1970-03-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau) moved: that the fifteenth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 4, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Mr. Warren Allmand (for Mr. MacGuigan) moved: that the first report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada, presented to the House on Thursday, March 5, 1970, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for unanimous consent to present a motion.
Last Friday Dunlop of Canada announced the closing of its industrial products division in Toronto, to be phased out in a few weeks. As a result 597 Canadians, many past 40 and with long seniority, are being thrown out of work at a time of very high unemployment. The government, through two of its ministers, had been informed of the company's intention. The closing of this plant is another example of decisions by corporations without regard for the effect on the lives of Canadians and
on the community and without adequate notice to the employees concerned. It is urgent that the facts of this case and the entire problem be studied in depth by a committee.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the closing of the Toronto industrial products plant of Dunlop Canada Limited be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that his proposed motion, under the terms of Standing Order 43, can be put to the House only if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member that there is no unanimity. Therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Lewis: 1.	For the fiscal year 1968-69, what were the total Canadian parliamentary appropriations for foreign aid programs?
2.	For the fiscal year 1968-69, what were the total actual expenditures by the Government of Canada on foreign aid programs?
3.	For the fiscal year 1968-69, what were the Canadian Government's foreign aid (a) allocations and (b) actual expenditures to (i) Latin America (ii) Colombo Plan (iii) Commonwealth Caribbean Assistance Program (iv) Special Commonwealth Africa Assistance Plan (v) Independent French-speaking African States and (vi) other countries?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. For the fiscal year
1968-69, the Canadian Parliamentary appropriations and authorizations for foreign aid totalled $289,476,000.

March 9, 1970
Questions
2.	For the fiscal year 1968-69, the actual 3. For the fiscal year 1968-69 the Canadian expenditures by the Government of Canada Government's allocations and actual expendi-on foreign aid programs totalled $186,305,- tures for bilateral foreign aid were as fol-772.23.	lows:
	Allocations	Expenditures
(i) Latin America	$ 11,000,000.00	$ 3,317,685.25(ii) Colombo Plan	126,300,000.00	103,952,189.48(iii) Commonwealth Caribbean Assistance Plan	22,110,000.00	9,103,160.28(iv) Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan	25,778,000.00	15,436,729.78(v) Independent French-speaking African States	23,800,000.00	14,431,267.45(vi) Other Countries and Programmes	10,079,640.75	7,621,620.74Totals	$ 219,067,640.75*	$ 153,862,652.98*
* does not include allocations and expenditures under multilateral programs.


CONTRACTS AWARDED TO COMPUTEL SYSTEMS LIMITED
Mr. Benjamin: For each of the years 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many contracts were awarded to
Computel Systems Limited of Ottawa and in each case, what was the (a) financial amount (b) goods or services supplied?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: (a)
(b)
[Mr. 	1967/68	1968/69	1969/70Fiscal	Fiscal	toDepartment	Year	Year	Nov. 30/69$	$	$Agriculture	23,024.	126,015.	92,082.Dominion Bureau of Statistics	16,356.	110,601.	132,793.Energy, Mines and Resources	13,125.	127,100.	150,924.Finance	9,641.	71,037.	24,764.Fisheries and Forestry Indian Affairs and Northern	-	12,458.	18,109.Development	-	9,121.	798.Industry, Trade and Commerce	-	743.	804.Labour	-	-	14,600.Manpower and Immigration	-	13,173.	1,163.Na ional Defence	-	46,621.	40,714.National Health and Welfare	-	-	4,481.Post Office	-	13,138.	16,245.Public Works	-	5,159.	5,008.Regional Economic Expansion	-	-	380.Supply and Services	-	-	122,989.Transport	-	43,272.	128,835.
Rental of Computer time. Sharp.]
March 9, 1970


CANADIAN A MOBILE UNITS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 702
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What was the cost of the mobile units used to take Canadians to the people of Canada during Centennial Year?
2.	Were any of these units retained for displaying Canada abroad and, if not, for what reason?
3.	How much was realized by the sale of the units through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
4.	What is the cost of the mobile units being used to take Canadians to the Francophonie countries of Africa?


Yves Forest: 1.

2.	No department expressed the wish to retain any of the units for displaying Canada abroad.
3.	$803,504.
4.	Four tractors, $25,160; four trailers, $19,570.


&quot;POSITIVE ACTION&quot; PLAN, EASTERN SHORE, GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY
Mr. MacEwan: Has the Prime Minister received a communication from the Goldboro-Bayview District Board of Trade, Isaac's Harbour, Nova Scotia, containing a blueprint of a "Positive Action" plan for the Eastern Shore of Guysborough County and, if so, what action does the government intend to take on this matter?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Yes, but federal assistance
	(a)	(b)
Fiscal Year	$	$1965-66	2,150	-1966-67	2,213	-1967-68	2,268	-1968-69	3,141	-far as the	Department of	Manpower
and Immigration is concerned: The Department of Manpower and Immigration records
Questions
would be to the government of Nova Scotia, with whom the request will be reviewed.


REVISION OF DESIGNATED AREAS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 812
Mr. McBride:: 1.	What is the earliest possible date that a revision of the designated areas under the Regional Incentives Act will take place?
2.	Are surveys of any kind now underway either by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or by any other agency with the knowledge and compliance of that Department to provide information for possible revisions of the designated areas in Canada?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Present Orders in Council are effective to 30 June 1972; other Orders can be made.
2.	Various organizations are preparing briefs.


GRANBY, QUEBEC-CANADA MANPOWER CENTRE COSTS
Mr. Rondeau: What have the annual (a) administrative (b) rental (c) maintenance (d) renovation (e) miscellaneous costs, for the Canadian Manpower Centre in Granby amounted to, since its opening?


Yves Forest: So far as
the Department of Public Works is concerned:
(c)	(d)	(e)$	$	$1,154	-	421,238	-	11,663	-	32,298	22,000	4
for Granby cover the undermentioned periods only:
Fiscal Year
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
(a)
Salaries

98,979
118,009
105,246 (to Dec. 31/69)
Operations

4,373
9,330
6,875 (to Dec. 31/69)

March 9, 1970
Questions


GRANBY, QUEBEC-POST OFFICE COSTS
Mr. Rondeau: What have the annual (a) administrative (b) rental (c) maintenance (d) renovation (e) miscellaneous costs, for the post office in Granby amounted to, since its opening?


Yves Forest: So far as
the Department of Public Works is concerned:
(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)Fiscal Year	$	$	$	$	$1955-56	5,097	-	1,970	-	361956-57	6,013	-	3,223	-	71957-58	6,692	-	3,293	-	-1958-59	6,754	-	9,179	-	531959-60	6,752	-	3,235	-	141960-61	6,384	-	3,442	-	1041961-62	5,928	-	3,584	-	1581962-63	6,115	-	3,236	-	201963-64	6,772	-	9,628	-	501964-65	6,333	-	4,327	-	251965-66	6,913	-	3,688	-	1361966-67	7,116	-	3,986	-	31967-68	7,280	-	5,350	-	51968-69	10,098	-	7,391	-	14So far as the	Post Office	Department is	2. The agreement provides	for theseconcerned: Salary	records prior to 1966 are	employees to work up to nine	hours per day	not available.	six days a week ;	at straight	time rates of	(a)	pay. During the probationary period all over-	$	time is worked at	straight time,	thereafter,1966-67	233,653	overtime at time and a half is only paid after	1967-68	247,396	nine hours in any	one day and	for serviceon Sundays.	1968-69	302,270	3. (a) On the average about 400	per month.1969-70	264,476 (to Jan. 31,1970)	(b) On the average	about 115	per	month.


CNR-SPARE GANGS IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	What hourly wage is paid to members of CNR spare gangs in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?
2.	How many hours do these men have to work before they receive time-and-a-half?
3.	How many workers are there on CNR spare gangs in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:	1. Pursuant to the collective
agreement with the Labour organization concerned the current rate of pay for extra gang employees, after a probationary period of 78 days of service, is $2,012 per hour, after a further 156 days of service, the rate is $2,108 per hour. There is no fixed rate of pay during the probationary period, however employees generally average $1.75 per hour.


ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR NON-MILITARY AMMUNITION TO BOTSWANA AND SWAZILAND
Mr. MacLean: 1 Were permits issued in 1969 for the sale of non-military ammunition to Botswana and Swaziland and, if so, was Canadian ammunition exported to these countries?
2.	What was the value of the export, amount, description and calibre of the ammunition in question?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes.
2.	Permits were issued in 1969 for nonmilitary ammunition to Botswana and Swaziland to a total value of $42,780. Statistics of actual exports in 1969 are not complete and, in any event, would not coincide in value with permits issued in the calendar year owing to the six months period of validity of the per-
March 9. 1970

mits. Exports were predominantly .22 rim-fire cartridges but included a wide variety of centre-fire hunting calibres and shot-shells.


EDUCATION-READING DEFICIENCIES AND ILLITERACY
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Does the government or any department, branch, bureau or agency thereof, have statistics on reading deficiencies and illiteracy among Canadians?
2.	What is the percentage of students who have reading deficiencies, by category, based on the method of sampling used to obtain such information?
3.	How many illiterates are there in Canada's adult population?
4.	How many persons between the ages of 16 and 21, listed as unemployed, are functionally illiterate?
5.	What is the percentage of juvenile offenders who are functionally illiterate?
6.	(a) Are statistics available on the reading ability of those in the armed forces (b) do these statistics indicate the number or percentage whose reading ability falls below a set or acceptable standard?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. Yes, the Education Division, the Judicial Division and the Census Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics collect some information on reading deficiencies and illiteracy among Canadians.
2.	As of January 1966, 12,108 children were being provided special remedial reading programmes in special education facilities, including both those operated by school boards and those run by other organizations, in which specially-trained teachers were employed. This is not to be taken as an indication of the percentage of children who can be classified as retarded readers1. A common finding of researchers is that 3.4 per cent of the population can be classified as retarded.
3.	In Canada's adult population (20 years and over), according to the 1961 Census, there were 169,904 illiterates with no schooling (1.63 per cent of the population), and 828,597 who were functionally illiterate, with one to four years of schooling (7.93 per cent of the population).
4.	According to the 1961 Census 13.4 per cent of the unemployed, aged 15 to 19, and 10.4 per cent of those aged 20 to 24, were functionally illiterate, with less than five years of elementary education.
Questions
5.	In 1967, 8.32 per cent of juvenile offenders were functionally illiterate (1,499 of 18,000 juvenile delinquents who had been to court). Of those who entered Training Schools in 1967, 12.83 per cent were functionally illiterate (312 of 2,431). These are not necessarily the same people who appeared in court.
6.	The minimum acceptable education standards for a male applicant for enrolment in the Canadian Forces is Ontario Grade 8 or equivalent, and for a woman Ontario Grade 10 or equivalent. In addition to the basic education standard, all applicants must successfully complete a comprehensive testing program which includes reading ability. Thus, there are no members of the Canadian Forces whose reading ability falls below an acceptable standard.


CHARLOTTETOWN AIRPORT AREA
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What steps are currently being taken to increase the area of the Charlottetown Airport?
2.	If land has been acquired, where is it situated?
3.	Have any arrangements been entered into with municipal or provincial authorities in reference to the granting of building permits in the area required for future expansion of this Airport?
4.	What is the target date for completion of plans for the Charlottetown Airport?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. There is no action currently underway to increase the area of the Charlottetown Airport.
2.	No new lands have been acquired.
3.	No.
4.	The target date is contingent on the conclusions and influences of two studies namely, (a) Future demands for Aviation Services in the Atlantic Provinces and (b) An over-all plan to serve the Aviation activity on a National basis and thus cannot be estimated at this time.


CANADIAN ARCTIC WEATHER STATIONS
Mr. Thomson: 1.	How many weather stations does Canada have in the Arctic and where are they located?
2.	(a) Which ones are operated and financed entirely by Canada and which ones are not (b) do other nations participate with Canada in their operation and financing and, if so (i) which ones (ii) to what extent?
3.	Has the Government of Canada made any evaluation of the effect that joint operation and financing of weather stations has on our claims to sovereignty over certain Arctic lands or islands and, if so, what have been the conclusions?

March 9, 1970
Questions


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. Fifty-eight north of the 60th parallel at the locations given in the attached listing.
2.	(a) All the arctic weather stations with the exception of Alert, Eureka, Isachsen, Mould Bay and Resolute are operated and financed entirely by Canada, (b) The United States participates in the operation and financing of the weather stations at Alert, Eureka, Isachsen, Mould Bay and Resolute to the extent of approximately 45 percent of the cost.
3.	Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic lands and islands is unassailable and undisputed. Any joint operations in these or other Canadian territories, with the U.S.A. or any other country, could only be carried out with the consent of Canada as the sovereign power and could not affect Canada's sovereignty over such territories.
Arctic Weather Stations
Alert, N.W.T.; Arctic Bay, N.W.T.; Baker Lake, N.W.T.; Beaver Creek, Y.T.; Bre-voort Island, N.W.T.; Broughton Island, N.W.T;. Burwash, Y.T.; Byron Bay, N.W.T.; Cambridge Bay, N.W.T.; Cape Dyer, N.W.T.; Cape Hooper, N.W.T.; Cape Hopes Advance, Que.; Cape Parry, N.W.T.; Chesterfield,
N.W.T.; Clinton Point, N.W.T.; Clyde, N.W.T.; Contwoyto Lake, N.W.T.; Coppermine, N.W.T.; Coral Harbour, N.W.T.; Dawson, Y.T.; Deception Bay, Que.; Dewar Lakes, N.W.T.; Ennadai Lake, N.W.T.; Eureka, N.W.T.; Fort Good Hope, N.W.T.; Fort Reliance, N.W.T.; Fort Resolution, N.W.T.; Fort Simpson, N.W.T.; Fort Smith, N.W.T.; Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.; Gladman Point, N.W.T.; Haines Junction, Y.T.; Hall Beach, N.W.T.; Hay River, N.W.T.; Holman, N.W.T.; Inuvik, N.W.T.; Isachsen, N.W.T.; Longstaff Bluff, N.W.T.; Mackar Inlet, N.W.T.; Mayo, Y.T.; Mould Bay, N.W.T.; Norman Wells, N.W.T.; Nottingham Island, N.W.T.; Pelly Bay, N.W.T.; Port Radium, N.W.T.; Rea Point, N.W.T.; Resolute, N.W.T.; Resolution Island (Cape Warwick), N.W.T.; Rowley Island, N.W.T.; Sachs Harbour, N.W.T.; Spence Bay, N.W.T.; Teslin, Y.T.; Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T.; Tuktoyaktuk Airport, N.W.T.; Watson Lake, N.W.T.; Whitehorse, Y.T.; Wrigley, N.W.T.; Yellowknife, N.W.T.


POST OFFICE-AIRLINE COSTS FOR CARRYING MAIL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What amounts have been paid to each airline in Canada for carrying mail each year since 1963?
2.	Axe airlines invited to tender on mail contracts and, if not, how are the contracts awarded?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1.	Airlines	1963-64Canadian Pacific Air (Domestic)	
$1,090,132	$1(International)... 1,531,526	1Athabaska Airways Ltd	
621Austin Airways Ltd	
136,670B.C. Airlines Ltd	
38,297Courier Flights Ltd	
8,843Eastern Provincial Airways	
614,653Georgian Bay Airways Ltd	
1,566Great Northern Airways Ltd	
-Mel Air Ltd	
-Nordair Ltd	
188,208North Coast Air Services	
-Northern Air Services	
1,123Pacific Western Airlines	
517,150Quebecair Ltd	
54,453Transair Ltd	
313,328Trans Provincial Air Carriers	
-Air Gaspe Inc	
9,102Atlas Aviation	
-Brochu Industries Ltd	
-Carrot River Airways Ltd	
505Coast Range Airways Ltd	
9,831Discovery Mines Ltd	
1,463Fort Vermilion Air Services	
1,210Gordon Airways Ltd	
8,861Halls Air Services	
10,9481964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69,201,845	$1,251,739	$1,616,778	$1,667,622	$1,592,044,811,906	2,529,750	3,387,533	4,649,253	4,695,243530	480	1,203	2,729	2,744206,010	230,888	257,676	300,282	303,50634,574	38,198	43,978	82,985	74,4039,287	7,961	8,248	6,308	2,926562,442	562,940	650,557	743,191	733,8731,554	1,554	5,274	8,520	8,324-	38,594	32,969	35,411	42,385-	1,695	9,904	10,277	13,053191,530	220,837	362,368	348,954	414,739-	-	-	402	1,5401,217	1,368	1,370	3,226	3,745653,562	642,482	641,542	690,742	709,21285,006	90,861	93,488	96,770	105,810320,940	359,634	471,383	380,638	309,626-	-	-	-	8,73311,265	15,000	15,000	15,721	15,000-	-	2,632	25,666	36,375-	-	3,622	7,905	8,1971,159	1,260	5,356	5,486	7,01411,893	17,698	16,392	12,795	4,8071,546	1,694	1,706	1,680	1,2771,260	1,411	1,806	1,764	1,8098,550	8,670	8,917	10,156	9,70810,566	11,409	11,761	11,396	620
March 9, 1970

Questions
Airlines	1963-1964	1964-1965	1965-1966	1966-1967	1967-1968	1968-1969
Hooker Air Services	 -
Island Airlines Ltd	 -
Lambair Ltd	 4,629
Lethbridge Air Services	 -
Midwest Aviation	 -
Montmagny Air Services	 2,465
Northern Wings Ltd	 125,681
Northland Airlines Ltd	 -
Northward Aviation Ltd	 -
Omineca Air Services	 -
Orillia Air Services	 819
Ptarmigan Airways Ltd	 -
Riverton Airways Ltd	
Roberts Flying Service	 5,609
Starratt Transportation Ltd	 607
St. Felicien Air Service	 -
Tyee Airways Ltd	 [DOT]-
Alert Bay Air Services	 -
Trans Mountain Air Services North Canada Air	
Contact Airways Ltd	 502
Northwest Territorial Airways Ltd....
Laviolette Air Services	 1,710
Connelly Dawson Airways Ltd	 17,019
Ilford Airways Ltd	 1,376
McMurray Air Services Ltd	 17,924
Northern Mountain Airlines	 4,512
Saskair	 20,589
Mattagami Skyways Ltd	 4,566
Air Canada (Domestic)	 7,420,000
(International)	 3,653,498
-	-	16,206	22,503-	18	6,642	9,348	9,3786,042	6,469	2,447	2,280	2,136-	-	2,067	5,865	6,460-	-	-	3,768	6,8752,465	2,535	2,500	2,910	2,958132,738	136,507	108,752	209,176	152,764-	-	-	104,921	237,333-	-	-*	44,093-	-	2,151	2,418864	792	828	810	82872	511	509	418	686-	2,489	3,026	3,9945,417	5,209	5,964	6,546	5,577655	886	975	948	959-	-	-	16,866	30,109-	-	-	189	423-	-	-	55	1,069-	. -	-	-	3,606-	28,127	29,796	33,994	51,144408	663	536	-	2,355 7Q3,712	5,596	2,178	23,527	-	-	-	-2,287	2,466	1,248	-	-15,902	15,405	2,613	-	-4,604	5,887	6,624	399	-25,063	-	-	-	-5,777	2,710	1,864	-	-7,730,000	7,986,374	8,229,660	8,813,128	9,558,4314,334,808	4,719,344	5,129,497	5,270,312	5,291,2332.	No. Contracts with Air Canada are not awarded on the basis of public tender but by virtue of an agreement signed by the Postmaster General and the President of Air Canada. The last contract with Air Canada (then Trans Canada Airlines) was entered into on 21st May 1946. Subsequent to this date there have been a number of revisions to update the basis of payment in accordance with changing circumstances such as an increase in the volume of mail etc.
Arrangements with other carriers is made by an exchange of letters between the Department and the airline indicating, on the part of both, a mutually acceptable agreement for the transportation of mail under qualified terms and conditions for a period not to exceed five years. This is the maximum term of agreement permissible under the Post Office Act.
Prior to establishing an airmail service offers are invited from all air carriers in the area who are qualified through holding the required operating licence, as issued by the Air Transport Committee.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Coales: 1.	On what date was the Royal Commission on the Status of Women established?
2.	On what date will the final report of the Commission be available to the government and the public?
3.	What are the names of the present members of the Commission and how much has each received in honoraria and expenses?
4.	How many persons were appointed to the Commission who have since retired and how much did each receive in honoraria and expenses?
5.	(a) How many consulting firms were retained
(b)	what are the names of the firms in question
(c)	how much has each received for services rendered to date (d) what is the final estimated cost of each consulting firm that has been retained by the Commission?
6.	What has been the cost to date to the federal government for the work of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women and what is the final estimated cost of this Commission?


James Edgar Walker: I am informed by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women as follows: 1. February 16, 1967, by Order-inCouncil P.C. 1967-312.
2. Everything is being done to expedite the finalization of the Report.
Questions

March 9, 1979
3.
Present Members
Mrs. John Bird, Chairman Dr. Jacques Henripin Dr. John P. Humphrey Mrs. Ottomar Lange Miss Jeanne Lapointe Miss Elsie G. MacGill Mrs. Robert Ogilvie
4.	One-D. Gordon Jr.
5.	(a) Two. (b) Hickling-Johnson Limited &
Rotec Inc. (c) Hickling-Johnson Limited $28,100.00, Rotec Inc. $31,607.67.	(d) As
shown in (c).
6.	(a) $1,518,741.93 to February 4, 1970. (b) Final estimated cost $1,779,869.27.


COMPLETION OF NEW RUNWAY, VANCOUVER AIRPORT
Mr. Goode: When will the new runway at the Vancouver International Airport be completed?


Gérard Loiselle: Subject to availability of funds and growth of air traffic as now forecast, runway construction is programmed for completion in the fiscal year of 1974-75.


TORONTO AIRPORT PLANNING
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the feasibility of setting up a joint committee of municipal provincial and federal representatives to discuss matters relevant to Metropolitan Toronto Airport expansion problems?


Gérard Loiselle: Consideration has been given to this proposal. The statement in the House on February 4 by the Minister of Transport explained the impracticability of this approach in the early stages of the study dealing with this problem.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-PRESS RELEASE &quot;NEW BEEF CATTLE PASTURAGE DEVELOPED ON INDIAN RESERVES&quot;
Mr. Gleave: 1.	Did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make a Press Release "New Beef Cattle Pasturage Developed on Indian Reserves" dated January 29, 1970, and, if so, what specific provisions are made for the Indians on the reserve to build up their cattle herds?

Honoraria to	Expenses to
February 4, 1970	February 4,
$	$
57,837.50	4,455.65
34,050.00	4,871.50
31,650.00	4,583.63
41,775.00	18,524.00
33,325.00	6,604.05
41,800.00	7,502.91
41,700.00	8,216.19
5,550,00	655.62
2. Is there a specific time-table during the ten-year period to permit the Indian bands to develop cattle herds progressively and take over the grazing lands which are now being developed?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issued the Press Release dated January 29, 1970.
In addition to having priority for summer grazing in the developed pasture, Indian farmers are assisted in establishing or expanding a herd under the Rotating Herd Program or by loans from the Indian Loan Fund. Under the Rotating Herd Program herds of cows are placed with Indian farmers for a 3 year period. The farmer keeps the female stock to establish a basic herd of his own and sells the male stock to recover operating costs. The herd is placed with another farmer after the 3 year period. Loans, from the Indian Loan Fund, may be made for the purchase of cattle.
2. There is no specific time-table during the 10 year period for the Indian Bands to develop herds and take over the grazing land.


BACCARO LORAN STATION
Mr. Comeau: Is it the intention of the government to phase out the Baccaro radar station and, if so, on what date and for what reason?


Gérard Loiselle: At the present time there is no plan to phase out the Baccaro LORAN station.


DESTRUCTION OF SALMON EGGS, TWIN DIVERS, B.C.
Mr. Crouse: Were salmon eggs destroyed in the spawning area of Twin Divers, British Columbia in October, 1969 and, if so (a) how many were destroyed (b) was a large pulp and paper company fined for such
March 9, 1970

destruction (c) how much was the fine (d) is the government giving consideration to introducing legislation to increase the fines for offending industries?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: It is
assumed that the Twin Divers referred to is Twin Rivers which is the name of a logging company in northern British Columbia and which operates log drives on the Nass River. On this basis the reply is as follows: (a) No eggs were destroyed since logs are not permitted to be driven over known salmon spawning areas; (b) No; (c) Not applicable; (d) Yes.


COUNSELLING STAFF, PENITENTIARY SERVICE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many staff in the penitentiary service are employed exclusively on counselling-dealing with inmates' families, planning pre-release and release?
2.	How is staff selected?
3.	What is the basis of selection?
4.	How is staff trained?
5.	What is the curriculum?
6.	What materials are used?
7.	Who staffs the training colleges?
8.	What are their qualifications?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1.
The staff organization of the Penitentiary Service provides counselling service as a function of designated staff positions and not as the exclusive function of any one class of position. Counselling constitutes a major function of each of the following: Classification and Guidance Officers, 120; Psychologists, full-time, 13; under contract, 10; Chaplains, 31; Total: 174.
2.	Since September 11, 1969 staff has been selected in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Public Service Employment Act.
3.	As for 2.
4.	Training of staff depends on background and varies according to the experience and level of qualification in each case; and many consist of: (a) Courses and seminars on interviewing and counselling held at one of the Correctional Staff Colleges, (b) Program orientation and "in-service" training within the Institution under the direction of qualified officers, (c) Leave of absence to pursue university training in a selected field.
5.	The curriculum is flexible, depending on the degree of competence and experience. It includes techniques for establishing a relationship of confidence with the inmate during interviewing and counselling sessions; the
Questions
psychological mechanisms affecting human behaviour and motivation; the development of personality and intelligence; role playing in group counselling situations, inmate characteristics; the psychology of criminal behaviour.
6.	Materials used are lecture precis prepared by professional staff; films from the National Film Board that were made in cooperation with the Penitentiary Service; some films of the "Criminal Man" series made by a leading psychiatrist in criminal behaviour in California; and textbooks on Criminology and Penology (Korn and McCorkle), Delinquency and Opportunity (Cloward & Ohlin), the Sociology of Deviant Behaviour (Clin-ard), Counselling and Psychotherapy (Rogers), the Dynamics of Interviewing (Kahn & Connell).
7.	Correctional Staff Colleges are staffed by a Superintendent, a Chief Instructor, a number of Staff Instructors and support and administrative staff.
8.	Staff Instructors must possess a minimum educational level of Junior Matriculation or acceptable equivalent. There are four levels of staff instructors and each must successfully complete the appropriate courses designed to provide him with a thorough knowledge of the inmate training program, modern concepts of management and the ability to impart this knowledge to staff members attending junior and senior level courses.


GARNISHEEING OF PENSION CHEQUES BY GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY
Mr. Stewart (Marquette): 1.	Does the government allow garnishees against Old Age Security Pension cheques by any department of the government and, if so, what is the total number of garnishees placed on such cheques by all departments for the years 1968 and 1969?
2.	Are there any appeal procedures available to persons whose Old Age Security Pension cheques have been garnisheed by the government?
3.	Does the government allow garnishees to be placed against Old Age Security Pension cheques by private industry?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) Section 20 (a) of the Old Age Security Act provides for the recovery of debts to the Crown in respect of benefit payments made under the Act, and to which the person was not entitled, from any future benefits payable under the Old Age Security Act. (b) Under the terms of Sections 95 (i) and 95 (iii) of the Financial

March 9, 1970
Questions
Administration Act, Treasury Board may authorize the Minister of Finance to recover debts due the Crown in right of Canada, and debts in the right of a province in respect of which Canada has contributed under the provisions of any Act, from any money payable by Canada, such as an Old Age Security pension.
The Old Age Security records are maintained in such a way that it is not possible to give the number of cases where pension payments are being withheld in whole or in part in reimbursement of debts referred to in (a) and (b) above.
2.	No.
3.	No.


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE, INDIAN CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children attend elementary schools and how many attend secondary schools?
2.	How many of the children attending elementary and secondary schools are attending schools which are (a) purely Indian (b) integrated?
3.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending elementary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending elementary schools?
4.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending secondary schools?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1 and 2. Enrolment of Indian pupils in elementary and secondary and Indian and integrated schools, for the year 1969-70.
Indian	Integrated	TotalElementary (grades K-8)	27,453	30,283	57,736Secondary (grades 9-13)	249	7,512	7,761Total	27,702	37,795	65,497
3 and 4. Percentage of Indian pupils attending elementary and secondary schools compared with the percentage of pupils of Canada attending elementary and secondary schools, for the year 1968-69.
% in	% in
Elementary Secondary
Indian Pupils 1968-69	89	11Pupils of Canada 1968-69	72	28
[Mr. Munro.l


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE. INDIAN CHILDREN
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many Indian children are attending (a) elementary schools (b) secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending secondary schools?
3.	How many Indian students are attending universities or other advanced educational institutions?


Russell Clayton Honey: Parts 1 and 2. See
answer to Question 1,104.
Part 3. Enrolment of Indian students in universities or other advanced educational institutions as of October 31, 1969. University, 245; Teacher Training, 30; Registered Nurses Training, 23; Total: 298.


RIVERS MONITORED FOR WATER POLLUTION
Mr. Rose: At present, which rivers in Canada is the Department of Fisheries and Forestry monitoring with respect to the extent of water pollution?


Eugene Whelan: The
following rivers are checked on a regular or periodic basis:
Bulkley River Fraser River
Thompson River Stellako River Nicomeke River Nicola River South Thompson River Endako River Texas Creek Nass River Whonnock River Somass (Estuary)
Marble River Tsolum River Jordan River Miramichi River System Saint John River System Nepisiquit River Exploits River South Brook Rambler Brook Humble River (Estuary)
In addition there are a great many rivers and other waters that are investigated when some specific problem is brought to the attention of this Department.
March 9, 1970


HELICOPTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many helicopters are licensed in Canada, where are they located and what kind of service do they perform?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. (1) 505 Civil helicopters licensed in Canada by the Department of Transport.
(2)	The Department does not keep a record of the continuing changes in locations of sites from which helicopters operate. The following list shows the total number of Canadian registered helicopters by Provinces and Territories. (a) B.C., 103; (b) Alta., 109; (c) Sask., 13; (d) Man., 23; (e) Ont., 155; (f) Que., 70; (g) N.B., 7; (h) N.S., 3; (i) P.E.I., nil; (j) Nfld., 1; (k) N.W.T., nil; (1) Yukon, 21.
(3)	Helicopters are employed in commercial services licensed by the Air Transport Committee under the following categories: (i) Recreational Flying; (ii) Flying Training; (iii) Aerial Photography and Survey; (iv) Aerial Application and Distribution (Crop dusting, aerial fertilizing, etc.); (v) Aerial Inspection, Reconnaissance and Advertising; (vi) Aerial Construction; (vii) Aerial Control (Fire suppression, frost prevention, etc.); (viii) Charter Air Services (Scheduled and non-scheduled movement of passengers and cargo); (ix) Pipeline Patrol; (x) Traffic Reporting.
In addition, 41 helicopters are registered for state purposes and 59 for private purposes.


ANCIENNE-LORETTE POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Godin: 1.	Is construction of a post office in Ancienne-Lorette, P.Q. scheduled in the programme of the Department of Public Works?
2.	What is the cost of the land on which this post office is to be built?
3.	From whom was the land purchased?
4.	Will this post office be built during the year 1969-70?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, on a build-to-lease basis.
2.	The Department of Public Works will not purchase land.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No.
Questions


COMPUTER FACILITIES GRANTS-IMPLEMENTATION OF ERWICK REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Skoberg: Has NRC implemented any of the recommendations presented in the report of Erwick, Curry and Partners Limited, of August 30, 1968, as they pertain to the Computer Facilities Grants Program with the universities and, if so, what changes have been made or are expected to be made in line with such recommendations?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Ihe Treasury Board):: Insofar as the National Research Council of Canada and Canadian Patents and Development Limited are concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. No. The changes which are planned for the Cumputer Facilities Grants are in line with the recommendation (No. 22):
The present form of NRC grants to university computing centres be discontinued, and that Computing for research be supported from the normal operating grants of all federal research councils.
made in the report of the Macdonald Committee for the Science Council of Canada (The Role of the Federal Government in Support of Research in Canadian Universities, Special Study No. 7, 1969).


UNIVERSITY RESEARCH SPONSORING BY U.S. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Mr. Rose: Is the government in a position to state whether the Central Intelligence Agency of the U.S.A. is currently sponsoring research in Canadian Universities and, if so (a) what was the general nature of the research for the years 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969 (b) what Canadian universities received CIA grants, and what was the total grant for each of the years listed in Part (a) (c) will the appropriate government department provide a list of the specific research projects and the university where each project was undertaken for each of the years listed above?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes. The Government is in a position to state that the Central Intelligence Agency of the U.S.A. is not currently sponsoring research in Canadian universities and did not do so in 1966, 1967, 1968 or 1969.
2. (a)(b)(c) answered by 1.


CENTRAL NOVA POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	How many post offices have been closed in Central Nova since June 25, 1968?
2.	How many additional offices does the Post Office Department intend to close?

March 9, 1970
Questions
3.	Where were the post offices located that have already been closed and what are the localities in which future closures will take place?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of letters of complaints and protestations received from groups and individuals protesting the closing of the various post offices?
5.	What is the estimated savings resulting from the closing of these post offices?


Eric William Kierans: 1. 17.
2.	15.
3,	4 and 5 see following:
3 (a) Post Office	5. Savings
East River Sheet Harbour	1,000.
Lansdowne Station	1,085.
Coddles Harbour	1,085.
Stormont	410.
Barneys River	1,327.
Sonora	1,400.
Wine Harbour	800.
Gays River	2,051.
Goldenville	Nil
East River, St. Marys	1,640.
McPhersons Mills	2,700.
Ecum Secum	*
Ecum Secum	Bridge	*
South River Lake	700.
Bridgeville	1,200.
Lourdes	1,900.
Mushaboom	1,200.
Middle Stewiacke	2,000.
(b) Country Harbour Mines, Drum Head, Harrigan Cove, Issac's Harbour North, Lis-comb Mills, Middle Country Harbour, Port Bickerton, Sheet Harbour Passage, Spanish Ship Bay, Spry Bay, Watt Section Sheet Harbour, Avondale Station, Egerton, Meadow-ville Station, and West Branch River John.
4.	Departmental records are not maintained on the number of letters of complaint.
* Savings cannot be accurely attributed to one office as a combination of changes, involving the closing of more than one post office and the rearrangement of various mail transportation services, have occurred. As a result of the various changes involved, an approximate saving of $3,000. was realized.


LENGTHENING OF RUNWAYS, ANCIENNE-LORETTE AIRPORT
Mr. Godin: Has the government made a study in connection with the lengthening of the runways at Ancierme-Lorette airport and, if so, what plans have been made and when is this work expected to be carried out?
[Mr. MacEwan.j


Gérard Loiselle: This matter has been studied, and there are no plans for the lengthening of the runways at the Ancienne-Lorette Airport during the next five years.


LAC LA BICHE NEWSTART PROJECT-MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT PURCHASES
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Has the government authorized the Alberta Newstart project at Lac La Biche to purchase 4 cats, 5 trucks and 1 back hoe from a Mr. W. Hamilton, Contractor, in Lac La Biche and, if so
(a)	what price was paid for this equipment (b) was it purchased on the tender system?
2.	Is Mr. Hamilton on the Board of Directors of Newstart and, if so (a) is he being paid a salary
(b)	what is this salary?
3.	Has any kitchen equipment been purchased for this Newstart school project and, if so (a) from whom (b) at what price (c) was it purchased on the tender system?
4.	Have any pool tables been purchased recently for this Newstart project at Lac La Biche and, if so (a) from whom (b) what was the price paid (c) was this equipment purchased on the tender system?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1, 3 and 4. Newstart corporations are non-profit companies set up under the legislation of the province in which they operate. Annual plans and budgets are approved by the federal government and the provincial government concerned. Specific expenditures are then the responsibility of the corporation. These enquiries therefore should be addressed to the Executive Director, Alberta Newstart Inc., Lac La Biche, Alberta.
2. Yes. (a) and (b). These enquiries should be made as above.


TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
Mr. Orlikow: Under the formula for the equitable distribution among the provinces of federal contributions under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act for financial assistance to the capital cost of training facilities, how much has already been paid, or agreed to be paid, to each province, expressed both in dollars and as a percentage of the total amount each province is entitled to receive under the formula and how much remains to be paid or agreed to be paid to each province under the formula from March 31, 1967 to March 31, 1969?
March 9, 1970


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Federal contributions to the provinces for the capital cost of training facilities provided under the Tech-
Questions
nical and Vocational Training Assistance Act and the Adult Occupational Training Act are shown in millions of dollars in the table attached.
Federal Contribution to Capital Cost of Training Facilities (In Millions of Dollars)
Province	Entitlement $ (a)	Paid Apr. 1, 1961 to Mar. 31, 1967 $	Percent of Entitlement (b)	Paid Apr. 1, 1967 to Mar. 31, 1969 $	Percent of Entitlement (c)	Balance of Entitlement as of Mar. 31,1969Newfoundland	... 35.06	21.30	60.8	1.00	63.6	12.76Prince Edward Island	... 7.10	2.60	36.6	.29	40.7	4.21Nova Scotia	... 51.39	10.47	20.0	19.34	58.0	21.58New Brunswick	... 42.81	7.16	16.7	10.08	40.3	25.57Quebec	... 373.94	131.00	35.3	99.82	61.7	143.12Ontario	... 349.51	278.87	79.8	46.69	93.2	23.95Manitoba	... 56.65	11.71	20.1	11.22	40.5	33.72Saskatchewan	... 58.29	13.38	23.0	16.33	51.0	28.58Alberta	.. 79.20	68.14	86.0	7.39	95.4	3.67British Columbia	... 90.12	44.07	48.8	10.39	60.4	35.66Yukon Territory	... .93	.93	100.0	-	100.0	-Northwest Territory	... 1.36	.07	5.2	-	5.2	1.29Canada	... 1,146.36	589.70	51.4	222.55	70.9	334.11(a)	Entitlement-amount federal government agreed to pay=$800 times the population of the province in the 15 to 19 years age group (inclusive according to the 1961 DBS census.(b)	Amount paid to March 31, 1967 as percentage of entitlement.(c)	Amount paid to March 31, 1969 as percentage of entitlement.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-DISTRESS AIR INCIDENTS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	In each of the past two years, how many planes have made forced landings!
2.	Of this number, how many have been lost where searches have been conducted?
3.	What is the total estimated cost of the searches that were involved?
4.	In what provinces or territories were these searches conducted.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1 and 2. Forced landings are defined as aircraft landings which for any reason occur away from planned or stated destination of the flight. They frequently occur without loss or damage to the aircraft or significant action by control authorities. No reports are made on these unless an accident occurs. The Department of National Defence records all incidents involving the use of Search and Rescue facilities but no statistics are available differentiating the specific causes of the incidents. In 1968 and 1969 respectively, there were 138 and 133 Distress Air Incidents requiring Search and Rescue action.
3.	As Order-in-Council P.C. 1962-13/653, dated 2 May, 1962, stipulates no fee will be charged for humanitarian assistance, specifically search and rescue, no record of costs of individual searches is maintained. However, an estimate, based on the percentage of total hours flown in 1968 and 1969, is approximately $4.8 million and $6.1 million respectively.
4.	There were Distress Air Incidents, involving Search and Rescue action, in each of the provinces and territories.


UNION DUES INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS
Mr. Mather: What was the total of union dues income tax exemptions in the years 1968 and 1969?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1968, $137,978,000; 1969, not available.
The figure for 1968 is an aggregate of union, professional and like dues and no separate figure is available for union dues.

March 9, 1970
Questions


FINANCE-CRITICISM OF WHITE PAPER
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many letters, telegrams and/or other communications criticizing or condemning the White Paper in whole or in part have been received by the Prime Minister since the 1st of January, 1970?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 1270 is that a total of 666 letters, telegrams and other communications were received by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) between January 1 and February 28, 1970, criticizing the white paper on the tax reform in whole or in part.


COMPANIES IN PANARCTIC OIL
Mr. Gauthier: What are the names of the 20 private companies forming part of consortium Panarctic Oil and the percentage of their investments?


Russell Clayton Honey: The names of participants, their addresses and the percentage of equity in Panarctic Oils Ltd. held by each are as follows:
Equity
Percent
Canadian Pacific Oil and Gas Limited, 205-9th Avenue S.E., Calgary 21,	Alberta	9.03490
Cominco Ltd., No. 3100-630 Dorchester Blvd. West, Montreal,
P.Q.	9.03490
Bankeno Minies Limited, c/o Day,
Wilson, Campbell, 250 University Avenue,	Toronto,	Ontario	2.25875
Thor Exploration Company Ltd.,
Room 117, 1255 University St.,
Montreal	2, Quebec	4.51745
Canadian Nickel Company Limited,
P.O. Box 44, Toronto-Dominion Centre, Toronto 1, Ontario	4.51745
Noranda Mines Limited, 1700 The Bank of Nova Scotia Building,
44 King Street, West, Toronto 1,
Ontario	4.51745
Bow Valley Industries Ltd., 630-
6th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta	2.25875
Boeadel Oil Corporation, c/o Barber Oil Corporation, 2627 Tennessee Building, Houston, Texas 77002	4.51745

Dome Petroleum Limited, 360 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario	Equity Percent .81315
Campbell Red Lake Mines Limited, 360 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario	.40655
Sigma Mines (Quebec) Limited, 360 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario	.13555
Canadian Gridoil Limited, 330- 9th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta	.94865
Conick Petroleums Ltd., 330-9th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta	.27105
Scenic Oils Ltd., 330-9th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta	.13555
*Westburne Petroleum and Minerals Ltd., 202 Dome Building, 706-7th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta	2.25870
Eagle Ridge Petroleum Ltd., No. 3200-630 Dorchester Boulevard West, Montreal, P.Q.	4.51745
Eric Connelly, 1135 Beverley Boulevard S.W., Calgary, Alberta	.11295
Canadian Industrial Gas & Oil Ltd., 640-8th Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta	.67760
Government of Canada	55 percent
45 percent
100 percent
*Westburne Petroleum and Minerals Ltd. is the new name of the amalgamated companies, Anticline Petroleums Ltd. and Excell Petroleums Ltd. (each holders of equity in Panarctic) which are affiliated subsidiaries of Commonwealth Petroleum Services Ltd., 202 Dome Building, 706-7th Avenue S.W., Calgary. Thus, the original list of 20 participants in Panarctic, exclusive of the Government, has been reduced to 19.


EFFECT OF VALUE-ADDED TAX
Mr. Robinson: How would the imposition of a "value-added tax" affect (a) all present economy (b) inflation?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: (a)
This question is too vague to be answered, (b) If it was additional to existing taxes it would increase prices. If it were substituted for other taxes the effects would depend on what was dropped.
March 9. 1970

Orders for Returns


PASSPORT OFFICES
Mr. Peddle: What was the cost of repairs to the wharf at Raleigh West (Pistolet Bay) carried out by Pinsent Construction Co. in late 1969?


Arthur Laing: 


$1,286. TEACHERS EMPLOYED BY INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many teachers were employed by the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the year 1968-69?
2.	Of this number, how many of the teachers were in the classification of (a) teacher aide or unqualified teacher who had no professional teacher training (b) the sub-level who had only junior matriculation education and one year of teacher education (c) level 1 who had senior matriculation and one year of teacher education (d) level 2 who had senior matriculation and two years of teacher education (e) level 3 who had senior matriculation and three years of teacher education (f) level 4 who had senior matriculation and four years of teacher education (g) level 5 who had senior matriculation and five years of teacher education (h) level 6 who had senior matriculation and six years of teacher education?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. In 1968-69, 1,480 teachers were employed by the former Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2. (a) Teacher aide or unqualified teacher level, 112; (b) junior matriculation and one year of teacher education, 121; (c) senior matriculation and one year of teacher education, 530; (d) senior matriculation and two years of teacher education, 281; (e) senior matriculation and three years of teacher education, 148; (f) senior matriculation and four years of teacher education, 185; (g) senior matriculation and five years of teacher education, 66; (h) senior matriculation and six years of teacher education, 37.


PERSONS ENTERING CANADA AT CHIEF MOUNTAIN, ALBERTA
Mr. Sulatycky: How many persons entered Canada at the Chief Mountain, Alberta, Port of Entry between September 15 and October 1, in each year 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1964, 498; 1965, 479; 1966, 981; 1967, 1,896; 1968, 773.


Mr. Rodrigue: Is the Department of External Affairs planning the opening of passport issuing offices during 1970?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes. The offices were
opened on the following dates: Montreal, February 23; Toronto, March 2; Vancouver, March 9.


FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MARINE OIL TERMINAL ON ARCTIC COAST
Mr. Skoberg: 1. Did the Department of Public Works issue a competitive tender regarding an economic and technical feasibility study of a proposal to develop a marine oil transport terminal on Canada's Arctic coast and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, what were the respective bids and which company was awarded the contract?
2 When is it anticipated that this feasibility study will be completed and will the study be made public?


Arthur Laing: 1. No. (a) The Department does not usually call for tenders when professional services are required for economic or technical studies, (b) Not applicable.
2. The feasibility study is expected to be completed by the end of December 1970. Whether or not the study will be made public cannot be determined at this time.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Harding: 1.	How many federal departments use DDT in any of their control programmes?
2.	What amount of DDT was obtained by each department in the fiscal years from April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1969 and in the current fiscal year?
3.	What is the approximate amount of DDT presently in stock in each department?
4.	Have adequate substitutes been found for DDT in any of the programmes in which it was used and, if so, what are the programmes and the substitute now used?
Return tabled.


BIOLOGICAL PESTICIDES
Mr. Nesbitt: 1. Are any biological pesticides in the form of a virus made available by any department of the government and, if so, under what terms and conditions?
4520	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	Does any department of the government carry out basic research in the field of biological pesticides and, if so, which department and under what terms and conditions?
3.	How long have biological pesticides been made available by the government?
4.	Have any surveys been made to check on the possible dangers of the use of such pesticides?
Return tabled.


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON SPACE RESEARCH
Mr. Orlikow: Has an interdepartmental committee been established to advise the government on space research and, if so, what are the committee's terms of reference and who are its members?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question normally would be for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of expressed United States concern over diminishing mineral resources in that country, has the United States government or any official of that government made any overtures or opened any discussions toward negotiating for a package deal involving Canada's mineral and energy resources?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when the Prime Minister met with the President at the beginning of last year they announced there would be joint talks between Canada and the United States in the field of energy. These talks have not proceeded much further. Recently we have been having discussions about oil, and in this context the question has been raised about having over-all policies in harmony in both countries. But that is about as far as the discussions have proceeded.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At that time were any representations made to the government in respect of non-petroleum mineral resources?

DEBATES	March 9, 1970


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The discussions which have taken place have been with regard to petroleum in relation to energy rather than in relation to minerals.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise whether he or his departmental officials have asked for a copy of the statements emanating from Washington this past weekend with regard to the problem in respect of mineral resources in the United States and the necessity of having a continental policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: We expect we will be informed about the official United States government position. If we were to ask for all the statements made recently by those who may or may not speak on behalf of the government there would be a great many to ask for, but we are following the situation closely.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether I am right in understanding that there have been no written submissions by any officer of the United States administration with regard to an over-all energy policy and that these discussions have all been oral at these meetings?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to mislead the House or the hon. member. Some words have been committed to paper but not in the form of submissions from the United States government to the Canadian government; there have been exchanges of views, some of which have been put down on paper in the form of draft statements which could have been made by the United States government. These views were under discussion from time to time but did not come in the form of proposals to the Canadian government.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether there have been any discussions with regard to the possible export of water to the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Water was specifically excluded from any discussions that have taken place.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


John Gilbert: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view
March 9, 1970
of the lay-off of 597 employees in the industrial products division of Dunlop Canada on Friday, no prior notice having been given to the employees affected, is it the intention of the minister to introduce legislation to prevent a recurrence of this situation in other industries by making a company give adequate notice to the employees affected and present a plan for the gradual phasing out of a particular industry?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I am not familiar with that particular industry. I assume it must be under provincial jurisdiction. Most unions of any quality make the necessary provisions under collective agreements to protect their own members against these sudden lay-offs.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which 1 should like to address to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of this lay-off of nearly 600 people in Toronto, what actual or special steps have been taken by his department to find employment for the employees who are out of work as a result of this action, especially for the older employees? I understand that a considerable number of senior employees are involved.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The department will, of course, do everything possible to assist. We are having a meeting this afternoon with officers of the company in Toronto to determine what most effective way can be employed to assist in the situation.


David Lewis: May I ask
the Minister of Manpower and Immigration first whether he was informed of the company's intention to close down this plant some two or three weeks ago and, if so, whether in the meantime any discussions have taken place with the union concerned as well as with the company to find jobs for those who are affected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the answer is yes to all parts of the question except that I would like to check further on the extent of discussions that might have taken place with the union.


David Lewis: Could the minister inform the House whether any conclusions have been arrived at and whether any plans are at least on paper for finding alternative jobs for the persons affected?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is repeating a question which was asked earlier by another member.



POLLUTION


Mr. W. B. Nesbiti (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, but since it is not his day in the House I will put it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Canada has, as the minister puts it, acquiesced in another voyage by the Manhattan, can he say whether the Humble Oil and Refining Company as owners of the vessel have yet agreed to the regulations and requirements being laid down for this voyage by the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that question ought to be directed to the Minister of Transport when he is in the House. As I have said on many occasions, the United States government is not asking for permission; it is only the Humble Oil Company that is sending its tanker through our waters, and the correspondence is taking place between the Minister of Transport and the Humble Oil Company, as is quite appropriate. So I think the question should be directed to the Minister of Transport when he is here.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is right in suggesting that perhaps any questions on details should be directed to the Minister of Transport, but perhaps the minister could tell us whether or not the company has agreed to the regulations in view of the fact that the minister has some interest in this project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating the question asked in the first instance.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps Your Honour did not notice, but I believe the minister was prepared to answer the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I see no urgency for an answer to the question today rather than tomorrow when it can be directed more appropriately to the Minister of Transport.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: We do not know when he is going to be here.

4522	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC BUILDINGS



MONTREAL-CONSTRUCTION OF COMPLEX

William Warren Allmand: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works but in his absence I shall direct it to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister state whether the federal government has any plans to build a multi-million dollar complex in the middle of Montreal and, if so whether it is ready to go ahead with this project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not yet made any agreement or taken any decision about this matter.



AIR TRANSPORT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he tell the House what progress has been made by ICAO to bring about a system of sanctions against those nations that seem to give approval or support to terrorism on aircraft in any way? Would he also say whether or not Canada intends to join with other countries in the United Nations to bring about a quarantine of such airlines that in any way condone hijacking?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
gentleman knows, Canada has probably been more active in this field than any other country. We have been supporting measures of this kind in ICAO. We have been supporting activity that is going on within the United Nations, and we have been carrying on bilateral discussions with Cuba which we hope will contribute something to the cessation of these activities at least in one direction. The question is an extremely difficult one because of the difficulty of finding appropriate sanctions that will indeed prevent this kind of activity, but I can assure the right hon. gentleman knows, Canada has probably all measures that seem to us are likely to help. The most important measure, of course, is one that we have not yet got agreement on, and that is that those who indulge in such activities should be made available for trial either at home or in the countries whose aircraft they affect.

DEBATES	March 9. 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister say whether or not there are, in addition to the one example named by him of what he has endeavoured to have done, other ideas that Canada has advanced? Second, I repeat the question I asked earlier. What are the possibilities of joint action by the nations in the United Nations to bring about a cessation or at least to render less attractive the opportunities for those who might have hijacking in mind?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this is our objective as it is the objective of everyone in this House, but it is very difficult to know how to take sanctions against individuals who put bombs on aircraft. If it were possible to name the guilty party and bring him to trial and see justice was done, the matter would not require very much explanation, but as the right hon. gentleman knows it is much easier to deal with those who can be brought before the courts than it is with those who cannot be found.


John George Diefenbaker: Mention was made by the minister of Cuba. Has the government of Canada any purpose in mind of placing Cuba, as it were, on a sanctions list? I am not talking of individuals having sanctions against them, but Cuba seems to be in the position of having a welcome mat for all those who wish to hijack.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of the agreement we are working out with the Cuban government, namely, to see that anyone who engages in hijacking will be returned for trial.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the policy of the Farm Credit Corporation, when farmers are in arrears on their loan payments, to demand voluntary assignment or, failing to get that, to institute seizure procedures to the extent of one-third of farmers' delivery quotas in the current crop year?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, that is not over-all policy, but there may be cases where these arrears are under contracts that have been in arrears for some time. With regard to such cases, if the
March 9, 1970	COMMONS
hon. member will give me more specific details so that I can identify the accounts I will be able to give him a more complete explanation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the minister's answer in the House on February 17, as found on page 3680 of Hansard, I should like to ask whether or not the Farm Credit Corporation has notified all those who are in arrears on their loans that they may make application for deferment of payments?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think this has been given as much publicity as is appropriate, but I should draw to the hon. member's attention the fact that this is generally the case in so far as the limitations on grain marketing have been concerned. There are some contracts that are in arrears and have been in arrears from the time before there was any restriction on wheat marketing and these, of course, fall into a slightly different category.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture with reference to the Farm Credit Corporation. If the policy of payment deferment is not generally known, will the government set up a review board, independent of the Farm Credit Corporation, to which farmers may apply if they feel they have been subjected to undue pressure?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I could give some consideration to that but at first blush I do not see the value of it. In western Canada, where the tight grain marketing situation is the major problem related to these arrears, that has been followed. In all cases where there were no arrears up to and including 1967 these applications for deferment, if they have been substantiated with facts related to the cash flow into the farmer's hands, have been taken into account.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Agriculture make arrangements so that farmers may appeal directly to him or so that the Farm Credit Corporation will refer to his department and to himself cases where they are demanding other action than deferred payments?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite understand the implication of the question- "other action than deferred payments". If the
DEBATES	4523
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member would like to communicate what he means by "other action" and define it, I would be glad to consider it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we can return to the subject in a few moments.



WHEAT-INCLUSION OF LAST YEAR'S SUMMER-FALLOW ACREAGE IN SETTING QUOTAS

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board but in view of the importance of the question to the agricultural industry perhaps the Minister of Agriculture would answer it. In view of the fact that western farmers reduced their wheat acreage by approximately five million acres last year, would the minister give consideration to using last year's total summerfallow acreage as well as this year's as a more equitable basis for setting the farmers' wheat quota in the forthcoming crop year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this has already been taken into consideration and we are prepared now to give some consideration to the number of acres that will be in the permit book for the 1970-71 selling season. But I am sure my hon. friend will recognize that if the over-all concept of the plan, that is, to reduce the inventory of wheat, is to be kept in mind, there are limitations on how far we can go with that.


George Robson Muir: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree with me that by spreading the extra five million acres, adding it to this year's summerfallow as a basis, that it would be a better idea even to reduce the quota?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the question in the form of a suggestion which he has to assume will be considered.



WHEAT-DETAILS OF ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister for Agriculture could indicate when the details of such provisions will be announced in the House so that those farmers affected may be able to apply the program early in the spring?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a circular in the form of the agricultural farm letter has been completed
March 9, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry and I believe some of them were mailed on Saturday. I am not exactly sure about the balance, but my information last Thursday was that they would be ready for mailing on Saturday and the remainder would be mailed to every permitholder in western Canada today and tomorrow.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not consideration is being given as well to those who increased their perennial forage in 1968 and 1969 in applying the wheat inventory reduction program?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we had that under consideration, but I do not think that any special provisions in the details have been made for that particular situation.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. R. L. Whiting (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have directed this question to the Minister of Finance but I should now like to redirect it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the government or the Prices and Incomes Commission made representations to the credit card companies and those companies and financial institutions who use this method to help promote business, requesting them to regulate the availability and limit the use of these cards in an effort to combat inflation?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker, but we have called upon the financial institutions to exercise restraint and at the end of the year I also asked all lending institutions for a review of their expenditures in the preceding year and their type of advertising material. This is now being analysed.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the growing concern in the country over the failure of the government's recent development policies to cope with the serious problems of regional disparity-
[Mr. Olson.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member knows that he has to ask the question directly. I suggest that the words in the preface to the question are not quite in order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to rephrase the question. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement in the House to ease the growing concern in the country over the failure of his regional economic development policies? I am thinking now, Mr. Speaker, of the speech made a few days ago by an economist of the University of Montreal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order. The hon. member can ask a question to seek information but it should not be presented in the form the hon. member is attempting to use.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps I can try a third time to phrase my question. Is the minister now prepared, in view of the concern felt about regional development problems, to expedite referral of his estimates to the Standing Committee on Regional Development so that members will have an opportunity at least to quiz the minister's officials since we cannot get any information in the House from the minister?


Jean Marchand: My estimates are now before the committee, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. gentleman wants to have that information, I think he can get it there.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a question of privilege or a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, the minister's estimates are not before the committee. The committee has not met and we have not had an opportunity to consider the minister's estimates. I am asking the minister if he would expedite referral of his estimates to the committee so that we can get into this subject which is of growing concern?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. member that the main estimates for 1970-71 were referred to committees on February 18.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question to the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker. Would he use his substantial influence on the chairman of the Standing Committee on Regional Development so that the committee can meet and consider the estimates?
March 9, 1970


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to be an advocate for the hon. member.



NOVA SCOTIA-SIGNING OF AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCE

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Does the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion still hope to sign an agreement with the province of Nova Scotia as of April 1, 1970, for programs in that province?


Jean Marchand: I still hope, Mr. Speaker.



INCLUSION OF REGINA AND SASKATOON IN INCENTIVES PROGRAM

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. In view of recent reports in the Saskatchewan press to the effect that the government is now considering the inclusion of Regina and Saskatoon under the regional development incentives program, can the minister indicate to the House whether the government has made that decision?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have
expressed misgivings and reservations in the past about whether this type of question may be asked because most of the question period might be used from day to day in asking whether this region or that city is included in the program. The question has been asked, however, and perhaps for this once it might be allowed. The minister may want to reply.


Jean Marchand: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I have reason to believe that I can announce the special areas in Canada very soon.



NEWFOUNDLAND-DETAILS OF AGREEMENT ON DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister be prepared, since the House is rising on March 25, to make a statement on motions soon indicating the details of the plan under the agreement which is to be signed with the province of Newfoundland on April 1, as claimed by the province?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the whole matter is somewhat confused. I do hope I shall be able to announce before Easter where the special zones will be in Canada. But it will be extremely difficult to give details about all the agreements, as there must be prior agreement with the provinces on each project.



SASKATCHEWAN-DECISION ON EXTENSION OF INCENTIVE PROGRAMS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of remarks made by the minister in the House on a previous occasion, is he now able to inform the House if he has reached a decision on the extension of incentive programs which would include not only Regina and Saskatoon but northwestern Saskatchewan and programs affecting Indian and Metis people in various parts of Canada?

Hon Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that very soon I would have the opportunity to tell the House which special areas have been designated by the government and the hon. member will then be able to see what regions have been chosen as special areas.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister define to the House his interpretation of "soon". Does that mean tomorrow, next week, next month or next year?


George James McIlraith: Consult a dictionary.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the increasing concern felt by the milk producers of eastern Canada, on the one hand, and the rather evasive statements made by the minister with regard to the establishment and announcement of the new dairy policy, on the other hand, can the Minister of Agriculture tell the House when the
4526	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry new milk policy for next year will be announced and, if so, whether he will get in touch with the unions concerned before making this announcement?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the precise date. As a matter of fact, all the people involved realize that this announcement should come by the end of this month, and the sooner the better. I do not want to cut off the negotiations and discussions going on now between the Dairy Commission, representatives of the industry and the producers' organizations because, while a lot of progress has been made, several matters are still outstanding.



POLLUTION


David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In the light of numerous reports over the weekend concerning oil appearing in the sea off the southwest coast of Alaska, would the Acting Prime Minister watch this unusual event very closely and cause investigations to be made to see if there is any connection between this oil leak and the comparatively recent underground nuclear test at Amchitka in the same general area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the parliamentary secretary is making a suggestion or representation to the Acting Prime Minister. In this way I think we must assume that his representation will be considered.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister concerning the publicized and regrettable incidents in Trinidad and Tobago. Can he advise what steps are being taken to assure the protection of Canadian lives and property in the area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been in touch from day to day, indeed, more frequently than that, with our representatives in Trinidad and Guyana, the other place where
[Mr. Fortin.l
DEBATES	March 9, 1970
there have been some problems, and the advice we have received so far is reassuring. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we shall be following this matter closely and doing everything we can to protect the lives and property of Canadians. I am told by our High Commissioners in both places that the danger is not great.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider having the matter fully investigated and possibly making a statement so that we may forestall any misunderstandings or events which could mar the close and valuable friendship between our countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would consider doing that. The hon. gentleman should know that we have been in communication with the High Commissioners of these countries in Canada to acquaint them with the process of justice in Canada and assure them, as I assured the House in a statement made some time ago, that we are doing everything we can to make sure this is a society in which racist influences do not prevail. I believe the situation is well understood, but if there is any reason why I ought to supplement what has been done I will not hesitate to do so.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister undertake to the House that in future, when students apply to enter Canada from other countries, their backgrounds will be investigated to make sure they are bona fide students and not members of international revolutionary movements who wish to come here for purposes that have little to do with studying?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker.


REPORTED PLACING OF U.S. ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES ON GREAT LAKES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of news reports and suggestions that the Congress of the United States is considering placing water-based anti-ballistic missiles on the Great Lakes and at locations off the coast of Alaska and in Baffin Bay. Has the government of Canada been in contact with the government of the United States with regard to a plan of this nature?
March 9, 1970	COMMONS


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have heard the reports. We have certainly had no communication or advice of this kind from the United States.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether it will be his intention to speak to the United States government and obtain information on this project, or does the government perhaps consider that the Rush-Bagot Treaty, which prohibits warships on the Great Lakes, is now passe and should no longer be adhered to?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that if the United States had plans of this kind that country would consult us.


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to have been directed to the Minister of Transport. Since this is not his day to be in the House and since his Parliamentary Secretary is not here, I would ask an appropriate member of the government to take my question as notice. Having in mind the application by a major Canadian trucking company for unrestricted use of Canadian highways on Sundays and the likely adverse effects on traffic safety, would the minister say whether he intends to look into this important matter?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he would make a report to the House on the case of a 61-year old Polish immigrant now residing in the constituency of Parkdale, known as Mikolaj Gilewicz, who was detained by Ontario Hospital authorities for the past nine years and who recently visited the Toronto immigration office requesting assistance to return to his native land?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look into the case and give any information that is connected with the man's immigration status.
DEBATES	4527
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Haidasz: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had the opportunity to contact the provincial authorities to discuss the feasibility of investigating or reviewing the files of mental patients who are immigrants and unable to communicate in the working language of that mental hospital?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had no communication with the provincial authorities on the subject but would be happy to consider the hon. member's question.


Mr. Paproski:: Check into Danny the Red, too.


MANITOBA CENTENNIAL
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My
question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who I understand is unavoidably absent. In view of the urgency of the question perhaps I could direct it to his Parliamentary Secretary. Having regard to the fact that Manitoba is acting as host for both the senior baseball championship and the national junior championship as part of its centennial celebrations this year, will the minister be announcing generous assistance under the fitness and amateur sports program soon?


Stanley Haidasz: I shall be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.


George Robson Muir: Since it has been the practice of the Department of National Health and Welfare to pay the fares of the visiting teams for the final games in the Canadian amateur baseball championships, would the hon. gentleman assure the House that this practice will be continued, particularly having regard to the extra expenses the towns involved are bearing in connection with the centennial celebrations?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a representation to the minister and he has to assume that the proposition will be considered by the government or by the minister concerned.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Would the hon. gentleman also bring it to the attention of the minister that both these requests were admirably summed up in a letter I wrote three weeks ago?
March 9, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: has probably not received it yet.


POST OFFICE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
Can he tell the House today whether a definite solution has been arrived at in the postal dispute which has been causing some inconvenience to the population recently. If not, what is the present situation?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, my colleague the Minister of Labour has been examining the matter in Montreal for several weeks and I am awaiting his recommendations and report.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the answer given by the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
May I ask him whether or not he is in a position now, in view of the many meetings he has had, to tell the House where the present postal conflict stands as of now?


David Lewis: At
Montreal!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must apologize to the hon. member. I was out of the Chamber to answer a long distance call and I did not hear the main question. I will read it in Hansard and answer tomorrow.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere wishes to ask a supplementary question.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for kindly allowing me to repeat my question to the minister who had not understood-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gave the hon. member the floor to ask a supplementary question, not to repeat the question he had already asked. However, perhaps the hon.

member may be allowed to do so if the minister is willing to answer the question immediately.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Labour inform the House on where matters stand with regard to the present postal dispute in view of the action taken by him lately?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilion West):: May I ask whether the Solicitor General is in a position to reply to a question which was directed to him on February 20 with respect to an allegation of massive and indiscriminate investigation by the RCMP of black communities and clubs throughout Canada?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of answering it. The matter has been investigated since the question was asked, and we find there is no foundation at all for the allegation that massive and indiscriminate methods of investigation have been used to harass that community. There is no truth whatever in it. As to the allegation in the statement that threats of deportation were being used, we find it is also completely without foundation.
As a matter of policy, the force has encouraged its members to develop a close understanding with community leaders in any areas where they may be working. This applies to all communities equally. There is no evidence whatever that I can find to support the allegation to which the hon. member referred when he asked the question.


NEW BRUNSWICK-ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion about which I spoke to him two days ago. Has the minister or his department yet arrived at a preliminary estimate of the flood damage in New Brunswick and, if so, when will some reassurance be given to the people who have been so seriously affected by this disaster?

He
March 9, 1970


Jean Marchand: I know that representatives of the federal government met with a representative of the provincial government to discuss this matter. We have received no report yet. It may be that my colleague the President of Treasury Board, who has a responsibility in this connection, has received one; the other day I tried to get information from him but he had no information at that time. As soon as I get it I shall be happy to forward it to the hon. gentleman.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the depressed prices of potatoes across the country, is the Department of Agriculture formulating, together with the prices stabilization board, some form of assistance to potato growers, which will be of particular interest to Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and eastern Canada generally?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I suppose all things are relative, but prices this year compared with last year are substantially better. For example, New Brunswick potatoes were fetching between $1.70 and $1.75 for a 50-pound bag wholesale in Montreal all last week. This compares with a low of 90 cents a year ago, so I cannot agree with the hon. member that prices at the present time are severely depressed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


George James McIlraith: that Bill C-161, to provide for the dissolution of the Canadian Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act
George James McIlraith: that the bill be
read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are a number of points I should like to raise. I do not know who, on behalf of the minister-


George James McIlraith: He is here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am glad of that. Hon. members may recall that when this bill made its ill-fated entry to the House on a previous occasion as a bill coming from the Senate, questions were raised as to the proper action to be taken to deal with a transfer of appropriations for which the legislation made provision. Before this bill goes through, I should like the minister to tell the House what is to be done with the funds which will be left surplus. This is a bill which comes into effect upon proclamation, so we should like to know when the minister proposes to have it proclaimed. If it were to pass through both houses and be proclaimed, on that day, the day of proclamation, the Dominion Coal Board would be defunct and any funds left in any of the appropriations would then be available, under the terms of clause 3(2), for allocation within the department by the Governor in Council.
This is all very interesting, but I should like to know whether the provision applies to any funds that are to be disbursed before March 31. I do not suppose it does because I do not suppose that the coal board will be wound up before March 31. According to the book of estimates for 1970-71, the amount allotted to the coal board is $6,477,000, of which some $2,427,000 is for program expenditures and contributions of one sort and another under vote No. 70. Then, there is under a statutory item an amount of $4,050,000 for payments to New Brunswick for the rationalization of the Minto Coal fields.
Strangely enough, nothing was said about these points at the committee hearing, and I think that before the bill passes this House the minister should give us a full explanation. We should like to know when he expects the coal board to be wound up, how much money might be left over at the projected winding up date, and where this money is going to go.
I am raising this point, Mr. Speaker, because personally I do not approve of funds being allotted to a given purpose, the Governor in Council fixing a date in the future for the winding up of an agency or board, as the case may be, and the Governor in Council
4530	COMMONS
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act then deciding what is to be done with the money left over. One of the witnesses before the committee indicated that when the estimates for the department were tabled no money was provided for research in the estimates of the coal board. I should like to refer to the evidence of Mr. MacNabb at page 6:20 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence. Mr MacNabb said:
So, any money that is used in research in the coming year will have to come from department funds, and these would be funds in the Mines Branch of the Department.
I should like to ask whether the intention is to carry on a program of research with the money unexpended by the coal board. If this is to be the case, then would the minister for goodness sake say so? Nothing at all has been said in this regard. The money could be spent on a trip to Timbucktu. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the bill to restrict the minister and a whole retinue of officials from taking a safari to Africa on any money that is left over. If the travel allotment were overspent the could use any money left over for any purpose whatever. I admit that this might be rather far-fetched, but I use it as an example to indicate that I think that this is an incorrect practice.
If an error has been made in the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in regard to coal research, then the right thing to do is to come forward with open and clean hands and submit a supplementary estimate. The government should not hide this, saying it will use the money subsequently, but without saying for what. This money has been appropriated by Parliament for use by the Dominion Coal Board, and for a specific purpose. According to this bill it can be used for any purpose within the department, as the Governor in Council shall so determine-which means a recommendation by the minister as to its use.
It has always been the practice that unexpended funds shall expire. If a certain program is abrogated and money allotted to it is left over in the estimates, then that money expires. In this case we have these ancillary moves, and personally as a matter of practice I find the practice objectionable. The bill is asking the House to give carte blanche to the department to use the money for whatever purpose it may determine, and I do not think that that is right. Certainly, I would want an explanation from the minister, because the course I propose to adopt in this matter will depend upon his answer.

DEBATES	March 9, 1970


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, surely we are going to have an answer.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is the only question hon. members are concerned about, but my impression is that it was dealt with in committee. If it was not, I am perfectly prepared-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it was not, because it is not in the transcript.


John James Greene: Then in that case, may I say that the purpose of the broad wording of clause 3 (2) is primarily to enable the work which was formerly done by the coal board now to be carried on within the department. The reason we need broader wording is that the work done by the coal board will now be administered under the authority of the mines section of the department.
I think, quite properly within the ambit of the estimates relating to a particular division of any department, there is an attempt to have the widest flexibility in order to enable that particular division, both within its own resources and the resources in the estimates, to do its work unhampered to the greatest possible degree, subject to the limitations of the point by point items in the estimates.
In attempting to achieve a considerable cutback in the estimates in the interests of its fight against inflation, I think the government has probably also attempted to give maximum flexibility, within the global amounts allotted, to various sections of a department to do their work. It is my understanding that the clause is worded broadly in this way because the amount allotted in the estimates will now come under the administration of the mines section. As I say, within the ambit of the estimates themselves, an attempt is being made to give the broadest flexibility to this section to enable them to deal with coal matters.
I would point out that we are not seeking new funds here; rather we are setting up an alternative method for administering the funds that have already been provided. I think it would have been a retrograde step to itemize, point by point and dollar by dollar, the actual type of expenditure that had been mooted by the mines section.
March 9, 1970	COMMONS
Needless to say, in administering these funds effectively and efficiently in the interests of the coal industry of Canada, some flexibility is required. Therefore, these funds, which have already been voted, will now be administered by the mines section instead of by the coal board, as was previously the case under the estimates as tabled.
I trust that this explanation is of some help to my hon. friend. I have not gone into the matter in depth because I was under the impression, as I have said, that some of these points had been resolved in committee.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question the minister has not answered? I want the figures indicating how much of the $6 million he anticipates would be unexpended at the date of proclamation. That was not covered at any time during the committee hearings.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a very short question before third reading for the information of those who have known the coal board for many years, which played an important part in the coal industry of Canada. Will the minister advise what will happen to the members of the board? Will the minister advise what will happen to the members of the board? Will they become part of his department or just what will be the allocation of these present members?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the permanent staff of the board have now been taken on the staff as part of the department and the public service. The chairman of the board has already been taken on as advisor to the deputy minister in respect of coal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


John James Greene: that Bill C-190, to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the
DEBATES	4531
National Energy Board Act Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-190 has been placed before the House to enable a number of necessary and desirable amendments to be made to the National Energy Board Act. The Act was first passed in 1959 and has not been amended since 1963 except for matters which were consequential to the passage of other legislation by Parliament. For instance, the passage of the Statutory Salaries Revision Act in 1967 included such an amendment to the National Energy Board Act.
The amendments now proposed in Bill C-190 are a reflection of changing circumstances and the experience of the board in discharging its important responsibilities since the last amendments in 1963. I hope it will be helpful to hon. members if I take just a few minutes to outline some of the more important changes proposed.
Before I do so, perhaps I should remind hon. members of what the board does. It is responsible for adjudicating upon applications for licences to export and to import natural gas, applications to construct and operate inter-provincial and international pipelines for the transportation of petroleum and its products and of natural gas, and applications for licences to export electrical power and energy and to construct and operate international power lines for the transmission of such power. It is responsible for regulating the rates, tolls and tariffs of pipelines under its jurisdiction, a field into which it is just now entering and which will require a great deal of careful attention in coming years.
It recommended to the government of the day what became the national oil policy, established in 1961, and the board has administered that policy since its inception. It has advised successive governments on a wide range of matters having to do with energy, and has assembled a small but highly competent staff expert in the disciplines of engineering, finance and accounting, and operations research as they apply to oil, gas, pieplines and electrical power.
The Board and its staff have earned and have the confidence of the government, and I believe that of businessmen and members of the general public in Canada who have come into contact with their work. In my present responsibilities, I have come to have a high regard for the capacity and judgment of the board, and to rely upon it as a principal source of advice in the many matters relating to energy which require the attention of government. We are at the moment in the midst
March 9. 1970

National Energy Board Act of particularly complex considerations about oil, but I do not foresee a time when the judicious resolution of difficult questions relating to energy will not be an important concern for any government of Canada. For such resolution, I believe the National Energy Board to be necessary and effective.
I turn now to the substantive amendments incorporated, along with many minor or relatively incidental changes, in the bill now before you. First, let me explain the proposed amendment in respect of international power lines.
Both Canadian and United States power utilities are now placing increasing reliance upon transmission connections with other utilities to achieve additional security of supply, economy of operation and earnings from surplus energy. In an increasing number of cases, such interconnection arrangements are becoming advantageous and desirable as between utilities in Canada and utilities in the United States.
The high voltage interconnection between power systems, one on either side of the international boundary, is normally used for the importation of power for one interval of time, followed by the exportation of power for the next interval. In other words, it is seldom used only for a one way flow of power, whether import or export, but rather it is used for both, as the occasion warrants.
The increasing exchange between the two countries is borne out by the trade records. In 1960, Canada exported some 5.5 billion kilowatt hours, and imported some 0.4 billion, for a net export of 5.1 billion. In 1969 the preliminary figures are that Canada exported about 4.7 billion kilowatt hours but imported 3.3 billion, for a net export of only 1.4 billion kilowatt hours. To put this in perspective, the total supply of kilowatt hours in Canada in 1969 was 194 billion.
As the Act now stands, if a Canadian utility proposes to construct an international power line for the purpose of exporting power, it must obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity before constructing and operating the line. On the other hand, no present provisions of the Act prevents that utility from constructing a major transmission interconnection if the initial intention is to import power. The line having been constructed, when the time comes for it to be used for the export of power, the board is faced with an ex post facto application which leaves it with no opportunity to deny the certificate and little power to include condi-

tions respecting the route or the adequacy of the specifications for its construction, having regard, say, to the public safety.
The government believes it would be in the public interest that the board be given jurisdiction over international power lines constructed and operated for the purpose of importing power on the basis comparable to the jurisdiction which it now exercises over export power lines. It proposes, therefore, that the Act be amended to require that lines to be used for importing power, as well as those to be used for exporting power, may be constructed and operated only pursuant to a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the board. There is no intrusion Whatsoever over the existing line of demarcation between the jurisdiction of the provinces over the electrical utilities within their boundaries, and the jurisdiction of the government of Canada over international connections established by such utilities.
At the present time, the importation into Canada of liquified natural gas by any means other than through a pipeline does not require a National Energy Board licence. In 1959 trade in liquified natural gas was not significant, but there have been rapid technological advances. Plans for the importation of liquified natural gas into eastern Canada by tanker or other non-pipeline methods are being developed and, since it appears that the scheme of the Act is to make subject to licencing restrictions any import or export of natural gas which may affect the public interest, the government considers that it would be appropriate that importation of liquified natural gas should be subject to licencing control.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
To put it another way, it would be as imprudent to allow an area or community to become dependent upon tanker-borne liquefied natural gas as it would be to allow the same community to become dependent upon natural gas moved internationally or inter-provincially by pipeline, unless it had been demonstrated that the service was reliable, economic, and otherwise consistent with the public interest. There are, in addition, considerations as to safety in the handling of liquefied natural gas which would be more readily safeguarded if its importation were subject to licence. It is proposed, therefore, that the existing authority of the National Energy Board to licence the import of gas be extended to include liquefied natural gas by amend-
March 9, 1970
ing the definition of "import" to include importation by railway tank car, tank truck or by tanker as well as by pipeline.
The Act now empowers the National Energy Board, when issuing a certificate in respect of the construction of a pipeline, to prescribe such terms and conditions as are considered necessary or desirable in order to give effect to the purposes and provisions of the Act. It is proposed to make manifest the Board's power to impose requirements respecting preservation and restoration of land through which a pipeline may be constructed by amending section 46 of the Act as proposed in Bill C-190.
It has been brought to the attention of the Board in public hearings, and through representations made in the House and to ministers of the Crown, that dissatisfaction has existed among farmers with the interference with and the impairment of both municipal and private farm drainage systems which may be created by the construction of pipelines. This is particularly so in those areas where the installation of tile and other types of drainage is necessary to carry on efficient agricultural operations. Through the Board's hearing and decisions, and through consultation with various agricultural associations and with pipeline companies and the pipeline division of the Canadian Petroleum Association, greatly improved practices by the pipeline companies have been established. As a result, I believe relations between the agricultural community and the pipeline companies are now much better than at some times in the past.
With respect to new pipeline construction, the Board has applied the concept that gravity land drainage systems should take precedence over pressure pipelines. To ensure that the same concept may be applied to existing pipelines, it is proposed that where the Board finds that such pipelines interfere with or otherwise impair the proper operation of public or private drainage systems, either existing or proposed, it be empowered to direct a pipeline company, upon such terms and conditions as the Board considers proper, including the specific power to direct by whom the cost should be paid, to divert, relocate or otherwise reconstruct the appropriate portions of its pipeline so as to remove the existing interference or impairment or to otherwise facilitate reconstruction or relocation of drainage systems. I should add that a number of pipeline companies have already 21774-10
National Energy Board Act voluntarily undertaken remedial action of this sort where it appeared desirable.
Since November, the Board has been involved in the most lengthy and arduous hearing since its establishment. This hearing arises from applications by five applicants for certificates of public convenience and necessity and licenses for the exportation and some incidental importation of gas. The decisions on these applications will be highly important to the development of the Canadian natural gas industry for some years to come. At the same time that this major gas hearing has been before the Board, it has also been considering ten other applications for certificates respecting the construction of pipelines and international power lines or for licences for the export or import of propane or for the export of power. The Board has held five public hearings with respect to certain of those applications. Others are still to be set down for hearing when the applicants have satisfied the Board that the data in support of their applications is complete and the application is ready to be heard.
In October 1969, the Board found it advisable and in the public interest to bring into effect, as provided for in section 97 of the Act, its authority over the regulation of rates, tolls and tariffs of certain oil and gas pipeline companies which were not previously subject to the Board's jurisdiction in this regard. A major application by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited respecting rates has already been filed with the Board, and increased activity in this area of responsibility is to be expected.
Because of the increase in the Board's workload arising out of its regulatory function in respect of certification of pipelines and international power lines, its licensing functions in respect of the export of gas and power and import of gas; the impending activity in regulation of rates, tolls and tariffs of oil and gas pipelines; additional responsibilities arising out of its advisory functions, and in keeping close surveillance over new developments in the energy field; and in recognition of the additional responsibilities proposed to be placed upon the Board by the amendments to the Act set forth in Bill C-190, the government is of the opinion that the membership of the National Energy Board should be increased from five to seven, with provision for the appointment of an Associate Vice-Chairman from among the Board members.
This increase in membership would enable the Board to conduct two public hearings

March 9, 1970

National Energy Board Act upon applications at once, and to reach decisions upon applications in shorter time than has been possible under existing circumstances. Three members constitute a panel for the public hearing of most applications. I say "most" because there is provision under section 14 of the Act for one member of the Board to be authorized to hear and report to the Board upon a matter. It has, however, been found in practice to be desirable to limit the use of this power to relatively simple issues; in most certificate, licence and rate matters the issues are complex and important enough to require the hearing and analysis of the evidence by three independent minds. With five members it is impossible to have two concurrent hearings, and with the present and foreseeable hearing load it is becoming increasingly difficult to hear and decide with reasonable dispatch all applications coming before the Board. If only for the sake of maintaining reasonable expedition in deciding applications to the Board-and of course each of these applications represents a matter which is urgent and important to the many people affected by it-it is therefore desirable that the number of Board members be sufficient that two panels can operate at any one time.
Thus far, on this matter of the number of members, I have been addressing myself only to the regulatory work of the Board. As I indicated early in my remarks, we also call upon the Board for advice on many matters. Board personnel have carried a very heavy responsibility in the preparations for and the conduct of the discussions which for many months have been taking place between officials of the United States and Canadian governments. There is no indication that the need for such discussions will diminish. Often these matters have to be dealt with urgently, and it is not easy for the Board or for me to deal with them promptly if the Board members whose advice I want are tied up in a formal hearing. I, therefore, look to the increase in Board membership to provide more flexibility in the time of the members.
Similarly, it seems to me important that we increase the membership of the Board to enable it to give more attention to the long range implications constantly arising for future Canadian energy policy and problems. Here, the obvious example is the new developments in the North. Hon. members may recall that the chairman of the Board is a member of the task force on northern oil, which we set up after the Prudhoe Bay discoveries but before the discovery of oil in the


Mackenzie Delta and of gas in the Arctic islands. The development of these northern discoveries, and the related transportation and marketing problems, are matters that require sound and prompt advice to government. One means to obtain such advice, I submit, is to have available two more men with the capacity, objectivity and dedication which are expected of members of the National Energy Board.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In the bill now before you there are a number of other amendments. I would not describe any of them as unimportant, for the need for them has emerged in the light of experience, and in many cases after intensive discussion with knowledgeable people such as the members of the legislation committee of the Canadian Petroleum Association and executives of the Canadian and Ontario Federations of Agriculture. However, the remaining amendments are of a kind which, with deference, I would suggest could more appropriately be explained and discussed in committee where I and representatives of the board will be pleased to answer questions and explain whatever may need explaining.
I therefore move, seconded by-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no one to second the motion.


John James Greene: -seconded by the hon.
member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) that Bill C-190-


An hon. Member:: The minister cannot do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
was moved before the minister started.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has already been moved.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Obviously this has not been the minister's day in the House. I confess that I believe he would have liked to have answered the questions I put to him on the previous bill, but somehow or other the information was not there or else it was better to obscure the true purpose of that bill.
In dealing with this bill, let me say first of all that I am conscious of the fact that the National Energy Board has been in existence now for about eight or nine years. It was as a result of the Borden Commission report that the board came into existence. The government took the advice of the Borden Commis-
March 9, 1970

sion and set up the National Energy Board. Those of us who were in the House at that time will recall that the creation of this board was breaking entirely new ground and, as a matter of fact, did not meet with universal acclaim. There was some concern in the various parts of the country, depending upon the form of energy that was prevailing or predominant therein, that certain types of people would tend to dominate the board and that primarily electric power utility experts would be dealing with gas and oil.
At that time, the chief problem facing the government of Canada was the question of the export of natural gas, and great pressure was being exerted. We were indeed fortunate in obtaining the services of Mr. Ian McKinnon, who was chairman of the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Board, and who came to the public service of Canada first of all on loan and then permanently, to establish the board and to lay down the general lines of conduct. He was fully experienced as the chairman of a form of utility commission, and I think that Canada gained a great deal by this appointment. Now that Mr. McKinnon has retired, I am sure that all of us expect to see the same high standards of performance by the National Energy Board that it has maintained in the past. When called upon to explain matters to members of Parliament, particularly those who form part of the delegation of the Canadian American inter parliamentary group, the Board has filled them in on the situation, and have done so also in the delicate situation concerning oil and gas between Canada and the United States.
There are other problems of course which we cannot neglect, such as the question of water power and the export of electricity and other forms of energy. There is the very difficult situation with regard to uranium and its processing and export for power and energy purposes.
The minister made some very brief comments regarding the performance of the board and its ultimate purposes. I would have liked to have heard him say a good deal more about the national oil policy. I know that there are some problems at present regarding what the decision of the United States may be concerning the level of Canadian imports. Of course this decision will determine the nature of the national oil policy.
There is one thing that I do want to point out, since I come from an area that is more than vitally interested in the marketing of Canada's oil production. Within our own 21774-10i
National Energy Board Act domestic market there are recurring rumours, and reports which go even beyond rumours, that the national oil policy boundary with respect to the marketing of Canadian products along the line of the Ottawa River is being breached by refined products coming from refineries in the Montreal region and in other parts of the country. In addition, with the establishment of the refinery at Port Hawkesbury and the proposed refinery near Quebec city, as well as the proposed refinery in Newfoundland, there will be an ever increasing pressure on the marketing of Canadian oil products by products having their source in off-shore crude. This is bound to happen.
It is not that western products that are already in those markets will be replaced. It is not that the refined products themselves from, say, the refinery that is to come into existence at some time-and this may be a long way off, but there are progress reports which may be mere flack reports for the purpose of keeping up a pretence-will replace western production, but in any event there is no doubt that they will displace other petroleum products within the Canadian structure and gradually there will be a push westward. Naturally, the barrier which will be established by the national oil policy will come under the greatest and strongest pressure. Unless the market west of Ottawa increases substantially to absorb the natural increase in the western production, we will either have to maintain a rigid policy-and I do not know how the board may police this- or ancillary action may have to be taken by the government to police this so-called boundary line and the actions by the oil refineries or the petroleum distributors so that the Canadian production will not suffer unduly.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It is not only the producers of the crude and the refiners who are adversely affected by the diminution in the marketing of Canadian petroleum products, but at least three provincial governments have a great stake in the revenues derived from the royalties and other dispositions of oil and gas rights. There is, of course, the other point about the United States and Canada's rather delicate position at the present time. I don't want to say too much about the negotiations. Certainly, I would not want to say anything that might be prejudicial in arriving at a possible solution for Canadian producers. But it seems to me that with the requirements of
4536	COMMONS
National Energy Board Act the United States for gas, and there is a vast increase in them,-the minister spoke about the increase in applications before the National Energy Board for the export of natural gas-that it would only take a limited amount of enlightened self-interest to see that the marketing of both gas and oil are inextricably linked. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that most of the natural gas in the past has been found as a result of exploration for oil. If there is going to be a ready market for the gas reserves there is no question one can view with equanimity the rapid accumulation of unproductive oil reserves, or drilling operations that result in a successful well which is merely capped because there is no market for the oil.
There are many operations in western Canada at the present time that are marginal or less than marginal, and unless there is a very strict quota system with respect to operations, many operations will be definitely shut down. True enough, there are many others now who are going out for the exploration of and have found natural gas, and that is their prime purpose. I think we may see a pattern of change in the exploration.
These are problems of very great significance in the field of energy, and yet we see an indication in the white paper on taxation of the government moving in like a bull in a china shop with the taxation of the operators in that field of resource development, without seemingly taking in what they are doing with regard to the ultimate disposition of the end product. It seems to me that when you look at the two points of view they are in distinct-at least in the goverment's eyes-separate chambers having no relationship whatever.
I can readily understand that in the minds of a number of people who have never seen an oil well, all you have to do is open up a drilling company or get out on some exploration program, sink a bit in the ground and, just like Little Jack Horner with that plum pie, by merely sinking a thumb in, out will gush all that is good. It is only an absolutely naive myopia that prevents individuals from understanding the problems of the oil and gas industry and understanding that all is not rosy. True enough, the people in the area certainly may work and get good wages and salaries, but so far as the profits are concerned, in many instances, they are merely sunk with the shareholders' money in holes in the ground. I think I will leave that particular point.
However, we are at the present time, Mr. Speaker, moving into some areas of pressure.

DEBATES	March 9, 1970
I asked some questions this afternoon with regard to the fact there seems to be a movement towards the development of a continental energy policy. I don't think anybody is yet in a position to fully realize the implications of a continental energy policy which would involve water, and when one considers it strictly from certain points of view it makes complete sense. On the other hand, I can readily understand there can be arguments completely on the other side with regard to a continental energy policy, and I am sure we will have to give this matter very, very grave and serious study.
Just as an indication, I recall a few years ago when the first export of natural gas took place from Alberta to a copper refinery in Montana. It was felt that this had to be on a fixed period because there was a great deal of money being invested by Anaconda, and they had to be given the opportunity of paying off the capital cost of the installation. But strangely enough, it is much like a small boy who has been given a good treat. As soon as that period was finished or that the flow was appreciated, back they came and said, "More". We have seen a continuing appetite for gas through this particular connection. The same may be said now of the existing pipelines, oil lines and gas lines to the Pacific coast. In addition we see, of course, the extensive requests for natural gas to be piped into the central and east central United States.
There are no two ways about it. This is not an interruptable service. We must clearly understand that the greatest possible persuasion, and not only persuasion but force, would be applied to Canada if for some reason or other in the national interest it came to the point of turning off that gas unless of course appropriate stipulations are made beforehand and are clearly understood. After all, we know what kind of pressures can be brought to bear. At the time the Canadianization of Time magazine was taking place the American government clearly pointed out to the Canadian government that negotiations for oil market quotas in the United States would be completely broken off if Canada did not place Time magazine and Reader's Digest in the most favourable position they are in today.
This is a question of relationships between neighbours, I will agree, but while I come from Alberta and am fully cognizant of the economic worth of these disposals of oil and gas to the United States to that province and to Canada's position in international trade- there are so many advantages-on the other hand I am also wondering, and I put this up
March 9, 1970	COMMONS
as a signpost to observe and to examine, about the danger of getting locked into a situation where there would be no getting out even though in 20 years, the situation may have changed so much that Canada would be at a considerable disadvantage.
And so I conclude with those few remarks with regard to the question of present negotiations, the present situation and the difficulty but necessity of establishing a national oil policy. I must confess that the past few years have not been the most exemplary with regard to a national oil policy. I have always been very critical of the reason for all of this secrecy about the so-called secret accord of 1967. The present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has never been fully able to explain it. He has tried to dissimulate any criticism but frankly he has failed in that regard.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
With regard to the present bill there is a great deal of tidying up of definitions to be done. All I can say to that is that it is lawyer's load and of course, this can be readily understood. Over the past ten years of experience with the board, I am sure the committee has come up against certain definitions which were not as flexible as they wanted, nor as accommodating. In any event, I do not think there is much to be said about the definitions part of the bill.
As to the composition of the board, I am glad the minister went into detail and I think the change is quite understandable. If there had been, concurrent with the recent series of hearings with regard to the gas export applications, other types of hearings with regard to the export of electrical energy or the question of uranium, or if there had been problems with regard to the export of water power. I do not know what would have happened. Somebody would have had to queue up because the board was not in a position to deal with that situation. I think the move to get seven members, to have two panels, is a move in the right direction. It is only natural to expect that this board, since Canada is developing more and more of its energy resources, would have more to do. This board, from being a fledgling in matters of this nature, will now assume a much more important role.
Earlier this day we had a bill which set aside the Dominion Coal Board, writing its obituary if I may say so. Although many years ago the Dominion Coal Board was a very important body, with the passage of
DEBATES	4537
National Energy Board Act time and the evolution of technology it was no longer necessary to maintain it. I think in many ways it has been replaced by the National Energy Board since we have now moved to other forms of energy.
Of course, the success of this expansion of the board will depend upon where the emphasis will lie with regard to the skills of the two additional members. I would have liked to have heard from the minister, if he would listen on this particular point, where the emphasis will lie with regard to the expansion of the board. Are these people to be oil and gas specialists or utility men or what is going to be their particular specialty? I have nothing much to say about having an associate vice-chairman. Because of the mechanics of the expansion, it is understandable that there should be one.
There is one rather ironic thing, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the minimum salary scale for members of the board, whose skills are matched by a great many members of this House, is more than double the salary scale for members of this House.


John James Greene: Do you mean they are too high or this House is too low?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think as far as getting qualified personnel for the board is concerned, the minister is quite right. I am glad to see that he set minimum salaries for the positions. I think in order to get appropriate men one has to be in a position to deal with a competitive industry. This is not a case of picking up engineers or specialists coming out of university but of getting men who have established themselves, have made a reputation and have the capabilities and qualities required on such a board. The salaries should be high enough. I think they should range in the level of the Exchequer Court and the Supreme Court of Canada. Having said that, I am sure there are men in this House who have just as much capability and who work just as hard and contribute just as much to this country, yet their salaries are in a somewhat different range.
There are two or three points I should like to make, Mr. Speaker. In clauses 7, 12(3) and 28(3), the board is not allowed to hold public hearings or may not hold public hearings, as the case may be. In clause 7, it is clear by the language in the section that the Board is not to hold public hearings. That may be very well but I will say this: There is no reason why the findings of the board or the decision of the board with the reasons therefor, should
March 9. 1970

National Energy Board Act not be made public. If the minister will take particular note of this point, it is in the case where either the holder of a certificate consents to it or where the pipeline or international power line to which the licence relates, has not been brought into operation under that certificate or licence.
Notwithstanding the fact that you certainly cannot have private hearings, I do not see the value of any necessity for public hearings. Surely, the respect for this board, as the respect for any other board, lies in the openness of its decisions. It seems to me that notwithstanding the fact there shall have been a private hearing, there is nothing that commends itself with regard to not publishing the decision. Therefore, I would hope the minister would see fit to authorize the board to publish its decisions and any reasons therefor.
Clause 9, and this was a point on which the minister spent some time, refers to the diversion of a pipeline so that it will not damage a farm drainage or a water drainage system. I would say that, in addition to the fact that the board can direct by whom and to whom the cost of diversion or relocation should be paid, there should be specific provision that under no circumstances should it be the farmer or the owner of the drainage system who shall pay any costs.
The last question I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the purpose of clause 19, that is, permitting any pipeline company, in the acquisition of land, to acquire the minerals thereunder. If you will recall, under the original act, mines and minerals were exempted from any acquisition of land. I think it would be instructive to read section 69 as it is now:
A company is not entitled to mines, ores, metals, coal, slate, oil, gas or other minerals in or under lands purchased by it, or taken by it under compulsory powers given to it by this act, except only the parts thereof that are necessary to be dug, carried away or used in the construction of the works, and except as provided in this section, all such mines and minerals shall he deemed to be excepted from the conveyance of such lands.
At times I have thought that provision constituted some little intrusion into the field of property and civil rights, particularly in those areas which use the Torrens system, as in Alberta, where the question of the rights arising under the conveyance are specifically covered by the Land Titles Act of the province of Alberta. Notwithstanding everything that has been said on the subject, I do not see how amended section 69 could in any way abro-


gate any rights of acquisition under a conveyance properly drawn up, executed and registered under the Land Titles Act of the province of Alberta or the equivalent act of Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The amendments, as proposed, are permissive. I can see why, if under an order of the National Energy Board a right of way was granted on the surface of land for the construction of a pipeline, it was intended that that in no way was to be deemed as conveying to the company any interest to mines or minerals, with the exception perhaps of subsurface gravel which would be used in the construction of the pipeline. I can see that a pipeline company could specifically negotiate for, and indicate in the terms of its contract, that it is acquiring the right to mines and minerals. This amendment now empowers the company to acquire them, and I can see where this may happen.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I can that at its tank farm, and we have many in Edmonton, a pipeline company with facilities which occupy a fairly vast area would not want an outsider coming in and drilling for oil or gas on its site. Yet, this is actually what could happen. I say that because if the act previously prevented the pipeline company acquiring the rights to mines and minerals and these rights were in the hands of a third party, the third party could negotiate with another exploration or oil development company and an application would be made to the Alberta Right of Entry Board to go in on the land. True enough, it might be at a pretty high cost. I still feel that, unquestionably, a government body or other body should grant right of entry for the purpose of drilling for oil, gas or even sulphur on the land the pipeline company has acquired for major installation purposes. I do not know whether there is anything to be gained by acquiring the rights to minerals underneath the right of way of the pipeline system.
I agree with the minister that there are many technical explanations that can be given in committee. I hope when we see this bill again for third reading, after it has been before the committee, that there will be more clarity with regard to the future of the national oil policy and with regard to our position vis-a-vis the United States. This has become very worrisome and could have grave consequences in Canada on our balance of payments, the level of employment and the revenue of both federal and provincial governments, especially if there were a major cut
March 9. 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4539
back in our oil marketings in the United States. We know this is an election year and that there are all sorts of difficulties down there in this regard. I think it our government negotiators, and particularly those representatives who are going to Washington tomorrow take a tolerably firm stand, and all the interests in this regard do not lie on the one side, I am sure our United States counterparts will be made to see that the world does not revolve round their domestic orbit at all times. We hold many cards and intend to develop our oil, gas and energy resources for Canada's interests first. Then we will, I think, be quite prepared to consider the requirements of our neighbours.


Mr, Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, there cannot be much objection to the amendments of this bill which extend the authority of the National Energy Board. Any thorough examination of the bill must centre around the outlook of the National Energy Board and involve an examination of specific clauses. It is unfortunate that the National Energy Board in the past did little except reconcile various conflicting business interests which arose instead of taking an over-all view of whether the activities of this or that business interest in the energy field really made much sense. Unfortunately, we begin with the faulty premise to build on, that premise being that international oil companies which virtually dominate the energy field in Canada know what is best for the country, and that our job simply, through the Energy Board, is to act as a referee between them. Clearly, our government has all the business acumen and astuteness of an Esau selling his heritage for a mess of pottage.
The minister's overeagerness in giving away our resources could well have disastrous consequences. True, the minister may, if he wishes, call us petty nationalists, socialists, or anything he wants. That does not alter the fact that he and those surrounding him have for a long time demanded the continental integration of our resources. The Liberal party does not really believe in Canadian nationalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Saltsman:: It wants this country to be embraced by the giant to the south, and the sooner the better. And here, Mr. Speaker, is the one great danger that faces us. As a nation, we do not have control of the situation. Those administering the country do not appear to give a damn about the future of Canadian nationalism.
National Energy Board Act


An hon. Member:: That sounds like a farm program.


An hon. Member:: It sounds like hogwash.


Max Saltsman: The only hogwash around here is coming from the government benches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Peters:: If certain hon. members on the government side keep making these remarks we shall begin thinking that hogtown is now Winnipeg.


Max Saltsman: I should also point out that some of our provincial premiers have been responsible for our failure to develop a national policy in this field. All too often they have been anxious to lay their hands on a fast buck, especially just before an election, and have neglected the long run interests of the nation. In some parts of Canada the premiers seem to wear blinders and do not see the long run interests of the nation. An example is to be found in British Columbia. We know what happened with regard to the Columbia River Treaty. Another example is to be seen in the fact that we have allowed the Japanese to come in and develop a resource without paying any regard to the future of the province concerned.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
It may look great in the lifetime of Premier Bennett, but the question we have to ask is: what price will have to be paid by those who will come after us? It seems to me the federal government has not been forceful enough in expressing its opinion and standing up to some of the provincial premiers. We see this situation in a province such as Alberta, where everyone's thinking seems to be dominated by oil. One would think nothing else existed in this country except oil. The more oil they can sell, the better it is; they do not care about the conditions. Just sell oil; nothing else really matters. Manitoba is the only province which has shown any sense, any willingness to work in the national interest. I think other provinces would do very well to seek to emulate the statesmanlike stance of the premier of Manitoba.
In Alberta, we find a government which prides itself on the fact that it does not need to impose a sales tax. It points to the other provinces and says: They all have sales taxes, but look, we don't. What the people there fail to see is that because of the national oil policy, because of the myopic-minded way in which we approach the selling of our oil,
4540	COMMONS
National Energy Board. Act every Canadian pays tribute to Alberta, and this is why the province is not obliged to impose a sales tax. There can be no doubt that the national oil policy has resulted in the higher cost of gasoline throughout the country. It has been estimated that it costs 5 cents more for every gallon we buy as a result of this national oil policy which keeps one province happy.
Then, there is the foolish policy under which one province is pitted against another in connection with resource development. An industry goes to a province and says: Either you give us the advantage of special concessions or we will locate elsewhere. Provinces fight each other over the right to have their riches despoiled. How long will this sort of thing continue? I know it can be said that a good deal of the fault rests with the provinces themselves, but in my opinion the main fault lies with a federal government which has never asserted itself, which has allowed the matter to drift because it had no policy.
In this country we are always being told how intransigent is the Province of Quebec, how difficult it is to get along with Quebec, how Quebec is threatening confederation. I would suggest with respect that other provinces have been as guilty, if not more guilty, of contributing to the strains within confederation. The federal government has permitted this to go on by failing to take a stand. Sooner or later we must face up to some of these provincial gauleiters. The country does not belong to them, nor do the provinces belong to them. In any confrontation, particularly in English speaking povinces, between the federal government and the provincial governments, I think the people of Canada would opt for the federal government, would opt for nationhood in preference to narrow partisanship in one particular part of the country.
The federal government has failed to produce a policy concerning foreign ownership. The consequence is that a branch plant economy is doing virtually what it pleases in Canada. Operations of companies here have been integrated with those of parent corporations in the United States and in other parts of the world. This may make sense for the companies concerned but it does not make sense for Canada. For Canada, it has meant loss of control.
It is a temptation to view every situation as a crisis and to see every piece of legislation as a watershed. But the forthcoming negotiations on a continental energy policy do, indeed,

DEBATES	March 9, 1970
represent a watershed. We can no longer delay the development of an overall policy regarding the use of Canadian resources. It has been said by people who work in the communications field that we have perhaps ten years in which to solve our problems or else go under as a nation. We could go under even faster by following a resource policy which takes no account of the long range national future.
The minister is sitting very quietly in his place today, although usually he is much given to making outrageous accusations against anyone who does not recognize his omnipotent wisdom, or anyone who dares suggest there might be other ways of doing things.


Mr. McCleave:: Did you know that, Joe?


John James Greene: They must think I am a socialist leader.


Max Saltsman: We have just heard the magic word. The minister's idea of settling a debate is to yell "socialist", like a small boy who hurls four-lettered words and then runs
away-


John James Greene: Losers can never make me mad. It's the winners I worry about.


Max Saltsman: He talks about us being losers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Max Saltsman: The real losers are the Canadian people.


John James Greene: If they ever got you, they would be.


Max Saltsman: Maybe the only thing that has saved the Canadian people is that we have been around to tone everything down before the minister and his friends got out of hand.


Mr. Osier:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Max Saltsman: I don't know. Yes, I suppose I will.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member recommend to the premier of Manitoba that he put an end to the mining of nickel and that sort of thing, so that we could conserve it all there?


Max Saltsman: I will be pleased to answer that question by saying that I don't know what the hon. member is talking about. Let
March 9, 1970

me say some things which the hon. member may actually understand. Try to understand that this party does not object to the sale or trading of Canadian resources. We have never objected to trading or selling in the world. Indeed, we are very much concerned that where such trading is in the interest of Canada and the international community we should do it. We do not take the attitude: we have certain resources; let us sit on them and to heck with everybody else. We are willing to share our resources. We are willing to work in the international community, but some thought must be given to the national interest. We must consider whether we are really helping in an international way or whether we are merely contributing to making that rich neighbour of ours to the south even richer.


John James Greene: Explain.


Max Saltsman: One thing to which our party takes objection is any policy which would make it impossible for Canadians to create their own kind of society-any kind of continentalism which would tie us in so tightly with the United States as to make it virtually impossible for us to develop anything unique or desirable on our part.
I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who comes from an oil province and who has a great deal of interest in seeing exports of oil increase, express the fear of a Canadian nationalist that we have not always bargained strongly enough and that there are conditions under which we should not succumb to pressure. He cited the example of Time and Reader's Digest in the case of which one slight threat that oil imports would be cut off was sufficient to legitimize two magazines and frustrate attempts to develop a Canadian literature and a Canadian journalism.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We in this party have been too long concerned over human welfare, and over the future of this country, to want to see that aborted by a continental energy policy that would make any kind of freedom to live our own lives impossible. We will object to placing our affairs in the hands of business corporations, whether they be American or Canadian, that really do not care about the society in which we reside so long as they can make a dollar. It is not only international American corporations of which I speak; some Canadian corporations are equally guilty. The unfortunate fact is that the Canadian government

National Energy Board Act has let them do as they pleased, and this cannot go on. It is one thing to have a continental energy policy that ensures that corporations have some concern for the future of this country. It is another thing to have a continental energy policy that permits corporations to go across the border and act without giving any thought to the future of this country, being interested only in their own balance sheet.
It may be that, if a continental energy policy is to work, we will have to set up marketing boards through which to sell our energy-our oil, our gas, and perhaps our electricity. It may also be that in order to make this policy work and to ensure that Canada receives the maximum benefits from such an arrangement we will have to take the oil industry under public ownership as the only way to ensure efficiency, to ensure that that industry will operate in the national interest. The minister may respond by saying "Socialism!" It may be that the only way to survive as a nation is to bring in national policies, whether they are socialist or otherwise.
The argument about socialism stifling free enterprise does not cut much ice any more with people who are interested in this country. They are asking which way they can best survive, which way they can best serve the interests of Canada. If we cannot meet these objectives-and I do not think we can-by allowing international oil companies to take over our industry, then it may be necessary to bring the oil industry under public ownership; and if this appears to be the course we should adopt, we should not hesitate to do so.


John James Greene: Watkins. He is in the Watkins camp.


Max Saltsman: Our party will object to a policy that permits people who use our energy resources to pollute and despoil our environment, to dehumanize society, and then to walk away and leave the government to pick up the pieces. This is what they call efficiency. They think this is a good way to run an industry, and that governments are always wrong. Governments do spent far too much money, and one of the reasons is that they have to pick up the pieces after other people have made the profits. This sort of thing cannot be allowed to continue.
In any energy policy there will have to be a very clear understanding that these most important conditions to which I have referred will have to be met. Certainly, I for one am
March 9, 1970

National Energy Board Act not prepared to see the people of a nation that has ruined its own resources, polluted its air and befouled its rivers, move into Canada and do the same thing with our resources. It is true that we have pollution problems too, but we are going to solve those problems. As I say, I am not prepared to see other people who have flung their own resources away in the interest of a materialistic society, and without caring a damn for the future, given a licence to do the same thing in this country.
We object to bailing out another society that is in serious trouble because it has not exercised wisdom in the use of its resources. As long as 10 or 15 years ago a report was issued in the United States indicating a serious shortage of resources was developing in that country. There was another story in this morning's Globe and Mail confirming how serious is the shortage of resources and energy in the United States.
Again, I want to make it very clear to the minister and to those in his party that we cannot stand by and say to one nation whose resources are being depleted, even though it has been foolish in the use of its resources, "Ah, you have acted badly; don't come crying to us". They are still neighbours of ours, and I think we will have to sell some of our resources to the United States. I think arrangements will have to be made to transfer energy to the United States.
Having said that, my concern is that we transfer these resources on our terms. I am not suggesting we should put the United States up against the wall and tell them we will get the last ounce from them; that is not what I mean. But there does have to be a very clear understanding that resources in the world are scarce and that they cannot simply be flung around. If the United States does have access to our energy, then they will have to adopt policies that are somewhat more reassuring than their present ones.
We also think there has been a lack of balance and emphasis in regard to development of secondary manufacturing in this country. In the long run, it is not good enough simply to continue to plunder resources, because resources become depleted. Since the United States has developed into a manufacturing nation, that country would be in great difficulty if it had to depend merely upon its natural resources.
We have to get rid of a tax system that gives bonuses to the mining and oil industries which should not be given. If we are going to sell our resources, particularly when they are 
in tremendous demand, then we should at least get some value from them. When a tax system makes special concessions to resource industries, if those resources are sold then some of the benefit that might accrue to Canada will be lost. For that reason, we should make certain that there is no bonusing of the mining and oil industries. Even though the white paper does suggest some changes for these industries, very substantial handouts to the natural resource industries still remain.
So that the minister clearly understands our policy and does not go around spouting a lot of stuff that does not make any sense, I should like to express our position as it is found in these four major points.
First of all, before any continental energy policy is concluded, the minister must ensure that the use to be made of Canadian resources will be made a matter of public policy; that the decision will be made by the government of Canada acting on behalf of the people of the country, instead of the decision being made by the large corporations of the world.
Second, that there will be a real benefit to Canada from such an energy policy, a benefit that is long term, not a short term, quick meal of pottage.
Third, in any energy policy negotiations all matters affecting trade will be discussed, not merely energy. Energy cannot be discussed out of context with other areas of trade in this country. It is true that the United States wants to discuss energy alone, but we should be prepared to insist upon discussing all matters affecting trade at this time. If we bargain away our energy resources, we may never have another chance to discuss those other areas of trade that are so vital to the nation.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One of those matters that has to be discussed is the access of Canadian manufacturers to the United States. The United States has a great deal going for it in Canada. This is a beautiful set-up for them. There are no tariffs against raw materials because the United States desperately needs raw materials. They take all we can give them, but try to sell them some manufactured goods except those in respect of the Canada-U.S. auto trade pact. Perhaps there are some, but they are relatively few. These companies have then-branch plants over here which are not permitted to export back to the United States. Let us develop agreements with the United States, because Canadian companies, by
March 9, 1970

agreement, are restricted to the Canadian market. Let us have access to the greater United States market.
One of the problems facing Canadian secondary manufacturing industry, and this is a problem which perhaps would not have faced it if the United States had not come in and virtually destroyed our economy with their branch plants, is the fact that they are blocked from the United States market. Now that they have wrecked our economy with their branch plants and destroyed our efficiency by blocking our manufacturers out of United States markets, at least in respect of most manufactured goods, they have made it virtually impossible for us to develop secondary industry. There should be no export-let me not say "no". I am not prepared to see an enlargement of our energy exports to the United States unless there is some substantial give on their part in the matter of access to their markets for our manufactured goods.
Another matter that needs to be discussed with the United States is the question of then-wheat policy. While we are going around being nice boys and signing wheat agreements, the United States is cutting our throats on price. This has got to stop. If you are going to be neighbours you are going to be neighbours. This is one of the problems that must be discussed with the United States before any agreement can be concluded on an energy policy.
Fourth, and most important, there must be a clear commitment from the United States that their laws will not apply to Canada. We are tired of the intrusion of the United States law into Canada causing infringements of our sovereignty. I have in mind their trading with the enemy laws. If their companies are Canadian they are going to have to obey Canadian laws. That must be clearly understood. There must be an end to extra-ter-ritorialism on the part of the United States. Surely, no nation that calls itself free, and that looks to have a future, can tolerate the kind of intrusion that has taken place in Canada by the United States government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is most important as we head into negotiations on a continental energy policy that we be very clear about our objectives and very determined to see that irreparable damage is not done in the course of these negotiations or the agreements that might arise from them. I believe it is possible to have an integrated policy on energy with the United States, but only if the
National Energy Board Act needs and interests of Canada are met in a fair way.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-190 will give the committee an opportunity to discuss the whole question of energy resources, not only in Canada but on the North American continent. I presume their terms of reference will be wide enough to discuss developments in the next 25 years. This is a very complicated subject, and a very difficult one because the self interests of the big international oil companies are affected. Our own self interests are also affected.
I suggest right from the start that it will be very difficult to get the large international oil companies to consider the best interests of Canadians unless we enter these discussions and considerations with a very fair attitude ourselves. We certainly cannot expect a one way deal. We must look at the tremendous resources of energy, whatever they may be, natural gas, petroleum products, electric power, or some of the new, sophisticated sources of power which we anticipate in the next 25 to 50 years. These will include atomic reaction and other forms of nuclear power, including solar energy, which are only now coming to the fore.
The whole subject is complicated because there is a time element involved. We need, as anybody who has studied the white paper will be well aware of, large sums of money for the development of our own country. The government of the day is looking desperately for these forms of revenue. We are discussing the necessity of taxing profits no matter where they are and quite rightly, particularly excess profits or profits not in the best interests of the people of Canada. Certainly, through the white paper, all branches of governments as well as industry itself should take a look at this.
In order to sell any forward looking policy we have to be good salesmen, and a good salesman has to know the people to whom he is selling his ideas. We have to realize what the international atmosphere is, and certainly what the atmosphere at the present is between Canada and that great republic to the south. I do not think the kind of speech we have just heard represents a good start if we expect the United States to come to us, particularly in view of the fact it has most of the bargaining on the short term policy in its hands. As far as we are concerned, the United States controls the large international oil companies. It is principally these United States companies which at the present time
March 9, 1970

National Energy Board Act carry it into the councils of the United Nations and other places in the world so that Canada, in full co-operation and understanding with the United States, can become a joint blessing to all mankind.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: would just like to make a comment or two on the speech of the member preceding me before I start on my remarks. When he referred to a continental oil policy and to U.S. ownership, I had the feeling that perhaps I should touch my forelock in the approved method of a peasant saluting the owner of the land. I think that we in this party do not criticize the Americans for making a good business deal in investing in Canadian oil. We realize they have good business heads. However, previously we were political servants or junior partners to Great Britain and eventually we grew up in a political sense so that now we run our own house. In the past, we have invited the Americans to act as the big daddy so far as business is concerned and to do things for us that we could not do ourselves. The situation is now changing. If we were to take a phrase from the separatists in Quebec we might say that we are now masters in our own house. We have now reached our majority and adopted a grown up attitude with respect to business. Perhaps it is high time we stood on our own hind legs and said: "We can run our affairs now". I think that the attitude we in this party take is that as Canadians we are grown up business men and we will gradually become masters in our own house. This is my attitude in reference to the remarks just made.
We favour the improved regulations envisaged in the bill. I suggest that before we go overboard in selling such things as power abroad we take an adequate inventory of the resources we have. This is particularly true of natural gas. We should check what we have in the way of power resources against Canada's possible future needs and make sure that our future requirements are adequately protected. I can well see us selling bottled natural gas from some of our oil wells in the Arctic at the same time as the oil. This could well go hand in hand with oil drilling and it would probably be quite feasible to sell these to anyone in a position to buy.
If we must export power in any form I favour its export in the form of electricity rather than as oil, natural gas or uranium because this means that some jobs will be given to Canadians in constructing an utility.


Hopefully, we will get a return in investment, and I am assuming that any sale of electricity will pay us dividends or will be to our advantage. Surely, this would be the case because if not, what would be the point of selling our power to anyone? The only market abroad for Canadian electricity at the moment is the United States. We have heard repeatedly that they have an increasingly greater need for electricity. If we can sell power to our advantage, it might be better to do this than to sell it in the form of natural gas.
I should like to deal specifically with the sale of uranium of which Canada has plenty. If we could sell atomic energy plants abroad, hopefully sales of uranium or enriched uranium, plutonium or thorium might follow. In effect, we might be making a better business deal than by selling a raw, natural resource power which someone else converts in their factories. What I am saying to the minister is that perhaps we should look for a better business deal than we have in the past. I have a great deal of respect for the business ability of the Americans. They have not achieved what they have without having a fair knowledge of business and displaying a good deal of business ingenuity. When you are dealing with a horse trader of this kind you should use some caution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Regional Economic Expansion- request for inclusion of all Saskatchewan as designated area; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) -Transport- Charlottetown-Proposed transfer of certain marine agency functions and personnel; the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-Trade-Sale of atomic energy plant to Roumania-Contingent conditions.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motion.
March 9. 1970



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act, section 11, subsection (9a) by deleting after the word "where" the words "the employer's establishment to which he ordinarily reported for work was located" and substituting the words "he maintained a self-contained domestic establishment in which he resided and actually supported a spouse or a person dependent upon him for support and connected with him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the private members' notice ol motion No. 12 standing in my name in today's Order Paper. The motion to amend section 11 (9a) of the Income Tax Act, which I have the honour to present to the House this afternoon, is based on a brief to the Royal Commission on Taxation submitted by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Employees' Association on behalf of the employees of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool engaged in construction and repair of country grain elevators, annexes and cottages, and made with the full knowledge and support of the employer, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the original submission dealing with this problem was made directly to the Hon. E. J. Benson, Minister of Finance, on August 25, 1969, in a letter by Mr. G. A. Mills, Secretary-Manager of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Employees' Association.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The purpose of the motion I am presenting today is to allow employees incurring a necessary and legitimate expense for meals in the carrying out of the requirements of their employment to deduct these expenses from their taxable income. At present expenses incurred for board, or received by them for board, are included in computing their taxable income.
The situation I am concerned about is that of the employees engaged in the construction and repair of country grain elevators. After submission of a brief to the Royal Commission on Taxation, some relief was obtained by a ruling of a chief assessor to the effect that those construction employees engaged in
Income Tax Act
"new" construction could come under exemption by reference to section 5(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Although welcome, this ruling created an even more obvious discrimination in that workers employed by the same company, often engaged in work of a similar nature at the same site, are in some cases allowed to deduct the value of their expense allowance from their taxable income and others are not.
For example, and as related to the employees of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Association, there is the situation at Gainsborough where repairs to the pool elevator were carried out in November and December of 1968. The work performed included installing electric motors in crib annex, east frame annex, and on head. A complete new boot was installed and metal liners were put in auger box. This is but part of the work that was done there, but as this work was not classed as new construction these men were not allowed to deduct their living expenses while at Gainsborough from their taxable income. Had they built a new elevator at the station, their expenses would have been deductible.
The motion I propose would provide an equitable solution to this problem. It is only since 1961 that these workers have not been allowed to claim expenditures for meals as an expense deductible from income. From 1951 to 1961 these employees were allowed to claim as a deduction from income the amount expended for meals during the period they were required to move to different places in the course of their employment
The 1961 ruling not to allow deduction of meal expenditure was made by the Department of National Revenue Taxation Division. This ruling is based upon section 11 (9a) of the taxation act, holding that the work site at which employees are engaged is the establishment where they report for work and therefore they would not be away from the employer's establishment to which they ordinarily report for work.
I do not dispute the legality of the interpretation placed on section 11 (9a) of the act by the legal authorities. They have, no doubt, given the wording very close and careful scrutiny and consideration. However, the refusal to consider claims for meal expenses is based entirely upon the words "where the employer's establishment to which he ordinarily reports for work was located." The fact is that the elevator construction and repair workers may work one day at Buffalo

March 9, 1970
Income Tax Act
Gap, the next day at Big Beaver, and the next tour days at Yellow Grass, the next two weeks at Estevan and the next two weeks at Spring Valley. In fact, having completed one day's work at Big Beaver they may not return to that place in the next two or three years. Nevertheless, the department maintains that Big Beaver is the establishment to which these workers report for work "usually" or "generally" or "as a rule." This is a situation which must be corrected.
The department has also ruled that the non-allowance regarding claim for meals that applies to the construction and repair workers does not apply to their foremen. This creates a rather peculiar situation. A foreman, and one of his workers living next door, may be sent by the company to repair an elevator 100 miles away. While on this assignment the foreman's expenditures for meals are deductible from his taxable income while his helper, working under the same circumstances but for a lower income, has no such privilege.
It is no doubt such unjustifiable and plainly evident discrimination and inequity, that prompted the Carter Commission to make this observation, and I quote:
The self-assessment system of taxation is only a viable system if taxpayers believe that everyone is bearing his fair share of the tax burden.
The motion before you is aimed at just that. I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will see fit to adopt this motion.


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate. But first of all, we must admit that the point raised by the hon. member has not much significance. There is a point of law I wish to discuss, but I must say that the hon. member is talking about an exception to an exception, because subsection (9a) of section 11 refers to an exception to subsection (9) which in turn refers to an exception to section 5 of the Income Tax Act.
One can see that the Income Tax Act deals differently with the income of a wage-earner and that of a tradesman or someone who is self-employed.
Indeed, a self-employed taxpayer may deduct most of his expenses. If he has to go to another city for something related to his business, he may deduct the cost of his meals. If he takes to lunch someone who will help him in his business, he is entitled to a deduction. All he has to do is establish that such expenses are related to his work in a sense
[Mr. Southam.'l
acceptable under ordinary accounting principles.
On the other hand, in the case of a worker who earns a salary, he must find in the Income Tax Act-and this may take much time and effort-a section which spells out the deduction which he is entitled to.
For instance, section 5 stipulates as follows, and I quote from the English version:

Income for a taxation year from an office or employment is the salary, wages and other remuneration, including gratuities, received by the taxpayer in the year plus

A list follows detailing what must be added. As for what may be deducted, instead of having a general accounting formula, there is a very specific list of what can be deducted.
Speaking of the case mentioned by the hon. member, I say it is a striking example of how specific the law is about allowable deductions. The basic rule is that the salaried employee is not allowed any deductions. Then, there is a list of the specific items that may be deducted.
Subsection (9) reads as follows:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)

(9) Where an officer or employee, in a taxation year,
(a)	was ordinarily required to carry on the duties of his employment away from his employer's place of business or in different places,
(b)	under the contract of employment was required to pay the travelling expenses incurred by him in the performance of the duties of his office or employment, and
(c)	was not in receipt of an allowance for travelling expenses that was, by virtue of subparagraph (v), (vi) or (vii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 5, not included in computing his income and did not claim any deduction for the year under subsection (5), (6) or (7).

This is the case of one of those employees referred to by the hon. member.

there may be deducted, in computing his income from the office or employment for the year, notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (h) of subsection (1) of section 12, amounts expended by him in the year for travelling in the course of his employment.

I shall deal now with what can be deducted. Subsection (9) does not deal with the cost of meals. However subsection (9a) says the following:
March 9. 1970

Income Tax Act

(9a) An amount expended in respect of a meal consumed by an officer or employee shall not be included in computing the amount of a deduction under subsection (6) or (9) unless the meal was consumed during a period while he was required by his duties to be away for a period of not less than 12 hours, from the municipality where the employer's establishment to which he ordinarily reported for work was located and away from the metropolitan area, if there is one, where it is located.

Let us suppose for instance that a construction worker is employed by a company whose head office is in Big Beaver and that he has to work 100 miles from Big Beaver and stay there less than 12 hours, and that his employer does not pay him any travelling expenses. I must tell you incidently that if the employer pays him travelling expenses, section 5 (2a) applies then but it is a different case.
If the employer provides no allocation and the employee has to pay his own expenses, the latter is entitled to the deduction. Under the change proposed by the hon. member, in order to be entitled to the deduction it is sufficient for the worker to earn his living alone. If he works, not only at a great distance from his boss's office, but far from his usual residence, he is entitled to the deduction.
Under such circumstances, a general deduction may be justified if expenses are incurred by the worker in the process of earning his living. But the proposed amendment generates another type of injustice because, as I have told the member, it is only necessary to work in a location away from home. So, if a man lives 100 miles from Toronto but works in the latter city, he will be entitled to a deduction under the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member. It may be argued that he is entitled to a deduction under these circumstances, but is it not a fact that the man who lives in Toronto and performs the same work should be allowed the same deduction?
There is something else to be considered in the latter's case. We come to the abnormal conclusion that the unmarried worker with no dependent is not entitled to the deduction. In fact, the amendment merely states that the worker must live far from a town where, and I quote in English:

-he maintained a self-contained domestic establishment ... in which he resided and actually supported a spouse or a person dependent upon him for support and connected with him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption-

Only those in the circumstances described will be entitled to the deduction. Where, indeed, one must ask, is the justice of this? Clearly, a man's living expenses are the same whether he has a family, lives far from his place of work or is single.
Briefly, the employee has to be specifically informed as to whether, in all fairness, he is entitled to the deduction. Without singing the praises of the white paper on tax reform, it can be said that it does seek to establish a much fairer taxation system, and that it recognizes the salaried worker's right to living expenses. Paragraph 2.12 of the white paper reads as follows:

The government proposes to make more provision in the law for the expenses legitimately incurred in earning wages or salaries. However, it has reached the conclusion that claims for expenses on the broad bases suggested by the commission would either impose record keeping on millions of employees or deny them the ability to submit acceptable claims.

That is those who do not keep their bills and receipts.

It would also produce an almost impossible processing task in tax administration with inevitably long delays in making refunds. Consequently the government proposes that general limits be retained on the expenses that can be deducted from employment income but that a general deduction be provided.

I insist on that. I continue:

-and somewhat greater recognition given to special situations where employees have to live for a period of time at a work site away from home.

That is an answer to the unfairness pointed out by the hon. member, since the white paper deals specifically with that situation where a single man or a married man with or without dependents must work, without any financial help from his employer and far from his home. And I emphasize the fact that the

March 9, 1970
Income Tax Act
system proposed in the white paper will bring about results much fairer in such circumstances.
So, that led me to look for the rulings handed down under that section of the Income Tax Act, since I have heard about the differences between the deductions allowed the employers on the one hand, and, on the other, the wage-earners, and I wish to raise serious doubts with respect of the two different rulings rendered under that section. It is true that the rulings produced strange and varying results between the case of a construction supervisor and that of a worker. But the ruling was rendered in the lowest court, and I wish to point out that, if there were an appeal, it might give satisfactory results.
We then refer, and the hon. member did it himself in his remarks, to the way the following expression is construed:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)

-from the municipality where the employer's establishment to which he ordinarily reported for work was located-

I stress the word "ordinarily". I wonder whether, when some industry settles somewhere to perform a job of one or two weeks' or a few days' duration, it can be said that the employer's establishment is "ordinarily" located there. If there is an appeal in a case similar to that described by the hon. member, results might be different.
Mr. Speaker, on the whole, I am in agreement with the hon. member when he says that the provisions of the act are a little odd. The rulings made under that subsection are also odd, and perhaps the law does not justify them.
I hope that an appeal will be made soon, so that we may know the full implications of the act We find, however, that the remedy proposed by the white paper is much fairer than would be some minor changes to certain sections of the act, which, although they correct many injustices, have also created many others. In fact, workers with a family or dependents, within the meaning of the Income Tax Act, may deduct the price of their meals when they work in a locality far from their homes, while single persons do not have this right.
I must say, however, that I am happy to note that some of those provisions are interesting and that certain groups, which the hon. member has mentioned, are ready to make

representations on behalf of the wage-earners. I think it might be said that the reason why there is a difference in the way salaried workers and businessmen are treated is that in the past-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate my support for the motion introduced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). I do not intend to speak at any length on this subject or to use it as an opportunity to practise my French because I cannot at this stage imitate the effort of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan). Although I can offer him my congratulations on his very good effort in speaking French in this debate, I may have some other comments with respect to the content of his remarks this afternoon.
I think it is very timely, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution has been presented to the House just prior to the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) which is to come on Thursday next. Indeed, I hope it is possible to bring this motion to a vote this afternoon in order that it may have some influence on the Minister of Finance and the measures he will bring forward in his budget.
I think it is very important for us to take a look at the situation of various groups across Canada which are affected by the application and interpretation of our taxation laws. Whenever we find ways and means of improving the situation for a group of people or rectifying a wrong or error in the application of tax law, we should take advantage of the first possible opportunity to correct the situation.
Reference has been made in this debate to the white paper on taxation which is presently under study, and to the fact that some proposals contained in the white paper deal with the situation of employees. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is always commendable to consider these matters; but, at the same time, people working in the calendar year 1970 will have to live with the present tax law, and whenever we find it possible to deal with problems that have been drawn to our attention, I think we should take advantage of the first opportunity to do so.
Everyone, I think, believes in reform, but one does not put it into effect by putting it off
March 9, 1970

Income Tax Act
until tomorrow. I think the real measure of one's belief in and dedication to reform is one's willingness to take action now. The example that was drawn to the attention of various hon. members of the House of Commons and the Royal Commission on Taxation a number of years ago involves the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Employees Association, the bargaining agent for a large number of employees employed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which, of course, is an organization very well known to hon. members. The association has drawn to the attention of the Royal Commission on Taxation and various hon. members of this House the problem facing a number of employees who are engaged in construction work and a number of existing anomalies. Reference has also been made in this debate to the situation involving two men who live side by side and who may go to work at the same place. One is a foreman and the other simply working under his direction. Yet these two people will be treated differently as the result of the application of the present law.
I should also draw to the attention of hon. members that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Employees Association was not taking issue with the interpretation of the law as such. They are asking for a change in the law because of certain facts and because of the interpretation that has been placed upon the law as it exists. Thus, in my opinion, consideration ought to be given to the situation of people working away from home.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
It is highly questionable whether the living allowance provided to certain employees can really be classified as income. A change in the law is badly needed in these circumstances. I hope it will be possible to bring the resolution to a vote in order that members can express themselves on the subject and have an opportunity to correct an injustice suffered by a number of people who are presently employed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Certainly, there would be implications affecting other employees in other parts of the country. I trust the House will express its support for the motion.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words to say on this subject. It seems to me that the malfunctioning of the act, or whatever one might wish to call it, is an example of one kind of difficulty we encounter in this country, the result of a certain remoteness from various
events which touch people's lives. Perhaps this causes them annoyance rather than real hardship. It is only a slight hardship, not to be able to deduct the cost of a lunch or one meal a day, when reckoning income tax. It would probably not make or break anybody. But it does seem on the face of it to be stupid. In a situation such as the hon. member has described, what could be more natural than for an employee who is a long way from his employer's place of business to need to eat sometimes? Why should he not be allowed to deduct the cost of the meal simply because he is a long way from his employer's place of business? I fail to understand it.
I hope that whether or not the motion before us goes through today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his minions in the back rooms will devote a good deal of attention to it. There is nothing dark or sinister about the changes which the hon. member feels should be made. The federal government will not lose hundreds of millions of dollars; no greasy, cigar-smoking multi-millionaire in a Cadillac will be getting away with expenses to which he is not entitled. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) sees this every day, I suppose, in his constituency, but we do not in mine and I am sure they do not in Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.
Talking about expense accounts and looking at the proposals which some of the minions in the back rooms of the Department of Finance have produced and placed in the hands of the minister in the form of the white paper on tax reform, it occurs to me that though many of them contain good ideas, others are the product of inquisitorial minds which decline to assume that most people in this country are honest, that most people are not trying to get anything for nothing. Specifically, the new tax proposals would deny all allowances for expense accounts. This is the proposal which has been made. I purposely brought up the image of the cigarsmoking millionaire driving around in a Cadillac. We want to get after these people and cut down some of their expense accounts. But when people with logical but somewhat insular or protective minds begin to formulate policy proposals, they come up with something along the lines I have just mentioned.
In Winnipeg we are fortunate to have some medical people of high calibre. During the year and a half in which I have been in this House I had never been the subject of the slightest pressure from them, on any matter,

March 9, 1970
Income Tax Act
until we got into this expense account proposal. Doctors at every level in Winnipeg and Manitoba have been writing to me asking whether the government could not be a little selective in this proposal. How are doctors to upgrade themselves if they cannot attend conventions and claim legitimate expenses? 1 have had letters from engineers asking how they can be expected to keep up their qualifications as they go through life, if they cannot associate with other engineers at conventions or take courses and upgrade their knowledge.
Are these expenses not as legitimate as the expense of going to school? Concessions can be misused, of course, but it is the job of the taxation department to see that they are not. It is up to the legal people to see that the tax laws are not broken. A country cannot be run on the basis that everybody is a crook, trying to get away with illegitimate expenses. The section of the white paper to which I have referred is a perfect example of the stupidity to which attention was called in the complaint put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam).
There is another area in which the same kind of nasty, suspicious mind is at work. I refer to the business of evaluating everything in a house. I know there are people who have made fortunes through misusing personal goods, trafficking in pictures, and so on. They should be paying taxes, as should any other speculator, when they make it their business. But I am thinking now of the average person. To have someone enter his house and evaluate everything in it, and allow him $1,000 a year appreciation on the value of his house, is unacceptable to my way of thinking. This appears to work out at 4 per cent on $25,000. For some time inflation has been running at a little more than 4 per cent. A value of $25,000 is not out of the way for a house in this day and age. So we are not giving the owner anything: he owns his own house, and the proposal is to charge him any capital gain he may make on it.
Then you have these snoopers going in and putting a value on a man's personal property and telling him that if he sells it, trades it or dusts it off he will have to pay the government something. It seems to me that a long time ago I read something about this in the Domesday Book. It used to be fashionable in England 1,000 years ago. They got rid of that concept about the time of Edward the Confessor, and it is time we rejected this sort of concept being brought into Canada.
There must be a way of being reasonable about these things, of getting taxes from

those who are trying to be unreasonable while leaving the average man of good will in a position in which he can live his life without looking over his shoulder at some nameless, faceless government which by and large is doing a good job to protect his rights. It is the sort of proposal to which I have called attention, which undermines the faith of the ordinary man in his government, in the good will of his government and in the ability of his Member of Parliament to do anything on his behalf.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am not a lawyer, and this change may not be technically possible in the form suggested. If it is possible, I think the change should be made. If it is not, the Minister of Finance should pay attention to what has been proposed in the motion and have his backroom boys amend the law in an appropriate manner.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam) for bringing this motion forward. I have for many years been informed about this injustice by people in my area. Many labourers complain to me about this unjust tax. It seems strange that it should apply only to labourers and not to foremen on the job.
I appreciate that these people are suffering an injustice. In the first place, they are put to added expense if they are living miles away from home. We all realize the extra cost involved in this. I had never before appreciated the great disadvantage to which they are put by this injustified tax, which seems so unnecessary. This is especially so when the foremen, the man in charge of the job, is not compelled to pay it whereas the labourers are.
Members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Employees Association have drawn this injustice to the attention of Members of Parliament across the country. I am very happy that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain has introduced this motion and I hope that the House will allow it to come to a vote. Since every hon. member has spoken in favour of the motion, this is an injustice that should cease forthwith. Its existence is beyond me. I will take no further time in the hope that the House will allow the motion to go forward and thus correct an injustice suffered by the labouring people of this country.
March 9. 1970


Mr. Philip G. Givens (York West):: Mr. Speaker, unlike my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) I am not one of those guys who smokes a greasy cigar- though I am not sure what he means by a greasy cigar-or a smelly pipe. Neither do I see what is wrong with driving around in a Cadillac. I used to drive around in a Cadillac when I was employed by the city of Toronto-a chauffeur-driven Cadillac. I guess my wife also thought, as the hon. member does, that there is something wrong with that and she humbled me twice a week: after the chauffeur had driven the car off the driveway she made darned sure that I carried out the garbage.
As I told the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the other day when I was riding in his car, there is one thing wrong with riding in a car like that: when you lose the next election, the car stops coming to your door. I lost the next election and blew my chauffeur and the whole deal. Now I do not drive around in a Cadillac any more. But let me assure the hon. member that there is nothing wrong with driving around in a Cadillac, and especially is this so when you are driving around at somebody else's expense.
I cannot support the motion moved by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). I think that one of the terrible things from which we suffer in this modern state is a multiplicity, a plethora of exemptions and deductions. We are cursed with them. There are exemptions that are peripatetic, exemptions that are casual and exemptions that are isolated.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre says that everybody is honest, that everybody will give the government a fan-shake, and that we should not snoop into this or that. I should like to tell him that the amount of pilfering in this country from stores, businesses and various organizations is a national scandal. I wish I had known beforehand that this discussion was coming up today, because I would have liked to bring to the House statistics to indicate how dishonest a lot of people really are. The effect of this dishonesty on many businesses is much worse than any Benson white paper could possibly be. This is due to the basic dishonesty of human beings. I am afraid-


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose
Income Tax Act
Mountain (Mr. Southam) is rising on a question of privilege.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks in so far as they apply to this motion, but what I do not understand and should like him to explain is how he qualifies his insinuation that the employees of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool are dishonest in their request that the income tax law be amended in this way in order to remove the discrimination that exists. The hon. member has heard other colleagues of his in this House agree with the motion. I do not think there is any dishonesty implied here.


Philip Gerald Givens: Mr. Speaker, I was not accusing the hon. member of stealing, and neither was I accusing the people that he is speaking for. I was just malting a general statement in reply to a comment made by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, who stated that people were so honest that these exemptions and deductions can be justified, and that people receive justice in this way.
I do not think you can get justice by multiplying the exemptions and deductions that are permitted under the income tax law at the moment. According to the tax law, there is a difference between a self-employed person and one who works for wages. This is something that as I have gone through business life I have never been able to understand. Why should people who are selfemployed be treated differently from those who are salaried or receive wages? For example, how can you determine the cost of a meal, whether eaten in a catering establishment or on the job? I suppose if you get a chit from a restaurant, this would be one way. But how much can one eat? Is a grilled cheese sandwich different from a steak, and is its cost deductible? I do not think that one meal would make much difference; but when you multiply it by the number of working days in a year, in view of the way some people eat the cost could amount to several hundred dollars.
I cannot support the motion for reasons of this kind. This motion typifies the desires of people who think they can right an injustice by opposing the raising of revenues, and who always favour chipping away at revenues on some pretext or other. I do not think the workers in the west will get justice in this way. I do not think you can get justice by making exemptions and deductions, by making exceptions to exceptions to exceptions. If I had my way I would scrap all

March 9, 1970
Income Tax Act
exemptions and deductions and start again from scratch.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Does he think that a grilled cheese sandwich should be treated differently from a steak?


Philip Gerald Givens: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should beef about that suggestion or not, but obviously there is a difference between a grilled cheese sandwich and a steak. I am wondering why some people should be able to eat at the expense of the taxpayers while others are not. This kind of situation can be perpetuated ad infinitum, and I think it is wrong. If you are self-employed that is one thing; if you are on salary or wages, that is another; if you are a Member of Parliament, that is still another. I do not think we should change the law in the manner suggested by the hon. member's motion. I think that in a large industrial area such as the one I come from, the adoption of this kind of motion would create many more problems than it would cure.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, although not for the usual motives, I should like to assure the proposer of this motion that in speaking to it I am not going to kill it with kindness, because hopefully it will come to a vote and I will have the opportunity to vote against it.
Before commenting on the resolution I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) on his tour de force en francais. It was a remarkable performance and one for which he is indeed to be congratulated almost as much as one might congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier) for working his way around to the point where the value of a lunch became the value of a house. I do not know how many cigar-smoking, Cadillac driving millionaires he knows or I know, but I think they are the exception. Even the proposition that came to us from the officials of the tax department in respect of this question amounts to attacking a mosquito with a sledgehammer.
I am inclined to think that there is a great element of overkill in the white paper proposals which would dispose almost entirely of many of the items in valid expense accounts and convention attendance to which the hon. member alluded. This motion proposes an amendment to section 11 (9a) of the Income

Tax Act. If the amendment were adopted by the passage of this motion on second reading, this part of the section would read:
An amount expended in respect of a meal consumed by an officer or employee shall not be included in computing the amount of a deduction under subsection (6) or (9) unless the meal was consumed during a period while he was required by his duties to be away, for a period of not less than 12 hours, from the municipality where-[DOT]
Then we get the change.
-11e maintained a self-contained domestic establishment in which he resided and actually supported a spouse or a person dependent upon him for support and connected with him by blood relationship, marriage or adoption-
This would be followed by the words as they are in the act:
-and away from the metropolitan area, if there is one, where it was located.
I am not sure what the metropolitan areas are in the constituency of Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, but this proposal would present some problems to people living in our larger cities. The first reason I would oppose it is, basically, that there is a built-in discrimination against persons who are maintaining a domestic establishment in which they support people related to them either by blood, marriage or adoption. Perhaps the hon. member would explain at some point why he chose to discriminate against at least most bachelors who are not supporting in their household someone related to them by blood, marriage or adoption. It does not seem to me that this discrimination makes a great deal of sense.
The second reason I would oppose it is that the main thrust of the resolution, even if it were corrected to eliminate the objection I have raised, would be that an employee would have it within his judgment whether or not he would arrange his affairs in order to take advantage of this deduction. The onus or initiative would be on him to determine, of course, where he lived in relation to his job. The way it is now, it is up to the employer whether he wishes to send the employee away from his regular domicile in order to perform a given function.
In this way a man regularly employed, for example in the city of Regina, could unquestionably determine that he would like to live in the doubtless more amenable surroundings of Moose Jaw and commute regularly to work. He would be entitled, provided he was not a bachelor, to support within his home someone related to him by blood, marriage or adoption and qualify under the proposal for the deduction of his travelling expenses.
March 9, 1970	COMMONS
If the tomato growers from the Niagara peninsula have something to contribute to the debate, perhaps they would move to their own seats and do so from there. I should be glad to give up the floor to the hon. expert any time he wants it.


Eugene Whelan: I just want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the hon. member is as accurate about the topic on which he is now speaking as he is about geography, his remarks should be stricken from the record.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I must apologize to the hon. member for placing Windsor in the Niagara peninsula, and I am not too sure how many will not forgive me for that. I apologize in any case, sir. Another anomaly in the motion is that it is presented on behalf of the Wheat Pool Employees Association and endorsed by the Wheat Pool itself. It seems to me that with a little bit of agreement on attacking someone other than the government to change the Income Tax Act in order to accommodate their own desires, they could very rapidly, by the use of their collective bargaining processes, avail themselves of the advantages offered under section 5(2) of the Income Tax Act. That section was adopted in 1957 and it is one with which I am sure the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) is familiar. I say this inasmuch as it deals with construction employees. Under that section construction workers may exclude from their income, under the circumstances spelled out-I am sure these people would have no difficulty falling under this provision-allowances paid by their employers to cover travelling expenses, meals and lodging, and so on, between their regular residence and the site of the construction work.
On the introduction of this measure into the House the then Minister of Finance, Hon. Donald Fleming, pointed out the very danger we are encountering when we start to consider ad hoc amendments to the Income Tax Act in order to deal with a very special and particular circumstance. At page 2327 of Hansard for 1957-58, volume 3, the then Minister of Finance said:
We have given to this plea of the construction workers very careful study and have brought forward this amendment, not without misgivings in regard to the difficulties of administration which might present themselves. I would, however, ask the committee to bear in mind that there has been no opportunity for giving consideration to the position of other workers who may consider that their tax position should be regarded as equivalent to that of the construction worker in the view embodied in the present clause.
DEBATES	4555
National Energy Board Act
So today we have another group of workers who feel they are entitled to special treatment and that the proposals on tax reform-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill C-190 to amend the National Energy Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was suggesting that when a commodity, in this case energy, is in demand in the United States or in some other area, we try to obtain a better deal than we have been getting. For example, we might tie gas sales in with oil sales; we might make one sale conditional upon the other. Gas is in demand and is in relatively shorter supply than oil. If we are to export gas to the United States, we might try to make oil sales part of the deal. I think this would be good business. Our neighbours to the south, the Yankee traders, are pretty shrewd businessmen and would probably do something of a similar nature if the situation were reversed.
I should like briefly to discuss another idea. Rather than move our energy such as water, gas, oil and power to the big cities or other places for manufacturing purposes, sometimes it might be more sensible to move industry and people to the sources of energy. It would seem to me to be only reasonable that on occasion we consider this approach.
Cities are becoming congested; traffic is a continual problem. We have built up urban ghettos where there are crime waves and a network of social problems which the smaller centres do not have. Recently I read that
March 9, 1970

National Energy Board Act industry in Great Britain has been encouraged to move out into the country or to more rural areas. It seems to me this would be a sensible approach to take in this country, at least in part. We might on occasion move the people and industry to the power, rather than moving the power to people and industry in the cities.
The United States is proposing a continental energy policy. If the United States really believes in this policy on a reciprocal basis, I think it would behoove that country to encourage some industry to move to our sources of energy rather than expect our water, power, gas, and so on to move to centres of United States industry. If the United States really believes in a continental policy, and if Canada has an advantage because of our raw materials, we might conceivably use this as an approach in solving the over-all problem of industry in North America. I strongly suggest that we use our abundance of energy resources as a lever in order to make a better deal in respect of any future agreements with the United States.
If private business will not develop industry in Canada, where there is a great amount of natural and relatively cheap power, I suggest we look carefully into having the Canada Development Corporation build industry in these resource areas. We could tie our industrial growth in with private industry in this connection. As an example, when the CCF government was in power in Saskatchewan it underwrote the bonds in order to finance the building of the pipe plant in the city of Regina. This was a private enterprise backed by provincial government funds. That plant is a particularly productive and going concern. In fact, at the present time in Saskatchewan, where much of the industry is stagnant, this particular industry has expanded.
Just a few days ago an oil man suggested to me that if a decision were made to build a pipeline from the Mackenzie basin to Chicago, they did not know where they would obtain the pipe with which to build the several thousand miles of pipeline required. In the development of industry in Canada I think there is room for more and continued use of our own energy resources. Instead of importing many of the required items, I think we should take advantage of the opportunity to produce more of them ourselves. In this regard I believe that in co-operation with business we might be able to create the industries to produce some of these items. However, if private enterprise is not interested, I would sug-

gest that in a federal company sense we might ourselves build some of these plants.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
We should seriously consider this approach rather than just making a deal whereby we give away our raw energy resources to the United States and do not receive an equivalent long-lasting benefit in return. In effect, we will be hewers of wood and drawers of water forever, in the economic sense, if we do not adopt such a policy. If we want to convert Canada into a modern, industrial state we will have to look seriously at some of these aspects in regard to power in our own country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Greene that Bill S-5, to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Aiken (page 3591).
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is very important because of its principle and substance as shown in clauses 3 and 6. Clause 3 makes it clear that the principle of Bill S-5 applies "in respect of oil and gas in any of the following areas", and then it states that these include the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. The clause then provides:
-or if the administration of the oil and gas resources in the area has been transferred by law to, any of the ten provinces of Canada.
From that clause we clearly understand the intent of the government to apply the principles of this bill to practically all the areas of Canada included in the provinces and the territories. Clause 6 covers a vast field
March 9, 1970

because it authorizes the minister or such other person as the Governor in Council deems suitable to exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be necessary for the removal of oil or gas from any area that is outlined in clause 3.
As I said, it is not only an important bill because of its provisions under which a great deal of authority can, will and undoubtedly must be exercised, but it is one in which I find myself keenly interested from an historical point of view because in discussing clauses 3 and 6 we are dealing not only with matters of drilling and pollution but also those of jurisdiction and sovereignty.
In making my own small, personal contribution to the debate I should like to touch on all these factors. As I said, I am keenly interested in this matter because, if my memory serves me correctly, some 25 years ago I moved a motion in the British Columbia legislature foreseeing the problems that have developed in the past quarter of a century and asking that the province of B.C. and the federal government get together to discuss the question of jurisdiction and sovereignty. My motion asked that they go into all the details of the issuance of licences, fees for drilling and the question of royalties; and if they could not get together or reach a satisfactory conclusion, that the matter be referred to the Supreme Court, and pending a decision of the Supreme Court that the government, temporarily at least, exercise jurisdiction but put the money into escrow until such time as the Supreme Court reached a decision.
I mentioned that matter to show that my interest is not new in this most important phase of our economy, and is not just a first interest in the act, the principles of which are espoused throughout the length and breadth of this country. Other speakers have mentioned time after time the dangers of oil pollution and the requirement for the powers which are outlined in this bill. I believe it is not possible to overemphasize the seriousness of oil pollution. It was only recently that the Society for Pollution and Environmental Control put out a most interesting and factual document. Mention has been made of then-report by other speakers, but I feel that as a certain amount of detail was not given I should take the opportunity at this time to mention it.
As I say, a study was made and a report was published. I hope it was sent to all mem-21774- 11
Oil and Gas Act
bers of this House, because in the analysis of the problems and dangers of oil pollution to Canada they pointed out a significant, but I think not too well known fact, that in the three years preceding the wreck of the Torrey Canyon 91 tankers were stranded in various parts of the world and 238 tankers were involved in collisions. If we make a breakdown of the record of this society, we find that in the world at large tankers have been involved in potentially serious accidents on an average of twice a week. According to the available information, during the past 10 years 488 tankers of 30,000 tons dead weight or more that are registered with the American Bureau of Shipping were involved in 573 collisions, an average of one a week, and in 43 of these accidents oil pollution was a possibility.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I think that in order to understand the importance of this bill and the principles contained therein we should note the facts which are available to us, especially the knowledge that the largest number of accidents of tankers carrying oil-83 per cent of them in the last ten years-occurred either close to shore or in ports, areas of the greatest economic, aesthetic and nutritional importance to mankind. We also have to keep in mind that the size of tankers is ever on the increase. Unfortunately, as we have learned to our bitter regret from the experience of recent days and weeks, there is a lack of technology on how to handle oil spillage and oil pollution. But particularly is there a lack of knowledge and technology in handling oil spillage or pollution, tanker collisions or collisions with icebergs in cold weather and Arctic waters. I was most interested recently to read in more than one scientific magazine that scientists state that the potential biological and environmental damage which could result from oil spillage would be most serious in Canada's Arctic. The scientists maintain that the climate will prolong the existence of spilled oil and oxidation and dispersion, which may take several months in temperate climates, will take years in the Arctic.
These reports have been the reason for some of the knowledge I have acquired in recent months. Because of the statements being made by our own scientists and others, because of the future development which we can foresee in the Arctic, particularly with the new field opening up with the second voyage of the Manhattan, I am glad that at

Although many months and indeed years have passed, there is no indication of an intensification in recognizing the necessity of working out the most minute detail of the differences between the provinces and the federal government, of working out a method of administration and management. I sincerely hope that as a result of the introduction of this bill-I am certain of its acceptance in principle-we will see as a necessary step, a corollary to this bill and the application of its principles, the working out of the problems which still exist. Of course, that is just a problem of jurisdiction within the boundaries of our country. We have also heard a great deal, and will in the future, about the question of sovereignty over the Arctic waters.
I am glad that there seems to be a growing tendency on the part of the government to make clear to all countries what it maintains is Canada's sovereignty and that it intends to enforce Canadian laws and regulations-there will be many new ones under Bill S-5-relating to the maintenance of water quality and pollution prevention and control. I maintain that we require even more action than we have seen in recent weeks in order to make our sovereignty known in unmistakable terms to all countries of the world.
We know, or should know, that the continental shelf doctrine states that the resources of the sea bed and subsoil belong to the nation. That principle was incorporated in the United Nations Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958. Although it is a little more debatable, I think we have an additional argument on sovereignty where this bill will have a great impact, and additional strength in that the World Court in 1951 held that the base lines system was permissible and legal and that a country was justified in using it even though the waters which were formerly part of the high seas became subject to domestic ownership. This also became part of the Law of the Sea by the 1958 Conference of the United Nations at Geneva.
If this bill is to mean anything, if its objectives are to be accomplished, I hope we will immediately work out our problems regarding jurisdictional administration, division of royalties and other questions of financial return.
I hope we will more emphatically make clear the sovereignty of our waters; that we will keep in mind the absolute importance for the future of our country and of mankind to enforce laws regarding the dangers of pollution, and to acquire the technology necessary to control it when it occurs.
21774-Hi
Oil and Gas Act
Mr. Speaker, as I draw to a conclusion I should like to emphasize, not in my own words because I have read words that explain it much better than I can, this fact. I remember, as I think the majority of us do, the adventure of the sea lion which a few years ago escaped into Lake Ontario from a zoo at a Canadian summer resort. I remember reading a comment on that misadventure which said that the sea lion lived for several months in Lake Ontario and died shortly after it was recaptured. The reason for death was malnutrition. There was general public sympathy for the sea lion, but I believe there should have been more concern over the condition of our lake in which the sea lion starved to death. I cannot think of a better commentary on why we in this House of Commons, with our responsibilities, should not be paying the deepest attention to these matters and to a bill with implications and principles such as we see in Bill S-5.
So this evening, Mr. Speaker, when man boasts of reaching the moon, let us hope he does not forget the oceans and rivers and streams that flow by our door. It is indeed a strange fact, that while we are probing outer space for other forms of life, we are neglecting one of the foundations of our own existence. I say it is time we smartened up, and I think this bill is a step in the right direction.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my voice to those of the many members who have spoken in this debate on the dangers of pollution in Arctic waters. It is a very serious problem and one which this country must meet very quickly.
This bill is pertinent in two ways. It would be pertinent to the possibility of oil pollution in connection with drilling on the sea floor, and it would be pertinent in relation to the pipelining of cured oils from island to island, to the mainland or to seaports in Baffin Bay. If the Panarctic consortium should strike a large deposit of oil at Banks, Melville, Ellesmere. Axel Heiberg or one of the other islands of the high Arctic, we would face the problem of pipelining it out on the sea floor, if that should prove possible, or of finding some other means of transportation.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
However, Mr. Speaker, that which has most interested Canadians recently, the voyage of the Manhattan, is not affected by this bill. It is to this aspect that I wish to address these

March 9, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
few remarks. I am a little disturbed by the course the debate has taken. As I said earlier, I share completely the feelings of many hon. members who have spoken and who are afraid of the havoc which could be wrought in the north by oil pollution. Unfortunately, instead of leading the House into a discussion of this bill which is designed to give Canada control of operations on the sea bed, several hon. members have turned this debate into one on our sovereignty over the Arctic waters. I see no connection between these two subjects.
I shall refer briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) who moved the amendment to hoist this bill for six months, and the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which followed. On February 13, as reported at page 3590 of Hansard, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said:
I think there are two matters that have to be considered seriously, not as to the detail or content of the bill itself, but as to its general effect. The first is what I consider a derogation of the sovereignty of Canada in our northern waters by virtue of a definition in this bill.
On the same day, as reported at page 3595 of Hansard, the hon. member for Peace River, in referring to the bill said:
In my opinion it could have a serious affect on the Northwest Territories. Both by expression and implication it amounts to a serious diminution of Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic.
Other than being concerned with operations on the sea bed such as drilling, which may pollute those waters, I contend this bill has little to do with the waters of the Arctic. It does not affirm our sovereignty over the Arctic waters between our islands either negatively or positively. That is an entirely different issue. I do not want to belabour the point but, briefly, there are three areas of concern touching our sovereignty in the north.
One area concerns our sovereignty over the land, and there I think our concern ought to be practically zero because we are not chal-legend at the moment, and provided we are not so foolish as to lose interest in our northern islands and give them to other people our sovereignty there is assured. The second area of concern has to do with the waters between the islands. I have spoken at length in this House on the matter because I am very concerned about it. I feel that by way of a declaration that they are internal waters or territorial waters, the government ought to exert control over the Northwest Passage.

We must be in a position to inspect oil tankers or submarine tankers which may go through in the foreseeable future. This country, and this country only, is in a position to exert that sovereignty. However, this is not what Bill S-5 is concerned about. It relates to the continental land mass of the Yukon and Northwest Territories as well as the Arctic archipelago which lies above it. Originally, the bill said nothing more. When it returned to this House, subclause (b) had been added to clause 3. It reads:
-those submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada to a water depth of two hundred meters or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the sea bed and subsoil thereof-
That is nothing more than the commonly accepted definition of continental shelf formulated at the 1958 Geneva Conference. It relates, and I cannot stress this too strongly, solely to the sea bed and minerals which may be found on or beneath it. As a matter of fact, an interesting example has been put forward by international legal experts and it is based on this definition of the Geneva Conference. The example has to do with a continental shelf and its resources. The question that was asked was: Do those rights which extend to the subsoil and soil of the continental shelf extend to the marine life which may be on the shelf?
There was a dispute as to whether one's rights extended to a lobster. Some said that a lobster may not be part of the shelf's resources but a crab is, the argument being that the crab continues living on the sea bed while the lobster flits free, so to speak, of the sea bed and therefore is not necessarily part of the resources of the sea bed.
Hon. members may think I am raising a trivial example. Perhaps it is trivial, but it is very pertinent to the point that the sea bed convention concerned itself with waters lying above the sea bed. The rights alluded to relate purely to mineral exploration and development and, to a very minor extent-so minor that I imagine it is of little concern in the Arctic-to any life which may be permanently on the sea bed itself.
I therefore feel that the submissions of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and the hon. member for Peace River may mislead those Canadians who are concerned about our having sovereign control over the Northwest Passage and who think we ought to decide regulations governing the safety of any ships which might pass through it.
March 9, 1970

My closing remarks will touch on the subject of pollution. In previous remarks I alluded to the passage of the Manhattan and other supertankers through the Northwest Passage, and to the possibility that drilling for oil on the continental shelf may expose us to the hazards of oil pollution. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development recommended very strongly that there be immediate research in Arctic waters to determine what the effect of hydrocarbon pollutants will be in those waters, because we do not know. As a matter of fact, the world is grossly uneducated as to the effect of hydrocarbon pollutants in any waters.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Even more so, we lack knowledge of the way in which these oils, particularly crudes, will behave in waters whose temperature ranges from 29 to 31 degrees Fahrenheit over most of the year. How long will they persist? What will be their action in the waters of the eastern Arctic, for example, in Lancaster Sound which is open for a few months of the year and lightly covered by winter ice for much of the year? It is only about this time of the year that the ice freezes to a depth of 12 feet.
What would be the effect further over in the M'Clure Strait which the Manhattan failed to negotiate, where the polar pack comes in with a depth of 20 feet, extremely hard ice built up in many layers? Perhaps while we are discussing this bill I should not mention shipping, since nothing is said in it about the passage of ships. But supposing there should be a spill from a pipeline into these waters: for how long would the oil be trapped beneath the ice? If it moved, where would it move?
I questioned the minister one day as to the committee's report. I must say his answer was of less than statuesque simplicity. He said many departments were involved and he hoped all would be well. I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) another day, and he suggested that in connection with the research now being carried out in Cheda-bucto Bay where the Arrow ran aground, Dr. Ian McTaggart Cowan might be able to extend his investigations north into the Arctic- perhaps! If that was not the meaning, it was the intent of his statement.
I was not satisfied with the answer given by either minister. I think it is pertinent to our discussion of this bill to strongly urge that the minister should prevail upon his col-
Oil and Gas Act
leagues, whether upon all five of them or upon whichever combination might be necessary, that they should quickly institute these studies. Knowledge is power. We need power to control pollution in the Arctic. Let us begin by seeking knowledge quickly-this year, this summer. Surely, studies can begin this summer on a subject which is not only of benefit to this country but is of potential benefit to the warm water countries of the world as well as to those nations which have polar seas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken before on the National Energy Board Act amendment. I find myself drawn into debate on the bill before us now because it is closely related, as to jurisdiction, with the National Energy Board measure. I am not saying that the National Energy Board has the jurisdiction which might be given to some body, for example a conservation committee, under this legislation. There is some question, of course, as to the exercise of control over pipelines. If a pipeline were to cross an interprovincial or interterritorial boundary, it would come under the jurisdiction of the Energy Board. I find myself wondering how the two bodies would resolve a conflict of jurisdiction or opinion with regard to a pipeline matter.
I was further drawn into the argument by the speech of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who has just completed his remarks. He has in my opinion totally misread the import of the remarks of my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) and my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). The act does make its own the wording of the Geneva Convention regarding the continental shelf. We must clearly understand the purpose of the act passed last year. It was an act defined as being for the protection and conservation of oil and gas as applied to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Now someone has said: We must tack on provision for the continental shelf wherever it may exist.
I do not think there was any doubt in anyone's mind as to the purpose of the act passed last year. Now it no longer applies. The whole northern purpose of the act is out. Not only is the title changed, but the emphasis has been broadened. Not only is it to control the production of oil and gas on land and on shore, particularly in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, but now we have added the continental shelf.

March 9, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
It is at this point that my hon. friends, both sound lawyers, if I may respectfully say so, say there has been introduced into the definition of this act an element of doubt. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), and my hon. friends have all made reference to this question. Let us see just what the wording is.
(b) those submarine areas adjacent to the coast of Canada to a water depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and the subsoil thereof.
This takes one out beyond what might normally be the surface territorial limits. It also introduces the possibility that there might be areas in the north where waters are deeper than 200 metres and where the superjacent waters would not admit of the exploitation of the natural resources of the sea bed and subsoil. This is the point. When the entire area under examination has not been explored and the precise depths have not been established, it becomes very dangerous to introduce definitions of this type into the act.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
If the definition had had two parts, firstly, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and secondly, those coastal waters outside or not contained within that sector, you would then have two areas that were clearly mutually exclusive. The area of the Yukon and Northwest Territories is described and understood, but there is then a second part that tends to overrun the limits of the waters and includes a portion that might not be included within the continental shelf.
My colleagues have indicated that they fear that by introducing this definition the government has tended to weaken the arguments that Canada owns all of the north over which it has claimed entire sovereignty. I do not accept the argument put forward by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin that by putting forward our amendment and discussing the weakness of our case we have perhaps done Canada irreparable harm. Does the hon. member feel that if you have been a serious deficiency in a bill you should not speak up in order to correct the mistake made by the government? Perhaps the hon. member possesses the mentality that thinks that all the brains of the country are held in monopoly by members on the government side, that government supported by the administration is the ultimate authority.
IMr. Lambert (Edmonton West.]
Perhaps the hon. member would subscribe to the point of view that was expressed by a former Minister of National Health and Welfare when he first proposed a national pension plan for Canada. The minister was heard to say, "This plan has been produced by the best brains in Canada; the others don't know what they are talking about". The fact is that that plan had four different versions and there was no relationship between the first plan and the one that was finally introduced. Therefore, I feel the hon. member is doing us a disservice when he suggests that we are wrong.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.


Paul St. Pierre: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Because the hon. member has a question is no reason for interrupting. He can ask the question when I have finished.


Mr. Gibson:: You are not the Speaker now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is obvious that the hon. gentleman does not aspire to that position, either.


Mr. Deakon:: Get on with it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The contributions of the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon) in this House are also noted for their infrequency. Perhaps he also thinks hon. members opposite have a monopoly on brains. As I was saying before the jackdaws crowed, our raising this point should not be taken as an indication that we have weakened Canada's position. It seemed to me that the purport of the hon. member's argument was that we had done Canada a disservice by pointing out this weakness. I do not think we have. I think there is another way to define what the government wants to do, without the introduction of this complication about which I have spoken.
Hon. members have indicated that it would have been better had the federal government been in a position to negotiate with those provinces which have continental shelves and are brought within the ambit of this bill. The bill does not affect Alberta or Saskatchewan, but I think that they, too, have an interest because all citizens of Canada have an inter-
March 9, 1970

est in the outcome of this whole question of offshore mineral rights and the control
thereof.
We are not concerned here only with the question of pollution; the bill goes far beyond pollution. Oil an gas conservation and production go far beyond pollution, as anyone who reads the new definition of a pipeline will see. Admittedly, one would have to use this legislation as the vehicle for controlling and finding safeguards against pollution in our offshore waters caused by exploration for oil, drilling for oil and subsequent production of oil and gas. I would also have thought that in addition to oil and gas we would have to consider controls that would have to be imposed as a result of the production of related materials, such as hydrocarbons and sulphur.
In any event, the view of my colleagues is that this bill should not be passed until an accord has been reached with the provinces on the matter. In effect, the federal government is asserting its authority here, even though it knows that it must make a deal with a number of the provinces. What the ultimate conclusion of the bargain will be, we do not know; the case for Nova Scotia may be quite different from that for British Columbia. Yet in all equity and fairness to Canadians, and to the citizens of the provinces concerned in particular, the settlement must be a uniform one.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is a strong case for deferring this bill until such time as the government has dealt with the matter. I do not see how the government can control pollution arising from offshore accidents to tankers under the terms of an act that deals with the conservation and production of oil and gas. The oil that was in the tanker recently wrecked off Nova Scotia had absolutely nothing to do with oil and gas that was produced on the continental shelf. This was an entirely different source of pollution.
I think there may be confusion in the minds of some hon. members who may think the act could serve as a vehicle for controlling offshore pollution by tankers. I hope this is not the case. However, it does seem to me that until an agreement is reached with the provinces, at least in principle, this bill is premature.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I see no reason why this bill should
Oil and Gas Act
be delayed, because it appears to be a step in the right direction. For a long time Canadians took for granted that there must be a dividing boundary somewhere in the far Arctic

my guess would be, probably around the pole somewhere-and that everything on the Russian side of the pole belongs to Russia and everything on the Canadian side belongs to Canada. That was a very simple assumption to make because nobody was going there anyway, so it really did not make much difference.
I would be interested, however, in knowing what the Russians have decided to be their boundary. They are not quite as naive in respect of the Arctic as we are, and it is quite possible they have made some decision as to the boundary between Canada and the U.S.S.R. which is acceptable to them. I should like our government to indicate what that delineation might be, where the boundary is, and we can go on from there.
There is a general acceptance on the part of Canadians that we own the Arctic archipelago and are entitled to all the land in that area and the ice over it, and probably the transportation lanes through the ice. I was interested in the last day or two to note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has again been playing that little game that Canadians are so prone to enjoy: he suggests we are the best; we are big, and we are important. In this regard he said that the United States could not protect its ships in the Arctic because they do not have the icebreakers. I am aware that a few years ago the Russians had an icebreaker that could travel many knots an hour breaking ice from six feet to twelve feet in depth. This made our icebreakers look pretty small. I think in fact their icebreaker was atomic-powered. If you remember, the Russians offered to break themselves into the port of Montreal and bring some of their ships in during the winter several years ago, but that offer was declined by Canada.
Recently I read an interesting article that may also have been read by other members. It referred to the fact that a ship, I believe owned by Australia, or perhaps by Sweden, had gone into the Antarctic and had stuck in the ice. It has been there for some length of time with several hundred people on board. The Russians have been trying to get to it, but have been unsuccessful. It was interesting that the United States has now been given permission to go into the icepack in the Antarctic in an attempt to get this ship out.

March 9, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
The United States does not seem to be the least bit worried about their icebreaker being able to work in that kind of ice. This indicates to me that they can probably do as well as we do in the Arctic if they are given the opportunity. The United States may have that opportunity unless we make some decisions fairly soon.
We have been told that we are the ones with the expertise in the Arctic. This makes everybody feel good, but probably it is not true. It certainly is not completely true: perhaps we should be told that as well. We are also told that we are giving consideration to this matter of our sovereignty in the Arctic and that the army is going to establish bases there. A few years ago when the radar chain-the Dew line-was established we were not even interested to the extent of maintaining our sovereignty there. In most cases we turned this operation over to the United States, with probably one Canadian there acting as an observer to maintain our claim to sovereignty in the area.
If we are serious about our development in the Arctic we will have to put people there. I am sympathetic to the feeling that the army is probably the most capable body to establish bases in that area and protect our claim to sovereignty, but it is necessary that we do so right away or we will wake up one morning to find that someone else has encroached on our sovereignty. This will probably be the consortium we have set up to drill for oil in the area.
The whole Arctic is very rich and most of its riches have been assessed. A lot of people from my riding are in the Arctic at all times. There are probably hundreds of people from the riding of Timiskaming in the Arctic in the summer. They are diamond-drilling and operating mining camps in that area. I was surprised to hear a nephew of mine, who worked several years ago in some of these places that we think of in a romantic sense, say that every rock you kick with your foot in the summertime contains heavy deposits of minerals including zinc and other metals. These minerals will eventually be produced there and will be of great importance in the development of the north.
We were not particularly concerned with the problems of the north and our sovereignty in that area until a former Minister of Northern Affairs established a consortium of a oil companies in conjunction with the federal government. This was a step in the right direction: it allowed Canadians to participate

directly in the development of the area. It has now resulted in blocking out very large oil and gas reserves for the Canadian public.
There is a problem raised in respect of this bill regarding the division of jurisdiction in the north. We have the federal government in the territories, with provincial governments exercising sovereignty over the land adjacent to the sea where there is great interest in the continental shelf. Other members have mentioned the Law of the Sea, the decision of the Geneva convention in relation to the continental shelf and the complexities of that problem. The problem in the Arctic today is rather like the problem resulting from early inhabitants in this country who went to various parts of Canada and settled: as a result of being there, they claimed ownership of the area. Throughout most areas squatters claims were as good as any because of the application of the law of possession.
The suggestion that possession was nine-tenths of the law in establishing ownership was certainly borne out in many parts of Canada and has been the criteria for decisions as to ownership. Therefore, if we are bold enough to establish our rights to the Arctic archipelago, the seas between the islands and the mainland, and our rights in respect of the continental shelf in that area, we will probably have a good claim. If we do not establish that sovereignty in the north, a claim will be exercised, to some extent at least, by the people who take possession. To a great degree possession will be taken by companies based other than in Canada which have purchased large tracts of the area for exploration. They will be established there and will have some right to the gas and oil if such is found in the territories. These resources will in fact be lost to us.
We have also heard a great deal in the last few weeks about oil pollution. It is very easy to talk about oil pollution and the danger it will create in the Arctic. It scares the pants off anybody who thinks about the danger that exists in the Gulf of Mexico and other areas with warm climates and high water temperatures, such as California, and the dangers that exist in the colder waters off Nova Scotia and British Columbia. We cannot assess the dangers that exist from oil pollution in the north.
Oil pollution is almost as certain to follow as day follows night if we do not exercise extreme control over transportation facilities in the area. In my opinion, if this government was at all responsible it would quit playing around with Humble Oil and tankers in the
March 9, 1970

Oil and Gas Act
Arctic. This attitude will lead, without doubt, to a tragedy there which will set back for many years the development of the area. The government should get on with the business of developing a pipeline from the coast, through the Northwest Territories, to bring oil into central Canada. In my opinion this would probably satisfy the minister's desire to establish a continental energy policy. I suggest, although this is not the inevitable result of establishing a pipeline, that if a pipeline were established from the Mackenzie River delta south to Edmonton even before a commodity is available to be carried in that pipeline, it would have a great deal of influence on the development of other pipelines such as the one contemplated across the Yukon and Alaska to the west coast.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
It will have a great effect on whether or not it is considered to be to the advantage of the companies which wish to move this resource to even consider the development of tankers for the Arctic. I think if we have the foresight to instal a pipeline and put in the facilities, there would be many advantages. A small pipeline has been in existence in that vicinity for many years: it runs from Norman Wells through the Canol project. This oil line has proven to be feasible. The temperatures are not prohibitive for transportation by pipeline in that area.
The fact that we now have a very large reserve of natural gas will probably make the transportation of oil easier. I suggest that in Canada we should be thinking of building a pipeline either in consortium with the oil industry or, if necessary, alone. If the scientists and others who have spoken about the dangers from pollution in the Arctic are correct when they indicate that we have no method by which to cope with the pollution problem, it behooves all of us to consider an alternate method such as a pipeline from that area to connect with the existing transportation facilities out of Edmonton and through the oil and gas distribution system that is now in effect. This would mean we would have to run a pipeline across Canada as well. I think it is time consideration were given to this matter.
I have spoken to the officials of some pipeline companies. As recently as a week ago they told me that the cost of such a system was beyond their capability. The companies that are now transporting our oil from west to east into Ontario do not have the facilities
to put in a reasonably sized pipeline to handle the requirements of eastern Canada which would make us less dependent on exports to the United States via a southerly route.
If we were to bring the known reserves from the Arctic through the Edmonton distribution point without having a system of disposing of it when it was brought into the normal stream, the situation would be chaotic. So I suggest the government should give consideration to a pipeline which, it seems to me, would eliminate the necessity of the use of surface and submarine tankers as well as the necessity of demanding that the Humble Oil Company take certain precautions in respect of the Manhattan. We are aware of the damage the Manhattan suffered. We are also aware of the desire of the Minister of Transport that the company instal emergency connections so that the oil may be pumped out of that ship if there should be an accident. I suggest we should not allow that ship to go back into the Arctic for the purpose of transporting oil if danger is contemplated.
I am not opposed to the United States government cooperating with us in examining the feasibility of this type of transportation, but all tankers are not similar to the Manhattan. Tankers which meet very minimum standards may be sailing in there. Even when sailing on the high seas, such tankers have been known to break up. One of them broke up on the high seas off the coast of Africa, where limited restrictions are in force. If such ships are taken into the Arctic, the situation could be chaotic. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) will have to co-operate in respect of the development of oil in that area. The problem is not so small that there will be any difficulty involved in having two ministers engaged in it.
These two ministers will have an opportunity to do something in respect of the development of Canada which will bring great rewards for many years to come. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) pointed out the large volume of oil that has already been assessed in that area. In my opinion the size of this resource should point up the necessity for establishing a reasonably sized pipeline from the Mackenzie delta. That area is free of ice for a sufficient number of months that we would not have the problems that exist in the Arctic. Certainly, such a program would eliminate some of the fears we have. Along such a pipeline communities
4566

March 9, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
would develop. Although I am sure the government will not change its policy, I was very interested to hear some of the arguments brought forward the other day by the oil lobby people in respect of the unfairness of the policy requiring the hiring of indigents in the area. They pointed out that this caused some difficulty. They stated that because of this fact they were not meeting the schedules they would like to meet. Tough bananas!


John James Greene: They do not have bananas up there.


William Arnold Peters: That may be so, but it is too bad for these people. By law they must hire a certain number of the local inhabitants. Once these people are trained, I am sure there will be permanent employment for them if we use the resources we have. I suppose the building of a pipeline in the area would be a very expensive proposition. It would provide a good deal of temporary employment. Also, the operation of a pipeline on the permafrost would involve the employment of a number of employees on a permanent basis. It seems to me that everyone should be interested in the development of an orderly market for oil and gas. I believe it would be much better if the oil and gas could be introduced through a common denominator such as Edmonton or Calgary.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
With such a point of connection with the existing facilities which will be bringing in oil from the north, we would be able to utilize and distribute more evenly the potential of the area from which we now receive the major part of our gas and oil. We would be able to extend and equalize the flow from both the Arctic and the local area which have been serving the needs of Canada and the United States for some years and which must have difficulty meeting the demand at peak periods. This difficulty would be partially solved if we added this large resource which in many cases will only be passing through the area.
I imagine that the Americans who are operating the oil discoveries in Prudhoe Bay would be willing to move their oil and gas resources through the same pipeline, through the Canadian distribution system, provided it found its way directly to the United States, with the transportation cost being the only requirement for its Canadians transmission. I think this system could be arranged. I believe

we have been very shortsighted in the development of our resources.
We all agree that the danger of oil pollution in the Arctic is almost insurmountable. There is no question in my mind that if tankers in that area were to provide the major source of transportation, disaster would follow disaster. The ice in that area shifts very rapidly. There will be periods when channels which are not supposed to be clear will be clear, and periods when channels which are supposed to be clear will not be clear. A tanker getting stuck in that area will face the difficulties which experts indicate will always be with us. I suggest, therefore, that we send this matter to committee.
I should like the government to consider the establishment of an overland transportation facility to the Arctic. The resources in that area are immense, and because they are immense we will all live to see the day when we establish cities in the Arctic such as the cities of Siberia. These cities will not be established there as the result of someone's dream, but as a result of economic need and feasibility.
Cities covered with glass have been recommended for the Arctic before. They are now in existence in many areas of Russia. It has been interesting-and I have heard much criticism of it-to watch Ab Douglas as he travels across Siberia, to find that Siberia is not the Arctic as we know it and that the development that has taken place in that area is based mainly on the resource industry. I am sure this kind of development will take place in Canada if the government will show initiative by introducing legislation which will make it feasible.
I do not expect the present government to set about drawing up a plan for an orderly development of the resources in the Arctic. However, I do not think it is seeking too much to ask it to consider an alternative transportation method that will meet the needs of the foreseeable future, so far as gas and oil are concerned, by building a pipeline from that area to our main outlets. The government should supply some of the money and the direction that would make this possible.
The Minister of Transport has been very brave in commenting on what he will do and how he will go about it. He says it is not gunboat diplomacy. Perhaps it is not, but I wonder how he is going to enforce legislation. I think the Humble Oil Company has been very generous to Canada. They could proba-
March 9, 1970

Oil and Gas Act
bly buy most of the Arctic if they wished. They have been very generous in saying they will make the 30 or 40 changes to their ship; they will build special compartments to comply with Canadian regulations, and they will do all this for the sake of the development, which may not even take place.
This is very good and the Canadian people are quite pleased that the Minister of Transport has taken this kind of action. But I think they would be just as pleased if action were taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who has not had the opportunity since he took on that portfolio to do anything of great importance in his own field. In fact, not much has been done by his department since the Trans-Canada pipeline was inaugurated.
I think he would find some support if he were to suggest at least that a feasibility study be carried out by the Committee, in conjunction with a study of this bill, of the development of an alternative program for the building of a pipeline from the Arctic, which would eliminate many of the problems which I think everyone agrees are evident. I do not really expect miracles and I do not expect that suddenly the government will be seized with a vision. If they were, I think they would be very surprised at the response they would receive from the Canadian public.
I can remember when another vision of the north caught on very well. Most people in Canada are sympathetic to the development that is going on there. The fact that northern development is discussed in the House as much as wheat is an indication that there is an interest in our northern resources and a willingness on the part of the Canadian public to participate in their development.
We are again allowing the Americans to provide an alternative that will not cost us anything and that will dispose of one of our products. But we have not really done much for ourselves. I think the minister would find a goal for himself if he were responsible to the Canadian public for the handling of the vast resources which we have in the Arctic and were to provide a means of transportation that would be free of the perils that most people believe endanger the present system.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take about five minutes to express my interest in the intent of this bill. At present, and for a number of years, the search for oil and gas on the continental shelf of the east coast of Canada has been rather
academic. Companies interested in this matter, procure a licence from the appropriate provincial governments and one from the federal government and proceed to do exploratory drilling.
Since no significant discovery of oil or gas has been made in that area up to the present, it would seem people are content with what is happening. But I submit that there is a need for a great deal of work in this area by the government of Canada. If in the near future there were important discoveries of oil or gas on the continental shelf on the eastern side of Canada, there would be tremendous complications among the different economic interests following the discovery. It is late to do so now, but it would be wise to resolve these jurisdictional responsibilities before gas and oil are discovered in commercial quantities in the area.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
It is true the five Atlantic provinces have not decided among themselves where the lines of jurisdiction should lie as between the various provinces, on the assumption that they have the jurisdiction over mineral and oil and gas rights on the continental shelf. But the federal government does not admit their claim, and you have a situation where there is a dispute as to jurisdiction between the federal government on the one hand and the five eastern provinces on the other.
Then you have a potential difficulty between Canada on the one hand and the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon on the other. You have the question of where the division line of jurisdiction lies on the continental shelf between Canada and the United States in the George's Bank area. None of these questions have yet been resolved. If that were not enough, this bill introduces another question of jurisdiction as between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) on the one hand and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) on the other. I can visualize situations where it would not be clear which minister had jurisdiction. I am not sure, for example, what the position of Hudson Bay is, and I would not be sure what the position would be in Hudson Strait-for example, which minister is responsible.
If oil or gas is discovered in commercial quantities in the near future, it will be of tremendous potential importance. It should be of tremendous economic benefit to an area of Canada that has not shared fairly in the
4568

March 9, 1970
Oil and Gas Act
development of our country over the last few decades, and surely the development should be in a manner which would be of benefit to those provinces. Secondly, it would be adjacent to a part of North America which is deficient in gas and oil at the present time. And I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that the geological indications of the continental shelf off eastern Canada look quite promising for gas and oil. If they are found there in commercial quantities, there is an immediate tremendous market and therefore tremendous pressure for immediate development in the area because, as hon. members know, all of eastern Canada is supplied with oil from overseas, chiefly from South America. The same is true of the eastern seaboard of the United States.
So it is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the discovery of oil in that area would be of tremendous importance immediately and there would be very immediate pressure to develop it at once. Therefore, it is vitally important that the government of Canada resolve these questions of jurisdiction as rapidly as possible so there will be a clear delineation of responsibility before discoveries are made.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I made my major remarks in regard to this debate prior to the introduction of the amendment, but in view of some of the comments made by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) I want to speak very briefly about one aspect of the bill. I do not favour the Conservative amendment. I think this is a good bill, a good amendment to Bill S-29.
I feel that the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin is in error when he says this bill has no bearing on Arctic sovereignty. I would suggest that any time a policeman of any kind functions in an area, he is exercising authority, or sovereignty if you will, over that area. As I see this bill exercising some authority by Canadian law over the waters off Canada's Coasts and along Canada's islands, I do not see how he could deny that this is exercising our sovereignty in that area. I would like to emphasize this particular aspect of the bill.
I suggest we should proclaim Bill S-29 right away, get on with the job, do it quickly, and get out there and exercise some of the authority we have as a sovereign power over the waters off our coast. I think we should pass Bill S-5, which I suggest is a good bill in the main, and that we start also to use this measure to proclaim our authority, or in

effect use our authority in these waters, because much of our law is set by precedent and by action of this kind. I say to the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin: Let us get on with the job, and I would urge him to urge the government to become active in this area.


Paul St. Pierre: Can the hon. member point out any part of this bill which gives the government authority over waters as distinct from land beneath the waters? It is an important distinction, I suggest.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: As I understand the purpose of this bill, it is dealing with pollution. If the hon. member thinks the land under the waters can be polluted by an oil well, and the waters on top of that land not be polluted, I cannot follow his reasoning. I think that since we are going to use pipelines in these waters and have regulations covering drilling in them, automatically that affects the waters and not just the land under the waters. I cannot follow that reasoning whatever.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House ready for the question?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it is maintained by hon. members directly across the House that the bill before us, S-5, in some way diminishes Canada's claim to sovereignty over the waters adjacent to our sea coast, particularly those in the Arctic. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in particular stated he was not opposed to Bill S-5 for technical reasons, but because "it amounts to a serious diminution of Canadian sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic." This is simply not so. As a matter of fact, obstructing the passage of this bill will in itself have the effect of diminishing Canadian offshore claims. However, these are not claims of sovereignty over waters. These are claims of sovereign rights to explore for, develop and exploit the natural resources of the sea bed and subsoil of Canada's continental margin.
Perhaps I might spend a few minutes for the purpose of clearly differentiating between first, Canada's claims to sovereignty over waters lying off our coasts and, second, Canada's sovereign rights to exploit the natural resources of our continental margin. Canada lays claim to sovereignty over waters off our sea coasts where they are internal waters or historic waters forming an integral part of Canada and where they fall within
March 3, 1970

the limits of our territorial sea. Under international law, Canada's internal waters are those on the landward side of the base lines from which Canada's territorial sea is measured, and Canada's territorial sea comprises a marginal three-mile wide belt measured from the coastline, or from straight base lines joining headlands and offshore islands established pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1964.
The promulgation of such straight base lines involves the seaward extension of Canada's exclusive competence beyond its present limits vis-a-vis other countries. Since this exclusive competence includes proprietary as well as jurisdictional rights, there is no question as to Canada's ownership of the mineral resources of the sea bed and subsoil underlying these waters.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In Bill S-5, we are not dealing with problems of sovereignty over waters. Bill S-5 is concerned with mineral resources, in particular the oil and gas resources, of the sea bed and subsoil of Canada's continental margin. Under the terms of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf of 1958, Canada can claim the natural resources of the sea bed and subsoil for offshore areas extending off the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic coasts far beyond the limits of the territorial sea. The shelf convention is the instrument of international law that confirms the exclusive right of a sovereign state to explore for and exploit these natural resources off its seacoasts wherever it can manage to do so. Thus, Canada asserts exclusive rights, sovereign rights as the shelf convention calls them, over the natural resources of her continental margin extending far beyond the possible limits of Canadian sovereignty over the waters adjacent to our coasts.
I should mention here that Canada is probably the most aggressive nation in the world in asserting her rights to offshore mineral resources. We have issued oil and gas permits covering more than half the total area of Canada's continental margin. Hon. members may recall that our continental margin comprises a total area of about 1.5 million square miles, almost 40 per cent as large as the entire land area of Canada. Thus, the total area covered by oil and gas permits issued to date off our seacoasts is the equivalent of 20 to 25 per cent of Canada's total land area. This is about twice as large as the maximum area that might be considered favourable for
Oil and Gas Act
petroleum exploration in the four western provinces combined.
To illustrate Canada's diligence in asserting our rights in the offshore, I would like to point out that federal oil and gas permits have been issued off the east coast extending in an unbroken stretch of some 2,000 miles from the Gulf of Maine region through the Grand Banks and thence to Hudson Strait. These permits extend seaward as far as 425 miles east from Newfoundland. We have issued permits off the west coast over a stretch of 500 miles from the Strait of Juan de Fuca region to the Dixon Entrance region, and we have issued permits covering the bulk of Hudson Bay. In the Arctic region, which seems to be the main matter of concern to hon. members directly opposite, approximately 150 million acres of oil and gas permits have been issued in the Arctic offshore. These are situated in the Beaufort Sea region, where they extend as far seaward as 140 miles off the mainland coast, and in the Arctic islands region where they cover most of the channels between the various islands.
One can hardly say that the federal government has not been aggressive in this field. In fact, there has been some tendency of late by various parties, including some members of the United Nations, to find fault with us on this account. If hon. members will refer to Bill S-5, they will note that clause 3(b) states that the act applies in respect of oil and gas inthose submarine areas adjacent to the cost of Canada to a water depth of 200 metres or beyond that limit to where the depth of the superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil thereof.
There is no stipulation here, as has been stated by hon. members opposite, that there is a 200-metre water depth limitation. The wording of clause 3(b) is taken almost verbatim from the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, which clearly states that the exploitable depth is the governing factor. Technology is continually moving this flexible "exploitable depth" boundary farther seaward. Each of the two semi-submersible drilling units currently being built in Halifax will have a drilling capability of 25,000 feet and the ability to operate in water depths well in excess of 200 metres, and technology is fast evolving methods of completing and producing oil wells commercially in water depths of this magnitude.
Here I would point out that the federal government has issued permits in water


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on February 5 I put the following question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand):
In view of the fact that Saskatchewan is facing a deepening economic crisis, is the minister now prepared to consider the inclusion of the entire province under the Regional Development Incentives Act?
I asked this question for a number of reasons because the province of Saskatchewan is, in fact, in a very bad economic situation at the present time. It is a deepening financial crisis, and because of that my colleagues and I from Saskatchewan believe that the entire province should qualify for any additional help and aid that may be coming under the new Regional Development Incentives Program.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
A short time ago-say three or four years ago-Saskatchewan in many ways was a "have" province. Now, because of our agricultural crisis, Saskatchewan is not a "have" province. Saskatchewan and its people are suffering, in one way or another, the consequences of the province's economic crisis. An
March 9, 1970

economic recession is well advanced in Saskatchewan. I shall try in the few minutes I am allowed to speak this evening to outline why I think all that province ought to be included as a special, designated area under the program.
As I said before, the province's crisis affects everybody living in the province, but first and foremost it affects the farmers. Farm income has dropped drastically and many farmers are being forced off the land. As a matter of fact, the way of life of many people is being changed drastically. Statistics show that in the first half of 1969, for example farm income was down by 40 per cent as compared with 1968. The Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) has also told us that there will be no final wheat payment this year, a factor which will add to the problems confronting Saskatchewan farmers.
Those who do not work on farms are also feeling the effect of the economic recession. The average weekly wage has dropped relatively. In 1963, for example, the average weekly wage in Saskatchewan was below the national average only by $3.95. In the first six months of 1969 the average weekly wage had fallen to $9.85 below the national average. As you can see, the average weekly wage is falling further below the national average weekly wage.
Widespread unemployment is another consequence of Saskatchewan's economic crisis. Unemployment now is higher than it has been for a number of years. Retail sales across the province are down; the first 11 months of 1969 saw a drop in retail sales of over $100 million. These figures do not tell the entire story because the businessmen and people of small communities are much harder hit than the people living in the larger centres.
The farm machinery industry is perhaps the hardest hit industry. Many farm machinery dealers have already pulled out of Saskatchewan and others are contemplating this action. Capital investment in the province is down drastically, while in Manitoba and Alberta capital investment has increased as compared with last year. Also, the population of Saskatchewan has declined. As a matter of fact, the only thing we are exporting these days is people; we are certainly not exporting wheat. Between April and October, 1969, 10,500 people left Saskatchewan at an average rate of 1,800 per month.
Hon. members know how well this fact alone indicates the severity of the problem we
Proceedings in Adjournment Motion face. The very future of Saskatchewan is at stake. Including the province in the new plan would be of help to the people of Saskatchewan. Rumour has it, Mr. Speaker, that both Saskatoon and Regina may be included very shortly in the regional development incentive plan. Of course, we are in favour of this, but I hope the government will consider including the whole province in the plan.
In the fairly densely populated area I represent, many people living in towns and villages cannot find work. Many farmers who seek employment off the farm to supplement their income also cannot find work. Whatever form the regional development incentive plan may take, it ought not to take the form of mere paper tokenism. A plan on paper is not enough, because we must bring industry to the province.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion could utilize this plan to bring about national unity in Canada. National unity is not simply a matter of bilingualism and biculturalism but involves matters touching on the social and economic life of the people of this country as well. All regions of Canada must be equal partners within confederation. The government could do much toward solving the province's problems by including the entire province under the regional development incentive program. I ask the government, again, to give serious consideration to including the entire province. There is a grave emergency there and the province will warrant special attention until such time as it extricates itself from the economic recession. Unless the province receives that attention it may not extricate itself from the recession for many years, in which case the income base of the people will be destroyed and their way of life changed.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, we are all agreed in this House as to the seriousness of the economic situation in Saskatchewan. I know it is the feeling of my hon. friends on this side that the resources of the government must be brought to bear to alleviate the unique financial and other strains thrust in little over a year on Canadians in the prairie provinces, and on none more so than in Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan has suffered a relatively sudden and drastic reversal in economic well-being. I can assure the hon. member and other members of the House that for its part the Department of Regional Economic Expan-
March 9, 1970

Proceedings in Adjournment Motion sion intends to ensure in short order that its resources and programs under its two pieces of legislation contribute in the most effective way possible to improving the economic situation in that province.
The task is to assist not only in meeting the short-term urgent situation which has developed over the past two years but to carry out a longer term industrialization and diversification of the province's economy. My minister has informed the House on a number of recent occasions that he hopes before the end of this month to complete agreements with the provinces to designate special areas jointly selected by the federal government and the provincial governments in which joint economic development plans will operate-plans	in which the department's
resources play a very significant role, a more significant role than in the designated regions.
I can say that the question of the role of the department in Saskatchewan has been the subject of close examination in the past few months and that discussions with the province of Saskatchewan have sought to find the most effective role for the department in light of the economic situation there and in view of the potential in Saskatchewan for economic expansion and diversification.
This federal role has to be meshed with the province's own economic development programs. We are fully aware of the urgency of the Saskatchewan situation. It is particularly urgent that we should set our course there at the earliest possible date, because programs of industrialization take some time to gather momentum. I believe a decision as to that course will be made in the very near future.



TRANSPORT-CHARLOTTETOWN-PROPOSED TRANSFER OF CERTAIN MARINE AGENCY FUNCTIONS AND PERSONNEL

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been concerned about the diminution of the staff of the Charlottetown marine agency of the Department of Transport. My question of February 24, on which this debate is based, was not my first inquiry on the subject.
There has been a regrettable flurry of rumours and a war of nerves in connection with the fate and future of the Charlottetown marine agency. First there were the stories that one of the ships of the agency was to be transferred out of Charlottetown. After much anxiety and speculation we were given the word that this was not to take place, at least not at the present time.

Now, as a result of the exploits and investigations of yet another task force, it is alleged to be the accounting and engineering division which is to be transferred to another centre. Indeed, a former employee of the Department of Transport in Charlettetown has publicly declared that the move will take place and that June 1 is D-day-diminution day or debarkation day, whatever one wishes to call it. Certainly for the employees it will be debarkation from Prince Edward Island, where they have been performing their duties well and in many cases for a long time. The man who made this statement subsequently resigned from the department.
* (10:10 p.m.)
One of the developments which brought me the greatest satisfaction when I was a government-supporting MP was the building of a new wharf and agency headquarters at Charlottetown. The project took a long time and was not completed until the government I supported had left office. But the splendid headquarters, which I am told are modern, well equipped and practically new, capable of allowing personnel to discharge their duties efficiently and well, stand there-and it is shocking, surprising and totally inexplicable why the personnel therein should be diminished. Why any division of the department should be moved has not yet been demonstrated or declared.
Charlottetown has long been the site of a marine agency, and it is the logical location for a marine agency. But in recent years there have been gradual decreases in its role and function. For instance, purchases which used to be made in Charlottetown on a very satisfactory basis are now being made elsewhere.
We grow weary of these cutbacks in the operation of the dominion government in our province. The closing of the Queen Charlotte naval base was one; the valuable enamel and heating project at the Charlottetown airport brought much needed employment to our city. It had a helpful effect upon our economy, but it too went the way of the naval base. From time to time other aspects of the federal government program are being curtailed or withdrawn. It has happened in the Post Office; and I mean at headquarters, not just the closing of small offices.
The fur research station and biological research have been cut back, and there have also been cutbacks in the maintenance of fishing harbours. All of these mark a decline in the operations of the federal government,
March. 9, 1970

producing a shrinkage of employment and loss of economic strength. We have only to look at the estimates for the coming year to see how low a priority Prince Edward Island has with the government.
I ask that this sort of thing end. Strange, indeed, it is to plan a special regional expansion program-for which, incidentally, our province pays two-thirds of the cost-and at the same time to allow other federal government departments to contribute to economic decline and to unemployment which the plan of the regional expansion department is designed to ameliorate and overcome. It seems to me that a recognition of the ills of continuing disparity among the regions of Canada should not be confined to one department of government but should be known and acted upon by all.
Therefore, let the spokesman for the minister give his assurance on this item at least. Let us know that there will not be a depletion of the minister's staff at Charlottetown. Let the minister also use his influence to curtail the cutbacks, of which Prince Edward Island has already undergone more than its share. To use a recently resurrected expression currently getting some coverage in the United States, "More benign neglect we can do without". But even benign neglect is less hurtful than this kind of attention and disruption.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) may I say that there was an article in the newspaper recently that did speculate with rumours. I know there is never smoke without fire. Nevertheless, I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member that something will be done or will not be done, because no decision has yet been taken by the department.
Some quite extensive changes in the Department of Transport have been announced. Week after week and month after month the department is looking to see what it can do to give better service to the public. When changes are made, it is sometimes necessary to move employees around or to change them; this is unavoidable. The department is not trying to do something that is going to hurt the economy of the country or to jeopardize giving good service to the public. But still it is not a fact yet because, as I have said, no decision has been taken.
The deputy minister wrote the hon. member on January 26 last in reference to this matter. There is one sentence in this
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion letter which I think covers everything. It is as follows:
We are constantly reviewing our organization in an effort to improve our efficiency and our service to the public.
I think every member of the House of Commons should work with that in mind, that every department of the Canadian government should do everything in order to give better service to the public. In a letter written in reply to the Premier of Prince Edward Island the Minister of Transport assured the Premier of that province by saying:
Several years ago, in an effort to improve our efficiency and our service to the public, we established a maritime regional administration. We are now studying the possibility of providing certain common services more economically. I can assure you however that, contrary to press reports, no decisions have been taken, nor will there be until they are reviewed carefully with myself and officials of my department.
Still there is no decision taken, and I do not see that a decision will be taken shortly in the sense that the hon. member for Hillsborough mentioned a while ago. He has asked that the minister give him and the people of his riding the assurance that there will not be any change. I cannot give that assurance to the hon. member, but I can tell him that the Department of Transport is trying to do the best to give the people of P.E.I. good service.



TRADE-SALE OF ATOMIC ENERGY PLANT TO ROUMANIA-CONTINGENT CONDITIONS

Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: The other day when I raised a question about the sale of an atomic energy plant to Rou-mania, Mr. Speaker suggested that there was not urgency in respect of this program, or at least not as he saw it. I should like to read a small excerpt from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of March 7 which says that Roumanian officials are presently in Canada engaged in talks with Canadian officials regarding this sale. This article suggests that West Germany is also interested in the sale, so in fact we have a competitor. The article states:
The talks involve a $100,000,000 generating station and fuel fabricating plant and, possibly, a $50,000,000 plant to produce heavy water-
So you can see this is an important item to this sector of Canada's industrial economy. If we were successful in building a plant for this country, we might also sell others. I suggest this is quite an urgent matter. I come from a section of the country about which
March 9, 1970
4574	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion agricultural and trade officials were not concerned regarding the sale of wheat until we woke up one morning and found somebody else had the markets. This is a very important item and the government should consider it very carefully.
There is one item in respect of which I should specifically like to compliment and congratulate those responsible. At the Douglas Point atomic energy plant they were successful in performing an on-power refuelling. This was only partial, but it was something new and it was successful. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) had anything to do with this operation, I extend my congratulations to him as well. If I were purchasing an atomic energy plant from Canada or any other country, I would be concerned about the conditions of sale. I would want to know whether the plant would work. I asked specifically in my question the other day about these conditions of sale.
The next item involves heavy water. After considering Canada's experience in this respect, I have some doubt. We have built, or are in the process of building a heavy water plant in Nova Scotia. The federal government has washed its hands of it but Atomic Energy of Canada signed a contract. At the very least, I suggest this was a very sloppy business approach. There were no penalties involved in the contract in respect of the delivery of heavy water. If they did not approve the new method of production. I would ask why Atomic Energy signed the contract. The story has been the same in Nova Scotia. I do not believe Atomic Energy of Canada or the government has anything to brag about in this regard. The sale of atomic energy plants abroad is involved, and a doubt is cast on the ability of Canadian industry generally.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I suggest that the federal government should get on the ball and do something about the problem. I believe if I were inquiring in Canada about a plant of this nature, I would be concerned about the technical know-how of the people involved. The federal government has decided not to proceed with the intense neutron generator which would have supplied us with further knowledge in this particular field. If I were purchasing a plant and was told I would probably be able to upgrade it, and that instead of using uranium I might be able to have a fast-breeder reactor which would use plutoni-


um, or that I would be able to sell plutonium to some other country by purchasing a plant from Canada, I would be very interested.
At the present time I would be very uneasy as a buyer. Our research and development percentagewise in respect of our gross national product is not in any way comparable to that of Great Britain or the United States. I suggest we need to invest our money in this area. If financing is a condition of sale, I suggest that perhaps we should subsidize the financing if this is required. I have one last comment to make in respect of the standardization of equipment. As I understand it, we produce an atomic plant of one kind and other types are produced in other parts of the world. I hope ours is a good one. If we are not successful in our sales abroad in respect of our particular style of atomic energy plant, I believe it is high time we took a real look at the atomic energy situation in Canada.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has ranged far and wide from the question he asked the other day, but certainly some of his contributions are useful. I was particularly glad to see his support for our atomic energy program and his encouragement in respect of our spending more money in this area. If he would be my advocate for the Treasury Board in this area, I think that would be extremely useful. I remind him, however, of the fact that we had to cut back on some of our basic research in areas which might ultimately lead to technology in respect of fast-breeding reactors. Part of the problem is being a small country. We can only afford a certain amount of science. We do not have an open end. Our science spending is not tied to defence spending as it is in the United States.
I suggest that as much as possible we keep in the areas in which we have expertise. I believe that in the field of atomic reactors we have great expertise. We have a scientific team which is second to none. Certainly in the future we can be in the vanguard in the world and possibly achieve a considerable self-sufficiency in the energy field if we have confidence in and support this team which has done so well in the past.
The hon. member specifically asked the other day whether or not our on-power refuelling of the Douglas Point reactor was a condition contingent upon any sale of an atomic energy plant to Roumania. On-power refuelling is one of the real merits of the Canadian Candu system, and our scientists should be given great credit for achieving
March 9, 1970	COMMONS
this. The plants being offered for sale to Rou-mania and elsewhere do in fact contain this outstanding feature, but it was not a condition of the sale to Roumania.
I think the hon. member has done a service in bringing this matter to the forefront today. Because we have had some problem in respect of on-power refuelling, some people have lost confidence in the reactor program and have some doubt as to whether we should continue. Speaking for the government, may I say I can think of nothing that would do more harm to our country than for us to lose faith in this reactor at the present time, when so much has been put into it and when we have achieved a place in science second to none in the world.
DEBATES	4575
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We must bear in mind that other countries have had at least as many problems as we have had in this very new science of atomic energy and reactors. I sincerely hope and have confidence that the Canadian people will not lose faith in this regard and that this House and its members will not be tempted to not follow through with this program. I think it would definitely put us back if we did not follow through with this excellent program in respect of our Canadian reactor, which I think will be of great benefit to Canadian people in the years to come.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, March 10, 1970