1970-02-13

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I am sorry the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is not in the House to express his opinion on the question of privilege, but I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to rule on this matter I consider most important. My question of privilege relates to the right of members to get information from ministers, a right which should not be restricted.
The Postmaster General and Minister of Communications yesterday refused to give the House information on the activity of post office in Montreal and the decisions which the government is considering in this connection.
My question of privilege is based on two quite specific reasons. In the first place, the Postmaster General and Minister of Corn-! munications as well as the government refused yesterday to accept a motion seeking to defer to the appropriate committee the problem of the serious crisis in the field of mail delivery in Montreal. In the second place, the minister has explicitly refused to ask the consent of the House to return to motions, in order to tell the House about the decisions taken by the government concerning the possible settlement of the problem created by mail delivery in Montreal.
Now, after that explicit refusal, the minister granted an interview in both languages on C.B.C. television. I believe this is a prima facie case of privilege, since the minister flatly refused to give the House the information which he gave later on television.
I think this Cabinet is going too far and that such an attitude may well lead to autocracy, which is more and more annoying and unbearable for hon. members who are entitled to be kept informed by the government.
In view of the fact that the trend is becoming generalized, I felt I had to rise to defend the right of hon. members to be kept posted by the government on its decisions, and pursuant to standing order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax East Hants:
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization be directed to study the following question: whether a Crown minister may refuse to reply to questions concerning the responsibilities of his department addressed to him in the House and then proceed to supply such information to mass media.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will consent unanimously to have the matter referred to the committee since for a long time members of all parties have been complaining that ministers refuse to reply to their questions here in the House and later make comments on television or to the press.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie, has given notice to the Chair, pursuant to Standing Order No. 17 (2), of the question he wished to raise in the House.
I must however draw his attention on the fact that the notice he has given to the Chair is in relation to a question of privilege pursuant, as I said, to Standing Order 17 (2).
The hon. member now wants, within a question of privilege, to propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. It seems to me that this is somewhat irregular. This kind of motion should be made on motions, as the hon. member did yesterday.
As for the question of privilege, that is, inasmuch as the Chair has to decide whether that question actually is a question of privilege, may I once again remind the hon. member that on several occasions, during this session and the preceding ones, the same controversial matter has been submitted to the Chair. On each of these occasions it was decided that even if a member has a grievance-however legitimate-in the sense suggested by the hon. member, it cannot be considered as a question of privilege.
A point very similar to the one raised today by the hon. member was submitted for consideration by the House a few days ago, Wednesday, February 11, as shown on pages 3465
3566	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry and 3466 of Hansard. The Chair ruled that there were no grounds for a question of privilege. I think I should bring the attention of the hon. member and all other hon. members to Citation 181 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Procedure, 4th Edition, which would indicate that a grievance such as that raised by the member cannot be the object of a question of privilege.
I must therefore inform the hon. member that there is no prima facie question of privilege and that I cannot agree with his suggestion to the effect that his motion be introduced immediately. I regretfully do so, because the hon. member has raised an interesting point. However, another way more consistent with Standing Orders should perhaps be found so that the matter he has dealt with be considered by one of the committees of the House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Eleventh and twelfth reports of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Gillespie.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference to seek action with respect to rent controls and a freeze on fees for professional services? Will this be considered on the provincial or the federal level or on both levels?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: All these questions concerning inflation, raised both on the initiative of the federal government and as a result of recommendations or advice received from the Prices and Incomes Commission, will be discussed by both levels of government, and we will seek to act in a co-operative fashion.
[Mr. Speaker.)
DEBATES	February 13, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the government is successful in achieving any of the results it desires with respect to the conference and action on the part of the provinces, will such action require legislative approval by Parliament or by the provincial legislatures? If so, and in view of the rather hopeless answer I received from the Minister of Justice the other day-


Mr. Mcllrailh:: That is a gratuitous
comment.


Gerald William Baldwin: -is any consideration being given to drafting legislation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It began as a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker, and remained that way.



INFLATION-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON PROPOSED CONSUMER CREDIT CURBS

Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister held consultations with his provincial counterparts regarding the proposed curbs on consumer credit and, if so, what was their reaction?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the matter of consumer credit of course has been mentioned by the federal government, as we indicated publicly previously, but no decision has been made in this regard. We have discussed the idea with various interested parties, but no decision has been made by the government.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister held discussions with the provincial governments on consumer credit curbs?


Edgar John Benson: I have held discussions with provincial treasurers on a great many matters, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the principle of regional selectivity apply to any proposals concerning consumer credit, rent controls, and controls on professional fees?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I stated, no decision in this regard has been made at all.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of
February 13, 1970

Finance. It is supplementary to certain questions asked earlier. Is a provincially selective application of rent and consumer credit controls one of the proposals to be advanced by the federal government at next week's federal-provincial conference?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, a great many matters will be discussed next week at the federal-provincial conference. I do not think one could go into the details of everything that will be discussed at the conference.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With no thought of going into details, is there any intent or proposal of the federal government to apply any type of controls on a selective provincial or regional basis? If so, is the Prime Minister going to redefine his concept of one Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the question as asked is in order.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that most of the south shore of Vancouver harbour comes within the constituency of Vancouver East and that the operations there affect all of Canada, is the minister in a position to give us a full report on the situation involving the longshoremen on the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, it is doubtful whether ministers can give lengthy and full reports without reverting to motions. Perhaps the minister might give a brief, full report.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: To summarize, Mr. Speaker, the agreement was ratified by a healthy margin of 279 votes. I take this opportunity to thank the hon. gentleman who through the week helped me convince certain of his constituents that this was in their best interests. The agreement was ratified, the men went back to work in a very orderly fashion at eight o'clock Vancouver time, and by this evening the port will be back in full operation.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the announcement the minister has made 21701-16

Inquiries of the Ministry with respect to Vancouver harbour apply also to other ports in various parts of British Columbia?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, Port Alberni was a much more difficult port for political reasons, but it too saw the light.



INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can he bring us up to date on when he expects to bring in amendments to the pertinent labour legislation, based on the Woods task force report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I hope at this session, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out that the hon. member himself on previous occasions has expressed the view that he would not include as part of the law any restrictive provisions that would automatically deny either employers or employees their rights under the law.



SUGGESTED INTERVENTION OF MINISTER OF LABOUR IN MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE

Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of his success on the west coast and his other successes during the past year, would he consider offering the services of his department to the Postmaster General in settling the postal dispute in Montreal?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Georges-J. Valade: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour.
Has the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) called upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to settle this dispute?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that, according to the news this morning, over 1,666,000 Canadians earn less than $3,000 per year, could the Prime Minister tell the House what measures he intends to take so as to increase the income of those people and enable them to face the cost of living?
February 13, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will admit, I am sure, that his question is of a general nature, and any answer must be in the form of a statement on motions.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I shall rephrase my question.
Since the White Paper on Fiscal Reform, recently tabled by the government, shows that half of those who earn less than $3,000 per year will be exempt from income tax, does the Prime Minister intend to make hnown in the near future what we he has in mind for the other half?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the member has already answered the first question, and I was just going to say that the White Paper is designed precisely to help those people who in this country have an insufficient income. However, before talking about helping the other half, we are waiting for greater support on the part of the member and opposition parties with a view to helping the half that is worse off.


André-Gilles Fortin: As I was elected precisely to help the half that the government does not assist, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to make a statement regarding the fate that his government has in store for that other half, taking for granted the opposition's co-operation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first we must be helped in order to help everyone.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government which involves overlapping ministries so perhaps I had better direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister who can have the appropriate minister answer. Has the government been in discussion with the Humble Oil Company or the United States government with respect to plans for a second voyage of the Manhattan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question overlaps at least two or three others asked this week which have been answered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and a question of privilege. I beg to differ with the right hon. gentleman, but the question has not been answered nor to my knowledge has it been asked in the House. There were other related questions but not this one specifically. I repeat: Has the government or any department been in discussion with the Humble Oil Company or the United States government with respect to plans for a second Manhattan voyage?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the ho'n. member has simply reiterated the question asked in the first place.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. Prime Minister does not care to answer the question perhaps I can direct it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It appears that nobody will answer it.



REPORTED SECRET AGREEMENT ON EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-REDUCTION OF VOLUME

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. When speaking in Calgary he said that exports of crude petroleum to the United States amounting to 800,000 barrels a day would be cut in half by reason of a secret agreement the government had with the United States. Would he care to comment on the secret agreement?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the question asked is in correct form in regard to the subject matter but perhaps the minister should be allowed to answer.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which press report my friend is referring to but there is no secret agreement, of course. The correspondence was tabled some time ago in respect of our agreement with the United States in this area. What I said to the meeting was that the nominations in the region of 800,000 barrels a day are extremely difficult for the American administration and they are far beyond the amount in the letters that have been tabled. I indicated that there probably would have to be a cutback but I did not indicate any quantities.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has now said that

February 13, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3569
there is no suggestion as to the amount. Is there an agreement between Canada and the United States in this regard that there will definitely be a serious cutback in the export of crude petroleum from this country to the United States?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement which was engrossed in an exchange of correspondence in 1967. That agreement provides for exports of 332,000 barrels per day in districts 1 to 4. Under present nominations and flow this is being exceeded, and certainly this is of great concern to the United States. We are attempting to the very best of our ability and with all our resources to renegotiate a position satisfactory to both countries in the short term.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is not here today may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the current takeover of yet another Canadian company by a foreign-based company, and I am referring to the purchase of Canadian Channing Corporation Limited, one of Canada's oldest mutual fund organizations, by a firm known as Investors Overseas Services with Swiss headquarters, will the minister inform the House what action the government intends to take in regard to this matter?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to look into this matter in detail. I know that Canadian Channing had been foreign-owned until a few months ago when it was purchased by employees through another corporation. I understand from what I have seen in the press that it has now been sold to IOS, but I do not know the details of the transaction and will have to ask for them.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of the minister's answer. Is the question of whether a company taken over by foreign interests has just become a Canadian company or has been a Canadian company for a long time relevant?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, actually these are both Canadian incorporated companies. It is a question of who owns them; that is what I am interested in.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



DEPORTATION OF DESERTERS FROM U.S. ARMED FORCES

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General which relates to questions I asked him previously about his inquiry into allegations of improper activity by officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to the deportation of three young United States citizens on January 25. Has the minister completed the inquiries he has undertaken? Also, how are the inquiries being carried on?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed the inquiry. It is being carried on at this stage by officers of the RCMP not from the Vancouver area involved.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. Is the Solicitor General co-operating in this inquiry with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? I ask this because the matter is of concern to both departments. I do not know which officers of which departments may have been involved, but is there co-operation between the two departments with respect to this inquiry?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Paul SI. Pierre (Coast Chilcolin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which arises out of a speech made in Vancouver last night by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The latter minister suggested the establishment of an underwater park in the Gulf of Georgia. Is this being considered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I also read the speech of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. My colleague and myself have been discussing this proposal several times in the last few months, and my officials have undertaken a feasibility study regarding the establishment of the first park of this type in Canada.
February 13, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS-REPLIES FROM PROVINCES TO LETTERS FROM PRIME MINISTER

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to mineral rights in Canada's offshore areas. Has the Prime Minister received replies from any of the provinces to his letter of November 30, 1968, to which he referred in his statement to the House on December 2, 1968, and to his subsequent correspondence of February 27, 1969, with respect to Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay, James Bay, the Northwest Territories and the Arctic Islands, to which he referred in his statement to the House on March 4, 1969?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot from memory verify all those dates but I would confirm that substantial correspondence has been exchanged between the premiers of the provinces and myself on this matter. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been very actively pursuing with the provinces, the policy we laid down in the fall of 1968 and I believe certain meetings have already taken place between individual provinces and the minister or his officials toward a settlement along the lines we hope to achieve in our policy.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Could the right hon. gentleman indicate whether on balance the attitude of the provinces has been positive or negative in reference to this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts about this question.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING ACREAGE REDUCTION-EXPORT OF BARLEY

[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. Because of the high degree of uncertainty that exists throughout western Canada as to the course to be followed by the government in connection with the suggested reduction in acreage which the minister has referred to and the admonition on his part that those farmers who have a large amount of wheat on hand should give consideration to not sowing any this year, will the minister say when he

expects to be able to notify the House and the country as to the policy to be determined? Up to the present there have been these haphazard statements-
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think I did in effect refer to this question yesterday, indicating that we were giving the fullest possible attention to the matter and that, while I cannot set a date for making further statements on it, we are aware of the fact that we should try to do so as soon as possible. This is certainly our objective.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A supplementary ques-tipn, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister's attention been brought to the fact that farmers in western Canada are anxious to get rid of their barley surplus? One case involves Dave Roberts of the Green Acres Fertilizer Company at Lethbridge who had found markets in the United States for four million bushels of Canadian barley. The right to export was forbidden and the sale was frowned on by the Wheat Board.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no trick at all to finding markets for Canadian grain products below the prices at which they are offered by the Canadian Wheat Board in ways which would in fact hurt and destroy the whole price position. 1 am happy to remind the right hon. member that sales of wheat and sales of barley are substantially higher this year compared with the figures for the last two years. In fact, exports of barley will likely go to two and a half to three times the figure of last year.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that answer sounded like the result of a memory test. That was not what I asked. Why was this company refused the right to export? They could have sold four million bushels of barley at 78 cents a bushel.


Otto Emil Lang: I think the right hon. member himself at one time supported the policy of marketing grain outside Canada through the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the right hon. member in a moment, but I would like to remind him and the minister that they seem to be engaging in a debate at the present time.
February 13, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. gentleman says no. I am just saying this is my impression.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister may be indulging in that sort of thing. He is playing with the rights of the western farmers and doing nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. Will the minister be announcing soon any steps proposed by the government to counteract the alarming decline of nearly 40 per cent in dwelling unit starts in urban centres for the month of January, as just announced by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think I announced some significant steps that the government plans when I tabled the CMHC budget on February 2 with an increase of $174 million. This will provide for a substantial increase in housing starts for the sector of the market that is really in trouble-the low income sector.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Merci beaucoup, monsieur l'Orateur. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the Canadian government purchase of four Boeing 707 aircraft at a cost of $56 million, will the minister please state where he plans to service these airplanes and whether there are parts for this make of aircraft available in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is out of order and should be put on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: Une question supplementaire, monsieur POrateur. Is the minister aware that the aircraft design that he has purchased is 12 years old?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister been advised of the allegations made by Chief Harry Chonkolay of the band council of the Hay Lakes band of Indians of irregularities in the use of band funds by government officials, including the use of blank resolution forms and the use of this money in part for private industry and also for provincial purposes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this alleged charge made by the chief, but I can assure the hon. member that I shall inquire immediately, and if irregularities have been committed by some of my department's officials, they will be punished accordingly.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister request his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is to spend a few hours covering all of northern Alberta at the end of this week and the beginning of next week, to inquire into this allegation? Would he also ask him to inquire into the situation with regard to the Indians on the Sturgeon Lake reserve where in the last two months seven pre-school children have died, five having been suffocated in a fire and two having died from starvation and being frozen to death? Would the minister ask his colleague to make inquiries into the situation there?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this last question was asked in the House last fall and we answered it. As far as the first question asked by the hon. member is concerned, this is a problem that comes under the purview of my department and I shall look after it immediately. It does not come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

3572	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the prediction of the president of the Canadian Electrical Manufacturers' Association that if the recent suspension of the copper price increase is removed it will force a two per cent increase this year in the price of electrical goods manufactured in Canada, is the minister discussing with the copper producers the extension of the price increase suspension agreed on several weeks ago, particularly in view of the so-called commitments made at the conference this week in Ottawa?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in my view the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs answered this question fairly well the other day. He said that this situation is constantly under review in light of the consensus reached by business at the conference of the Prices and Incomes Commission this week and in light of the coming federal-provincial conference on this matter. We will have something to announce before March 1.


David Orlikow: Could the minister answer my question with a very simple yes or no?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Roland Godin (Porfneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether he supports the principle of secret balloting in the House which would mean that hon. members could disregard decisions taken within the caucus?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that his question is not acceptable.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister give the House a clear picture of the current position of the movement of foreign capital in and out of Canada in order to clarify confusing stories IMr. Chretien.]
DEBATES	February 13, 1970
that foreign capital is being taken out of Canada at an accelerating rate in the wake of the publication of the white paper on taxation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question asked by the hon. member should be responded to in a general way by a statement on motions.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises from opinions advanced in the committee on national resources that the federal government possesses authority to limit or ban the use of phosphates in detergents. Will the minister tell the House whether he intends to make a clear statement as to his plans in this regard? Does he propose to move an amendment to the bill in committee?


John James Greene: A week ago today, if I recall correctly, I announced in the House that we intended to move in connection with this matter. Inasmuch as the spirit of the Canada Water Act is based on co-operation with the provinces, I have been discussing the situation with my provincial counterparts during the past week, and I can assure the hon. member that we intend to proceed either by way of an amendment to the Canada Water Act or by means of a separate statute; we have not yet decided on the preferable method.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister made statements on this subject last Friday and again on Monday in which he seemed to be speaking on both sides of the question. May I ask whether he intends to proceed to introduce such an amendment on his own as part of the federal responsibility?


John James Greene: We intend to proceed by whatever method will be most effective in ensuring that phosphates are controlled and, ultimately, banned.


Harold Edward Winch: In
view of a statement by a cabinet minister in British Columbia that he is prepared to introduce ancillary legislation supplementing federal policy if the federal government will send him a draft of the provincial legislation
February 13. 1970	COMMONS
required, may I ask whether such a document has been sent to the B.C. Legislature? It not, when will it be sent?


John James Greene: I have discussed the question with the British Columbia minister in charge of water quality in that province, and I am certain we can move in such a way as to meet his views and deal with this problem.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Perhaps my supplementary will take care of the one in the mind of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who I see is trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the minister to send Bills C-105 and C-180, both of which deal with the banning of phosphates, to the committee in order that these bills can be examined at the same time to determine whether it would be desirable to incorporate their provisions in the Canada Water Act?


John James Greene: I am not sure as to the present status of those bills. As far as phosphates and detergents are concerned I believe we already have the information required, and we are prepared to take whatever action is necessary.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Will the minister give a definite assurance that legislation will be introduced during the present session to ban detergents-phosphate detergents?


John James Greene: Phosphates in detergents. As I said, the exact method by which we shall proceed has not been decided, but I can assure the hon. lady, who has taken a great interest in this matter, that whatever action we take to regulate and ban this substance will be taken as quickly as possible.


Winona Grace MacInnis: The minister did not hear my question. I asked whether legislation would be introduced this session.


John James Greene: If that is the method which is required as a means of control, then, in fact, it will be.



HARBOURS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My
question should be directed to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker, but in his absence and in the absence of his Parliamentary Secretary perhaps the Minister of
DEBATES	3573
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance will answer it. Has the government conducted or caused to be conducted a feasibility study into the proposed Come-By-Chance oil refinery? I am asking this question because of the government's reluctance to approve an application for financial assistance to the company in connection with private docking facilities.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this is the type of question which would normally be placed on the Order Paper. If there is urgency, however, the minister might be allowed to reply.


Edgar John Benson: I think I would prefer to wait untill the Minister of Public Works is here. The question is really directed to him.



POLLUTION


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but since he is not here I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
Has the minister undertaken an inquiry on air pollution in Canada bearing in mind the recent reports on the situation in Montreal and, if so, does the intend to make these reports public in the House or elsewhere?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of
National Health and Welfare is conducting a national air sampling program in conjunction with the provinces. I believe the minister will decide any question related to the reports which will be available.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Are these reports complete and does the department intend to bring in legislation in this respect at the next session?


Stanley Haidasz: This is a matter of government policy which will be announced in due course.
3574	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY



PROJECTED SECOND VOYAGE BY &quot;MANHATTAN&quot; THROUGH NORTHWEST PASSAGE

Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has he or his department received notice of a projected voyage by the Manhattan some time during the months of April or May?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not
think, Mr. Speaker, that my department has received such a request.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: A supplementary on this subject, and further to a question on February 2 which I have just been able to locate. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has been requested to agree to a second trip by the Manhattan, as was done in the case of the first voyage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not read the reference which the hon. member just mentioned but my recollection is that the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that no request had been made concerning any such voyage.


John George Diefenbaker: This is a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in connection with a question asked a few moments ago. Will the government of Canada permit the Manhattan to make any voyage through these northern waters without the permission of the Canadian government being granted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thanks to the reference which was given in the preceding question, I have the answer given by the minister. If the answer is correct, and I think it is, this question is hypothetical. The reference also answers the first question which was addressed to me. The minister said, as reported on page 3081 of Hansard:
With regard to the specific question whether the U.S. government has asked us about a second trip of the Manhattan, I think I made it clear in my previous answer that I did not know whether the Manhattan was to make another trip. Indeed, I do not know also whether the United States government would in fact make such inquiries. It is the Manhattan itself which would be making the voyage, not the U.S. government.
IMr. Haidasz.]
DEBATES	February 13, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about the subject of Canadian sovereignty in the north. My question to the Prime Minister is simply this: Will the government of Canada insist that there shall be no such voyage without the permission of the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we might insist that my grandmother should wear wheels, but it is still hypothetical.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on January 14, 1970 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry indicated that contingency plans for dealing with the adverse affects of oil pollution had been developed. My question to the minister or his Parliamentary Secretary today is: were those contingency plans used in the case of the recent oil spill from the tanker Arrow, and how successful have they been in the opinion of the department?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: I am
not sure whether they were or not; I would have to check. I know they are doing everything humanly possible to check this pollution, and I imagine they would have used those measures.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary that relates to my original question. Are copies of these contingency plans available and, if so, where can they be obtained?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulty being faced by private members who are experiencing agonizing delays of up to two months in receiving replies from his ministers to very straightforward requests for information, does the Prime Minister feel that this inefficiency is in any way related to the imposition of the austerity program upon the civil service, and would the Prime Minister be good enough to look into the matter on our behalf?
February 13, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the record will show that in no previous session have so many questions been answered so quickly by any government.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I may clarify the matter for the Prime Minister, I was not speaking of answers to questions on the Order Paper but of replies by ministers to personal correspondence from private members.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that several months ago we passed a bill in this House to appoint extra judges in various provinces and there has been a delay, would the Prime Minister assure the House, in view of the backlog of cases piled up in various courts, that these appointments will be made expeditiously?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, I think that all of the judges for whom there is room under the statute have been appointed except for one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question. I say this with all due respect, but there are several vacancies for judges in Alberta which have not yet been filled, and we are asking for some action in this regard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On this question, Mr. Speaker, all of the Alberta judges were appointed at the cabinet meeting yesterday.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Then when will the announcement be made, and could we have the names or are these secret appointments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must inform the hon. member that his name is not on the list.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the cabinet yesterday appoint a justice of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, a position that has been vacant since last September?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's request under consideration.
Oil and Gas Act



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The minister has asked western farmers not to grow wheat this year, and this will result in loss of income to western farmers. Is this the minister's method of asking the farmers to fight inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is clearly argumentative.



POLLUTION


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries whether he can assure the House that the Department of Fisheries is supervising the activities at Arichat where the Arrow is situated?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. I know there are a lot of officials there, but I do not know what they are doing.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-18, an act respecting Brunner Corporation (Canada) Limited; Bill S-19, an act to amend the Parole Act.
[DOT] (12 noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill S-5, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether some responsible minister is going to make a statement on this bill.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say that the order paper for today has this bill in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene). Recently, a change was made which transferred responsibility for the bill from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Speaker:: Before we proceed further perhaps it might be understood, if it is so desired, that the bill should be presented to the House in the name of the minister. This can be done in a formal way. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-5, to which this House is being asked to give second reading, provides in effect for extension of the provisions of an act passed by this parliament and will apply to the vast areas off Canada's sea coasts. In the briefest terms, Bill S-5 amends the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, which became law last June, in such a way that it will apply not only to the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories, but also to Canadian lands offshore from our sea coasts-in other words, to those areas which are commonly called our continental shelves.
The amended act would provide for more comprehensive statutory control over oil and gas operations, the prevention of waste and pollution, and the safety of operations for persons working in Canada's offshore areas.
The Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act was the product of several years of study and discussion by federal officials and industry representatives. It was designed originally so that it could be applied to both the northern territories and to the offshore areas. Since the need was considered to be more urgent in regard to the territories in view of recent discoveries of gas in the southwestern portion of the Northwest Territories, and now oil at Atkinson Point, it was decided earlier that the then draft act should be completed and enacted with all possible despatch to ensure the orderly development of those new resources in the Canadian north.

The time has now come for the act to be extended off Canada's offshore areas as well in order to cope with the increasing tempo of offshore exploration activities, in particular drilling for oil and gas. The need is increasing day by day. Drilling operations have been carried out off the west coast and in Hudson Bay, and extensive drilling programs are now under way off the east coast. It is possible that discoveries could be made in these areas in the near future.
The importance of having legislation pertaining to the offshore as comprehensive as would be provided by Bill S-5 is emphasized by incidents such as those which have occurred in the Santa Barbara Channel off California. Pollution is a matter of paramount importance with respect to the vulnerable multi-resource ocean environment. We must not only ensure conservation of the living resources of the sea; we must protect the recreational and other uses of the water, and we must as well preserve the environment for the owners and users of the shoreline. Extension of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act to the offshore will provide comprehensive statutory authority for effective supervision and control over oil and gas activities, and it will also provide for regulations concerning the safety of the personnel involved.
Accidents elsewhere in the world have provided us with valuable lessons. For a considerable time now, well before the Santa Barbara Channel disaster, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has been evolving an excellent system for controlling offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling activities. I am pleased to say that the oil industry has been most co-operative. I might mention here that other countries have been taking notice of our practices in this regard, and interest has been expressed at the United Nations in connection with discussions there concerning the shape of a possible international system to govern the mineral resources of the deep oceans beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
Hon. members may already be aware of the arrangements we have in Canada with regard to co-ordination between industry and governmental agencies involved in the utilization of the offshore. The primary purpose is to ensure that the special requirements of governmental agencies with offshore responsibilities are made known to industry and that industry in turn meets these requirements. To
February 13, 1970

the best of my knowledge, no better arrangements of this type exist anywhere, and here again other countries have shown great interest in the Canadian example.
There are several governmental agencies in addition to Energy, Mines and Resources that have practical responsibilities related to the offshore, not the least of which are those of the Department of Fisheries, in connection with the conservation of living resources; the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in connection with the mineral resources underlying Arctic waters; the Department of National Defence, in connection with defence installations and naval operations, and the Department of Transport in connection with the many aspects of navigation and shipping. It is required that the agencies concerned receive advance notice of proposed offshore exploration programs. This notice would include location, nature of program and type of equipment to be used in the program.
For example, the Department of Fisheries and Forestry receives 90 days' notice, the Department of Transport 60 days' notice, and the Department of National Defence 45 days' notice. This advance notice allows time for each of these agencies to react to a proposed exploration program as may be appropriate. An agency may wish, for instance, to have a program modified for some good reason as to timing or location. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has, therefore, already put into effect a system of procedures governing offshore oil and gas activities that provides a number of safeguards. The department requires, for example, that operators obtain prior approval by the department for all proposed offshore exploration programs, including each individual offshore well. We are now in need of the statutory authority that would be provided by Bill S-5 in order to enable us to continue evolving regulatory requirements and supervisory controls to keep pace with accelerating offshore activity and technology, and to place us in the position of being prepared to handle the new and complex situation that will arise upon the advent of commercial production.
Hon. members will find the significant amendments to the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in clause 3 of the bill, where the area of application of the act is enlarged by new section 3(b) to cover "those submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada to a water depth of 200 meters or beyond that limit to where the depth of the
Oil and Gas Act
superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil thereof". This wording is derived from the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, which instrument of international law confirms Canada's sovereign rights to explore and exploit the resources of our submerged continental margin.
The purpose of the next section, new section 3(c), is to tie the subject act into those acts which provide for land disposition matters in the territories and the offshore, the Territorial Lands Act and the Public Lands Grants Act, so that there can be no doubt on the part of the international community as to the extent of Canada's claims to mineral resources in these regions.
Finally, the intent of the last paragraph of new section 3 in the bill is to ensure that there will be no conflict with any solution that may come out of the negotiations which are now going on with the provinces in respect of the administration of offshore mineral resources. Hon. members will note that the amended act would not apply to any area within the geographical limits of a province or to any area where the administration of the oil and gas resources has been transferred by law to a province. Other amendments are chiefly to provide for the participation of officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in respect of those areas which are the responsibility of that portfolio.
The technical provisions of the act which the House is being asked to amend were explained to the House last April, when the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act was moved for second reading. They remain unchanged. I shall therefore not dwell upon them at length, but shall merely reiterate the main purposes the act pursues. Firstly, it seeks to ensure the recovery of as much oil and gas from a given reservoir as technology and economics permit. This means, for example, that the energy in the reservoir, which pushes the petroleum into the well bore, must not be inefficiently dissipated.
Secondly, the act provides for pooling and unitization among the petroleum companies so that an oil or gas field will be operated as if it were owned by one company. This, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that only the minimum number of wells required for efficient production will be drilled and that these wells will be located at the best possible positions throughout the field. The result, of course, is greater efficiency and lower production costs. Thirdly, the act provides for

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
the setting up of the necessary administrative system and for appeals by industry with regard to administrative orders and directives.
I should like to mention at this point the great degree of unanimity on both sides of the House with which the technical provisions of the act under consideration were approved. What does the future hold for the offshore? We cannot say with certainty, for it is hidden in what the mariners of old called "Davey Jone's Locker". As I have already pointed out, one cannot predict when a major discovery will be made-it could be tomorrow.
The image of a wild and barren sea must be revised and it is being revised by our oceanographers, geologists and geophysicists. Although such words as "offshore" and "continental shelf" have become part of our everyday conversation, few Canadians as yet have a clear conception of what they mean. Think of them, if you will, as a portion of our territory that happens to be covered with a relatively shallow layer of salt water. The average depth of water over the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is less than the maximum depth of Lake Erie, by far the shallowest of the Great Lakes. With modern petroleum technology, exploration at such depths has become commonplace. And these continental shelves are vast, their area amounting to about 40 per cent of our land area. Think of it-at one stroke the mineral-resource area of our country has been increased by more than one third. It is true that much of the continental shelf in the Arctic is covered by sea ice and is difficult of access, but it is already being studied in depth by the scientists of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Indeed, it is an oil discovery in the American Arctic, onshore in Alaska less than 200 miles from the Canadian border, that has sparked an unprecedented interest in both Arctic exploration and Arctic navigation.
[DOT] (12.10 p.m.)
Not only are our continental shelves accessible to mineral exploration, especially oil and gas exploration, but their geological composition makes them highly promising from a prospecting point of view. Much of Canada's continental shelf consists of sedimentary rocks of the type in which petroleum is found. The Canadian Petroleum Association made an estimate not long ago that the petroleum potential of our east coast shelf alone, including only areas to a water depth of 200 metres, amounts to some 25 billion

barrels of oil and 150 trillion cubic feet of gas. This does not take into account the large areas covered by considerably deeper water. The fact is that Canada's continental shelves extend to water depths considerably greater than 200 metres in many places.
These are indeed astronomical figures that strain the imagination; but scientific and technological achievements in recent years and months have shown that sceptics are the losers and visionaries the winners. It is true that we still know relatively little about the geology of our offshore areas-less in fact than was known about the geology of Alberta on the eve of the epoch-making Leduc oil strike of 1947. The gaps in our knowledge, however, are rapidly being filled by government and private scientists, with those of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in the van.
The growth in exploration activity has been phenomenal. The offshore area under federal exploration permits off the east coast alone now covers 260 million acres, about twice as many acres as the four Atlantic provinces combined, including Labrador, and stretching in an unbroken belt for some 2,000 miles from the .Gulf of Maine in the north easterly direction to the Grand Banks and thence to Hudson Strait. In total, approximately 500 million acres are presently held under offshore Canada oil and gas permits. This means that more than half of Canada's submerged continental margin is now covered by permits. I need hardly point out that this activity is even now bringing important economic benefits to the coastal regions, particularly along the Atlantic, and that these benefits will multiply with the discovery of commercial quantities of oil or gas.
Yet the very magnitude of these activities and the economic and social consequences that flow therefrom oblige us to subject them to the most searching scrutiny and to view them in the largest possible framework, in time and space. We are dealing here with a national patrimony which must be applied not only for the immediate welfare of the Canadian people but also for generations yet to come for whom we hold these non-renewable resources, actual or potential, in trust. This is a sobering thought which requires a sober and sagacious response. I believe that the bill now before the House meets this requirement.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) is the sponsor of the bill, it
February 13, 1970

seems that the subject matter of the bill should be placed more properly before the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I wonder if the House would give unanimous consent to permit the transfer of this bill as it now stands on the order paper from the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it unanimously agreed that the motion now before the House be amended in the sense proposed by the parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not know whether I am permitted to do any more than say yes or no. The Committee on National Resources and Public Works now has the Canada Water Act before it, and will study it for a period of anywhere from six weeks to two months perhaps. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for the committee to handle this bill. But, unfortunately, we were not consulted.


Mr. Speaker:: There might be further discussions later on during the day on the point. At the moment, it can only be proposed to the House by way of a formal motion which requires unanimous consent. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary may wish to have discussions with representatives of the other parties before a reconsideration of the matter later today.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I would not want the impression to be left in the House that the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not also occupied with important matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the parliamentary secretary completed his remarks?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Yes.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the bill that has been placed before the House has been prepared somewhat hurriedly by the government. There is some confusion as to who is responsible, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Oil and Gas Act
Greene) is still in the House. I hope he will remain with us for a while because when the discussion began this afternoon I asked of the government which responsible minister would be piloting the legislation through the House. We still have not quite clarified that point. My good friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Orange) has been handling the debate up to the present, but, we have not yet decided to which of the two committees the matter should be referred.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister is part of a hydraheaded monster.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The reason I have indicated that I trust the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will stay in the House is there is a strong feeling that there are some fundamental points that have to be clarified during the course of our discussion today, issues that revolve upon important jurisdictional questions as between the federal and provincial governments. It would seem to me that only a minister of the Crown who has been active in whatever negotiations have taken place around these areas can provide answers to the House at present.
It was only as recently as June 27, 1969 that royal assent was given to the original act which was then entitled an act respecting the production and conservation of oil and gas in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, which indicates just how uncertain the government is in respect of these matters. In less than 12 months the government has come before the House with amendments to the original act. This is either an indication of poor housekeeping on the part of the government or of the fact that jurisdictional problems have not been properly sorted out, or else it could be, and I am sure this is another aspect, that the progress in mineral and oil exploration in the areas originally designated under the act, that is the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, has been proceeding so rapidly that additional legislative terms of reference are required at this time. It is quite true that there has been a great upsurge of interest in northern development.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I suppose this is related to the famous Prudhoe Bay discovery in the State of Alaska, which occurred just over a year ago. I want to underline that Canadian interest in this area even predated that of the United States government, as indicated by the legislation of 1969 and the further amendments

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
that are before the House now. It is unfortunate that government action was delayed, or at least that enthusiastic support for mineral and oil exploration in the north was dampened down until such time as our American friends were out in the forefront in the exploration field.
In his introductory remarks, the parliamentary secretary indicated that oil will be discovered. It is quite possible that oil could be discovered tomorrow, or at any moment. With the intensity of exploration now going on in the north this is certainly quite probable, but by the same token, Mr. Speaker, oil could have been discovered much earlier in the Canadian northern territories had the pace of enthusiasm and interest in northern development, which was generated during the early 60's, been continued throughout the latter part of the decade.
To get to the heart of the bill, and I notice that this concern was expressed in the other place when Bill S-5 was before those hon. gentlemen, I would like to inquire of the minister what degree of agreement and co-operation has been reached on the basis of consultation between the federal and provincial authorities? The chief purpose of the amendments before us is to define and delineate the continental shelf adjoining the mainland. In the light of the discussions that have been taking place for a number of years, it seems to me that if this legislation is to have any real significance and practical success in its implementation, a reasonable degree of concurrence should have been achieved by the provincial and federal levels of government. I trust that the minister of resources will make a statement, because no information along these lines was included in the opening remarks of the parliamentary secretary.
I would also like to hear comment from the minister on what degree of consideration this matter has received in the Resource Ministers Council, the administrative innovation established in areas of federal-provincial dispute with particular reference to resource matters. To me that would seem to be the ideal machinery for ironing out the obvious difficulties which have plagued the implementation of government initiative, both at the federal and provincial levels in the important matter of off-shore resource development.
At one time, and I am wondering whether this situation still prevails, Mr. Speaker, in order to be absolutely certain of their position with reference to areas of jurisdictional dispute, the mining and oil companies took out
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
permits from both the provincial and the federal authorities. In view of the substantial amounts of money involved in exploration, they were not going to take the risk of being cut out because of difficulties existing between both levels of government. These were some of the questions that were raised in the other place.
During the course of the committee hearings in the other place on Bill S-5 the matter of jurisdictional responsibility was not clarified, not even in the testimony of the two departmental officials who appeared before the committee, Mr. G. M. McNabb, Assistant Deputy Minister, Energy Development, and Dr. D. G. Crosby, Chief, Resources Administration Division. It was the hon. Senator Connolly who raised the issue as to whether concurrent permits were still necessary for private industry operating in this field, and in reply Dr. Crosby said:
For the most part, Sir, people who have permit coverage from the federal government also have the same coverage from the appropriate provincial government. They have gone to both levels of authority.
So, I presume that the situation still prevails. Then Senator Connolly asked:
You may have to go to the courts in some cases, is that it?
Dr. Crosby: I do not think, Sir, that this will necessarily become the case. We anticipate that agreements will be reached with the provinces and that these will be enshrined in legislation. As such, they will become the law of the land, of course, both provincially and federally.
Senator Connolly: In legislation?
Dr. Crosby: Yes. As an end result of the Prime Minister's offer, it will be necesary to enact legislation, I should point out that I am no legal expert, Sir, and, speaking completely as a layman, I am at your mercy.
Senator Connolly: We are at yours, too.
That re-echoes the sentiments of members on this side of the House. We are completely in the dark with respect to the present status of jurisdictional problems between the federal and provincial levels of government. I trust that the minister of resources will help clarify this matter before we carry our discussions too far today.
The comments made in the committee in the other place suggest that this amending legislation, which follows so quickly on the initial enactment of the bill, will require almost immediate further amendment, because it was indicated that Bill S-5 is merely anticipatory of further legislation to come. Earlier in our proceedings today I inquired of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
February 13, 1970

whether he could help clarify this situation. I did so deliberately because I think it is of the utmost importance to this debate that members of Parliament have some definite information as to the state of negotiations between the provinces and Ottawa.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
In my question I indicated that there had been correspondence flowing from the Prime Minister's office beginning on November 29, 1968, followed by a further letter on February 27, 1969, in an attempt by the federal government to get the agreement of the provinces to precise delineation of jurisdictional responsibility. This resulted, I suppose, from the transfer of certain lands from northern affairs to the new resources department in 1966. At one time resources came exclusively under the old department of northern affairs but now they are divided between northern affairs and the resources department. The uncertainty, the confusion that seemed to prevail in the government benches, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the debate today indicated that even within the government itself there is still no decision where the respective areas of responsibility lie. I trust that the minister will make a statement this afternoon which will indicate where the negotiations represented by the correspondence from the Prime Minister's office rest at the moment. I think the government owes it to the members of this House and the opposition to clarify this point before we can make any final decision on where we are heading with reference to Bill S-5.
In addition to the problems of intergovernmental disputation, there are other matters to be decided of course. The case of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the position that they occupy with reference to Bill S-5 would seem to me to be of the utmost importance to the Maritime provinces. This arises from the fact that, as the parliamentary secretary has indicated, clause 3 of this bill quite precisely and specifically delineates the territorial rights under the legislation. For example, it states that the offshore limits would extend to a water depth of 200 metres which would be approximately 650 feet. This is not an absolute figure, of course, because water levels vary from time to time and the whole situation with reference to the position of St. Pierre and Miquelon and the offshore continental shelf in respect to those two islands would, I presume, be a matter of con-
Oil and Gas Act
tinuing discussion between the government of Canada and the government of France at the present time.
The Prime Minister has referred to the Supreme Court decision of 1967 which resulted from the reference made to that body arising from the dispute on the west coast. Again, I think it should be clarified whether the government of Canada regards the Supreme Court decision in favour of the federal government's claim with respect to the west coast situation as applying to other coastal areas of Canada as well. I trust information will be forthcoming along this line.
My greatest concerns with regard to the proposed amendments have to do with the situation in the Northwest Territories, and in particular the Canadian Archipelago, arising from the current discussion on sovereignty. The original Bill S-29 did not precisely delineate the continental shelf and the offshore limitations. Under the amendments, the Canadian Archipelago will be subject to the same terms of reference as the coastline continental shelf. It will be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that this immediately raises the whole question of Canadian sovereignty in northern Canada. Members of the official opposition feel strongly that before we can proceed further in the discussion and consideration of Bill S-5, the government should in no uncertain manner-which would be quite a change for the government-reaffirm the sector principle of sovereignty in Bill S-29. This has always been regarded as the position of Canda with reference to Arctic sovereignty, until the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) speaking on behalf of Canada began to vacillate on the matter on legalistic and even technical grounds.
I regard clause 3 as representing a very serious threat to Canada's traditional position of sovereignty in the Archipelago, Mr. Speaker. Because of that I should like to move an amendment, seconded by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in the following words:
That all the words after the word "that" be left out and the following substituted therefor: this House, by reason that the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, chapter 22 of the 1964-65 statutes, extends and applies, except as therein provided, to every act of Parliament and every order, rule or regulation thereunder and the Governor in Council has failed to exercise his powers under that statute to issue lists of geographical coordinates of points from which baselines may be determined to establish the inner limits of the Arctic portion of the territorial sea of Canada and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has not

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
caused charts to be Issued delineating the Arctic portion of the said territorial sea wherefor the Arctic submarine areas adjacent and superjacent to the coast of Canada, to which the bill applies as mentioned in clause 3 thereof, are not known to and cannot presently be determined by this House, and by reason of the immediate relevancy to the bill and the said statute of the declarations, recommendations and other matter set out and contained in the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, presented to the House on Tuesday, 19 December 1969, relating to the sovereignty of Canada in the Arctic, will not proceed upon this bill until that day next following the day upon which the question is put for concurrence by this House in the said report, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, then on any day next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must say that initially I have some misgivings about the admissibility of the amendment. I prefer to consult wilh Mr. Speaker on the matter and possibly a ruling could be given after the luncheon adjournment.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I assume that the dictates of intelligence will impel Your Honour to accept the amendment after consultation. That will be fine.


An hon. Member:: What intelligence?


Gerald William Baldwin: I was speaking of the dictates of intelligence and not of the intelligence on the government side. That is a lost cause. If Your Honour has not accepted the amendment, then perhaps at one o'clock you might hear arguments from hon. members on this side in support of this reasoned amendment.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I support the bill, including the principle that we should claim possession of continental shelf areas off Canada's coasts. I believe this bill has implications with regard to the sovereignty issue and the pollution issue and is relevant to any claim we might have to the economic consequences of oil development in this area. Mention has been made of the constitutional or jurisdictional issue. May I, in this connection, call the attention of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) to a speech the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) made. Actually, I wish to read an excerpt from a letter sent by the minister to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). It is signed "Jack Davis". As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries has advocated that we establish an
underwater park in Georgia strait, and the letter contains part of his argument in that regard. It reads in part:
The constitutional position is also quite clear. As the nation owns all of the land surface below the low water mark off our shores, the areas in question do not have to be transferred from the provincial government. No negotiation with a provincial authority is necessary nor do we have to compensate private interests and assemble acreages to the same extent that we do on land.
I think everyone knows that the Minister of Fisheries is an authority on this matter. I wish he would decide to establish an underwater park in the waters adjacent to the Northwest Territories and make a similar declaration about those waters and the Arctic Archipelago.


David Anderson: Will the hon. member
permit a question? For the sake of those hon. members who have been following the hon. member's speech with great attention and interest, could he please let us know the date of the letter he referred to so that other hon. members who wish to may obtain copies of it?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: It is dated February 2, 1970. I am wondering if the minister of fisheries has informed that great white father in Victoria, Premier Bennett, of this particular jurisdictional position. If so, I should be interested in hearing Premier Bennett's answer.
This bill also relates to the question of pollution. The minister of fisheries has suggested that if we protect our fish we protect ourselves. I am prepared to accept that as sound reasoning, although it seems probable that he heard this from his friends the fish. He is saying that what is good for fish is good for Canada. This reminds me of an argument 1 heard south of the border to the effect that what is good for General Motors is good for the United States. The minister's approach is somewhat newer.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like a fishy argument.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: The minister of fisheries has suggested that, "It is all right for you to drill for oil off Canada's coast, but don't dare drill for oil in Georgia strait because we want to put an underwater park there." He is seeking the co-operation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The oil business is important to Canada and passage of this bill will bring some measure of certainty to our oil interests. For instance, those involved with oil matters will now know

February 13, 1970

which level of government has authority to issue regulations governing Canada's coastal waters.
This should bring a measure of certainty to the entire oil industry and to those who manufacture oil drilling barges. We manufacture such barges in Canada; I saw a picture of one which had been built in Halifax. I recall discussing with the representative of a shipbuilding firm the problems of shipbuilding, and part of our discussions touched on this particular issue. I ask, why should not Canada specialize in building vessels we will use a great deal? I think the proposed amendment will bring a great deal of certainty to our total business economy, including that area engaged in the business of constructing oil drilling barges.
There is another area which concerns me, Mr. Speaker. Last year parliament passed Bill S-29, but that bill has not yet been put into force. The government house leader said we must hurry and pass a number of government bills. Those bills were passed, but they are not being utilized. The bill to which I referred is one of those which has not been put into effect. The house leader was telling us not to delay, yet Bill S-29 has not been put into force; nor has the government set up the oil and gas committee mentioned in Bill S-29. Why, Mr. Speaker? Why is the government hurrying the House to pass legislation and then dragging its feet in the administration of that legislation? It has not even established the regulations called for in the bill. Why has it not done so, Mr. Speaker? The companies affected are not quite certain what is happening. Why does the government not bring this legislation into force? The bill was passed towards the end of June. It was sound and contained good law. The opposition was urged not to drag its feet; Parliament passed the bill but the government is not utilizing it. Why? Rather than agree with the position of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, who has urged some delay, I should like to kick the government and tell it to get the lead out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: The government pushed the legislation through, but has not acted on it. I suggest, in addition, that the credibility of the government house leader has been called into question because the government has not hurried to implement the legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: What credibility?


Mr. Mahoney:: You are going too far.
Oil and Gas Act


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: The government is red hot about passing legislation but slow in administering it once it has been passed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is a little confusion on the government side.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: The parliamentary secretary suggested that the need for such legislation as this is increasing. I agree with that statement. This bill is a good measure in that it will institute controls over those companies wishing to drill for oil off Canada's coast or on Canada's continental shelf. We ought to pass it now and, if necessary, amend it later. In the meantime, let us pass a measure which will show that we are concerned about the pollution problem and that the continental shelf off Canada's shore is our land.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious that this amendment be passed and made law at the earliest possible date. I think that anxiety is shared by the industry that will primarily be affected by it. I think the industry shares the mystification of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) as to whether the government shares that anxiety.
The act which we are now amending received royal assent last June 27, yet the oil and gas committee authorized by section 4 of the act, and whose existence is an essential element of the system of control and conservation envisaged by the act, has yet to be appointed. I have no idea what other steps, if any, have been taken to implement the act.
While the present amendment is very important in that it will bring uniformity to the administration of an important field of the law regulating the petroleum industry, the fact remains that the present act, unamended, embraces the entire area of federal responsibility where production and conservation are a reality rather than an expectation. One might hope that the committee would be appointed and put to work immediately, even though there may be some delay in bringing under its jurisdiction that part of our federal petroleum and natural gas resources administered by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The government may have some information that has yet to be published but, as far as I am aware, all discoveries to date on federal lands lie within the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern

February 13/ 1970
Oil and Gas Act
Development and are amenable to the provisions of the act as passed last session. There is no apparent good reason for further delay in implementing the act. Perhaps the minister or his parliamentary secretary will take the opportunity, in closing the debate, to explain the reason for the delay; although admittedly this minister has no direct involvement in the existing act.
Basically, this amendment will bring offshore production under the ambit of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. The mixed up situation regarding the offshore exploration near Vancouver points out the urgency of an early rationalization of the rules under which the industry is to work. There is something very unreal in the present situation, which sees the industry complying to the letter with the regulations established by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, spending large sums of money executing the program demanded of them by the department if they are to keep their permits in good standing, yet threatened with the positive caveat of the fisheries department that if they find something there is no way they will be allowed to recover it.
This is a government that prides itself, and with very good reason in most cases, on taking a business-like approach in its dealings with the business community. I do not for a moment downgrade the importance of the ecological considerations involved in the offshore production of oil. Even if one were disposed to ignore them, the examples are too dramatic and too grave to permit that. It is equally difficult to ignore the anomaly of the conflicting policies of different government departments, each having concurrent jurisdiction, in relation to this aspect of the industry's operations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It is an aspect which will bring very substantial long term economic benefits to Canada if significant offshore resources of oil are found. The industry has a right to expect an early rationalization of the government's approach. The country at large has a right to expect that rationalization will fairly balance the potential ecological risks against the potential economic benefits.
I am not sure that the "no way" attitude of the fisheries department indicates a particularly objective, scientific or rational approach to a very important problem. It is common speculation, I do not know whether based on fact or not, that existing regulations govern-

ing the operations of the petroleum industry in the federal field are being reviewed. I accept the speculation as having a considerable basis in fact and I agree that a revision is most desirable in the light of discoveries on and near federal lands. However, there is a tendency on the part of laymen, and I am one of them, to get very excited about an oil or gas discovery and to assume that a single important strike is proof positive that a substantial field has been found. It is equally easy to assume that discovery of an important field in one location will almost certainly be followed by discovery of an important field nearby. All of this is not necessarily so, and the authorities considering revisions of the existing regulations should remember this.
The Prudhoe Bay discovery has given great impetus to exploration in the Canadian Arctic. It has raised our expectation of success to a very high level. The Atkinson Point oil discovery and the Panarctic gas discoveries have all tended to reinforce this optimism. It is all right to be optimistic, but let's not be sanguine.
Prudhoe Bay is an immense oil field, but still only a few wells have been completed and some dry holes have been found on the structure. It is significant that in the great Alaska oil rights sale last fall, the oil companies that had the best access to information, those with actual information in the field, did not pay exorbitant prices for more land. Oil accumulations the size of Prudhoe are extremely rare. The only field of comparable size to be discovered in North America was discovered in east Texas at the turn of the century, 70 years ago. Undoubtedly much more oil will be found in the Canadian Arctic, but the chances of finding a new Prudhoe Bay are slim.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Don't be so pessimistic.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The authorities should also bear in mind that short of discovering another Prudhoe Bay, our Arctic oil is going to be very expensive where it counts, at its market. Wellhead price is only one consideration. Exploration costs are relatively high. Transportation costs will also be relatively high. Neither Prudhoe nor any other discovery yet made or likely to be made in the future will support the idea that the Canadian Arctic will be another Kuwait.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been some discussions
February 13, 1970

Oil and Gas Act
with hon. gentlemen opposite regarding the reference to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of this particular bill and there has been general agreement that the order should be changed to refer the subject matter of this bill to that particular committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege as regards the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wish to say that we Creditistes do not agree in principle with his proposal for a gentleman's agreement to transfer the subject matter of Bill S-5 from one committee to another.

We don't agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
seems to me if there is no unanimous consent, the issue is closed. It ceases to be an issue.


André-Gilles Fortin: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not understand how there could be a question of privilege arising out of that, but I am prepared to listen to the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
In fact, we agree that this bill be referred to the committee. On the other hand, however, the Parliamentary Secretary did not consult us to conclude his gentlemen's agreement. He contacted the representatives of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, but walked by me twice without stopping or even acknowledging my presence. He certainly knows that I am the house leader of the Ral-liement Creditiste.
There are 14 of us members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste in the House. We have been officially recognized, not only by Parliament but also by the Canadian people, as a separate political group and we intend to assert our rights. When the Parliamentary Secretary first introduced this motion, the Chair did say that it was an agreement between all parties.
Therefore, I must protest-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member has a question of privilege. He may have a legitimate ground for complaint. Perhaps we should leave it at that.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You
can speak all you like, now.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Prior to one o'clock the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) moved an amendment to Bill S-5. I suggested at that time that I might consult with Mr. Speaker and with members of the table. I am now prepared to give a ruling. However, before I do so I might like to hear the advice and suggestions of hon. members, if any hon. members wish to be heard.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I first refer to the ruling on a reasoned amendment made by Mr. Speaker on January 15, 1970, to be found at pages 2427-8 of Hansard, where a reasoned amendment was rejected. May I point out that this amendment is different in context and approaches more closely the type of amendment that has been accepted in the past. I should like to refer to May's seventeenth edition, page 527, where the author deals with reasoned amendments. It is stated that a reasoned amendment may fall into one of several categories, the second of which is:
It may express opinions as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill, or otherwise opposed to its progress.
Then, at page 528 May deals with the effect of the acceptance of a reasoned amendment and states:
The technical effect of such an amendment is to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second time; and the bill is left in the same position as if the question for now reading the bill a second time had been simply negatived or superseded by the previous question. The House refuses on that particular day to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal; but the bill is not otherwise disposed of.
It is my submission that this amendment falls particularly and directly within this rule. The amendment states that certain additional

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
information must be forthcoming before the bill can properly be considered. The amendment suggests some other course be followed, namely that a previously introduced report on sovereignty should be disposed of before reading the present bill a second time. I would think that this is the ultimate reason for accepting the amendment. We have before the House now certain questions of sovereignty over Canada's northland with which the House has not dealt, and about which there has been a good deal of controversy. The matter has been discussed; a report has been laid before the House previously but not concurred in.
The bill we are considering hinges very largely on the question of sovereignty in the north, since some of its provisions define the outer limits of Canadian sovereignty. In our opinion this bill derogates from Canadian sovereignty in the north; this opinion has been expressed hitherto and will be further expressed during the debate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, fundamentally this amendment seeks to have the bill not now read a second time but delayed until the report on sovereignty has been dealt with. It is, in fact, a dilatory amendment that would force the bill to follow another House order in terms of priority. For those reasons, I think this is specifically a case of a properly reasoned amendment being presented to the House in order to delay second reading of a bill until a certain event has taken place and another order of the House has been considered and disposed of.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
It has been held on previous occasions that a reasoned amendment may be quite lengthy in its preamble, provided that in substance the essence of the amendment is to delay the reading of the bill. This is not in the time honoured tradition of a three months or a six-month hoist, but it is most definitely a motion of that type which delays second reading until certain things have been dealt with by the House. I think it is a perfectly straightforward and proper amendment on second reading. I suggest it should be accepted.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would have entered the debate were it not for the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I believe it is very important, in the interests of Canada, to make two points. In the first place, there has

not been any contest by any party outside of the country or any doubt on the part of the government of Canada about our claim to the continental shelf. In fact, the position has been the very opposite; that is, that the continental shelf whether in the Arctic or anywhere else adjacent to Canada is under the complete sovereignty of the government of Canada. I say this because it relates to the relevancy of the amendment to this particular bill and because I think it is important to declare it here again, as it has been declared unequivocally before, so that the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka do not prejudice Canada's interest, that we do not acknowledge in any sense the jurisdiction of any other state with regard to the continental shelf, the subject matter of this particular bill.
I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to clause 3 of the bill which deals in express terms with the submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada to a water depth of 200 meters or beyond. I affirm here, on behalf of the government and Canada, that there is no accuracy in what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said when he suggested there is any doubt about Canada's exclusive jurisdiction there.


An hon. Member:: Read the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I refer to clause 3, and emphasize the fact that in this bill we are talking about the continental shelf.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, are we, under the guise of a point of order, to be permitted to debate Canada's sovereignty? I thought we had a point of order before the House and not the substance of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say I am developing the same misgivings. I would invite the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), now having made the opening statement, to discuss the procedural question before the Chair at the moment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would say in respect of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that I am surprised he is joining with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka in giving away Canada's clear rights in the north.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have said nothing about the substance and I did not intend to say anything about the procedural point, but I insist that
February 13, 1970

the only point that is now before Your Honour is the procedural admissibility or inadmissibility of the amendment.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope the hon. member is not prepared to give away Canada's interest in this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a question of privilege-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a point of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There are two hon. members rising on a question of privilege. I have already made one suggestion to the President of the Privy Council. I will hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on the question of privilege and then the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege is that I have said nothing either directly or by implication that has anything to do with the substance of either the bill or the amendment now before the House. When the minister suggests that I am giving away something belonging to Canada he is incorrect and he is going far beyond the bounds of what is proper in this debate. It was my intention to remain silent on this point of order because I have some doubt about the admissibility of the amendment, but if he keeps on I may change my mind.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I resent the suggestion by the President of the Privy Council that I am trying to give away the rights of Canada. I suggest that if the President of the Privy Council would read the bill he would see that is what his government is doing. I have a map here that will show it. I intend to establish this later in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the President of the Privy Council and others will agree with me that perhaps we should revert to the particular procedural question which confronts the Chair at the moment and confine our argument to that question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, might I refer to the following reference from May's seventeenth edition at page 527:
The following rules govern the contents of reasoned amendments:-
The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion.
May I point out that it is perfectly proper, in the course of arguing a point of order on a
Oil and Gas Act
question of relevancy, to refer to the subject matter of the bill in question on which second reading is being moved and to refer to the subject matter of the amendment. I take it there is no contest on that point. All the amendment refers to is the question of the territorial seas of Canada, the waters surrounding the Canadian mainland and the waters of Canada but what the bill refers to are those submarine areas adjacent to Canada to a water depth of 200 meters or beyond. We have here no question of territorial waters or a three-mile limit or a 12-mile limit or questions of navigation or non-navigation. This particular bill relates to the continental shelf, the sea-bed underlying the waters.
What I said about the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the form of an injunction, was that I hoped he would not be intervening in this debate to cast any doubt on the fact that we have an uncontested jurisdiction over the continental shelf. We have here an amendment referring exclusively to the question of territorial waters. It refers to a report in which the question of the territorial waters was raised. I suggest therefore, because this bill relates to the continental shelf and the marine areas in and about the continental shelf, that an amendment with regard to navigation is not relevant in this particular case. The amendment, therefore, should not be accepted.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You keep the establishment going.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I cannot imagine the hon. member keeping anything going, useful or otherwise. Perhaps I might refer to the ruling of the Speaker of January 15, 1970 already referred to by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He selectively read from the ruling at that time. May I draw Your Honour's attention to the words recorded at page 2428 of Hansard of that date where the chair referred to Section (1) of citation 393 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which was quoted at length:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a Bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the Bill.
What we have here, in effect, is an amendment which does not oppose the principle of the bill. It really is, in a guise, a statement of policy and a statement of pohcy not even about the subject matter of the bill itself. It is a statement of policy with regard to the question of the territorial waters. Because it is

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
irrelevant and because it does not oppose the principle of the bill, I suggest the amendment should not be accepted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what I thought before you spoke.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to restore this debate to the dignity of a reasoned argument on a procedural question. In doing so I applaud Your Honour's decision in trying to prevent the rather deplorable and sly attempt by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to get around the mealy-mouthed position the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took in the past.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I now proffer to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) the same piece of advice I offered the President of the Privy Council.


Gerald William Baldwin: I feel better now, Mr. Speaker.
I will now proceed to speak on the procedural question. I should like to point out that I do not think the minister has really directed his mind to the bill in its entirety. It is true that clause 3 deals with the question of the submarine areas, but if hon. members would look back to clause 2 and subclause 3, they would find a new definition of pipeline which brings into question offshore installations or vessels. In other words, the definition of pipeline is extended to include offshore installations or vessels. How far offshore-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To the depth of 200 metres.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister has not contributed to the debate so far, and I think that the longer he remains silent the better off this House will be. With regard to the installation of vessels, we want to know how far offshore this would apply and to what extent. Are we entitled to consider that offshore means any part of the water between the islands of the Arctic Archipelago and the mainland? This has been brought into issue by the government in this clause. It purports to affix to the word "pipeline" an artificial interpretation, and therefore we are entitled to say that it is not proper for this Parliament to come to a decision on this matter until it has decided what the government has not had the intesti-
(Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1
nal fortitude to decide, namely, what are the limits of our sovereignty so far as the Arctic waters are concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members. I am now prepared to make my ruling on the amendment of the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) and the President of the Privy Council in their interventions on this question mentioned the ruling of Mr. Speaker on January 15 last when a reasoned amendment in relation to the bill to amend the Canada Water Act was before the House. I suggest to hon. members that the ruling on that occasion is relevent and applies in full measure to the amendment now being considered. 1 should like to quote two sections of that ruling. Paragraph 5 on page 312 of Votes and Proceedings which is an excerpt from May's, citation 382, reads:
It is also competent to a Member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information to the Bill by Committees, Commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of Judges.
In my view, the really operative part of that citation is the following: "a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill". Farther on, the same ruling refers to section 1 of citation 393 of Beau-chesne's Fourth edition which reads:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a Bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the bill.
In my view, the amendment moved today by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is substantially the same as the one moved by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) on January 15. I am afraid that, for the same reasons, I cannot allow the amendment.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, when we rose at one o'clock I was discussing the proposition that with all the optimism we may reasonably entertain regarding our prospects in the Arctic, in the Northwest Territories, certainly the fact of Prudhoe Bay or the fact of the oil and gas
February 13, 1970

Oil and Gas Act
discoveries on our side of the boundary give no reason to be sanguine. We have no reason to expect an extension of Prudhoe Bay nor any good reason to think that we are likely to find an oilfield comparable to that. I am not myself a geologist or a geophysicist. However, I think that the better geological and geophysical opinion with respect to Prudhoe Bay is that it is a basin limited on the east by the British Mountains which run along the Alaska Yukon border, and that, to the extent that such areas as the Mackenzie delta have resources comparable to Prudhoe Bay, those resources will comprise a separate basin from Prudhoe Bay and not an extension of it.
There is also a tendency in some quarters to think of our Arctic reserves as money in the bank to be conserved and spent at our complete leisure. This is totally irresponsible. The momentum of exploration and development must be maintained. Oil demand could very well slacken in 10 or 20 years. It has happened to other industries-coal is an example-and it could happen to petroleum. The automobile is a prime target in the campaign against pollution. With this impetus there is every likelihood of a breakthrough in automobile power source that will level off the demand for petroleum in the foreseeable future. I love our forests and I am grateful to those who have fought so hard to conserve them, but I hope their motivation was not that the cordwood market was going to get better.
In addition, we cannot let our share of the world market drop. Others will be very happy to pick it up, and again technology increases the risk of a loss of markets. The Colorado oil shales in the United States constitute the world's largest known oil reserve. The United States government has not granted leases there, but the pressure is on and many feel that existing technology will permit the extraction of oil at a price competitive with other energy sources.
So I repeat, let us not, in revising these regulations covering our best industry assume that a slowdown in the industry can be absorbed with impunity. About 30 cents out of each of the billion dollars spent last year by the petroleum industry-some $300 million-was spent in direct purchases from central Canada. A good portion of the other 70 cents was expended on commodities manufactured in central Canada. A significant slow down in exploration by the industry would have a serious short-term effect in all Canada. The adverse effects might, in the long-term, become perpetual.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Much bitterness in western Canada started with the federal colonialism that preceded the transfer of resources to Alberta and Saskatchewan. The position of residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories is not particularly relevant to this specific bill, but it is certainly a problem that must lie in the back of our minds as we think about the activity in the petroleum industry in those Territories.
Finally, there are three changes which the authorities should consider. The need for incentives to explore, built into the present pre-Prudhoe regulations, has certainly modified. I would recommend that for the future, serious consideration be given to removing the added royalty option, and adopting the Crown reserve system, as I believe that lands returned to the Crown and auctioned by it create a competitive situation resulting in new waves of exploration. One factor the government will have to consider is a calculation of the royalty return against income from auction bids and increased exploration.
Secondly, I am concerned with the way all lands in a given area are being disposed of by filing. The filing method has been necessary to stimulate exploration in a very difficult region, but the government should retain representative blocks to be auctioned at appropriate times.
Thirdly, the stake of Canadians in their own natural resources is a legitimate area of concern, even if it is grossly over-stated and distorted in some quarters. The government's decision to maintain its position in Panarctic Petroleums Ltd. was welcomed by all Canadians, except perhaps by a few speculative bargain hunters. Consideration should be given to offering direct participation to more Canadians in this venture. Perhaps when present participants want to dispose of all or part of their interests, as has occurred in the past, allegedly with some resulting dilution in the ultimate Canadian participation, a secondary distribution to Canadians might be considered. Unlike the NDP I have never felt that Canadian participation in commercial undertakings could be entirely satisfactory when channelled through the government.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I reiterate that while this amendment is most desirable and should be adopted without undue delay, there seems no good reason why realization of the concept envisaged last session in the original bill should be delayed. Let us get on with rationalizing Canada's relationships with this vital resource industry.

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak at a later stage on this bill, but in view of the fact that the issue which I want to raise has already been referred to in the discussion of the amendment, I would like to take my turn now. I wish to make a few comments about one aspect of the bill that very deeply concerns me.
I think there are two matters that have to be considered seriously, not as to the detail or content of the bill itself, but as to its general effect. The first is what I consider a derogation of the sovereignty of Canada in our northern waters by virtue of a definition in this bill. The second is the question of a Supreme Court decision relating to offshore rights, which concerned only the west coast of Canada, and following1 which it was intended that there be further consultations before the federal Parliament acted on the matter for the whole of Canada.
I think it is well known that there was a gentlemen's agreement, if one could describe it so, that after the Supreme Court decision ruling the offshore limits of the continental shelf off the west coast to be federal Canadian territory and not provincial, there would be a series of conferences between the federal and provincial governments to straighten out this problem in the rest of Canada. This morning questions were asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) about what replies the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had received from the provinces. He answered that some replies had been received, but he refused to indicate which way the provincial people went and whether or not there was any agreement at all on the question of offshore rights. These are two things that are affected by this bill.
As to the second question, I do not wish to expand on it at the moment except to say that as far as I can see the federal government is proceeding without consultation or provincial consent to define the limits of the federal interest in the continental shelf. This, I repeat, is being done without going through the formality of consulting the provinces to find out whether agreement can be reached. In that way, by bringing forth this bill at this time, the government is creating more difficulties than it is solving.
The first matter I raised, concerns our sovereignty. I want to put it this way. The original act, which this bill proposes to amend, applied to oil and gas in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. I think that

was a pretty clear definition. I believe that at that time the Canadian people, the Canadian government, and people beyond our shores had no doubt whatever where our territories were. They comprised the whole areas contiguous to Canada, extending from our east and west coast north to the North Pole. As I say, I do not think anybody had any doubt about that. That is the way the act read.
Now clause 3 of this bill proposes to define a further area, and provides that the act will henceforth apply to:
(a) the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories; (b) those submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada to a water depth of two hundred metres or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil thereof;
My argument is just this: now that we have a definition of our territories, which includes the seabed to a depth of 200 metres at any point beyond our coast, this opens up the whole question of where our coast is. The question is raised whether this clause defines Canada's coast as the northern part of the mainland of Canada and not the islands. It leaves the question open as to where the territory will end as between the mainland and the islands, and just to make the whole matter worse there is this definition of a depth of 200 metres.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
According to the way I figure it, 200 metres is 111.1 fathoms, which is the equivalent of about 666.6 feet. I have a map here, which is an official map of the northern part of Canada, on which all the depths of waters are given. It is a map of the Arctic Islands, Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea, including connecting passages. I know the depths that are given on this map for many of the locations lying between the islands and between the mainland and the islands. Now, I remind you again, Mr. Speaker, that the depth set forth in this particular bill is 200 metres which is 111 fathoms, and there are many locations-


An hon. Member:: Are you going to table it?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is an interjection from the hon. member. This happens to be a public document which the hon. member can get for himself if he can talk the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) into giving it to him. Not only that, but it is published by the Government of Canada.
Many of these depths run to 450 fathoms, which is four times the depth defined in the
February 13, 1970

bill. What 1 am saying is that the definition giving Canada jurisdiction over its resources to a depth of 200 metres must leave in doubt those areas that are 450 metres in depth.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is it a question of privilege?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: No. I wish you would permit a question.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The hon. member read that portion of the section referring to the 200 metres, and I wonder if it would be useful to read the balance of it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I read the balance.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: It reads:
200 metres or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent water admits to the exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil thereof
Are we not talking there about 200 metres or beyond?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member generally asks intelligent questions but I do not understand that one. I read the whole section when I started. All right then, what does it mean? It reads: "200 metres or beyond to where the depths of the superjacent water admits of the exploration of the natural resources of the seabed". Is that what we have sovereignty over or is it not? If we have sovereignty over 200 metres or beyond 200 metres to some other undefined depth, what is the other undefined depth? Why are we admitting that there is any location in the Arctic waters over which we do not have sovereignty?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: This is what I want to know. What portions of these areas are not Canadian territory? I say it is all Canadian territory, regardless of the depth of the sea. Surely, that is not the point at all. Surely our 12-mile limit or 3-mile limit does not depend on how deep the water is. Surely, our sovereignty does not depend on how deep the water is.
I know this bill was drafted with oil and gas exploitation in mind. I say that with this in mind, there has been a complete oversight of the side effects that the bill would have, one of which would be an admission that there may be part of the Canadian Arctic
Oil and Gas Act
waters over which we do not have sovereignty. Regardless of how you cut it, that is the way subclause (b) of this bill reads. That is what I am objecting to. We are cutting away at sovereignty. The government refuses to make the simple statement, "The Canadian Arctic is under Canadian sovereignty". If they will just make that statement, we will be all right but they will not do it. The Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development brought in a strong report. We only debated it one day because the government had no alternative, since they were ruled out of order when they tried to stop it. The motion for concurrence in the report has gone back on the Order Paper and we probably will not see it again.
The purpose of the amendment which Your Honour has ruled out of order-for which I am going to substitute another which will not be ruled out of order-is to delay the passage of this bill until the question of Arctic sovereignty is settled once and for all or the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development considered and settled. We must not leave this great gap, which leaves us wondering what this bill means. We must settle the main issue, where our sovereignty ends. I do not want to see this House pass a bill which limits our sovereignty, or appears to limit it, until after we have given this Parliament the opportunity of saying, "The Arctic is ours." We have not had that opportunity yet.
I have no criticism of the amendment being ruled out of order, but I am explaining why we would have liked to proceed in this way. We have preferred to follow the course suggested in the amendment but if we cannot, then we are prepared to use the direct method, the six months' hoist. We feel so strongly that we should not deal with this bill and the limitations and the derogations of our sovereignty contained in it until after the main issue is settled, that we are prepared to move the amendment. We think, Mr. Speaker, that logic must force any member in the House to support such an amendment. We are not only putting the cart before the horse, we are putting a very rickety cart before the horse and it may fall apart before we know where we are going.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the motion be amended as follows:
That the word "now" be deleted and the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the question.

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act


Randolph Harding: have listened with a great deal of attention to the motion which has just been moved and to the debate which has taken place on this bill today. I have a few comments to make on the bill in general and then possibly I will come back to the amendment a little later on.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Bill S-5 is an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. I see it as a further amendment to Bill S-29 which was passed last year. In fact as I recall it, Bill S-29 received royal assent on June 27, 1969. While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the lack of government action on Bill S-29. Constantly, we hear from ministers across the way that the House is being exceptionally slow in pushing legislation through. Here we have a line example of legislation passed over eight months ago not being implemented. The government pushed for passage of this legislation; it had to go through in a hurry. But what happened? Regulations covering the drilling of oil were to be set up. I ask the minister responsible, where are those regulations at this time, eight months after the bill was passed. I will tell you where they are, Mr. Speaker. They do not exist. At least, they are not published. They may exist on paper to the extent that people in the department are working on them. Those people know what legislation is to be introduced and that regulations must be drafted in connection with the legislation to be passed by Parliament. Why then do we have to wait months and months for those regulations which give effect to the legislation? I say this constitutes a disgraceful approach to the problems concerning oil and gas exploration in this country.
The bill which was passed provided for the establishment of a committee relating to oil and gas matters. I know that several government supporters are unhappy about this delay in setting up the committee. Where is the committee? It does not exist because this lackadaisical, do-nothing government just has not put into effect legislation the House of Commons passed months ago. I resent this delay and we need only look around us to see its result.
We have problems in the north and problems all over Canada because the government has failed in its job of regulating the exploration and development of our natural resources. This should be done in an orderly and sensible way. It amazes me to see any

government in the world being stupid enough to give out permits covering tremendous areas for oil and gas exploration without having adequate safeguards that will regulate and protect those resources for the people of Canada. We see an example of this in the north. This is not a matter of trying to stop exploration; that is not my aim. We are trying to make the government realize that we must have an orderly and sensible approach to resource development. If we do not have that approach we will run into the same problems and troubles which have pestered the world for generations and will continue pestering it.
Let us take a look at what is happening in the north, for example. We have over 100 million acres of land in the Arctic islands under gas and oil leases; we have over 10 million acres of our Arctic waters under oil and gas leases. People want to go into the area and explore, and yet there is no proper set of regulations governing pollution in the Arctic. We are told by experts the world over as well as in our own departments that if there is a serious oil spill in the Arctic, tremendous damage will be done. Yet we have not even undertaken the necessary research in this area; we have not even undertaken research into the ecology that is absolutely necessary in order to be certain what measures ought to be taken in the event of an oil spill.
We must examine all possibilities. You cannot blame the companies for going into the area; they are looking for territory to explore. You cannot blame them if the regulations are not laid down and if they go ahead and search for oil and gas without them. After all, they are in that business. But, government departments concerned ought to know about the potential problems and what regulations will be necessary to meet those problems. It gripes me to think that we must wait for a dreadful disaster before we are prepared to move. That is why I think that, along with a bill of this sort, we ought to introduce regulations governing the companies undertaking this exploratory work in order to protect as widely and effectively as possible other resources which might be affected by oil pollution.
An excellent example of pollution from an oil spillage is to be seen on the east coast of Canada today, where the Liberian tanker Arrow went down. About one month ago, in an answer to a question I had placed on the Order Paper, I was told that the government
February 13, 1970

Oil and Gas Act
had set up contingency regulations for dealing wi.h emergencies such as this. However, I find that there is no such list of contingency measures in the department. Is it not amazing? A disaster takes place on the east coast of Nova Scotia and we stand around, wringing our hands, not knowing what to do while tremendous ecological damage is being done.
Last year when the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act was being considered we supported the concept of total liability for damages; that is, we wanted Canada to have the right to collect the full cost of any damage done to our environment as a result of an oil spill. That clause was deleted; apparently the government was awaiting the outcome of the Brussels conference. The consequence of that deletion is that today, following a major disaster on the east coast of Canada resulting from an oil spill, we have no remedy. We will not know for years how much ecological damage has been done and we have no legislation to cover the situation. I say this is wrong. I lay the blame at the door of these ministers and departments responsible for having the regulations and controls drafted and who have failed, particularly during the last year, to take the required steps.
I shall now talk about other sections of Bill S-5, Mr. Speaker. It extends the jurisdiction of the act previously passed to the oil and gas areas that do not lie within the geographical limits or under the administrative control of any of our Canadian provinces. I think this is good. The extension of jurisdiction will cover the continental shelf which lies off our east, west and northern coasts; it also covers the Arctic islands and the shelves surrounding them. At least, I presume this is what the bill covers.
We have been in desperate need of adequate guidelines and regulations to cover oil and gas exploration and development in all parts of our federal jurisdiction. I am certain that far too few protective measures are now incorporated in the regulations which govern the search for oil and gas. Our federal government should be the watchdog over our resources; it should guard them from ruthless exploiters whose only goal is to make a fast dollar and who often have no regard for the safeguarding of our other resources. In many areas, our own departments have done little or no research into the long term results from faulty or careless resource development. I touched on that a few moments ago.
21701-17J
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
I wish to take a few minutes to deal with one or two other problems in connection with oil exploration. In doing so I shall use some material from a brief prepared for the Canadian Wildlife Service by Dr. Warner in the fall of 1969. Dr. Warner received assistance from other individuals in preparing this brief. The result was a very comprehensive and thoughtful document which showed that Canada was not researching problems dealing with oil exploration along our continental ifhelf and in the Arctic.
I wish to refer to several sections of this brief in order to show members of the House how absolutely essential it is that we do not delay making regulations and safeguards which I believe are desperately needed. I shall quote a couple of paragraphs from this brief, because if oil leaks can occur in other countries where drilling is under way we can bet it will happen in the Arctic or the continental shelves on the east and west coasts of Canada. I quote from the bottom of page four of the brief as follows:
-there are now over 9,000 oil wells pumping from submerged areas of the world's continental shelves.
This is on a worldwide basis. A little further on Dr. Warner gives some information which he has checked. He says:
Reports now available indicate that in the Baltic and Caspian Seas oil leakage from drilling and pumping activities is resulting in grave losses to wildlife, principally the migratory waterfowl and seabirds, and to the commercial fisheries. The widely reported recent catastrophic blowout of an offshore oilwell on the Santa Barbara coast, where crude oil under pressure leaked through fissures in permeable sedimentary strata, has graphically illustrated what can happen during such underwater operations.
I shall not talk about the Santa Barbara oil spill. We all know the tremendous amount of ecological damage that has been done. We know there is an $800 million suit against the federal government by interested groups who feel they have a chance of forcing the United States government to pay. The next paragraph of the brief should cause us to think very deeply about what could happen off the shores of Canada or in the Arctic unless we have adequate safeguards. Dr. Warner states:
While the industry claims such operations are quite "safe", an engineer presently employed by one of the companies heavily involved in offshore drilling stated privately that the life expectancy of such offshore platforms was less than ten years, owing principally to the damaging effects of storms, collisions from ships, and other environmental hazards. It has, for example, been reported that an entire drilling rig was carried away by ice in Cook Inlet, Alaska.

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
This does not mean pollution will take place, but if the drilling-rig involved had struck oil, the damage would have been immense.
If one adds to this the problem of breaks in the submerged pipelines serving these offshore units, the magnitude of the potential for environmental contamination becomes clear. Such underwater pipelines have been broken by ice action at a water depth of 250 feet.
These are interesting comments by someone who has checked into the possibilities that could occur from oil drilling in these areas. There is a host of other interesting material in this brief. I suggest that every member of this House read and study it. The problem is, what has the Canadian government done to ensure that the type of pollution which this researcher is talking about does not take place? What have we done to investigate and implement some safeguards?
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently checked into the sinking of a supply barge in the Arctic. In fact, a couple of supply barges were sunk. We do not know fully what they contained. I understand one contained oil and the other contained some type of supplies. I have a question on the Order Paper at the present time requesting information on the supplies which were lost. This is another matter which should be considered by the department concerned. Perhaps the means of transportation is not adequate. Are proper safeguards being taken by the companies transporting supplies and goods from the mainland to the Arctic islands? Many of these supplies are flown in, but some are brought in by barge. Research programs should investigate designs, etc., of Arctic transportation. This matter should be very carefully checked. There should be regulations to ensure that Arctic waters are not polluted because a company does not have adequate knowledge of the type of transportation it should use in these areas.
There are many other problems in connection with oil. I have examined a few of them. Contingency plans are supposed to be available in the event of oil contamination anywhere off the east, west or north coast of Canada. Adequate contingency plans should be available. Unless such plans are available, and we have equipment that can be used to nullify the effects of these spills, we should be very careful how we go about laying out huge areas for oil and gas exploration. It would be very simple to cause irreparable damage to the ecology of our country when looking for gas and oil.

I have just one or two more points to make Mr. Speaker. Other members in our group will deal with other aspects of the bill. I want to mention one point in passing. It seems there has been mixed jurisdiction as far as the continental shelf is concerned. A Supreme Court decision indicated that the continental shelf off the west coast of Canada came under federal jurisdiction.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I presume there will be a similar test as far as the continental shelf off the east coast of Canada is concerned. Provinces do not easily give up the hope of their right to exploit what is potentially a source of great mineral wealth. In a sense one cannot blame them. But it is important that the necessary regulations be laid down. As has been pointed out today, a situation has developed in which both federal and provincial governments are receiving payment from oil companies in respect of leases. This is nonsense. Jurisdiction must be either federal or provincial.
The regulations laid down to protect the natural evironment must be strict, and they must be uniform throughout Canada. I suggest to hon. members and to those piloting this measure through the House that there must be no delay in establishing the necessary regulations so that this bill and companion measures shall, indeed, protect every section of our continental shelf as well as the shores which would suffer the full consequences of any oil spill.
Blame for delay in establishing these regulations must rest with the department responsible. Good and effective regulations must be drafted. Along with this work must go sound research to ensure that the companies concerned are using the right kind of drilling equipment, not material which over a period of time will rust and allow pollution to occur. There are many vital interests to protect. The fishery is one. Tremendous damage could be done to water fowl which nest in the north. These are things too precious to be lost, yet there is a risk of losing them if we are not vigilant, if we fail to take the measures which need to be taken.
In closing, may I say I am pleased that the bill will go to the committee on national resources for study and comment. I do not say this because I happen to be a member of that committee but because I believe this is the committee which should deal with the subject. It has already been considering the question of pollution on a wider basis, and I
February 13. 1970



believe this experience will serve as a good foundation upon which to suggest regulations which might be attached to legislation of the type we are considering. I endorse this legislation. It is a step in the right direction. I hope we can tighten it up with a good set of sound anti-pollution regulations.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we compliment the Parliamentary Secretary on his courage and high measure of statesmanship in piloting this measure through the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: In my opinion it could have a serious affect on the Northwest Territories. Both by expression and implication it amounts to a serious diminution of Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic. This is an issue in respect of which the Territorial Council has shown far greater courage than this lily-livered government in stating an honest position with regard to sovereignty.
There are one or two considerations which persuade me to support the motion of my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), but before doing so I wish to enlarge on a point mentioned earlier by some hon. members. We are dealing with an amendment to Bill C-48 which was enacted in June of last year, shortly before the infamous attempt by the government to force down the throat of this House certain rule changes on the ground that the government needed the powers contained in Standing Orders 75b and 75c in order to assure the early passage of legislation which it considered urgent.
We find that this important Bill C-48, enacted last year, has never been operated. Today we are being asked to effect its amendment. How much credibility can one attach to hon. members opposite, when they follow a course of conduct of this kind? This is the sort of treatment to which we are subject in the House by a government which really does not know whether it is coming or going most of the time. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) talked about 74 measures which the government needed passed in 74 days. I hope hon. members will bear this in mind when spokesmen for the government come to us and ask: Why did you not pass this legislation? Let them remember that we enacted Bill C-48 last year, an important bill, and that it was not even acted upon.
I wish to make two points concerning the merits of the amendment. I believe it is completely wrong to bring forward such an
Oil and Gas Act
amendment at this time. I am amazed that the government has done so. I think of the phrase "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." We know the government proposes later to introduce legislation dealing with pollution in Arctic waters and the inland waters of the north. Why, in the name of heaven, was the amendment not kept until that time in order that we might engage in a proper debate on all the important issues involved? These are important issues which we in the opposition have attempted, with the limited weapons at our disposal, to bring before the people of Canada in an effort to get this government to reassert the unequivocal declaration which previous prime ministers and administrators have made.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In view of these facts, for the government to take this provocative action now and to include within its proposals amendments that challenge the entire question of Canadian sovereignty, because this is what they have done; let there be no mistake about it-


Mr. Olson:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) can say what he likes, but he knows little about wheat and even less about Arctic sovereignty. On reading this bill there is no doubt that a further challenge is brought forward by the government to the cardinal principle of sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic which by tradition, declaration, assertion, geography and occupation have been, and even without this government's help will continue to be, Canadian waters.
As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has said, the original bill introduced last year, Bill V-48, provided in clause 3 that the act was to apply to oil and gas in the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories. That did beg the question; but at that time the government had not stooped, as it has since, to taking this weak-kneed and vacillating position on Arctic sovereignty.
Those of us who were interested in this bill assumed that the words "the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories" meant an area not only of land but of waters which for at least 100 years had been accepted as being within the sovereignty of the Canadian people. We now find that by amendment to the interpretation section, section 2, the definition of the word "pipeline", for example, has been extended to cover offshore installations or

February 13, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
vessels. I suggest this is an obvious acceptance on the part Of the government of the fact that the exploration, development, production and transportation of oil is going to involve to a considerable extent the use of waters in the Arctic.
Now is the time, if there ever was a time, for the government to say that by "waters" it means those waters which are Canadian waters;- that this is an expression which, according to the interpretation of "sovereignty" and past assertions, has been given a meaning that is unchallengeable and is undenied. But the government has left the position completely open. What does the government mean by "offshore installations or vessels", a phrase now to be found in the interpretation of the word "pipeline"? It leaves the impression that there must be very grave limitations upon Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic; certainly that view is consistent with such a change.
In addition to that, as my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka said, clause 3, which provides that the act applies in respect of oil and gas in the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories, now begs the question even more. The people of Canada have believed that the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories have traditionally in the past extended, and still extend, to the waters of the Arctic archipelago, the waters between the Arctic islands and the mainland.
Clause 3 now proposes a positive weakening of that assumption in the introduction of certain finite conclusions. For example, there is reference to submarine areas, to lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada. I suggest this is an obvious admission that part of what we have always in the past regarded as waters of the Canadian Arctic may not necessarily be the case, since the government is placing a limitation on what in the past has been a wide and unrestricted interpretation of what is the Canadian Arctic.
If the government had any doubt in its mind, this was the time to express it. We are now faced with the situation that not long ago members of the United States Congress referred to the possibility of the government of that country placing in service a fleet of icebreakers to push through the Arctic commercial vessels of U.S. companies such as the Humble Oil Company. Fortunately, a serving naval officer who was giving testimony at the time qualified the effect of this by saying that the waters in question were Canadian Arctic

waters. He subsequently amended that statement by saying they were waters which were close to and related to the Canadian Arctic.
There is, nevertheless, an obvious and determined effort being made by commercial interests in the United States to seek and obtain what they suggest is the right to unimpeded passage through the waters of the Canadian Arctic. Those were the exact words used at a hearing in Washington some time ago. Those words, or words to that effect were also used, I understand, by Mr. George Ball when giving evidence before a committee of this House.
At a time when the government should be asserting in the strongest possible way the right of the Canadian people to sovereignty over these waters, we find the government bringing in an amendment which, in effect, challenges even the interpretation that had been placed on these waters by the previous act. I simply do not understand it, Mr. Speaker. Our party is not approaching this question in any narrow, chauvinistic way. We seek this right solely for the purpose of being able to establish control and the right to regulate the passage through these waters of vessels of any nation. This right has been asserted in the past.
In 1925 the then minister of the interior and the Parliament of that day passed regulations which provides that any vessel, scientist or explorer passing through the Arctic had to apply for and obtain a licence to do so. That right, I understand, was not denied but was in fact accepted by the U.S. government. Later, during the course of the DEW line operations, Canada laid down a regulation which provided that vessels passing through this area from the United States were compelled to obtain a waiver under the Canada Shipping Act. This was questioned to some extent, but was accepted in due course.
Then we have the statement of a former Prime Minister when he was Canada's ambassador to the United States in, I believe, 1946 or 1947. A number of declarations have made abundantly clear what our rights are. As I say, we are not asserting these rights simply because we want to colour the map red or blue for Canada; we are asserting them as a matter of national safety and security. These rights are assured any nation under the 1958 and 1959 conventions. Even if it were held that the waters in question were territorial, we have the unchallengeable right to pass regulations that are in the interests of our national safety and security.
February 13, 1970

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In view of the situation caused last week by the oil tanker which grounded off the west coast of Nova Scotia, surely no one in this chamber would dare challenge the right of the Canadian government, acting for the people, to reassert our rights and say: Passage you may have, but passage on conditions which we, in our right as trustees for the Canadian people, must lay down.
We hear talk about tankers of 300,000 tons. In the name of heaven, what complete destruction, in an ecological and environmental way, would be caused by a tanker of this size being wrecked while attempting a so-called unimpeded voyage through the Arctic waters! We do not ask this government to break new ground. We simply ask it to stand up for the rights of the people of Canada and reassert what has always been accepted in the past. I refer to the sovereignty, even in a limited way, of Canada and over these waters, not for narrow nationalism but to protect the rights of our people and the hope that in the future the north will develop as it should, uncontaminated by the dreadful results of the type of disasters which could take place.
We heard that when the Manhattan reached home she had two or three large holes, one large enough to drive a truck through. I am instructed that the holes were in places where oil tanks would normally be. This ship was only able to complete her voyage with the aid of the Canadian icebreaker. These are the facts we are placing before the House. Surely the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would admit that they made a mistake by refusing to take this position earlier. Surely they can accept the recommendation of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the members of which were there, saw the situation, heard evidence and looked into the legal situation. The committee, in a reasoned, objective and non-partisan way made a recommendation which must be accepted. I believe if the question were put to a vote in the House, it would pass with a very substantial majority.
We are asking that the amendments which are included within the four corners of Bill S-5 be not proceeded with at this time. We are not denying that in a technical way and for certain technical reasons there are advantages to these amendments. We say, however, they should not be proceeded with and that
Oil and. Gas Act
the House should use this occasion to demonstrate to the government that the people of Canada object very strongly to the attitude of the government in failing to make the declaration which it should make in order to justify our claim to sovereignty over these waters.
At one time I dismissed hon. members opposite as coming within the interpretation of the Vice-President of the United States when he referred to the silent majority. They are now speaking up. Hopefully, this is a good sign for the House. I urge hon. members opposite to support the amendment of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and say to the government that it should not proceed with this bill. The government should first accept what the committee has recommended and, second, it should bring before this House for debate the legislation which the Prime Minister indicated will be introduced in respect of the pollution of our northern waters.
That legislation should be brought down and we should debate it. Let us first accept the recommendations of the committee and then, Mr. Speaker, we can deal with this matter. In that sense I plead with hon. members of this House to accept this amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I was a member of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which drafted and presented to the House a report on Arctic sovereignty which, as has been mentioned several times, had the unanimous endorsation of all the members of that committee. Therefore, I believe it should be apparent that I am as concerned as any member of the House that we should make a clear declaration of Canadian sovereignty over the waters which lie between the islands of the Arctic archipelago.
I took an active part in the debate on the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Had those amendments passed, they would have placed the liability for the cost of incidents such as occurred off the coast of Nova Scotia- I refer to the break-up of the Arrow oil tanker -on the owners of the vessel or cargo. Therefore, I do not quarrel at all with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) with regard to the need for exercising complete Canadian control over the passage of oil tankers through Arctic waters.
I have often enjoyed the reasoned and cogent arguments presented in this House by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and the hon. member for Peace

February 13. 1970
Oil and Gas Act
River, but their arguments today in support of the amendment which they placed before the House are a little beyond my comprehension. I am not too good at some of the long words, but I think the proper word to use in respect of the amendment is that they have completely obfuscated the matter of Arctic sovereignty. Therefore, at the outset I should like to make clear that I have no intention of supporting the motion for a six months' hoist, which we ordinarily understand to be one to kill a proposal. I believe my view is shared by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.
The hon. member for Peace River referred to clause 3 of the bill and pointed out that it contains what was in the act passed last year, which is now chapter 48 of the statutes. Clause 3 refers to the Yukon territory and Northwest Territories. That part of the bill was passed, and I submit with deference to the learned gentleman from Peace River that what was the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories last year is still the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories. Therefore, nothing in this bill in any way detracts from the area of Canada encompassed by the Yukon territory and the Northwest Territories.
If I understand this proposal correctly, we are talking about the sea bed; we are not talking about the geographical boundaries of Canada. If the waters within the Arctic archipelago rightfully are internal waters of Canada, and therefore part of the Northwest Territories, this fact is not in any way lessened or detracted from by the proposals in this bill.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
What is important is that we are saying we intend to exercise sovereignty over the continental shelf which is rightly ours as a result of the Geneva convention which gave the sea bed to the adjacent coastal states. Therefore, we must consider this whole proposition, realizing that we are talking, not only about the Arctic Ocean and the sea bed under it but about the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.
Far from weakening the position with regard to our sovereignty in the Arctic, I suggest this bill may strengthen it. I do not have the chart to which the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) referred. However, I suggest that an examination of that chart may very well show that certain areas north of the Canadian mainland which this bill will cover in so far as the exploita-

tion of oil, gas and other resources of the sea bed are concerned, would not be included in an exercise of sovereignty which would include as internal waters those lying between the islands of the Arctic archipelago and the mainland.
I will not go into the question of the sector theory, but I just throw the suggestion that at least so far as the argument about jurisdiction over territorial sea or inland waters is concerned, this bill does not weaken our position. Therefore, I think the argument for its delay on the grounds advanced by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for Peace River falls to the ground. I hope they appreciate that I am not in any way discounting their concern that our government take a firm position on the question of our exercise of sovereignty. We in this party are with them on that point.
If one were to consider the question of whether we should go slow on the provisions of this bill, one might come to the conclusion that perhaps of greater concern is the question raised by my colleagues, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), namely, the question of the potential danger to Canada and to future generations of Canadians of any sort of oil exploitation in underwater areas.
The examples they mentioned of the California coast and the incident which is fresh in our minds-which is not directly related to the bill-of the destruction of the oil tanker and the resulting serious harm to the ecology of the east coast, should put this matter very much to the fore when we consider a proposal for the exploration of oil and gas in underwater areas within the boundaries of the continental shelf.
With this point in mind I have examined the act that was passed last session, with particular reference to the authority which, as has already been pointed out by my colleagues and others taking part in the debate, has not been exercised-in this case the authority of the Governor in Council to make regulations. The act as it now stands does give some authority in section 12 (m), (p) and (q). I think it is important before this bill passes through the committee stage, at least for the government to make clear the substance of the regulation which it intends to enforce in respect of these paragraphs of the section. In order to underline the point I am
February 13, 1970

trying to make, I should like to read them. The paragraphs read as follows:
(m) prescribing the conditions under which drilling operations may be carried out in water-covered areas and any special measures to be taken for such operations; ...
(p)	prescribing minimum acceptable standards for the construction, alteration or use of any works, fittings, machinery, plant and appliances used for the development, production, transmission, distribution, measurement, storage or handling of any oil or gas;
(q)	prescribing the measures necessary to prevent pollution of air, land or water as a result of the exploration and drilling for or the production, storage, transportation, distribution, measurement, processing or handling of any oil, or gas or any substance obtained from or associated with oil or gas;
We are considering an amending bill which in effect says that we will take steps to control the exploration, development and utilization of oil, gas and other resources which may exist under the sea bed adjacent to our coast on any of the three oceans. Therefore, members of the House, members of the committee and the Canadian people should know in detail how the government intends to exercise the authority conferred upon it under those paragraphs of section 12 of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act which was passed by the House last year.
It seems to me logical that if there is to be a pause at any point in our proceedings on this bill, it should be at the committee stage until the committee is thoroughly satisfied that the steps the government is taking under the authority granted it in those paragraphs will be exercised in a manner consistent with the preservation of other aspects of our environment. The committee should also ensure that the exploitation of oil and gas reserves is carried out in a way that will not cause damage which outweighs its economic advantage.
In this connection I should like to quote briefly from a statement made recently by a person who some would say is quite knowledgeable in this area:
Protection, however, is a difficult subject. In recent years we have been mesmerised by technology. We have been mesmerised by advances on the scientific front-advances which have been concerned mainly with physics and inorganic chemistry, with electronics and nuclear power.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
But the unique thing about our planet, about our earth, about our water, is that it harbours living things. Ours is a living planet in a lifeless universe. And yet our modern technology has been concerned, much more, with lifeless things. It has been concerned about lifeless space, about instant communications and about the generation of power.
Oil and Gas Act
Our study of life itself, by comparison, is in its infancy. Biology has been, to some extent, neglected. Ecology, even though it deals with the inter-relationship of living things, is a new word. Perhaps these inter-relationships are too complex for us to understand. But we must know more about these life-giving processes, these living cycles, these vital inter-relationships. We must know about them for our own good and for the good of life itself.
What worries people most are the immense powers which inanimate science-lifeless science-
I suppose one could say the immense powers proposed for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene).
-has given us to destroy life on this planet. If these new powers are used thoughtlessly our biological balance will be upset.
I would like to have heard that statement made in this House by its author, because it is a statement made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). I have hardly ever quoted in this House a statement made by a member of the government with more approbation than I do those remarks of the Minister of Fisheries. The sad thing is that it was not a statement of government policy, because it was prefaced with the words:
I would like to make one thing quite clear at the outset. I am speaking as a Member of Parliament.
In other words, he emphasized that he was not expressing government policy. I suggest it is a rather sad thing when the Minister of Fisheries has to go off into a corner to some little Liberal workshop in Capilano to make a statement of that kind, rather than getting up in this House, in a debate such as this, and making it as a statement of policy of the government concerning the exploitation of the inanimate resources of our country.
The considerations expressed by the hon. member for Capilano are the important things which should be in the minds of members of the committee when this bill is being discussed in detail. In committee we should have answers to the kind of questions which he raised in that statement, before the committee reports the bill back to the House. As we are all becoming increasingly aware, these are not matters to be dealt with lightly.
My colleague from Kootenay West made brief reference to a statement about the delicate balance of the ecology of the Arctic. The northern affairs committee has had quite a number of representations made to it on this subject and has discussed the matter. Some of its concern is indicated in its report to this House. That report has been only partially debated, and we have no indication that the House will ever be allowed to come to a decision on it.

February 13. 1970
Oil and Gas Act
The contents of this bill are of immediate concern to a member who comes from the province of British Columbia, because of the oil exploration that was carried out on the sea bed of the coast of B.C. a year or so ago. This exploration was in the outer waters lying offshore from the west coast of my constituency, and more recently in the inside waters of Georgia Strait. This bill, if passed, will become operative in respect of all or part of those areas. I say all or part, Mr. Speaker, because the question of the jurisdiction over certain areas is still up in the air. According to statements made in this House on earlier occasions, the Strait of Georgia is one of those areas. Whether it will come within the ambit of this bill is open to question. Of course if the proposal contained in the remarks of the Minister of Fisheries about an underwater park is implemented, we may not have to worry about whether a federal or provincial minister is involved in the granting of oil permits for drilling in the Strait of Georgia. The suggestion made to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Chretien) by the Minister of Fisheries, if it has not already been well noted should be well noted by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
There is another point I would like to make on this issue. It has been touched upon during question periods, when we sought to obtain clarification of the status of waters such as the Strait of Georgia so far as oil exploration and the issuing of oil leases are concerned. Unless the situation has changed quite recently, the minister told us that an offer was made to British Columbia to put Georgia Strait under provincial jurisdiction, but that there had been no indication from the government of that province as to whether it was prepared to take ac ion on the offer. I suggest that, whether or not we are to have an underwater park in Georgia Strait, enough time has elapsed since that offer was made to the government of British Columbia that the federal government should now announce that the offer is withdrawn.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, at least in part because it is obvious that the Premier of British Columbia, who sometimes seems to imagine he is a sort of tin-pot emperor, is not prepared to sit down and discuss any question intelligently with the government of Canada. At least, if he does it is a very exceptional situation. I want to make it clear in this House-


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



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-20, an act respecting the labelling, sale, importation and advertising of consumer textile articles to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
It being four o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, private bills.



OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-5, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Inasmuch as you saw the clock so quickly and did not let me finish calling the Premier of British Columbia a tin-pot emperor, I hope you will allow me to adjourn the debate.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: that Bill C-25, to amend the National Transportation Act (fair competition of railway companies), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said:

National Transportation Act 1867, we are in 1970, in the space age. Obviously, road transportation, whether interprovincial or transcontinental, has contributed and is still contributing to the development ot the country. However, it is also an assential factor in the growth of the provinces and they were the first to encourage trucking. We should therefore confine ourselves to the economic realities entrenched in facts and be relevant, in spite of the 1867 Constitution and notwithstanding the decisions of the courts. It does not make sense to me when some argue that when the operations of trucking businesses are partially carried outside the limits of a province, the whole of the business, including the strictly provincial or urban transport, should automatically fall under the National Transportation Act and the federal Labour Code.
The Americans, whose economy in the field of transport is, in my opinion, one of the most progressive and developed in the world, agree that it is the actual motion of the vehicle which determines whether the business falls under the federal legislation and the InterState Commerce Commission.
In Canada, we are facing two realities: the legal or constitutional reality and the economic reality supported by facts.
In order to clear up the uncertainty that exists nowadays about the jurisdiction over road transportation, it would be well, I think, to state that the railway companies must keep to their own field, that is the railroads. However, trucking companies, whether provincial or urban, are under provincial jurisdiction, and only interprovincial vehicles, and those which link Canada to foreign countries, as well as their drivers will be ruled by Part III of the National Transportation Act or will fall under the federal labour code.
I hope that hon. members will allow this bill to be referred to the Committee on Transport and Communications which will examine it more closely.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmoui'n-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) and in so doing to state my general support for what it is broadly intended to cover. However, I must make two reservations that apply to the bill. In the final analysis, I think it should go to the Standing Committee on Transport and


Communications, there to be more closely scrutinized with the help of expert witnesses who might be called.
My first qualification is this: In these days transportation is not a single factor but a total mix. Transportation involves all forms of transport which are important to our economy. More important, not only must transportation efficiently move objects being transported, but we must ask ourselves whether any particular mode of transport gives to the user the best possible service. We all know that in Canada today our national railways are deeply involved in road transportation and no one really suggests, nor does this bill suggest, that this is improper. Quite the contrary is true. There are many indications that where rail service has been cut back or abandoned in recent years in certain parts of the country, the people living in the areas affected have suffered very serious privation.
My other qualification relates to the widespread use of varying modes of transportation by railway companies, and in particular I refer to air transport. The explanatory note to the bill is as follows:
The purpose of this hill is to provide that no railway company receiving moneys from the government of Canada or from any agency thereof may acquire interest or control in motor vehicle transport undertaking; the said undertakings receiving no subvention or subsidies from the state and being free enterprises, it is only fair that the said railway companies be not subsidized in part for acquiring such free enterprises.
My qualifications relate in part to the utilization of other forms of transport in connection with air freight. What do these words mean, "The purpose of this bill is to provide that no railway company receiving moneys from the Government of Canada"? There are many ways in which companies owning a broad range of transportation facilities can receive money directly or indirectly from the government. As part of my qualified support of the bill I ask that it be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for further study in connection with this question.
My next comment relates to a fear which exists in many parts of Atlantic Canada. Under our present law there is nothing to prevent the government of Canada pouring a tremendous amount of money into Sept lies and developing a modern container port there. Indeed, this House has before it recommendations that a container-port ought to be developed. As a member of the Standing
February 13, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3603
Committee on Transport and Communications, I hope the government will move swiftly on that recommendation.
If the bill is intended to provide protection against railway companies moving into the Sept lies area and operating trucks to the west of the Saguenay River system, I am against it. On the other hand, if it is trying to create a monopoly or near-monopoly in the area, my support for the bill becomes virtually unqualified. As I have said, it is the total transportation package that hon. members must be concerned about. We must make sure that all Canadians obtain the most efficient transportation service available.
Further, I should not like to see Canadian National Railways or, for that matter, any railway company tie up all modes of transport to Sept lies-which as hon. members may know is not served by rail along the shore of the river-to the extent that a monopoly might be created which could disrupt efforts being made in the port of Halifax to develop an efficient container service. We cannot support too many container ports. This aspect of the matter worries me in view of our National Transportation Act. There is nothing in the act to prevent that happening. I am not saying that a single agency could do it, but that situation might develop.
On the other hand, I should hate to see this virtual monopoly being given to any railway company without there being recourse for redress by this House. The absence of such recourse would have a disastrous effect on the work being done at public expense in Halifax. It seems to me there is not room for two or three container ports. Speaking for myself, if the bill we are considering provides some protection against a so-called monopoly, that could be detrimental. I urge hon. members to consider having these and related questions referred to the committee, which should also look at the wide powers the National Transportation Act has with relation to modes of transport serving areas which constitute a captive market.
On these two grounds, and with these two minor qualifications, I support the bill. The first qualification is that we must accept transportation as a total package and not as something that can be separated into different modes. The other one is the detrimental effect it could have on other areas of Canada and the absence of control of the National Transportation Act if a single agency determined to move in this way. I congratulate the mover of the bill and urge that it be referred to the standing committee for further consideration.
National Transportation Act
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take part briefly in the debate on Bill C-25. I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. member who preceded me speak about the monopolistic attitude of the railway companies and other companies in Canada. As a member of the transport committee, I believe that our main purpose is to ensure that all Canadians are provided with the most effective and efficient transportation system. I am sure this is exactly what the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) meant. He is concerned about a monopoly being instituted in this country which will take over all forms of transportation.
I express some doubt about this bill. We must all realize it is too late and too little, in a general context, to be an effective measure at this time. All of us in the standing committee who visited the maritimes not long ago realized that truck transportation is included under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I believe if we were to propose a bill at this time dealing with railways only, we would soon have to propose an amendment to the National Transportation Act to deal with trucking systems.
I am sure all those who feel we should keep this country united from east to west realize we must have an efficient trucking system. We are not really looking at the over-all monopoly end of it when we talk about allowing the railways into the trucking industry. The main concern of this House should be that we provide an efficient transportation system.
If the transportation users of this country are to receive the type of consideration they should, naturally we have to look at the entire transportation system. I am not sure of the words of the member who introduced Bill C-25 when he stated that the United States prohibited any form of competition in this field. In the explanatory note it is said that the purpose of the bill is to provide that no railways company receiving moneys from the government of Canada or any agency thereof may acquire interest or control in motor vehicles. I have not gone into the general field to the same extent as the hon. member, but I wonder whether some of the railway companies in the United States also have an interest in trucking concerns. I am not prepared to express an opinion on that matter.
If we are really concerned about railway companies receiving moneys from the federal
February 13, 1970

National Transportation Act government and entering into competition with trucking companies, we must say the same about trucking companies competing in any other field. If we are worried about a monopoly in one field, we must be worried about a monopoly in all fields. It should be very clear that if this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, these questions should be dealt with. More explanation must be given to the House before I will support the bill.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in participating in this debate on Bill C-25. As indicated in the explanatory note, the purpose of this bill is to provide that railway companies which receive subventions or subsidies from the government do not purchase or control trucking concerns. I wish to state at the outset that I do not think taxpayers' money should be used to compete with free enterprise. In other words, I do not agree with subsidies being given under the National Transportation Act or the Maritime Freight Rates Act to help railway companies compete with the trucking industry.
The purpose of this bill is not only to ensure that the railway companies do not purchase trucking companies; it is specified that the railway companies which receive subventions or subsidies should not acquire control of trucking companies. It should be pointed out that there is a slight difference here. These subsidies should not give to the railway companies an unfavourable advantage in competing with independent truckers.
I was a member of the committee which visited the Atlantic provinces and the north shore of Quebec last year. I was present at the transport committee meeting at Levis when the president of the Canadian Association of Truckers presented his case. My impression of Mr. Charbonneau's testimony was not that he was so much concerned about any particular subsidy being given to the railway companies, but that this indirectly gave the railway companies an advantage over the independent truckers. 1 do not agree with him. The record must clearly indicate that even though the CNR receives subventions or subsidies from the government of Canada, this does not mean that in the operation of truck freight or express delivery it is competing with the trucking industry.
We must bear in mind that the railway companies maintain their own track systems. In addition to operating expenses they have large capital expenses which independent companies do not have. The Canadian truck-

ing industry does not have to pay for the roads it uses. It does not have to maintain the roads. I appreciate that they pay sales tax and fuel tax, but they do not have the responsibilities that the railways have.
I was amused when the president of the Association of Truckers said that the trucking industry was at a disadvantage because the railway companies were operating trucking companies. His testimony differed from that of Mr. Palmer, the president of the Atlantic Association of Truckers who appeared before the committee in Fredericton last year. Mr. Palmer said the trucking industry in the Atlantic provinces was not concerned that the CNR or CPR may purchase trucking companies in the Atlantic provinces. He clearly stated that the trucking industry in the mari-times could meet that competition so long as the railways did not manipulate their invoices and waybills in a way that would take advantage of the Maritime Freight Rates Act when they were making deliveries by truck.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Mr. Palmer made the allegation that the CNR was receiving a subsidy from the government of Canada under the Maritime Freight Rates Act to transport goods, say from Montreal to Moncton. Then supposing material was to be shipped to Sussex, 40 miles from Moncton, and could not be transported by rail for one reason or another, the CNR would collect a subsidy on the part of the route from Moncton to Sussex. That part of the route would still be covered by the MFRA.
When Mr. McDougall, the vice-president of the CN Atlantic area, was before the committee, he said this only happened when the railway company had operated a station at the point earlier and had then closed it down. I am repeating what Mr. McDougall said: He told the committee that in no instance did the CN use the subsidy to compete directly with the trucking industry.
I am drawing attention to the conflict between the view of the president of the Canadian association and that of the president of the Atlantic association. The president of the Atlantic association said clearly that he was not concerned about the CNR and CPR buying trucking concerns in the Atlantic provinces, because he felt his people could compete with them.
I return to the principle of whether the railway companies should or should not enter the trucking business. I should like to see this
February 13, 1970

issue discussed and decided by Parliament. In other words, Parliament should decide whether the railway companies should be permitted to buy-out trucking operators. I am not sure whether it would be advantageous to prevent their doing so. It seems to me that the trucking industry is trying to preserve its interests. If it could get rid of its biggest competitors, CN and CPR, it would be better off. I do not see anything wrong with Canadian Pacific and Canadian National going into the trucking business so long as they do not use the subsidies they receive from the government to this end. It leads to better competition; it leads to more efficient service; it keeps the trucking industry on the ball.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) that the trucking industry has made a significant contribution to the economic expansion of our country.
During the hearings held in Levis by the Transport and Communications Committee, it was pointed out that Northern Quebec, for example, had been developed exclusively through the trucking industry, and the same is true of the paper industry in the Chibouga-mau area.
There is no question of belittling the part played by the trucking industry, but it is unfair to say merely that the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific or some other railway company are using government subsidies to purchase trucks or trucking companies.
In my opinion, we should make sure that the grants will not directly be used in an unfair competition with the trucking industry.
Before concluding my comments, I would like to say a few words about the M.F.R.A. grants, a question which was raised by Mr. Palmer before the members of the committee in Fredericton. Indeed, I would have liked the Canadian Transport Commission to decide whether really the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. in the Atlantic provinces were entitled, thanks to the M.F.R.A. grants, to pay the transportation costs of products by truck. This issue seemed to me very confusing. In other words, the Canadian National somewhat deviated from the principle under which the M.F.R.A. applied only to railway transportation. Of course, before the passing last summer of the legislation on the assistance to trucking in the Atlantic provinces, I would have liked the Canadian Transport Commission to render a decision which would have indicated whether the C.N.R. had acted in a legal way.
National Transportation Act [English]


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: This is quite a controversial bill, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to compliment the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) for bringing it in. Although it is not a government measure, it is one to which we should give a good deal of study. Railways subsidized by the treasury are entering the trucking industry to an increasing extent. In many cases these railway companies have behaved very unjustly toward a lot of settlements. I say this because they did not complete the branch lines which they had been given charters to build. This resulted in many injustices to communities in my constituency.
Now the railways are trying to put private trucking companies out of business. Since they are subsidized in the first place, they can very easily do this. They can haul in trucks Piggy-back most of the way, and then put private enterprise out of business. It is likely that small truckers pioneered this business in the first place, the railways companies not having thought it worth while to complete the branch lines they had been au horized to build. This is a situation which deserves close study by all hon. members. We have all seen what the railways can do by moving trucks piggy-back over the long haul and then delivering within a district by road.
It is possible that some of these communities would never have received the benefits of a trucking service had not private businessmen been enterprising enough to provide it. Now, apparently, the railway companies intend to put the private firms out of business. I believe they are again taking advantage of the rural communities in their master station plan. They are doing a disservice to many of these places by removing the station agent and using through-trains. Now the attempt is being made to put the small trucker out of business.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I think this matter warrants very careful consideration before we allow any company which has been subsidized to this extent to compete against private enterprise and push other companies around, as they very easily could. Many companies were prevented from building lines because the national railways had the charter, even though they never fulfilled their part of the bargain. Many truck lines would not have been required had these rail lines been completed. I think the House should take a good look at the bill before giving it passage.
February 13, 1970

National Transportation Act


Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, with some regularity in the past we have condemned and criticized our railroads for their lack of aggressiveness and their complacency. It is my understanding that an article which appeared recently in the "Harvard Business Review"-it has apparently been their most requested reprint-used the railroads as the classic example of what they called "marketing myopia". It was said to be the industry that has shown outstanding lack of imagination and lack of initiative.
At the turn of the century the railroads were dominant and all-powerful. It is my understanding that somewhere along the line Sir Edward Beattie remarked that he would far rather be president of the CPR than prime minister of Canada. Yet half a century later one finds throughout North America the majority of the railroads in receivership, in bankruptcy, or surviving on subsidies paid them by governments. Certainly they suffered during this period from marketing myopia and allowed the trucking industry, the airlines, the bus companies and pipelines to take over a substantial part of their market. They conceived of themselves as being in the railroad business,, not in the business of transporting people and moving goods, or in the business of serving or developing markets.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, they suffered from marketing myopia and belatedly have been shaking off their lethargy; and now as we move into the last half of the 20th century it is my opinion that this bill proposes to push them back into the railroad industry and to once more limit their vision.
Bill C-25 proposes that if a railway receives subsidies or moneys from the government, it may not acquire, directly or indirectly, any interest or control in a trucking firm. If there was a way in which the railways could misuse subsidies paid to them for the purpose of buying truck lines, one could readily support the principle of this bill. The intention of the National Transportation Act is to enable all modes of transport to compete on fair conditions. The government does not propose to make taxpayer's money available to the railways for the purpose of buying up independently-owned trucking firms.
There are three points to be made about Bill C-25. First is the nature of the subsidies that the railways receive; the fact that each subsidy is paid to the railways for a specific purpose that does not include the purchase of truck lines and that leaves nothing extra for the railways to use on that account. The second point is that there is a provision in the
[Mr. Cadieu (Meadow-Lake) .1

Railway Act that bars any railway under federal jurisdiction from mixing up its railway and trucking accounts in a way that would enable the trucking operation to obtain indirectly any subsidy from the government. The third point is that there exists in the National Transportation Act a specific provision, the object of which is to prevent acquisition in the transportation field which will unduly restrict competition or otherwise adversely affect the public interest.
Although the railways receive, as yet, no subsidies for passenger services, they are entitled to such subsidies if the Canadian Transport Commission determines that a service they operate at a loss must be continued in the public interest. The railways will have no money from this source to play around with in regard to truck line purchases. The National Transportation Act does not permit any extra in compensating the railways for passenger losses. The appropriate section does not permit compensation for the full loss which the railroads incurred. I understand they get approximately 80 per cent of the loss, which has to be certified by the commission.
The only large-scale subsidy that the Canadian railways receive is what is left of the subsidy that had its origin in the Freight Rates Reduction Act of 1959. That act reduced railway non-competitive class and commodity rates and provided $20 million to the railways in compensation for their revenue loss. By 1967 the $20 million in annual rail subsidies had risen to $110 million. There had been two more wage settlements. Rail rates remained frozen. The policy of governments of that day, both Conservative and Liberal, was to restrain further across-the-board freight rate increases pending the introduction of new national transportation legislation and they continued to compensate the railways for the revenue losses incurred as the result of the freight rate freeze.
Railway rates were frozen in 1959, and for a period of seven years did not move upward. Operating costs were not frozen; on the contrary, they were increasing substantially. The losses sustained by the railways in not being able to raise their rates were compensated from the federal treasury. When there is on the one hand a frozen price structure, and on the other hand a situation of substantially increasing costs, it is obvious that nowhere can a subsidy be applied except in the situation for which the subsidy is created, namely, the defraying of losses sustained. There is no
February 13. 1970	COMMONS
evidence to sustain a contention that subsidies given to the railroads have played a significant, or any, part in their acquisition of truck lines.
I think another significant point, and one of which we should be aware, is that the large-scale subsidy to which I have just referred and which amounted to roughly $120 million in 1967 has since been going down each year at the rate of $14 million. At the end of the fiscal year 1974 it will have disappeared. The railways received $96 million in 1968, $82 million in 1969, and will get $68 million in 1970, and so on, on a reducing scale, with a final payment of $12 million in 1974.
Another concern one must have about this question, one that quite possibly the author of the bill had in mind when he framed it, is that even if a railway has no opportunity to finance the purchase of a truck line either wholly or in part from subsidy moneys paid to it, does the rail carrier not have the opportunity, once the purchase is made, to inject into its truck line financial sustenance drawn from government subsidies or other moneys?
The answer is that the law requires the railway companies to maintain separate accounting of the assets and earnings of their rail and non-rail enterprises. The law also requires that the railways maintain separate accounting of the operation of their various modes of transport. If, for example, a railway company operates a railway, subsidiary truck lines, an airline and steamships, the accounts for each mode shall be separately maintained. The object of this requirement of the law is to prevent cross-subsidization of rail and rail-controlled modes of transport.
These provisions impose responsibility for enforcement upon the Canadian Transport Commission. To ensure that the conditions set out are met, the commission is required by section 387 to review and revise the uniform classification of accounts at intervals no longer than every two years.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The third point emphasized was the statutory protection of the public that already exists in the National Transportation Act. In the context of section 20 of that act, one of the stituations covered is the purchase of a truck line by a railway and the possibility of restriction of competition or the creation of a monopolistic situation which might work against the public interest. The act provides that in the case of an objection, the Canadian Transport Commission, following an investi-
DEBATES	3607
National Transportation Act gation which it must conduct, may disallow the proposed acquisition of that truck line by a railway if it is the commission's opinion that the acquisition would unduly restrict competition or otherwise be prejudicial to the public interest.
Subsidies paid to Canadian railways are of a nature that leaves nothing for the purchase of truck lines. In addition, the National Transportation Act contains safeguards for the public interest in respect of acquisition by a railway of a competing truck line. I believe it is the hope of all Canadians that an integrated road-rail system can reduce the distribution cost in our country, and that by combining the advantages of low-cost rail transportation with the flexible advantages of highway delivery our transportation systems can assist in opening up high-cost, low-volume markets. Canada is too vast and sparsely populated to be deprived of the very obvious advantages of an integrated road-rail system. It seems to me that is the intent of this bill and I therefore find myself in opposition to the principles it embraces.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, as this is a private member's bill I shall be brief in my remarks because I think it should probably come to a vote. It is obviously not the intention of the government to protect private enterprise, because if it were this would be a government measure. I see a necessity in this socialistic state which we are rapidly approaching for some protection for private enterprise. This is the reason I speak in favour of the bill. I see the necessity, however, for the railways to be a paying proposition. But I suggest that if the railways streamlined their operations properly they would not find it necessary to engage in the private enterprise trucking industry.
I join my colleague the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) in reminding the railways that their policy over the past 40 years has been strictly selfish. They do not try to give proper service according to the charter under which they were set in operation. The railways claim they have continually lost money in operating passenger service. One speaker mentioned they have had no compensation for this loss. They have not had compensation in cash grants for the loss, but one need only look at the vast holdings, especially of the CPR, to see that they have been paid in the form of oil and mineral rights alone, not to mention the real estate they own in every major city of Canada. I venture to
3608	COMMONS
National Transportation Act suggest that if they sold their rights-of-way at present real estate prices in any major city in Canada, they would be compensated for all the losses they have ever suffered in providing the transportation services they have provided.
When the railways have lost money they have always been able to come to the federal government, unlike ordinary free enterprise, and have the government come to then-rescue. During one particular depression year the CPR received no less than $60 million in t e form of an outright gift. Indeed, at one time it would have been better to have been head of the CPR than prime minister of Canada. With socialism rushing upon us, I am afraid a bill of this type is needed to protect the private citizen of Canada. I hope members of this House will stand, be counted and say that this bill should at least be passed in principle.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secre-ta y to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friend suggested that members of the House would like to see the bill passed. I have an opinion in that regard. In my opinion some hon. members are against the bill, and I must be allowed to express my opinion. I hope my hon. friend will extend this privilege to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
are used to you on the late show.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate for his patience and energy our colleague the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Leblanc) who, for the second consecutive year, is bringing in this bill which is important as we found out this aflernoon in listening to the debate. Some members may have opposed the principle of this bill which tends to eliminate unfair competition to private enterprise. This is the reason why the member for Laurier brought in the bill.
Despi.e their opposition to some clauses of the bill, the members who spoke have at least recognized that private enterprise must be protected. Some hon. members may oppose the principle of this bill, but I believe that most of them will agree to it.
On the other hand, I understand that the hon. member for Laurier expresses some fear, but we must also admit that grants awarded by the federal government to the railway companies are not used for the purchase of 
DEBATES	February 13, 1970
private trucking businesses. As a matter of fact, they are used only to make up the railways' deficits.
Under section 387 of the Railway Act, funds provided by the central government or any government agency, to the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National, must not be used for the purchase, control or operation of private trucking businesses, which have the right to exist, because they contribute to a great extent to the economy's growth.
On several occasions this afternoon it was said that private enterprise plays an important role in trucking. Thanks to the suggestions made this afternoon and to some hon. members' obstinacy, we might manage to protect private enterprise and perhaps, in some fields, improve the condition of the trucking concerns, while recognizing that some competition, unfair to neither of the parties concerned, should exist. Any hon. member should keep on making suggestions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Hymmen) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Hymmen:: Mr. Speaker, may I have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Hymmen (for Mr. Wahn).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege under Standing Order 17. At 4.30 p.m. this afternoon, Newfoundland time, an announcement was made in Newfoundland that the Argentia naval base would be phased out and that approximately 600 Canadian citizens employed on this United States installation would be laid off on 30 days' notice.
February 13, 1970

My question of privilege is based upon the fact that we have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions. I rise in my place today on behalf of my colleague the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) who is not aware that this has taken place because he is now on his way to Newfoundland. My colleague the hon. member for St. John's West, myself and other hon. members have raised this question in the House on a number of occasions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Clearly, there is a responsibility on the part of the government of Canada. We find it reprehensible and an act of gross irresponsibility that this announcement should have been made in the way it was by the commander of the base. We feel that if there was to be an announcement of this nature, inevitable though it may have been, it should have been made in the House of Commons. It was only this morning, before the House convened for the day's sitting, that I directed a private inquiry to the government to ask what was the status of the U.S. naval base at Argentia at the present time. I was told that they did not know, and that telegrams were being exchanged back and forth.
Privilege
I find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that this announcement would have been made without the advice or consent of either the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). This is a crippling, crushing blow to the already crippled economy of Newfoundland which is currently suffering the consequences of an unemployment rate in excess of 20 per cent.
I rise today on this question of privilege to serve notice that we should expect a statement from the government, when the House meets on Monday on exactly how the government can reconcile this announcement, made in the manner in which it was, with its statements in the House and with the current activities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Clearly, the responsibility is placed squarely on the shoulders of this government to act very quickly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 5.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 16, 1970