1969-04-15

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is today in a position to answer the questions asked yesterday about the serious flood threat in western Canada, whether he has ascertained through his office that provincial authorities have made requests for assistance and whether he has had an opportunity himself to inquire as to the extent of the flood threat and the availability of assistance from various federal agencies in that area?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I received a report from my office on these points. The essence of the report is that there will be no disaster of major proportions that we can foresee, although there has been considerable damage. There have been no requests made by the Saskatchewan government to the federal government in Ottawa; however there have been requests to the prairie region headquarters of the Canadian Forces and a request from the Saskatchewan Emergency Measures Organization to the federal regional E.M.O. office in Regina.
The assistance we have given has taken two forms, one military and one non-military. One hundred and seventy-five troops are in Lumsden providing manpower in the town. One hundred and seventy-five thousand high quality military sandbags have been provided by the forces and delivered to the area. Another 200,000 sandbags of lower commercial quality have been flown in by Hercules aircraft from Winnipeg and Montreal. In addition, all the Canadian forces bases in the prairie region are on a 24 hour standby alert
ready to meet any further request. There are also a number of federal departments assisting, Mr. Speaker. I have further details if the opposition would like them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to inquire as to whether the flood threat is apt to increase, in view of conditions in the United States? Is it his view that the threat has reached a high now or that the danger is apt to increase?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am informed that the flood crest is expected to be reached within the next 24 hours, and that after that it will subside gradually.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, knowing what the army was doing I asked a question yesterday in respect of this situation with particular reference to whether the P.F.R.A. authorities had been made available by the federal government for the purpose of assisting in .this matter, in view of the fact they are particularly qualified.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can answer in only a general way. Apart from the military, there is some non-military assistance from the federal government, involving several departments. P.F.R.A. is actively advising with respect to minimizing possible crop damage.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the province of Manitoba, which will feel the impact of the flood conditions within the next few days, has the Prime Minister been contacted by the provincial authorities, and what precautions axe being taken in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said, Mr. Speaker, even the government of Saskatchewan has not applied directly to us, and my information is that the province of Manitoba has not, either.

April 15, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



ALLEGED DETERIORATION IN POSTAL SERVICES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that, in common with a great many other members, I am receiving complaints from across the country about the distressing deterioration in the postal services, and since this seems to coincide with the new regulations, may I ask the Minister whether he is reviewing the regulations and is planning any changes in them with a view to improving the postal service?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we are doing a great many things to improve the organization and the services of the Post Office, but we are not planning any changes in five-day mail service or in single mail processing. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member knows, the adjudication is presently proceeding, and I expect that this will clarify a great many points.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has referred to the five-day
delivery service. Is he satisfied with regard to the letter sent to him, a copy of which I have, which indicates that an individual in Montreal received a letter on April 10 which had been mailed in Toronto on April 1?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: A good service!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Marcel Lamberi (Edmonton Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement that the minister wishes to improve the efficiency of his department and bring closer together the relationship of costs and revenues, would he now advise the house why overtime charges are mounting and service is diminishing? This is an admitted fact.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, that was an erroneous report in the Globe and Mail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric William Kierans: Overtime charges were on the increase during the fall and prior to the introduction of the five-day week. Since the middle of February, that is, since the introduction of the five-day week, overtime has been very considerably on the decrease. At the

same time I might correct another report I was reputed to have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Perhaps we could straighten out some of the difficulties encountered in the department if the minister would clarify whether the five-day system means a minimum of five days in the delivery of mail.



PROTESTS BY WEEKLY NEWSPAPERS RESPECTING RATE CHANGES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has received any protests from the traditional weekly newspapers which have been operating in western Canada for a number of years, and have gone bankrupt because of the new regulations. Also, many people have had to give up their subscriptions to the daily newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose).


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister wanted to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat, please. The minister might want to answer his question, which might be answered at the same time as the one which the hon. member for Fraser Valley West wishes to ask now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I submit, with the greatest respect, that this seems to be completely out of order. My question is either in order or not, and there is no reason why it should be answered at the same time as another question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.



ENGAGEMENT OF CASUAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesi):: My
question is addressed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that he just reported that the charges for overtime have been diminishing, may I ask him whether this is due to the overwhelming presence of casual employees in the various post offices across Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to rule at this time that the minister should not answer either question.
April 15, 1969



ALLEGED INCONVENIENCE IN SALE OF STAMPS

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. In view of the admitted and obvious embarrassment of postal clerks who are on duty on Saturdays and not able to sell stamps at post offices so that they have to tell people to go to sub post offices miles away to buy stamps, will the Postmaster General reconsider these regulations.


Eric William Kierans: They do not have to go to sub post offices miles away. The sale of stamps does not take place in regular post offices because if it did they would have to keep a supply of stamps and increase their staff considerably, so that the whole purpose of the exercise would be lost. In fact people can secure stamps from any number of sub post offices in the vicinity.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since he has just announced that a study will be made on the control requirements of air traffic in the Montreal area, I should like to ask him if similar studies have been conducted before and if others will be conducted in other urban regions in Canada.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: I am not certain to which study my hon. friend is referring, but if it is to the one recently announced involving some consultants who have done studies in Paris, London and other places, the answer is, probably, depending on the results of the study being undertaken in Montreal.



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to say, first of all, that I am pleased to see him back, with his tan, and I hope that he acquired it during his visit to several urban renewal centres the week after Easter. Accordingly I should like
Inquiries of the Ministry to put to him the following question, which I shall read because I do not want to leave any ambiguity in the minister's mind.
Will the minister tell the house whether he had an opportunity during the Easter recess to examine any of the public housing and urban renewal projects which he indicated he would have to assess-and this was to be during the week after Easter-prior to announcing his new code of standards and or guidelines for municipalities wishing to obtain federal approval for such projects?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I spent a great deal of time thinking about this question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Where-at Bugaboo?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I concluded that it is a very
complicated matter, but my hon. friend will be pleased to know that I intend to visit Vancouver and Calgary in the next two days and, hopefully, will then be in a position to issue some guidelines within a matter of a few days.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. If he travels west for the purpose of visiting urban renewal projects, will he visit the Rose Blanchard urban renewal project in Victoria, which apparently has been stalled for some weeks?


Some hon. Members:: What else is new?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
CJW.H.C.-CRITERIA APPLICABLE IN PROJECTS Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):
I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister when he will be in a position to lay down the sociological and other guidelines that he announced within a few days before we recessed for Easter would be laid down.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Next week, Mr. Speaker, if not this week.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Would the Minister of Transport take this matter up with the Prime Minister before going to Calgary, so as to learn the technique of ducking overripe tomatoes?

April 15, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS FOLLOWING TASK FORCE REPORT


Mr. David Lewis (York Souih):: May I ask
the Minister of Transport, in his capacity as minister in charge of housing and in view of his hope that legislation would be passed in time to be of use during the spring construction term this year, when parliament may expect the bill he promised embodying some of the recommendations of the task force which he chaired.
Both spring and the construction term have now begun, and it would be interesting to know when we may expect the bill to be presented.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This is the same question as was asked the day before the house rose for the Easter recess, and the answer is the same optimistic one I gave at that time.


David Lewis: It may be the same question, Mr. Speaker, but two weeks have elapsed and I should like to ask the minister now whether his proposed legislation has been drafted- whether it is being considered by cabinet or whether it is still in the process of being drafted.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no change in the answer I gave earlier, Mr. Speaker. We are making excellent progress and I hope the bill will not be long delayed.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to set up a separate ministry of housing and urban development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



MEETING WITH FARM ORGANIZATION TO CONSIDER EMERGENCY PROGRAM

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May
I take this opportunity to ask the Minister without Portfolio whether he met with representatives of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union in Saskatoon last Friday and, if so, what emergency programs does he contemplate to deal with the critical situation facing grain growers on the prairies?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: I did attend a meeting of the Saskatchewan Farmers Union in Saskatoon last week. The union presented a brief dealing particularly with feed grain and the quota situation with regard to feed grain. I told them I would be very happy to discuss their representations with my colleagues in the cabinet and that I would do so with a view to seeing whether policy of the Conservative government should now be reversed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: While the hon. gentleman is considering programs and policies of the Conservative government, would he also reactivate the aggressive sales program of that government?



COMPENSATION FOR SALES BELOW I.G.A. FLOOR

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Did the Farmers' Union make any representations to him regarding the request that the government should compensate them for any sales below the floor price specified in the International Grains Arrangement and, if so, what reply did he give?


Otto Emil Lang: The meeting in question was called specifically to deal with the subject of feed grains and the quota regulations in that regard and discussion was restricted almost exclusively to that subject. References of a broader nature which were made to farm income were made largely by myself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that representations have been made in writing by the Farmers' Union to the government regarding the loss of income from selling wheat below the agreement price, has the government given any consideration to whether or not the farmers will be compensated?


Otto Emil Lang: These questions are still under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I direct to the President of the Privy Council is one that is of tremendous interest to the Canadian
April 15, 1969

people generally and also to the members of the House of Commons. Can the minister tell the house approximately when the official languages bill will be before this chamber? He does not have to fix the actual date, but will it be within the next two weeks, so that members may arrange to be present?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will have noted, my colleague the Minister of Justice will be bringing before cabinet certain proposed amendments to the official languages bill. I do not expect it to be ready before two weeks time, but I hope it will be ready soon after that for continuation of the second reading debate.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to address my question to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Did the minister meet with the Ford officials as promised, and was he successful in convincing them that the price of their new Maverick car should represent full and omplete parity with the price paid in the United States for the came car produced in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe my colleague was in touch with the Ford officials, as he suggested was his intention, and gained from them a continued assurance that they would work toward better productivity with regard to automobiles in Canada.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The minister did not answer the question. May we expect full and complete parity in price?


Otto Emil Lang: Parity in price is, of course, the objective, or, rather, it would be more correct to say that the lowest reasonable price is the objective, because there are differences in the Canadian and United States markets which might in the long run result in different prices. But certainly it is our hope that prices in Canada will be as low as possible.



DEVCO-COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF MINERS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easi Richmond):: 
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to that which I might give to the hon. member, who has raised the question on two or three occasions.


Malcolm MacInnis: Two or three? You can't count.


Russell Clayton Honey: This question has reference to the pre-retirement leave plan of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Intentions in this regard have been known since November 18 of last year when the minister tabled the over-all plan of Devco in the house. At that time he made it plain that the government had approved the plan of which the pre-retirement leave provisions are an integral part.
To implement the plan Devco recently sent out some 1,300 letters to members of the mining force aged 55 and over. In accordance with the plan those workers aged 60 and over were advised that the pre-retirement plan would take effect for them on April 26. Those between 55 and 60 were given the option of taking advantage of the plan if they so desired.
I might mention that of the 671 members of the mining force aged 55 to 59, more than 500 have informed the Cape Breton Development Corporation that they wish to take advantage of the pre-retirement leave plan as of May 1.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to indicate to the government that despite the fact that a number of miners are accepting, it is nevertheless those individuals who are being forced to retire at the age of 60 whom we must concern ourselves with. Otherwise we are-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member recognizes that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate rather than a point of order. I do not recognize that there is a point of order there at all.


Malcolm MacInnis: Then I will give you a legitimate point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me see the Prime Minister smirk this one off. In the act setting up the Cape Breton Development Corporation, under section 18 the corporation has-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a legitimate point of order he

April 15, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry should quote Standing Orders, not a statute. I cannot recognize that the line he is taking now justifies a point of order. However I will hear him out and reach my decision after.


Mr. MacXnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I will refer once more to section 18, which was referred to in the answer given to me. I call the attention of the house to subsection 3 of section 18, which reads:
No bylaw made under this section has any effect unless it has been approved by the Treasury Board.
As late as yesterday Treasury Board informed me that the government has not approved this plan. Therefore it is illegal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I must tell the hon. member that this is a point of debate, not a point of order.


Malcolm MacInnis: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have a question of privilege.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I have known in this house occasions when questions affecting United States dope peddlers in the Don jail and in Ottawa were discussed. If they were given consideration, then I think Cape Breton miners who are being forced to retire at the age of 60 are also entitled to some consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, that is not in my opinion a question of privilege. The hon. member asked a question and received a reply. He may not be satisfied with the reply he received but I am sure many hon. members are in the same position of not being satisfied with the replies they receive, just as ministers may not be happy with the questions they are asked. This does not mean that there should be a point of order or a question of privilege whenever an hon. member is not satisfied with the answer that is given, or a minister with a question that is asked.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does he support the early retirement plan of Devco?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether that question has been asked of the minister in his ministerial capacity or in his personal capacity, and I should like to know that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West is rising on a question of privilege and he should have precedence.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, while I am not directly implicated in this question I feel that, as a member of this house, my privileges are being called into question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has on numerous occasions asked a question similar to the one he is now raising. On those occasions when the minister was here he professed ignorance of the point at issue. The hon. member directed a similar question to the Prime Minister yesterday as well as on previous occasions and was fobbed off with the answer, "Ask the question when the minister is here." My point of privilege is this. We have this so-called roster system, which I for one do not accept. Slated for appearance today are 18 ministers. When Your Honour called orders of the day only seven were present. Since then three stragglers have come in. I point out that yesterday when a question arose with regard to a motion for adjournment as was put forward by my colleague for Malpeque, Your Honour said that it would be proper to put the question or the motion when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was present to answer to those problems posed by the motion. With the greatest deference, there is no indication when the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be here. It may be in one week; it may be in ten days-


An hon. Member:: He may never get here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Similarly, the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should be asked a particular question. That minister was not then present and is not present today. The problem of my colleague for Cape Breton is imminent, since there is a deadline to meet, April 25. Hon. members of this house have the right to ask any number of questions of the ministry, which is responsible in general to this house. Questions
April 15. 1969

should not necessarily be directed only to one individual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is the point to which I object. Now lacing us are seven or ten ministers out of a ministry of 28 or 29. They do not hold their power from God. They do not hold it from the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: That's news.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They do mot hold it from a Prime Minister who may have elevated himself near to that position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They are responsible to this house, Mr. Speaker. The rules of this house which govern Your Honour, just as they govern me, provide that hon. members shall have the privilege of questioning the ministry, and not just individual members of the ministry as they take their turns in appearing here. We are quite prepared to allow for the absence of ministers in the regular course of duty. But, Mr. Speaker, I as a member of this house do protest, and claim it is a breach of my privileges as a member of this house to be faced with this contemptuous decision on the part of the ministry that they shall straggle in, a half dozen or ten of them, as they see fit.
They are the people who are responsible to this house and to the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And it is
not the responsibility of hon. members on this side of the house, whose attendance is far better than that of hon. members on the other side, and of the ministry in particular, to be always present.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And if we
agree, we can compare the attendance on both sides.


Some hon. Members:: Ah! Ah!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am closing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member does not feel that he has now stated his question of privilege?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as long as I am not given satisfaction, I shall insist on the rights of hon. members.


Mr. Langlois:: Of course.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I shall also insist on hon. members getting an answer and on the ministers assuming their responsibility before Parliament, not only by means of a television debate but by really doing their duty by us, as members who have been elected by the Canadian people.
However, I know that spring has come and that the crows are appearing again-

I have refrained for a good, long time from commenting on this performance on the part of the ministry with regard to hon. members of this house. I say that the insistence on this roster system and the flagrant derogation from attendance in this house by ministers is an abuse of privilege. I make this protest not only on my own behalf but on behalf of all hon. members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we might allow the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to put his supplementary question.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. With deference to your ruling, sir, I understood that it might not be possible to put the question to the minister in his personal capacity. May I indicate that no minister is more deeply involved in this retirement plan.


An hon. Member:: Which one are you? -The bum or the idiot?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Discipline yourself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we could have order in the house so that we may proceed with the question of privilege. I know many hon. members are anxious to ask questions and I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond should be allowed to ask his supplementary, if it is in order.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, no hon. member here is more deeply involved in this particular early retirement plan than is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I

April 15, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry ask again, does the minister endorse the compulsory retirement of Cape Breton miners at the age of 60?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to answer, this plan has been approved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I allow the minister to answer only in his capacity as a minister. I must say at this point that I am not all that sure whether the question asked by the hon. member relates to the minister's-


An hon. Member:: It may be.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the suggestions made to me and the advice given to me by the hon. member for Edmonton West. In view of his suggestion I will recognize the minister in his ministerial capacity and permit him to answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the over-all plan to which the hon. member refers has been approved by the Government of Canada. Under the terms of the legislation it has also been submitted to the government of Nova Scotia, and to my knowledge there has been no objection from that quarter either.


David Lewis: Once again I must remind the minister that his answer is not in accordance with the facts, and this has not been approved by the Treasury Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members might agree with my suggestion of 15 or 20 minutes ago that we were entering into a debate. I gather the hon. member for York South has a supplementary question.


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and in relation to the answer which he gave, if he still remembers it. I want to ask him whether he has inquired whether the corporation has in fact passed a by-law providing for this early retirement, as required by section 18 of the relevant act? Has that by-law been submitted to the Treasury Board and has it received the approval of the board as provided by subsection 3 of that section?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I do not personally have the knowledge to answer the question of my hon. friend. The minister will be in the

house tomorrow. He was out of Ottawa yesterday on government business, but he is detailed to be here tomorrow and will deal with it at that time.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: The minister of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been referred to. He is out in the corridor and I was wondering why he did not come into the chamber today. In that connection I point out in this matter that I have kept a record of the ministers' attendance. Out of 49 sitting days, ministers have been away 83 times when they should have been in the house doing their duty.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for York South has a supplementary question.


David Lewis: I want to pursue the matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and ensure that this house receives this information. The act does not provide for approval by the ministry or the cabinet. The act provides that early retirement must be made by a by-law of the corporation and by approval of that by-law by Treasury Board. Will the parliamentary secretary make the necessary inquiries and either he, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or, God willing, even the President of the Treasury Board, may give us this answer tomorrow?


Russell Clayton Honey: Yes, I will give that undertaking.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is he now in a position to give us a report on his meeting yesterday with Hon. Jean Pussier, Quebec Minister of Municipal Affairs, regarding the site of the future international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting yesterday afternoon and reviewed the positions of the two governments. A review of those two positions will now be reviewed by the two governments.
April 15, 1969



AIR POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the increasing air pollution in urban areas caused by faulty motorcar exhaust systems. Would the minister give consideration to consulting his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to the possibility of setting up an interdepartmental committee to study this particular on-going problem?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is not necessary to set up a committee, this has been under investigation for some time. If my colleague were here, he would tell of the work being done by his department, which is designed to effect proper controls in so far as gas emissions are concerned. He would tell too, that much good work is being done in this area.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the urgent warning in the Meltz-Penz study that Canada must double the amount of graduates of technical training by 1970, what new steps does the government propose to accelerate technical and vocational training opportunities?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he is asking the minister to make a general statement which I submit should normally be made on motions.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Norman Thompson: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister is in a position to announce any positive steps for the employment of students graduating this spring from universities and other postsecondary institutions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I wish to advise my hon. friend that the prospects for employment for graduates of Canadian universities for the immediate future are very strong indeed.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FISHERIES


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: My question is to the Minister of Supply and Services in his capacity as the Acting Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister held meetings recently with members of the Atlantic Fish Trades Association or a part thereof? If so, what action is being taken to compromise the difference between the trade and a reluctant government?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct I met with the Atlantic Fish Trades Association yesterday and also with representatives of the Newfoundland fishermen. The mechanics of the two programs, one to help the fresh frozen fish industry and the other the salt cod industry, were discussed with both groups. Negotiations with them and implementation of the plan are proceeding. I indicated to them the hope that there would be an announcement on both of the subjects within a very short time.


John Howard Lundrigan: Could the minister inform the house when we members of parliament might get some statement on this very important matter, so we, as well, will be informed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Just as soon as we are sure, Mr. Speaker, that the mechanics of the plan are such that they will give maximum benefit to the fishermen, and achieve the result I am sure my hon. friend hopes will be achieved.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the Prime Minister say whether there have been any discussions with the United States government regarding Canadian participation in an airborne warning control system, the AW AC system? Has this been discussed by the Prime Minister with the President of the United States or at any other level between the two countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not have any discussions on this particular subject with the President of the United States. This is a subject which is a part of the continuing study in reshaping our defence policy.

April 15, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry A.B.M. SYSTEM-POSSIBILITY OF PLACING UNDER NORAD CONTROL


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Could the Prime Minister advise the house whether there have been any discussions between the United States and Canada regarding the placing of the so-called Safeguard, the A.B.M. system, under NORAD command?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. There have been no discussions on the latter point, and I do not believe there have been any on the immediately preceding point either.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It arises from the growing pollution problem in our nation and the fact that these problems are now handled by five different government departments. Would the government consider setting up a federal department under one minister who would be responsible for all pollution problems in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would be impossible to do that, Mr. Speaker, because many aspects of the pollution problem do not come under federal jurisdiction. For such problems as do come under federal jurisdiction we have mechanics for co-ordinating the works of the various ministers involved.



WATER RESOURCES


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: want to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Have any steps been taken by the federal government on their own accord to prevent the pollution of the Bow River which is affecting the cities, and the areas of southern Alberta through which it flows?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement in this respect before the Easter adjournment and the answer it contained is still valid.

[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kierans that Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The hon. member for Broadview.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker., Bill C-184, to establish a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite, is of national and vital importance. This is the reason the government had two technical studies prepared by R.C.A. Victor and Northern Electric and the reason the government commissioned Dr. McIntosh, general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, to make a report recommending a plan for the corporate, financial and management structure of this domestic satellite communication corporation.
The minister has refused to make public the report of Dr. McIntosh because of the confidential discussions referred to therein. I would ask the minister, however, to submit the report stripped of the confidential discussions in which Dr. McIntosh participated and containing his recommendations and his reasons therefor. I would also ask the minister to undertake that Dr. McIntosh will attend before the appropriate standing committee to give evidence with regard to his recommendations and reasons and to subject himself to the questioning of members of the standing committee. I rather suspect that one of Dr. McIntosh's recommendations was extensive participation by the carriers, namely, the trans-Canada telephone system and C.N.-C.P. Telecommunications, and by private Canadian investors along with the government. In fact, before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Mr. Gotleib, one of the deputy ministers, suggested that probably the corporate structure would be set
April 15, 1969



up on the basis of 30 per cent federal government participation, 30 per cent common carrier participation and 40 per cent public participation. Yesterday in his opening remarks the minister said there would be roughly a one-third participation by each of the different groups.
It is fair to say that this operation is a sure financial winner and, as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schreyer) has said, the decision by the minister and the government is a sellout of the Canadian interest in this moneymaking venture. We in the New Democratic party have recommended that the satellite corporation should take the form of a Crown corporation with participation by the federal and provincial governments, with the federal government having 51 per cent control and the provincial governments 49 per cent. I say this because of some of the public statements the minister has made. He has said that the main objectives of the satellite communication system are social and political and not economic. He also pointed out that only a satellite communication system would be able to blanket the rural and northern areas of Canada and operate successfully in this field.
Last evening the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) spoke of the great importance this satellite program will have in relation to the Indians, Eskimos and Metis and the industrial development of the north. More important than this will be the contribution the satellite system will make to national unity by the distribution of television programs in French and English to every part of the country. If this is so, then it is important that there be complete public control in order to ensure that the system is devoted to Canadian aims and objectives in a way that is acceptable to the Canadian people having in mind their cultural requirements. The minister has not given economic reasons for the construction of the satellite system. In fact he has given conflicting information regarding an economic or financial comparison between the present terrestrial system and the new satellite communication system.
If we were to adopt the Crown corporation approach as recommended by this party, there would be no problem ini respect of foreign ownership and participation and subjugation to government regulatory control. In this area it is worthy of note that both firms which submitted design programs included in their bids participation with foreign firms. For example, the bid by Northern Electric, a Canadian subsidiary of Bell Telephone, 29180-477
Telesat Canada Act
includes substantial assistance from Canadair Limited, a subsidiary of Hughes Aircraft Company of California. The bid by R.C.A. Victor, an American subsidiary, includes additional assistance from Spar Arrow Space Products Limited of Toronto, systems group of T.R.W. and Company of California.
The bid by Northern Electric states that its proposal will achieve a 64.5 per cent Canadian content under the program. R.C.A. Victor has declared that its proposal would promote the participation of Canadian companies to the maximum state feasible. This is an indication that both these companies which submitted technical programs will require foreign participation in the operation of their programs. As indicated yesterday by the hon. member for Selkirk, this is nothing more than vertical integration by these companies in this field where the financial success of the project is almost assured.
We have had experience with Canadian regulatory bodies. We know what has happened in regard to the Canadian Transport Commission and the Bell Telephone Company. The Bell Telephone Company has had almost a wide-open field and complete freedom in respect of communications in Canada. The Canadian Transport Commission has played a rather passive instead of an active regulatory role. It does not dig out the facts but relies instead on the opposing parties to present the evidence. The result is that the Bell Telephone Company dominates the field and has more regard for its shareholders than for the users of the telephone services.
If this new body is to come under either the Canadian Transport Commission or the Canadian Radio-Television Commission we have no assurance that either of these bodies will do the type of research that is necessary to protect the Canadian public at large. With a Crown corporation the profits would be shared by the public and not by the private carriers or a very small group of private investors. As the minister has pointed out, any one person will be limited to 2| per cent control or ownership. It is obvious, however, that no more than 2 per cent or 3 per cent of Canadians will be investing in this successful operation. One is reminded of the successful operation of Polymer and Sysco in Cape Breton as well as other Crown corporations. This should give the minister some encouragement to experiment once again with a Crown corporation.
Telesat Canada Act

April 15, 1969
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I am sure the minister is well aware of the experience in the United States in respect of the satellite communications system there called Comsat. The U.S. government set up a 50-50 capital participation program between the carriers and the public with the government making no capital investment but having a minority number of directors on the board, a mere 3 out of 15. That experience has shown, as I am sure the minister will agree, that it has not been a successful operation and that no telecommunications system is likely to be successful when the control is in the hands of private bodies.
One is rather surprised that the minister, in view of the avant-garde approach he takes in respect of NATO and other current matters, would not have experimented with a Crown corporation in this field. When the hon. gentleman was the minister of revenue in Quebec he advocated full government control and ownership of Sidbec, a newly integrated Quebec steel operation. The minister suggested this would create something which did not exist in Quebec, namely, an integrated steel mill which would give a boost to and have a multiplier effect on the economy. If the minister could support the operation of a Crown corporation like Sidbec in Quebec on the basis of economic reasons justifying public control, surely a better and more convincing case can be made for a Crown corporation in this field where the objective is political and social rather than economic. In this case, underlying that objective is national unity and development across the country.
One may fear there will be little federal participation in this venture. The minister's recommendations will not allow any participation by provincial governments. We believe there should be the fullest federal and provincial participation with 51 per cent control in the hands of the federal government and 49 per cent held by the provincial governments. When one realizes the active steps the provincial government of Quebec has taken in entering into an agreement with France in respect of satellite communications, one would hope that the minister would take some initiative on the part of the federal and provincial governments to develop this important field of communications.
Yesterday the minister mentioned that this new corporation would develop a research program and he quoted from the particular clause in the bill which gives authority for research development. It is obvious that there

is no government co-ordination of its scientific and technological programs and policies. Where will the satellite research program fit into the over-all objectives of science in Canada? This raises the question of why the intense neutron generator program was cancelled last fall, why the government expanded its oceanographic research program under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and why the Queen Elizabeth telescope project in British Columbia was cancelled after millions of dollars had been spent. It is obvious that scientific research under this government is chaotic and that science policy is determined by accident rather than by plan. One would hope that the research program of this new corporation will be integrated with the National Research Council and other research bodies within the government so that we will have a total science policy rather than the haphazard approach taken so far by the government.
Yesterday I felt that the minister in his opening remarks in respect of the satellite communications system showed himself to be a true supporter of private enterprise and that his previous statement in respect of economics was mere words. He seemed to indicate that he had no intention of implementing his ideas. If he had had the spirit and the courage to meet this problem he would have thought seriously about setting up a Crown corporation whereby the federal and provincial governments would be given the right to participate in its development and in research so that all benefits flowing from the project would go to the Canadian people and be available for their use. He has chosen otherwise. He has chosen to give the private carriers and the public the right to invest in this program. With the investment of a mere $60 million the government could have implemented this program for an experimental period to see what it would achieve, in light of the success with regard to Polymer and other government corporations. He has not elected to do so and I am sure he will regret the step he has taken. I hope that when we reach the committee stage he will give us his reasons for electing otherwise and that Dr. McIntosh and other expert witnesses will be called to justify this decision.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should rise on a point of order before my colleague resumes his seat. The reason for doing so will become clear in a moment. Yesterday my colleague the hon. member for Selkirk moved an amendment to the motion for second reading of this bill.
April IS. 1969

Mr. Speaker had some doubt about the form of the amendment. Since then my colleague and I, along with one or two others, have consulted and redrafted the amendment in a form which the hon. member for Selkirk would be prepared to offer as a substitute for the one proposed yesterday. My point of order is in the form of a question. Will it be acceptable to the Chair if the hon. member for Selkirk offers a substitute amendment? If that is not the case, then the hon. member for Broadview could move the amendment. That is why I rose on a point of order before the hon. member sat down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the hon. member for Selkirk has already spoken and cannot speak again he might be allowed to move an amendment with the unanimous consent of the house. If that consent is not forthcoming, the hon. member for Broadview might move the amendment. If the first proposal by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is the one being pursued, I will ask the house now whether it gives unanimous consent to the hon. member for Selkirk to move the substitute amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Selkirk at the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview.


John Gilbert: I have completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Chair had some doubt whether the amendment I moved yesterday was declaratory of a substantially different principle from that contained in the bill, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That Bill No. C-184 be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the basic principle of the bill should be altered so that there will be full public ownership of the proposed Canada Telesat through a Crown corporation, with provision for participation therein by the governments of the provinces as well as by the government of Canada.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of the bill before us is that there seems to be general agreement among spokesmen for all parties that we need improvement in our communications systems in Canada. This is an interesting aspect of the debate. There does not seem 29180-477J
Telesat Canada Act
to be violent opposition to the idea of having a domestic communications satellite. There is a difference of opinion-and I am sure these opinions are sincerely held-about the type of ownership of the domestic communications satellite system. Fears were expressed yesterday about the type of corporation anticipated by the measure. These fears have been expressed once again in the amendment just proposed by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party.
Certainly the concept of a three-way partnership is unique. The minister suggested yesterday that this concept may be unique in the history of the world. I refer to the concept of one single entity involving government, the telecommunications industry and the public at large. In my view the proposed structure need be no cause for alarm. Certainly this measure should advance from second reading into committee so that expert witnesses may be called and testimony given by them. If this measure must be improved, we should have the courage to improve, change and strengthen it.
The placing aloft of a communications satellite of this kind will, without doubt, be an historic action by government in Canada. In my view the proposed arrangement achieves a happy melding of three very important segments of our society, the skills, research talents and the technical expertise of one of the world's outstanding telecommunications industries.
Let us make no mistake about it, the people who make up the telecommunications industry in Canada are primarily Canadians trained in Canadian universities, the sons and daughters of Canadians from coast to coast. We are not talking about some sinister force trying to overthrow Canadian sovereignty. The graduates who are going into electronics in Canada come from the University of British Columbia, Memorial University in Newfoundland and the University of Toronto. Some of us know some of these very talented people. This measure would bring together the resources represented by people of this kind as well as the resources of government, which are not inconsiderable. We would at the same time permit the participation of a broad section of the public in what will be a major venture in the history of this nation. I think the minister is to be commended for his determination to assure that this high level of technical competence will be vested in the project. To do less would be to serve less ably as a minister of the Crown.

April 15. 1969
Telesat Canada Act
There are some who say that this project is ahead of its time. In light of some of the preliminary testimony given before the committee I must admit that I harboured some doubts whether the existing microwave capacity in Canada had been fully and effectively utilized, but I was reassured by the data provided yesterday by the minister. It seemed to lend convincing support to the view that there will be adequate demand for the service to be offered by this new corporation.
Certainly when this satellite achieves orbit in 1971 or 1972-I hope the launch is successful whether it is from Vandenberg Base, Cape Kennedy, or whether the Soviet Union submits the lowest tender for launching-Canada will look to no other nation in the world for leadership in the provision of an effective communications network for a vast land mass. We will be pioneers in the bringing of television, telephone and message communication to all parts of a very large country by this domestic satellite.
It is reassuring to note in the report given to the house yesterday by the minister that the satellite project has sound research support. It is not a pie in the sky or even a satellite in the sky proposal. The 1966 report of the Power Corporation, a respected corporation in this nation, supporting a domestic communications satellite system, and the subsequent task force report made available in April of last year, provide convincing proof that the satellite system is economically feasible and desirable.
Those who are concerned about the ownership aspect of the proposed system-they have a right to question ownership, although the technical aspects of the project have not been disputed-neglect, I think, the assurance provided by the minister that there will be no board representation for any party without shares, nor will there be shares without votes nor votes without shares. There will be no power without financial responsibility and no responsibility without power.
Some have proposed a wholly government-owned enterprise, which is the substance of the amendment to which hon. members are now addressing themselves. Admittedly, there are arguments pro and con in this regard. It can be said that any or all activity in Canada could be operated at the taxpayers' expense, could be fully government owned. Some people subscribe to this economic philosophy. But in this case it seems to me and many other hon. members that a wise course is being followed. The resources of a first-rate

telecommunications industry will be involved in the project as well as government resources on behalf of all the Canadian people.
As the minister stated yesterday in his speech, public equity in a corporation initiated by the government fulfils the idea of public participation in ventures undertaken in the name of the public; it fulfils also the urgent need for a broader selection of Canadian-owned companies available to Canadian investors and, finally, it will ensure accountability to the public at large rather than merely to those parties directly interested in the venture.
I express the hope that share ownership in the corporation will be based as broadly as possible. We in this house should take action to make certain that it will be possible for even small investors to put money into what could be a growth proposition for Canadians from coast to coast, so they will be given an opportunity to invest their money on a fair and equitable basis. In this regard the house should feel reassured by the limitations on the distribution of share ownership as set forth in appendix B. When people cry alarm in this house about the ownership, let them remember that non-residents may not hold more than 20 per cent of the shares allotted to the public sector, or approximately 7 per cent of the total shares issued by the corporation. No single shareholder in the public sector may hold more than 2J per cent of the total shares issued by the corporation. I think this removes some of the sinister aspects of the corporate structure which have been suggested by our friends to my left. They suggest there are dark motives behind this proposal to bring a measure of private enterprise into this great project.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Only 2 per cent of the population will benefit.


Raymond J. Perrault: I rather dispute the mathematics of my hon. friend to my left, but perhaps in committee he will explain his economic theories more clearly so we will all understand.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Again, it seems unfortunate that some members of the house appear to be obsessed by the fear that some of the participating companies may include a degree of foreign ownership and control and that presumably Canadian sovereignty will be endangered. This is an example of unfortunate tunnel vision. We would still be in an economic
April 15, 1969

backwater and certainly would not have one of the highest standards of living in the world if we had this tunnel vision and if every time someone from the outside wished to invest money in Canada we questioned his motives and said, "oh, no, you cannot come here unless you are willing to subject yourself to some sort of punitive action". I think it is unfortunate that that kind of talk is still being heard in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You do not like Walter Gordon, then.


Raymond J. Perrault: I am not talking on that subject this afternoon.
The control of this domestic satellite system will be exercised fully and effectively in Canada. This remains the fact. Canadians will benefit whether or not they are direct shareholders ini the corporation. Apart from their technical resources which they will be investing in this project, the participating private companies will be the principal users of the system. They will rent its services to retail to their customers. This corporation will complement, not compete with, common carriers.
Certainly this measure should serve to promote the widest possible share ownership. In my view it is consistent with demands1 from various quarters of the house, including the left side of the opposition, that Canadians be given more opportunities to share in the ownership of Canadian enterprises. But let there be no lingering concern' on the part of any of us. It is to be hoped that a detailed committee study of this proposal will be carried out and that expert witnesses will be called for testimony. I also hope, as I said earlier, that appropriate changes will be made to improve this legislation still further.
Undoubtedly the launching of this satellite will be one of the most important actions of this parliament. The basis of the corporation should be sound and the public interest should be protected as effectively as possible. I hope that this measure can be referred to the committee for the detailed study which it deserves. I suggest to the house that the amendment be defeated, that we ge on with the true task before the house, that we give second reading to the bill and refer it to the committee as quickly as possible.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I felt it was my duty to take part in this
Telesat Canada Act
debate on Bill C-184 concerning the establishment of a Canadian corporation for telecommunication by satellite which will be designated under the legal and commercial name of Telesat Canada to stress certain points which seem to have been forgotten since the bill was introduced as well as by the minister himself.
Mr. Speaker, the progress of a country like Canada which geographically extends from sea to sea is closely related to the development of its means of communication. It is almost unanimously recognized that the establishment of a communication system by satellite is an important step in the unification of the various Canadian regions.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the government acknowledged the imperious need for Canada to be provided with a system of communication by satellite which will enhance our Canadian identity.
Besides, Canada's population is made up of various ethnic groups, and especially of two large cultural communities, one French and one English. It is a fact that gathers increasing support that both must be treated on an equal footing wherever there is a minority.
We must, for instance, provide the Frenchspeaking minorities outside Quebec with opportunities for development and for the safeguard of their culture, and we must provide them with information and entertainment in their own language.
The freedom to choose for each private individual and the opportunity for a minority to express itself, that should be the principle behind the philosophy of the new corporation called "Telesat Canada".
I believe that that corporation will meet the two requirements necessary for the development of Canada and for the fulfilment of the basic needs of Canadians, wherever they may be, whatever the language they may speak and whatever the culture they may belong to.
Although we agree on the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat nonplussed at a few particular points with which I shall deal briefly and to which I wish to draw the attention of the minister who introduced this legislation in the house.
Here are the main questions I ask myself on the content of the bill.
First, will the system be bilingual or, in other terms, will there be a particular channel for programs in French, and another for those in English?

April 15, 1989
Telesat Canada Act
Secondly, will some channels be used only for educational programs? Since education is a provincial responsibility, were the provinces and specially Quebec consulted on that matter? In the affirmative, what conclusions were arrived at in talks with the province of Quebec, for example?
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister whether the bill meets the requirements of the provinces.
Will Quebec be able to rent or purchase time on a channel for educational programs?
Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but wonder whether the governement of Canada intends to allow Quebec, if it so wishes, to take part and to co-operate in the construction of a telecommunication satellite broadcasting in French and to allow it to use a foreign satellite to transmit its educational programs. For us Quebecers, that is a fundamental question within the framework of the constitution as it now stands, having regard especially to the progress in the fields of technology and electronics, that is foreseable today.
In this connection, I also wonder whether the federal government is ready and willing to let Quebec negotiate, such agreements internationally, or whether it intends to carry out such negotiations itself. In other words, has there been any agreement with Quebec in this regard? If so, what is the nature of such agreement? If not, is such an agreement expected?
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister, being a responsible man, will make a note of my questions. I shall ask a messenger to take them to him so that he may answer them when the time comes to close this debate.
Mr. Speaker, we, who are French-speaking, would like to be sure that the minister is aware of these questions that come to our minds and that he intends to supply answers.
I suggest that the minister will wish to answer our questions before the bill is carried and referred back to the committee, because it is possible that in trying to favour national unity, through a communication system of high quality and at very high cost, we may contribute to the division of the country. Then, Mr. Speaker, all would be lost.
A real danger threatens. Indeed, the present bill does not take into account agreements with the provinces, nor, for that matter, the two great cultures of Canada.
In my opinion, that represents a serious .anomaly, and if the minister does not throw
IMr. Fortin.]
some light on the situation by answering some of the questions I asked a while ago, we will be led to believe that the federal government wants to control not only the medium but the message of the programs televised by the different channels.
In his first speech, the minister spoke of the very great political and economic implications this bill will have. However, he seems to have forgotten, involuntarily I hope, the enormous social and cultural implications which will also proceed from the bill.
Mr. Speaker, just as we have rich provinces and poor provinces, so also we must recognize today without danger of being mistaken that there are great regional economic inequalities which are now known as "regional disparities". It is so true that a new department has just been established to deal with them.
Just as it is no longer conceivable to have a uniform economic policy for all Canada, so also we cannot set up a uniform communications policy for the whole of Canada.
Indisputable phenomenon:	Canada is a
mosaic of provinces-great men said so- remarkable for its two great cultures: the French culture and the English culture.
At this stage of the creation of this new Canadian corporation for telecommunication, known as "Telesat Canada", the house has no guarantee at all that the cultural and educational rights of the provinces will be preserved, guaranteed, since the Canadian constitution itself does not provide, and did not provide in 1867, for the possibility that such an evolution in the field of communications would make it necessary to create a new department, the Department of Communications, to meet the needs of a modern Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is right there and it is not by playing ithe ostrich that we shall find an answer.
Everybody must admit that the field of communications, whether it be telecommunication by satellites, educational television or the granting of broadcasting licences, is most important and likely to infringe upon the rights of the provinces which have regional interests to protect including cultural interests and others.
Of course, there are always national interests to safeguard but let us not, for goodness sake, forget the regional interests.
So, in practice, we cannot agree with the idea of establishing a new corporation for telecommunication before settling that matter of infringement and jurisdiction.
April 15, 1969

We should know, Mr. Speaker, where the federal jurisdiction and the national interest begin, on the one hand, and the provincial interest and jurisdiction on the other. This question was to be discussed at the last constitutional conference but the parties involved did not feel happy about the outcome. Such problems, and others as well, tend to linger in Canada.
That is the core of the matter; that is the answer we need before we embark on a course which could only worsen federal-provincial relations which are quite strained already.
In the course of his speech-and, technically speaking, it is very poor-the minister said, and I quote:
-extension of television service in both languages to all Canadians-
He carried on:
This satellite will broadcast both in French and in English; in short it will speak the languages of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, on March 1st, 1969 Le Droit from	Ottawa-a	well-known newspaper
published an article under the heading: Eric Kierans states the objectives of the new Department of Communications. I quote:
-in rather confused terms, Mr. Kierans declared, Friday, that his new Department of Communications will be unable to dissociate entirely the container and the content of the messages it will transmit.
The minister stated, on second reading of Bill C-173 in committee, and I quote:
The department of Communications will be concerned with the transmission of the message and not the message itself-
But the minister lost no time in adding, and I quote:
-but the two cannot be dissociated from each other.
He says yes, but he says no. He agrees, but he does not.
Mr. Speaker, let us be honest about it and throw light on the situation.
Later, the minister added as follows:
The Department of Communications will not become a two-dimension department, exclusively concerned with the means and neglectful of the end.
What is that end? What are those means the minister intends to take to encourage better communications technically, culturally and socially in Canada? What is the ultimate goal of the minister, his department, and
Telesat Canada Act
Telesat Canada, since even we seem unable to discover it today?
Mr. Speaker, comparing what the minister said with the contents of this bill and his first speech on the matter, we cannot but be very puzzled about the real intentions of the federal government.
Michel Roy, in an article published in the newspaper Le Devoir on Saturday February 22, 1969 pin-pointed the problem as it exists in the province of Quebec in particular, and I quote:
Therefore, on the one hand, Quebec Intends to set up a gigantic and complex telecommunication network which would serve cultural, educational, economic, scientific, administrative and social purposes and whose scope appears bewildering if we consider the as yet unsuspected potential of electronics and its innumerable applications; but, on the other hand, the development of the basic elements of this radio and television complex is singularly hindered by constitutional, political and financial obstacles.
As a matter of fact, concludes Michel Roy, if Radio-Quebec is not successful in getting a broadcasting licence and if, on the other hand, the initiative taken by Quebec in the field of satellites triggers the expected chains of reactions, if furthermore the budget limitations resulting from the state of our finances bring the government to cut down expenditures on educational radio and television, then we shall have the right to ask ourselves how and when might come about "an integrated and total communication network" as considered by the Quebec audio-visual development office, the true brain as far as the telecommunication policy is concerned.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Upon reading this article, Mr. Speaker, I ask myself two questions. Are we gong to have two satellite networks, the Canadian government's and the Quebec government's? According to the Quebec premier, it seems that it will be the case since not one week goes by without the Quebec premier or the federal Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) boasting loudly and making bold statements, each to promote its own satellite network.
We want to know, Mr. Speaker, for how long yet we will keep on paying for both, thus acting irresponsibly.
On the basis of our information it seems that in this field as in others, there will be a duplication of services and costs and taxes will increase since it will cost twice as much for the people of Quebec to have their own service in view of the fact that they are afraid of possible interference on the part of the Ottawa government.

April 15, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
Still because of this everlasting question of provincial autonomy, which costs a lot to the people of Quebec, and because of the stub-borness of the Ottawa government in interpreting the constitution in its own way, the Canadian people, who are ignored, are always the ones in the end who foot the bill of such loss of time and of those problems that remain in abeyance instead of being solved.
That brings me, Mr. Speaker, to the following basic point: Why does not this bill provide for participation, financial and otherwise, by the provinces, especially Quebec?
It seems to me a province like Quebec could take advantage of the establishment of those satellites-which would be simply extraordinary-by securing for itself a channel of its own, in order to provide educational programs and others in accordance with its people's ideals, which would enable all French speaking Canadians in this country to keep in touch with the province of Quebec.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the province of Quebec could at least double its influence at the national level, assert itself and reveal its ideals, folklore, language, talents, difficulties! and needs to all Canadians.
Has the federal government made proposals to this end to the province of Quebec? I would be pleased to see the minister give a sincere answer to that question. If the government did make proposals, what did Quebec answer, if it did answer? In fact, Mr. Speaker, very often, unfortunately, the Quebec government does not give any answer to the proposals made by the federal government, as it happened in the case of the federal parks.
I wish to conclude my remarks on the social and cultural aspect of this bill in order to deal briefly with another point about which I feel very strongly, namely the principle of the Corporation itself.
We shall create, by passing Bill C-184, a corporation that is not necessarily a crown corporation nor an agency corporation. It is essentially a non agency corporation but, what is more, a joint economy corporation.
Moreover, one finds there the system well known ini Europe as the tripartite representation within a state corporation. In this' case, the federal government, private enterprise and the people, would be the three governing factors of this new corporation.
Such a tripartite representation, Mr. Speaker, is based-from what I know-on the idea that the bringing together of the various interests involved, particularly those of the

personnel and the users, brings automatically about a compromise in the general interest.
As we know, this method of setting up of a government corporation is very popular in France. Such a formula is used to a certain extent in Canada but it should be used increasingly, since the people and private enterprise participate in it more fully than in the case of Crown corporations, known as the "State control solution", which involves the appointment of civil servants subjected to the administrative control of the minister, and consequently such a corporation becomes the economic and cultural instrument of the government.
Mr. Speaker, Telesat Canada, which we are seeking to set up here, will not altogether have a legal status'-the minister does not say this but only that it is a complex matter-will not really enjoy a tripartite representation and will constitute a solution by State control. As we know, Mr. Speaker, from a legal point of view, there are three methods of setting up a corporation, the third of which being called the "autonomist solution", and I want to elaborate a little on this.
Telesat Canada will be, as one might say, a mixture of the tripartite representation and the autonomist solutions.
There are two points in that solution. The first is that we must prevent a firm from being managed in a poor capitalistic way and manage it like a private firm. That last solution was adopted in Canada several years ago. It is based on political and legal Anglo-Saxon principles according to which great powers are readily granted, and the results assessed afterwards.
Legally, it is so to speak, and I wanted to come to that, the machinery of the establishment of the trust.
In other words, what is important is the source of capital and not so much the fact, though this is very significant, that the individual elected or appointed director of a public Canadian firm must be a Canadian citizen.
What is important is the source. However, when we read in Schedule A of Bill C-184 the names of the firms concerned-since it is a three party representation-we may conclude that there are some private interests involved. If we take into account which firms are willing to be included in that company, we realize that most of the interests are foreign interests. And if that company is to be established as it is described in the bill, "Telesat
April 15, 1969

Telesat Canada Act
Canada" will not be under the control of Canadians but rather of Americans.
And yesterday the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), proved beyond all doubt, thanks to very detailed information, that the interests of companies listed in Schedule A are really foreign interests.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up more of the time of the house but I feel I must ask again the minister to clear up the situation as to the social and cultural repercussions of the bill, particularly as far as Quebec is concerned, which affects us more, even if we are concerned with the rest of Canada.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like him to explain how he can imagine a Canadian control of Telesat Canada, when he knows that the capital comes from outside the country. Tell me who pays you, and I will tell you whom you serve.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Pilon) is no more interested than the others in being controlled by the Americans. Consequently, I would ask him to reflect on that and show real imagination. I endorse the idea of establishing Telesat Canada, but I cannot wholeheartedly, approve of the bill, because of the numerous questions that we ask ourselves, not only as French-speaking Canadians, but as unhyphenated Canadians as well.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, everyone in Canada will be very happy if we are able to have a satellite system that will give us all of the wonderful things that a satellite system can bring. Today we are discussing in this house the details of what kind of corporation should run the whole affair. I suggest that we are being a little premature and that this whole question should be examined in much greater detail and with much greater care at the committee level, because there is certainly grave doubt whether or not this project is economically feasible.
We did examine this question briefly in committee and we were not entirely convinced that it is economically feasible. I personally asked that we continue our study of this problem in committee by calling in experts from outside the public service who are not immediately involved in the building up of the organization within the new Department of Communications. Whether or not this is being considered I do not know, but I believe that this is absolutely essential.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Not too many days ago an article appeared in the Globe and Mail expressing the opinion of the president of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. He had grave doubts about the economic feasibility of the satellite system. That was the opinion of a man who is highly respected and has no immediate axe to grind in making such a statement. I know that people inside and outside Canada have expressed very grave doubts about the satellite's economic feasibility. I pursued this line of questioning in committee. While I do not mean to point a finger at anyone in the public service I can demonstrate any number of cases where various governments of this country in the past have been pushed into expensive kinds of programs they could not afford. We have built something or been sold something as a result of the promptings of our public servants and the experts they brought with them. Often we have been sold a bill of goods which was too costly for us.
One example of that is the arts centre. Another is the manpower program, one of the finest ideas this government has come up with. Nevertheless, in the hands of certain mandarins it is being ruined. I suggest we are following exactly the same pattern with this telecommunications system. We get hold of a great idea and hand it over to people who are interested in empire building. Then we find ourselves engaged in a program of expenditures that we cannot control.
I do not deny that there are experts in the minister's department who are very reputable individuals. But when we see that ideas they put forward are at variance with the ideas of informed people in the United States, it seems to me we should take a much more careful look at this matter. Why do we not call other witnesses from Washington or from the Canadian Armed Forces, where there are many experts, in order that we may be properly advised? Certainly the little seance we had in committee did not convince the members of that committee that this program is economically feasible. There are certain points about the satellite program that most people, including members of this house, do not understand. I do not understand many of the things involved and I think it is high time that some of them were explained.
Although we are not all technical experts we have a measure of intelligence and can understand the basic points of the system. We

April 15, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
talk about shooting up a satellite. In committee I asked questions about space, something people do not generally understand. I asked whether space is available up there because it appears that space is quite limited. The answer I received was that space is definitely limited but that at the present time there should be no difficulty at all for Canada to receive, as a result of going through appropriate international procedures of registration with the I.T.U., a parking space for our satellite. Although the minister took this answer at its face value I do not think the committee ought necessarily to take it as the gospel truth. Certainly we feel that we will be able to obtain space up there for our satellite, but we must admit that at present we do not have a designated space. That state of affairs may have changed but that was the situation when the committee met. It is necessary to have international agreements in order to reserve space for our satellite.
Also to be considered in any international agreements is the question of frequencies for broadcasting, something that Canadians and hon. members may not be aware of. I suggest it is quite possible that those working on the project have been so carried away with the beauty of the idea that they cannot see the forest for the trees. It is time that we studied this matter carefully in committee.
When we were pursuing this subject in committee I suggested that United States Officials felt that a domestic satellite system for the United States was too expensive for them. They think it is too expensive for them but we do not think a satellite is too expensive for us. Usually the United States does not shy away from anything that is costly. Surely it will cost us just as much as it would have cost the United States to instigate this sytem. Furthermore, it is not only a question of putting a satellite into orbit. There is also the question of land stations. Although we have a certain number of land stations it seems that they cannot be used for satellite transmission purposes and that we shall have to build other land stations. Specialists of the minister's department believe that the whole satellite program will only cost between $50 million and $60 million. Frankly I am sceptical about those figures because, from what I have been led to believe by people outside the government, the cost of such a system could be a minimum of $200 million a year. If that is so, although such a system would be very nice, Canada simply cannot afford it.

I have raised these questions, Mr. Speaker, because instead of trying to figure out how best to organize the proposed corporation I suggest the entire matter ought to be referred back to the committee immediately so that experts may be called to give their opinions. Neither the minister nor any other hon. member wishes to be sold a bill of goods by people who may be very well meaning but not completely informed. I suggest that it is up to us to scrutinize this entire matter much more carefully than we have done.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waierloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister of some history, because it seems to me that in this legislation he is repeating the tragic error that was committed when the Conservative government of 1934 introduced the Bank of Canada Act. The government of that day created the Bank of Canada, with shares to be issued to the general public. There was great controversy over that and it was pointed out, just as it has been pointed out to the minister in this debate, that it was most important to the national interest for the nation to have control of its financial institutions. The Liberal government of 1936 decreed that the Bank of Canada should hold 51 per cent of the shares, with the public holding the rest. Actually the government of Canada held the bank shares. In 1938, if my dates are correct, the Bank of Canada became a wholly owned government corporation belonging to the people of this country. There were good reasons for making sure that the bank was an instrument wholly owned by the people of Canada just as there is an excellent reason for saying that the satellite corporation ought to be wholly owned by the people of Canada. The same difficulties which arose with the Bank of Canada will plague an organization with this three-legged stool, as the minister refers to it. It may become to be known as a Triton with horses each going off in a different direction. The minister is setting up an organization which is impossible from any point of view.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
My reason for supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Sehrey-er) is not that I have a particular grievance with private ownership as against public or mixed ownership. That is not what I am arguing. In this case the reasons for public ownership are so compelling that they should be acknowledged and recognized by the minister. I can think of many cases where I would be
April 15, 1969

in favour of mixed ownership and some cases where private ownership could do an excellent job. In some areas private ownership does an excellent job, but certainly not in the case of a communications system which, in the minister's own words, is of national significance and importance and is vital to the future of this nation.
As in 1934, there are very few in this house who wouild quarrel with the objective of the corporation. We say yes to a satellite, but the quarrel today is the same as it was then. How shall it be financed, how shall it be run, and to whom shall it be responsible? What are the minister's arguments against having this corporation completely publicly owned? They are identical in some ways with the arguments advanced in 1934 that the expertise for running an organization like the Bank of Canada did not exist outside of the banking fraternity. It was said that if we were going to make the bank work we had to involve the bankers and draw on their vast knowledge and expertise.
This is one of the reasons the minister gives for bringing the common carriers' into the corporation. Does the minister really believe this? He is a man who has had vast business experience and is renowned for picking up corporations and putting them on the right path. He knows that if he needs expertise it can be obtained. There are consultants who can be called in by the corporation. People can be hired by the corporation. The corporation could have a management team that could farm out part of the technical work to the people in the technical field in Canada today. I do not see any great problem in terms of expertise. It is a fallacy that we have to give equity ownership in order to get expertise. I find it difficult to believe that the minister would argue that way.
It was interesting to listen to the speech made by the minister yesterday when he talked about this corporation. Parts of his speech were almost lyrical, for instance, when he predicted the future of this corporation and what satellites can do for Canada. You could see the minister looking ahead and you could almost sense the enthusiasm in his voice. His voice was far less convincing when he put forward his arguments about the financing and ownership of the corporation.
The minister knows it will not be long before the corporation will have to become completely publicly owned. Instead of going through this triton arrangement he has put
Telesat Canada Act
before the house, I had hoped that the minister would have had the courage to bring about complete public ownership now instead of being dragged into it later as must inevitably happen. I say this because of the conflicts of these three horses all pulling different ways. The common carriers obviously have a conflict of interest. Even if they attempt to resolve their interests in the most honest and diligent way, which I think will be the case, it is unavoidable that they should be drawn in two directions. Do they want the satellite to make money or do they want their interests to make money? How will they act? Will they act to increase the profitability of the corporation or will they act to see that they get the lowest possible rates and make their profit elsewhere? The minister is putting them in a most difficult position which he has no right to ask them to accept.
Private investors have the interest that all investors have. They invest their money and will compare the performance of the corporation against other investments available to them. If the corporation does not provide a rate of return comparable with that of other corporations in Canada, they will withdraw their money. The minister is immediately saddling the corporation with the necessity of producing a dividend and a growth rate at least comparable with that of other investments in the market.
How does the minister reconcile this with the national interest? The national interest may mean that many things have to be done in order to bring the joys of communication and technology to the remote areas of Canada. It is going to be costly. It may not be profitable. How will investors like it when the minister says that the corporation will not make any profit for a while because of the urgent need that Eskimos, trappers and people manning outposts in the northern areas receive the benefits of modern technology? They are going to respond with a very large raspberry. The minister has dealt with investors and should be well aware of this difficulty. Investors want a return. It is going to be very difficult to reconcile the national interest and the interest of private investors. You cannot mix the two. In addition, the common carriers' interest may be in complete conflict with the interest of the private investors and the national interest.
The minister is suggesting an impossible arrangement. I find it difficult to see how

April 15, 1969
Telesat Canada Act
anyone can support it. What are the arguments for nationalization or public ownership? Sometimes the argument is no more than administrative feasibility. Sometimes it is not a question of whether public ownership is more moral or less so than private ownership. If a project is vital to the national interest of a country, the costs of its operation have to be taken into consideration. We have experience with privately-owned corporations regulated by government where there is virtually a duplication of effort. The private corporation is trying to confuse the picture and the government is trying to clear it up to see what the true picture is. When the situation reaches that position, it is no longer a matter of ideology whether these outfits become public corporations. It is necessity for accounting and efficiency purposes that they go into the public domain. In this way the obvious accounting difficulties are eliminated as well as the need to regulate and for them justify their position as private corporations.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Why, then, has the minister brought in the legislation in this form? Perhaps he will say he brought it in for the reason he gave in his speech yesterday. But I and many other people, I believe, find his speech most unconvincing. If I am wrong I would welcome the intervention of the minister to say that my suspicions are unfounded, but I suspect that he and the government have been put into a box. Perhaps the private interests have said that if the government undertakes this project on its own as a completely public corporation they will not use the satellite but will find other ways to develop their programs rather than participate in the satellite program. It may be that the minister has been forced to take in both the public and the common carriers in order to find enough customers for his satellite to justify its cost.
I say this with some sadness because I do not wish to downgrade the minister's vision and his sense of the future. But if he has got himself into this box it is only because the government has refused to use the power at its disposal. It has refused to say that it has the right to act in the national interest and ask the common carriers and others to go along with the people in the national interest. The minister has backed off. I believe that some day he or his successor will have to stand up in the house and explain as well as possible the reason the legislation before us

today no longer serves the purpose a few years from now and must be changed.
The minister has said he does not want to see the satellite become a burden. Perhaps I might use his exact words. He said that the government at the taxpayers' expense could build and operate the system by itself but that they had rejected this alternative. Why? If it is to be profitable enough to entice private investment, why does he reject that method if it would result in a profit for the public of Canada? Is it so difficult to raise the financing for profitable operations? I do not believe that is the case. Others are able to do so, and I am sure the credit of the government of Canada is better than that of most other organizations.
Why has the minister rejected the idea of this being a public operation? It would not be a burden on Canadians to finance it publicly if it is to be profitable. It is difficult to understand what the minister's argument is. On the one hand he talks about the national interest and the need to do things that are necessary for Canada. On the other hand he talks about making a profit. He brings in different groups of people who are in opposition to each other; their purposes are not all the same. He brings this jungle into the house and expects us to accept it at face value. I can only say that the minister will have to do much better than this. He will have to be far more convincing in his arguments against public ownership than he has been up to the present.


Mr. Rene Matfe (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the remarks made a few minutes ago by my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), and I would particularly insist that the minister answer the questions which have been put to him before this bill is deferred to the committee, so that we can know at the outset what will be the scope of the participation of French Canadians or Quebecers to this bill.
It is all very well Mr. Speaker, to say:
-by combining into a single entity three interests or groups: the government, private industry, which in this instance means the common carriers, and the public at large.
In principle, this seems to reflect very well the intent of the government to establish this corporation. However, in practice, when one speaks of "the government", it is to communications that one is referring and therefore to
April IS, 1969

Telesat Canada Act
the question of language and of cultural content. This is why one must ask oneself: What is it to be? Which government will participate in this project? The bill is far from being explicit in this regard.
In this particular field, Quebec was the first to innovate. A few years ago, the government of that province began talks with the French government in order to establish a telecommunication system by satellite which would broadcast in French.
I fear that through this bill, the federal government is engaging in a game to the finish with the Quebec government. Whoever has the first satellite wins. Therefore, this point should have been clarified. The language in which the satellite will be broadcasting should really reflect the nature of the country. It is not good enough to repeat the minister's words:
Third, provide an extension of television service in both languages to all Canadians. This satellite, Mr. Speaker, will broadcast both in French and in English, in short it will speak the languages of Canada.
It seems very nice and I could be asked: "Why then get excited, since the minister specifically stated that the satellite will speak Canadian?" But, Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what has been done for a hundred years. What does "to speak Canadian" mean? We have known for a hundred years that to speak Canadian is to speak almost exclusively English. And we know that while television and radio have been in operation for many years, there are still in the country some locations without any French-speaking broadcasting service, even if the Canadian government, had undertaken to establish such a service.
And when such a bill is introduced and the same administration is entrusted with the task of establishing telecommunication by satellite, we are entitled to ask ourselves if the satellite will still be broadcasting in English only.
We are ready to believe in good faith; we have done it before, but we know about the heroic fights carried on to obtain a minimum of justice.
This is why before introducing such legislation, it would have been better to secure the full co-operation of Quebec and other provinces which have important French-speaking minorities, in order to ensure unequivocally that those satellites will really broadcast in French.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
That is why the hon. member for Lotbi-niere asked the minister to advise us further on that point.
We know for sure that negotiations have been held and are still going on between Quebec and France on that matter. What will happen if those agreements become effective? The episode of the international airport will be re-enacted and that must be avoided. Therefore, first of all, we must avoid undue haste in passing this bill, if it is simply to beat Quebec to it, which seems to have been a major concern of the government. It is perhaps for this reason that upon reading the minister's speech a second time, we realize that he very often emphasizes the need for the satellite to be national, from which we gather that if ever an agreement is concluded between France and Quebec for the launching of a satellite designed for transmission in French, it would be an international undertaking.
So, I wonder to what extent the federal government would accept the co-operation of the provinces. In fact, the minister said, and 1 quote:
During the past nine months continuous and extensive discussions have taken place with all the parties interested: the potential users, and participants including the common carriers and C.B.C.; the provinces; other government departments; manufacturing industries.
What kind of negotiations were there with the provinces? They resembled those who took place regarding the international airport; we know that what was said in the house is not to be trusted, because even though the government claims that it did co-operate, it denied what the minister stated to the house.
That is why before the bill is referred to the committee, we would like the minister to tell the house immediately what type of cooperation he received from the provinces and, particularly, from Quebec. What kind of guarantee was given to the provincial government? My colleague mentioned it a while ago. This is about communications and, therefore, about questions that are based on culture and education. There is necessarily a difference between the form and the matter. Even if the minister does not want to make distinctions, there is an enormous difference. He must not again get into meaningless struggles which do not lead anywhere. To my mind, politics must

April 15. 1963
Telesat Canada Act
not always be "concentrated" in such a way that they reveal a perpetual conflict between the interests of Quebec in particular and those of Canada.
This game should be stopped and this is why we ask the minister to clarify his position on this subject. He must tell us exactly what negotiations went on with the provinces. How does Quebec feel about this? Let us not, once again, create a situation which will lead to an enormous amount of bickering particularly in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks by saying that the minister, who is a former member of the Quebec government, is perhaps better able to understand these things and to give us explanations before this bill is referred to the committee.
[English}


Mr. Speaker;: Is the house ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Post Office	Department-V ancouver-permanent
employees to replace those having casual status.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. I think there might be general agreement in the house to refer this bill after second reading to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development rather than to the standing committee indicated in the motion. If the house is generally agreeable to that suggestion, perhaps an order should be made to that effect.
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that somebody, either the minister or one of his colleagues, would be making a statement on the bill. I gathered that the Minister without Portfolio would do so.


Mr. Baldwin:: There must be someone to apologize for it.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to make a statement in this debate in my capacity as Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have before us Bill S-29, an act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. The proposed act may be cited as the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. It was passed by the other house on March 20 of this year.
The basic purpose of this proposed legislation is to provide statutory authority for the control and safety of oil and gas operations, and for the prevention of waste of the oil and gas resources within the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
The presentation of the bill to the house for second reading is especially timely as today more than ever before the eyes of the Canadian petroleum industry, and indeed of the international petroleum industry, are on the latent oil and gas resources of Canada's north.
The vast belt of sedimentary rocks which extends northward from the petroliferous sedimentary basin of the four western provinces, down the 1,000 mile length of the Mackenzie River Valley into the Beaufort Sea, and thence eastward through Canada's Arctic islands and under its marine channels almost to Greenland, has long been regarded as highly prospective for oil and gas. However, the industry's interest in these great prospects has been limited because of their isolation from the markets for crude oil and gas, and the attendant high cost of transportation, as well as by the difficulties to exploration and development posed by a rather harsh northern environment.
In recent years, as the demand for oil and gas has increased, on this continent particularly, the search for reserve supplies has
April 15, 1969

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation forced the frontier of oil exploration northward from the western provinces deep into the territories north of latitude 60. The frontier was extended in 1968 to the northernmost limits of Canada's land area in the Arctic islands by the operations of Panarctic Oils Limited, a company founded by a consortium of 20 oil and mining corporations in partnership with the government. In this unique far northern venture, the Canadian government holds a 45 per cent equity and working interest.
To date, only one oil pool has been discovered in Canada's north. Oil production from this discovery at Norman Wells about midway along the Mackenzie River has been continuous since the days of world war II. A small refinery was built there during the 1930's to supply petroleum products to the uranium operations at Port Radium.
Numerous small gas pools have been discovered in the Territories in a belt one hundred miles wide bordering the 60th parallel Late in 1967, a large pool was discovered at Pointed Mountain, less than 20 miles north of the tri-corner formed by the conjunction of the borders of the Yukon and Northwest Territories and British Columbia. This large gas reserve is currently being developed and is committed to supply markets in southern British Columbia and the northwest United States commencing probably in 1971.
The announcement of the discovery of probably the largest oil pool in North America at Prudhoe Bay, on the Arctic slope of Alaska, less than 200 miles west from the international border between Alaska and Yukon, has served to trigger the largest rush for oil and gas lands in Canada's history. It has been estimated that the Prudhoe Bay pool contains more oil than the proven reserves of all Canadian oil pools found to date. Petroleum geologists consider the prospects for such elephant-size pools in Arctic Canada are excellent. Consequently, since the discovery of Prudhoe Bay, exploration permits covering over 180 million acres of Canada oil and gas lands in the Yukon and Northwest Territories have been issued-doubling the amount of land previously held under exploration permits.
The optimism for early significant oil discoveries reflected in these many interrelated events has served to escalate the amount spent on oil and gas exploration in Canada's North in 1968 to over $30 million, and exploration is expected to double in the next few years. With exploration at a high pitch,

discoveries are almost certain to follow, and the need for legislation to control production, conservation and safety in respect of development of this resource is both immediate and critical.
The need for the proposed legislation before us today was recognized by what is now the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1960. Over the last eight years, work on drafting the act has continued. This included research into the nature of the matters included and a study of comparable legislation in the western provinces. Extensive formal discussions were held with representatives of the petroleum industry both individually and through the Canadian Petroleum Association, and consultations have taken place with appropriate senior staff members of the National Energy Board, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and other departments concerned.
The bill as drafted is divided into several parts. Part I treats regulatory powers in respect of production and conservation and defines waste. Part II specifies various production arrangements including pooling and unitization. Part III describes the means of appeal and administration. The forepart of the bill provides for the constitution of an oil and gas committee for the purpose of any inquiry, hearing or appeal, or the making of any order pursuant to the proposed act. The jurisdiction and power of the committee are described, as is the manner of the enforcement of its decisions.
The bill deals with a highly technical subject, one which I suggest could best be reviewed in detail during committee hearings when we we can provide and ask various experts to explain in familiar terms exactly what is being done. However, the bill does express certain policy approaches which I think it would be desirable to point out at this stage.
The underlying concept of the bill, which is common to similar legislation in several provinces, is the prevention of waste and the conservation of the oil and gas resource in the sense that as much as possible must be recovered from the reservoir during the time an oil and gas field is in production. We do not find the same conservation philosophy applying in the case of mining since, in general, it is usually possible to open up a mine again and to take out ore which may previously have been considered uneconomic. In general, this is not possible with an oil and gas field. If we were to allow an oilfield to be produced at its
April 15, 1969

first initial flush rate of production we would soon find that the reservoir energy, which is what pushes the oil into the well bore and often to the surface, would be dissipated very quickly with the consequence that we might recover no more than 5 to 15 per cent of the oil actually in the reservoir. Conservation, therefore, really means getting out of the reservoir as much oil as it is physically possible to do by conserving and even augmenting the reservoir energy.
This is done by first defining what we mean by waste, which is more than the simple idea of just allowing the oil to spill out onto the ground, and then by setting production rates, well spacings and patterns and by ensuring that we find out as much as possible about the reservoir in order to be able to control production from it. All this involves a great deal of highly technical engineering work. The bill provides how this will be done and will authorize the minister and his department to establish producing rates, well spacings, production methods, etc.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Because of the different structure and form of an oil field compared, for instance, to a mine, the engineers very often have to work with indirect information. From time to time there will be differences of professional opinion with respect to the nature of this information and the interpretation of its meaning. Part of the duties of the proposed oil and gas committee will be to look into cases where such differences of opinions arise and to ensure that the interpretation of the information available is as satisfactory and as fair as possible to all concerned.
The bill has been drawn up in order to encourage the employment of the latest techniques in developing oil and gas fields. In particular, it seeks to encourage early unitization on a voluntary basis. Unitization is really the operation of an oil or gas field as if it were owned by only one organization; thus only the minimum number of wells1 required for efficient production would be drilled and, in theory at least, these wells would be located at the best possible position throughout the field. Ini addition, early unitization will allow the early introduction of what are known as assisted recovery methods, since it is recognized that rather than wait until the original reservoir energy has been seriously depleted before seeking to replace this energy, the employment of water or gas injection which seeks to maintain the reservoir close to its
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation original energy level is far more efficient and results ultimately in the recovery of more oil.
A further aspect of early unitization and the most important one from the northern viewpoint is that it will help to ensure against over-investment in production facilities. In the early days of the oil industry many more wells were drilled than were actually required to drain a given oil field. Gradually, as more experience has been gained, the number of wells drilled in new fields has been reduced, but in the older fields, of course, all that can be done is to close down some of the wells which still represent an over-investment in production facilities. Oil prices on this continent reflect in part this over-investment and the lack of knowledge at that time.
Northern oil will obviously have to compete in markets a long way from its point of production, and transportation costs will inevitably represent a significant proportion of its total delivered cost. In all probability it will have to compete, in part at least, in overseas markets. To do this it will have to be low cost oil, and we can help to achieve this by encouraging early unitization.
The biM also provides that where the committee considers the lack of unitization is contributing to waste, perhaps by failure to institute at an early stage the assisted recovery methods to which I referred earlier, it may require that the field be unitized within a specific length of time or be closed down. The unitization, however, would still depend upon the parties involved working out between them a suitable plan. Thus, although this might be termed compulsory unitization in a sense, it is not compulsory in the way this is usually understood within the industry concerned. The bill in fact strives to avoid imposing upon industry the detailed methods and, particularly, the way in which the oil and gas reservoirs in a field are to be shared by the private participants concerned. We feel this is best left to the participants.
Provision is also made for semi-compulsory unitization so that where 65 per cent of the owners in a pool have developed a unit plan, the committee may be asked to require the remaining owners to participate. If the committee, after reviewing the proposal, is in agreement, it has the authority to require such participation. The clauses in the bill providing for this can be promulgated at a later date, since we believe industry feels unitization is in its own best interests and that participants in each oil and gas field will
April 15, 1969

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation willingly get together. However, the provision is in the bill.
As I said earlier, although standard in many of its approaches to oil production and conservation, this bill, as is expected, has been developed to accommodate the special conditions which exist in the far north. One significant omission is the lack of any provision authorizing the pro-rationing of oil among all producers in terms of market control. It is considered that early unitization will protect each owner within a single oil field, but that it would not be appropriate to require that markets necessarily be shared among several fields. We have set as our objective that we must achieve low cost oil in the north. This means that each well that is producing must produce as close to its maximum rate under as sound engineering practices as is possible. High volume per well means quite simply low unit operating cost.
We know that costs are going to be higher in the north than experienced in southern Canada or in other producing countries, and this must be offset wherever possible. One way of doing this is to encourage high production rates per well. Pro-rationing in the market sense tends to encourage over-drilling. It adds to high operating costs and is usually regarded as a vehicle for high price maintenance. Since northern oil must compete in world markets, artificial devices which operate within a continental framework would simply price northern oil out of the highly competitive overseas markets.
In summary, the bill provides fundamental legislation to permit control of oil and gas production in the Yukon and Northwest Territories which from all current indicators in likely to expand even beyond the greatest expectations of a few years ago. The wise and orderly development of this tremendous potential in the interests not only of the people who live in the region but also in the interest of all Canadians is an important responsibility which now rests upon the government, and at this stage upon the members of this house.
In many respects, this can be regarded as a routine piece of legislation which seeks simply to establish orderly rules of conduct for the industry to which it will apply. However, in addition it will, I am sure, be one of the foundation stones on which this industry will be able to grow and bring about not only a significant contribution to the economic development of the north but also a major contribution to the economy and development of
[Mr. Andras.l
Canada. A discovery like Prudhoe Bay, if situated in northern Canada, would, I am sure, result in this country becoming not a net importer but a net exporter of oil.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I join with the minister in extending congratulations to all who have made possible the appearance of Bill S-29 before parliament. When I extend congratulations to all who have made possible this important development in our northern resource program they go back over a considerable period in the history of Canada. While it is true that only in the last 10 or 15 years have governments in Canada realized that we have a vast storehouse of mineral wealth north of the 60th parallel, there have been pioneers who caught the vision of our northern potential long before the rank and file of Canadians did, and certainly long before our politicians were willing to accept this viewpoint.
One pioneer I ought to mention is Stefans-son who in the decade following 1910 was probably the first Canadian to really appreciate that in her northland Canada had a heritage in resources that exceeded the wildest flights of fancy. Stefansson at first explored under the auspices of the government of Canada. Unfortunately the government later withdrew its support and, as we know, he wound up south of the border where he continued promoting the message, as one who had done considerable exploration and who had lived in the north and among the northern people of Canada, that the northern part of the North American continent was not an austere, formidable, barren and valueless waste but was in reality, as he described in his writings of those days, the friendly north. I suppose he was the first man to promote the idea that Canada is a northern nation, with a northern heritage and destiny. I could mention many other people but I have singled out Stefansson because he was so exceptional and his vision of northern development at that time was unique.
The legislation before the house today I am sure will find support among all parties in the house. It already has found support in the other place. Before being sent to the House of Commons it was discussed extensively in the other place and in committee. Everyone agrees with the principle of the bill and everyone agrees that the time is long overdue for us to take precise and specific legislative action to deal with the orderly development
April 15, 1969

and conservation of mineral resources which are now recognized as existing in fact and are not a mirage. This is the purpose of the bill as I read it, and that is the emphasis the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) has given in his introductory remarks.
Actually, interest in northern development has only been aroused in recent years. In 1953 the federal government of the day enacted legislation establishing a department of northern affairs which, for the first time in Canada's history, recognized Canadian responsibility in the north. In fact, there are still members in the house who were present when that legislation was first enacted. The development of the late 1950's and early 1960's was received with some scepticism, which is perhaps inevitable since Canadians, as our history demonstrates, have tended to cluster along Canada's southernmost boundary throughout our entire course of development. The Canadian population is concentrated along the Canada-U.S. border. Someone has said that Canadians live as close to the United States border as U.S. immigration laws permit.
That phenomenon having been part of Canada's history, it is understandable that when the government of Canada between the years 1957 and 1963 began promoting in a major way the concept of northern development, the idea was greeted with some scepticism and even derision. That era has now faded into history and we are pleased that the present government is as enthusiastic about northern development as was the former government of 1957.
To indicate how rapidly interest has grown in' prospecting for oil, gas and mineral wealth in the north may I cite some figures. In the late 1950's permits for exploration covered only about 50 million acres. Now 250 million acres are covered by permit. About $5 million was spent on exploration in the early period of development compared with exploration expenditures of some $50 million later when the development program got under way. That is almost as much money as is expended in Alberta yearly, which is the great oil and gas producing province in Canada. Expenditures there average about $100 million per annum.
The bill before us is the by-product of considerable experience, both positive and negative, in oil exploration, conservation and development in Canada. It is not necessary to recite some of the unhappy aspects of this period of development. We learned some hard lessons from our early mistakes in the province of Alberta. These were covered in detail
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation by spokesmen in the other place who dealt with the wastage of the Turner Valley field and with policies of past federal and provincial governments which failed to ensure the protection of this rich mineral resource for the benefit of the people of Canada. These are the less happy aspects of the early exploration period of the oil and gas industry of Canada.
May I now mention some of the happier incidents which really are the basis for the legislation before us today. This bill is actually a result of the work of the National Energy Board, now an integral part of Canada's oil and gas policy. It is a by-product of the national oil policy which is administered by the National Energy Board. I presume that involved in the legislation there will be Canadian participation features' to ensure that the resources of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be developed in the best interests of all the people of Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I have paid tribute to the early pioneers. There have also been some recent pioneers who should receive honourable mention for making possible the development which we see today. It was in 1961-62 that a group of hardy pioneers first ventured into the high Arctic in search of what was then regarded by the sceptical people to whom I have already referred as an oil mirage. Unfortunately we hear very little mention of the wildcatting, as I think it can be called, which took a group of small Canadian companies into the most remote part of the Arctic islands to drill for oil and gas resources that they felt on the basis of the best geological information available at that time lay beneath the frozen barrens of the Canadian high Arctic in billions of barrels. Two of the moving spirits behind that venture were Mr. Jack Gallagher of Dome Petroleum and Peter Bowden who sent his drilling equipment. It is a saga that should not be forgotten because it pointed the way to the current exploration effort taking place in the Canadian high Arctic.
Many of the people working on the drilling crews acquired their experience in the winter of 1961-62 on Melville Island at Winter Harbour. I remember how these enthusiastic Canadians found it impossible to get Canadian transportation facilities to venture into the high Arctic. They were successful in hiring the Thora Dan, a Danish vessel, which ventured into the traditional Northwest Passage
April 15, 1969
7546	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation hoping to make Winter Harbour before the ice closed in. The expedition had to depend on charts that went back into the last century and which I believe had been prepared by Perry's expedition. They were the most recent navigational charts available. This fact alone indicates how sadly we had neglected development in the high Arctic. They were racing against time. They were caught in the ice and the icebreaker, Sir John A. Macdonald, had to go to the Northwest Passage in order that they could finally make their way to Winter Harbour on Melville Island.
This is a saga of Canadian developmental pioneering in the high Arctic that should not be forgotten. It is amazing how little reference there has been to that first pioneering venture at Winter Harbour. It was that venture which gave rise after several years' delay to the broader Panarctic program and exploration. It is interesting to note that the same Mr. Gallagher of Dome Petroleum is still one of the leading figures from the private sector. His enthusiasm, courage and pioneering vision have made possible this further venture into the Canadian northern regions.
I recall hearing prophesies in those days that these men would find another Leduc in the high Arctic. I recall the sceptics firing back with equal enthusiasm that this was just a little too much for the imagination. Now that Prudhoe has come in, it seems entirely reasonable that had these men been infinitely fortunate they might have discovered the northern Leduc and Canada might now be enjoying the boom that has come to Alaska as a result of the tremendous oil finds at Prudhoe Bay. While these pioneering young Canadian businessmen indicated they could find a northern Leduc, they were realistic enough to recall that it took about 100 dry wells before Imperial Oil finally brought in the gusher at Leduc. As a result of these pioneering efforts we now recognize that these men had a realistic approach toward the prospects of the north. It is encouraging to see that their dreams and enterprise are now going to be interpreted in the specific terms of Bill S-29.
The Winter Harbour exploration, as I recall, went down to 11,500 feet. The drillers worked in sub-zero temperatures that went down almost as far as the well itself. They were working in the extreme cold of the high Arctic, 60 degrees below zero and colder. They worked all through the period of the Arctic blackness. Their only contact with the


world at that time was air communication and a radio telephone system which they had set up themselves. They proved the geology even though they did not get gas and oil in great abundance. As stated by the experts in the Quirin report which I believe was published in 1962, we now know that the estimates of reserves ini that report of 45 billion barrels of oil and 275 trillion cubic feet of gas were conservative.
There is not much purpose in prolonging the discussion further from the standpoint of general comment. I merely wanted to indicate that a lot of blood, sweat and tears in the past had gone into making this event possible. The bill had very careful study, review and amendment in the other place. It is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for further study and discussion following second reading. On the basis of closer examination possibly additional amendments and refinements might be necessary. However, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the members of the official opposition have no hesitancy whatsoever ini supporting the principle of this bill Had we had the good fortune to continue in office beyond 1963 I am sure the bill would have been before the house much sooner than this.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on examining Bill S-29 one is struck by one obvious value that shines through it. I refer to the government's power to regulate, to control pollution and to minimize waste. If one examines the clauses one cannot help but be satisfied that this bill contains the power to ensure that the benefits from our national resources can accrue to the Canadian people. The real question that arises on an examination of this bill is not in respect of the technical competence of the bill to do the job but whether we will have a government whose policy will be in harmony with, the purpose of this bill only then will we avoid a future sell-out of our natural resources such as we have had in the past. No bill can guarantee that a sell-out of this kind does not take place. That depends on government policy and the willingness of government to act in the best interests of the Canadian people.
This could be very good legislation. I have only one caveat to enter. Clause 6 which appears on page 4 of the bill, reads as follows:
No member of the Committee shall have a pecuniary interest of any description, directly
April IS, 1969	COMMONS
or indirectly, in any property in oil or gas to which this Act applies or own shares in any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada in an amount in excess of five per cent of the issued shares thereof.
It strikes me that 5 per cent of the shares can very frequently amount to a controlling interest and anyone holding that percentage of shares who acted on the committee could have a conflict of interests. I would think that particular limitation should be removed. I do not think there should be any question of a conflict of interest for those who serve on the board. I think they should be divorced from any pecuniary attachment outside their work.
The provisions of this bill strike me as being somewhat better than those contained in provincial statutes of a similar nature. They take into account the tragic waste of capital and resources that has occurred because conditions were not laid down in the early days of oil development in Canada. We are still suffering from the failure of provincial governments to lay down guide lines in this direction. In fairness to the provincial governments it must be pointed out that for a long time the oil industry was able to bargain and say in effect that it would go along with whoever would give the best deal. The provincial governments may have had limited ability to stand up to the international giants in the oil industry. It is obvious that this kind of inability does not apply to the federal government. The federal government cannot be bargained off in the way the provincial governments were. Therefore, the federal government can be expected to take a much firmer stand.
There is one area in which the federal government has been very remiss. It has stood by or has actively encouraged wasteful expenditures in the oil industry. The Carter commission pointed out that the depletion allowances which exist in our present tax structure have encouraged more investment in the industry than market forces or any kind of forces, or indeed any intelligent planning, would have indicated to be desirable. The commission pointed out that the special privileges for the oil industry should be removed for two very good reasons. First, the Canadian people are entitled to obtain a reasonable tax from those who use the natural resources of the country. Secondly, this would discourage some of the wasteful investment that has taken place in the oil industry.
At the moment when we are considering oil, we must think beyond its effect on the northern areas of Canada. The whole situation seems to be up in the air. The question
DEBATES	7547
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation of our exports to the United States seem to be somewhat in doubt. It might be useful to look back on Canada's national oil policy, how it came into being and some of the effects of that national oil policy. One cannot help but feel that this national oil policy was not written by the legislators of Canada but was written largely by the international oil companies themselves to suit their particular purpose. A story is told about the way the concessions were wrung from the international oil companies, even the minor concessions which were obtained from them. The Canadian government wanted greater access from the United States market for its oil. The government threatened to build a pipe line to Montreal. The international oil companies opted in favour of a continental oil policy of a type rather than a Canadian National Policy. They responded to a threat from the government of the day and I suspect from one minister in particular.
At this crucial moment it may be necessary for this government to state in no uncertain terms that it is prepared to exercise such a threat again unless a better arrangement is made for the oil industry of this country. It might be best perhaps for the oil industry, and for the nation as a whole, not to even threaten the building of a pipe line to Montreal but to go ahead and do it anyway simply because it might, in the long run, give us a more stable future than has been the case in the past. We paid quite a price for that deal with the international oil companies. The agreement was that Canadian oil would flow as far as the Ottawa River and that the oil needs east of that point would be served by off-shore oil. Although never officially stated, I believe the understanding was that the offshore oil displaced in the United States would be taken in at the port of Montreal.
By going along with this agreement Canada, in effect, made itself part and parcel of United States foreign policy and part and parcel of the international oil companies' arrangements with countries that were friendly to the United States. I am not aware that this parliament was ever told this was the deal or that this was the situation. Only in the years subsequent to the development of the national oil policy have some of these facts become more clear.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
After all the benefits of this vaunted oil policy have been counted, where do we stand today? First of all, we still have a great
April 15. 1969
7548	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation imbalance in respect of oil in that we are importing more than we export, despite the fact we are capable of not only supplying all Canadian needs but probably the needs of the United States as well. We have a tremendous capacity in this country. Our exploration costs and our cost of oil recovery are somewhat lower than those in the United States, although perhaps higher than the cost in countries in the Middle East or Venezuela. Our exploration and recovery costs are about i lower than those in the United States, yet our prices are among the highest in the world, if not the highest to the consumer.
Someone might say that gasoline costs $1 per gallon in France, but I am referring to the price less tax. We in Canada are paying a higher price for gasoline, less tax, than anyone in any country in the world, and there is no need for this situation. One individual sent me an estimate in which it was suggested that the Canadian consumer was paying approximately $500 million more each year for gasoline than necessary. We have put ourselves in the position of being scared to death about what the United States might do regarding the importation of oil from Canada.
Day after day in this house we have seen concerned members from the West rising to ask the government what is to happen in respect of our exportation of oil to the United States. I can appreciate that western members are concerned about this matter because a great deal of the prosperity and orientation of our western provinces is related to the exportation of oil. It always gripes me to note that these questions are asked with an almost pathetic feeling accompanied by a fear about what we would do if the United States cut off our oil exports. Apparently we should do everything possible to ensure our access to the oil market of the United States.
This situation is a dreadful one for any country and we must find a solution. It is time that we developed a truly Canadian oil policy which made long term sense and put us in a position other than that of a satellite of the United States, subject to the whims and pleasures of lobbying or the changed nature of United States politics.
A number of studies have been conducted in respect of the feasibility of a pipeline to Montreal. Some of these studies were conducted privately and some publicly. Most of them contain arguments that at the present cost of offshore and domestic crude, and the cost of transportation, such a pipeline would not be feasible but would tend to increase the


price of gasoline on the Montreal market unless the market were protected. '
These arguments are based on a number of factors. First of all, they assume that the price of crude in Canada at the wellhead is a correct price and that there is no reason to doubt that this price is as low as it might be. These arguments are based on the belief that this price is a realistic one and not related to the United States market. It can be demonstrated that the price of Canadian crude could be substantially lowered, still leaving sufficient profit to those people in the oil industry.
The price of crude oil at Montreal delivered through a pipeline is sometimes based on the cost of transporting oil through privately owned pipelines. The cost of transporting this oil through a publicly owned pipeline has not been calculated. The only figure I have heard as to the difference between the cost of transporting by a privately owned pipeline in comparison with a publicly owned pipeline was the figure given to us at a committee hearing a number of years ago. At that time we asked a member of the energy board whether this would make a difference. He said there would be a considerable reduction in cost as between publicly and privately owned companies. If we are to move crude oil to Montreal it seems we must do so through a publicly owned pipeline.
From all the evidence I have seen, I am convinced that we could probably reduce the cost of crude oil in Canada if we operated publicly owned pipelines rather than the jumble of privately owned pipelines which now exist.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the cost of the arts centre?


Max Saltsman: Well, there is a difference.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is there a comparison
between that cost and the cost of a pipeline?


Max Saltsman: I think there is a compelling argument in favour of publicly owned pipelines. This argument may not be acceptable to hon. members in other parties. The hon. gentleman has mentioned the arts centre, but there is a big difference between an arts centre and a pipeline. This is not a fair or a valid comparison. If the hon. member wants to make a fair argument in respect of publicly owned pipelines he should attempt to demonstrate this difference in a more convincing manner.
April 15, 1969	COMMONS
It is my belief that a publicly owned pipeline can be shown to be more economic than one operated privately, providing there are flow guarantees. Let me read from a report of a commission set up by a privately owned, independent oil producer association in Canada in respect of the outlook for Canadien crude, production and marketing. The consultant was W. S. Levy and Company Incorporated. This report refers to the Montreal market and reads:
If access to the Montreal market permitted accelerated production of Canadian crude, the producing industry could take a considerable reduction in crude prices without economic loss. For example, with a 200,000 barrel per day increase in production, crude prices could be around 22 cents per barrel lower without any reduction in the present discounted value of future production, even taking a 5 per cent discount factor. And transportation costs to Montreal might be reduced by perhaps 13 cents per barrel, if substantial volumes of Canadian crude were to be moved to Montreal, in addition to the increasing volume into eastern Ontario.
The report concludes:
The Montreal market is a less economically attractive alternative. But if Canada's expanding productive potential cannot achieve adequate volume in U.S. markets, or if prolonged uncertainty seriously threatens incentives to Canadian oil development the entry of Canadian oil into Montreal could be considered as an alternative. At least to the extent that the preferred alternative of expanding exports proves elusive, the preference for low priced foreign oil in Montreal might also have to be qualified.
The argument is sometimes advanced that if we try to move Canadian crude into Montreal the international corporations which own oil wells in Canada, in Venezuela and the Middle East would cut their prices at the port of Montreal to make sure that it would be uneconomic to transport Canadian oil to that market. They would not be cutting their price, they would be maintaining the price to meet the cost of Canadian crude.
We are not getting any benefit from free entry of oil at Montreal. These companies are adjusting their prices to make sure that the cost of oil at Montreal will enable them to maintain this privileged position. This position is supported by our national oil policy. I think the real question, therefore, as it concerns oil in Canada, is whether this parliament, acting on behalf of the people of our country, will determine the nature and future of the oil industry in the best interests of Canadians, or whether we will permit the international oil companies to do what they think is best in their own interests.
DEBATES	7549
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I hold no brief for any particular industry, but I think it is high time somebody from western Canada set out the case for western Canada. We have been talking about the north, and I link what I have to say with the arguments put forward. We have been dealing with exploration in the north and the effect it will have on other oil and petroleum pools and energy resources in Canada, particularly western Canada.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to Calgary to speak about the petroleum industry-perhaps I can say this better than most other members who have knowledge of the subject-he did not speak to the people who have knowledge, experience and financial interest in the industry. I do not refer only to the companies but to the people of Alberta. The industry pours a large amount of money into the treasury because we are the only province without a sales tax. I think that even my own friends to the left would see some economic advantage in this.
The Prime Minister did not speak to the oil industry about their problems with regard to trade. Why was this? The reason is that the Prime Minister went to see the President of the United States-he had with him several briefcases' of documents concerning various subjects-and left the impression in Washington that we in Canada were going to pull out of the collective defence of the western world. He met with the President of the United States, the Presidents' advisers and his cabinet members. When the President of the United States was vice-president of that great country he had some sympathy for Canada, but on this occasion he had little sympathy for the Prime Minister's arguments with reference to Canadian trade in petroleum and wheat, because of our attitude in reference to NATO.
I think the President of the United States told the Prime Minister that we were not interested in measuring up to our responsibilities as a nation to work with the western world. One can only negotiate with the other side of the world from a position of strength, not weakness. We are taking the French, de Gaulle, line with reference to defence. During the election campaign the Prime Minister told the United States that we would pull right out of NATO. This is the reason he received such little sympathy for Canada's problems in the petroleum and wheat industries. I use wheat only as an analogy. We are already
April 15, 1969
7550	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada down 60 per cent in our production. I spoke about this great industry over a year and a half ago and warned the government what would happen to our wheat trade and petroleum trade if they did not immediately come to grips with these problems.
I think this is the message the Prime Minister of Canada got from the President of the United States, because he came back here and said-he was speaking metaphorically, of course-that dealing with the United States was like sleeping with a big elephant. He should have said, in view of the advice he received regarding international policy, that he felt like a mouse caught in the toe of the elephant.
We on this side of the house have for many years been asking questions in order to ascertain where Canada is going as far as the north is concerned. One of the problems is, of course, where is the northern boundary? This problem was not created by this government or parliament. I would be most selfish if I laid responsibility for the problems concerning the boundary of the north on this government. I say this because on July 24, 1964, I asked the following question which can be found at page 5941 of Hansard. The question had been asked before in this House of Commons. I asked:
Could I ask the minister one question? It may be this is not the proper time to deal with it, and perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to answer it later.
Could the minister give some indication to the house, because of the stress on the importance of the north-
I emphasize that this was five years ago.
-whether there is a definite northern border in Canada: and could he tell us how many oceanographers and other scientists are working at the present time in defining a true northern boundary for Canada? It seems to me very important that this should be done, particularly with the type of world in which we are now living.
The Minister said he could not answer the question but would look into it. These matters are very important when we are dealing with a bill which will affect the great, wealthy resources of petroleum that are to be found in the northern islands of Canada. In this respect we have a conflict with the United States. If our border does stretch to the far northern islands, we are only twelve miles from the U.S.S.R.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.



DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the consent of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of putting to the house the motion with regard to the reports of the Canadian National Railways and of Air Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has been suggested that the annual reports for 1967 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways securities trust as well as the auditors' report to parliament on the accounts of the Canadian National Railways system for 1967, all tabled on September 16, 1968, and the annual report for 1967 of Air Canada and the report to parliament of the auditors on the accounts of Air Canada for 1967, tabled March 14, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Perhaps, if the house is agreeable, that could be made an order of the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to that and we are glad that the government has finally decided to do it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am glad the hon. member's colleagues have withdrawn their opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.



OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-29, respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the
April 15, 1969
Northwest Territories, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the few minutes I had before supper I pointed out that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to the United States for consultations with the United States President and his advisers with a view to obtaining a better deal for the petroleum and oil industry as well as for our wheat trade he ran into some difficulty because, in my personal opinion, Canada had failed to live up to its responsibility, so far as the western world is concerned, for the collective defence of the western world. As I suggested before supper, when the Prime Minister said that dealing with the United States was like sleeping with an elephant he probably felt like a mouse caught in the toe of the elephant because he was being squeezed to death as a result of the prejudice to our foreign policy.
I also mentioned the fact that the question of our northern boundary is not a new one. It has been discussed on many occasions. I myself raised the question on July 24, 1964, when I asked the then minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Laing:
-could the minister give some indication to the house, because of the stress on the importance of the north, whether there is a definite northern border in Canada; and could he tell us how many oceanographers and other scientists are working at the present time in defining a true northern boundary for Canada?
At that time we were promised an answer, but have not received one yet. This was almost five years ago, and we are still in the same dilemma. We really do not know today where our northern boundary is. This matter is becoming increasingly important in view of the now known and proven reserve of petroleum, our wealthy resources and our mines. I recall my words as they appear at page 5960 of Hansard of July 24, 1964. At that time the committee of the whole was discussing the estimates of the department of northern affairs, and during that debate I said the following:
Mr. Chairman, before going on with a few suggestions in regard to the parks, I would like to say something with regard to northern affairs. I have here a map of Canada which shows Melville Island, Hubert Island, and so on, away up to Alert Point. I have just been told by the hon. member for Northwest Territories that Alert Point is 2,350 miles north of Winnipeg.
7551
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation
I pointed out that the distance from Calgary to Ottawa is 2,600 miles, so it is almost as far from Winnipeg to Alert Point as it is from Ottawa to Calgary. We appreciate therefore, how vast is the north. I also said:
I have said that it is 2,400 miles from Alert Point to Winnipeg. This is a vast area of our country. We have heard the hon. member for Yukon on several occasions; we have heard the minister and others talk about the vast resources of the north. Those resources are there. Let us make sure they stay Canadian. To do this we should now take a serious look at the matter of establishing our northern boundary. I put this suggestion forward as a constructive suggestion-
Yet, five years later there are members on this side of the house asking the Prime Minister whether the government is concerned with the 'delineation of our northern boundary. We wonder whether the islands I have mentioned, which contain a proven reserve of oil and a vast quantity of valuable minerals, are within that boundary.
I also said that a case should be made for the west. It seems to me it is high time that some of us from western Canada spoke up for the west. As I said before the supper hour, we have already lost the wheat market. Our exports are down by 60 per cent, and I predict tonight as I predicted before, that we are now about to lose our oil markets. Every day when we question the government we receive the same answers that the matter is being reviewed, that it is being considered, and that task forces are being set up.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not discuss the subject of petroleum in the City of Calgary is not unrelated with the position he took with regard to NATO and similar areas where he had to deal collectively with the western world. In such matters we can never make a decision ourselves; we can only negotiate from strength. Hence the weakness of the case the Prime Minister presented in Washington. This is what the Gazette had to say about the oil situation as early as October 28, 1968:
Canadian deliveries of crude oil east of the Rockies for October will run around 275,000 barrels daily or under the U.S. suggested ceiling of 280,000, sources here say.
I wonder what the reaction would be in central Canada, the centre of power, where we find the largest number of parliamentary seats. Canada is an anomaly in the world today. It can currently produce over 200 per cent of its current rate of consumption and yet has a net trade deficit in oil of over $200

April 15. 1969
7552	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation million per year. The need lor a new oil policy is apparent-that is, a policy which adequately recognizes the new developments which have taken place ini recent years and the changes which can be expected to occur in the future.
When anybody talks about petroleum today and the national oil policy created by this party when we were in government, he should realize that the policy then set up is as dead today as Marley's ghost. The only reason there is any trade between the two countries today is because that trade is a bit like Topsy. The United States is dictating to Canada, and proper consultation is not taking place because this government is failing to measure up to its responsibility.
What is the effect of all this? Let us talk about grain for a few moments. It is not only western Canada that is suffering as a result of the difficulties facing that industry. When I spoke in Dresden, Ontario 800 men had just been laid off by the International Harvester plant. I understand how some hon. members think about this subject, but somebody has to present the case for the west. We hear it said: They had it good for a number of years. The fact is we are not dealing exclusively with western Canada but with the economy of Canada as a whole. The same holds true when I speak of the petroleum industry. We only produce in western Canada some 40 or 50 per cent of the amount we are capable of producing, taking into account all the rules and regulations in respect of conservation. If the $200 million presently spent on imports were spent in Canada for Canadian crude oil, the total effect on the Canadian economy through secondary and tertiary industries would be approximately $700 million annually. At present we have a trade deficit because, among other things, we are purchasing $200 million worth of crude petroleum from abroad.
Major Canadian banking institutions have calculated that the multiplier effect of money generated in the national resource sector of our economy is approximately 3.3. Canada loses on every barrel of imported crude oil, not only through the foreign production profits which remain offshore, but because each barrel of Canadian crude oil pays more than one dollar in the form of taxes and other payments to Canadian governments. Therefore, to the extent of Canada's crude oil imports, such revenue is lost. Replacement of such imports by Canadian oil would result in

Oil and Gas Production and Conservation and the United States that have grown in the past decade of expanding western Canadian oil potential, declining United States oil security and increasing uncertainties of oil supplies.
Prudhoe, and the expanding Canada oil search, have made a new ball game, and new ground rules are needed. Economic interests of Canada and the United States, continued adequate growth of reserves and security demand that the North American nations and their oilmen gather facts, bargain hard, and evolve new continental guidelines. The faster that is done, the sooner will Arctic resources join others on the continent in creating an economically secure energy supply for the growing hunger of years ahead.
With the reserves not only in Alaska but in the Arctic, in northern Canada and on the plains, the oil market should be prorated so that everybody gets a percentage. In our national oil policy a deal was struck with the United States. My good friend from the New Democratic party said this afternoon that we should not make deals like this, but you cannot live in economic isolation. The deal we made was that we would permit Venezuelan crude petroleum to come into Canada as far as the Ottawa valley, serving the concentrated population areas of eastern Canada, providing the United States would let us have a certain percentage of the northwest market down to Chicago and Toledo.
Why did we make that deal, Mr. Speaker? First of all, it was to secure a fair market for Canada, rewarding those people who had invested their money in this country as well as assisting the growth of the industry. We also made this deal because we knew, as did the United States, that in order to keep both North America and South America free from a Communist revolution we would have to encourage trade. Therefore, this deal was struck to permit Venezuelan crude to come to eastern Canada, thus keeping trade between Venezuela and Canada and Venezuela and the United States in a healthy condition. That is the real reason behind the national oil policy, but as I have said it is now as dead as Mar-ley's ghost.
On top of this we now have this tremendous development in the north, with the serious possibility that in the near future Alberta, Saskatchewan and even Manitoba will be bypassed as far as markets for natural gas and crude petroleum are concerned. We on this side of the house say that it is high time that the government brought in a new oil

policy. It is high time the government negotiated with the United States and advised parliament of their decision. But this government never seems to learn. It is a cabinet government that does not know that parliament is the place to seek information, to make suggestions, as I am now doing, suggestions that have been prompted by the serious nature of the events now taking place in western Canada.
I repeat that as far as the west is concerned, having lost our agricultural markets we are now about to lose our petroleum markets. Depressed economic conditions are, sowing the seeds of the formation of a new splinter party, a party now seen to be sprouting in the west,-and let us be realistic and face it-that leans towards separation from this nation. Who has sat in this chamber for a period of time, even for the period that I have sat here, and does not believe that Canada is a great nation that can only be held together when we all appreciate each other's economic problems from the mari-times to Victoria?
The Prudhoe Bay development means that the great trio of North American oil states is becoming a quartet, spread from the Arctic to the Gulf coast. Number one is Texas, with proved petroleum reserves of about 19 billion barrels. Its gulf neighbour, Louisiana, is approaching nine billion, slightly behind Canada's Alberta in the heart of the continent. Prudhoe could give Alaska over the next year or two as much as 10 billion barrels proved. And northern Canada could make up a quintet soon after. In fact, "oil giants" need not stop at five.
Prudhoe came at a time when exploration was already spreading in Canada beyond the Alberta heartland into geologically favourable regions across the nation. Stimulated by Prudhoe, the Canadian play now covers over one billion acres, over 1.5 million square miles, under exploration permit or lease.
We heard this afternoon that we had encouraged too much investment in developing the petroleum industry. Surely we cannot have too much capital to develop this kind of resource. We need all the capital we can get to develop these resources and markets so that we can balance our trade with other countries, increase our gross national product and not have to go to the little wage earner for more taxes. We must increase the industrial growth of this nation, and that is where I part company with the Socialists. I cannot understand their arguments. Fancy having an

April 15, 1969
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation hon. member say this afternoon that there is too much investment in Canada in the development of oil! If we adopt that kind of thinking, Canada will remain forever in the dark ages.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
May I now say a word about natural gas. There has been tremendous development in the last few years in this field and western Canada needs more secondary industry. Natural gas is being piped from western Canada to eastern Canada and the United States. We do not have in our area concentrated centres of population. We ought to develop secondary industry so that western Canada could use, as a raw material the available natural gas. Certainly, our natural gas will enable secondary industry to be established in our area and the entire nation will benefit economically.
My last thoughts are these, Mr. Speaker. I note that not many government supporters are here. I plead with the government, nevertheless, to come forward with some petroleum policy which will answer our needs. If the minister does not think Canada is ready to negotiate a new continental oil policy wouldi it not be more honest for the government to come to the house and tell us the truth, so that our people may know the truth. He should be honest with us instead of hiding the facts and talking about establishing task forces and conducting reviews.
Not only should we be advised of the truth of the situation, as we ought to have been advised by the minister some months ago with respect to the grain industry, but the minister ought to tell us exactly what the government's approach to this problem is. I ask the minister to consider setting up a committee composed of hon. members of this house and of the other place so that we may talk with congressmen in the United States, set before them Canada's position and try to work out a new continental oil policy under which Canada gets a square deal in the North American petroleum market. The taxes that this industry can pay will be enormous and could go towards establishing secondary industries in this nation.
The economic health of central Canada is not good. I expect that the other hon. member for Calgary will make a plea similar to mine. I expect he will advocate that we take a new look at the petroleum industry. I have always said that we westerners must stick together. Our differences in this house stem from the
differences in the areas we represent rather than from any political differences. I have always maintained that. It has always been, a rule in this house that one stands to talk and sits to listen. For too long has this country taken the idea for granted that everything in western Canada is extravagantly wealthy and that we are living ini luxury. Our agricultural industry faces its most severe crisis since the 1930's. In western Canada we are moving toward a recession the like of which has not been seen since the 1930's and the petroleum industry also will soon move into a recession. One is always proud when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visits one's city, but I say to the government that the reception he received the other night will be as nothing to the one he will receive six months from now if he does not make a very clear and honest effort to improve the situation of the people of western Canada. I say to the government that we are on the move. If we do not get help here we shall get it elsewhere.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could share the feelings of hon. members who congratulated the minister early today for introducing this legislation. They said it was timely legislation. Frankly, I had hoped that by this time we would see tremendous oil discoveries in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and that this legislation would be late in coming. We have been disappointed in this regard, and the legislation is timely.
The first oil and gas conservation legislation in Canada was enacted in the province of Alberta in 1938 and our basic conservation concepts have remained much the same. They are, to effect the conservation of oil and gas resources, to prevent their waste, to secure the observance of sufficient and efficient practices in the location, spacing, drilling, equipping as well as the operating and abandonment of wells. In short, that concept covers all aspects of the production of oil and gas. Another aim of our legislation is to afford the owner of the producing property his just and equitable share of the production of any pool.
As I say, this legislation was pioneered in Alberta. We had the benefit of experience in the United States and we did not have the benefit of any experience in Canada. It is interesting to note some of the similarities and differences in the present legislation and legislation which was pioneered in Alberta. That legislation, incidentally, formed the
7556	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation basis for the Norwegian government's legislation after petroleum had been found under the North Sea adjacent to that country.
In Alberta we have a mixture of freehold and Crown lands. In the Northwest Territories mineral rights are all vested in the Crown. In Alberta, the Oil and Gas Conservation Board is a body corporate and in the proposed legislation it will be a committee serving under the minister. In Alberta, the operations of the Board are financed by the province and by private owners. Under the proposed legislation the operations of the committee will be entirely government financed. In Alberta, the Board controls its own expenditures, has the authority to hire its own staff and determine what facilities it requires. Under the proposed legislation, the committee will be dependent entirely on the minister and on Treasury Board.
All these differences, I take it, stem from the basic fact that in that province we have freehold and Crown land whereas here we are dealing entirely with Crown land; and there can be no objection in principle to these differences. There is one distinction in this proposed legislation which I think is remarkably progressive. The Conservation Boards or members of Conservation Boards of the various provinces are entirely appointed by the Lieutenant Governors in Council. Under this legislation, we are to have a five man committee, and two of those men must be from outside the public service. Furthermore, one of those two outside members must be present at any meeting in order to make a quorum. That is something the petroleum industry has been urging for a long time in the province of Alberta. I am very happy to see that the federal government has taken the initiative and got off on the right foot by implementing this suggestion immediately.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man) was worried in case one of those outside members might have some interest in the petroleum industry. I think he referred to the provisions of clause 6. I take it that clause 6 provides they may have no direct interest in any oil plans over which the committee would have jurisdiction, but they may have an interest in the petroleum industry or a company connected with the petroleum industry in Canada. I feel it would be very difficult in this particular industry to obtain the services of the type of competent person that will be required on this board. Almost any person who is the least bit knowledgeable in

DEBATES	April 15, 1969
the industry has some investment in it. That is one of the nice things about it.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We are not talking about an industry that is looked at remotely as some people who advocate nationalized industries tend to observe them. This is an industry in which almost everyone who is the least bit successful has a very intimate and particular concern with what they are doing. I have dealt at some length with the act and do not want to be any more particular. This is not the time to do that.
I was very interested in the brief survey of the oil discoveries in the area that this will cover which the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Andras) gave. He pointed out that the only oil in that area to date is the Norman Wells discovery which was made in the early years of the war. There are numerous small gas pools and more recently a large gas pool was discovered. Those small gas pools may be small by standards of the Northwest Territories, but the fact is the ones there today would very definitely be commercial reserves were they located closer to markets than they are.
I do not think from what we have in the way of discoveries there can be any doubt in the long run we are going to have a major gas industry in the Northwest Territories. About two weeks ago a $1.4 billion project to pipe gas from the Liard River Valley and from portions of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan was announced. For the first time, gas from the Northwest Territories will be going into the United States midwest market.
While the people at Prudhoe Bay may contemplate building a pipe line across Alaska and sending the oil across the west coast to market, there is no way they can economically move gas that way. The gas that comes out of prudhoe Bay will have to come down the coast of the Arctic Ocean, down the Mackenzie River valley and through the western provinces to the United States.
Gas is something that has been rather neglected by people talking about the oil and petroleum problems of western Canada. In 1957 the United States imported about 60 million cubic feet of Canadian natural gas per day. By 1968 this volume increased to 1,570 million cubic feet per day, approximately 2,500 per cent. This year it is anticipated it will reach approximately 1,800 million cubic
April 15, 1969


water resources for a long, long time. I do not want to impair the negotiations at all but I am hopeful that in taking a look at the overall energy situation on this continent all forms of energy will be included because, if so, we have a great deal to sell the United States which cannot be supplied by Prudhoe Bay or by other parts of the United States.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Bill S-29 is before us and that the government is taking this step in bringing some order to the petroleum industry, particularly as it affects the new frontier of the north. I do not think the importance of this bill can be over-estimated. However, I do not believe we really understand how important it is. As has been said today by the former minister of northern affairs in the Diefenbaker administration, a great step forward has been made in the north and the vision has caught on. But it has not entirely caught on yet. The people of Canada still do not appreciate the whole purport of what will happen if we do not take immediate steps to grasp the opportunities which exist. In some cases this may be the last opportunity we will have for perhaps 25 years. This great new resource which has been discovered, particularly on the shores of the Arctic, is extremely important. It will have a great effect on the settled areas of the three prairie provinces.
If we are not very careful our great opportunity to take part in this new development will slip through our fingers. Instead of being a great opportunity for Canadians to take advantage of this new development, it may well be a crippling blow to our own petroleum industry for a period up to 25 years. I would suggest that because we have no merchant fleet of any note we should get cracking on a pipe line, not just a pipe line but perhaps many pipe lines. If we supply the facilities first to move this oil rapidly and cheaply to the heart of the north American continent, we will have a great deal to say about the industries which will spring up along those pipe lines. In this way we may be able to compete with the cheap ocean traffic which we know is a great threat to any other form of transportation on this planet. I would like to see us build ships, but I think it is too late now to recall the warnings we had over the past 20 years in respect of Canada's merchant shipping. So, I am limited to the very narrow point of begging that we get cracking on an oil policy for Canada so that we will
April 15, 1969
have the ability to move this oil to the continental markets of the United States.
If we have this ability to move the oil and gas, we will derive the benefit of the employment which will result from the building of the lines. In addition, frontier towns will spring up. We will not only have the benefit of these lines but also of the industry which will grow up along these pipe lines for the next 100 years. If we do not do this, we will lose this industry.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I have seen editorials in newspapers throughout the United States and across this country which indicate that Alaskan authorities are worried about this very thing. These people want to build up a great sea-going complex. They want to build a great Arctic port to handle this oil on behalf of this country. If we build this series of pipe lines which I envisage we can help develop our own reserves.
It is not only Prudhoe Bay that is rich in oil. We have every reason to believe that Prudhoe Bay is only a small part of a much larger field which stretches throughout the Canadian north, the Arctic islands and the ocean beds which are close to Canadian soil. It is expected that these reserves will prove within the next 25 years to be so large as to dwarf the Prudhoe Bay potentiality. It is only through the establishment of pipelines that we can expect to handle this development. This is our opportunity and we must move quickly.
It is my hope that the government will not listen to those on my extreme left who advocate the development of this area on the basis of a government monopoly. People living in high rise apartments in large cities must have a source of income. We must make some claim to cut in the people of Canada on this development. We must work out an ideal situation closely tied with our tax structure to encourage these people, particularly the young, to take advantage of this opportunity to go north during the summer months, These people who are attending university could well spend these few months exploring this area and constructing these pipelines. We should encourage them to do so through tax incentives. Perhaps we should provide a five year tax moratorium in order to develop this area while at the same time helping these young people to finish university. This would amount to an investment in this country. The experience would be an advantage to these 29180-479
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation young people when they are living in high rise apartments in large cities. These people must have an income greater than what they might receive from relief. This is a new frontier and it needs developing.
This new development represents something greater than the biggest gold rush of our time. I have in mind the oil reserves in the Northwest Territories, the Arctic and those areas adjacent to this country. These areas are also rich in copper deposits and those water resources to which the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) has referred. We must take into account not only the oil reserves and an oil policy but also a transportation policy. We must provide transportation facilities in the north, particularly along the Mackenzie River. Perhaps the best way to do this is by building pipelines.
When I first came to this house 11 years ago, I was aware of the tremendous value of the tar sands in northern Alberta. I am afraid these will not be developed for a number of years but they will still exist after we have taken the oil from the Arctic islands. This resource remains for future development but such development will require vision and encouragement. We must now grasp this vision of northern development, and we must do something about it.
I could not agree more than I do with my confrere, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), when he suggests1 that we cannot expect the United States to co-operate with us on an economic basis unless we in turn co-operate with the United States both economically and ideologically. I believe that we are much closer in agreement with the ideology of the United States than ideologies held by other countries. Our future depends on the joint security of North America.
Those ideals held by free countries in Europe upon which we relied are no longer reliable. These countries are now vulnerable. If we stand with our friends here in North America we may well find that in the year 2000 this area will be strong and free. We in this country must be prepared, as a part of North America, to defend ourselves. We must co-operate in this regard with the United States. We must not make this country a haven for those individuals who run away from their duties south of the border. We must do something more than criticize. We must prove that we are willing to enter the 21st century on a bargaining basis backed up by more than just rich natural resources, tremendous water power, fresh water resources,


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up too much of the time of the house. I have listened with interest to the various speakers and am rather surprised at some of the speeches I have heard. We have had a speech on defence policy. I have searched the bill in vain to find a clause dealing with defence policy. However, I presume that quite a bit of latitude is allowed in this type of debate and I accept the speeches in that spirit.
Bill S-29, an act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, is an important piece of legislation. Having checked through the bill, I find it is divided basically into four sections. I would like to very briefly deal with each section and then ask a few questions regarding the oil and gas policy of the Liberal government. I think I know what their gas policy is; we have had a great deal of that since September. But the Canadian people are entitled to a very clear blueprint of where we are going in the development of this extremely important resource.
The bill we are discussing this evening is an interesting piece of legislation which could have a very decided influence on the production and conservation of oil and gas, particularly in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. This is the main function of the bill, as I understand it. Gas and oil resources are primarily the responsibility of the provincial authorities. That is why this bill applies
DEBATES	7561
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation primarily to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
A close examination of the bill will disclose that most of the regulations for the production and conservation of our oil and gas resources have been left to the Governor in Council. This seems to be one of the long suits of this government, namely, orders in council and regulations which are left to the cabinet. I believe this is one of the major weaknesses in the proposed legislation. You can lay down good guide lines, but those good guide lines can be utterly destroyed by a legislative group which sets up regulations which are not in the interests of the industry or the people of Canada. I, for one, feel that provincially and federally we have had far too much government by order in council and not enough legislation is contained in the bills which we pass.
As I said before, the bill is divided into four main parts. One section sets up the oil and gas committee which will consist of five members, not more than three of whom will be from the public service. I think this is a good section of the bill. The committee will oversee the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is provided in the bill that to be a member of the committee one must have specialized or technical knowledge of the oil and gas industry. Again, I think this is an essential ingredient of such a member of the Committee.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Then, the bill defines the exemptions of those who are allowed to sit on the board. The clause reads:
No member of the Committee shall have a pecuniary interest of any description, directly or indirectly, in any profit in oil or gas to which this Act applies or own shares in any company engaged in any phase of the oil or gas industry in Canada in an amount in excess of five per cent of the issued shares thereof.
Sometimes when I look at this last qualification I am not certain that it is a good one. Many of these companies are closely tied together, and some of them are subsidiaries. This is something about which we must be very careful.
On checking the legislation I find that the committee is all powerful. It can hold inquiries and hear appeals about various matters. It has the power, the rights and privileges of a superior court of record. Its findings on any
7562	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation questions of fact are binding and conclusive. Clause 11 reads:
Any order made by the Committee may, for the purpose of enforcement thereof, be made an order of the Exchequer Court of Canada-
Of course, I must add that at the end of the bill there is a clause dealing with appeals, and this is essential in any legislation. There must be an appeal from bad decisions made by the government, and they make plenty of them. We find that part I of the bill deals with the production and conservation of our gas and oil resources. This is where the regulations come in, and this is where I believe Canadians should be more apprehensive than ever because all the regulating and defining is left in this particular part of the bill.
Members of this house do not know what is to be put in the regulations, and I for one would be very anxious to have the minister give us, if not on second reading at least in the committee stage, far more detail than he gave to the house this afternoon in moving the second reading of the bill. I think we, and the Canadian people, are entitled to this information.
I notice that part II of the bill defines "waste". It empowers the chief conservation officer to prevent it and also allows an appeal from the decision of the chief conservation officer to the committee if a decision is made by him which the company or the individuals concerned do not like.
We find that part II deals with production arrangements. This section of the bill regulates the economic and efficient production of oil and gas from the areas affected. I believe this is good legislation. It is too bad that such legislation containing proper controls was not introduced many years ago by all the provinces. In my opinion, the clauses dealing with pooling arrangements and unitization agreements seem to be in line with sound conservation policies. But again I say this ties in with the regulations which should be set by order in council and of which the house at this time has no knowledge.
Part III of the bill deals with appeals and administration. However, we find again that the Governor in Council may at any time vary or rescind any decision or order of the committee. In my opinion, this does not make for good legislation.
Many hon. members who have taken part in the debate have dealt with the export of Canadian oil and we have had a good discussion on the existing potential in Canada, so I will not go over these points again. There is

DEBATES	April 15, 1969
just one aspect which a number of hon. members did not touch upon, that is the degree of ownership of the oil and gas resources of this country. Over the years I have been very apprehensive on seeing Canadian resources gradually pass from Canadian control into foreign hands. This is where I believe that we as Canadians must re-examine our position with regard to resource ownership.
Last December I asked some questions in the house regarding the percentage of ownership in this industry. I would like to put the figures on record. For petroleum and gas wells the assets held by foreign controlled companies at the end of 1965 amounted to 83.6 per cent of the total, and the assets held by Canadian controlled companies amounted to 16.4 per cent of the total. These figures show that Canadian control has been lost in this sector of the industry.
Then, we come to petroleum refineries. This is another very important sector of this great industry. Here, we find that the assets held by foreign controlled companies at the end of 1965 amounted to 99 per cent of the total in Canada, and 1 per cent was held by Canadian companies.
Next we come to pipe lines, and here the picture is a little brighter. We find that foreign control was 26.8 per cent while Canadian control was 73.2 per cent.
Then, we come to the marketing of petroleum and gas products, and I presume this refers to the little gas stations which we find on the corner of nearly every street. Here again we find that the Canadian control in this instance was 81.5 per cent, while foreign control was 18.5 per cent. However, it is to be noted that the petroleum resources and the refining of petroleum is mainly under the control of those who live outside the boundaries of our nation. I think that this is not good so far as Canadian control of this resource is concerned.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There are a few questions which I should like to put to the minister in connection with our oil policy. I think every speaker this afternoon and this evening stressed the problem of marketing. I think this problem is one of the major factors in the development of our oil and gas resources. This is why I should like to direct a question or two to the minister. We have heard a great deal about Panarctic Oil. Here, a corporation has been set up to go into the northern part of Canada, and the
April 15, 1969	COMMONS
government itself is participating in the venture. The government has put up money and its representatives sit on the board of directors of the corporation. This development is a very interesting aspect of Canadian life and it is time the minister gave us some clear information about it. He could tell us what we are doing and, in general, how many acres are under the control of Canadian companies; how much of this vast potential oil acreage in the north is under the control of companies outside this nation and just what the government intends to do about marketing the products in the north. I have read a great deal about this. In fact, I have volumes of information or speculation by various writers who stress the fantastic cost of oil production in the north and draw attention to the difficulty of getting the product to markets in the south, in the west or in Europe.
We must be given some answers to these questions. Does the government have a plan foir the sensible marketing of this product once sufficient pools of oil have been found? Are pipe lines to be built? Is there a plan which hon. members can see? Can the Canadian people be taken into the confidence of the department? This type of information is required by members here and by the Canadian public at large. I do not think we are asking too much when we suggest that a policy of this type be laid down. It might have to be a broad, long term policy at this stage but there is certainly need for a program which we can see and understand.
There is one further aspect of oil development which I should like to see discussed in the house. I am thinking about Canada's continental shelf areas-there is one off the west coast of British Columbia, there is one off the east coast and another in the Arctic region which may prove to be one of the largest oil reserves in the entire world.
We have all heard of the major oil discoveries in Alaska and I believe there is no doubt that these resources extend into the Arctic waters which we in Canada have always claimed as our own. In this respect, I feel it is high time the government made a clear pronouncement as to the jurisdiction which we in Canada expect to exercise in this area, because these reserves could be a terrific asset to our nation in years to come. It is not many years ago that areas in the Arctic were looked upon as nothing more than vast frozen wastes to be ignored by people of all nations. Other countries have since found that there are vast stores of riches in these areas.
DEBATES	7563
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation We in Canada must be mindful of this situation and I am certain the government is aware of the necessity of staking out a real claim, one which cannot be disputed, as far as our Arctic regions are concerned.
To get back to the subject of the continental shelf, I should like to hear from the minister a clear indication of the government's intention with regard to these areas. According to reports I have read there is a great potential on the Atlantic side of Canada. If oil were to be discovered there in substantial amounts, there is no doubt it would go a long way to assisting an area which is greatly in need of assistance; the per capita income of the inhabitants could be greatly increased and a long step taken toward the reduction of regional disparity. Exploration programs could well be undertaken, perhaps with assistance from the federal government working very closely with the provinces concerned, in which case something might well come out of it.
I shall not spend more time on the subject now. I presume there are other hon. members who wish to speak on this bill. When it goes to the committee some amendments may be moved to the various clauses.
Before I sit down, I would again press the minister to give the house some clear cut information as to the government's oil and gas conservation program in much more detail than is outlined in the bill before us. He should give Canadians a much better indication of the course which the government proposes to take. I, personally, would welcome an assurance that all these potential oil resources in the north with which the bill is concerned are to be retained as far as possible by Canadians in the interests of Canada. I leave this thought with the minister, assuring him that this feeling is very widespread in this country. I trust the policies and programs evolved by his department will lead in this direction.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill has been given to us at a most appropriate moment in our history of resource development in the north.
Like many other members in this chamber I returned to my constituency during the past ten days. One of the areas in which I spent a considerable time was the Mackenzie Delta which is under fairly extensive exploration by the oil companies. It is not difficult to sense the enthusiasm, the excitement which
April 15, 1969
7564	COMMONS
Oil and Gas Production and Conservation exists in this far north western part of our country, an excitement generated by the activities of the companies involved in the search for oil. I hope the companies concerned meet with a great deal of success. At a place called Tatoonik and another called Tuk-toyaktuk we happened to fly over oil drilling rigs drilling right on the Arctic coast. We listened to the rumours. We followed accounts from the oil companies which appeared in the newspapers. We see that what is happening at the moment is only, if I may use the term, a drop in the bucket in terms of the kind of activity that will take place in the search for oil in northern Canada during the next 3, 5, 10 or 20 years.
[DOT] (9:40 p.ra.)
Both this afternoon and this evening we have listened to hon. members of this house talk of the implications, the complications and the ramifications of oil development in northern Canada. I think that all of us as Canadians are anxious to see a resource development in northern Canada that will benefit not only the north but improve the economic wellbeing of us all.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been made or the discussion that has taken place, but there are a couple of areas upon which I should like to touch. With regard to some things that may and hopefully will occur in the months and years to come, neither the companies involved in this exploration nor the governments who will be responsible for the production and conservation of oil and gas should forget those people who live in the particular areas concerned.
At the moment some of the major exploration companies across the country are doing a reasonable job in the encouragement of employment among people who were born, raised and educated in northern Canada. Unfortunately, other companies are not doing as well as they should in this regard. I should like to think that about half of the seismic crews, which I am told consist of approximately 28 people, should be recruited from people living in the north, provided there is some consultation with and engagement of the government, particularly the vocational training people in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Canada Manpower Service. If this were the case, then perhaps not this year but in one, two or three years many of our young people in the north-and the older people as well provided they are interested and are properly
IMr. Orange.]

trained-can truly participate in this exciting venture.
I also think that some of the companies involved in this exploration should examine their wage scales. In terms of gross wages the remuneration is not really that bad; in terms of hourly pay for working in the bush the wage amounts to about $1.50 per hour for perhaps 350 hours a month, not including overtime. To their credit the companies have made no attempt to circumvent the present wage legislation that has been passed by the territorial government.
The second point here at which I believe we, as Canadians and myself as a northerner, have to look is that we do not want to see the north exploited and become a gravel pit for the use of industries south of the 60th parallel. In other words, we in the north want our fair share of the activity. I recognize that it may be difficult to develop industries that require power derived from our oil and gas resources, but I also recognize there are ways and means of ensuring growth beyond the mere taking of products out of the ground, pumping them through a pipe line and shipping them to places in southern Canada and the United States.
I think this is one area that the minister and his department, having taken upon themselves the responsibility of conservation, and combined with their other responsibility for northern development, must look upon as a primary function. I should like to think that in the course of the discussions in the committee the suggestion will be made, preferably by the minister, that there are ways and means of ensuring that some of the potential benefits to be derived from this area will remain in northern Canada. I am not saying that selfishly; I am saying it because I believe that if we are to be a nation of three dimensions we must have economic development and growth not just along the narrow band north of the United States border.
If we are successful in this regard I think we can look to immediate benefits. The growth and construction of gas and oil lines will have an impact upon the community and will open up communications and transportation routes in areas in the north. However, I believe we must look far beyond this.
During the course of speeches made this afternoon and evening members have asked: Tell us now what is happening with Panarctic. Can we get some clear cut information? How many acres are under the control of this
April 15, 1969

company? I think that most of this information has been made public. I believe that the Panarctic venture on the part of government and industry is an exciting one and one in which the government has declared there are two alternatives, either to make an outright grant under present guidelines or to participate.
A great deal of activity is taking place in the Arctic islands in Panarctic's search. Even if this search is not successful, I think it will produce most important and valuable information regarding what does exist in this part of Canada. I think it has also informed Canadians that this is their land. There has been a lot of discussion regarding sovereignty and this area, and I think that once again governmental activity has established Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic islands as a result of the Panarctic oil program.
Again, I should like to impress upon the minister that in the process of developing a policy in regard to the use of oil and gas in northern Canada we should not forget for one moment the Indian, Eskimo, Metis and white people of the north. They, too, must participate, in some real and viable fashion, in what is potentially an opportunity for great economic growth.
I should also like to re-emphasize to the minister that the north must not become a gravel pit. If resources are there to be developed, then as a result of such development some benefit must accrue in terms of growth and economic development to northern Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Hon. James Richardson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill S-23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-23 contains a variety of amendments to the Canada Shipping Act which is, as hon. members know, one of the lengthiest of our statutes. Hon. members will recall that only recently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) announced plans for a complete revision of
Canada Shipping Act
the Canada Shipping Act. The amendments now before us are ones that cannot wait for this major revision.
The bill contains our first legislative provisions concerning the new type of conveyance called an air cushion vehicle. This type of vehicle of course is also referred to as a hovercraft. Until now these vehicles have been subject to regulations under the Aeronautics Act; but, as air cushion vehicles are really surface vehicles the Aeronautics Act is not the appropriate act under which to regulate them. Hon. members will recall that an amendment to the Aeronautics Act received royal assent last month. This amendment, when it is proclaimed, will remove air cushion vehicles from the definition of aircraft and they will no longer be subject to the Aeronautics Act.
I should like to make it clear that we do not intend air cushion vehicles to be regarded as ships but only that they shall be subject to some of the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act in the same manner as ships are when they are being operated over the surface of the water. The provisions we are proposing in this regard must be considered as an interim measure only. There seems to be no doubt that ultimately we will need special legislation for air cushion vehicles, but I believe this would be premature at this time. It will be premature until we know much more about these new craft and how they are likely to develop.
There is also provision in Bill S-23 to allow landed immigrants to hold certificates as masters, mates and engineers on ships, a privilege now restricted to British subjects. Provision is also made in this bill to permit regulations to be passed requiring ships of 9 tons gross tonnage and over to be subject to inspection. The present lower limit is 15 tons, gross tonnage.
In order to complement the provisions of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code there is provision for making regulations on the subject of accident prevention aboard ship and a provision respecting the reporting of accidents that occur on ships. Another clause requires the reporting of other accidents, such as collisions or groundings of ships in our waters. Heretofore only accidents to British ships were required to be reported.
There is a provision for regulations to be made on the subject of pollution of our waters by garbage, sewage and other matters from ships and there is a provision that will allow any wrecked vessel to be removed if it

April 15, 1969
Canada Shipping Act
is causing pollution or likely to do so. Provision is also made for regulations to be made requiring all vessels in our waters to be fitted with radio installations. This has been found necessary for traffic control purposes.
In order to remove some doubts as to the validity of some of our by-laws and procedures in the administration of pilotage, there is a provision stating that all existing by-laws are valid.
In order that we may give effect to the provisions of the International Convention on Load Lines, 1966, there are amendments to bring the provisions of the act into line with that convention.
Finally, there are a number of miscellaneous items such as the repeal of certain archaic sections relating to seamen and provisions giving some uniformity to the sections relating to offences and penalties. Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act contained in Bill S-23 are desirable and useful changes, and I recommend this bill to the house.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there has been some private discussion as a result of which hon. members who may wish to speak on this matter may do so. I do not think there will be many speakers and I do not think their speeches will be long. This bill ought to go to committee; but I was wondering if some agreement had been reached for us to carry on for a little while. Perhaps we might carry on for 15 or 20 minutes, if there is unanimous consent to that.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for Your Honour not to see the clock for a few minutes so that hon. members may express their views on this matter. I do not think there is a great contention about it?


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, as some members of the Halliement Creditiste want to speak on this bill, may I call it ten o'clock, which would enable my colleagues to go on with the debate tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that there had been some behind the scenes discussion. Unfortunately, we cannot reach agreement about continuing. Since I had the floor originally, may I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have been rather persistent in bringing up this matter of casual employees in the post office. I regret to keep a busy minister up late so many nights. I realize that the problem of casual employees in the post office is not new. The casuals were employed there long before the minister took over the portfolio. The minister himself has outlined a number of reasons for having casual employees, reasons which are also outlined in the post office personnel manual. There is mention of the Christmas rush, vacations, sick leave and end of month provisions, and I do not think anyone quarrels with those.
I realize also that in the change-over period brought on by implementing the five day week and by introducing other technological, changes about 2,000 people who have been permanently employed in the post office must be placed in new positions. This takes some time. What bothers me, that bothers many postal workers and many other people of this country, is the preponderance of casual employees in the post office at the present time. To me, this looks like a deliberate attempt to lower the total wage cost. The department is attempting to employ casuals on a more or less full time basis and save money. If that is not contrary to the letter of the act, it certainly is contrary to its spirit and contrary to what is contained in the postal service personnel manual.
I checked some figures and as of two weeks ago these are some of the figures relating to the major post offices across Canada. I will give total figures, Mr. Speaker. In Vancouver, British Columbia, there are 105 casual employees. In St. John's, Newfoundland, there are ten; in Saint John, New Brunswick, there are eight; in Montreal 245; in Moncton, 21; and Trois-Rivieres, where some casual employees are working a 40 hour week now to fill vacancies, there is a total of nine.
The people at the Regina post office refused to divulge the number of casual employees there, but it is presumed that there are quite a number there. Winnipeg has 90; Hamilton
April 15, 1969
95; Quebec a total of 65 in various sections, not all on extended sick leave; Halifax 22; Sherbrooke, Quebec, none; North Bay, 14; Edmonton, 58; London, 60; Windsor, I was unable to get the figures except for the total number of hours and Scarborough, 48. The Postmaster in Saskatoon said he did not have authority to divulge such information. In New Westminster, the total is 22 and in Sudbury, 20.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
This is quite a number. Many people, especially those employed or attempting to be employed by the Post Office, are extremely concerned about this. I obtained this information as a result of a telegram from the Vancouver postal workers which reads in part:
There are over one hundred casuals employed and one hundred applicants have successfully qualified for positions.
I previously confirmed the number of casuals employed in Vancouver.
According to information which I have received, 26 full time positions have been promised in the Ottawa post office, but so far none have been confirmed. I believe I am correct in saying that the agreement reached on the five-day week in February contemplated a 60-day freeze on permanent positions so that present employees' jobs might be protected during the reorganization period. It is now three days from the expiry of the deadline and I hope the minister will tell the house what chance there is of relieving this rather discouraging casual picture across Canada which I have outlined before the expiry date.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) on May 17, as recorded at page 6685 of Hansard, the minister said in part:
This afternoon the officers of the department will be discussing the letter with me, and they will also be discussing with the officers of the Ottawa Post Office Unions the reasons which caused them to send such a letter and the problem concerning the use of casuals.
He later goes on to say:
However, this is a problem that we are willing to discuss fully with them.
What I would like to learn is whether the minister or his officials have met and discussed this casual situation with the Ottawa Post Office unions. If not, when can we expect him to do so?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has given all the reasons why there was an increase in the number of casuals during the last several months. Because of the changeover to a five day week and because of our assurance that no permanent employees would lose their jobs-they were guaranteed security-after the middle of October we did not engage any new personnel. Obviously, the work of the Post Office has to keep on going, We employed casuals or part-timers while we were keeping these jobs open.
I quarrel with a report in the Globe and Mail which said that the Post Office overtime has been on the rise. The report refers to our use of casuals. The fact is after the conversion to a five-day week overtime has decreased in the Post Office and the number of casuals is going down continuously. We are discussing this with the union. We are as concerned about the problem as they are.
I may say in respect of the Ottawa post office that the union spokesman who made the charge of nepotism against the post office was, let us say, embarrassed by a questioner on a television program who said it was his understanding that the charge of nepotism could be equally divided between those who were officers in the post office in Ottawa and those who were union members. This turned out to be true. Of something like a little over 100 casuals, 35 could be said to have obtained their jobs because of knowing people inside the post office. On the other hand, about half of them attained their positions because they knew a member of the union. We are plagued with this problem in the post office. We are attempting to work it out with the union. We have an abnormally high sick leave which averages three per cent to four per cent above that in the Civil Service as a whole. There really is no reason for it. We are investigating this and I feel we will work out a solution with the unions. It really is a question of morale.
I want to deny emphatically the implied charge that we are using casuals in an attempt to reduce our costs or the average wage paid in the post office. This is completely untrue. We use casuals because of the nature of the work in the post office. The loads occur at different times. We do not use them for any other reason.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.



Wednesday, April 16, 1969