove a great percentage of the harmful ingredients in cigarettes, would the minister refer the whole question to a committee of this house for a thorough study?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which I will consider very carefully.


Michael Starr: As a supplementary question, has the minister had time to consider making a statement on this very important subject, something he indicated last week that he would consider doing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. The whole question of the use of cigarettes has been dealt with through an educational campaign carried on by the department. We are aware of the dangers that are associated with
October 23, 1967	COMMONS
the habit, and we are doing everything possible to educate and advise the Canadian people on the dangers of this habit. To some extent our educational program is having an effect. Whether further steps through the enactment of legislation would be effective is a matter presently under consideration.



INQUIRY AS TO MAINTENANCE OF GRANTS FOR HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the light of the Minister of Finance's stated retrenchment on government expenses, and in the light of similar retrenchment by provincial governments in the field of university financing, would the minister kindly advise the house whether there is exempted from that program of retrenchment the $500 million that was promised as-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -capital assistance for the construction of hospitals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INQUIRY AS TO ABSENCE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister may be a little unusual, but a number of us who have a great many questions in mind would like to know from the Prime Minister what has happened to the Minister of Labour, the minister responsible for reporting to the house on housing. We would like to know why he is not here, and will he return to the house fairly soon?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer that question. The minister was advised by his doctor to take two weeks' holiday because of his physical condition. That is the only reason he is not in the house. He was hoping to return today or tomorrow.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: The
last minister advised by his doctor to stay away was escorting the Shah of Iran around.
DEBATES	3367
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think that is a very generous observation.


Donald MacInnis: I think it is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I only hope my hon. friend
continues to enjoy good health.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps I may deal with a question raised last Friday in the house about the extension of the term of office of the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. I would like to inform the house that at my request Hon. George R. Pearkes, who has served Canada for so many years with honour and distinction, has agreed to remain in office as Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia for the remainder of centennial year and until the spring. General Pearkes had hoped to retire at the end of October and I am most grateful to him for his willingness to serve as the Queen's representative in his province for this longer period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagof):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give me an answer to the question I posed to him last week with regard to the possibility of the federal government giving financial assistance to the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec for the construction of an extension to metro in Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Expo?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: No; metro.


Michael Starr: The underground.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I have not been able to deal with that question. I will try to do so tomorrow.
3368	COMMONS DEBATES	October 23, 1967
Policy Statement on National Resources



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Now that the
government has placed before parliament its bill regarding capital punishment, will the government shortly be presenting its legislation regarding birth control and divorce?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not able to establish a relationship between the two, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It is asked in an endeavour to flush out birds of all feathers. I should like to ask the minister whether the toilet seat used in the morality play on parliament hill on Saturday, which apparently was endorsed by the leader of the New Democratic party, was government issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: that the house go into committee of supply.



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT ON NATIONAL RESOURCES

Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member is not moving his motion now but simply giving notice of his intention to move the motion at the end of his speech.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker; and to give the various parties an opportunity to see what the motion is.
I mentioned in my opening remarks that the government has tended within the last four years to go from crisis to crisis, and I intend to develop at some length the crisis we are talking about now because there is a clear cut case for a decision here which cannot be left until tomorrow or the next day. This decision must be made immediately.
In respect of some of the policy statements listed in this motion there is an urgency for something to be done as soon as possible. I intend to demonstrate that as a result of studies already completed or in the process of being completed we have enough information to make these policy statements possible. I intend to point out that because of the delay
October 23, 1367

in making these policy statements we are perhaps unwittingly, though in some cases, I am tempted to say knowingly and deliberately, leaving our country in danger of losing valuable resources, and setting precedents that we will not be able to easily change.
For instance, to show the confusion which exists I should like to read from a newspaper clipping I hold in my hand dated October 18 of last week. This is from the Globe and Mail and the headline is "Marchand asks unity to fight U.S. domination." Under a Canadian Press heading the clipping then continues in part as follows:
The power of the U.S. economy weighs on English and French speaking Canadians alike and should be faced by a united Canadian front, manpower minister Jean Marchand said yesterday.
The article continues later as follows:
"But we don't have the $10 billion that could give us, even if we had the talent for it, an equal economy and technology of our own.
What we must do is see things as they are-not tear one another apart but see if we can find a way together. Maybe together we have a chance to do something about it."
Quebec is not alone in the fear of overwhelming U.S. economic domination. He said "The Anglo Canadians have the same problem we do."
I read that statement into the record to indicate the theme of what I am going to say today. We tried last week when this crisis came to a head to find out from the minister responsible what guidance the minister and the government were going to give the National Energy Board now engaged in this confrontation with the federal power commission in Washington. Last October 19 I asked this question in the house:
-my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the direct challenge by the United States federal power commission to the principals of the National Energy Board Act and the recommendation of the Borden royal commission that we should not subsidize United States consumers of gas at the expense of Canadians, will the government make a statement of policy before the National Energy Board opens hearings next Thursday on the new application of Westcoast Transmission Company for the export of additional natural gas to the United States?
The minister who is supposed to be on top of things in order to help the Canadian people defend their interests made this reply:
Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong but I think the Westcoast case is already before the National Energy Board. However, may X take notice of the question and answer it more properly tomorrow.
The next day passed but there was no statement. Let me go on to say that this warning of what the government is leading us into is not new. If the records of this
Policy Statement on National Resources house over the last four years were searched I am sure you would find that two or three times a year I have asked the government what it was doing about giving some clear direction vis-a-vis the United States and Canada about handling the energy resouces of this continent. I have asked this over and over again but no answer has been given, except that the government will make a statement at some time in the future or it does not think it is ready to make a statement yet, but in every case there has been evasion with no action.
Last year, for example, on June 15, this statement appeared in the Ottawa Citizen under the heading "Canada's Resources- Hamilton Seeks Clear Policy To Avoid Trouble". Let me read part of that article in the local newspaper which should be a guide to all members of the government opposite. It states:
Trouble will develop between the National Energy Board of Canada and the U.S. federal power commission unless the government sets out a clear policy on resource development.
Alvin Hamilton, former Conservative agriculture minister, warned Wednesday in the commons.
The MP for Qu'Appelle, Sask., a Conservative leadership candidate and a staunch defender of Canadian autonomy, also called for a policy statement on a national hydro-electric transmission grid.
He said such a grid is "vital to the whole concept of sovereignty and using our energy as a basic part of strengthening our bargaining power in the field of resource use on the continent."
Mr. Hamilton threw a barrage of questions at Energy Minister Pepin as the minister introduced the $142,000,000 spending estimates for the energy, mines and resources department for the 1967-68 fiscal year.
He did not specify in what area he felt trouble might arise between the energy board and power commission but said he had been waiting four years for the government to outline its policy on oil and gas transmission, oil and gas regulations in the north and on the continental shelf, the relationship between atomic electric power and hydro resources and a national water policy which "we desperately need."
I will not read the whole statement. Every time the house rules have given me an opportunity I have tried to let the government know that we expect it to take the lead in defending Canadian interests because of the fact that the two great nations on this continent are struggling for the control and use of the tremendous resources of this country Canada. This struggle can be documented in many ways. There are at least three reports available to the United States government about the necessity of their industrialists and their entrepreneurs gaining access to these resources in Mexico, in Canada and all over
Ociober 23, 1967

Policy Statement on National Resources the world. With their industrialists warning their legislators and their administrators of what must be done, surely it is in our interests here in Canada to likewise have some clearcut knowledge of where we are going.
What I have said in a very general way about this question of the need for resource policies for Canada applies in particular to things like the natural gas fields, which I will deal with in a few minutes, and national oil resources. We stated a national oil policy in the house in 1961. We set targets each year until the end of 1963. The industry met those targets on the clearcut principles we established at that time, namely that our producers of oil had the right to efficiency of production equivalent to those of the United States. We were setting out to achieve production to meet not only our demands in Canada but also our exports to the United States, equal to our imports into the Montreal market.
That clearcut statement of government policy achieved almost to a barrel the results that we asked for without any form of harm to the producers in the United States. All this did was give fair play to our producers in Canada and the chance to get equality of opportunity and participation in the development of resources on this continent. We are carrying a load under our national oil policy in respect of importation of oil from Venezuela, as we should as part of the community of world nations with some responsibility to others. We expect the United States to carry part of that load as well at the receiving end in their country in respect of a number of barrels each year equivalent to our importation into Montreal.
New targets have not been set, and I say it is in the interests not only of the producers of oil but of the whole country, and the economy of our nation demands it, that some solution be stated. This can be stated unilaterally. There is no need to do anything more than inform the United States government of what we are doing. These are our resources. That government moves in the interests of their producers and naturally they expect our government to move in the interests of our producers.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
At first when this government took over, in 1963-64, there was evidence that it believed along these lines and accepted the position our government had taken in the years from 1957 to 1962. But in the last three years, under pressure from the United States, there has been a complete retreat from these positions. That is why we go from crisis to crisis.

The crisis we are now in is a clearcut challenge, as I shall demonstrate, to not only the National Energy Board but to the government and the people of Canada by the federal power commission.
I could outline the need for a policy on all these fronts, but do not take my word alone for it. In April, 1966 one of the few Canadians who has been able to survive in the development of oil and gas in our country, Mr. R. A. Brown Jr., president of Home Oil Company urged-and I quote from the Globe and Mail of April 26, 1966-that the federal government take another, hard look at our national oil policy. He said he questioned very seriously whether in its present form it was adequate to fill the needs of the Canadian oil industry or the Canadian economy. I could read the whole article.
Other submissions have come to the government and members of the opposition from various sectors of the industry. The Monetary Times in September, 1966 repeated this demand. It said we needed a new oil policy in this country. Figures were given to substantiate this statement. But the criteria we laid down in 1961 are not being followed. There is much evidence, going back for years, of the need for a simple statement in this respect. The government does not need to study this question any more because the facts are there in the royal commission report of 1957 and 1958 and in the report of the Borden royal commission.
The minister responsible in those early days, now the Minister of Finance, accepted that report and in a speech praised it as one of the great monuments of the Conservative government. That government laid down the conditions, directions and guide lines, and the Minister of Finance said his government would follow them. Where has all that resolution gone? Just as we have lacked a clearcut national policy in respect of oil, so do we lack such a policy in respect of water, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and even on that vital subject of securities.
Over and over again in the house and in meetings between the legislators of the United States and Canada we have asked the question, what are we going to do about bringing in a rule of law as between the United States institution, the securities exchange commission, and our soon to be established national exchange institution in Canada? We must have some form of direction and rule by which we can handle the joint problems we have with closely associated countries on the issue of securities.
October 23, 1967

Over and over again no action is taken until we are in a crisis. We had the crisis of last year and the one of the year before dealing with the breakdown of some of our companies in eastern Canada. In respect of a policy for water, agriculture, forestry, fisheries and securities we have the information now, there is no need to delay making these statements.
We do not need definitive statements to the last decimal point. We need statements that will let the various agencies which look after these matters, and the private companies who bargain with each other, know what are the rules of the game. They will follow these rules if they are given direction. Therefore my point in introducing this subject is to make clear the need for immediate statements in respect of these policies. We need to make absolutely clear that we face a crisis in this regard.
I will give some of the details, but before doing so I would say that, speaking now as a politician, the thing that strikes me as completely hopeless about the whole situation is that in the last four years the government has had time to deal with any number of subjects, each one important in itself but not as important as building an economic base on which we can afford all these things.
We have spent hours discussing bicultural-ism, bilingualism, the constitution, abortion, capital punishment, which was dealt with more than once, and divorce. Elections we have time for. Patronage we have time for. We have time for patronage when people are looking for jobs after they leave a sinking ship. We have spent hours in the house discussing these matters. These subjects are important, but the really important thing in Canada and in any country is to make sure that the economic base is strengthened and expanded. There must be equality of opportunity by regions.
Of course in this whole concept of building the economic strength of Canada the key is energy. This is one thing we have. We have natural gas, oil, uranium and electricity from several sources. We have energy in our tar sands. All these sources of energy, together with coal and of course uranium, are the key to power, economically, for any nation in the future. All I am asking in this motion today is that Liberals as well as the N.D.P., Credi-tistes and Conservatives forget their partisanship for a moment and simply ask the government to state the obvious.
DEBATES	3371
Policy Statement on National Resources
I intend during these remarks to use as an example in the current crisis what I call the Westcoast Transmission story. Many members of the house may not recall that the discovery of large quantities of petroleum or fossil fuels has come about in the last 20 years in Canada. In order to get sufficient capital to keep the exploration going it is necessary to build pipe lines to carry the results of previous exploration into the homes of consumers. In 1952 a Canadian company, which we will call Westcoast, began to make moves to collect capital in order to build a pipe line from the Peace River area of Alberta and British Columbia, down through the mountains to Vancouver.
In order to make this pipe line economic it was necessary to have some exportation of gas into the United States. Let me read this story to the serious minded members of the house. I take the story from the first report of the royal commission on energy, dated October, 1958. If any person wants to look up the references I shall be quoting from page 14 to page 27 of that report.
Here is the story. This company applied to the federal power commission of the United States for permission to export. In June, 1954 the application to export into the United States was denied by the federal power commission on the grounds that the American federal power commission, representing all the American people, wanted to preserve the security of the American nation by making certain that every part of the United States would be supplied, if at all possible, from American sources of gas rather than from foreign sources.
Here we have an example of an agency of a foreign government protecting the interests of the producers and consumers of their country. I would say in all fairness, as a nationalist myself, that I think this was a legitimate type of thing for the federal power commission to do. In December of 1954 agreement was reached that the company which obtained the licence to distribute gas in this area, and which got a supply up from the San Juan valley in New Mexico, could import a little gas from Canada. This permission was obtained from the F.P.C.
Here is the key fact. This particular company in the United States, knowing that the Canadian company, Westcoast, had to have a certain amount of gas sales beyond its borders to make the pipe line economic and in order that they could borrow the money with which to build the pipe line, put the boots to the Canadian company and said "All we will
Ociober 23, 1967

Policy Statement on National Resources street and says "I am ready for anyone". He meets the good guy and the good guy has to decide whether he steps out into the wide street to shoot it out.
These words "high noon" are not my words, Mr. Speaker. I should like to read to the house-indeed I hope to all people in Canada-what one American, one of the commissioners of the federal power commission, said in a minority report. These words "high noon" are the words of a responsible commissioner who is trying to advise the United States government what action it should take. He disagreed with the decision that was handed down last month and had this to say, as reported by the Vancouver Sun on September 30:
The commission ... candidly serves notice upon Canada that its gas will be accepted at the international boundary only if Canadian sellers, whether before the commission or not, adhere to the American regulatory framework.
How do you like those words, Mr. Speaker? We in Canada can sell gas only if we accept direction on the matter of prices by the United States federal power commission. These are the words of a commissioner of the F.P.C. in the United States, not the words of a Canadian. The report I have of his remarks goes on:
He noted that the N.E.B. "virtually required the Canadian supplier to recoup for the Canadian economy the presumed lost benefits of the 22-cent rate."
Why should not the National Energy Board obey Canadian law and the recommendations of a royal commission? After all, Mr. Speaker, they are there to defend Canadian interests. The report continues:
Between the Federal Power Commission and the Canadian regulatory counterpart, today's (FPC) opinion says, it is "high noon". The commission apparently expects the Canadian energy board to concede to the federal Power Commission the larger role over border transactions. The premise is that the federal regulators can negotiate a better deal for the United States than Canadian regulators can negotiate for Canada.
This is not the case for such a confrontation ... If security considerations are not present, then our questions about a proposed import ought to start with whether on straight economic considerations the Canadian volumes are cheaper than the best available alternative domestically.
What is the meaning of the last part of that statement, Mr. Speaker? Commissioner Carver of the federal power commission was objecting in his minority report to the majority view of the federal power commission which is trying to take unto itself the right to decide on energy in North America. He is a loyal-thinking American. He knows that if

the United States gets into a tight with Canada over energy the United States has no bargaining power. He knows that the United States government has before it three major reports, the most scientific reports they can compile, on the future oil, gas, and energy demands and supplies in the United States. The Paley report of 1952, the Netschert report of 1958 and the Landsberg report of 1963 all pointed out that the year of crisis in the United States for the supply of natural gas is 1970.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the bargaining power in this regard is all on the side of Westcoast Transmission Co. Limited. In the normal course of business the F.P.C. did not interfere in the matter of price in 1954 when the Canadian company was being gored and there was no Canadian body to protect it. But now equality and equity are coming back into the negotiations. The bargaining power is coming over to our side and we now have a National Energy Board to see that Canadian interests are protected.
I repeat that the federal power commission has gone beyond its terms of reference, terms that one would think a nationalist institution of that kind would naturally follow. The United States is now going to have to pay an economic rate, which is just a fraction of a cent different from that at Vancouver, and the federal power commission is going to start a shoot-out.
Put yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the position of the Canadian company which is trying to sell some of the gas reserves that are being developed in the Peace River area. Put yourself in the place of the National Energy Board which has had no direction from the government. Neither the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) nor any minister has stood up and stated what the Canadian people believe, and as I say we are now faced with a shoot-out.
I say this because a third proposal is now before the National Energy Board which seeks to retain this new low price of 29.5 cents for the new quantities to be supplied and asks for a continuation of the subsidizing of United States consumers of gas by Canadian consumers under the old agreement, as has been the case for the last 12 years. All of the costs involved in maintaining the pipe line have been paid by Canadians, and we are now being asked to continue this subsidy.
I have not related all of the grim story, Mr. Speaker. In 1954, when it was thought that the Canadian company was doomed because its proposal in the spring had been
October 23, 19G7

turned down for the first time by the federal power commission, the United States company demanded, in addition to greater control over the purchase of a smaller amount of gas, that the Canadian company turn over 50 per cent of the ownership in the company to the United States company. This was not agreed to but the Canadian company did agree to a 25 per cent figure. When the people down there have you at a disadvantage you are apt to feel their boots. I am not suggesting that we ought to retaliate by putting the boots to the people of the United States. I am suggesting that this house should inform the National Energy Board that that board does not stand alone, and that this house is behind them when they walk down that hot, wide and sunny street in Vancouver to face the shooting. Incidentally, I hope it is sunny in Vancouver tomorrow.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I want the headlines in all Vancouver newspapers tomorrow to say that all parties in the House of Commons are united behind the board and that we are all united not only on the criteria set out in the royal commission's report but on the criteria set out in the National Energy Board Act.
When I asked the minister a question about this matter the other day he replied that he was sure the law would be enforced.
I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker. Of the last two contracts-and I am not speaking of the one involving the 27 cents starting price-the one where the National Energy Board agreed to 31 cents with the one cent escalating clause over a period of five years was close to the line in not keeping the law. The third agreement, however, breaks the law and goes against the recommendations of the royal commission.
I want the National Energy Board to have the assurance that, regardless of the party that forms the government, any Canadian government intends to back the law of Canada and that we intend to see that Canadian producers and Canadian consumers are treated equitably. That does not harm the citizens of the United States.
May I quote some figures. I think I remember them reasonably accurately. They show how the matter resolves itself into dollars and cents. What do the producers of gas in the San Juan valley get today for their gas? Here I am speaking of the alternative source for California and the northwest. Existing contracts for the New Mexico producers show that some get 45 cents per thousand
DEBATES	3375
Policy Statement on National Resources cubic feet at the well. In addition, there is a charge for shipping to the northwest. How do our producers in the Peace river area of British Columbia and Alberta fare? They get six cents, seven cents or eight cents; that is about their average. Why should we Canadians be asked to subsidize our main competitors in order to allow them to produce cheaper goods? There is no logic to this and any fairminded citizen of the United States knows that there is no logic here. Washington is waiting to see if we will stand up to be counted. Down there they have seen this government in the last few years wilting again and again. I have lots of evidence to show that there has been this wilting.
Before quoting figures may I read sections 83 (a) and (b) of the National Energy Board Act. These sections deal with the export and import of gas products. They read as follows:
83. Upon an application for a licence the Board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Board shall satisfy itself that
(a)	the quantity of gas or power to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada having regard to the trends in the discovery of gas in Canada;
Here we see the first principle. We must have a surplus of gas before any is exported. No one will argue that that condition has not been met. The Alberta Conservation Board looks after the Alberta interest and the National Energy Board of Canada looks after the Canadian interest. I wish to emphasize the importance of the following subsection:
(b)	the price to be charged by an applicant for gas or power exported by him is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest.
In provisions relating to common carriers, and here I am speaking of oil pipe lines, and in the wording of the sections that deal with pricing policies, tolls and charges, existing legislation makes clear that discrimination must not be allowed to exist with respect to persons or localities. The only way to avoid discrimination is to charge consumers the lowest price at the well, and as the commodity goes across the country, whether to the east or west, the north or south, to charge a reasonable figure for transporting it. In that way each person is free to put into or take out of the pipe line the commodity with which he is concerned, knowing that the price charged for transmission will be fair. This is a fair principle in economics, but economics is not the only principle with
October 23, 1967
3376	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statement on National Resources which we are concerned. The law of the land recognizes that there are other principles. Nevertheless, it is the economic principle that we must look at at this stage.
I said that I would try to be positive. What must be done? First, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) must enter the picture, as the former prime minister did in 1959. Only the Prime Minister, speaking for all parties in the house, can make the United States federal power commission realize that we stand behind the National Energy Board and that we shall not allow that board to enter into any contract in which the two criteria I have referred to are not met. Second, we must state clearly that it is the intention of the Canadian government now, not five years from now or one year from now, to meet immediately with the United States authorities in order to decide on the rules of law that shall apply to their federal power commission and to our National Energy Board. These two institutions have been set up to protect the interests of United States citizens and Canadians.
We ought to support any attempt by the federal power commission to protect the interests of United States citizens. By the same token the United States authorities should support the National Energy Board in its attempts to protect the interests of Canadians. Considering the terms of reference under which the two boards operate, I do not think that the United States or Canadian governments should interfere with prices at this time. Pricing ought to be left until wider questions of policy between the two governments have been determined. Our government ought to ask the United States government to request the federal power commission to withdraw its last action because it went beyond the board's terms of reference. The United States board tried to take unto itself regulatory power for the entire North American continent.
The idea that the two national bodies should work together is not new. I shall read to the house a statement made on May 18, 1959, by the minister who was in charge of the National Energy Board. The minister, the present hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), as reported on page 3768 of Hansard for May 18, 1959, said:
The government of the United States, as represented by the federal power commission, must also decide whether it will approve the importation of the gas, and upon what terms. This raises the difficult problem of whether we should grant an export licence before or after the federal power commission grants the corresponding import permit.

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:
We are willing to work out an efficient arrangement with the United States which will satisfy our respective national requirements without hampering the mutually advantageous development of our gas industry.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Our officials have already had discussions with appropriate officials of the United States state department and the federal power commission and we know from these talks that our willingness to co-operate and our desire to reach a flexible and mutually satisfactory working arrangement is reciprocated.
That was the minister's statement in the house in May, 1959, as the bill was going through.
I should like now, if I may, to show that this view was accepted when the new government came to power. I quote now from Hansard of May 30, 1963, four years later. My hon. friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, made his statement on May 18, 1959. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquit-lam (Mr. Douglas) put a question in these words:
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister inform the house of the results of his talks with United States officials concerning energy resources and, in particular, whether United States officials have expressed concern at the size of Canadian gas and oil shipments to that country?
This was a legitimate question by an hon. member who was concerned about reports that the United States was worried about the size of our exports of oil and gas to that country. Here is the minister's reply. I will skip the first part and go on to the key paragraph. Remember what my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre said in 1959, that we were willing to work together. Here is the reply given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam:
I proposed to the Americans that our two countries initiate and undertake joint studies concerning the development of all forms of energy-oil, natural gas, coal, electricity and nuclear power- in which our interests increasingly intertwine. I found our American friends interested in and receptive to the suggestion, and I hope that preliminary discussions will begin in the near future.
That was in 1963. The statement by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre was made in 1959. What happened in the meantime? I followed up what was said by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam by saying:
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the minister made this statement on orders of the day limits the ability of the opposition to make any comments
October 23, 1967

on it. Therefore I will have to use the technique of asking a question or two, if I may, to clarify the statement he just made.
My first question is this. In this discussion with the United States were gas imports from Canada to the United States considered in their relationship to oil imports?
I was working toward the idea of co-operation between the two countries. The Minister of Finance gave me an evasive answer in which he said everything had been discussed.
I could bring forward statement after statement to show that this is a great need.
I should like to review briefly the history of co-operation between our two countries. Hon. members will recall that in 1958 the Progressive Conservative party had gone to the country on a program of national development which was announced in February of that year. In August, 1958, we announced the national agricultural policy. In 1959 we set up the department of forestry. In 1958 and 1959 we began studies in connection with a power transmission grid which would give equal access on the part of Canadians to electric power generated anywhere in Canada. In 1961 we announced the national oil policy. I will say nothing about programs such as ARDA, the conference on renewable resources called Resources for Tomorrow or the conference on human resources announced in 1962. What I will say is that the Americans were kept informed of all these activities.
I am glad to see that my hon. friend, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) is in his place. When the government in the United States changed in 1960 we proposed to the new ministers who took office in 1961 that we should begin looking at resources from the point of view of the mutual advantage of both countries. Canada, obviously, possessed the great reserves for the future and we were concerned because their industries had been recommended to acquire these reserves-a situation which could lead to confrontation. So we began in a general way to explore the advantages of working together in a mutually satisfactory way. It would appear from the statement I have put on record that the Minister of Finance was not averse to this type of understanding. I think he was wise, because two neighbouring nations must have some form of agreement to live and let live. Two neighbouring nations must understand the fact that each wants to live and that each is equal. I got into trouble in 1963 by saying that all Canada wanted was to be treated as an equal, not to be treated like a certain South American state,
DEBATES	3377
Policy Statement on National Resources which I shall not name, where the C.I.A. changes the government whenever it wishes.
In October, 1963, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall had charge of resources in the United States, and on October 16 of that year this headline appeared in the Globe and Mail:	"Canada Urged To Study Resource
Pool With U.S." The Canadian Press article reads as follows:
U.S. Interior Secretary Stewart Udall yesterday suggested Canada and the United States create a gigantic pool of their resources and exploit them in cross-border trade on the basis of achieving maximum production efficiency at lowest costs.
He said this concept, which he described as having quite a bit of support in the U.S. administration, could be applied to the flow of Canadian-U.S. trade in hydro and nuclear power as well as coal and petroleum products.
This would seem to indicate, bearing in mind the initiative we took back in 1961 and the attitude expressed by the minister of trade and commerce at that time now the Minister of Finance, that we were moving in such a way as to ensure that rules of law would apply in respect of all points at issue.
Now we find a case where confrontation has occurred simply because no action was taken. I asked a question in the house some years ago, having noted an article in the Foreign Affairs Quarterly of January, 1965, which purported to have been written by the Prime Minister of Canada and called for a co-operative program. I asked the Prime Minister whether these views represented a new policy direction. He said he would take the question as notice; I guess he had not read his own article. All the other evidence in 1964 and 1965 shows that Canadian ministers were rejecting any form of commitment in connection with water studies on the ground that they lacked sufficient information.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I am simply saying that we have enough knowledge to state the general principles, and that should be our long-range objective in this debate. Can we as members of parliament of all parties get agreement to ask the treasury benches (a) to state immediately the policy in connection with the hearings before the National Energy Board in Vancouver tomorrow and (b), on what grounds can we make a strong statement as a united parliament to give our National Energy Board a chance to live up to what the law says and what the royal commission report recommends, and above all to show the federal power commission in the United States that it cannot unilaterally take over the running of this continent so long as there are a few Canadians alive?
October 23, 1S67

Policy Statement on National Resources
This is not an issue involving war between our nations. These matters have been discussed by legislators, by the respective cabinet ministers, and there is no great disagreement. Why then should an agency of the United States government move into a political field where it has no right to be and demand a shoot-out, a "High Noon" with the Canadian energy board? I want our champions at the hearings tomorrow and during the next few days in Vancouver to know that all parties in this house back them. All parties can do that by voting for this amendment. That is why I move this amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). I wonder whether I may take it as read, Mr. Speaker, since I have read it already?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand the hon. member has already read the proposed amendment but I gather that a slight procedural amendment should be made to it in the first line. I will now read it as it ought to appear in the record. Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Dinsdale, moves:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and by substituting therefor the following:
"this house is of the opinion that the government should state immediately its policy on natural resources and clearly set out its intentions and objectives generally; and particularly with respect to:
(a)	A national energy policy, including natural gas, oil, electrical transmission grid and uranium.
(b)	A national water policy.
(c)	Forestry, agriculture and fisheries policy.
(d)	Human resources.
and the extent to which pollution is endangering any or all of these resources."


Mr. Basford:: Before the hon. member resumes his seat would he entertain a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In the interests of the type of amendment I am trying to get through, yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the course of his remarks the hon. member read section 83(b) of the National Energy Board Act which states:
-the price to be charged by an applicant for gas or power exported by him is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest.
Is the hon. member suggesting that the National Energy Board is not now in a position to uphold the law?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker. The National Energy Board has the power to turn down this application. This is a very difficult position in which they find themselves. Here we

have a Canadian company which has applied, and therefore cannot argue against its own application, to the National Energy Board for permission to export at the price of 29.5 cents. Therefore what has to happen now is that the National Energy Board must rule that in the public interest this is too low a price. I am simply saying that unless there is a loud, clear statement from this house, we cannot tell how these hearings will go. I would like each member of the house to feel happy that he has played his part in letting the National Energy Board know that this is our feeling. They are a court of record and they have to deal with the law and the facts as they stand before them, but unless someone puts in precise language what we feel in this house to be in the public interest, are they to think that we have no interest in this matter any more?
I would say that because of the lack of response from all of us during the last three or four weeks since the federal power commission threw out this challenge to the National Energy Board it might appear that we are not interested. I say we should issue a firm statement to the board as a result of which it can tell these two companies, "We have to work under these assumptions and therefore we intend to give the decision along that line."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wonder whether the hon. member would entertain another question. Does the hon. member mean by implication that the National Energy Board Act, which he has bragged about so much, is so insufficiently or improperly worded that it does not set out national energy policy?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has hit on a very sore point. I am not a lawyer. When we ask for a clear expression of our wishes in the law the lawyers say, "This is how to draft it in the public interest." All I am saying is that we should make sure the National Energy Board knows what is meant when we get the Prime Minister to stand up in this house and make a statement. Do not get me into a wrangle about what the lawyers said and what was meant. Lawyers have said, "This is the way to draft it," and I have to accept their word. All I want to do is to make sure that the laymen on the National Energy Board know what we want.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Very good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
October 23, 1967


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the matter of a national policy for Canadian resources is a subject of much greater importance than the attention which has been given to it would seem to warrant. During this centennial year we Canadians have been speaking a great deal about national identity, but even while we are speaking about national identity we are daily losing control of our own economy, and economic decisions affecting the lives of Canadian people are being taken out of the hands of Canadians and vested in the hands of corporations, mainly in the United States, which control the development of many of our resources.
We speak a great deal about being maitres chez nous, about being masters in our own house, but certainly there has been no clearly defined policy with respect to the utilization of Canadian resources which would guarantee that we are likely to continue to be masters of our own house or that we are even to any great extent masters in our own house at the present time. The whole development of the Canadian economy has been increasingly directed to making Canada a supplier of raw materials to the great industrial complex of the United States. We in Canada must face the fact, and face it fairly soon, that there are two schools of thought, the continentalist school and the nationalist school.
There are those who take a continental view of resources in the United States and Canada. They look upon these resources as having been pooled and see the vast resources of Canada as now being available to supply the United States which has depleted much of its own resources and is largely dependent upon Canada for oil, gas, minerals, lumber, and in some places even for water. Consequently this continental approach is being accepted not only by the Americans who have much to gain from it but also, unfortunately, by some Canadians as well.
This is an old imperial concept. It goes back to the days of the Romans. The whole idea of the Roman empire was to use Rome and the immediate environs of Italy as the centre of the empire and to use the peripheries of the empire, which stretched all the way from the British Isles to India, as areas from which to draw raw materials and manpower, to funnel these into the centre of the empire which produced manufactured products and then to sell them back to the colonial countries. The British Empire was built on the same idea.
DEBATES	3379
Policy Statement on National Resources [DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In the nineteenth century particularly Britain built a great empire by developing a highly technical and industrial complex in the British Isles and by bringing raw materials from all parts of the great British Empire on which the sun never set. They developed at that time what was the most highly industrialized nation in the world. This, of course, was good for Britain, but it meant that the peripheral countries of the empire were little more than hewers of wood and drawers of water.
We are now witnessing the development of the great United States economic empire. The colonial concept is devised to make that kind of empire possible. The role which Canada would be assigned in such an empire would be to supply the raw materials and to supply materials, manpower and skilled professional people when the United States needs them. Canada would be expected to supply the raw materials which the people of the United States themselves have depleted in their own country and to help develop the United States so that it can continue to be what it is already, the greatest industrial and military power in the world.
I have no quarrel with the growth and development of the United States. But as a Canadian I think I have a responsibility to look at what a continental policy is likely to do to Canada. It would make Canada mainly a nation of extraction industries, a nation which would ship out its gas, oil, lumber and minerals, a nation which would sell its raw materials to the United States but which itself would continue to be underdeveloped and underemployed. We will never have in this country the kind of economic growth, the kind of full employment and the kind of parity of income which we desire until we adopt a nationalist Canadian policy with regard to the development of our resources.
When I speak of a nationalist policy I am not talking about a protectionist policy; I am talking about a policy in which the government ought to sit down and look at the whole question of what our resources are, how we can best use them and what apportionment of those resources will make for the greatest growth of the economy and the highest possible standards of living for the Canadian people.
If the government is to enunciate a resource policy I think the first thing it should do is determine how much of our resources are surplus to our needs, not only
3380	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources surplus to our needs at the moment but surplus to our needs in the foreseeable future. It should determine how much of our resources we need to retain in Canada to develop Canadian industry, how much of our resources can be processed or semi-processed in this country, and what resources we can afford to export in their raw state. When such an assessment is made I would certainly ask the government to keep in mind the following factors. The first is that nearly all the estimates which have been made to date concerning future economic requirements in respect of the load growth have been lamentably shortsighted. This has been true with reference to the consumption of oil, the consumption of gas and the utilization of electric power. All the estimates by the experts have been much too short. If we are to have estimates of what our requirements will be, those estimates ought to be very optimistic because I suspect that over the next 50 to 100 years our requirements for gas, oil, other energy materials and other basic raw materials will be much greater than anyone here foresees at the present time.
I think that the second thing which the government must keep in mind in working out an inventory of our requirements for the future is the fact that the resources we have today are part of the Canadian heritage. We are only the trustees of these resources; we have an obligation to conserve them and pass them on unimpaired to future generations. If we should allow our resources to be sold in a wild auction sale at fire sale prices we would be shortchanging the generations that follow.
I am not suggesting by that that we ought not to export any raw materials or any fuel, but I think Canadians of the present generation and certainly Canadians of future generations will hold us responsible if we do not ensure that an adequate and even more than adequate supply of the resources of Canada are retained in this country for the future economy of this country.
When we have determined what resources are surplus to our needs and what commodities we can allow to be exported, it seems to me the government must also lay down a very clear policy with regard to each of the commodities that we propose to export. Let us take oil which is one of the commodities that in all likelihood research will show we are likely to have in surplus supply. The fact that the tar sands can now be profitably developed opens up a whole new reservoir of oil, one of the largest reservoirs available in the world. This is a commodity which in all probability we will be able to export. Howev-

DEBATES	October 23, 1967
er, if it is to be exported, then surely the policy ought to be twofold. First, what we export should bring back to Canadians the best possible price because this is a commodity which belongs to Canadians. Second, as much as possible Canadian oil ought to be processed and used in Canada.
I have seen many conflicting estimates concerning the economic feasibility of developing an oil pipe line to Montreal in order to bring western oil right down into Quebec and the maritimes. I know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) probably will argue that all the estimates show that it would not be economical to pipe western oil to Montreal. But I have seen estimates of some of the independent petroleum producers that would not substantiate that argument.
I should like to point out that some of the large Canadian oil companies are, of course, owned in the United States. These are the same companies which sell oil in Montreal that comes from Venezuela, and naturally they are interested in keeping that market. In the interests of Canadians I would like to know to what extent the government has, on an independent basis, explored all the possibilities of utilizing more of the eastern Canadian market for western oil, because the day when we can become completely selfsufficient in respect of oil we will have two great advantages. One is that we will not be divesting ourselves of American currency in order to buy oil. Saving United States dollars is always important. Second, in the event of war, as we found in the case of the recent Israeli-Arab conflict, the fact that we are self-sufficient will be a great advantage. If we could reach the point where we were not dependent on tankers bringing oil from Venezuela or from Texas through the gulf we would be in a much better position. I think, therefore, that on this question of an oil policy the government has to explore closely both of these fields.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
With reference to gas, it seems to me again that once we are satisfied we have surplus supplies, and I personally am not satisfied at the present time we have supplies surplus to our needs, surely our policy should be to see that we do not sell natural gas in the United States at a price that is lower than we are charging the Canadian consumer to whom the gas belongs. That is precisely what we are doing at the present time. In the lower mainland of British Columbia people are paying some 9 cents per m.c.f. more than it is
October 23, 1967	COMMONS
sold for in the northwestern United States. Not only is this unfair to the Canadian householder who finds himself paying more for gas than people are paying for it in the United States, in spite of the fact it has to be carried some distance to those consumers, but it also means that the United States manufacturer using gas as a fuel is put in an advantageous position competitively vis-a-vis the Canadian manufacturer. If ever there was a policy of economic suicide, surely it is such a policy when a small country like Canada sells its chief competitors our fuels at a lower price than it sells to its own citizens and at the same time expects those citizens to compete successfully with their giant neighbour.
The fact that Westcoast Transmission is now appearing before the National Energy Board and has been before the federal power commission in the United States brings this question right before the government. The El Paso gas company wants to import gas from western Canada and is willing to pay a price which, while at the present time below what Westcoast is charging in Canada, will average out over a period of years to be to some degree equitable. The federal power commission of the United States, located in Washington, is telling the United States company it cannot import that gas at that price but must go back to the Canadian exporting company and ask for a lower price. This is a United States commission which is not only not satisfied with merely setting the price in the United States but wants to start setting the price in Canada at a figure that is lower than Canadian gas consumers are being required to pay.


Mr. Pepin:: Perhaps I should remind the hon. member that there is a contract. I do not think the hon. member can say, on a matter of fact, that the federal power commission is trying to impose a certain price. We are dealing now with a contract which was signed in 1956 between El Paso and Westcoast. What the federal power commission suggests is that the contract must be respected, as they say in Latin, pacta sunt servanda. The federal power commission is not trying to impose a price in respect of a contract that was previously signed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The federal power commission has told El Paso that it should go back and ask that the old contract, which is at a lower price than the price it is now offering to pay, should be adopted. This company is willing to pay an equitable price which has been approved by the National Energy Board
DEBATES	3381
Policy Statement on National Resources of Canada; yet the federal power commission says the price is too high.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I agree now with the manner in which the hon. member has put the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is how I was trying to put the situation before.


Mr. Stewart:: No, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think that is clear to most intelligent members of the house. I thought that even the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) was understanding the point. I was directing my remarks to him with the idea that if he got the point it would be crystal clear to the members of the government.


Mr. Cashin:: Put it in Latin for us.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is incomprehensible that the minister should stand up and defend a course of action like this.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have not done that, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact that the minister has not done anything about this situation is an indication that he defends it. The fact that the Canadian government has not raised, so far as I know, one word of protest-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am trying to set the facts right. The facts are that in this country the function of deciding whether a licence for export should be given is first function of the National Energy Board. And when the National Energy Board makes a positive decision that decision is then submitted to the government of Canada for approval. That is the procedure to be followed. I am not trying to defend the federal power commission, I am just trying to help my hon. friend to be as clear and objective as possible in his reasoning.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to be suspicious of the minister's motives, but I suspect that instead of trying to make this clear the minister is trying to muddy the waters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is enough pollution already.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The fact is that if the government had any appreciation of the type of energy policy we require for this country it would have amended the energy act long ago. The National Energy Board ought to be more than an office of record. The National Energy Board ought to have the power to
October 23, 1967
3382	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statement on National Resources assess the best possible use we can make of the energy resources we have, and to decide to what extent they should be retained in Canada for our own future needs and how we can obtain the best possible return for them if they are exported. The board should say that these resources will not be exported unless we obtain that kind of return.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am just trying to be helpful.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister can be helpful later when he will have the opportunity to make a speech. He can be as helpful as he likes at that time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the meantime I suffer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have only limited time and I do not propose to have the minister bobbing up and down displaying the fact that he has not got a policy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the meantime I think it might be useful to stick to the facts. This is a function of the energy board, and each time it makes a decision it must justify that decision to show that Canadian needs are being taken care of, and that the price is acceptable in the national interest.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This is the worst nonsense I have ever listened to from the minister to date. Let me tell the minister how much protection the board is giving Canadian interests. They are protecting them to the extent that British Columbia gas is being sold in Seattle for 22 cents per m.c.f. and being sold in the lower mainland of British Columbia for 31 cents per m.c.f. Does he consider that is protecting the interests of the Canadian people? The fact is, of course, that the energy board deals only with specific applications. It does not lay down any broad policy with respect to the matters I have outlined.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: On a question of fact again, Mr. Speaker, when that contract was signed the National Energy Board did not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, but the energy board has allowed the renewal of that agreement and it has done nothing at all to deal with the situation that is now before it.


Mr. Byrne:: The C.C.F. insisted upon its being an economic line from northern British Columbia instead of from southern Alberta.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hear the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne), Mr. Speaker. He seems to be trying to get into the act. I would

suggest that he keep to the subject of transportation, about which he knows even less than this subject.
Another subject on which the government will have to work out a resources policy is water. Some hon. members opposite have been making speeches about the possibility of exporting billions of cubic feet of water to the United States. They have been speaking about the great reservoir of water that we have available. We gave away the Columbia river. An engineering survey carried out under the direction of the prairie provinces showed that a diversion of 10 per cent of that river through the prairies would be of great benefit to both the agricultural and industrial development of the prairie provinces. I believe that before any further exportation of water is permitted there must be an extensive study of the water requirements of this country. With the improved methods of irrigation and the increasing demand for water for industrial purposes, water requirements in this country will go up in geometric progression.
The same thing is true, of course, with regard to electric power, lumber, coal and minerals. This is why the members of the New Democratic party have been pressing over the years for the setting up of a capital resources development fund so that we can mobilize the savings of the Canadian people in the development of more of our resources here in Canada and, where possible, process those primary products in this country. Everyone knows that job opportunities are much greater in the processing and manufacturing of raw material than in the extraction of raw material. As long as we continue to be satisfied merely to ship out our iron ore, minerals, gas, oil and lumber, just so long shall we continue to have a fairly primitive type of economy rather than the highly developed, technological, industrial economy that is possible in this country.
I wanted also to say a word about the development of our resources as part of the program of dealing with regional development in Canada. It is a well known fact that in this country we have areas of underdevelopment and underemployment. The most noteworthy, of course, is the maritime provinces. The recent report of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council is a most depressing one. It says that in the last five years 103,000 persons have left the mari-times, that their per capita income now is less than 70 per cent of the per capita income for the rest of Canada, that over the last 40
October 23, 1967

years they have received about 32 per cent less per capita income than the Canadian average.
This report points out that the maritimes will have to create 150,000 new jobs over the next ten years just to hold their own, that this would still leave them with a fairly low per capita income compared with the rest of Canada and a higher rate of unemployment than there is in the rest of Canada. The tragedy is that the government has no real program for dealing with this kind of situation. The best we can get is, for instance, a speech made by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) at Banff on October 16 in which he said:
Our planning problem Is to synchronize the phasing out of coal mining and steel production in the greater Sydney area, the encouragement of new industrial developments along the Canso Strait and structural adjustment in rural areas in such a way that we attain the maximum regional economic development impact. This requires, among other alternatives, guiding the surplus rural population, displaced coal miners and steel workers to new jobs in the Canso area.
What new jobs in the Canso area? The minister hints about a deep sea harbour development in the Canso area, but where is it? The coal and steel industries are being phased out. The Canso area as a provider of job opportunities exists only in the minds of the government. The fact is that the government has done no economic planning with respect to these underdeveloped areas. In respect of an area like the maritimes they have left the people no alternative but to get out. I think it is a reflection on us that the Canadian government and the government of Nova Scotia are at this moment sitting down and hoping with great fervour that a Japanese Arm will take over the steel plant at Sydney. Could there be anything more absurd than that the best we can hope for is that some people from the other side of the Pacific ocean will come and operate a steel mill that we apparently cannot keep open?
Surely if we had any type of program for the development of our resources, for the development of iron ore, for the building up of a steel industry and the secondary and tertiary industries that accompany the steel industry, it ought to be part of an economic plan in which the Atlantic Development Board and the provincial government of Nova Scotia would be involved? But no such plan exists. The government just flits from crisis to crisis, and the best they can hope for is that they can pay part of the losses of
DEBATES	3383
Policy Statement on National Resources Dosco for a few months and maybe a Japanese or some other firm will come and take it over.
The resources of this country are tremendous. Canada is a great treasure house of resources. Its resources are greater per capita than those of any other area in the world. But apparently the government has no plan for the systematic development of these resources. The government has no plan for processing them in this country so as to advance our industrial stature. They are content merely to allow these resources to be siphoned off to any part of the world that wants them. I make the prediction that the day is not too far distant when Canadians, if not of this generation then of the next, will wake up to find that lack of government policy has depleted some of our resources to the point where we are not able to avail ourselves of the opportunities for development.
May I say a word on another subject that is mentioned in the amendment. It refers to the extent to which pollution is endangering any or all of these resources. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis):
That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"and the need to take immediate steps to cope with air and water pollution, including appropriate national standards and any necessary amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada.
I hope that hon. members and the great majority of the Canadian people had the opportunity of seeing the film last evening between eight and nine o'clock which was prepared by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation entitled, Air Of Death. I hope that program will do much to arouse the Canadian people to the danger which now faces them because of the pollution of the air by the industries of this country. It is estimated that great damage is being done to the health of the people of Canada in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Hamilton, Vancouver, Oshawa, Windsor, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Sarnia, all those areas in which industrial gases and poisons are prevalent.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The phosphate plant at Dunnville has already destroyed crops and caused the death of livestock. An expert on flurosis from the United States maintains it already has had serious injurious effects on the health of some people in that community. This is not a problem which applies only to Canada. In the United States, Great Britain and Europe the problem of air pollution has been very much
October 23, 1967


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, a motion that the house go into committee of supply having been made, I take the opportunity to make, on my own behalf and on behalf of my party, a few remarks to the government since this opportunity is given to us for that purpose. I note that the Progressive Conservative party has moved an amendment as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "that" and by substituting therefore the following:
That this house is of the opinion that the government should state immediately its policy on national resources and clearly set out its intentions and objectives generally; and particularly with respect to:
(a)	A national energy policy, including natural gas, oil, electrical transmission grid and uranium.
(b)	A national water policy.
(e) Forestry, agriculture and fisheries policy.
(d) Human resources.
And the extent to which pollution is endangering any or all of these resources.
October 23, 19G7	COMMONS
Next come the sub amendment of the New Democratic party which, I feel, adds a point that I consider rather significant and I quote:
-"and the need to take immediate steps to cope with air and water pollution-
The government should act accordingly, Mr. Speaker.
If I had to discuss each of these points, I would need at least four hours. So I will limit myself to two or three points and, as a general principle, we ask the government to set up a policy at the export level for all surplus production of the provinces without discrimination.
I have listened with great attention-it is also a pleasure to listen to him-to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who opened his remarks with the words: We proceed from crisis to crisis. I feel the hon. member has given a true picture of the current situation. We proceed from crisis to crisis. Party crisis, constitutional crisis, power crisis, economic crisis, crises in every departments.
As far as the party crisis is concerned, I think the party in power, that is the Liberal party, has had and is having its share of crises because we realize that all government members are not now of one mind, far from it judging from the bills being introduced by everyone in turn. As a matter of fact, one seeks to suppress the likeness of the Queen on coins and bank notes, and another wants it to appear twice. Well, I feel that on the Liberal side, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has a great deal of work to do to restore unity within his party, and then, to try and unite Canada.
On the Conservative side, I think some housecleaning had been done from which we are expecting beneficial results. As for the New Democratic party, I have been watching its members at work for several years, and everything has to be torn down, as far as I can see. They call for divorce and abortion, they want the pill to be sold in chewing gum packages, they are against hanging and, on some occasions, I even had the impression that they posed as champions of spies and undesirable people in Canada. I do not know what is that party's motto, but I must say right now that its program is diametrically opposed to my moral principles, that I am completely unable to support any of its concepts and, therefore, endorse its philosophy.
There is also the constitutional crisis. I was pleased to find in this morning's Montreal 27053-214
DEBATES	3385
Policy Statement on National Resources Matin the following statement by the Prime Minister:
Let us not crucify Canada on a cross of words.
The Prime Minister may not speak the same language in Vancouver as in Montreal, but he pointed out last evening, at the Queen Elizabeth hotel, that Canada must not be
crucified "on a cross of words". He added:
Let us not have civil conflict over the words "nation" or "special status".
Let me tell the Prime Minister that it is probably that semantic dispute which has caused the province of Quebec to become so embittered, and I know that responsible and honest English-speaking Canadians are aware of it.
The province of Quebec has always been showered with fine words, with flowery language, but acts never followed. But now, fortunately, the Prime Minister seems to have woken up, to be wakening others. He invites his follow-citizens to open their eyes and face reality. I feel that reality stands naked before you, English-speaking gentlemen: Do in your provinces what the province of Quebec has done to your compatriots. To my mind, there is no better way to stop the deluge of words that will continue to flow, as the Prime Minister said, on the words "nation" and "special status".
With regard to the "special status", we believe in it and have believed in it for one hundred years, and we hope, we trust we can still believe in it since confederation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: 
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) used the word "crisis" and he was allowed by the Chair to carry on with his speech. I simply pointed out the words of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. Besides, I am considering clause 4 which deals with
October 23, 1967

Policy Statement on National Resources resources in human capital and I think it certainly includes constitutional crises. At any rate, I shall be brief. I wanted to make those few comments in order to appeal to Canadian unity but a rational and non partisan unity.
The constitutional crisis Anally boils down to this: shall we be full-hedged Canadians or shall we hypocritically remain British colonists? That is the answer the people are waiting for.
Mr. Speaker, I shall come back now to the third point of the Conservative amendment, namely the question of agriculture.
In that respect, with regard to farm exports from the province of Quebec, we urge once more the government to give us equal treatment with the other provinces and we ask the minister to take an interest in our exports since it is a matter of federal jurisdiction. His duty is not to deal with Quebec's agricultural production, not to try and organize our farmers as does the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve), who, when in Quebec, leads the Quebecers to believe that the funds provided by the federal government are intended to assist farm production and organization. The federal jurisdiction is concerned with marketing, trading and export, and it must remain within those boundaries.
In that respect, Mr. Speaker, we also witness acrimonious struggles which I would call conAicts of power. An article published on page 2 of Maclean's is entitled:
Protocol: Ottawa and Quebec at War, by Jacques Guay.
Inviting to the same ceremony representatives of the federal government and of the Quebec government has become a very complicated matter.
The United Fishermen who recently launched their second large trawler, the Unifox, had a painful experience when they invited to Riviere-au-Renard, near Gaspe, the federal minister responsible for ARDA, Maurice Sauve, and the Quebec premier, Daniel Johnson.
It was obvious that both governments were going to take advantage of that opportunity to announce "something important" about the E.Q.D.B. Mr. Sauve's aides were busy preparing a rousing speech to prove "that nothing would get done without the federal government." In Quebec, a document was being prepared stating the contrary.
Mr. Sauve, as federal minister, wanted to speak last.
Quebec fisheries being under provincial jurisdiction, the United Fishermen had decided that the honour should rest with Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Sauve stated also that he was representing Mr. Pearson and that a federal Prime Minister, even absent, had precedence over a provincial premier, although present. The reply was that Mr. Pearson had not been invited anyway.

Mrs. Reine Johnson was supposed to christen the ship. Those close to Mr. Sauve would have preferred Mrs. Sauve to be the christener.
And the article goes on like that, Mr. Speaker. That is the battle of words. The power struggle, we see it every day. And the cause of that struggle for us, in Quebec, are those famous joint programs, because if the other provinces want to accept them if they want to, that is their business; but it is always in the planning of those programs, when the federal government rules to meddle in the province's business, against the province's wishes, that the federal government interferes in Aelds which are none of its concern.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the government will have to revise its positions vis a vis the province of Quebec; Arst, it believes in the special status, because it was created especially for Quebec. If there had never been a Quebec, if there had never been French Canadians in Canada, there would never have been a constitution.
As for me, I consider that to be Quebec's special status. But now that the Arst agreement has been broken-everybody knows the circumstances-we must come back and take what is good and correct that which is no longer up-to-date and modern, in an effort to give back to all levels of government the authority which is theirs, and to put an end to those jurisdictional conAicts.
I think that by following this policy, the Prime Minister will be on the road to Canadian unity, and if everyone, including both nations, does his share, we will attain what we are all looking for, that is, a federal government that can And markets for the production surpluses of the provinces, and that, for its advantage as well as for the advantage of all the provinces in general.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak brieAy about air and water pollution. Even though the government has already done something, I believe that much remains to be done. When I speak about pollution, I am speciAcally referring to cloud seeding, a well-known and most adverse pollution factor for our agriculture. The federal government has already introduced legislation, but I do not think it is adequate, and more drastic action will be needed to eleminate air pollution.
Now, I have here an article dealing with that problem. More light will have to be thrown on this matter, because some people, 1 think, take pleasure in misinforming the public.
October 23, 1967


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment and the subamendment to the motion before the house certainly cover the whole waterfront. If the government were to embark upon stating "immediately," as is called for by the amendment, its policy on national resources and clearly set out its intentions and objectives generally covering the functions of the National Energy Board and, more specifically, touching on natural gas, oil, an electrical transmission grid, water, forestry, agriculture and fisheries, human resources, and the whole complex and involved matter of air and water pollution, this would surely involve at least one speech from the throne and, from my experience in the house, all this territory could not be covered in one speech from the throne or even in a 12 month session of parliament.
On supply motions such as this I used to enjoy participating in the debates when in opposition because they were wide open and one could speak on any subject that had been disturbing one for a long period of time. Therefore I am not suggesting that the amendment is out of order, but after moving it the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) began to concentrate his remarks on one particular matter, a discussion of which at this time is in my opinion out of order. I do not wish to precipitate a procedural debate on it, but the hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows very well that when a matter is before the courts, and the National Energy Board is a court of record, it is improper to discuss it in this house.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle eloquently attempted to persuade the government to make a decision publicly right here and now respecting a certain price in a contract between Canada and the United States. He wanted the government to make that decision without having heard the evidence. Today and also tomorrow the National Energy Board is and will be hearing the evidence with respect to this matter, and I do not think it is right for hon. members who have
October 23. 1967	COMMONS
not heard the evidence to attempt to superimpose their opinion on the court which is
doing so.
There will come a time when the Minister of National Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin), the cabinet and this parliament, if it wishes, can make a decision on whether or not the National Energy Board made a proper decision, but at this stage it is wrong for the hon. member for Qu'Appelle to ask us to decide what the board's decision ought to be while the board is still hearing the evidence. Without taking the time to hear what the arguments are, the hon. member wanted this house to state publicly what we are going to do and what we think the National Energy Board ought to do.
Does this mean that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the seconder of the amendment, have no confidence in the competence of the National Energy Board? Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if they want this house to superimpose its opinion-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken in this debate yet.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seconded the amendment and I presume that he supports the statements and the arguments advanced by the hon. member who moved it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak for myself when the time comes, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) cannot anticipate my speech.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to anticipate what has already been said in the house. I see that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has now returned to the chamber. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle earlier this afternoon went over and over his argument that this house and the government should categorically state now, today-there was some urgency because the Vancouver hearings would end tomorrow-what the National Energy Board should do. Has the hon. member for Qu'Appelle heard the evidence? He could hardly have heard it since he is here and not in Vancouver where the evidence is being given. Is he ready to suggest that he knows more and is in a better position to make a decision sitting here in Ottawa than the very competent members of the National Energy Board in Vancouver who are listening to the evidence? That is what he is suggesting. I would remind the hon. member
DEBATES	3389
Policy Statement on National Resources that this board was set up and the appointments made to it when his government was in office. Is he saying now that he has completely lost confidence in their ability and competence to make a proper decision?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of these remarks by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), would he permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My question to the hon. member is this: Does the hon. member not accept the principle that there are terms of reference for the National Energy Board, based on government statements and what is in the act and the report of the royal commission, but that there are also political statements that have to be made? The second question based on that is, does he not think the evidence is now clear that the federal power commission has moved into the field of politics and has not acted on the basis of equity, as Commissioner Carver has pointed out? Does the hon. member not accept the fact that there are terms of reference based on equity and on what governments have said and also that there are political statements that can only be made by governments and not by the National Energy Board?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of that, but I do not give the weight to certain aspects that the hon. gentleman obviously does. I am more keenly aware of the fact that the National Energy Board members have the act before them and have their terms of reference so far as their function is concerned in dealing with this matter. Surely we ought at least to wait until they have heard the evidence and made a decision. But the hon. member for Qu'Appelle is not willing to wait. Apparently he is of the opinion that an improper decision is imminent. That is why he is suggesting there is urgency that the government make an overriding decision now. I think it would tear at the foundations and roots of all the competent commissions that have been set up in this country to deal with this kind of matter if the government acted in the way the hon. member suggests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
* (5:30 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the previous administration and this government had, and I hope still has, confidence in the National Energy Board. There is no question
October 23. 1967
3390	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statement on National Resources in my mind about that. There have been occasions when this government has rescinded a decision of the National Energy Board, but surely at least one should wait until the National Energy Board has made a decision before one starts to intervene in respect of what is in fact a court of record. I think the approach of the hon. member to this matter is improper. I certainly hope that all Canadians who have taken an interest in it will take cognizance of the manner in which the hon. gentleman would run the government if he were ever given another opportunity.


Mr. McCleave:: He will have it soon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If proposals of this kind come forward it may be a lot later rather than sooner.
The hon. member complained that no attempts are being made to enunciate policy in respect of the development of oil and markets in Canada. In his amendment he says that the government has not, at least up until this time, announced its intentions and objectives generally and particularly in respect of a national oil policy. Had the hon. member been here and had he listened he would have noticed the numerous occasions on which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) has stood up in this house to answer questions and make statements regarding the fact that the government is continually and actively pursuing a policy of finding additional markets for Canadian oil.


An hon. Member:: Where is he now?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He will be around later to talk about all the misstatements made in the house up until this time. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle obviously has not been watching the Canadian statistics respecting exports of Canadian oil. There has been an appreciable increase in those exports during the past few months. I know that part of this is due to the difficulty in the Middle East. There is no question about that. But in addition the minister responsible in this field has stated over and over again in response to questions that he has had talks with the appropriate secretary in the United States respecting the extension of Canadian exports of oil into the Chicago area. So the hon. member is completely inaccurate when he gets up and says that there have been no statements made regarding any action being taken to obtain additional markets for Canadian oil.
When we come to the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) we find exactly the opposite. He, for example, said that he is not satisfied today that there are sufficient reserves of natural gas in Canada so that we have any exportable surplus. I have heard these same old arguments over the years dating away back to the early 1950's. I have heard them from the same man and from the same party. The only thing that is certain about the proposal the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made today is that it is one they have tried and which has failed over and over again in those areas where they have had an opportunity to try it.
We know, for example, that over the long space of time when he was responsible for the government of Saskatchewan his government followed the kind of policy he outlined to us in the house this afternoon so far as gas and oil are concerned. The net result of following that kind of proposal was that there was no development. The risk capital that private industry is willing to put up is essential for exploration, first of all, and then the development of gas and oil reserves. During the latter part of his term of office in the province of Saskatchewan the only thing that was significant was the exodus of the oil companies from that province.
Since the government in the province of Saskatchewan changed this situation has completely reversed itself. Not only is the total amount of available oil increasing substantially but also the reserves over and above the amount required are increasing year by year. Therefore it is amazing to me that they continually advance this kind of argument when, as I said a few moments ago, the only thing which is certain about such a policy is that it has failed to provide the incentive which is required for this kind of development.


Mr. Rapp:: What about the Social Credit government in Alberta?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Social Credit government of Alberta has the largest reserves of gas and oil in Canada, and it certainly has not been following the kind of program the leader of the New Democratic party set out in this house today.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle suggested that there may be a violation of the law involved in the matter which is before the National Energy Board. I have enough confidence in the chairman and other members of

October 23, 1967

the National Energy Board to believe that they can read and understand what is in the statutes and the terms of reference under which they are working. I also believe they will uphold the Canadian law.
The hon. member complained further that the federal power commission is exceeding the law so far as their act is concerned and that what they are suggesting is ultra vires of their law or certainly goes against their tradition in the past. His argument was completely devoid of any consideration of what Canadian legislators or Canadian law enforcement agencies can do about United States laws. He knows very well that the federal power commission of the United States operates under United States law and is responsible to the United States legislators. What does he suggest the Canadian National Energy Board or the government can do about what a United States agency is doing? This is not something which is within the jurisdiction of the Canadian government. I suggest to the hon. member that he made a fairly weak case when he suggested that we have a legal right to force the federal power commission to abide by what he interprets to be the law.
Another suggestion he made was that perhaps there ought to be a conference between the officers of the federal power commission and the Canadian National Energy Board to see whether they could agree in respect of how matters like this should be handled. No one disagrees with that. I would think, however, that the hon. member is aware that continuing meetings are being held between the Canadian ministers and their counterparts in the United States respecting these matters.
I do not intend to discuss this matter at length because, as I said at the outset, I think it is improper for this kind of discussion to take place respecting a matter which is now before a properly constituted commission empowered to deal with it. When the National Energy Board has heard all the evidence and announced its decision that will be the proper time for the government to direct the National Energy Board to rescind its decision if it appears to circumvent or contravene either Canadian law or Canadian policy. I am sure that the minister, who already on many occasions has displayed his ability to look into these matters in an attempt to reconcile them with Canadian policy, will at that time take appropriate action. Certainly I do not believe it would be proper for the House of Commons or the government to attempt to tell the National Energy Board
DEBATES	3391
Policy Statement on National Resources what to do before it has heard the evidence when we in fact have not heard that evidence.
e (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, what this house seeks today and what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) endeavoured to obtain from the government is a basic statement of policy in respect of many areas which are proving to be of great concern to the Canadian people. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) expressed some objection to the comments of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle regarding the National Energy Board. Surely we have been waiting too long for the government to make a definitive statement on national resources, and surely as long as we are without such a statement we as opposition members are obligated to make a determined effort at every opportunity to obtain such a statement.
While the hon. member for Medicine Hat is concerned about the attitude of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle toward the National Energy Board, let us face the fact that no one in this country can feel secure about the attitudes and movements of this government in many fields of national resource development. Surely the hon. member for Qu'Appelle adopted the attitude he expressed today in order to indicate to the National Energy Board the feelings of the members of this house in respect of this subject.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he adopt the view that members of this house would be acting properly in directing the National Energy Board at a time when it is hearing evidence without having heard that evidence themselves?


Robert Carman Coates: I feel that the members of this house are acting properly when they indicate to the National Energy Board exactly what their feelings are about the proposal before them. Not only the members of this house but the people generally have the right and obligation to do this at every given opportunity, and this is one of those occasions.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Would the hon. member permit another question?


Robert Carman Coates: Hon. members may ask me questions if they wish when I have completed my remarks.
Let me direct my attention toward the east. Much has been said about development in western Canada. I should now like to place
my views before the government about a
3392	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources situation which is reaching, if it has not already reached, a crisis in eastern Canada. I refer to national resources development and the people of that area.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) this afternoon referred to certain facts which were made available to members of parliament by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, having to do with the emigration of maritimers from that area to other parts of Canada and the United States.
I placed these figures on Hansard during the budget debate and I am pleased that the hon. member saw fit to repeat them this afternoon. As far as I am concerned they cannot be repeated too often. These figures give the people in the rest of Canada a far better appreciation of the seriousness of the problems faced in Atlantic Canada.
In an effort to buttress those figures I should like to tell members that the emigration of maritime youth at the age when they leave school amounts to 500,000 since confederation. As the economic council pointed out, with the loss of such people we are facing an even greater problem than would otherwise exist. We are losing potential producers and individuals who could assist in finding solutions to our many problems.
For the ten years I have been a member of this house I have been concerned about the fact that familiarity with the problems of Atlantic Canada seems to result in the acceptance on the part of hon. members and Canadians generally of those problems. It is easy to pick up an Ontario newspaper today, at a time when we are facing a crisis such as has developed as a result of the Dosco announcement about its possible closure, only to find that we are being told to face the fact that if an industry is uneconomical it should be shut down. Are we also to accept the suggestion that we close the border between New Brunswick and Quebec and move all the people out to be dispersed throughout the remainder of Canada because the problems of our area are difficult of solution and because the government today does not have a policy which could provide a solution to these problems and thereby eliminate a disparity which has been in existence since confederation? Surely it is time we reversed the trend of the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer.
Surely it is time we received a policy from the government on the basis of a regional approach to the problems of the Atlantic provinces. Surely if we could obtain this kind of action from the government we might do

DEBATES	October 23, 1967
something about the disparity in personal income in the maritime provinces. Let me remind hon. members that the average income there is 30 per cent lower than the national average and 45 per cent lower than that enjoyed by the people of Ontario. If we could harness the resources of the Atlantic provinces and keep the people there perhaps we could march forward with the hope of providing equal opportunity for Canadians wherever they live.
Not only is there a great disparity in personal income but the rate of unemployment in the maritimes is twice that of the national average. One might almost think there is no potential in the Atlantic provinces and no hope of survival. This might appear to be true until we examine the resources available there which, if developed, might very well change the whole complexion of that area. It is in this regard I should like to direct the government's attention to my views as to how we might overcome the difficulties we are facing today.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
At the present time there is in existence a committee of the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which is examining the potential of the Bay of Fundy tides from a power point of view. This committee has been in operation for less than a year. I believe that a preliminary report is supposed to be available to members of the house about the end of this year. It is possible that the committee will complete its study and will submit recommendations by 1969 on the possible harnessing of the tides. But in view of the serious implications that underlie the elimination of a cornerstone industry in the Atlantic provinces, would it not be wise for the government to make every possible effort now to obtain the final report of the committee and have it available to them and the house much sooner than 1969?
Investigations which have been carried out indicate that there should be development in the Bay of Fundy at both Shepody Bay and Cumberland Basin. The indication is that they should be single-basin plants, each with its own powerhouse. The estimated cost of this development is $325 million, exclusive of interest during construction. The energy output is estimated at five and a half billion kilowatt hours per year, with 100 units each of nine megawatts. This is estimated to be only the initial return of power from the construction of these tidal power dams. What
October 23, 1967

impresses me is that United States Secretary of State Udall was willing in 1963 to urge the construction of the Passamaquoddy tidal power project in the Saint John River hydro development for the United States and Canada.
It is my understanding that there is at Passamaquoddy only one third the potential power that is available in the Bay of Fundy.
I also understand that we could produce power in the Bay of Fundy three times cheaper than at Passamaquoddy. That is to say, we could obtain three times as much power at one-third the cost in the Bay of Fundy. Yet we in Canada cannot make up our minds what to do. We dilly-dallied around in setting up the committee to investigate this matter. Two years were lost before the committee was established. Now we must wait until 1969 to learn the recommendations of the committee, when we face the most serious crisis that has confronted the Atlantic provinces in the last 100 years with the possible closing of Dosco and the loss of our coal and steel producing potential.
The steel industry of Cape Breton employs directly between 3,000 and 3,500 people and has a payroll of almost $25 million annually. Yet we are told by some in this nation that we should let this industry go, that we should in effect let the industrial heart of the Atlantic area disappear without even a qualm about the people directly affected. This does not include the 35,000 to 50,000 people indirectly affected by the possible closure of the steel mill.
As a nation we are only as good as both the richest and the poorest parts of the nation. If we are a nation with a conscience, surely we will not allow the poor to become poorer and the rich to become richer. On the contrary, we will endeavour through the taxing powers of the federal government to distribute the wealth of this nation so that everyone no matter where he may live has an equal opportunity to go forward. But this is certainly not the case today and it will not be the case unless we do something about the problems in the Atlantic provinces.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: Governments both Conservative and Liberal-I am not endeavouring to be partisan-have been talking for 100 years about the problems in the Atlantic provinces almost as though by talking about them and 27053-215
DEBATES	3393
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion doing nothing the problems would disappear. Surely, even though we have lost half a million young people in the last 100 years, we have at least indicated that we want to remain in the Atlantic provinces. Surely we have indicated that we want a viable economy in that part of the country, one that will allow our children and our children's children to stay in the Atlantic provinces if that is humanly possible. Surely we can expect, from whatever party forms the government of this nation, a policy that will at least hold out hope for the people of the Atlantic provinces. Today we lack any over-all policy that even gives us a little hope, the kind of hope we can hang on to until some solutions are found to the major difficulties that we face.
I believe that if the Bay of Fundy tides were anywhere else in the world, certainly anywhere else in North America, they would have been harnessed before now. The fact that this has not been done is almost beyond one's comprehension, when one considers the power potential there. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have in the Atlantic provinces raw materials which are close at hand and could quickly be developed with cheap electrical energy. We have the best ports in Canada from which to ship our products.


John B. Stewart: Hear, hear.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Order,
please. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:

The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Cho-quette): The federal-provincial conference- the two-nations principle, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain): The government's fiscal policy, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire): Airports-Montreal, Quebec-Concerning the rates on transportation of baggage by porters.

As it is now six o'clock this sitting stands adjourned until eight o'clock this day.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
October 23. 1967
3394	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statement on National Resources AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.

The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Hamilton and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Douglas.


Robert Carman Coates: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring to point out some of the reasons I feel the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides would be of material benefit to the economic crisis in which we find ourselves in Atlantic Canada. At that time I stated that we have the raw materials close at hand that could be processed into saleable products in the Atlantic area. I pointed out also that we have ports open the year round from which we could ship our goods by water, not only to other areas of Canada but to the markets of the world. I feel that too often we do not take advantage of what is available to us by way of our proximity to world markets.
I should like to stress that while the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) did say some things that were controversial in his speech at Banff, he pointed out that we should expend our federal money in an effort to produce a deep-water port in the strait of Canso area which would take advantage of the growing industrial complex there. Certainly I would be the first to encourage him in this regard. I should like also to see the federal government do everything possible to modernize the ports of Halifax and Saint John so that we would not be slipping behind, but would be going forward in our endeavours to provide the best facilities available to the shipping companies of the world.
I believe we are strategically located in Atlantic Canada to take full advantage of the concessions we have acquired under the Kennedy round, and if our ports were as modem and as efficient as they might be with a realistic government program we would then be in a better position to take full advantage of what might be available as a result of the Kennedy round negotiations. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) mentioned that there was only one company other than Dosco that might possibly be interested in controlling and utilizing the facilities
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif).]
at Sydney, Nova Scotia. I feel he should examine the facts as they exist today. He would learn that there is a wholly owned Canadian company, I believe, which has indicated it is anxious to acquire Dosco holdings not only in the maritime provinces but also in the province of Quebec. One of the main points made by this company in its submission to the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia relates to water transportation and the accessibility to foreign markets. They feel that they could take the steel complex at Sydney and Con-trecoeur and make it into a going concern. Naturally it is my hope, and I am sure the hope of the people of Nova Scotia, that this company has the kind of resources available that will allow it to secure control and allow it to utilize the cornerstone industry that exists there now, without which the whole economy of the area would be jeopardized.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I think members in all parts of the house should take cognizance of the facts pointed out in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of October 18, that a great many taxpayers' dollars have been expended on certain government projects that were beneficial to the whole nation, even though the return from them at any given time may not have been apparent. I am sure that the St. Lawrence Seaway, which has cost the Canadian taxpayer in excess of $400 million, would qualify, as would I feel certain the sum expended on the Avro Arrow, a project which was never completed but which cost the taxpayer $341 million. Nova Scotians did not berate the government of Canada for entering into such a project or for spending such a vast amount of money.
A similar type of endeavour was the stockpiling of uranium in the Elliot Lake area, which is the constituency of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), at a time when uranium companies were facing a dilemma not that much different from the one faced by the people of Cape Breton today. An amount in excess of $135 million of taxpayers' money was spent to maintain the uranium mines. I am sure I could point to many more examples of industries in various parts of the nation having to be maintained for the good of the economy of Canada.
This is the situation that obtains in the Atlantic area today. If the government and the minister would do everything in their power to see that the committee that is studying the potential of the Bay of Fundy tides produces its report before 1969, which is now
October 23, 1967

the target date, I think we could move in the direction of producing results which would end our problems. If the project that is under way were to receive the kind of endorsement that I believe it will receive, then surely the expenditure of the millions of dollars that would be demanded would very quickly restore confidence in the minds of the people of this area. It would certainly be an indication that we were coming forward with a project that in the initial stages would provide a great many temporary jobs and ultimately form the basis for attracting both primary and secondary industry to the Atlantic area, thus guaranteeing a bright future to the people and something that would be of benefit to all Canadians no matter where they live.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I must say, at the outset, that like Bossuet I feel somewhat crushed this evening by the amplitude of the subject proposed to us by the member for Qu'Appelle (Hon. Mr. Hamilton). And I am also very much aware, if I may use an expression that the new leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Stanfield) holds dear, of my intellectual limitations before the breadth of the problems submitted to us.
It is really necessary to be a living encyclopedia, a walking encyclopedia to answer all those questions on a five-hour notice. Indeed, the member for Qu'Appelle has mentioned just about all the problems, I repeat, just about all the economic problems that exist in Canada at the present time.
As a matter of fact, he mentioned the national policy on energy, including electricity, gas, oil, uranium and atomic energy, the national water policy, the agricultural policy, the forestry policy, the fisheries policy, the human resources policy, which comprises, I suppose, the whole problem of immigration and manpower. To complete the list, he also suggested a discussion on the misuse of all those resources, that is the pollution not only of water but of land and air.
It was only a start. Some members who took part in the debate, extended its scope to the extent of dealing with the continental shelf, area development and what not. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat overwhelmed by the great number of answers I should provide.
It is in circumstances such as these, Mr. Speaker, that some ministers think of the 27053-2151
DEBATES	3395
Policy Statement on National Resources joys of opposition and I admit that this afternoon, seeing the leader of the New Democratic party forging ahead on the waves of his imagination, I rather envied the freedom which is his, in these circumstances. He just about said that we were wrong to be overly concerned with provincial jurisdiction. He also stated that in such a debate, we were wrong to worry about the views of the owners of certain concerns operating in fields such as gas and oil production. He almost said that we were also wrong to be concerned over the views of foreign governments on this matter, and that Canada should, once and for all, determine her policy on energy resources without giving much thought to what the rest of the world might think.
In his customary fashion the hon. member for Burnaby Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) suggested hair-splitting, clear and precise contrasts. I am thinking, for instance, of the distinction he makes between continentalism and nationalism. I envy the position of anyone who can see things so clearly. As for me, I feel we are seldom given the opportunity of having to choose between continentalism and nationalism. I have sometimes said, half whimsically, half seriously-'"castigat ridendo mores"-that sometimes, the best way to be a nationalist is to be a continentalist; as for me, I would not mind being occasionally a continentalist, were it for the sake of the nation.
The leader of the N.D.P. has the knack of presenting us with clear and accurate situations, of telling us we should make up our minds once and for all as to whether we should export our products raw or finished. As if the option were that simple. He knows or should know that in most cases the question is not whether we should export our products raw or finished, but whether we should export or not, trade our resources or just sit on them. International conditions force us to make some concessions, some disagreeable arrangements against which we are unfortunately nearly powerless.
Nevertheless, I am in agreement with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle when he says that a discussion on Canada's natural resources at this time would enlighten the people.
My intention was to do so while discussing my estimates, but my hon. friends will recall that after giving me advice for two days they passed my estimates without giving me the opportunity to answer all those remarks they so generously showered upon me.
October 23, 1967
3396	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources
I agree, then, that this discussion is useful, because it will provide, in my opinion, a welcome antidote to the obsession of some Canadians who visualize all our problems in Canada in the context of national unity.
Mr. Speaker, above the interests of ethnic and economic groups, above the interests of the federal and provincial governments, there is individual happiness. Such happiness, as St. Thomas reminds us, cannot be without a degree of material security, which presupposes the maximum use of natural and human resources.
You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, that the public, who has an understanding of those things, is quite aware that problems such as national unity, bilingualism and recognition of collective rights, are secondary as compared with the need for material security and the quest for individual happiness.
Therefore, among all the subjects suggested by the member for Qu'Appelle, I will take up a few-gas, oil, uranium-and I will leave it up to my colleague the Registrar General of Canada (Mr. Turner) especially, and to others, to discuss the water problem. However, if there is unanimity on the subject, I will deal with that matter tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, my first point will be a little tedious but it is essential to the understanding of the argument I intend to develop and which is this. The dramatic, pessimistic, rebuking tone used this afternoon by some members is unjustifiable, un acceptable, after an objective analysis of the facts, and especially of power development in Canada, during the past few years.
I am the first, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the merit of the suggestions made in this house and I want to be the first to say that some very worthwhile ones were made this afternoon; they will be studied according to their merit.
But the debate of this afternoon left the wrong impression. The general impression that, in the last few years, the federal government has not done much as far as the development of Canada's natural resources is concerned, is false and I intend to prove it. The best way to do it, as you know, is still to use statistics, e (8:20 p.m.)

I wish to mention some relevant statistics which apply to the natural gas industry. This subject is rather dull. What I have to say will not be as interesting as the flamboyant declarations of some other hon. members this
IMr. Pepin.]

afternoon, but my figures will prove my point.
When speaking of natural gas quantities I shall speak of production in millions of cubic feet per day. I understand petroleum and gas best, when talking of them, as being produced by the day.
For my demonstration I have selected 1960, 1963 and 1966, with estimates for 1967 where I have them. I have selected 1960 because that was the year when the government of that day, with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) leading the way, introduced a national oil policy. I selected 1963 because of the great event in that year, the coming into power of a Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And I selected 1966 because it is the last year for which firm statistics are available.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is just so much gas.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let me quote the production figures for gas in millions of cubic feet per day. The figures are as follows. For 1960, the figure is 1,615; for 1963, it is 3,315, and for 1966, it is 4,460.
When one analyses growth rates he arrives at the following results. The growth in production from 1960 to 1963 is extremely high, at 105 per cent, or 27 per cent per year. The growth rate for the period 1963 to 1966 is 35 per cent, or 11 per cent per year. Taking the day to day volume, we find that in the period 1960 to 1963 the growth is at the rate of 1,700 million cubic feet, or 517 million cubic feet more per year.
Taking the period 1963 to 1966 the growth figures are 1,145 million cubic feet, or an addition of 382 million cubic feet per day.
The figures on the production side for the period 1960 to 1963 reflect a fabulous growth. An "extraordinary growth" will suffice. At any rate, we have tremendous growth. That is explained by the construction, in 1957, of the trans-Canada pipe line, the benefits of which were reflected between the years 1960 to 1963. Of course, we shall see a similar benefit, once the new Great Lakes transmission pipe line becomes operational in 1968 and 1969.
With respect to gas exports, I shall quote first the general figures. In 1960, the figure, taken in millions of cubic feet per day, is 300; for 1963, the figure is 990, and in 1966
October 23, 1967

it has risen to 1,185 million cubic feet per day.
In 1969, when the authorizations of the National Energy Board and the federal power commission of the United States reach their maximums, we shall be exporting 1,605 million cubic feet per day. One can see the growth increasing, again taking the figures in million cubic feet per day, from 300 to 990, to 1,185 and then to 1,605. This is a beautiful growth and I cannot accept the tone of pessimism which prevailed in the remarks of some hon. members this afternoon.
If one looks at the percentages, he sees that exports rose by 230 per cent in the three year period between 1960 and 1963. I am not toying with figures; these figures are most complimentary to some members of the opposition, who were then in the government one of whom spoke this afternoon. The growth rate for the period 1963 to 1966 is 20 per cent.
Growth in volumes reflect a slightly better picture from my own particular point of view. In the period 1960 to 1963 we had an export growth of 690 million cubic feet per day (230 a year); between 1963 and 1966 that growth was 195 million cubic feet per day (65 a year). But if one takes the period 1963 to 1969, remembering that in 1969 transmission through the Great Lakes system will reach its peak, the figure for exports growth is 615 million cubic feet per day (205 a year).
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) does not think too favourably of exports. I am afraid, having listened to his remarks, that I am caught in the web of a dilemma. To my way of thinking exports are one means by which Canadian economic growth can take place. Exports bring in money from the United States and help with our trade balance and our balance of payments. This afternoon the hon. member seemed to say that if we did not export oil and gas, United States industry would rush to Canada. I should be glad to see a demonstration of the truth of his contention. The real point, however, is not whether we should export finished or raw materials; the point is, should we or should we not export at all?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I remind the hon. member of the recent decision with respect to the Great Lakes system. The hon. member's party made a great to-do, saying that we should not allow Trans-Canada's second pipe line to go to the United States. Just a few days ago, however,
DEBATES	3397
Policy Statement on National Resources a $38 million order for the production of pipe line was given to Stelco in Hamilton. Some of the supporters of the hon. member's party in Hamilton are very glad indeed to benefit from this great contract. And because of our decision on the Great Lakes case, gas is provided to Ontario at a lower cost.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam expressed concern this afternoon that we were not taking all the necessary precautions to ensure that Canada would benefit for years to come of the availability of sufficient gas quantities. How conservative can one be? At the moment, the life index of the Canadian gas industry is 32 years, possibly one of the longest in the world.
Consider the growth of the reserves. In 1960, known reserves amounted to 27.4 trillion cubic feet. In 1963 the figure was 32.8 trillion cubic feet and in 1966, it was 43.2 trillion cubic feet. This means that irrespective of the consumption of gas the known reserves are growing steadily and are capable of taking care of all foreseeable needs by Canada, leaving room for exports, too.
Let us turn to reserves growth rates. Between 1960 and 1963 the figure was 20 per cent; between 1963 and 1966, it was 32 per cent. We have nothing to be afraid about in this respect; the growth rate is good.
Now, some figures as to volume. Between 1960 and 1963 we discovered 5.4 trillion cubic feet of gas, (1.8 trillion per year), between 1963 and 1966, we see that 10.4 trillion cubic feet were discovered, (3.5 trillion per year).
I also have figures with respect to prices of gas. It seemed to me that at one point this afternoon I heard the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle say that the cost of gas in Canada was as low as 6 cents while it was as high as 44 cents in the United States. This gives a false impression; the statistics I have, statistics which have been thoroughly checked, are altogether different. The cost of gas in Alberta, for example, to Trans-Canada Pipe Line purchasers was 13 cents in 1966; to the Alberta and Southern Gas Company it was 16 cents. In British Columbia, as purchased by the Westcoast it was 10 cents, but that was at the plant gate; at the wellhead it would be about 13 cents.
In the United States, in New Mexico, the average is 14 cents; in Colorado it is 14.1 cents and for the United States as a whole, 17 cents. Thus, the margins are not as extreme as they were made to appear this afternoon.
October 23, 1967
3398	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources
Let me now give the figures for the production of petroleum, in thousands of barrels per day for the same years. In 1960 it amounted to 544; in 1963, it was 787, in 1966, it was 1,013; and the estimate for this year is 1,150. This is a pretty good growth rate, Mr. Speaker-from 544 to 1,150 in six years. It would satisfy most countries of the world.
On the export side, in 1960, the figure was
123.000	barrels per day; in 1963, it was 265,000; in 1966, it was 385,000 and in 1967, the figure is 465,000.
Of course, I am in an impossible position because if hon. members opposite do not want exports I cannot please them by telling them that the rate of export is growing steadily, nor can I satisfy other hon. members who would like to see the export of even greater quantities. This is the difficulty in which the government constantly finds itself when asked to satisfy the demands of conflicting opposition parties. If hon. members on the other side were unanimous it would simplify matters, but of course this cannot be expected.
In terms of growth rate on the production side, the figure between 1960 and 1963 was 45 per cent (compound annual, 13 per cent); between 1963 and 1967 it was 46 per cent (10 per cent per annum). So the present government is doing as well, if not better than the previous government did-and I am paying homage to the previous government for having done quite well.
As to volume, still on production, the growth between 1960 and 1963 amounted to
81.000	barrels per annum, total increase being 243,000 barrels. Between 1963 and 1967 the growth rate was 91,000 barrels and total increase amounted to 363,000 barrels. This is pretty good, especially when one bears in mind the strength of the opposition in the United States to imports from Canada.
If we turn to exports we find that the figure for 1960-63 was 115 per cent or 29 per cent per annum-that is the growth rate- while between 1963 and 1967 it was 75 per cent, or 15 per cent per year. In volume exports during 1960-1963, increased by 142,000 barrels and in 1963-1967, by 200,000 barrels.
If we look at reserves, in millions of barrels, we find the figures are as follows: in 1960 the figure is 4,217; in 1963 it is 5,629; in 1966 it is 9,050. I would have to force myself considerably, with a reserved index of 21J years, to appear pessimistic about this situation.


If we had time to turn to the figures relating to the production of electricity, the picture would also be found favourable. In 1960, in terms of billions of kilowatt hours, gross generation amounted to 116. In 1963 the figure was 124, and by 1966 it had risen to 160. Moreover I have statistics here to show that power development on the Peace river, on the Nelson river, together with construction expected from Churchill falls would raise this figure still further. The Fundy project mentioned a few minutes ago will enable yet further power to be generated, and hon. members know that the federal government is participating in at least two of these developments, the Nelson and the Fundy ones, e (8:40 p.m.)
Coal production has been fairly constant since 1960 at about 11 million tons a year; there has been a slight increase in fact since 1963. As hon. members know, there is a good possibilty of exporting further quantities of coal from the Kootenay area to Japan, and the federal government has undertaken to temporarily subsidize western coal in order to make this feasible.
Hon. members are aware that the federal government has accepted responsibilties in attempting to reach a solution for the coal mining situation in the maritimes, which has become essentially a social problem.
With respect to uranium everybody knows that after a policy of stockpiling, and a temporary slow-down of production, uranium has again achieved status as a popular commodity throughout the world. It is expected that by 1974 demand will absorb all possible production from known reserves in Canada. By then production will reach some 11,000 to
12,000	tons per year. Hon. members have read in the press about recent uranium contracts signed by Canadian producers with Japanese and German interests, and so I shall not go into the details of those contracts.
Mr. Speaker, this is the energy picture, in statistical form, which should be the best way in which to pass judgment on the policies followed by the government, in aspects falling under its own jurisdiction.
Some hon. members have said this afternoon that the government's gas and oil policies are slightly outmoded and that the time has come to amend them. Let me deal with these policies in turn. With respect to gas I have already indicated what the growth has been-
October 23, 1967


Mr. Clancy:: May I ask you a question? Are you still shipping offshore oil from Venezuela into Fort Churchill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should direct his question through the Chair.


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to our gas policy I have already indicated the growth which has taken place in recent years, and have given a reassurance to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam about the future of that industry in terms of maintaining availability for Canadian development.
This afternoon mention was made of the role of the National Energy Board. I might not call what was said criticism, but certainly suggestions were made with respect to the board and its operations.
The gas policy of the government is to be found mainly in the National Energy Board Act, and with respect to prices is clearly defined in section 83 which reads:
Upon an application tor a licence the board shall have regard to all considerations that appear to it to be relevant and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the board shall satisfy itself that
(a)	the quantity of gas or power to be exported does not exceed the surplus remaining after due allowance has been made for the reasonably foreseeable requirements for use in Canada having regard to the trends in the discovery of gas in Canada; and
(b)	the price to be charged by an applicant for gas or power exported by him is just and reasonable in relation to the public interest.
This afternoon we were asked what the national gas policy was. It is given there. It is the responsibility of the National Energy Board to assess if the export quantities and the export prices are acceptable or not in the Canadian interest. This is not done in a back room; it is done at public hearings. Anybody can attend those hearings. For example, if the government of British Columbia has fears about the future of gas supplies in their province and about deliveries of gas in British Columbia, it can send a representative to appear before the board hearings in Vancouver, and say so. This is all done in public. No shadows cover the subject. In addition, after finding out the facts the board has to produce a written report of possibly 100 or 200 pages explaining the why's, the when's and the how's of the decisions it makes.
The board's report is not a private document. From it the public can make a judgment, and if the board makes a judgment favourable to an applicant the government of
DEBATES	3399
Policy Statement on National Resources Canada has to acquiesce in that decision. Then, as in the case of the Great Lakes transmission pipe line, the government must accept responsibility for its decision. If hon. members are not pleased with the government's decision they can criticize it, seek a special debate, and do whatever they want in order to bring it to the attention of the world.
In the light of these facts I am still a bit curious about the kind of changes my hon. friends opposite would like to bring about.
With respect to prices I could give a full explanation on the way in which prices are assessed by the National Energy Board. It follows a number of criteria which practice has taught it are reliable ones. It makes a comparison with the price of similar sales of gas at adjacent points in Canada. A second criterion involves a comparison with the price of similar exports. A third is a comparison with similar purchases from sources in the United States. Fourth, the board assesses the difference between price and costs. After all these considerations and others the board makes a decision.
I do not want to go into too much detail on this matter, but there are a number of systems of pricing. For example there is the "cost of service" basis, and the "straight contract" basis.
In the case of Westcoast Transmission the straight contract approach has created a problem. A contract was entered into in 1956 for certain quantities of gas at a price of 22 cents per thousand cubic feet. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) read from the Borden commission report, which deplored the price mentioned in that contract, a price which was less than that charged to Canadian consumers. The hon. member deplores also the low price. I also regret it. Everybody in Canada deplores the low price in the 1956 contract between El Paso and Westcoast and Canada has a natural desire to correct this embarrassing situation. There is no doubt about that. One is not being original in taking this position.
However, if one examines the history of that contract he finds that the price was the condition which made the pipe line possible. At that time demand in British Columbia for natural gas was not sufficient to justify the construction of the pipe line. It is all right to rewrite history here this afternoon, but is it not more relevant to look back at the circumstances in which that decision was made. Apparently it was hoped at that time that further contracts would bring the price up,
October 23, 1967
3400	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statement on National Resources and this definitely remains the hope of the Canadian government.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle mentioned, a further contract was decided upon some time ago between El Paso and West-coast. This new "package deal" contract would have had the effect of increasing the price under the original agreement to a more reasonable level. But the United States federal power commission has refused to sanction this new contract.
Of course there is a natural reluctance on the part of the federal power commission to depart from the original contract. Its decision, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle correctly said, was one that was essentially made in the interests of Americans. I have also read the dissenting opinion of commissioner Carver, and it is obvious that any Canadian would feel sympathetic to his observations. That is where the situation rests now. Westcoast has applied, in a hearing before the National Energy Board, for authorization of exports in accordance with the decision of the federal power commission. The National Energy Board will have to decide if these exports are in the Canadian interest.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This afternoon some hon. members took a certain physical pleasure in attacking the United States federal power commission. I do not intend to do the same thing for the very simple and good reason that in a recent decision, the one with regard to Great Lakes, the federal power commission went quite a long way in stating quite emphatically that in making the decision at that time they had in mind the Canadian interests. Members of the New Democratic party do not agree with this, but I should like to point out that the decision in respect of Great Lakes was made by the National Energy Board with the concurrence of the government of Canada as being in the best interests of Canada; and the federal power commission, when it agreed with that decision, also took that view.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was on second thought.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Whe have already had a debate on that subject and I do not think we should continue it now. This afternoon I had the feeling that some hon. members would be almost willing to recommend that we should get rid of the National Energy Board in Canada and suggest that the United States government get rid of the federal power commission. To use the words of the hon.

member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I think this deserves second thought; I think we should think about this quite a number of times because, as hon. members know, there is less regulatory action in both countries in respect of oil, but that does not mean that negotiations between the two governments are much easier on the oil side than they are on the gas side.
Anyway, for the time being we have a gas policy and the National Energy Board has a regulatory function to implement it. If the board decides to allow the Westcoast application at a price acceptable to the federal power commission, then the decision will come to the government of Canada and the government will, as in the case of Great Lakes, discharge its responsibility. If members are not satisfied then they will have full opportunity to criticize the decision in the same way they have taken the opportunity to criticize in the past.

Mr. Speaker, a few words before concluding on the matter of oil policy. I pointed out a while ago the growth in production, reserves and exports in that field.
Obviously, everyone in Canada, the producing companies, associations of producers, provincial and federal governements are attempting, to increase oil production as well as exports which are often linked to increased production.
One of these projects is the celebrated pipe line to Montreal, the purpose of which is to bring to the eastern Canadian market a part of the western Canadian production. Very serious studies have been made on this matter. Some authors say that the price of a barrel of oil shipped from the west to Montreal would be rather higher than the price of a barrel of oil purchased on the world market in the present situation. Others say that the difference is not sufficient to reject the construction of the pipe line; they refer to other benefits, that is marginal benefits, respect to taxation, industrial development, etc., to urge construction of the pipe line. There is then an honest and interesting discussion on the matter. It should be said that the subject is under constant review by the National Energy Board and the government of Canada.
Indeed a few months ago, IPAC the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada commissioned a research project on the pipe line to Montreal and we now have the Levy report. Mr. Levy is an international expert
October 23, 1987	COMMONS
living in the United States. And he precisely recommends to the Canadian independent producers to concentrate for the time being on seeking an increase of Canadian exports to the United States and, particularly, to the Great Lakes area. So, here is an opinion which for the moment at least-no one knows what will happen in five years-has the support of the "independents", of the independent producers of oil in Canada, a generally accepted opinion in Canada. For the time being, we should concentrate on increasing exports to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I said that the national oil policy introduced in 1961 has given excellent results. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made considerable use of it when he was premier of Saskatchewan and there are even people in Canada who claim that he has made excessive use of it and that Saskatchewan should have had a somewhat more conservative-it is the only word that comes to mind-policy on the best use of her resources.
That very policy, the national oil policy, has also made possible the development of tar sands in the Athabaska area. In fact the plant built for that purpose has been officially opened only a few days ago. With regard to the use of tar sands, Canada is in the forefront. The United States is far from ready to develop its own tar shale deposits. We are ahead of them in that field.
The national oil policy we are now pursuing prevented Canada from being unduly affected with regard to its oil supply by unfortunate international events, such as the recent political trouble in the Near East. That policy cannot be that bad, since it enables us to live through such crises and even to be helpful to	other	countries in such
circumstances.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said this morning that targets, objectives, should be established, that we should define the production volume to be reached two, three, four or five years hence and what our desirable export goals should be.
My impression is that this is what he meant. His suggestion is not out of place.
The Conservatives wisely introduced such targets in 1961. At the time, objectives had to be defined because it was necessary to reverse or change the trend. But today we have only to follow up on a clearly defined course which, for all practical purposes, has proven profitable.
DEBATES	3401
Policy Statement on National Resources
In fact, we do have such targets, such goals, namely, to continue our present policy, to develop optimum and maximum production in Canada, to export to the United States as much as possible and desirable, so as to secure very valuable currency.
This policy is well-known to the public at large. I feel that it is approved by provincial governments, and, as a rule, by industry. It could be argued that oil prices should be reduced in Canada; in that respect, it is interesting to note that oil prices recently went down by 2 cents in the Montreal area, in spite of the rather unpromising international situation.
That, then, is the present oil situation in Canada. We are trying to develop as much as possible our exports to the American markets.
It is that context that the Chicago loop project is found. My hon. friends know that Interprovincial Pipeline has asked for a presidential licence. We are awaiting the American government's decision. We hope, of course, that it will be favourable. And if it is, it will be the happy ending of negotiations that have lasted now for several months.
Mr. Speaker, I have tried to reassure my hon. friends in presenting to them an objective picture of the situation of energy resources in Canada, by showing them that so far as production of gas, oil, uranium, or coal is concerned-and I could have added hydro power and atomic energy-there is no reason to be pessimistic.
I have also attempted to show that we have an oil and a gas policy. Those policies are certainly creditable, they have undergone the test of success; however, success in that field is always relative but I think that I have proven that it was still tremendous in those fields I have especially enlarged upon.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Qu'Appelle rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes. I should like to ask the minister two questions. The first arises from his statement that the deal originally forced upon Westcoast because of its poor bargaining position in 1954 was based on the facts as they existed at that time. Liberal members applauded that statement. Does the minister reject the findings of the royal commission in 1958, that this was a bad deal for Canada, and that even though a new agreement
October 23. 1967
3402	COMMONS DEBATES
Policy Statevient on National Resources could not be made retroactive, when and if any future supply of gas was requested by this company the losses would have to be recouped by an averaging of the price on the next contract? Does the minister repudiate that recommendation of the royal commission in 1958?


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the contrary, I do not have to repudiate this recommendation. This was a recommendation of a commission, and it is quite valid for a commission to speak that way. However, I stand on what I have said with respect to the law as it now exists. The recommendation of the Borden commission is a relevant one, but it is only an opinion. The National Energy Board Act gives that board the right to make decisions in respect of these matters. It has the power to decide whether exports are desirable in relation to those applications coming before it, and it must decide whether the price is acceptable. I am quite sure my hon. friend will agree that this is the procedure that must be followed. When the board has all the relevant facts it will then decide whether further exports from Westcoast to El Paso should take place at the price indicated at the hearings. If the National Energy Board decides the exportation should be allowed, it will do so only after a complete analysis of the situation. Then, as I have suggested, the government of Canada will have to accept its responsibility in agreeing or disagreeing with that decision.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: My second question relates to the last part of the minister's statement. In view of the fact that the royal commission recommended that in any future agreement with this company, which is no El Paso, the price should be averaged out over the entire agreement in order that Canadians should not be subsidizing the United States, is the minister prepared to state, so everyone in this country can understand, that the Canadian government accepts the principle that Canadian people should not subsidize United States consumers of gas? Is he prepared to state now that the price under any new agreement should be averaged out over the entire agreement period in such a way that the United States consumers will pay slightly more than Canadian consumers do for this gas? What is the minister's position in this regard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think I should be pressed to express an opinion on this subject. The members of the National Energy Board are intelligent people and know all about the

history of this case, about the Borden commission recommendations as to the price of gas in Canada and the United States. If that board makes a decision favourable to West-coast it will be forwarded to the government and the government will then have to make a decision and in so doing, give an answer to the question asked by the hon. member. Even if the government tried to avoid giving such an answer it could not do so. I am asking the hon. member to be patient, because in due course he will receive his answer.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am very grateful to the minister for stating clearly his position. We now have a clear idea of the distinction between what was done in 1954 and what is apparently now to be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot speak a second time.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in one way I regret that the subjects placed before the minister were so broad, because he was unable to deal with the question of water and air pollution. I am sure he would like to spend some time in reference to this subject. In view of the fact that we are now dealing with the subamendment perhaps the minister will find the opportunity to deal with this important matter when speaking on the amendment.
This is the first opportunity we have had this session to discuss water and air pollution as this relates to our natural resources. At this time I should like to make a few comments on the subject, because pollution involves a question of urgency which is becoming more urgent at every moment. We could spend hours cataloguing the dangers of pollution in water, air and soil wherever they are occurring. In a general way I should like to outline the problems we are now facing in this country, having regard to pollution.
Water pollution is occurring as a result of the inflow of sanitary municipal wastes, industrial wastes, biochemical sprays, ground waters from mines and excavations, and even as the result of heat generated in highly industrial areas which damages the water and contents. We are experiencing serious air pollution as a result of industrial discharge and motor vehicle exhaust. We are also discovering soil pollution. Although this is not mentioned as often, it is considered serious by those who are interested in pollution generally. A great deal of soil pollution occurs as a result of chemical sprays, insecticides and underground dumps. In general those are the areas in which we face a problem.
October 23, 1967


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I be permitted a short interruption?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think my hon. friend is referring to a decision made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in his capacity as co-ordinator of the anti-water pollution program to give to the minister of health responsibility for pollution control in federal buildings. I believe my hon. friend is referring to this decision, and in that case the minister was exercising his power as a co-ordinator.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I recognize the two hats the ministers wears. Certainly, I am glad to hear he has been able to delegate some of his authority to another minister. I am very happy also to hear, if I understood correctly, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is chairman of the cabinet committee on pollution control in general. If I am wrong, then perhaps the minister would correct me.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the minister for his explanation. Now he has made it very clear he is the man responsible, so we can pin the whole thing on him. Perhaps he will take the credit with the blame. I assume, however, the minister is presenting the cabinet with some conclusions and plans. I certainly hope he does.
Another question we would like to ask is whether the government really intends to await the completion of studies and research before taking action on pollution control. I feel that at this point the government has to take an educated guess as to where they are going. There have been fairly extensive reports over the last two or three years and at the conference a year ago some very specific proposals were made about what the federal government could do. I feel we can study this problem to death. Some action has to be taken. There have been water samples taken and plenty of research done.
Two years ago the International Joint Commission made an interim report, and the government should now be in a position to take some interim action. The people of this country are expecting it. Finally, I should like to ask the government in what position they place pollution control on their list of priorities? When we come to this question, Mr. Speaker, the opposition has to be very careful. If we suggest to the government at this shaky stage in our economy that they should spend more money, they will say that we cannot ask them to spend more on the one hand and on the other to reduce expenditures.
However, priorities must be established. You have priorities for expenditures and priorities for legislation. I feel the time has come when the government has to declare itself as to where they place pollution control. Within the next few weeks a number of pieces of legislation dealing with social matters will be coming before us. I refer to the questions of capital punishment, divorce and so forth. These are important matters. However, I get the impression that we are having this legislation thrown at us so we will not notice a lot of other unpleasant things that are happening to our economy, that are happening to our country. The purpose may be to remove attention from the question of the economy or the question of pollution, by bringing up questions which stir up everybody and upon which feelings run high. It is
DEBATES	3405
Policy Statement on National Resources the old game of providing circuses for people so that they will not notice they are hungry.
We are not satisfied with this way of running the government. The question of pollution control has been placed down and down on the list of priorities, until at this time I do not believe it stands very high, despite the fact that it is probably the most urgent problem we have in this country today. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in his capacity of being in charge of the water resources of Canada and in his capacity as chairman of the committee looking into pollution control, is pressing the government for priority for his particular interests. I wish him well, and I am sure we all do, in his effort to squeeze the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), as well as his other colleagues, to the point where they will say, "All right, we will have to give in; we admit that you have the No. 1 priority at the moment, after that of our economy."
I think the time has come when this should be done. I would like to go with the minister, but I probably would not be very helpful. I believe a very strong case ought to be made for priority in this particular field. The public has become aroused. The problem is not the same every week. A week ago the Niagara river, an International Joint Commission problem, was in the news. This matter was raised by Senator Robert Kennedy of the United States, who went so far as to say that the Niagara river was a sewer. I think he has the right to say this because the United States puts more sewage into the Niagara river than we on the Canadian side. Incidentally, this is something that generally we politely overlook, but it is very clearly set out in the report of the International Joint Commission, and Senator Kennedy also refers to it in his statement.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs might engage himself in trying to put some pressure on the United States for pollution control. The minister does not seem to be getting very far with other matters and perhaps he should change direction and try pollution control; he might get some results in that matter. This would be a problem for his department, not the department of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin). I therefore urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to divert his attention toward something along this line which would benefit all Canadians.
340e	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources
I suggest it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is fundamentally a provincial problem. Nor is it good enough to say that studies are under way, or to say that we have not yet reached the danger level. When we do reach the danger level it will be too late, and this is apparent from the Niagara river situation.
Last week the problem of air pollution around Sarnia came to light, and there seems to be a great difference of opinion as to how bad the situation is and what is causing it. Probably the truth of the matter is that it is not as bad as some people contend but is a lot worse than some others realize. Problems like this will arise from time to time in different parts of the country. It always seems that one case in particular upsets people whereas the general situation does not.
Over the last two or three years there have been instances of air pollution in one place, water pollution in another place, and even soil pollution in some other place. In each case people get extremely upset and worked up, some attention is given to the question, the problem is settled or it dies down, and then within a very short time another problem arises. I suggest we have now reached the stage when the federal government should regard pollution control as of national concern, instead of as ten separate provincial problems and two territorial problems. I think that most provinces at the present time are quite prepared to co-operate with the federal government on this question.
There are several dangerous situations which must certainly be corrected, Mr. Speaker. Just this morning the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) promised that he would make a statement soon in connection with pollution control. But we do not want a statement, Mr. Speaker; we want an announcement of policy. The mere use of the word statement indicates that he will get together some kind of answer that will satisfy us for a few days, and he will say that he will look into the question.
What I should like to see from the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, is an announcement that the federal government has taken cognizance of the dangers of pollution in Canada; that it has awarded the subject very high priority on its spending program; that it has decided to set up a national pollution control advisory council; that it has decided to set up a national pollution abatement code; that it has decided to assist the provincial governments in meeting the problem of pollution within the provinces; and that the federal

DEBATES	October 23, 1967
government has now decided that the time has come to deal with this problem through an emergency crash program. Short of that, Mr. Speaker, the people, who are very concerned and upset, will feel that insufficient attention is being given the problem.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat I should like to repeat that the government must decide upon priorities. It is not necessarily a question of spending money; in a lot of instances machinery can be set in motion under existing programs. All of the provinces have anti-pollution bodies, and the only expenditure required would be the provision of some financial incentives. The problems of air pollution in particular are such that financial incentives are almost essential to the institution of any form of pollution control.
The subamendment makes reference to appropriate national standards to cope with pollution and also to any amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada that are required. I am prepared to go along with this wording of the subamendment and to support it, because it does set out fairly clearly my own view about remedying the situation.
So far as amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada are concerned, in general I agree with this, though a careful study should be made. Because if the production of materials that cause pollution was a criminal offence the law would be most difficult to enforce. In many cases people would be laid off work if the law was fully carried out. We have to take these measures very gradually. If the amendments to the Code were properly clothed with protection for people presently working in industry and we brought about pollution control gradually, then I would be in favour of them. Therefore Mr. Speaker, I make this strong plea to the minister and the government. We recognize that some measures have been taken, but the effort is not yet an all-out one, which is what we really need.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question. I am very keen to have all the advice I can get from my hon. friend. He is aware that there is a pollution problem with regard to the Ottawa river. He is also aware that on behalf of the federal government I have offered to pay the full cost of a project study of the situation which would lead to further remedial measures. I say "further" because some have already been taken. I am not yet fully apprised of the answer of the two governments, but would my hon. friend tell me what he would do if the two provincial governments refuse to participate?
October 23, 1967

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I fully concur in the minister's proposal relating to the Ottawa river project. I think it is an excellent pilot project. Without detracting from the credit due any other member of the house I should like to remind hon. members that this was my idea two years ago, even though certain other members brought the matter up earlier this year. I do not claim sole authorship of the suggestion because the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has also proposed this at various times. Having done that I am certainly not in a position at the moment to be critical. I think it would be an excellent pilot project. If the two provincial governments give their necessary consent and the federal government pays the cost of a pilot project, I think we shall see a job that will be well done and that will have earned our praise.
The minister asked what I would do if Quebec and Ontario refused to combat pollution on the Ottawa river. I do not know. If I were in the minister's position I should sit on this for a while.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, addressing myself to the subamendment which was moved earlier today by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) my leader, I wish to say that I, as he did, viewed the program the C.B.C. carried yesterday evening on television. In my opinion that program and the arrangements for showing it in prime listening time are in the best traditions of the C.B.C. The presentation was well balanced, with interviews being shown of lay and professional people. The Canadian people had an opportunity, through this program, to assess what is happening in the air they breathe. The program confined itself entirely to the presentation of questions to do with air pollution. I thought the corporation was wise within the limits of time available not to deal with other areas of pollution, such as soil and water pollution.
In my view the program had one and only one serious weakness, and that weakness could not be attributed to the C.B.C. That weakness was caused by a member of the government of Canada. As a member of the parliament of Canada I felt sadly let down by the pitiful spectacle the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) made of himself last night. Earlier this evening he was in the house; I wish he were here now, because I want to tell him how I feel.
DEBATES	3407
Policy Statement on National Resources
I regret that at this jucture in this country's affairs the minister, who is primarily responsible at the federal level for the health and welfare of the Canadian people, appeared on a program such as the one we viewed last night and, after shilly-shallying around, had nothing to say. His performance was a disgrace to this parliament and I will not mention what I think the effect of that performance may be on the government of the day.
Some years ago an hon. member, by a slip of the tongue, referred to the then minister of national health and welfare as the minister of wealth and helfare. The latter part of the designation seems appropriate when applied to our present minister, especially if he continues to display his attitude of studied indifference to this question of air pollution, one that is of such vital concern to the health of the Canadian people.
The program on television summarized, in effect, the subject matter of a number of articles on this insidious and steadily growing problem that have appeared in responsible publications, magazines and newspapers. The Toronto Globe and Mail, for example, in the last year has carried a large number of articles on this subject.
The minister seems content to allow the Canadian people to suffer the kind of "helfare" they are being subjected to in urban centres, and in certain major industrial centres of the country. If the minister feels that there is no problem, or if he feels that the problem will go away if nothing is done about it, for goodness sake let him stand up in the house and say so. That way we can assess his attitude to the responsible position he presently fills.
I was disappointed in today's question period. I was more than disappointed; I was sadly disillusioned. Last night I was prepared to reserve judgment on the Minister of National Health and Welfare, thinking he might not be in a position to make an announcement of government policy where the activities of more than one department were involved. I was disappointed with the Prime Minister's answers today. They were little better than the answers the Minister of National Health and Welfare made on television last night.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken), who preceded me in the debate, said that he felt the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) showed interest, as a minister, in the subject of pollution. In the ensuing cross questioning it
October 23, 1967
3408	COMMONS
Policy Statement on National Resources became apparent that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has jurisdiction in the field of water pollution. If I understood correctly, that minister said that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is responsible for pollution in federal buildings-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Does the hon. member not mean that he is responsible for anti-pollution measures?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggest, if the attitude of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on television is to be taken as an indication of how he feels toward his responsibilities in the field of pollution control, that he is not equal even to those responsibilities. If we are to get action on what most in this country believe to be a serious and major problem, the federal government must display a better attitude than that which its minister displayed on television last night. We all want to know where the government stands on this matter. Is anything being done about pollution?
Tonight the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources spoke at length about hydrocarbons. He did not refer to the entire field of pollution control. Although I know he cannot deal with all subjects in one speech, I wish to remind the minister that though hydrocarbons, in certain forms, are sold as an important commercial product, those same hydrocarbons, in another form, produce pollution. The minister did not take the house into his confidence, but I hope that we shall hear answers to the kind of questions the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka raised.
In my hand I have a copy of a return furnished in reply to some questions that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked on March 21, 1966. The hon. member asked:
How many branches or agencies of the federal government, including crown companies, are engaged in the study and/or control of the pollution, use, or disposition of the waters of Canada,-
The return from the minister of mines and technical surveys, as he was then, shows that four departments or agencies were engaged in such studies, namely marine sciences, water research and water resources, all of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, and the Atomic Energy Control Board.
In answer to the question whether there was a cabinet committee on water use policy, and, if so, when was it constituted, the department says:
The cabinet standing committee on trade and resources, created in 1964, includes water use in its term of reference.


We are not told whether the reference has anything to do with pollution.
The answer given by the Department of Fisheries mentions the Fisheries Research Board. The Department of Forestry and Rural Development tells us:
The Forestry Branch is indirectly concerned with one aspect of stream pollution, as an extension of its programs of research on the chemical control of forest defoliators, and through co-operative studies with the Fisheries Department to develop aerial spray formulations that present minimal hazards to aquatic fauna.
The Department of National Health and Welfare says there are two divisions of the department which are involved in the study and/or control of fresh water pollution, use or disposition.
Oddly enough, in answer to the question whether there is a cabinet committee dealing with the subject-a question to which the department of mines and technical surveys had answered, yes-the Department of National Health and Welfare said, no. Perhaps this is another indication that the minister responsible for this department does not know what is going on. The reply given is:
No. However, an advisory committee on water use policy was constituted in 1959 composed of deputy ministers of various government departments.
The Department of Agriculture mentions the prairie farm rehabilitation administration. The Department of Industry answers that the National Research Council is engaged in scientific and engineering research activities the results of which might be of interest in the study or control of pollution of water. Mention is made of the associate committee on water pollution research, the associate committee on waves and littoral drift and the Canadian national committee for the international hydrologic decade.
Next we find the department of northern affairs and national resources replying as follows:
The Canadian Wildlife Service is engaged in the study of fresh-water pollution resulting from the use of pesticides and biocides.. . and is also engaged in the study of use of fresh-water as it relates to the management of the migratory bird resource throughout Canada and to sport fish in the National parks of Canada.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, minister of transport at that time, answered that the Atlantic Development Board was responsible for some activities in the field of water control.
October 23, 1967

About the same time as this inquiry was made I myself put a question on the order paper and received a similar answer from the various departments through the secretary of state; the replies were more or less parallel to those given in answer to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). The answer I received was more specific with respect to activities in the field of pollution control. However, it gave the same impression that there was a sporadic, scattered, fragmented approach to the problem of pollution; that responsibility for study and action was scattered among various departments and agencies of the federal government and that there were a few thousand dollars scattered here and there throughout the estimates for work related, directly or indirectly, to the study, control and reduction of pollution.
The question we want answered is whether the situation today is any different from the situation which existed in March, 1966. As far as I know, no statement has been forthcoming to indicate that there has been any change from that scattered, hodge-podge miscellaneous effort. The hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka raised the question of federal legislative control. My leader mentioned section 165 of the Criminal Code which makes the creation of a nuisance endangering health, life, safety and so on an offence. In addition, of course, we have the federal Fisheries Act. Perhaps I should read to the house section 61 of that act. This particular section is, of course, concerned only with fish, and states:
Every person who causes or knowingly permits to pass into, or puts or knowingly permits to be put, lime, chemical substances or drugs, poisonous matter, dead or decaying fish, or remnants thereof, mill rubbish or sawdust or any other deleterious substance or thing, whether the same is of the like character to the substances named in this section or not, in any water frequented by fish, is liable, for the first offence, to a penalty of twenty dollars and costs, for the second offence to a penalty of not less than forty dollars and costs, and not more than eighty dollars and costs, and also in addition thereto a further penalty of not less than ten dollars and not more than twenty dollars for every day during which such offence is continued; and for the third or any subsequent offence, to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars and costs, and not more than two hundred dollars and costs, and also in addition thereto a further penalty not exceeding twenty dollars for every day during which such offence is continued.
It is doubtful whether these punitive or restrictive pieces of legislation are really the answer; the emphasis is not placed, in the main, where I believe most hon. members of this house feel it should be placed. I agree

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion with what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had to say in this connection. We think in terms of the old adage which says that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In other words, we want a positive program designed to halt the pollution of our waters, our air and our soil, something which can only be accomplished by co-operation between government agencies and all those in our society who are concerned with this problem.
May I call it ten o'clock?


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order under 39A deemed to have been moved.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Auguste Choqueite (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the two-concept philosophy of the Conservative party is an historic fact.
In 1911, the Quebec ultra-nationalist elements joined with the Imperialists, and the famous conscription which was highly denounced later on in the province of Quebec, resulted from that combination. A little later, in 1940-1945, Mr. Bracken's draft promoters joined with some so-called independents who came on the Quebec scene, the same ones who had also highly denounced Canadian participation in the world war.
Some time later, that same Conservative party-all this to prove its doctrinal hybridity-had in its bosom people like Jean-Noel Tremblay, an avowed separatist, who joined a John Diefenbaker who has always repudiated the two-nation concept.
At the last Conservative convention, Mr. Speaker, the famous two-nation concept became the war-cry of the Conservative party. Once again, the doctrinal hybridity of the party is manifest.
Now, what trick did the adoption of that stand hide? This subterfuge: that ideological deception, that political cant, was nothing but a wish or an attempt to live in concubinage with Daniel Johnson's Union Nationale. Now, Mr. Johnson was not taken in by that, because if the two-nation concept is to be implemented, it means, first of all, that we need a new constitution.
October 23, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In his book where, precisely, he explains the two-nation concept, Mr. Daniel Johnson states that the only possible solution for him, is to draft a new constitution. The two-nation concept also implies, for the French-Canadi-an nation, the right to self-determination. I wonder if the Conservative party is prepared to go that far.
The two-nation concept also implies statehood for a nation, the French-Canadian nation then having the right to identify itself with its own state. The two-nation concept also means that the two cultural communities must be represented on a parity base within the central bodies, and that in spite of numerical disparity because the constitution exists precisely to substiute a legal ratio for a ratio of numbers. Again I wonder if the Conservative party is prepared to go that far.
In order to get such a legal ratio, such legal equality, it will be necessary to abolish federal-provincial conferences. That is the logical and normal outcome of the two-nation concept. If there are two nations in Canada, there cannot be federal-provincial conferences; there cannot be conferences where the province of Quebec stands alone before nine or ten other governments. Therefore if they are sincere and rational, the Conservatives will have to ask that federal-provincial conferences be replaced by others where representatives of the French-Canadian nation will meet with representatives of the English-Canadian nation. If they do not accept all the practical conclusions of such a concept as the two-nation concept, it means that they are jokers, that they merely want to live in concubinage with the Union Nationale and that they simply wish to perpetuate this hybridity of doctrine which has been characteristic of them until now.
And, Mr. Speaker, today we know that the party in power, the government party-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, to continue and, even, to conclude my statement, I will say this. Since 1867, the Conservative party has always tried to conceal its character-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
should point out to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) that it is

not usual, and certainly was not contemplated at the time when adjournment proceedings were instituted, that there should be any points of order during an adjournment debate.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then would the hon. member permit a question?


Auguste Choquette: All I know is that the Conservative party has adopted the two-nation concept. That concept was rejected by the retired leader-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Auguste Choquette: -Mr. John Diefenbaker, and the party has betrayed the views of its former chief who has, indeed, been ignominiously discarded at the last convention.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It would appear that the hon. member is not prepared to accept a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: No, because he doesn't know what he is talking about.


Auguste Choquette: I conclude by saying that we, on the government side, instead of preaching two doctrines, two contradictory theories, we have only one policy, that of promoting the development of the French fact in Canada, of reconciling the cultural communities in this country, but we will not act hypocritically as hon. members opposite have done since 1867 by associating the most reactionary and most imperialistic elements with the ultranationalist and, even, separatist elements, because Yvon Groulx, an acknowledged separatist, has run for parliament as a Conservative candidate. Jean-Noel Tremblay, a well-known separatist, sat here with Mr. John Diefenbaker as a member of the Conservative party.
That shows the historic hypocrisy of the Conservative party, the doctrinal hybridity of that group which will be denounced as such in Quebec at the next general election.
October 23. 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	3411
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]	[Translation]


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I wonder wheth- Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary er the hon. member would permit a question. Secretary to the Prime Minister): Mr. Speak-Is he in favour of the institution of a er, could I answer in the other official lan-monarchy for Canada?	guage please?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, monarchy has nothing to do with that. It is clear that the country's constitutional evolution will have as its normal and logical conclusion the abolition of monarchy in this country because it is our duty to Canadianize our institutions.
We are no longer a colony, we are a sovereign nation. Therefore, let us abolish all symbols of colonialism. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) should be the first to advocate that, because I went to London with him last year and before the delegates of the various countries of the British commonwealth, he was the one who asked to sing "O Canada" because he was proud of our national anthem. He is the one who asked that "O Canada" be sung.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. gentleman be seated please.


An hon. Member:: Two countries; three flags.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It has everything to do with
hypocrisy.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka that it is not usual to accept points of privilege or order during the proceedings on the adjournment motion.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: He is establishing a contempt for the rules.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Has he read the Conservative resolution at all?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Has he read it? Does he know what he is talking about?


Auguste Choquette: Do you want two nations?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman's time has expired.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this is not the purpose for which the adjournment debate was authorized.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It was not the purpose that one member of the government should speak like this, and another member of the government reply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have some sympathy with the point of view of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. It raises a question, but I think this would be the wrong time to consider it. I assure the hon. member, however, that I will have a discussion with Mr. Speaker concerning this point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: While you are taking that into consideration, Mr. Speaker, you might also consider whether the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has violated the rules in an attempt to prevent the hon. member speaking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister.


John Ross Matheson: In reply I would like to refer my hon. friend to two addresses, one made by the Prime Minister at Banff, Alberta on October 15, 1967 and the other in Montreal last night, Sunday October 22, which I shall table. The Prime Minister pointed out at Banff on October 15 the following:
Federalism by its very nature is always in a state of flux. For it combines opposing forces- forces of unity and of diversity, of regional power and of central power-and these forces are in a constant state of adjustment in the face of changing economic, technological and international circumstances.


Auguste Choquette: Tres beau.


John Ross Matheson: The Prime Minister
declared:
It is the continuing responsibility of any national leader in a federal country to try to keep these

October 23, 1967
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion forces in balance; to recognize when positive action will reinforce the bonds that unite us, and when accommodation is required to reinforce the diversity which enriches us; and which, moreover, is an essential factor in unity. This has been my job-and my principal domestic concern-during my four years in office.
Specifically with regard to the so-called two-nation concept the Prime Minister said:
The same difficulty arises over the use of the expression "two nations", or "deux nations."
These words have come to mean so many different things to so many different people that their real meaning has often been lost in sterile semantics.
One thing, however, is clear and unequivocal. There do exist in Canada two distinct cultural and linguistic societies, one English speaking, one French speaking, with each including members of other cultural and ethnic groups.
He asked this question:
What are we prepared to do not only to preserve our two cultural societies in a federal political unity but also to allow them both to develop fully?
This is the question we must face, and urgently.
As recently as last night at a triumphal meeting in which he lashed separatism he spoke also of the challenge arising from our federalism and the cultural duality of our nationhood.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is phony, the whole thing.


John Ross Matheson: He then said, and I am referring to the Prime Minister:
But I am stirred only to opposition, to indignation, at the appeal to break up a political society, to divide and destroy a country whose people, all of them, of whatever race or background, are more and more coming to realize the true nature of our Confederation ...
For now we are realizing, far more than ever before in our history, how fortunate we are to have as the foundation of our Confederation, the two great languages and cultures of the west; one that has spread the idea of man's freedom and dignity throughout the world, and the other that has done so much in organizing that freedom for political action based on law and justice.
How fortunate, also, we are that on this dual foundation we have been able to build a national structure which includes the strength and colour and quality of Canadians of so many other racial strains.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order, order.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: What a travesty of the rules.


John Ross Matheson: The Prime Minister also said last night:
Separatism is a voice without hope, when the future holds more hope for Canada than ever before in our history-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted for the hon. member has now expired.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I know you have ruled that questions of privilege or points of order are not acceptable at this time, but you have also indicated that you would take under advisement the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). Let me remind hon. members that this debate on the adjournment motion is still an experimental thing and is on trial. What we have witnessed here tonight is a supreme example of irresponsibility on the part of representatives on the government side and it will not encourage the continuation of this useful debate.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, some of my comments have been called into issue. I can only say I did not hear about this question until approximately an hour ago. I can only say on my honour that I came into this house endeavouring to answer this question which was asked on October 6, 1967. The only possible way I could attempt to answer the remarks made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere was by referring to two addresses delivered by the Prime Minister within this month, both relating to this very subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you did not answer the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now debating the issue. I assure members of the house that I will bring this type of question on the adjournment motion to the attention of Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This has been a perfect illustration of a Charley McCarthy, Mortimer Snerd performance.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I wish to make stem from a question which I raised the other day in the light of an article-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, on October 18 last I put a question in connection with a news item which had appeared in the Globe and Mail and also in several French newspapers. It was reported that Mr. Neil J. MacKinnon, chairman of the Canadian Imperial
October 23, 1967	COMMONS
Bank of Commerce, had made a charge against this government and I quote:

It is not too much to say that government deficit spending, combined with a permissive monetary policy that allows continuous inflation really involve a massive swindle-a swindle perpetrated on the great majority of the populace who are least able to protect themselves against the consequences.

I say that the word "swindle" can be translated in French-because I have here an excerpt from the newspaper Le Devoir-by "gigantesque duperie".
Mr. Speaker, I know that it is a very serious and even libellous accusation first, on the face of the words alone. In fact, if I refer to the Oxford dictionary, volume 10, page 332, I read this:

The Oxford dictionary:
Swindle 1. An act of swindling; a fraudulent transaction or scheme; a cheap, fraud, imposition.

Now here is what the French dictionary has to say.
Dupery: to make one the victim of deception, to have one believe a falsehood to be true, to cheat, make a fool, to gull, to take-in. Synonyms: swindle, gull, trick, deception.
In the face of the words themselves, there was libel. And all the more so, because the one who spoke the words holds a responsible position as president of his bank and normally, he does not speak through his hat, nor is he even liable, on occasion, to stray into the vineyards of the Lord.
Another circumstance which makes the offence even more serious, Mr. Speaker, is that he spoke at a meeting of the International Conference of the Financial Executives Institute.
Another aggravating circumstance, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that he attacks, that he takes for his target the lawful government, a government elected according to the rules of democracy, and responsible for the country's future; this government should be far more conscientious than this citizen would have us believe.
Still another aggravating circumstance is to be found in the effects of this statement, of this accusation, of what we may rightly call a libel, on the national and international press, with the resulting lack of confidence on the part of investors, of financiers who might do business in Canada.
DEBATES	3413
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
A few naive souls here in Canada may take quite literally such an accusation coming from so high. Others may wonder with a perfectly understandable concern in the circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is the duty of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), who is the spokesman for the government in the important matter of financial policy which affects the lives of all Canadians, to answer these charges. I see only one way to ask the president of this bank to come and justify these charges: by asking him to appear before the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, or the committee on miscellaneous estimates. I am warning the house that I shall resort to every means at my disposal under the rules to have it convened without delay.
Until I have proof to the contrary, I trust that the Minister of Finance is doing his best in the circumstances, in a difficult situation and that if that bank president happened to be able to prove those allegations, the government would only have one alternative: to go to the country, because it would lose the opposition's confidence.
On the other hand, if the bank president has been guilty of such a serious, libellous and slanderous charge, then, as a gentleman, he should at least explain his stand, apologize and admit his mistake and his irresponsible statement.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, by way of reply to this question may I refer to what I said in the House of Commons on October 4 in the course of the budget debate. I then said:
I think it is important for all of us in the house to realize that the root causes of the rise in prices and costs that we are now experiencing are not located in any one place. I know that it is very easy for members opposite to point to the government and say:	"You are the cause". I
suppose this is the natural thing to do. It is always quite natural to point to the government and to say that the government is at fault in a given situaiton. In the present situation the government does have a responsibility. I hope that we will discharge it, and all my colleagues on this side are determined that we will discharge it.
But even if we fully discharge our responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, there will remain a problem which requires the utmost co-operation of other governments and of the public at large.
I have read the newspaper reports of Mr. McKinnon's speech and, like the hon. member, I was shocked and disappointed that the
3414	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion president of one of our leading banks should have used such extreme language. I can understand that Mr. McKinnon should be concerned about inflationary pressures, as we all are, and I am particularly sensitive to criticism of government policies. I do suggest, however, that the extreme language that Mr. DEBATES	October 23, 1967
McKinnon has used is not likely to contribute to the attainment of the objective that all responsible Canadians share. Indeed, it may make the situation worse.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
3415.

Tuesday, October 24, 1987