1970-10-21

OPPORTUNITY FOR CHIEF OF COMMITTEES AND PRIVATE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I take a moment of the time of the House to inform hon. members of an important change in the duties assigned to a senior officer of the House of Commons, Mr. Antonio Plouffe, Chief of the Committees Branch. To recognize the services of this loyal, competent and much respected officer of the House of Commons it has been decided to give him an opportunity to serve from time to time at the Table as Third Clerk Assistant. Mr. Plouffe will continue his duties in the Committees Branch, while the benefit of his experience and wise counsel will be available to the Table until the time of his retirement at the end of the year. I am sure all hon. members would want me to extend congratulations to Mr. Plouffe and express their appreciation for his continuing contribution to the work of the House of Commons.

[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)



PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MRS. MacINNIS-STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF MEMBER FOR GREENWOOD CONCERNING ARTICLE IN GLOBE AND MAIL
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It concerns a complaint that was made yesterday against one of my colleagues, the hon. member for Greenwood, arising from an account in a Toronto newspaper. My colleague was not here at the time. When the matter was drawn to his attention he asked, in view of the fact he could not be here today, because of official duties, that the following statement be read on his behalf:
I understand that the attention of the House was called to a statement in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday attributed to myself criticizing those who had apparently changed their minds about the vote on Monday in relation to the approval of the government's invocation of the War Measures Act and the regulations passed thereunder.
The statement made by me was not intended for publication. It was made immediately after the vote at a time when my feelings as well as those of other members were understandably strong
I regret any imputation in my remarks and am glad to withdraw them and to apologize.
I know this statement should be made at the earliest opportunity but as I will be out of Ottawa for some days on the Constitution Committee which is travelling to the Maritimes, I have asked one of my colleagues to present this statement on my behalf.
Andrew Brewin,
Member for Greenwood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order before you proceed past "Motions". I notice that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is not only scheduled to be here today but is here, and I wonder whether he would not take advantage of the opportunity under motions to make a statement to the House about the draft agreement with the Soviet Union regarding fishing privileges off the west coast of British Columbia, which on the surface looks like a sell-out of the Soviet Union?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had the impression the hon. member himself was anxious to make a statement on motions. He realizes and knows as well as other hon. members that if he wants a statement to be made this has to be done by way of a request during the question period and, if the minister so wishes, he can ask for leave of the House to return to motions. Certainly this is not the time in our proceedings to make such an inquiry.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-171, to amend the Criminal Code (Kidnapping).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend section 233 of the Criminal Code which deals with kidnapping. There are now three subsections and it would add a new subsection 1 to the Act and renumber the present subsections as 2, 3 and 4.
The purpose of the new subsection is to make kidnapping for political purposes a capital offence subject to the death penalty. Because of the relevance of the subject matter of this bill at this particular time and because of widespread public opinion which I believe, favours such action, I ask that the House give unanimous consent to move this private bill from the last place it will hold to the top of the list so that the House can deal with it immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Norman Thompson: Who said "no"?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Red Deer that this bill be moved to the top of the order paper. This would require the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no such consent. Therefore this bill will be read the second time in due course at the next sitting of the House.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
INTERPROVINCIAL MARKETING OF POULTRY PRODUCTS____

Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the action of provincial marketing boards in closing their traditional markets to poultry products from other provinces which has resulted in serious dislocation in the movement and the prices of such products and calls for immediate attention by this Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member and all hon. members know, one of the factors which has to be taken into account by the Chair in determining whether a motion can be put to the House under the terms of Standing Order 26 is the possibility or probability that the matter may be debated by the House within a reasonable time. We are now on the Throne Speech debate. There was an opportunity yesterday, there is an opportunity today, and there will be an occasion tomorrow for hon. members to debate and consider the subject matter raised by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley. In the circumstances I am sure the hon. member will understand and agree that the motion cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the
participation by Canadian officials in the preparation of a protocol on psychotropic drugs, would the minister undertake to make a statement at a very early date outlining the representations being made by Canadian officials in connection with this protocol? I think this is especially important because it has been our understanding that the Canadian government was reserving its views on this question until after the Le Dain Commission had reported.
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External
Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have been discussing this matter with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and either he or I will make a statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister also indicate whether the government of Canada is making any requests that the final draft of this protocol be postponed until after the government has received the Le Dain Commission report and has had an opportunity to consider it?


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, this point of view obviously is one that is very important and I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his suggestion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister to assure the House that before the government will consider signing the protocol, if and when it is passed, the House will receive a report on what is included in the protocol and have an opportunity to discuss its terms?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, depending upon the nature of these international agreements, sometimes the House is invited to express its views and at other times it is not considered worthy of being placed on the agenda because of other more pressing matters, but I will certainly take this suggestion into account when we are reaching a decision on whether to bring this matter before the House. Of course, as the hon. member knows, the government can sign the protocol or ratify the agreement without the concurrence of the House.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that the government has already appointed a commission to study the whole question of the use of drugs in Canada and their effects, would the minister not agree, even though the government has the right, that before it signs such an agreement or protocol the House should have an opportunity to discuss the implications?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is an argument and not really a question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs give an assurance that the government of Canada would not sign any protocol before it announces its own policy in Canada with respect to drugs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am examining with my colleague the inter-relationship between this international agreement and the studies that are under way in Canada as to the form of our legislation. I am sure the

October 21, 1970

hon. gentleman would agree, however, that international co-operation in this field is essential, and that he would not want to interfere with an agreement that would help to control the drug traffic.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am simply assisting the government to play their role in the participatory democracy which it talks about so much.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice. Can the government tell the House how many persons have been taken into custody under the Public Order Regulations passed under the War Measures Act, whether or not these persons are being held incommunicado, what number have been released and what number detained, and how many have already been charged?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, my information is that to date in all areas the total number taken into custody is 379. The hon. member will appreciate there might be variations as a result of some being picked up since I got the figures at noon. As to those released, the figure I had as of last night was 21, but a large number are being released today. I cannot give that figure because I do not have it. The authorities are in the process of releasing quite a substantial number today, but as I say I do not have the exact figure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the Solicitor General whether the names of the persons being held will be released and whether those who are being detained are being given the right to secure counsel and are being allowed to communicate with their families?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would allow me some latitude in replying to this question because I think I may be able to anticipate some others as well in my answer.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we understood from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the Minister of Justice or some responsible minister was going to make a statement on motions. If the minister wishes I am sure the House would readily agree to revert to motions in order to allow the minister to make a full statement.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has the choice either to make a statement or to reply to the question.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will just reply to the question and then rely on your ruling. The hon. member is aware, of course, that the regulations under the War Measures Act, as in the case of offences under the Criminal Code, lie within the responsibility of
Inquiries of the Ministry
the Attorneys General, in this case the Attorney General of Quebec. As early as last Saturday I was in communication with Mr. Choquette and we agreed on the desirability that there be some effective control and supervision by the provincial legal officers on the application of the regulations, and that there be a review as soon as possible of the evidence against any persons arrested by a team of Crown prosecutors and lawyers who could assess the material from the legal standpoint. It was understood that any person so arrested against whom the evidence clearly proved to be insufficient should be released as soon as possible. We understood as well that the accused should be given access to counsel at the earliest opportunity. It is my understanding that the Attorney General of Quebec has made a statement or issued a release dealing with these matters.
I might say that this morning I transmitted to Mr. Choquette the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to what procedure should be followed, and whether the names of persons arrested, the numbers and the charges laid against them should be made public. I might say that in my view-and this is in answer to the question of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands-I am not convinced that it is necessarily in the interest of all those who have been arrested-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has indicated that he would rely on the judgment of the Chair to determine whether he was answering the question or making a statement. He should decide whether he simply wants to reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I realize how important this matter is and I do not want to apply the rules too strictly, but if the minister thinks the information he has to give cannot be given within the limitations of an answer to a question, he should be prepared to revert to motions to make a statement.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the specific question of the hon. member. It may not necessarily be in the interest of all those who have been arrested to have their names published in these particular circumstances. I am sure the House has assessed the significance of what I am saying. However, I have transmitted to the Attorney General of Quebec the concern of some hon. members of this House that that should be done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
say that I hope the minister will still reconsider and ask the House to revert to motions, because I think we should be given a much fuller statement. From what the minister said it is apparent that he is prepared to give more information, but that decision must lie with the minister. In view of his statement and his constant reference to the fact that the administration of the Public Order Regulations, 1970, is in the hands of the Attorneys General of the provinces, may I ask if the government is prepared to amend those regulations, which it can do by Order in Council, so as to guarantee that every person who is held in custody will be assured of the right to communicate
422

October 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
with his family as well as the right to secure legal counsel?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to accept any implication in the hon. member's question that, because the primary responsibility for the administration of these regulations lies with the Attorney General of Quebec, we have not expressed to him and to the government of Quebec our concern that the ordinary rights of people be interfered with as little as possible and for as short a time as possible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: -consistent with his responsibility and our responsibility in attempting to immobilize and break this criminal conspiracy of violent men. It is my understanding that those detained have been given the right to contact parents and friends so that their whereabouts may be known. The Attorney General of Quebec made a statement this morning dealing with the right to counsel.



WAR MEASURES ACT-SUGGESTED INDEPENDENT COMMISSION TO SUPERVISE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I ask the Minister of Justice whether the minister or the Attorney General of Quebec, or both, or the two governments have given consideration to a suggestion which I read in one of the Montreal newspapers that, as it were, an independent commission of two or three people be appointed to do what he says is now being done by officers of the Department of the Attorney General?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of Quebec is aware of that suggestion.



WAR MEASURES ACT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the exchange that has taken place today that the full statement I requested yesterday is not to be given?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Forresiall:: The minister is not even answering. What does the government think this is?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Prime Minister heard my question. I asked whether, in view of the exchanges that have taken place, it is correct to assume that the full statement I requested yesterday will not in fact be made?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not a correct assumption.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: When may we expect such a statement, then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member reads Hansard for yesterday he will see that I did not undertake to have that statement made today.



WAR MEASURES ACT-LOCATIONS OF ARRESTS

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General tell us what areas he meant when he said that there have been a number of arrests in different areas? Could he indicate what those areas are?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker: Montreal, Rimouski, Hull, Sherbrooke and Quebec City.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I address a further question to the Solicitor General. Has any arrest been made outside the province of Quebec in this regard?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there was one temporary detention over Saturday night in Toronto while the authorities were investigating the story the person picked up had told them. That is the only one I know of.



WAR MEASURES ACT-ARREST OF HULL, QUEBEC, SOCIAL WORKER

David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question for either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General. Would the responsible minister undertake to investigate the report of the arrest of Mr. Cournvoyer of Hull, Quebec, a social worker, and report back to the House? It is reported he was arrested because he was organizing assistance for some of those arrested under the War Measures Act regulations. Is either minister aware of that arrest? If not, would the responsible minister undertake to investigate and report on it?


George James McIlraith: I am not
familiar with the case to which the hon. member is referring, Mr. Speaker. I will investigate the matter to see if I can properly bring forward an official answer.



SUGGESTED REWARD FOR APPREHENSION OF FLQ KIDNAPPERS

Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Has the minister or the government taken any initiative to provide a substantial reward, with executive clemency for the informant, for information that will lead to certain individuals who are known to be directly involved in the kidnapping, a most serious offence?


John Napier Turner: Not at the
moment, Mr. Speaker.



WAR MEASURES ACT-NUMBER OF RAIDS, ARRESTS AND RELEASES

J. Michael Forrestall: Can
the Solicitor General advise the House in connection with some of the statistical information he obviously has in front of him? How many raids have taken place, how many actual arrests have been made and how many
October 21, 1970

releases have there been? I ask these questions so that we may have the full picture.


George James McIlraith: I cannot give the House any more than I have already given. I accompanied it by the warning that although the figures were approximate they were as accurate as I could get them at noon today.
[Later:~\


J. Michael Forrestall: A further supplementary. I will restrict my question to the Solicitor General and ask him to give the House an indication of the total number of raids carried out by the various authorities in connection with the recent events?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what a "raid" is in this context. If the hon. member is referring to searches, I do not have that information available.



WAR MEASURES ACT-INITIATION OF DEPORTATION PROCEDURES AGAINST SOME OF THOSE ARRESTED

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Can the minister inform the House whether deportation procedures have been initiated against any of those who have been arrested in the last few days?


George James McIlraith: I have no knowledge of any deportation being ordered or anticipated in any of the cases.



WAR MEASURES ACT-SUGGESTED COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS AND PARTY LEADERS TO SUPERVISE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given to establishing a committee such as the Defence of Canada Regulations Committee which was set up in 1940 and met in secret so that the name of each and every person picked up with the evidence against them could be made available to the committee which would be sworn to secrecy? If such a committee were established composed of members of the Privy Council, other government members and party leaders, there would be no question whether justice was being done. In particular, those who are picked up and found to be innocent would not have their names bruited throughout the country.


John Napier Turner: There is something to be said for that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I prefer to answer it by saying I will refer it to the Attorney General of Quebec.



WAR MEASURES ACT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER ON NECESSITY OF REGULATIONS

Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Considering that confusion prevails, that the leaders of some groups are banding together to protest against the application of the War Measures Act by the Canadian
Inquiries of the Ministry
Parliament and that very misleading explanations are volunteered by every half-witted person in the province of Quebec, would the Prime Minister be willing to give some information and some re-assurance to the people with regard to the validity of such measures, by making use of television, radio, and newspapers, in short all the mass media at his disposal? This way he could correctly inform the public who, at the present time, is confused because of the statements made by some Quebecers and some political leaders in this chamber.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member has made good suggestions. I hope they will be heeded by the owners of information media.



KILLING OF QUEBEC LABOUR MINISTER-DELAY BY RADIO STATION IN GIVING INFORMATION TO POLICE

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: I wish to address my question to the Minister of Justice. Has the government investigated the conduct of the manager of the radio station in Montreal which on Saturday night received three or four calls reporting that Mr. Laporte had been killed and giving the location of the car in which the body could be found, who did not notify the police of any of these calls and finally sent his own employee to investigate the situation, thereby delaying police action for several hours and reducing the chances of apprehending the murderers very considerably?


John Napier Turner: That situation was drawn to the attention of the Attorney General of Quebec, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Would the government bring to the attention of all police forces that it would be wise to give the public knowledge of licence numbers and descriptions of any cars in which crimes are committed to prevent cars such as the one in which the body of Mr. Laporte was transported being driven undetected in daylight through heavily populated areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the hon.
member is making a suggestion to the min ster. He has to assume it has been noted.



ASSOCATION OF FOREIGN EMBASSIES WITH FLQ ACTIVITIES

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister inform the House whether any foreign governments are directly or indirectly implicated in the activities of the FLQ? I ask the question in view of remarks reportedly made by the minister in Toronto last Saturday night.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. As I think I informed the House, or perhaps it was on radio or television, we did inform the governments of Cuba and Algeria about the contents of the manifesto issued by the FLQ. As far as I know these governments, and they are the only two which have been mentioned, are not implicated.

October 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry FISHERIES



AGREEMENT WITH SOVIET UNION RESPECTING FISHING OFF PACIFIC COAST-CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC CONTINENTAL SHELF RESOURCES

Frank Howard: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It concerns the announcement made earlier today that Canada and the U.S.S.R. have reached a tentative or draft agreement with regard to permitting the Soviet Union fishing fleet to fish inside our territorial waters on the west coast. Will the minister move forthwith to have this draft agreement referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that it may be examined by members of this House?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Foresiry):: 1
will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. I point out to the hon. member, if he is not aware of it, that representatives of all segments of the west coast fishing industry agreed unanimously that this is a good deal for our fishermen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Howard: The minister should be aware that I have many good friends among those who were delegates and therefore I knew what was happening. I am glad that the minister has agreed to refer the agreement to the standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: I have a supplementary
question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was given the floor for that purpose.


Frank Howard: Inasmuch as a map was
attached to the press release which appears to have on it fisheries closing lines, can the minister indicate whether they have in fact been promulgated?


John (Jack) Davis: The map was for illustrative purposes to indicate the areas in which the Russians are permitted to fish and the areas in which they are not permitted to fish. As the hon. member knows, the closing lines have not been proclaimed.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the disastrous effect of foreign fishing fleets on our declining fisheries resources on the east coast, has any progress been made in discussions with ICNAF countries concerning international rules governing safe navigation, the reporting of catches, the species of fish which may be taken and in what quantities, on our continental shelf?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, progress has been made. For example, two days ago we made an announcement with regard to haddock stocks off the coast-


An hon. Member:: There are no haddock there, anyway.


John (Jack) Davis: -and the suspension of fishing by all coun tries.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Southwestern Nova):: In
light of the agreement reached between Canada and the Soviet Union, the effect of which is that Russian fleets will now have access to our ports, will the minister be introducing legislation to rescind Bill C-134 passed last March?


John (Jack) Davis: Well, the effect of that particular bill was to bring the Russians to this country to try to get back into the port of Vancouver, and the price they had to pay was to stay off our continental shelf.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Will the minister now honour the undertaking he made on Thursday last to make a full statement to the House on motions perhaps today or tomorrow, outlining the reasons behind the agreement which has now been drawn up and explaining the government's future plans on the east coast in order to accommodate east coast fishermen with respect to international fleet fishing?


John (Jack) Davis: There are two matters to be considered here. The bilateral negotiations with the Russians related to the west coast are somewhat involved and I would prefer this to be dealt with by the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. As to the other matter affecting the Atlantic coast, I think we should await further progress.



CLOSURE OF CERTAIN WATERS TO FOREIGN FISHERMEN- DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE AND UNITED STATES

Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I believe it would be appropriate to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to reply to the question I asked on October 15 concerning whether negotiations are being pressed with France and the United States which would lead to an early proclamation of our fisheries closing lines?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not believe it will be necessary to secure any international agreement of the kind suggested before proceeding to establish fisheries closing lines. This is a matter which lies within the jurisdiction of Parliament; indeed, parliament has now granted the government the right to make a proclamation. There are, of course, other considerations of a more general nature and these are under study.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni and other hon. members appear to be anxious to ask supplementary questions. We shall soon be running out of time and I think we should move on to another subject. Nevertheless I shall allow two or three more supplemen-taries, but they should be brief.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My further supplementary arises from the statement the minister has just made to the effect that this is a matter entirely within our own jurisdiction. I therefore ask him to tell us when he intends that the government shall take such action to honour the commitment given by the Minister of Fisheries last spring that these lines would be proclaimed almost immediately.

October 21, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: The Minister of Fisheries has brought this matter before cabinet, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that redfish and flounder are becoming extinct, while stocks of cod are seriously declining, has the Minister of Fisheries asked the ICNAF countries to close certain areas along the lines of the action taken to preserve haddock stocks?


John (Jack) Davis: The brief answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes. We are very concerned about fish stocks off our east coast.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister give consideration to extending the headlands on the east coast all the way out to Sable Island, bearing in mind his action on the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggested there might be two or three supplementaries. We shall extend that number to four and recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Fisheries holding any discussions with the Secretary of State for External Affairs with respect to the possibility of convening a fisheries conference led and headed by Canada and attended by representatives of the great fishing nations of the world? If so, does he have the backing of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, a person who, I understand, has been dead against any move in this direction?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Can the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advise us whether he has now reached a decision to abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada with regard to perpetual leasing in national parks?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now under consideration by the cabinet and I hope to be able to report to the House in the very near future.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, copies of the agreement between the government and companies engaged in oil exploration on Banks Island in the Northwest Territories, as requested on October 13 last by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Barnett).
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. minister leave to table the documents to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday the Department of National Health and Welfare published a report which says that the cost of hospital, medical and dental care has almost quadrupled in Canada between 1957 and 1969. Here is my question: Is the department now considering measures for the 1970-1980 decade in order to determine whether the costs will quadruple again? What does the government intend to do in that regard?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that his question is much too wide in scope. He will undoubtedly agree that normally the minister should answer his question by making a statement on motions.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGralh (S±. John's East):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What mechanism does the hon. gentleman propose to establish to provide a working relationship between the Association of Canadian Better Business Bureaux, provincial consumer agencies and his department? Will he undertake to make a statement in the House on this subject?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: That is a very broad question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to provincial agencies and departments, my officials, particularly regional officers, are instructed to meet with them from time to time for the purpose of liaison. This liaison is very close-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to have to interrupt the minister but it is my understanding or interpretation that the hon. member asked whether a statement would be made. I do not think such a statement should be made now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps I might ask a supplementary in a related field. Has the misleading advertising branch of the minister's department established guidelines-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked is in terms which cannot be accepted by the Chair from a procedural standpoint

October 21, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS
EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS BY MEMBERS PRIOR TO INTERNATIONAL MEETING IN VIENNA-Le DAIN COMMISSION FINAL REPORT


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it will be brief. I want to know whether Members of Parliament will be given an opportunity to express their opinions on the drug question before the subject is discussed in Vienna in January?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I think there will be considerable opportunity for hon. members to express their views on this question before the appropriate committee. In addition, I believe there will be opportunities for them to express their views to me in the House at various times during the next two months. I want to say that the government's attitude still allows for much flexibility prior to the meeting in January as far as the whole drug question is concerned internationally.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can advise the House, because of the peculiar position the government finds itself in now in respect of the final report of the Le Dain Commission, if he or the government is considering asking for a postponement of the meetings in Vienna?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, last January when this matter first came up we indicated that in view of the fact there was an inquiry we did not want to be too definite at this particular time. When this comes up again in January there will be several options open to the government which can be decided upon within the next couple of months. One, of course, is that of making reservations in respect of any particular program.



TRANSPORT


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which I posed earlier and now wish to bring it up to date. When will tenders be called for improvements to the ferry wharf at Caribou, the Nova Scotia terminal of the Wood Islands Service?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we have run into some difficulty because of a piece of land which has to be purchased and which is owned apparently by a very great number of people. We have had to track down the various members of the family. This has been part of the problem. As soon as this has been completed tenders will be called.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Has the minister or the government decided whether or not another ferry will be added to the service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is under consideration and I think I can say that the considerations are affirmative. I prefer not to go beyond that because I do not know what our relationship is with the two provincial governments concerned at the moment.



SUGGESTED POSTPONEMENT OF FRONTENAC AND LABELLE BY-ELECTIONS

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering the unquestionable anxiousness of the people and the social unrest in several areas of Quebec, would he consider postponing the by-elections which are to be held in the Frontenac and Labelle constituencies on November 16 next?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I must admit that I have not considered the matter, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that I have the legal power to do so, but I will examine the question put by the hon. member.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the one I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs earlier. In view of the nature of the minister's reply, has the Canadian government made representations to the governments of Algeria and Cuba, and I would take it Jordan as well in view of the reports, objecting to the training of Canadians for FLQ activities in these countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, we have made no such objections, nor have we any reason to do so as far as I know.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated, and there have been other indications in the press and elsewhere, that these men have been trained in these countries. Would the minister not make representations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

October 21, 1970


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieiie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Whereas a Montreal newspaper has reported in its yesterday's edition that Canada House in Paris has been occupied since last Sunday by something like a hundred students from Quebec, and whereas some of them have indicated that they were in agreement with the contents of the FLQ manifesto and that they intend to launch in the low-class districts a subscription campaign in favour of the FLQ prisoners, would the minister be in a position to state whether this report is true and whether the government has taken action with respect to this occupation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is significant that the students have already ended their occupancy of Maison Canadienne.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in connection with the very massive expenditure of what appears to be thousands of dollars for newspaper advertisements, television, radio and other publicity regarding medicare in New Brunswick? Is the federal government involved directly in this cost? In other words, is the government paying the cost or is the province of New Brunswick picking up the tab?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, this would depend on the nature of the advertising. As the hon. member knows, this is a cost-shared program and I would have to look at it in more detail to determine whether this is really part of the administration of medicare.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a very brief supplementary question which I think is justification for the original question. I would ask the minister whether or not the federal government approved the very direct identification of the Liberal party in such publication of the present medicare program proposals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not think that the question can be asked in those terms. If there is urgency in respect of the search for this kind of information, which is not apparent to the Chair, the hon. member might give notice of his desire to have the matter considered at the time of adjournment.


J. Michael Forrestall: Perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I might discuss this at ten o'clock.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



QUANTITY OF WEAPONS SEIZED IN RAIDS-AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION LEADING TO INVOKING OF WAR MEASURES ACT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the statement made last Friday in the House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to the effect that the FLQ has thousands of guns, rifles, machine guns, bombs and about 2,000 pounds of dynamite, and in view of the concern that this has very naturally caused in many quarters, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether since that time any quantity of these offensive weapons has been seized as a result of the raids which have been going on since the War Measures Act was proclaimed.


George James McIlraith: As far as I am
aware, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I presume the hon. member means substantial quantities.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask a supplementary of the Prime Minister. In view of the statements that have been made not only by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but by the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Labour regarding intelligence information which the government had and on which it based its contention that there was a state of apprehended insurrection, may I ask him whether it is the intention of the government, or if the government would be willing, to make the contents of that report available to hon. members or, if there is some reason for keeping it confidential for the time being, would he be prepared to make that information available to the various political parties in the House on a confidential basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will consider that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. I might remind the hon. member, however, that insurrection can be a technique which is used without all that quantity of dynamite. Perhaps I could refer the hon. member to some reading material on the theory of insurrection which might be of assistance to him.



AIR TRANSPORT


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. I ask him whether the Athabasca Airways pilot, Mr. Hamilton, who has been missing since September 30-


An hon. Member:: We can't hear you.


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon?


An hon. Member:: Speak into your microphone.


John George Diefenbaker: My microphone has not been working for the last half hour. I will speak up. The RCAF has

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. Kaplan
conducted a search unsuccessfully. The helicopter has not been found despite search in the Northwest Territories within an area which is generally known and designated. In view of the imminence of the approach of winter at any time, which would make any further search impossible, will the minister give consideration to providing a couple of aircraft from his department to assist and co-operate with the RCAF in making an immediate search? The helicopter having not been found is an indication of the probability that this man is still alive.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jacques-L. Trudel, for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was dealing with the proposal contained in the Speech from the Throne to create a minister of state for urban affairs and housing. I had suggested there was a great challenge to him to go beyond the hardware programs which have characterized the past activities of the federal government. As important as hardware is, and without a reduction in our commitment to housing, transportation and the quality of life, I think this government should commit itself to making Canada an urban nation and to giving all Canadians the opportunity to be urban people whether or not they live in the cities.
I speak of urban in the sense of being plugged into and aware of the broad range of opportunities which are available in the cities: opportunities to communicate, to learn and to grow up as people; opportunities to make choices of life styles and of association; the opportunity to have access to the greatest variety of experiences, goods and services, leisure activities and entertainment activities.
In our past concentration on putting new hardware in and around our cities we have ignored, or virtually ignored, the opportunities that have existed within the housing stock we have, within the given hardware, to enrich urban life by policies which encourage Canadians to define their interests, to recognize their power over events and to reach out more to each other. We would greatly benefit from such a focus. We have done our cities a disservice in ignoring the opportunities which have been there all along to make life richer. We have looked only at the problems rather than at the opportunities. For past governments, which have been oriented to move without policies from crisis to crisis, this attention
only to problems is understandable. For a government which proposes to plan for the future and to enrich Canadian urban life, concentration on opportunities is vital.
Without meaning to be cynical, I would observe that there always have been and always will be problems in human society. But if a government never looks above them to the opportunities, these opportunities will disappear-because opportunities depend upon the good will of people, and human morale is a precious commodity which will weaken and disappear if it is frustrated for too long. We are in great danger today of having our morale as city dwellers disappear. If it does disappear, urban life will degenerate in Canada-as it has in some American cities-into a cluster of walled enclaves, each looking inward, sharing space but not communicating, interdependent but related symbiotically rather than through shared values and human contact.
There should be a software side to urban affairs in the new ministry. It should involve programs which bring people into contact with each other, which give meaningful access to the institutions which exist in society to serve them, to help them understand their environment and assert control over it. To live as an urban man should be to have basic information about the environment and the society, to be able to communicate and be involved, to be able to choose from a wide variety of life styles, of neighbourhoods, of human associations.
What I hope the government will do, through its assumption of responsibility for urban affairs, is seek methods of developing this kind of social integration. Let the federal role in our cities be information, research, provision of media for communication, the stimulation of volunteer associations with advice, expert services, the lending of facilities and even seed money, whether the association's goal is to bring a neighbourhood to life by providing information referral or whether the goal is cultural, social or even political. The great task of the government in establishing a ministry of state for urban affairs and housing is nothing less than than taking the opportunity to bring Canadians together by social comforts and stimulation.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin, as is traditional and proper, by extending my congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I listened to their remarks with interest and appreciation. I noticed that before he was too far along in his address, the seconder referred to the establishment of a distillery at Weyburn, Saskatchewan. I am tempted to say, after reading the hollow homilies of the Speech from the Throne, that if it would not lead people to drink it would lead them to think of drink. I shall resist that temptation and say I enjoyed his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, since I last participated in this exercise, which I think is a very important one in a representative Parliament-namely, a general debate-we have suffered a loss, which is particularly significant to me, in the death of my seatmate George Muir, a long-time friend
[Mr. Diefenbaker.)
October 21, 1970

whom I knew long before either of us came to this House, a man of whom I could say simply that he was a gentleman and a gentle man. I miss him dearly. I am happy that in his place we have a new member of our party, the distinguished hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan).
There are so many things about which one could speak-matters concerning one's home province, one's country or the world itself. It is difficult even in this Throne Speech debate, when our minds should be on the generality of the questions and issues which we face to pre-empt from our thoughts the great crisis which faces our country today. Certainly we are passing through difficult times. I believe it is clear to all of us that we Canadians will never be quite the same again. Out of the great travail, sorrow and anxiety through which Canadians are passing we will, I hope, discard some of the smugness and security which perhaps for too long we have glibly assumed and sometimes even, I fear, eloquently proclaimed.
Too often as we looked about the world and saw people facing immense and trying difficulties we, I think, allowed ourselves to believe that in this very blessed land such things did not happen and that in some fortunate way we were not as other men are. I note the following in the Throne Speech which was delivered just a short time before the tragic events in Montreal:
Notwithstanding its difficulties, Canada continues to enjoy social stability to an exceptional degree.
This stability is not simply a matter of luck. Good fortune is a factor, but we should accept gracefully the fact that we are also more amenable to reason and, perhaps, more capable of wise decision than we are normally willing to admit. The burden of our European inheritance and our fascination with our American neighbour tend often to distract us and cause us to be unaware of that reasonableness and that wisdom. We forget to our own disadvantage, for these are traits that have made Canada a land of freedom. Canadians should pause on occasions such as this to reflect that their country is regarded by others with envy.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
That self-satisfaction in the Speech from the Throne was not merely a reflection of the authors. I think we Canadians too often felt just that way. I hope that one thing this crisis will teach us, if I may use that old-fashioned and didactic expression, is to foresake the attitude which we have too often displayed when we look at the people to our south in the United States and too often reveal for them a lack of compassion and a superabundance of condescension.
We have been going through a recent, fevered upsurge in anti-Americanism and have been too little aware that the great problems which face the people of that country-social, political and economic-are in many cases, and indeed most cases, the very same types of problems which face us and most decent, free people in these tense and trying times. Perhaps we might henceforth, at least for a while, look southward with a little less condescension and less assumption that somehow we have a superior mystique and that the ills of their society are something which out of their peculiar character they have brought upon themselves and from which we are
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie
somehow happily immune. I have often found that what is supposed to pass for exceptional, super-Canadianism is sometimes anti-Americanism of the smallest and meanest kind. I think there is no place for that attitude in a mature country which Canada should be.
There are many developments in the world on which one might like to speak. After many months of waiting we have come to a new stage in our relationship with the People's Republic of China. I noticed at the United Nations the other day that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) dilated upon the importance of this new relationship. The following is a quotation from his statement at a news conference:
I do not think there has been any other action taken this year as important as Canada's agreement to establish good relations with Peking. I can think of no initiative that is more likely to advance this matter in the United Nations than what we did yesterday.
This is a question that causes me to wonder.


Mr. Ryan:: It causes everyone to wonder.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not take a hard line. I think we have to recognize a de facto situation and we have to avoid the point of view which often prevailed in U.S. diplomacy, that the juridical and diplomatic act of recognition is also an indication of moral approval. If we adopted that attitude, the row of our embassies would be somewhat narrower, in the view of many Canadians. But two questions about this development concern me. I think the Canadian people should not expect too much to flow from this. We should not believe that all the tensions, the great power struggle and all the anxieties will somehow be vitiated and disappear because Canada and Peking have a new relationship. I recall watching what happened when Westminster and Peking established contact, and what happened when Paris and Peking established diplomatic contact. I am not saying I think this recent move was wrong, but I think it is a mistake to inflate the expectations of the Canadian people as to what will happen as a result of this action.
The other aspect which troubles me is that I do not think it is a humane diplomacy, if I may use that expression, to cast Taiwan into utter darkness diplomatically. I wonder if we could not have been as logical in the one case where you say that Mao of course is the de facto sovereign of the People's Republic of China-to use the old political science terminology-and at the same time and with equal logic to recognize the de facto sovereignty of the Nationalist Chinese in Taiwan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Why could not some effort have been made-perhaps it was made, but we have never heard of it-to try to find some way whereby the Taiwan administration is not totally cast off into limbo with no diplomatic association with friendly states? Surely there is nothing to be gained by taking those actions which isolate that country, and I think that it would behoove the Canadian government to give consideration, despite the

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie credo of Mao and of Chiang Kai-shek about one China, to finding some way whereby Taiwan could retain some association with countries of the world.
That is my comment on the situation. If I am wrong, then I shall be glad, but I do not expect those tremendous changes in the diplomatic patterns of world politics which are sometimes postulated and prophesied by those who after many years have brought forward this act of recognition. I repeat that if I am wrong on this, I shall be delighted, because if it makes for an improvement of the world situation I will not mind at all that Macquarrie was wrong and that things in fact are better. Time alone will tell.
I am very much troubled, and I do not see how anyone in Canada could be otherwise than troubled, about the escalation of troubles, anxiety and bloodshed in the Middle East. I was appalled when I looked at the multicoloured white paper, if I may call it that, on foreign policy which came out in the last session and found how little emphasis, how little attention, and indeed how little script was given to our relations with the Middle East and to our concern for what is taking place there.
Today we are agonizing over acts of terrorism in our country-and, God knows, we should and must. But it is only a short time ago that the world was focusing its attention upon terrorist activity in the Middle East. However, it should not require some spectacular form of terrorism, hijacking or civil war to cause us to turn our attention in that direction. The Middle East is, and seemingly has been down through the long reaches of history, one of the most intense crisis-ridden areas of the world.
These tensions which come from history, from geography, from religion, from strategy and from much else, have made it a danger spot of explosive potential and the possibilities of a major conflagration are there every day. I agree with President Nixon who said some weeks ago that the dangers in the Middle East, in so far as the great powers are concerned, are much more acute and more portentious than in reference to Viet Nam or, I should say more properly now, Indochina.
In these days of instant communication and modern warfare we cannot assume that this is some remote area where Canada does not have direct and close contacts and precise and important responsibilities. Whoever wrote the white paper might have thought that, but he should not have thought that and Canadians should not think that. Canadians dare not think that, because what happens in the Middle East is going to be of major importance to us, whether or not we in our diplomatic structure regard it as an area of priority. There will be no escape for us if trouble comes in that area; and if we have given it a low priority, we had better think again.
The other day I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government was considering further aid to Jordan, where there has been terrible destruction and loss of life. The minister's reply was, if I may say so, a magnificent example of pharasaic self-satisfaction. He said:
I believe it is considered that Canada has made a very generous contribution.
What was the contribution? It was $25,000 to the Red Cross and an additional $150,000 to the UNWRA program, in the aftermath of a war which was terrible in its intensity and awful in the suffering which it inflicted upon so many people. Of course, I commend the government for doing that much-naturally I would-but in the immensity of the suffering, surely such self-satisfaction was a little out of place. I humbly commend a little modesty to the minister and to the government as to their contribution in this matter.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
We must do a lot more. Even in times of our own domestic travail, sir, we must do more. We must assist with a greater measure than we have so far. Canadians have been involved with truce operations and in peacekeeping forces. Our men have done a splendid job. The name of General Burns is highly regarded in that area. But it strikes me that since the end of the six-day war, the Canadian role in the Middle East has been diminishing. In fact, one of the things that trouble me is that there are so many areas in the world where Canada's role has been diminishing.
For years we have paid our portion to the United Nations Works and Rehabilitation Agency, UNWRA. We have done more than many other countries. This is true, we can say with candour. But I feel that for too long we have made our annual contribution by way of taking part in the debates and listening to the Commissioner General's report. I have sat in the United Nations General Assembly and heard these debates. We have then seemed to let the matter rest. But the population in the refugee camps has mounted over the years. There are now 1J million people living in tents, hovels and shacks throughout the Middle East. Some of them were born there and have known nothing but the squalor of that situation. After 20 years there is an increase in the population of displaced persons, and an annual contribution just to keep them existing is surely not enough. How could we expect that people uprooted from their homes and shut up in camps under these privations would not erupt into something a little more disturbing than satisfaction and complacency? What kind of human beings would they be if they did not manifest a different reaction from that?
A few months ago I was in the Middle East to attend a meeting of parliamentarians to discuss the Middle East situation. I remember very vividly the spokesman for the Palestinians, a most eloquent man. The fact that he is the son of a Presbyterian minister did him no harm in my judgment. Dr. Yehid Hammoudd began his remarks by saying, "There is no Middle East problem; there is only a Palestine problem." That was months ago. This is one of the things we are realizing slowly, and in some cases painfully-that at centre stage must be the Palestinian people.
For far too long we have talked about governments as a group of strategically located political entities and we have forgotten that wars are not about, and this problem is not about, a collection of governments. This problem is

October 21, 1970

not merely about some spots on a map, but about people with a deep sense of grievance, people with intense longings, people with aspirations and people who have reason to believe that the world community has not regarded them very highly or with much compassion and concern. With that whole complex of human suffering, it is not surprising that some of the reaction is of a violent kind; and, of course, as always with violence and terrorism, it is counterproductive.
In the world outside the middle East there is some forward movement in popular opinion toward the belief that a free Palestine must be set up. But as these moves and gains in public opinion are registered, then comes an outrage, a hijacking, and it often hurts their case far more than the progress of moderation gains for it. This, of course, is what extremists never learn whether they are in the Middle East, the Far East or anywhere else. But I hope it is not too late for us to look with a little more knowledge and a little more compassion at the Palestinian problem. We must not think that all Palestinian leaders are violent men.
I would think that Canada, as a country which has always been involved in UNWRA, which voted for the establishment of the state of Israel-and I believe the right of Israel to exist stands today as it did when we voted that way-must not satisfy itself with the old methods. As Canadians we cannot allow this dangerous situation to remain in the Middle East, lest it bring forth the conflagration that would overwhelm us all. We have there the dabbling of great powers. We have there animosities, ages old. We have there the potential for a terrible explosion. It is not for us to draw about us the skirts of legality and say that it is someone else's problem. It is not someone else's problem. It is our problem and I would like to see Canada assume leadership. Let us move in on the refugee problem and say this cannot go on year after year, that we must take dramatic, perhaps difficult steps to try and liquidate at least some of the awful human suffering which pervades so much of that group of people who once were residents of Palestine. The way out will not be easy, but the way out surely must be found.
We in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, as representatives of our provinces and constituencies try to find opportunities to bring to the attention of the House some of the important problems facing our people and bring forward suggestions to better the areas which we have the honour to represent. Indeed, we try to do this throughout the whole session. I expect to be pressing the government on a number of matters because I submit, sir, that it has not yet completed all those things in Prince Edward Island which I think should be done. And if it ever reaches that stage, I will devote my energies to thinking up some more things to be done!
We are always talking about transportation. The first Prince Edward Islanders who came up here talked about transportation. We do it yet. It is almost a conditioned reflex. I do not say that the most important problem in P.E.I. is the condition of the Charlottetown airport, but I say it is at the very top so far as urgency is concerned. We have one of the finest commercial air services in any
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie
part of this country. One can in comfort fly from Montreal to Charlottetown in about an hour and a quarter on a splendid service provided by Eastern Provincial Airways. On the way back it takes about the same amount of time and we are served with a delicious P.E.I. lunch, P.E.I. potatoes and all the rest of it, which makes it even better. After all our pleading, Mr. Speaker, the minister did have his department arrange for an extended terminal. It is a splendid one so far as it goes, but in terms of seating capacity it only goes about half way down the cabin of the aircraft, and that has nothing to do with seating space for the good people in the waiting-room greeting their loved ones on arrival or saying goodbye to them. In other words, putting it very simply it is significantly too small.
Prince Edward Island depends very much upon tourism for the growth of its economy. Agriculture we can improve; fisheries we can improve-but the one which I think is most capable of expansion is tourism. More and more people are coming to P.E.I. I can never completely despair of Canadians and Americans when so many of them choose to come to P.E.I. We love to have them, but we want them to come in comfort. I think it is the responsibility of the government, having failed to give us the causeway, at least to give us a good airport terminal. I have great regard for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and I will send him a copy of my speech tomorrow, with a covering letter telling him once again that I am appealing to him, honourable and learned doctor of laws and of much else, to look upon our needs in Charlottetown with immediate favourable reaction.
I have something to say to another minister. This is to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). He was largely responsible for the establishment in Charlottetown last year of what was called a youth hostel for young people.
I tried to assist during the summer by wiring him when I saw him getting into trouble, but I was not able to forestall some of his difficulties. I presume that the tradition across the country, when establishing a youth hostel, is to take semi-abandoned military barracks and turn them over to transient youth. This is quite all right in view of the fact that so many of our young people are unemployed, which I think is a crime. There is nothing wrong with their moving across the country. I know a great many of them. I live in Prince Edward Island between Borden and Charlottetown and have picked up all sorts of young people moving in and out of the city, and the great majority of them are fine young Canadians.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Nevertheless the Secretary of State made a complete botch of establishing a hostel without consulting the authorities in the city of Charlottetown or the province of Prince Edward Island. When it came to choosing those who were going to run the hostel, instead of going to any of the many fine youth leaders in the city of Charlottetown he imported some whose attainments in leadership left a good deal to be desired.
It is tremendously important in this day of the generation gap, when some people think that a man with long hair is suspect, that when the government establishes a

October 21, 197Q
The Address-Mr. Greene
venture of this kind it ensures that it does not contribute to any further misunderstanding between the young and the old; that it does not contribute to the building-up of a bad reputation for what is essentially a very fine group of young people. I do not care how a man wears his hair, whether as long as Einstein, as short as Jack Benny, or as in my own case where 75 per cent of the question is academic. But when a youth hostel is established it should be well run. It should be run by people whose reputation is reasonably impeccable.
This reminds me of the old Scottish Presbyterian who told his preacher that humanly speaking, he was perfect. None of us is that. However, it would be wise to avoid those who have had recurrent problems with the taking and trafficking of drugs, and so on. Indeed, I think we should err on the side of caution. It would not hurt occasionally to appoint an out-and-out "square". I think these youth programs could do some good. It is a terrible thing in any community to create the kind of situation where it is easier for people who are hostile to youth to continue to express themselves in such a way as to say "I told you so". The Company of Young Canadians let down a great many of us who believed it was worthy of support. I do not want the same thing to happen with the youth hostel program.
I hope that next year, if the program is implemented, we will not have a recurrence of what took place last year. I hope the Secretary of State will pay heed to some of us who are very concerned about these matters and are very anxious to see that all young people in Canada are given opportunities. I have been in youth work for many years. I hope the minister will avoid some of the pitfalls into which he fell with great rapidity last year.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. First of all, I should like to make a comment on the speech yesterday of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) in respect of the question of pollution. In his speech he alluded to the fact that in his opinion long-term, low-interest loans would be the way to most effective abatement of water pollution.
I would point out that this idea is completely contrary to the tenor of the Canada Water Act which the government has indicated is one of its major weapons in the fight against water pollution. The philosophy behind that act is one of "the polluter must pay"; that the cost of cleaning up water must be an integral part of the cost of production. Just as with municipal taxes or labour costs, so must the cost of cleaning up water to be used in production be a cost of that production. Only thus will we have the economic motivation whereby in each area of our manufacturing industry we will achieve the optimum results with respect to water usage.
If, on the other hand, we say that we will have the government look after polluters by extending to them long-term loans or otherwise, this of course is a disincentive to a polluter to clean up his own house. The polluter who knew that somewhere downstream the non-polluters,

the taxpayers of Canada, would in some wise have to pay for the cleaning up of his pollution would be very foolish indeed to build in anti-pollution measures as a cost of his production and so pay for them himself.
Therefore, may I point out that the two philosophies are opposite and opposing and in our view the principle of the Canada Water Act is superior. I would refer my hon. friend to the evidence given by Professor Juby to the House of Commons committee on this score. I think he put the case for "the polluter must pay" proposition, that the cost of cleaning up pollution should be an integral part of the cost of production, far better than I could hope to put it today in the short time at my disposal.
I want this afternoon chiefly to speak to the dual questions of nationalism and natural gas which in speeches from the opposite side of the House were referred to by more than one member including, I believe, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). The two do, in fact, in some way go hand in glove and I think can be effectively dealt with together. First of all, on the question of nationalism itself, if I may be permitted to mix a metaphor I would say that nationalism is, in any age and in any country, at once a tender flower and an unruly horse which must on the one hand be carefully nurtured and on the other hand be ridden with care; because if it runs away, then indeed the problems of a surfeit nationalism can be greater than those of not having a strong nationalism in a country.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I think we have seen of recent days actions by the FLQ, in the name of nationalism, to which none of us would subscribe. I think over the years probably more harm has been done and more wars have been waged in the name of nationalism than any other cause. I believe a great deal of harm can be done by irresponsible nationalism, by nationalism which seeks to incite popular acclaim in the short term, which seeks to gain short-term political advantage, over the long-term best interests of positive nationalism. Nationalism in a positive sense is indeed one of the most wholesome attributes of any country. It enables the people of any land to work together toward common objectives, to enhance the lot and the opportunity of the entire people of a country. It points out the road and the direction in which a nation must move and can ennoble the very purposes of nationhood.
I have said, and I say again this afternoon, that I think there is in Canada today a very real influence toward a positive Canadian nationalism, a very real nationalism, a nationalism which is not against anyone, but which is determined to build in Canada a unique Canadian society; not a pale imitation of any other society, not merely a second-hand view of some other land or of society in some other land but something that is peculiarly and essentially Canadian. This philosophy is particularly evident among our young people. All of us should indeed welcome it because in this direction of thinking there is the source of the very unity which Canada has sought so long.
October 21, 1970

The question before all of us in deciding the major issues that come before this House, which are particularly the responsibility from time to time of the government, is whether in any specific decision that is taken we are steering a course toward that kind of positive Canadian nationalism wherein will lie the best interests of the country, or whether we are acting in a negative nationalistic sense, for the purpose of short-term gain political or otherwise rather than in the interest of that positive Canadian nationalism.
Mr. Speaker, we should view the decision of the National Energy Board to export 6.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, that decision having been approved by the cabinet, in light of the basic question of whether this was a positive decision which would be conducive to Canadian nationalism in its best sense, or whether it was a negative decision in favour of the country of import and against the Canadian national interest.

Mr. Speaker, if we as a nation want to reach the objectives we have set ourselves, we must build on a sound economy. It would be a gross error to yield to emotions and to take unjustified decisions, from the economic point of view.
It would badly serve the cause of Canadian nationalism and engage it more surely on the way to frustration and failure.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, essential to that positive Canadian nationalism and to our ability to build a strong and unique Canadian house is that we have the strength, the will and the ability to tend well our own garden and to build a strong economy by adopting such sensible policies as will serve the Canadian interest, present and future, so that our young people may have continually widening economic opportunity, as well as opportunities in other areas of human endeavour. I do not think that Canadians have made a national decision to return to Walden with Thoreau. I think they want here growing and expanding economic opportunity. No single factor would contribute more to the dissolution of the Canadian state and enable others to take over our economy, if they so desired, than not running our own ship well and not managing our own economy well. I should like to approach the decision in respect of natural gas on that basis.
I should like for a moment to turn my attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). He has made a valiant attempt to satisfy the two irreconcilable appetites which exist within his party. On the one hand he tells us that we ought not to use our energy resources to "feed the voracious appetite of American industry," further, that our move has placed Canada completely at the mercy of giant oil corporations of the United States and that we have moved one more step in making Canada an economic dependency and military satellite and a cultural colony of the United States. Those are fighting words indeed. But I wonder if they are words spoken in that positive,
The Address-Mr. Greene
Canadian national sense, or are they of that very negative kind of nationalism which is meant to arouse hatred or animosity toward some other people or nation, instead of enhancing our own positive, real and unique Canadian nationalism?
Whatever else those words did or did not contribute, we know one thing that they did-they satisfied, possibly, the Waffle group. But the hon. member's task is not that simple, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand there is an older and wiser element within his party whose appetite is for power and for office. They realize that this Waffle nonsense will keep them sitting where they are today, in even smaller numbers than at present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: To placate the office-hungry people of his party he said later in his speech, "We do not object to selling to the United States any of our surplus energy resources provided Canadian long-term needs are taken into account"-which the Energy Board has done-"and provided we gain access to the United States for Canadian semi-processed and finished products" which, as I mentioned, is happening to an increasing extent almost every year of our history. Both quotations, Mr. Speaker, were taken from the speech made by the hon. member in the debate. I trust that the contradiction has satisfied both halves of the two-headed party which he now leads.


Mr. Skoberg:: The minister belongs to a no-headed party.


John James Greene: It must be said, Mr. Speaker, that the duality of the Leader of the New Democratic Party makes him a formidable opponent and a formidable adversary. One never knows whether the swing will come from the left or the right, whether the hon. member is talking at any given moment from the Waffle side of his mouth or the office-seeking side of his mouth.
The decision of the Energy Board, as approved by the government, to permit the export of surplus Canadian natural gas was made in the Canadian interest. That is the one aspect of the decision to which we must address ourselves. I feel sure that our customers for this product in the United States of America are well able to take care of themselves. They will determine whether the sale is in their interest. We for our part should determine only one question: Was it in Canada's interest? I intend to devote my efforts to answering that question in the affirmative. Mr. Speaker, I contend that the decision of the board, confirmed by the government, is the only decision that could be made consistent with good, economic sense.
The total value of the new pipeline facilities to be constructed in Canada under these and associated authorizations issued with respect to the applications is approximately $200 million. The Canadian content of the facilities will be approximately 80 per cent and some 13,000 man-years of work will result in Canada. Of this total, about 30 per cent of the employment effect will occur in

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. Greene
the Prairie provinces, about 45 per cent in British Columbia and the balance of 25 per cent east of Manitoba. The amount of gas authorized to be exported over the 15 to 20-year period of the licences is 6.3 trillion cubic feet, compared with 8.9 trillion cubic feet sought by the applicants. The export revenue to Canada from the gas to be exported over the period of the licences is approximately $2 billion.
I point out that the term of the sales was shortened by the board in its decision-some to 15 years and some to 20 years from the 25 years which was the general period of the applications. It is interesting to note that throughout the course of our history in exporting surplus energy resources we have greatly diminished the term of the export, to the greater protection of the downstream Canadian consumer. We originally exported in 1910 or 1911 hydroelectric energy for periods of up to 85 years. We now find that a shorter period will give greater protection to future Canadians. The period in question is the shortest to be found in the history of such decisions.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, has energy resources in very great abundance. It is estimated, on the basis of geological factors, that Canada's reserves of natural gas could amount to 725 trillion cubic feet. We should judge this decision for the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet within those parameters. Our proved oil reserves exceed 10 billion barrels, and potential conventional reserves have been estimated at 120 billion barrels, of which 25 billion barrels may be on our eastern continental shelf. In addition, the oil sands of Alberta have reserves estimated at 300 billion barrels. We have 28 per cent of the world's proved reserves of uranium, which a rapidly advanced technology will one day make a principal source of energy in Canada. Furthermore, we have very large reserves of good grade coal in western Canada.

Mr. Speaker, a resource policy and more particularly an energy policy is a question of priorities. These priorities may change in time, but our statutes and our present policy clearly reflect certain basic national objectives.
First, we promote the development of our abundant natural wealth. Second, we try to make available to consumers a variety of cheap energy sources. Third, we advocate the marketing of our surplus of energy to foreign countries, thus improving our balance of trade and our opportunities to carry on and even to accelerate our exploration programs. Fourth, we are anxious also to protect our national security both as regards both the availability of resources and the capacity to develop and use them.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)

It has long been the policy of Canada that all resources clearly established to be surplus to Canadian needs are to be developed and sold with broadening economic benefit to Canada. Almost a decade ago the decision was made by Parliament, not the government, that the decision as to what was surplus to Canadian needs ought to be made on the basis of scientific determination and not left to the whimsy of the political marketplace, as the leader of the New Democratic Party apparently would have it.

In pursuit of this policy the National Energy Board was established and charged with the responsibility of determining what of our resources were to be considered disposable surplus. The board has developed an establishment of some 170 people, including scientists, engineers, accountants and economists. It has access to all the government's geological and other scientific determinations and is privy to confidential records of the industry not generally available to the public.
The board was aware in 1969 that new circumstances were developing in the natural gas industry and felt that the forthcoming major public hearing on gas exports would provide an excellent opportunity for the board to reconsider the criteria and practices by which it had in the past dealt with applications for gas export licences. It therefore asked applicants and interested parties to advise the board of their views as to whether the board should alter its criteria and, if so, what new criteria should be used.
The parties interested in these matters responded generously with thoughtful, constructive and cogent advice to the board on the criteria which the board used to determine Canadian requirements for natural gas, the measurement of supplies against which surplus is determined and pricing arrangements in the export markets. Thus, the board had the benefit of knowledgeable advice from all provinces from Quebec west to British Columbia and from all sectors of the natural gas industry, the producers, the transmission companies, the distributors and the consumers.
The board deliberated over a considerable period. Applications were first received in May of 1969 and the board considered until August, 1970, when its decision was rendered. The public hearing on these applications was held in Ottawa, commencing November 25, 1969, and ending March 20, 1970, occupying 54 days and resulting in over 6,000 pages of transcript. Some 150 exhibits were filed and representations were heard from more than 40 parties. The results of the Energy Board's deliberations on these matters are contained in the board's report to the Governor in Council dated August, 1970, which many hon. members no doubt have seen. I commend it as excellent reading to anyone who genuinely wishes to obtain an understanding of the economics of our natural gas resources and wishes to contribute in a positive sense, rather than in the realm of political profit, to Canada's natural gas policy. On the basis of this expertise and information, the National Energy Board determined that the 6.3 trillion cubic feet was surplus to Canadian needs and was available for export.
Mr. Speaker, it may be that there exists somewhere an equally competent group of scientists who are prepared to challenge the findings of the National Energy Board in this regard. If so, the government would welcome their advice. What we are interested in is facts and figures, not ill-informed conclusions based upon inadequate investigation and incomplete facts and manipulated so as to fan the passions of narrow or demagogic chauvinism. The temerity of the leader of the NDP is somewhat striking when he says the National Energy Board is wrong. He
October 21, 1970

states this quite categorically. He cites no scientific authority. Only the wisdom in his all-knowing head, for that conclusion!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: The National Energy Board has a proud and proven record of ten years' service in the national interest, which convinces the government that it is entitled to continue placing the utmost confidence in its decisions and advice. The board has consistently maintained that increased sales would result in increased proven reserves because of increased exploration and development. The facts have proven the board to be right. At the beginning of 1960 our proven reserves were 30.3 trillion cubic feet. At the end of 1969, after exporting in the previous decade approximately 4 trillion cubic feet with a value to Canada of over $1 billion, our proven reserves amounted to 57.4 trillion feet.
I repeat, after selling gas which produced $1 billion in foreign exchange and creating the basis of exploration leading to new jobs not only in western Canada but eastern Canada as well, our proven resources have almost doubled. In light of these statistics it is difficult to put any credence in the alarm expressed by those who would play politics with our precious energy resources, rather than leaving the decision regarding surplus, in the hands of those scientifically trained, and proven able to make these judgments on behalf of the people of Canada.
It has been suggested that the National Energy Board has failed to take into account the increased demands upon natural gas because of anti-pollution measures, which will make it a more desirable fuel than oil and coal. He who so alleges obviously has not even taken the trouble to read the reasons for judgment of the board. A reading of the National Energy Board report will indicate that this increased demand has been taken into account. In the reckoning of required supplies, allowance has been made for the conversion by Ontario Hydro of the Hearn plant and two other plants to natural gas use. Allowance has also been made for the use of gas in British Columbia power plants. The board is also accurate in pointing out that natural gas is not the pollutant-free fuel, as some have suggested, and that the heightened demand for this purpose has to be limited by that consideration. It does not contain sulphur but it does contain nitrogen, and the polluting factors of nitrogen have not yet been fully researched or reported upon.

It was said, Mr. Speaker, that authorized explorations are exhausting too many of our known reserves. It indicates that one of the basic principles on the economy of resources is misunderstood. It is only by expanding our markets and boosting our sales that we can hope for an increase in our known resources, since it is also the only way to stimulate research and development of existing power sources.

It was alleged that this export will result in higher prices to Canadian consumers. Energy prices both in the
The Address-Mr. Greene
United States and Canada may well be increased in future years. I would not pretend to mislead or disillusion the House or the Canadian consumer in any way on this question. One cannot expect increasing costs in other areas of our economy, increasing wages in the industries which serve the energy industry, and static prices for energy. Again, the best protection for Canadian consumers, in the view of the National Energy Board and concurred in by the government, is to increase the supply. This can only be achieved by increasing markets. Surely that is a fundamental rule of economics. It is a restricted supply which puts unwarranted pressure on prices.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
If we fail to build up our reserves by stimulating exploration through sales, I can guarantee that there will be a very sizeable increase in consumer prices. This is what the United States is experiencing today. Might I point out with respect to prices that the sale of surplus natural gas will enhance the competitive position of Canadian consumers of natural gas whose requirements are fully protected through lower prices attributable to economies of scale, and through benefits flowing from the export revenues of natural gas transmission companies in Canada.
In the case of the licences issued to two of the applicants, the board has added the stipulation that the export price must at no time be less than 105 per cent of the comparable price to Canadian distributors. The National Energy Board controls the rates of the transmission companies under its jurisdiction and the provincial public utilities boards control earnings of the distributing companies within their jurisdiction. The more revenue derived from exports, the lower the consumer price allowable in the Canadian market.
It has been further said that the government did not take advantage of the American need for our natural gas to extract concessions from the Americans for the export of our oil. To those who feel that such a tactic is a sound manner of increasing our trade and improving our trade relations, let me point out that the amount of new gas now to be exported to the United States will amount to approximately 1 per cent of their national demands. Surely it would be naive to believe that this is a sufficient club with which to coerce the government of the United States into altering its strategic oil policy, a policy which in the view of many has been a fundamental factor in its foreign policy as well as of its domestic oil policy for a period of half a century or more.
The reluctance of the United States to grant us open access to their oil market is motivated to a considerable degree by the concern of that country for security of supply. The security of the supply of Canadian oil is one of the factors which concerns them in considering their decision as to whether or not to rely in greater degree on Canadian oil. We are hopeful that such apprehensions can be allayed. What is known and appreciated by United States officials, and this was clearly indicated in the government's announcement as reported in the New York Times of Wednesday, September 20-

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. Greene


An hon. Member:: Lights out!


John James Greene: I had not realized that my speech was having such an effect on the house and its lighting. That report stated:
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, J. J. Greene, has made it plain that if the United States expects much more natural gas from Canada it must let much more Canadian crude oil into the United States.
I can assure hon. members that this simple economic fact is clearly understood by United States officials and by the United States negotiators in respect of oil.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I might say to the minister that perhaps the flickering of the lights indicated that his time has expired. His time has expired and he may continue only with unanimous consent. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to be easier on the lights and easier on hon. members.
The simple economic fact is that unless greater access to American oil markets is granted, future exports of natural gas are unlikely to be allowed, not because of any desire on the part of the Canadian government to intimidate but simply because the proven Canadian reserves which determine our exportable surplus will only be increased if there is further exploration and development of oil resources to which natural gas is complementary, and this in turn can only follow from increased markets for Canadian oil.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the critical observation that Canada is both an exporter and an importer of oil. My department, the National Energy Board, and certainly the oil and gas industry, have had under consideration for some time the economic feasibility of the construction of a pipeline to bring western oil into eastern Canada. Until the exploration programs currently under way offshore in eastern Canada and in the far north are completed and the results determined, it would in our view be foolhardy to undertake the construction of an oil pipeline which could only be undertaken with some form of government support and which might prove to be totally unnecessary. If these exploration programs should prove to be unsuccessful, then Canada, in the interest of her own security of supply, may have to give serious reconsideration to the proposal of a pipeline.
There is an urgent need at all times to be responsible and reliable in our dealings with our trading partners in matters of energy trade, as well as in other aspects of our trade. Canada is one of the world's great trading nations. Our future depends on expanding trade and enlarging our marketplaces. There are only two great marketplaces available to us in the free world-the United States and the European Economic Community. Each of these must be developed by us. At the moment the United States is suffering from an energy shortage. Everyone is aware of this. However, I and anyone else who is close to the
situation will tell you that this shortage is likely to be only of a short-term nature. I quote from an editorial which appeared in the New York Times of October 2 this year:
There is no shortage of coal, oil and gas as such. The nation's reserves of all three are still enormous. Foreign sources are also available. But several special circumstances have developed at the same time to cause disruptions in the normal marketing of these fossil fuels.
By conducting our trade relations as responsible and reliable merchants, we will in the future, as in the past, achieve further development of our trading relationship with the United States as Canadian interests dictate. Would it, then, be prudent, even if such a ploy could be successful, to take advantage of the current fuel shortage in the United States to gain an immediate benefit? Would this help our trading position in energy and otherwise with our largest trading partner in energy and other commodities? Would this be a proud act of Canadian nationalism? Or would it be in our interest to act as does an honest merchant in dealing with a proved and reliable customer?
Canada has not been irresponsible in its natural gas dealings with the United States in the last ten years. We have delivered according to contract and these contracts have not been interfered with for political gain or as a squeeze in other trading areas. We have scientifically determined, by the best methods available, whether there was a surplus to Canadian need, contracted for sale of that surplus and delivered according to contract.
Indeed the United States is anxious to obtain additional supplies of natural gas from Canada. The National Energy Board's position, endorsed by the government, is that additional supplies of natural gas, by the natural economic link of oil and gas in the business of exploring for hydrocarbons, will only be found if there is a market available for oil. In the exploration for oil engendered by such a market, more gas will be found and we may then have more surplus for export. Conversely, the absence or limitation of a growing market for Canadian oil will discourage investment in the exploration for hydrocarbons generally.
The decision of the United States to exempt natural gas liquids from the crude oil import quota is welcomed by the Canadian government. This decision allows those materials which are produced from raw natural gas in the course of processing to enter the United States without the quota of crude oil exports to the United States being affected. Estimates are that this will make available markets for approximately 40,000 to 50,000 barrels per day of additional sales.
Sulphur is also a by-product in the manufacturing process of a large proportion of Canadian gas. The government has pointed out that in a situation of global surplus of sulphur it would not expect the United States to adopt any measures to restrict access quantitatively for Canadian sulphur to the United States market. Such restriction would discourage exploration for gas in Canada by increasing its costs and would diminish the amount of gas which might be available for future export to the United States.

October 21, 1970

The export of surpluses, be it minerals, fuels, wheat or other trade commodities, brings back benefits to Canada which would have otherwise to be foregone. I have already mentioned some of the benefits which will directly flow from the recently approved export of natural gas. While there are trade commodities which respond more readily to demand and bring forth more production, fuels and minerals have to be explored for before becoming available. Exploration, then, is the key to increased supply, assuming of course that it is worth while to look for these resources in the first place. It appears to all of us that Canada is just such a place where it is worth while to look.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We have seen something of the problems of unsold surpluses in the mineral field, such as potash and uranium. Our producers, our miners, and all those dependent on them cannot live off these surpluses, however important and desirable the commodity itself is. I ask you to point to any example in the world where a surplus in any commodity has benefited the country unless it was sold. It is this fact of basic economics that must be kept in mind. It is the demand in the marketplace that makes for an economic value, results in a return, encourages more production and, in the case of the fuel and mineral industries, results in further exploration and, if the tempo of sale is right, results in even increased exploration and, in completing the economic cycle, in even greater surpluses.
Our present surpluses are mostly in Alberta and British Columbia. Increased exploration undoubtedly will reach more and more into our northland and encourage the development of the north. The Canadian vision has been increasingly to this frontier and successive governments have made it their policy to reach north. It is not so different to suggest "roads to resources" or a pipeline corridor which is a very real economic road to resources. In its totality, increased exploration will convert possibilities or hopes into a real inventory of resources. Without exploration we will never know, never have, never sell and hence never receive a benefit.
Some people have asked if we should not retain the surplus of natural gas in Canada and use it to attract industry. The answer to this is that such a tactic simply does not work. In industry other economic factors, such as proximity to markets, are more important than availability of low-cost energy. Examples of this are seen in decisions of industry to locate in Ontario rather than in Alberta where energy costs are much lower. I believe in Texas, Mr. Speaker, they offered free gas to potential industries but had no takers because this is a very minor factor in the economic location of industry.
Here again we see another of those double-barrelled conundrums which was put forth by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. He tells us on the one hand that we should withhold our energy resources and make the United States industries locate in Canada. Yet as leader of the NDP he deprecates the fact that there are too many United States industries located in Canada
The Address-Mr. Greene
at the present time. I wonder which goal he really wishes us to pursue. On the other hand, a gas production and transmission industry expanded to increasing needs of Canadians and export markets attracts supply and service industries, such as pipe mills, of considerable importance to the producing provinces and the provinces through which the transmission line passes.
I should like to answer one final criticism to the effect that Canada should use the leverage of its energy resources to gain access for our manufactured goods into the United States. I have already indicated how much leverage 1 per cent of its gas demands would have on United States policy. I would like to point out to the NDP leader that natural gas is not a raw product; it is a manufactured product. He did not appear to appreciate that fact. It is exported in useful form, having been manufactured to that form. I would also point out that Canada has been able to gain increasing access for Canadian manufactured goods into the United States market and I have every reason to believe that our position will continue to improve. I might point out our success at the Kennedy Round which opened up and considerably enhanced our opportunity in the United States market.
I would point to the automotive pact, which is certainly in the interest of Canada. Might I say, with the greatest respect to the leader of the NDP, that he would provide a great service to Canada and Canadian workers generally if he could persuade the bosses of those large American unions upon whose support his party so much depends to reduce their pressure on the United States government to resist the lowering of import barriers to Canadian manufactured goods in the interest, of course, of employment in the United States rather than employment in Canada. It is this tariff resistance which is the real barrier to opening the United States market to finished Canadian products. This is a barrier that is not likely to be repaired by any narrow use of our present export policies.
The concern has been expressed in some circles in western Canada that the criterion used by the board when rejecting the one application could result in a preferential position for those transmission companies already established to the point where there was concern lest a monopolistic situation develop which would be a detriment to Canadian producers. I do not believe that a careful reading of the board's judgment leads to this conclusion. With respect, I think the judgment should stand on the particular facts of the case and the particular applications involved. I do not for a moment believe that the judgment lends itself to the conclusion that those already in the field will have a continuing monopoly.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would reiterate our contention that the sale of energy resources clearly proven by scientific methods to be surplus to Canadian needs makes good economic sense. It is a positive decision in Canada's national interest both present and future. It is a decision founded on economic realities and not on emotions or imagined fears. It is a decision geared, not to

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. MacLean
short-term political gain but to long-term economic interests; to Canada's present and future. I believe history will confirm that this was prudent husbandry of our resources that will help generate the wealth with which we can attain the goals of our uniquely Canadian society. I believe it is a sound decision in the interests of that positive Canadian nationalism to which I believe this House and the people of Canada would universally subscribe.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 want to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, those men who set this debate in motion. I listened with considerable interest to the minister who has just resumed his seat, in respect of the problems of energy and its uses in Canada. It is not my intention to reply to him or to say anything about the subject of the minister's speech. I do not intend to speak on economic matters, which is the customary thing in this debate. I realize that economic matters are vitally important as a prerequisite to the realization of what we might call the good life.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say as emphatically as I can that I do not believe affluence can in itself produce a satisfactory kind of life to which all Canadians would aspire. I therefore propose to direct my remarks for the most part to matters, other than economic ones, which I believe to be vitally important. If my few remarks were such that they would merit a descriptive title, I would probably call them "not by bread alone". I think this is an age in which we tend to judge everything too much in economic terms and evaluate everything by the yardstick of the dollar. I belong to that generation which grew up in the great depression and on maturity found itself confronted with the almost insurmountable task of overcoming the dual force of nazism and fascism.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Having accomplished that objective, our generation moved forward with enthusiasm toward a better life not only for themselves but for mankind generally. I think it was that feeling at the end of World War II that produced such efforts on the part of mankind as a determination to achieve world peace through the setting up of the United Nations organization. Then a secondary, or perhaps equally important goal of 20 or 25 years ago was the provision of equality of opportunity. By holding these views we were probably not sufficiently aware that we were ripe for exploitation.
In our effort to provide equality of opportunity we forgot that this could be debased by growing numbers of people who would interpret it as meaning that the world owed them a living. In an attempt to provide for the physical prerequisites of a good life we measured everything in materialistic terms and made economic matters almost a religion. In biblical terms, we became worshippers of the golden calf forgetting some of the other, most important aspects of life not only for the individual but for nations.
In that framework of thinking chiefly of material gain we were ripe for exploitation by the vendors of political

snake-oil guaranteed to cure all political ills. Many Canadians-especially those in the cities-are, politically speaking, primitive and ripe to have their most valued possessions bartered away for slogans, ideals, states of society, new orders, just societies and in short all the tinsel and finery with which modern political charlatans charm their jewels from the modern political savage. As a result, often as Canadians we have exchanged things which were priceless for things which were merely expensive.
I believe we have forgotten there are things, including our very way of life, which are fragile and which must be carefully preserved. As Canadians we go along blindly on the assumption that we have some magical constitution that will protect us from bad government. Nothing could be further from the fact. Canadians, like any other people, will get governments only as good as the people who make up those governments and only as good as the ability of the people who elect them to determine good from bad.
Mr. Speaker, I am a Conservative. For this I make no apology. I believe the aim of politics, as of all else, is the good life. But the good life is something which cannot be comprehended in some phrase or formula about political or social order. Even if it could be so comprehended, it could not be brought about in the main by political means. I believe and contend that the most a politician can do is ensure that some, by no means all, of the most important conditions in which the good life can exist are present and, more important still, prevent fools or knaves setting up conditions which make an approach to the good life impossible. Many of the great evils of our time have come from men who mocked and exploited human misery by contending that government, according to their way of thinking, could offer Utopia. I find the motive force of human progress not in the compulsory authority of the state but in the individual's conscience and his sense of duty.
As a Conservative, strangely perhaps, I do not believe that the political struggle is the most important thing in life. In this I probably differ from Communists, Socialists, Nazis, and even Social Crediters or perhaps many Liberals. But to the great majority of Conservatives, religion, art, study, family, country, friends, music, fun, duty and 'all the joys and riches, of existence of which the poor know less than the rich are the indefeasible freeholders, are higher on the scale than their handmaiden, the political struggle-because the most the political struggle can achieve is an improved standard of living, and in trying to achieve it frequently we have traded for it other valuable things that are not measured in dollars.
As a result of this I believe we have taken for granted some of our most priceless values in life. We have failed, for example, to recognize that man has existed on the globe for millions of years and that only in a small fraction, the last 1 per cent, of his experience has there developed anything we might in the loosest terms call civilization. Yet we take for granted that our civilization is a permanent thing that will go on no matter how we mistreat it or with what carelessness we fail to inculcate it in the next generation.
October 21, 1970

We have failed to realize that our civilization is carried on from one generation to the next only by learning it and having a proper respect for a civilization that civilized men have achieved by struggle over the centuries. Civilization, therefore, is a very weak and fragile thing. In the course of the centuries, even in our own memory, this tiny light in an ocean of darkness has flickered and almost gone out. Instead of realizing that our way of life and civilization is a thin veneer which can be quickly lost, we tend to assume that it is our automatic heritage or that it is proportional to technological advance.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I think there is very little relationship between true cultural civilization on the one hand and technological advance on the other. We make the great error of assuming that this is automatically our heritage, but we should realize that it should be carefully nurtured and passed on from generation to generation. I believe that one of the greatest weaknesses of our present way of life and of our present civilization is that our economic situation is such that one pay cheque will not support the average household. Therefore, too many mothers have to provide a second pay cheque to allow the family to meet its economic needs, thereby depriving the children of a close-knit family relationship which I believe is essential to the passing on from one generation to the next of the values that we hold so dear.
In rural Canada and in the small communities it has been traditional for families to be closely knit. They have been the bulwark, in rural and small town areas, of traditional virtues to which a country must resort in times of stress. Yet in the last 25 years especially, the economic policies of one government after another have devastated the rural life of Canada so that much of rural Canada today consists of dead or dying communities, vacant houses, abandoned land and empty churches and schools.
This series of policies has been as effective in decimating the rural population as was the bubonic plague in the Dark Ages or the Communist programs in the Ukraine between the wars. One of the causes of this-I do not know why it arises, and I am sure it is not from malice on anyone's part-is that the bureaucratic planners in all governments seem to look upon rural people as, not people in the ordinary sense but merely automatons to produce cheap food. Their right to exist and to continue must be measured in cold, economic terms only. If they cannot produce wheat at so many cents a bushel, they have no right to exist, and so on.
I believe this is a very unfortunate state of affairs. I do not know for whom this cheap food should be produced, whether it is to satisfy the teeming millions in our metropolitan areas or whether it is an unconscious way of assuming that good life is not achievable in a rural setting. I think maybe that is it, and this is a great fallacy. With modern facilities I believe that any family can achieve a much higher standard of living, in the true sense of the word, on a given income in a rural setting or in a small town than it can in a large metropolitan area.
The Address-Mr. MacLean At the same time we are letting our large cities grow, without plan or purpose, like a cancer until they strangle themselves in their own transportation systems, in pollution, crime and bad housing. They are staggering under a burden of taxation that they cannot support and which cannot even provide the essentials with which to carry on. Also, the uncontrolled and unplanned growth of our cities forces an ever-increasing percentage of their inhabitants to do without even the essentials of a reasonable life, such as a decent diet and a roof over their .heads. These things they can afford.
Much of this growth is unplanned and it is probably stimulated, in most cases, by the activities of corporations. I do not want to be misunderstood. I believe that the most feasible way of carrying out the large-scale operations that are required in a modern society is through the corporations. However, having said that I must add that I do not believe that just because a corporation has no body to be whipped or no soul to be saved, it should not be required to be a good corporate citizen in the society in which it intends to live and should not take on the responsibility of paying the cost of the social disturbance that it creates by operating in one environment or another.
I think our large corporations should be required, under a rational taxation system, to assume at least some of the extra cost that society must bear because of pollution, because of congestion, because of the need for new schools and the infrastructure of roads that goes with the placing of an industrial operation in a given position. If even a token portion of these costs was imposed on corporations, they would make more sensible choices of the places in which they chose to operate. I think you would And that corporations would not locate additional enterprises in the large, overcrowded cities but, rather, would do so in the smaller towns from one end of this great nation to the other.
Only by dispersing the primary type of employment throughout the country together with the secondary service industries which create more and more jobs, only by creating this compounding effect, can regional economic disparity be eliminated. I believe this is where the central government could give leadership to the provinces in the planning of new cities, new towns and the rationalization of our industrial capacity as a nation.
I want to turn for a minute or two to another subject, that is, the type of leadership we have been receiving from this government for the last six or seven years. Perhaps this applies in some measure to all governments which I consider have shown hypocrisy and an erroneous judgment of values in dealing with the rest of the world and with ourselves. We are everlastingly rushing around to the far corners of the world with a "holier than thou" attitude, trying to make underdeveloped countries into our own image or telling other people what they should be doing. We subscribe to the principle of self-determination for peoples in Africa, countries like Rhodesia. But I have never heard the government say in a crystal-clear fashion that the right of self-determination by democratic means is a right which also pertains to all Canadians.

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. MacLean


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I would like to hear the federal government say that if the people in the Maritime provinces, in British Columbia or in Quebec decide by democratic means that the vast majority want to secede from Confederation, they have every right to do so.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am not a separatist of any kind. I think such a course would be unwise. But 1 would be the first to defend the right of any area of Canada to secede from Confederation if it believed it was in its own interest. By the ambiguous actions of central government we have led people to believe-unjustly, I think-that they are compelled to remain in Confederation. That is not the case. We have been ambiguous in many other realms and fields, and it is no wonder we find ourselves in a crisis.
We have, as reflected by the government in any case, equated freedom of speech with the right of anarchists to appear on our nationally-owned radio and television network and, at the public's expense, pour their venom into the minds of people-this venom ticketed with the respectability of our national network. We have subsidized anarchists through organizations such as the CYC and the Canada Council. We have taxed our people to a shocking degree. This year every Canadian, every man woman and child, will on the average have to fork out $656. A family of six gives over $3,600 just to pay for the federal government, not to mention provincial and municipal governments. In this set of circumstances we almost become employees of the state because we have to devote so much of our time to trying to pay our taxes.
In this environment, usually both parents have to work to get their children through school and to pay for their higher education. With great sacrifice and great endeavour, these young people who have been deprived of a proper home environment are sent off to university to sit at the feet of revolutionaries, dedicated in some cases to the destruction of our civilization. We have allowed these people to infiltrate our universities in the name of academic freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Angus MacLean: This, in my humble opinion, is lunacy. This government has downgraded our national symbols. It has done away with many of the traditions of our armed services, those services that we now have to call upon. It has struck from the masthead of our national flag the symbol of Christianity, I suppose because that is old-fashioned. We have scorned law and order in the name of free speech. The freedom to do our own thing has been talked about a great deal. Mr. Speaker, what is the freedom to do our own thing? The freedom to do our own thing, to do as we damn well please, is the freedom of the jungle-nothing more and nothing less.
I believe that the government over the last few years has shown a kind of schizophrenic attitude toward the responsibilities of leadership. I believe this is because it has two factions within it, one gaining ascendency at one

time and the other at another time. But I hope the faction within the government that will gain ascendency in the future is the faction which believes in some of the principles that we hold dearest, that most Canadians hold dear, and I hope that in the future we will be more careful of our heritage. Some may say, "Oh, heritage; that is old-fashioned. What we need is a brave new world." To me, Mr. Speaker, a country that scorns and forgets its heritage is like a man who has lost his memory.
There is no magic that will preserve our way of life. We have to do it ourselves. We must recognize that the very ethic we live by is in the final analysis determined, preserved and protected only by the sense of decency of the people who happen to be its temporary custodians. For example, there is no point administering an oath of loyalty or oath of office to someone to whom it means nothing. There is no means by which extraordinarily destructive power could be withheld from a government that desired more power than it needed. I do not mean this as criticism of the government in the present situation, but we should recognize that when a government becomes a government, it is all-powerful. Nothing assures the future of what we consider to be our way of life except the willingness of members of the government to carry on that way of life.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my
intention to speak at length today. Before dealing with the one subject on which I intend to speak, I want to compliment the member who moved the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that he is a member of the government rump in this House. While there are not too many of us here this afternoon, we feel that periodically we hold the balance of power in this House and therefore we are very proud that a backbencher should have been chosen to move the Address in Reply.
I would tell some of my hon. friends to my left, who may not know him as well as the rest of us, that he is one of the most completely bilingual men in the House of Commons. His French and his English are perfect. He also speaks another language. I think a man like the hon. member should be congratulated for the fine job he did in moving the Address in Reply, and also for the fine job he does as a member of this House in representing the great constituency of Bourassa.
I would also like to compliment the member who seconded the Address in Reply, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas). From all sides of the House we hear a lot about the poor western farmers. It would surprise some hon. members to my left to hear some of the things told to us by that hon. member in caucus, when he talks about the wheat farmers and the dire straits in which they find themselves. As a result of this, the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister responsible for selling wheat have pulled up their socks and wheat is now being sold in great quantities. To the hon. member for Assiniboia, my congratulations.
This afternoon I wish to speak about a subject that is somewhat local to my riding. However, I feel that many
October 21, 1970

hon. members present will be interested in it because it concerns a problem that is prevalent across Canada. Some time ago the Canadian Transport Commission held hearings dealing with Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway, in the cities of Owen Sound and Guelph. They brought down a verdict that from November 1, 1970, there would be no more passenger trains, either Canadian Pacific or Canadian National, running north of the city of Guelph in the province of Ontario, that is, in southern Ontario. I have not the slightest idea whether the government reads these speeches. I have not the slightest idea whether the speech I have made this afternoon is an exercise in frustration. But I do hope that some member of the government will look into the situation that I am about to recite, because it is most important that he does.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We have to go back many years, Mr. Speaker. Many speeches concerning this subject have been delivered in the House of Commons and undoubtedly some of what I say will be repetition. Canadian National Railways is owned by the people of Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway, free enterprise corporation that it be, has been subsidized, not only since it commenced to run train services across Canada but indeed before it started to do so. For example, the Canadian Pacific Railway was given $25 million by the taxpayers of Canada. What is more, it received a grant of 25 million acres of land in Canada, absolutely free. This land was a present to the company. In return, the company had an obligation to perform. The obligation was to provide services, both freight and passenger, wherever rail lines had been built in Canada.
I do not think there are many of us in the House who would want either Canadian National or Canadian Pacific to run a train service to a part of Canada where nobody lives. It is true that there are in Canada lines where economy demands passenger service be either stopped completely or curtailed. In my opinion, the railways of Canada have not been forced out of the passenger business. What happened was that the board of directors sat down at the table one day and came to the division that ten years from now the company would be out of the passenger business in Canada completely. They decided they did not want to bother with it because there was too much other business to be had-carrying freight and other ventures of the company such as oil wells, gas wells, copper mines, hotels, airlines, shipping lines and so on.
At the hearings held in Owen Sound the railway representatives said the reason for wanting to get out of the passenger business was that it was not paying. Most of us are not willing to accept the figures put forward by the railways in support of this claim. At least, I am not willing to accept them because they do not prove this contention at all. Somehow or other there is a kind of closed corporation between the Canadian Transport Commission and the railways. The railways claim that it costs $15.87, or whatever it is, to carry a passenger from Owen Sound or from Southampton to Toronto. How do we know that these figures are correct? I am highly suspi-
The Address-Mr. Whicher cious that they are exaggerating them in an effort to get out of the passenger business completely. I think they should be told to put all their figures on the table so that I and other interested citizens of Canada have the opportunity to examine them. Be that as it may, their contention is that they must get out of the passenger business because it does not pay.
On the day I attended these hearings I asked the representatives of Canadian Pacific Railway whether they wanted to get out of all business activities that did not pay, and they said yes. I clipped an article out of the financial section of the Globe and Mail about a month ago, which announced that CP Air had lost $600,000 or $700,000 during the last two or three months and that as a result of this loss an extensive advertising campaign was being taken up immediately. There was published that day a half page ad in the Globe and Mail-hon. members may well remember it because it appeared in all the larger newspapers in Canada-advertising a flight known as "The Executive".
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have ever flown on this Executive flight, but let me tell you it is some plane. In the advertisement it was stated that you can have any kind of magazine on the plane. If you are travelling from Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver and you want to occupy yourself with business matters, they can even supply you with dictating machines. You can have any kind of beer you want. They serve the best meals. There are toys for the children. They even boast about the pretty stewardesses, and this may be one of their true claims. It is very hard for a country fellow like me to appreciate all this boasting about the great service given by CP Air, which is owned completely by CPR, when you cannot even buy a cold hamburger on their train from Toronto to Owen Sound, a city of 19,000 people. As I say, as of November 1 Owen Sound will not have one train leaving the station.
Years ago when I was a member of the legislature in Toronto I used to travel by train from Owen Sound to Toronto quite often, and when I did it was absolutely full. The train went down in the morning and came back at night. The CPR decided some years later to get out of the passenger business. They did so because they were making so much money in other endeavours that they could not bother to count the money collected from their passengers.
In spite of the fact that 15 years ago this train was full, the CPR then decided to run the train every second day only. Since the train was still full, this made it difficult for them to get out of the passenger business as fast as they could so the company decided to double the fare. While the CNR would charge you "X" dollars to take you to Toronto from Owen Sound, the CPR charged "XX" dollars. That is one way to get out of business, and it is an indication that the CPR certainly wanted to lose its passenger business in Canada. I defy any of their senior officials to tell me otherwise.
Once again let me impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that as of November 1 the people in the city of Owen Sound, some 19,000 of them, and many thousands more living in

October 21, 1970
The Address*-Mr. Whicher the surrounding area will not have one passenger train leaving the station. The verdict of the commission handed down the other day was that it would not only allow the CPR to discontinue its service but also Canadian National Railways.
I close by saying something about the Canadian Pacific Railway. There is no member in this House who believes more in free enterprise than I. On the other hand, I believe that a corporation such as the CPR should have an obligation to the people of Canada. This corporation owns hotels all over Canada worth hundreds of millions of dollars. One thing that surely we can boast of is that this is the largest transportation company, not only in Canada but in the whole world, with shipping, railways and airline operations. That is something of which Canadians should be proud.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
How did they make these hundreds of millions of dollars with which they built up their airline, shipping and hotel interest? I will tell you how they made it. They made it out of the railways. And how did they get the railways? They obtained them from the people of Canada. They were given 25 million acres, according to the original contract between the Canadian Pacific and the goverment of Canada, and $25 million, which was a great deal of money in those days. They kept the money, they kept the millions of acres, and now they do not wish to supply us with passenger service. What is more, in my opinion they are trying to get out of providing that service even though in many instances it has been, and still is, a paying proposition.
The Canadian Pacific Railway, Mr. Speaker, has two or three aspirations. One of those is to make money. Another is to get out of the passenger business not just from Owen Sound to Toronto but all over Canada. The railways are attempting to stick us, the people, with this lack of service. They are doing this after having taken all the goodies given to them in years gone by. And what goodies they are! Think of the gas rights and the oil wells that they obtained from the 25 million acres that were spread right across Canada. Think of the prime locations they have in the various cities of Canada. Think of the location of the Royal York Hotel in Toronto, and of the locations of the CPR hotels in the cities hon. members come from, or in the cities close by.
It is high time we found out who is running these services, whether it is Parliament or the railways. So far as I am concerned, a deal was made. The deal was completed before the hearings took place. Not a single witness who appeared at the hearings wanted the railways to discontinue passenger service. Only the railways wanted to do that. I am sure the Canadian Transport Commission has heard all the arguments many times before. This situation is simply not right, when two parties have signed an agreement they both are under the obligation to carry it through. The government of Canada, on behalf of all Canadians, has kept its side of the bargain. The Canadian Pacific Railway, in my opinion, has not. The same could be said about Canadian

National Railways. From that city which is north of Guelph there will not be a single passenger train running on or after November 1-not one.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, many residents of that area have no alternative means of transportation. When the hearings were held, the railways said that there are bus services if one goes to London. If you want to go to Toronto you must go to London and then to Toronto. It is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. The people living in places like Southampton, Kincardine, Walkerton, Port Elgin, Owen Sound, Mildmay and Hanover are all placed in this position.
If I may, I should like to refer to one paragraph of a letter written by the mayor of Southampton. He said that when the report was issued that this vital service was going to be discontinued on November 1, the citizens of Southampton could not believe that the report was correct. He said, "It was the most shocking and distressing news we have had in many years". He also said that evidently the voice of the people is completely ignored by our government, because they spoke strongly against this both in Owen Sound and in Guelph at the supposedly public hearings. In both these localities the only people who supported the discontinuance of the service were the railways. If this is our democracy, he wrote, these so-called public hearings are a farce and a complete waste of the taxpayers' money. To this, Mr. Speaker, I say amen. He continues with a most logical argument, pointing out that as far as Southampton is concerned there is no alternative service to the metropolitan area. I point out that within my riding is the huge development at Douglas Point, at which over $1 billion will have been spent in the next three or four years. All the same, the Canadian Transport Commission had the nerve to allow the railways to discontinue passenger service.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I sometimes wonder whether those in the government service read speeches made in this House. I sometimes think that what we say here is said in vain and that our remarks have no effect. I hope that someone in the government will look into the situation in the next week or so. I am referring particularly to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), to whom I have spoken about this matter. This whole question is most difficult. We realize, of course, that passenger services have not always paid in the past. There are many other factors that must be corrected: the service is lousy and the trains are lousy. I do not mean that they are infested with lice; I mean that often they are dirty. There are no meals, and the only way you can obtain a drink of cold water is by stopping at a pump. Also, the hours of service are disgraceful.
It seems to me that if the citizens of Canada are to continue paying subsidies to the railways for passenger service, wherever it still exists, the citizens should have the right to say where and at what time a train will start. For example, trains from Owen Sound to Toronto leave at seven o'clock in the morning. That simply is not good enough. There are many ways in which passenger service should be improved. I appeal to the government and particularly to the Minister of Transport to look into
October 21, 1970

this situation involving thousands of people who live in the area north of Guelph and who, after October 31, will be entirely without passenger service as a result of the decision of the body that dictates to the railways. That decision was made notwithstanding the testimony given by every citizen who appeared at the hearings and who gave substantial reasons as to why the trains should continue in operation.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) saw fit to ask one of my friends, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) to second the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. The hon. member's constituency adjoins mine in Saskatchewan. We both represent people who are great Canadians. I am sure, although our political philosophies may differ, that we agree on this point. I am also pleased that the Prime Minister saw fit to ask the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel) to move the motion for the Address in Reply. He and I went on a "voyage of discovery" this past summer to the nations of central and eastern Africa on behalf of the Canadian Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I heartily concur in the remarks of an hon. member who said a short while ago that the hon. member for Bourassa is a great credit to this House.
Many of us attended the memorial services held yesterday in connection with the funeral of the late Pierre Laporte. Many went to Montreal to attend the service. I admire Mrs. Laporte's decision to have a quiet, simple funeral in an attempt to avoid making national figures out of murderers. Our heartfelt feelings go out to Mrs. Laporte and her family, and to the late Mr. Laporte's immediate family and relatives. All of Canada will have watched on television the coverage of the services, and all areas of Canada will react in different ways to what they saw. I only hope that overreaction will not be the situation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I can only say to those unfortunate, opportunist souls, the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Serre), who criticized our stand on the War Measures Act, that they would be well advised to spend as much time recognizing the rights of innocent people who have, no doubt, or will be questioned and detained under the regulations of the War Measures Act. I stand in my place in this House of Commons proud of the fact that I voted as I did.
I condemn the terrorists and murderers who have inflicted death and horror on one province of Canada. However, the imposition of the War Measures Act will do more harm to Canadian unity than anything that possibly could have been done by those people deliberately dedicated to the destruction of Canadian unity. The people of Quebec, and indeed of all Canada, are divided by the implementation of this act. People across this nation are supporting the Prime Minister for reasons other than those he wishes to believe.
The Address-Mr. Skoberg
This past summer we visited some nations in Africa. At that time we met some of the liberation movements and freedom fighters of those nations. In particular situations, revolution by force is the only way. That statement applies particularly to those nations which do not have the ballot-box at their discretion. That is the situation in South Africa. I support the position of those people using a type of force. But in Canada, where revolution by the ballot-box is possible, we do not need revolution by force.
I am sure everyone agrees that changes are necessary, but these must be brought about by use of the ballot-box. We were fortunate to obtain copies of a book written by the President of Tanzania, Mr. Nuyere. The book is entitled, "Ujaama"; in other words, "familyhood". In that book he refers to the obligations of his country, one of which is to give the individual the right to job opportunity. In exchange for job opportunity the individual must be prepared to work.
We would not be faced with the problems we have today if every Canadian had the right to job opportunity. It is only through job opportunity that we can suppress what is happening today. I sincerely urge members of all parties to bring this fact to the attention of every authority, whether local government authority or otherwise. I hope no member of this House will support the law of the jungle philosophy which was also referred to a moment ago by an hon. member. In a democratic society we have recognized authorities vested with law and order. These authorities must ensure that innocent people are not subjected to terrorist acts. We know what happened in the rise and fall of the Third Reich in Germany. We do not want the same to happen in Canada. Suppression of civil liberties is taking a chance on the road to democratic society. We must ensure that the civil rights and liberties of individuals are not suppressed.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) addressed the House a short while ago. The lights did not flicker in this chamber because of his speech; it was not that earth-shattering. Before I came to this House I was told that the minister would provide some humorous speeches. I have not been disappointed in that regard. The minister stated that the government did not subscribe to taking short-term political advantage. Not too long ago the minister made a speech in Denver, Colorado. Since that time he has been trying to apologize for what he said to his corporate friends. A good deal of his speech today was devoted to the philosophy of our party. He must be bankrupt of ideas if he has to spend so much time defending something he was not able to put before us.
The minister suggested that a positive nationalism is being created across Canada and it is no pale image. I wish I could subscribe to his philosophy. Unfortunately, outside of the speech he made in Denver he has not said very much with regard to positive nationalism. I suggest it is short-term political advantage he is concerned with at this time.
I now wish to deal briefly with the agricultural economy of Canada. It has been said in this House, and bears

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. Skoberg
repeating, that 51 per cent of the people in Canada are directly or indirectly connected with the agricultural economy of Canada. For some reason, particularly in central Canada, this fact seems to evade some hon. members of the House. This government must recognize the fact that 51 per cent of the people are directly or indirectly connected with agriculture. Those people must be looked after. They must be listened to and their wishes made known. There must be planned economy and planned involvement.
A typical example of what was not done this year was the granting of a three-bushel quota for Durum wheat. The elevators in my district were full of Durum wheat, but the government opened the quota. The elevator agent is saying, "I have a little room, but I do not want more Durum. What can I do?" In spite of this, the government left the quota at three bushels of Durum. Is this the planning about which they talk? Planning must go further than just saying, "we are going to obtain an eight bushel quota this year come hell or high water, so we will do everything we can to get the eight bushels there as quickly as possible."
Some hon. members have already spoken about participation by those most directly involved in the production of a particular resource or material. This question could be referred to the task force on agriculture. Has this government asked the opinions of those directly involved in agriculture? I suggest it has not. The task force on agriculture will hold a meeting in Ottawa in November. At the same time, the farmers of western Canada will hold regional meetings throughout the west to get the opinions of producers in respect of the task force on agriculture. Instead of waiting for these farmers to formulate an opinion to pass on to their representatives in Ottawa, the government goes blissfully along suggesting that which has no basis. They say, to heck with the producer. It is not too late for the government to reverse the decision of the task force on agriculture. I ask all hon. members with authority, particularly the hon. member for Assiniboia, to urge the minister to delay the conference which is to be held in Ottawa.
Questions have been raised in this House with regard to the marketing bill and protein grading. It must be admitted without hesitation that these bills were delayed, but not by us. Canadians need a national marketing act and a bill to provide for protein grading. There must be equal representation in so far as the regulations are concerned and the adjustment to be taken into consideration concerning these two bills.
It has been said in this chamber that there must be active participation by people across this nation. I agree with the hon. member who stated yesterday that more Canadians must feel they are part of this institution. Every member is obligated to make his constituents sincerely believe they are part of this institution. Because of the lack of participation by the people of this nation we are confronted with such a serious situation today. I urge members of all parties to at least speak to those in the schools at their earliest convenience. It may be too late to speak to some people, but those in the schools should be

told they can participate in bills before this House by making representations, they might feel they are not too far from Ottawa.
I will now turn to one of my favourite subjects, decentralization. I see no reason at all for the centralization of all government departments here in Ottawa, bearing in mind modern means of communication which are available. I believe the public would get better service if departments were decentralized. If information is needed quickly, those concerned can punch a computer in Ottawa and get the answer. I am sure every area of Canada would benefit from the decentralization of government offices, and I think this would apply not only to the federal government but to the services of provincial governments. If we really want to take government to the people, we have an obligation to do exactly this.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I was extremely pleased to hear what the hon. member for Wellington-Grey (Mr. Howe) said last night. I was also very pleased to hear the references which the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) has just finished making to transportation problems affecting various areas. Last week an attempt was made to appear before the Canadian Transport Commission in Regina and put forward views with regard to the rationalization program of the CPR. The president of the Transport Commission, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, once again saw fit to take the chair at those hearings. Submissions, which he accepted, were made on behalf of six Members of Parliament. I had prepared a statement for submission. He reserved judgment on whether to accept it at the Ottawa hearings beginning next week. I shall read from the Leader-Post an item headed, "Pickersgill to Reserve Judgment on Statement".
J. W. Pickersgill, Canadian Transport Commission president, Friday reserved judgment on whether to receive a statement prepared by John Skoberg, NDP Member of Parliament for Moose Jaw, for presentation at the rail transport committee hearings in Regina.
Mr. Pickersgill did not allow Mr. Skoberg to read a statement at the close of the Regina hearings into the CPR's proposal to reduce service provided by "The Canadian," and to increase fares.
The commission president said he would reserve judgment, examine the statement prepared by Mr. Skoberg and announce his decision at the railway transport committee's hearings in Ottawa later.
Further on, the report continues:
Mr. Pickersgill said the references to the commissioners were "irrelevant and rather offensive". He said the commission was set up and the commissioners were appointed by the Canadian government. He said Parliament was "the proper forum" for this type of discussion and directed Mr. Skoberg to discontinue that line of discussion.
Later, when the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) was trying to pursue a point in the brief, Mr. Pickersgill made a further observation. The newspaper report reads:
Mr. Pickersgill, a former Liberal MP and former cabinet minister said Parliament was the forum for proposing the changes suggested by Mr. Benjamin.
October 21, 1970

"I've retired from the legislative arena and you're there and I'm not going to do your work for you," he told Mr. Benjamin.
In view of the statement by the president of the Transport Commission that it was very doubtful whether he would accept my brief, I thought it only fair to present it here in the House of Commons. Indeed, in effect Mr. Pickersgill directed me to do exactly that, I believe it is only appropriate that the people I represent should be looked after to the best of our ability. The fact is that the president of the Transport Commission has already made up his mind about transportation in Canada, but he insists on repeating judgments he has made many times before. I would point out that the Supreme Court has upheld the costing formula of the C.T.C. and that branch line abandonment proposals will now be considered on the basis of that formula. As long as the Canadian Transport Commission holds its present ideas, there is no question as to what our transportation policy will be. All of us realize that the make-up of the Transport Commission is really the "gut" issue and we must look at the situation in this light.
I tried to present my statement in Regina on October 16. The commission ran out of witnesses, so we were able to get on at about 6.30 in the evening. The submission was made in the interests of good transportation generally and deferred to the plan for the rationalization of "The Canadian." I shall read from the brief:
The remarks I shall he making today will in some cases sound like mere rhetoric. If they do, I can only suggest that thousands of Canadians like myself are concerned. It is common for politicians to take so-called cheap shots or to be accused of taking cheap shots at persons, particularly officials, who cannot defend themselves.
Let me say in this regard that Mr. Pickersgill is quite capable of defending himself. The brief continues:
This may well be the reaction to what I am now going to say. The distinction I want to underline at the outset is that the subject of my remarks, the President of the Transport Commission, is here. He will react as he sees fit.
I might note, at this point, that he did react.
The burden of my comment is that he should not be hearing this case, indeed, that he should not be the President of the CTC. Clause 6 of the National Transportation Act outlines the constitution of the commission. The commissioners know it well, especially the president, because he made the transition from being the minister who marshalled the creation of the CTC through Parliament to being the first head of the commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps I should take this opportunity to read to him part of section 157 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, page 132, where it is stated in paragraph 3:
It is out of order to read extracts in a debate if they... reflect upon the conduct of persons in authority.
If the hon. member continues his remarks along those lines the Chair may have to call him to order.


John Leroy Skoberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But really this is no reflection on the character of a member, nor will there be from here on. I am reading from my own brief; I am not referring to a debate.
The Address-Mr. Skoberg


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The citation says it is out of order to read extracts in a debate if they reflect upon the conduct of persons in authority. It was my impression that the hon. member was reading extracts which might reflect upon the conduct of the president of the Canadian Transport Commission who holds a position of authority.


John Leroy Skoberg: I was not quoting any outside authority in this regard, but I will take what Your Honour has said into consideration and continue to refer to my brief. It continues:
Clause 6 states that "each commissioner holds office during good behaviour .. . but he may be removed for cause by the governor in council at any time."
I have asked the government directly to relieve the president of his duties.
I have a letter here which will confirm this. I am awaiting a reply. My immediate reason for making such a request centres on the statements made by the president since he became president, and some of his staff, which indicate to me and others that the opinions he holds regarding the future of passenger service on the railways are prejudicial to a fair and neutral judgment on his part in respect of arguments put forward by anyone who questions the policy and the methods adopted by the railways to get themselves out of the passenger business.
e (5:30p.m.)
I believe it is a more complex and serious situation than that. I believe strongly that the former Minister of Transport should never have taken the job and, further, that it was a grave error in common sense for any government to have offered the post. I said in my brief:
To amplify, I came into politics as a Member of Parliament after the president had made his leap from the Commons to his present judicial function. Before coming to Ottawa I had no fixed opinion as to his competence or fairness beyond a memory that on two occasions as a minister of the Crown he failed to act in situations and seemed to reflect a promanagement bias. I refer firstly to the fact that as government House leader in 1963 he effectively blocked House consideration of recommendations of the Commons Railways, Canals and Telegraph Committee that the Railway Act should be amended to place upon the railroad the responsibility for dislocation costs of workers as a result of technological innovations. Later as Minister of Transport he brushed aside the recommendations of the committee in as specious and circuitous a speech as I have ever read.
I have that speech here, which I can refer to. Then I said:
Secondly, in 1963 discontent of the running trades on the CNR over management plans to introduce run-throughs led to a national wildcat strike. Beforehand representatives of the men could get no sympathetic response from railway management or government ministers. At the same time the president was Minister of Transport. His unwillingness to listen and to act led directly to the strike and subsequent appointment of the Freedman inquiry. Surely one fair opinion one can draw from the recommendations coming from that inquiry is that there were substantial grievances and views to which the then minister turned a deaf ear. So the memory of these two cases and the president's role in them were all that I brought to Ottawa with me in 1968 in so far as he is concerned.
I quickly found in Ottawa that the president's name among politicans of all parties was synonymous with partisan chicanery
2322&-29

October 21, 1970
The Address-Mr. Skoberg
and over clever partisan acts. That statement, put in assertion terms, is libellous or close to it. In other words, I realize the seriousness of making it. Let me tie it into the present situation where the president now sits in judgment on issues that affect the well-being and future of my constituents. I do not in fact trust his fairness and I am shocked at his reputation as a devious partisan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Again I must remind the hon. member that he is treading on very slippery ground. I must refer him to May's Parliamentary Practice, the Seventeenth Edition. Let me read him one of the rules governing the contents of speeches, which appears at page 448. It states:
A member, while speaking to a question, may not... reflect upon the conduct of the sovereign or of certain other persons in authority-
In the last sentence of the last part of the hon. member's remarks he has been passing judgment on a person who occupies a position of authority in the public administration, and he also has been reflecting on the character or the integrity of that person. The Chair cannot allow the hon. member to carry on in this manner.


Mr. Peters:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech hon. members are allowed a great deal of latitude. The Throne Speech really is of no relevance. It simply provides hon. members with an opportunity to state their positions in terms of their constituencies. I think the hon. member is doing just that, although I would agree with Your Honour if you were to say that he is sticking too closely to his text.
As to whether or not the hon. member is allowed to comment in this manner, it has been the general policy during these debates that if a person refers to the conduct of a department or an agency of government, and that person's background is part of the policy being developed by that agency, considerable latitude has been given. I have in mind the discussions that recently took place in this House, within Your Honour's memory, about the circumstances surrounding the Atomic Energy Commission and its relationship with the deuterium plant in Nova Scotia. This debate took place during the latter part of last session. I would suggest that we have considerable latitude during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Throne Speech and in that respect I do not think the hon. member is necessarily out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps the Chair should remind the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), in respect of the remarks he has just made, that an hon. member may be allowed to make statements or comments on facts, but when those comments go as far as questioning the integrity of a civil servant at a high level, we in this House must consider the specific situation. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that members of this House would be quite unfair in passing judgment on people in authority in the public administration, because those people do not have an opportunity to come here and defend themselves.
I think this is a basic principle the Chair must keep in mind. I am still in the position that I cannot accept the argument just made. I waited as long as I thought proper for the hon. member to change the course of his speech and perhaps speak more generally of the actions of the commission or something along that line, but he did not. The Chair had no alternative but to bring him to order.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I was only doing what the president advised me to do at a hearing in Regina. He suggested that Parliament was the place to present my opinions or remarks. I will try to abide by your suggestion in this regard. My brief also said:
We are concerned with the absolute lack of consideration given to the basic ingredients of any nation if that nation is to achieve greatness. Without an efficient rail transportation policy Canada is facing a crisis and I respectfully suggest to this House that if the terms of reference seek only to regulate while failing to establish guidelines for an efficient and national rail transportation policy then this country is doomed to remain static and to failure in the transportation field. As in the government task force on agriculture, which adopted the philosophy that agriculture was doomed in Canada, the president of the Canadian Transportation Commission has adopted the policy that rail passenger traffic is a thing of the past in our nation and from that premise conducts public hearings.
I fail to understand how the commission can investigate itself, particularly if public pronouncements have been made as to the role of passenger trains in Canada by the president himself. For example, the MacPherson commission has recommended that a transportation research agency be set up as a separate advisory body. Its reason for wanting a separate agency was the fear that research carried out within an established authority which also had administrative authority would be used to substantiate decisions that had already been made. This point is well taken. It would not be the first time that governments have initiated special research studies to prove their own infallibility or to justify doing something they intended to do anyway.
I suggest that the commission is doing exactly what the MacPherson commission was worried about, namely, holding public hearings to justify doing something it intended to do anyway. When the railway transport commission was requested by one of the council appearing before the railway costing hearing to explain the criteria applied by the railway transport committee in determining whether a service is a passenger service the commission replied that the train or trains must be designated in public timetables as providing a regular year round service for passengers, and passengers carried on the train or trains must be sufficient in number and be travelling at such times that they could not reasonably be accommodated on alternative service.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is there agreement to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for allowing me the extra time. I might say, in respect of the remarks I was just making, that in addition to this expla-
[Mr. Skoberg.)
October 21, 1970

nation, the railway transport committee stated the following:
-to protect the public fully in any case where there is doubt, the committee would incline towards declaring the service to be a passenger train service in order that the fullest investigation can be made.
I would suggest that they should have used plain language and said really what they are talking about in so far as passenger train service is concerned. Another factor I believe we should be concerned about is showing the concern of the Canadian Transport Commission about ground transportation problems. To appreciate the situation one has only to refer to the establishment of the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport at Queen's University by the CNR, CPR and the CTC which will each contribute up to $100,000 a year for five years.
On should welcome the establishment of such an institute. However, after reading the press release in the Gazette of May 6, 1969, wherein Robert A. Bandeen told the Canadian Transportation Research Forum that the CNR and CPR should get out of the passenger train business because it does not make any economic sense and, after finding out Mr. Bandeen is vice-president for CNR Corporate Planning and Finance and has been named chairman of the institute, is it any wonder our rail passenger transportation is headed for oblivion? The Canadian Transport Commission failed to appoint one of its own members but, rather, someone from the Department of Transport to this institute, at a time when results from specific research studies are incomplete. I could go on in detail in respect of work being carried on by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport at this time. This work has not been completed, and still the Canadian Transport Commission goes along with the theory that the abandonment of rail transportation is proper.
On May 8, 1969, Mr. MacMillan, president of the CNR, was before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. At that time I asked Mr. MacMillan this question:
Has your company ever considered or discussed with your competitors the setting up of a national passenger train policy, in order that the entire nation may be adequately served by passenger facilities without duplication?
Mr. MacMillan replied:
Yes, we have-and we have done more than that. We have under way at the moment-in collaboration with the research section of the CTC, in which the CPR are participating-a study in depth looking to the formulation of a rail passenger network of a character which will be adequate to meet the needs of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, if one looks at that statement and the elimination of passenger train service since that time, one realizes that the research work which is going on really means nothing to the Canadian Transport Commission. I have some recommendations which I believe should be considered seriously in the interest of the whole transportation policy of Canada. I say that this is in the interest of our nation because it affects a comprehensive, national transportation policy. I further suggest that the president of the Canadian Transport Commission should
The Address-Mr. Skoberg tender his resignation. As I mentioned earlier, I have already written to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in this regard.
I say that the Canadian Transport Commission should grant no further curtailment or abandonment until all research studies undertaken by the Research Division of the CTC or other departments of government into all guided ground transport studies and pollution control measures be completed and, further, that the commission should rescind its order to stop service on 400 miles of rail passenger service in southwestern Ontario. I also further say that the Canadian Transport Commission should give imaginative leadership in developing a transportation system in the interest of the user, the environment and the national economy. I say, too, that the personnel of the Canadian Transport Commission should not be determined by railroad influence or recommendations and a new approach should be adopted for filling CTC positions.
I also say that the railroads should be required to file annually with the CTC a public document showing what free trips were provided to individuals, organizations, the press, radio and TV, either on rail passenger, private rail car or subsidiary-owned airlines. Next I say that the CPR should be required to file an annual public statement showing what amounts CP rail has charged itself for rental of facilities owned by itself. Further, I say that the Canadian Transport Commission should immediately institute a comprehensive, professional, independent audit to assess railroad passenger cost estimates intelligently.
This suggestion probably answers some of the thinking of those who appeared before the commission. Then I say that the commission should immediately instruct the railroads to provide adequate and clean rolling stock for public convenience, and that the commission should cease and desist granting applications for abandonment on the balance-sheet alone, and take into consideration first and foremost convenience and service to the public of Canada. The attitude of "The public be damned" must come to an end. Last, I say that any loss in passenger train operation should be met by the resources of the railroads' other non-rail holdings and not from freight operations.
I am sincerely convinced that the non-rail holdings should offset any deficit in passenger train operations. It is not right that the users of freight services should have to worry about that particular deficit. Only through this method should the railways be obligated in meeting that deficit.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, as you have pointed out, that I am, and intend to be, critical of the president of the Canadian Transport Commission. I believe the president is convinced that the rail passenger train service is at an end in Canada. At the same time millions of dollars are being spent by other departments of government on the whole question of pollution and other controls, highway building and other things while the commission continues with these abandonments. I suggest this is a matter of concern to the nation as a whole and that Members of

The Address-Mr. Whiting
Parliament must be concerned about the type of approach we take.
I thank hon. members for the extended time granted to me.


Mr. Rud L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to join previous speakers in congratulating the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel). As was mentioned earlier, the hon. member for Bourassa sits very close to me and has become a very good friend. It was my pleasure to have the hon. member visit my riding last fall to speak to a group of people in Halton. While there he made many friends, and I took the liberty of sending copies of his remarks to the people in Halton who met him. They wish him well and wish him continued success in his parliamentary career.
To the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas), may I say that the people of my riding have not had the pleasure of having him visit our part of the country. However, knowing him as I do, and from listening to the speech he made in this debate, I can say to him that he would receive a very warm welcome should he visit the riding of Halton.
The opening of a new decade is a time to renew our hopes and aspirations and to assess the values that have assumed importance in our way of life. It is a sort of stock-taking time wherein we look at the achievements of the past and weigh them against the problems that forever seek solution. It is time to reaffirm our faith in our institutions and in our democratic system. These thoughts were reflected in the Speech from the Throne when it referred to freedom of the individual and equality of opportunity as our most cherished possessions. It talked of the enjoyment of life as measured in qualitative rather than quantitative terms, and a society which encourages imagination and daring ingenuity and initiative.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As these remarks were amplified throughout the Speech, it reflected an optimism on the part of the government that the 1970s will be a decade of growth and expansion, not only in material things but in all things which would give Canadians a way of life that could be the envy of the world. I say this despite the agonizing test to which the country has been put in the past two weeks. Our greatest duty is for all of us to stand together and to uphold and support authority. Let us then work for the betterment of all. We have our problems; let us deal with them.
Agriculture is still a major problem, despite years of serious and determined effort on the part of organized farm bodies, departments of agriculture in every province and the federal Department of Agriculture to bring the industry a reasonable measure of economic and social
October 21, 1970
stability. The importance of the industry is well known to everyone. When prices drop below the cost of production, when markets for the products of agriculture are inadequate in relation to the volume of goods that have been produced, then the industry is in trouble. Very few are the years in modern times that could be termed good, and many are the years that have been bad, with consequent bad effects on the nation's economy, expansion and progress in the pursuit of stability and security.
Marketing boards, acreage control, price controls, subsidies to ensure minimum prices and other devices have been resorted to in an effort to avoid overproduction and to ensure a decent standard of living for the agricultural producers caught in price squeezes and -unmarketable surpluses. Through it all there have been humanitarian protestations related to exploding population, hunger amid plenty, waste through storage necessitated by lack of methods of distribution, problems of credits and payments, etc.
It is an open question when and how any of these problems will be solved to the satisfaction of peoples directly involved and those indirectly involved. But for the moment let us take a look at agriculture as one of Canada's industries. It is in a bad way, with rural slums developing and more and more farmers leaving the land, mostly for economic reasons. The movement away from the farms of this country is more likely to accelerate than to diminish. Of course, not all the farms being deserted are being abandoned entirely, but enough are being foresaken to constitute a threat to our basic heritage, the soil. The time has come for the development of a new philosophy regarding this heritage. Through past decades, through all time, the prime interest of agriculture has been to cause the land to produce more abundantly and at the same time to protect it from deterioration and misuse. The objective has been to produce food for the peoples of the earth.
In these things we have been quite successful. There is not the slightest doubt that in Canada we can produce most of the food needs of our peoples. If we had to, technological advances are such that we could double our production in less than five years. But we would be able to do so only if the plant, the farms and the ranches were not allowed to fall into disuse and disrepair. Manufacturers do something about it when they get in a cost-price squeeze or a situation of overproduction in relation to the capacity of markets to absorb. One of the steps they take is to seek new items to add to their line, and new lines that will keep their productive capacity in use.
One of the steps that could be taken by Canadian agriculture would be to develop secondary outlets for agricultural production. As well as being the food basket for mankind, agriculture should become a supplier of raw materials for our great and growing processing industries. What the crops would be, what needs industry might have for raw materials, should be researched for possibilities. These possibilities then would require further research to determine potentials for fibres or for
IMr. Skoberg.]
October 21, 1970

chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and certain crops might be grown as sources of the need materials.
Most, or at least much of Canadian agricultural research has been into problems of new varieties, heavier producing varieties, improved livestock and poultry, quality control and improvement, and so on. The time has come for greater flexibility in agricultural research programs. In this the chemist must have a dominant role. Perhaps the chemist can be to agriculture what the physicist and the mathematician have been to atomic power and the conquest of space.
Who will get things started? It could well be the departments of agriculture, federal and provincial, and universities. But the problem and the need for a solution for the salvation of agriculture will require the support of the entire community. Such organizations as the chambers of commerce and any other associations with chemists and chemical engineers at the command of their members could play a big part in the revolution of agricultural philosophy.
There was a period in Canadian affairs that extended through many years prior to the 1930s when the annual reports of our banks, railways and other large corporations contained special mention by the president, general manager or chairman of the board of the state of Canadian agriculture. These reviews almost invariably were loaded with advice to farmers, most of it gratuitous and little of it of any real value to the man making a living from the farm. It seemed that every successful businessman was an expert, if self-appointed, on agriculture. This went out of fashion during World War II and, perhaps fortunately, was never revived.
The time has come for revival on the part of business and industry in the well-being of Canadian agriculture, and the time has come for a much more serious and practical approach to a solution of the problems that beset Canada's farmers and other land-based producers. Now is the time to take positive steps to protect the heritage of the Canadian people, the land, against deterioration and misuse. The penalty for failure to come to grips with the changing scene in these changing times will be awful in terms of erosion, drought, pestilence and human misery, with a new low in poverty.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before calling at six o'clock, does the House agree to allowing the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to revert to Motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions extending far back with respect to the bill respecting the federal court of Canada. Discussions have been renewed today and it is agreed that we could pass this motion which would put the federal court bill at the stage it had reached last session, with further points that will be apparent when I read the motion. So with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of any Standing Order or practice of this House, the version of the bill intituled an act respecting the federal court of Canada, as reported with amendments from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Wednesday, June 10, 1970, in the past session, be deemed to have been introduced, read a first time, ordered to be printed, read a second time, referred to and reported by a standing committee, and that the said bill be ordered to stand on the order paper for consideration by the House at the report stage on or after October 28, 1970; and
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
That, in addition to any motion or motions to amend the said bill to be filed during this session under the provisions of section 5 of Standing Order 75 in relation thereto, any motion or motions to amend the said bill filed in the prior session under the provisions of section 5 of Standing Order 75 in relation thereto shall be posted for consideration when the said bill is called in this session.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish only to say that the minister is quite correct in saying that there have been consultations and I am happy to confirm that the motion as he has read it out does cover all the points we wanted to be covered in connection with the reintroduction of this bill. We are happy to agree to this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mac T. McCuicheon (Lambton-Keni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and to state that our party agrees.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, our group is pleased to agree to the proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has heard the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At 6.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
wassia
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 22, 1970