1971-03-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I wish to table copies in both official languages of a document concerning technical standards and procedures for cable television-CATV-which will ensure higher standards of quality for cable television subscribers.



COMMUNICATIONS


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to announce to the House the conclusion of an agreement between officials of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and Post Office authorities in the United Kingdom to build a new high capacity transatlantic cable.
The decision to build a new cable, CANTAT-2, is based on projections of a 20 per cent per annum growth in the market for transatlantic circuits during the next 15 years. This is expected to bring the Canadian demand to a level around 4,600 circuits by 1985. A dynamic element in this pattern of growth has been the increase in direct dialing between countries on both sides of the Atlantic.
This bilateral project in which the Canadian investment will be of the order of $37 million will provide 1,840 new telephone circuits on the North Atlantic route between Canada, Britain and Europe. As an indication of the size of this project it should be noted that CANTAT-2 will have 400 more circuits than all existing transatlantic cables, whether they originate in this country or in the United States. Cost of the project will be shared equally by COTC and the British Post Office.
The new high-capacity cable which will link Canada, through a point in Nova Scotia, to Europe at a point in Cornwall is expected to be ready for service early in 1974. This new facility will be added to existing satellite and cable circuits used by COTC to provide reliable and economical telecommunications between Canada and Europe. This project, which has involved months of negotiations between COTC, officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of
Communications, and their British counterparts, involves several significant advantages for Canada.
Among these numerous advantages are the following. This arrangement provides an alternate commercial route to the transatlantic circuits provided by Intelsat, the international consortium in which COTC is also a shareholder. It provides technological diversity which means greater security for our transatlantic communications links. It provides a system that is compatible with the domestic communications system to be operated by Tele-sat Canada. It assures that Canadian systems will continue to serve as the main route for transpacific Commonwealth traffic. The new cable, therefore, will provide Canadians with more flexibility and reliability in their telecommunications links with Europe.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of my hon. friend and colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), though it gives me satisfaction to comment upon a statement from the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) which bears some of the imprint and impact of being good news. His statement deals with one of the few areas of his extended domain which generally has been successfully operated, namely, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, and to that extent I am very pleased with this new development.
I was interested in a general way to note that the agreement was not made available to us, and obviously this statement is a very general and superficial, and perhaps generous, appraisal of the agreement. One is impressed by the fact that we need more cables, and one is reminded that we have not so completely moved into the era of the satellite as was sometimes predicted in the excitement of a few years ago.
I look forward to receiving further details of this important project. If it allows us to maintain closer contact with other parts of the world in this advancing age of technology, it is something which we welcome. I should like to say that generally I have confidence in the capacity of the COTC to represent Canadian interests in this regard.
I notice that it is intended to integrate, as it must be, this system of cable with the Telesat operation. This is a very important and very costly project which it seems will be much later getting into operation, and at much greater cost, than the minister used to predict. Nevertheless we do feel some satisfaction from the fact that a definite step has been taken in this way to improve our contact with other parts of the world.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party welcome the minister's
24081-15J

March 29, 1971
Questions
statement on the agreement reached between the United Kingdom and Canada to build a new transatlantic telecommunications cable. I can only echo the words of the previous speaker in saying that rapid communications are vital for our country in the modern world if we are to provide for the kind of growth that we anticipate will be essential. From this point of view we are pleased with the announcement.
We are also very pleased to see that this vital link between Canada and Europe is to be handled by public companies largely the COTC in Canada and the Post Office in Britain. We are pleased that the government has not seen fit to shuffle part of the responsibility for this on to the private carriers; this is in contrast to what has happened in the case of Telesat.
I think it is important to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is vital in this modern world for us to have available a variety of modern communications media in order to provide for alternatives and for better security and flexibility. Canada's ability to be in charge of the messages sent from this country is something we should guard very carefully.
I notice that this cable is to be integrated with Telesat as part of the modern communications system outlined by the minister over the past few years. If I may here make an oblique reference to Telesat, it is important for us to be able to communicate around the world and with the northern part of our country. But even more important than the fact that we are able to communicate is what we communicate. Our efforts to bring television to the north I hope will result in something better than the dreary, foreign imported pop culture that we get on television networks to the south. I hope that the agreement just concluded will reach fruition by 1974. That is the statement I wish to present on behalf of this party.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we hope that the construction of this new cable will bring to Canada the benefits anticipated by the minister.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Coates: Were any of the individuals arrested under the War Measures Act formerly members of the Company of Young Canadians and, if so (a) what are the names of these individuals (b) for what period of time were they members of the Company of Young Canadians (c) have they been released since their arrest or are they still being held and, if so (i) what are the names of the individuals being held (ii) have any charges been laid against them and, if so, what are the charges in each instance?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The Department of the Solicitor
General and the Company of Young Canadians advise as follows: Yes, nine individuals were arrested under the War Measures Act, as of November 5, 1970. (a) It is not in the public interest to release the names of those persons arrested and then released, without being charged under the War Measures Act. (b) It is not in the public interest to divulge such information since it would provide the names of persons arrested and then released (c) Eight were released, (i) Jacques Larue-Lan-glois. Mr. Larue-Langlois was a member of the Company of Young Canadians from May 22, 1969 to August 22, 1969. (ii) Section 4(a) War Measures Act; Section 62(c) Criminal Code of Canada; Section 231(1) (a) Criminal Code of Canada.


GOVERNMENT PRINTING-QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Does the government have some of its printing done in Quebec City plants and, if so (a) are tenders called (b) in what printing plants has the government had work done?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes, the Department of Supply and Services has printing done in plants situated in or near Quebec City,
(a)	Yes. (b) While departmental statistics are not yet structured so as to provide readily complete information on the geographical distribution of contracts, a sampling of files discloses that contracts have been awarded to Imprimerie Stellar Inc., Ratte & Frere Enr.; J. M. Begin; Imprimerie Laflamme Ltee. and Les Ateliers Optima Inc.


COMPULSORY BILINGUAL LABELLING OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is there a law or regulation for the better protection of the consumer under which it is compulsory to have bilingual (French and English) labels, and (a) if so, what is the regulation (b) if not, is it the intention of the government to pass such a regulation?
2.	Have there been any discussions with Quebec representatives concerning bilingual labels and, if so (a) on what date (b) with what result?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Labelling regulations issued under the
authority of the Hazardous Products Act require that mandatory cautionary labelling be in both the English and the French languages. Provision for mandatory bilingual labelling will be included in regulations to be drawn up under the Consumer Packaging and Labelling Bill now before Parliament.
2.	Meetings and discussions have taken place between representatives of the Government of Quebec and federal government representatives concerning bilingual labelling. Many of these discussions have been of an informal nature involving telephone conversations and it is not possible to enumerate all the dates on which discussions have occurred. These discussions have resulted in a better understanding of the intentions of the respective

March 29, 1971

governments with regard to the labelling of prepackaged consumer products. The Quebec authorities have indicated their satisfaction with the federal government's policy statement on bilingual labelling and have urged its early implementation.


POLYMER CORPORATION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the government instructed Polymer Corporation to liquidate its shares in Sentrachem Ltd. and, if so, when were these instructions given and what were they?
2.	Are the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors of Polymer Corporation transmitted to the government?
3.	How many meetings were held by the Board of Directors during each of the past three years?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. See answer to question No. 59 shown at page 2250 of Hansard, January 11, 1971.
2.	Yes. Copies of the Minutes of all meetings of the Polymer Board of Directors are sent to the Minister of Supply and Services.
3.	The number of meetings of the Board of Directors held during the last three calendar years was as follows: 1968, ten; 1969, eleven; 1970, eleven.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-AMOUNT PAID TO PROVINCES UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE ACT
Mr. Orlikow: How much money does the Department of National Health and Welfare expect will be paid to each province in 1971 under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan and, of this, how much will be for welfare assistance?
Questions


CMHC-15 YEAR MORTGAGES FOR MOBILE HOMES
Mr. Alexander: Has CMHC agreed to provide 15 year NHA Mortgages for mobile homes and, if so (a) how many individual applications for such mortgages have been approved (b) what is their total value (c) in which communities have they been located?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has indicated that it is prepared to make loans repayable over 15 years to finance the purchase of mobile homes. No such loans have yet been made.


CANADIAN ECONOMY-CONTROL BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the Canadian economy can be controlled effectively by the federal government?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Federal government policies influence all of the Canadian economy. There are too many variables and unknowns to give a precise answer to this question.


SUBSIDIZATION OF SOCIAL ANIMATORS IN NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC
Mr. Caouette: Does the government or any governmental agency subsidize, in any way, social animators in Northwestern Quebec (Abitibi-Temiskaming) in (a) fostering social animation in schools (b) producing the television program ''Le Bloc" broadcast Thursday nights on CKRN-TV and, if so (i) what was the amount in each case (ii) what are the names and addresses of each such person (iii) how much money does each receive and on what basis?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Estimate for General Welfare
Total Estimate	Assistance
Province Fiscal Year 1971-72 ($ 000's)		Fiscal Year 1971 ($ 000's)
Newfoundland Prince Edward	$ 24,415	$ 19,075Island	4,307	1,678Nova Scotia	19,007	11,643New Brunswick	18,802	10,450*Quebec	238,702	140,941Ontario	198,409	128,700Manitoba	29,776	23,750Saskatchewan	23,326	15,400Alberta	44,110	33,575British Columbia	71,320	52,000Northwest Territory	1,375	550Yukon Territory	1,125	450Total	$ 674,674	$ 438,212* Amount payable	to Quebec by	the Department
Finance under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: (a) No.
(b)	The Department of the Secretary of State gave a grant to the Conseil Economique Regional du Nord-Ouest Quehecois (CERNOQ) for the period from August 1 to March 31, 1970, of which $3,000 was used for the production of six television programs, (i) Each television program cost $500. This included:
Rental	$225
Filming	160
Recording	50
Miscellaneous expenditures	65
	$500
Following is a brief outline of the programs: (1) Christmas Telecast: Customs and traditions relating to the Christmas season which various ethnic groups in North Western Quebec (Italians, Ukrainians, Czechoslovakians, Germans) have maintained.
(2)	Val d'Or-Amos Group: Difficulties of adjustment to Quebec society: how immigrants view the problem (rights, interests); how the problem is seen by French Canadians (rights, interests).
(3)	Pioneers of North Western Quebec: A French Canadian, a Chinese and an Italian describe early colon-

March 29, 1971
Questions
ization, underlining the fact that racism was almost nonexistent at the time.
(4)	Youth and Institutions: A group of young people of various ethnic origins give their views of existing institutions; discussion between these young people and Quebec youth.
(5)	Indians and North Western Quebec: Guest speaker: Chief Alfred Kistabish of the Amos Reservation.
(6)	Cultural Events: Information concerning a programme of cultural events organized once a month by a particular ethnic group; relationship of this program to the general social organization program aimed at ethnic minorities in North Western Quebec.
(ii)	I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians that volunteers of the CYC are involved with the communities in producing the television program "Le Bloc". The volunteers are: Stephan e Cloutier, Andre Dudemaine, Jean Ouellet, Pierrette Cloutier, Michel Lemieux, and Marcel-Yves Begin. The regional office of the Company of Young Canadians is located at 185, Prin-cipale, Rouyn, P.Q.
(iii)	Volunteers of the Company of Young Canadians receive an allowance in accordance with CYC policy, in amounts of $270 per month for a single volunteer or $370 per month for a volunteer with dependents, for the duration of their two year contract.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN-ESTIMATE OF PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES, 1971
Mr. Orlikow: What is the estimate of the cost to the government of payments to each province under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan for the year 1971?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and
Welfare):	Total Estimate for
Province	Fiscal Year 1971-72 ($ 000's)
Newfoundland	$ 24,415
Prince Edward Island	4,307
Nova Scotia	19,007
New Brunswick	18,802
^Quebec	238,702
Ontario	198,409
Manitoba	29,776
Saskatchewan	23,326
Alberta	44,110
British Columbia	71,320
North West Territory	1,375
Yukon Territory	1,125
Total	$674,674
* Amount payable to Quebec	by the Department of
Finance under the Established rangements) Act.	Programs (Interim Ar-


CALGARY, ALBERTA-WELFARE RIGHTS ASSOCIATION ORGANIZATION
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Does the government finance a welfare rights association organization in the City of Calgary, Alberta?
2.	Does the government contribute financially to a welfare rights association organization or affiliate in the City of Calgary, Alberta and, if so, what is the proper name of such association organization?
3.	What is the nature of the financial support?
4.	What is the connection between such organization and the operation information centre operating in the City of Calgary?
5.	What is the amount of such financial assistance annually?


John Carr Munro: 1. Yes.
2.	The Calgary Welfare Rights Organization.
3.	A Demonstration Project grant under the National Welfare Grants program. Duration of the project is expected to be three years.
4.	None to our knowledge.
5.	$22,290.00 was allocated for the fiscal year 1970-71.


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Agriculture is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) winter works, nil; (b) to reduce unemployment, 44 per cent; (c) underestimating expenditures, 9 per cent; (d) combatting inflationary costs, 6 per cent; (e) new programs 41 per cent; (f) hiring of additional employees, nil.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


John Carr Munro: (a) Nil; (b) nil; (c) 99.3 per cent; (d) .3 per cent; (e) nil; (f) nil.


REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED CONCERNING ABORTION
Mr. Teirauli: 1.	For the period January 1, 1970 to September 30, 1970, how many representations were received by the government, urging the government to retain unmodified or to make even more stringent the existing legal prohibitions against abortion in Canada?
2.	How many such representations were received between November 1, 1970 and January 31, 1971?

March 2*, 1971


James Alexander Jerome: The government advises as follows:
1.	1,226.
2.	576.


HIGHWAY SAFETY-STATISTICS ON HIGHWAY FATALITIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	To what extent has the number of fatalities on highways been reduced as a result of the recent changes in the Criminal Code regarding driving offences connected with alcohol?
2.	How many fatalities occurred on highways for each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive, that were attributable, at least in part, to driving where alcohol was a significant factor?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the
Dominion Bureau of Statistics is concerned: 1. This information is not available from D.B.S.
2.	D.B.S. does not have information as to the number of highway fatalities in which alcohol was a significant factor. However, the following table gives the total number of fatalities for the years 1960 to 1969. Complete data for 1970 are not yet available.
Total Number of Fatalities in Motor Vehicle Traffic
Accidents, 1960 to 1969 inclusive.
Year	Fatalities	Year	Fatalities1960	3283	1965	49021961	3426	1966	52811962	3883	1967	54291963	4210	1968	53181964	4652	1969	5425


CBC-COVERAGE OF MEETING IN TORONTO CONCERNING ARMS SALES TO SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What was the cost to the government to have CBC cover the meeting in Toronto held at 252 Bloor Street, on Monday. December 14, 1970, regarding arms sales to South Africa?
2.	Was Professor D. Anglin expressing the policy of the federal government at the meeting?


James Alexander Jerome: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Department of External Affairs advise as follows: 1. The meeting referred to was attended by a CBC reporter from the Radio News department in Toronto. The cost was minimal since only one man was assigned to cover the meeting.
2. No. Professor Anglin is not an employee of the federal government and was not speaking for the Government at the meeting in question.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRIES FOR VOCATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Caouette: During each year 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70, has the government made grants to industries for vocational training programs and, if so (a) which industries received grants (b) what amounts were paid to each?
Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Government of Canada does not make grants to industry for vocational training programs. However, under the Adult Occupational Training Act, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may enter into a contract with any employer operating or undertaking to operate an occupational training course for the training of adults employed by the employer to provide for the payment of costs incurred in conducting the occupational training course.


TRAINING-IN-INDUSTRY CONTRACTS BY INDUSTRIES FISCAL YEARS
[Stage Direction]
(a) Industries(1)	1967-68	1968-69	(b) 1969-70($000)	($000)	($000)Agriculture	2	96	78Forestry	17	83	114Fishing and Trapping	1	61	85Mines, Quarries and Oil Wells....	42	605	762Manufacturing Industries	654	3,432	5,486Construction Industry	44	26	62Transportation Communication f' and Other Utilities	211	905	1,029Trade	3	22	95Finance, Insurance and Real h Estate	17	40	121Community, Business and £ Personal Service Industries	29	210	341Public Administration and Defence	6	46	135TOTAL	1,026	5,526	8,308
d)Industries according to the major divisions of the Standard Industrial Classification 1960.

Mr. Coaies: Has the Public Service Commission Competition No. 71-3660 specified that applicants for positions with the Canadian International Development Agency Planning Branch should be residents of Ontario or Quebec and, if so, for what reason?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Commission issued a poster on January 4, 1971, restricting the area of competition to residents of the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Recognizing that the residence restriction was not appropriate, the Commission issued a revised poster on January 26, 1971, opening the competition to all residents of Canada.


ARMED FORCES-EXCEPTIONS TO RECENT PAY INCREASE
Mr. Forrestall: In what pay fields of the Armed Forces are those who do not get the recent pay increase?

March 29, 1971
Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: The October 1, 1970, pay increase provided upward revisions to all rates of pay (see QR&O, Chapter 204). Tradesmen on vested rates of pay, due to compulsory remustering to a lower pay field, did not receive an increase if their vested rate exceeded the new rate.


CYC-EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS AT MAISON DU PECHEUR, PERCE
Mr. Rondeau: 1 Was any money paid by the Company of Young Canadians for the Maison du Pecheur in Perce and, if so, what amount?
2. How many members of CYC have worked and are now working in the Maison du Pecheur in Perc6?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows:
1.	No.
2.	None.
t English]


AGRICULTURE-RESEARCH INTO PROCESSING OF NEW TYPES OF SEED PRODUCTS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How much money has the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture spent from 1961 to 1970 in its attempt to find new ways to process Canada's various seeds which could be used in (a) drugs for medical usages (b) health food products (c) beauty products (d) varnishes and paints (e) wines and liqueurs?
2.	Which seeds were used in each of the abovementioned cases?
3.	Which manufactured seed products did the government export for the period 1965-70?
4.	Which private firms co-operated with the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture in the attempt to manufacture new types of seed products?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. (a) Nil.
(b) Lupine flour, a low methiomine flour for diets of Homocystenuric children. Tested by Toronto Hospital for Sick Children and found to provide variety in their normally restricted diet. Soya milk, a product with potential for (a) overseas export and (b) people allergic to milk fat. Over-all expenditure, $10,000. (c) Nil. (d) Nil. (e) Nil.
2.	Lupine and soybean.
3.	Currently nil in context of 1 above, but soya milk of current interest to CARE and Canadian Hunger Foundation. An experimental shipment of 5,000 pounds is being made to India in June, 1971.
4.	None.


SMOKING AND HEALTH SURVEY
Mr. Maiher: Has a survey been conducted in Canada similar to that performed in the United States by the Centre for Smoking and Health involving thousands of families with statistics covering several years and, if so, is consideration being given to making the survey public?


John Carr Munro: The answer to both parts of this inquiry is, yes.


DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of Public Works (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The
Department of Public Works derives no income as such, from its computer services. The purpose of these services is to assist in the more effective and efficient management of the operations of the Department.


MANPOWER-STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,122-Mr. Nystrom: Supplementary:
1.	Was a survey study of employment of university students released by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on February 4, 1971 and, if so, was any consideration given to the inclusion in the study of students who did not return to university because they were unable to find summer employment?
2.	Was there any indication that any of the students, who were unsuccessful in seeking employment, stated they had not sought employment?
3.	What was the population of students in accredited universities in the academic year 1969-1970?
4.	Was the survey based on oral or written questions?
5.	What was the response rate?
6.	Would the government be prepared to Table the questionnaire and an outline of the method used?
Otto Emil Lang: 1. Preliminary results of a study of the employment of post-secondary students in the summer of 1970 were released by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on February 4, 1971. The survey was carried out at the time students registered for classes in the fall. Because of the method used, the survey did not include students who, for one reason or another, including their inability to find summer employment, did not return or proceed to post-secondary education.
2.	The survey established that all but 10 per cent of the students had sought paid work. Of the 90 per cent who sought work, 89 per cent found employment some time during the summer.
3.	The population of students in universities in 1969/70 is according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics as 299,889.
4.	The survey was based on written questions.
5.	The survey was completed by approximately 17,000 students at 54 universities, community colleges and teachers colleges across Canada. It was based on a scientifically selected sample, within which the response rate averaged 75 per cent.
6.	A full report of the survey including an outline of the method used and a copy of the questionnaire, will be ready in a few weeks time.

March 29, 1971


CALGARY, ALBERTA-COST OF BANK OF CANADA BUILDING
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	What did the lot, upon which the Bank of Canada building in Calgary was constructed, cost?
2.	(a) What was the total cost of the building (b) how much per square foot did the building cost (c) what contractors built the building?


Edgar John Benson: It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions regarding the internal administration of the Bank of Canada.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION-ARREARS OF PAYMENTS
Mr. Thomson: With reference to the answer to Question Number 1,006 at page 4036 of Hansard, March 8, 1971, what is the breakdown of the percentage of arrears by province?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Farm Credit Corporation advises as follows:
1966-67	1967-68	1968-69	1969-70%	%	%	%British Columbia	11.2	11.1	14.0	15.5Alberta	11.7	11.5	13.5	19.3Saskatchewan	2.5	4.1	6.4	11.6Manitoba	2.8	3.7	7.2	14.0Ontario	5.2	5.8	6.5	7.8Quebec	3.2	2.7	2.6	3.8New Brunswick	6.9	3.8	4.9	4.9Nova Scotia	8.8	10.8	10.0	10.2Prince Edward Island	8.0	9.4	12.7	11.3Newfoundland	0.3	3.5	4.3	7.8


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Malher: 1.	What projects were (a) planned (b) underway (c) completed by Information Canada as of December 15, 1970?
2.	What is the budget or total expenditure in each case?
3.	Which of the above projects have as a goal the promotion of Canadian unity?
Return tabled.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 LABOUR RELATIONS DELAY IN NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS AND RAILWAYS-INTERRUPTION OF RAIL SERVICE
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley
Rail Service Negotiations
West (Mr. Rose), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the interruption of rail service on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific caused by unwarranted delays in the negotiations between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the railways, the four-month delay before a conciliation board was appointed by the Minister of Labour, the six-month delay before the said board made its report, and the failure of the board to make recommendations on all but two of the more than 20 issues referred to it, and the urgent need to seek an immediate settlement of the dispute in view of the serious effects on the economy of a railway strike affecting the movement of grains, perishables, minerals and other products.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw has given the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. Without going into the details of the form of the notice given, I think I should indicate to the hon. member for Moose Jaw that both the notice as given to the Chair and the statement as presented by the hon. member to the House might perhaps be considered as going somewhat beyond the very limited terms of reference allowed to the hon. member by the terms of Standing Order 26, which invites an hon. member to merely state what the matter is that he wishes to be considered by the House. In any event, I can assure the hon. member that I have given the matter very serious consideration.
It is obvious to the House, I am sure, that the hon. member has raised a very important matter which conceivably might require further consideration at some time in the future. After carefully perusing the hon. member's motion, I should like to suggest that the events referred to are in the nature of a developing situation in that the two parties are still, as I understand it, discussing the issue. I do not feel that the Chair can assume that these negotiations are in such a state as to require a debate in the House at the present time under the provisions of Standing Order 26. It should also be observed that if leave were granted to allow a debate under Standing Order 26 at this time, under our rules it would be impossible for the hon. member, or any other hon. member, to raise this issue again during the current session under the terms of Standing Order 26.
Bearing all these considerations in mind, I feel that the motion proposed should not be allowed at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for

March 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
External Affairs. I apologize for it being a little complicated. Was the government aware that several Canadian pulp and paper companies were under investigation for 18 months by the anti-trust division of the United States Department of Justice for practices which are perfectly legal in Canada and that during the investigation documents were removed from United States affiliates of the Canadian companies so that the Department of Justice could pursue its investigation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not as well acquainted with the details which have been put forward by the hon. member as perhaps I might be. But I would point out to him there are in existence arrangements between Canada and the United States for exchanging information with regard to certain aspects of anti-combines and anti-trust activities and pursuant to these there have been limited exchanges between officials on this matter. These discussions did not indicate there had been any infringement of Canadian sovereignty or that the United States courts were exceeding their jurisdiction to the detriment of Canadian nationals.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the resentment and concern of many Canadians, including Mr. R. M. Fowler, President of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, about these activities, does the government intend to convene an international conference which would include, of course, the United States and other governments to establish some working guidelines so that in future there would be established guidelines to deal with any future extra-territorial application of national laws?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if another occasion does not arise before that, this is the sort of matter that is discussed at the meetings of the joint cabinet committee, but there may be an opportunity or a reason to raise this question again before that time.



FINANCE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingafe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister's department not been able to fill with qualified Canadian personnel positions in the area of budgetary and fiscal planning and five other areas of economic and monetary policy within his department? If so, why is the Canadian government today advertising in The American Economic Review and other United States journals for United States economists with United States backgrounds to come to Canada to provide United States economic models for Canadian economic situations?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this particular advertisement. In the Department of Finance we are always looking for very

qualified people in the fields of economics and finance in Canada. We are continuously looking for them. We have some of the best in the world and hope to keep the standard up to that level.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would like to put an end to this advertisement. Would he give the Canadians equal status in applying for opportunities in his department and also advertise these positions in Canadian journals?


Edgar John Benson: Canadians, of course, have a preferred status in applying for jobs in my department.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he tell us if the Canadian government has received an invitation from the government of the United States to discuss the question of United States investment in Canada from the point of view of the rising feeling of Canadian economic nationalism in our country today?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have, of course, been discussing with our counterparts in the United States government the question of foreign ownership. The U.S. government indicated to us some time ago that they hoped that before we made any changes in our policy with respect to foreign ownership which would affect them particularly there would be an opportunity for consultation.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister indicate whether such a meeting has now been set up and whether we can expect to have the results made known to the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Since the government itself has not yet determined its policy on foreign ownership, there has been no occasion whatever for any consultations.



LABOUR RELATIONS


John Leroy Skoberg: My question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the imminent threat of a complete tie-up in rail operations on both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways, which can only result in serious effects on the western economy, can the minister indicate why a four-month delay was encountered before the conciliation board was constituted to deal with the contract negotiations between the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and the railway companies?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to suggest to the hon. member that this important matter might be considered
March 29, 1971

by asking the question in a different form. The hon. member is asking why there was a delay. I wonder whether that is a point of debate. I would hope the hon. member could ask a supplementary question which might be more immediate than debating what has happened over the last four months.


John Leroy Skoberg: I will reword my question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the four-month delay in setting up and constituting the conciliation board, can the minister now say whether any progress has been made in the negotiations?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the negotiating teams are meeting today and will be meeting directly with both the CNR and CPR tomorrow in order to expedite a settlement. The hon. member is quite correct in saying that there has been undue delay. One reason has been the untimely death of the chief negotiator for the unions. Whatever influence the hon. member may have with the unions, it would be appreciated if he would suggest to them that they go back to work and let the negotiating teams in Montreal do the negotiating.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the fact that there appears to have been a six-month lag between the time the conciliation board was constituted and when it handed down its report, can the minister indicate to the House whether or not any extension of time was granted to the conciliation board for making its report?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is traditional and normal to extend the mandate of the conciliation board beyond the normal period if the chairman so requests, particularly when the chairman of the board is a man of such integrity as Mr. Gallagher.


Mark Willson Rose: Did the minister imply that the chairman requested the extension of time?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I implied nothing beyond simply saying that the conciliation board tried to complete its report as soon as possible.


Mark Willson Rose: Was there such a request for an extension of time before handing down the report and, if so, by whom was such extension requested?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Any request would be legitimate, and I would have to verify to see whether the extension of time was simply the request of the chairman, which I think is in order, or whether it was a joint request of all the parties involved in the dispute.


Mark Willson Rose: May I ask the minister why there were no continuous negotiations over the past weekend? As the minister is well aware, there have been tie-ups on both the CN and CP in the west.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am aware of the fact that there were not continuous negotiations over the weekend, but I know the hon. gentleman is sincere in his desire to see an end to this dispute, and I do not think it would help in any way if I were to single out one party or the other for their negligence in this regard.
Inquiries of the Ministry



EFFECT OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTHER RAILWAY UNIONS ON SETTLEMENT OF ENGINEERS' DISPUTE

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In view of the fact that apparently the engineers are now awaiting a settlement with respect to the 20,000 shopcraft people so far as their agreement is concerned, can the minister advise if any conclusion is being reached with respect to their demands at this time?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members know, railway negotiations are complicated. There are no less than seven groups, I think, negotiating almost simultaneously with the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, and each collective agreement or settlement in some way is intertwined with the others. The hon. gentleman's question is a valid one. There is progress being made not only with regard to the shopcraft people, but also in the negotiations with regard to the non-operating groups, and both have an effect on the dispute involving the engineers.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact that there seem to be some 20 issues in the engineers dispute on which there has been no agreement, can the minister advise if he has been approached to bring in an outside mediator with respect to this very serious problem?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, ever since I became Minister of Labour I have never had to bring in an outside mediator because I have ample confidence in the mediators at my disposal within the department.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-NEGOTIATIONS ON ISSUES NOT DEALT WITH BY CONCILIATION BOARD

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In view of the length of time it took the conciliation board to bring in its report, and the failure of the board to make recommendations on 21 issues concerning rules and working conditions, can the minister advise if he or his officials have been involved in any way and whether or not progress is being made in the negotiations on these 21 issues?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would hope progress is being made. I would ask the House to be a little patient in this matter because I cannot be as frank as I would like to be with respect to the negotiations going on in Montreal in case I should jeopardize their progress.



APPLICATION OF FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE LAW TO CANADIAN NATIONAL HOTELS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In view of the fact that a number of collective agreements are being held up pending a decision by the government with regard to the application of the federal minimum wage laws to the CNR hotels, can the minister tell the House whether a decision has been taken with respect to applying the federal minimum wage laws to the CN hotels?
4682

March 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated some months ago, I had recommended to the Department of Justice that the whole question of minimum wages in CNR hotels be subjected, if necessary, to court action. In the interval there was a test case before the courts in the province of Alberta. I believe the recommendation of the Department of Justice was that we should wait for the results in that particular case, and the Minister of Justice has indicated to me that he would get more concrete information on that case some time later this week.



DISPUTE BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS-PARTICIPATION OF MINISTER AND DEPARTMENTAL MEDIATORS IN NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister about the importance of not interfering with the negotiations at this time, but can he inform the House, in respect of the crucial negotiations that are to start today or tomorrow, whether he or his chief mediators or both intend to take an active part to make sure the negotiations continue until a settlement is reached?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Both the industry specialists, Mr. Kelly and Mr. Gibbons, are on the scene and have already taken an active part over the weekend to see that direct negotiations are resumed tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South and the hon. member for Athabasca on supplementaries and then go on to another subject.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to press the minister unduly but I know a little about this kind of negotiation and so I ask him if he himself would enter the picture at this stage, which is obviously crucial to the settlement of the dispute, not necessarily tomorrow but some time during the negotiations this week?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If at all necessary I would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



EFFECT OF RAILWAY WORK STOPPAGE ON TRANSPORTATION OF GRAIN

Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Can he indicate whether the transportation of grain is being interfered with by this work stoppage, and whether the government is considering alternative methods to transport grain in order to ensure that our wheat markets are not interfered with?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, of course the movement of grain from the Prairies to Vancouver is essentially a railroad operation and so it is interfered with, of course, by anything that interferes with the complete operation of the railroads. No other system of transportation could be considered feasible at this stage.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to clarify the position that he explained on March 25 in connection with the extraordinary book written by the Secretary of State when the Prime Minister was asked what course was followed in respect of written statements or speeches. Was there any examination of this book made in advance by the Prime Minister himself to ascertain whether or not constitutional practice was being subverted in any way?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, what I explained last week was that before ministers made any statements on important policy questions they were to follow a practice which was established well before my time-


John George Diefenbaker: Not in my time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in the Prime Minister's office, a practice which consisted of letting the Prime Minister's office know what those statements were going to be. In some cases I have looked at them when they were drawn to my attention; in other cases I did not when I was told there was no need to look at a statement in detail before it was made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I must make a reference to the Prime Minister's allegation about other Prime Ministers. That rule I had not heard of until the Prime Minister enunciated it the other day. Now I ask him this: does he personally check these speeches in advance to examine their content in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I have another question. In the blues for the 25th these words appear:
Ministers have made speeches on all these subjects.
That is, on matters of government policy.
It is my practice to check them for content.
That was the statement made by the Prime Minister. I ask him why was the change made in Hansard to read as follows:
It is my practice to try to ensure, before they are delivered, that someone checks them for content.
Why was this change made in what was said in the House by the Prime Minister so as to report in Hansard something that he did not say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my memory of what I said is that I said that someone checked them for content. If the blues carry any different statement, I will have the blues looked into and I will also see if there is a tape of this statement. I am rather certain that I said they were checked for content by someone, because at no time have I ever pretended I could read in advance all the speeches that are made by ministers in my cabinet.
March 29, 1971


John George Diefenbaker: So the Prime Minister will look into this and find out what happened in the transition from the blues to Hansard, will he?



BAN ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING ANNOUNCED BY BRITISH COLUMBIA-FEDERAL POSITION CONCERNING LEGISLATION OR VOLUNTARY PHASE-OUT

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wanted to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare but perhaps in his absence someone opposite will take notice of it. Having in mind the very welcome decision by the government of British Columbia over the weekend announcing a ban on all cigarette advertising commencing in September, just what is the situation at the federal level? Are we going to have an early introduction of similar legislation or is the department, in consultation with the industry, seeking a voluntary-phase-out of cigarette advertising by the industry?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Agriculture who, according to the roster, was to have been in the House this afternoon. In his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. My question refers to the meeting that the minister held on the weekend with the provincial Ministers of Agriculture to discuss a proposed nationwide farm adjustment program. In setting up the committee to deal further with the question and report back to a meeting of deputy ministers on April 28, will farm organizations have representatives on this committee?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the hon. member that the Minister of Agriculture is away from the House because he is meeting today with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States.
As to the question raised by the hon. member, I will make note of it for the minister's attention.



FINANCE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (ICent-Essex):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In light of the current alarming trend and the growing concern about the dampening effect of the appreciation
Inquiries of the Ministry
of the Canadian dollar on our export industries, is the minister now planning a statement in the House on government policy on this subject prior to his spring budget?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I really could not indicate that.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he is considering an early meeting with representatives of these industries to endeavour to reach an early resolution of this problem which has such a direct bearing on Canadian job opportunities?


Edgar John Benson: I meet with industries as they request. As a matter of fact, about two weeks ago I met with the pulp and paper industry in this regard.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EXPEDITING OF APPLICATIONS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-PROVINCIAL QUOTAS

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that of the first 200 applications received under the Opportunities for Youth program only 14 came from the Atlantic provinces where unemployment is highest and the need greatest, will the minister initiate a stepped-up information program and decentralize staff from Ottawa to the provinces in order to expedite applications?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the information is certainly available in the various regions of the country-


Some hon. Members:: No!


Otto Emil Lang: -and the number of applications indicates that people are aware of it. I think the hon. member might help by stepping up his information about these programs.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is your job.


Jack Marshall: To answer the minister, Mr. Speaker, I am sending out more information than is coming from his office. Would the minister consider again a proposal I put to him last week to allocate quotas to those provinces where the need is greatest for student employment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the general approach of the government has been to attempt to relate programs dealing with unemployment to the areas where unemployment is highest. I am sure this will be taken into consideration with regard to this program as well.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CRITERIA USED IN CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS

Mr. Lome Nysfrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Manpower and

March 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Immigration. In view of the large number of applications being received, will the minister undertake to make a statement in the House as to what criteria are being used in accepting or rejecting applications? Apparently this is not understood by many people.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring this suggestion to the attention of my colleague, the Secretary of State.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the minister indicate whether or not the Opportunities for Youth program is part of a long-range policy for young people, part of an ongoing policy that will be continued in future years?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ORGANIZATIONS THAT QUALIFY FOR GRANTS

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Soulh Western Nova):: Can
the minister state whether groups or clubs such as service clubs, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and others who sponsor youth employment programs for the summer will qualify for these grants which are directly available to the students according to the program?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to the information put out by the Secretary of State's office in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Don't you know?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: A brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give some assurance to the students who require financial assistance for the coming academic year that financial concerns, not political concerns, will be the criteria?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-APPLICATION CUT-OFF DATE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there seems to be some confusion as to the cut-off date for applications-I have heard it is ending tomorrow and I have also heard April 15-is the minister in a position to advise the House and the people of Canada, particularly those interested in the program, just when the cut-off date is? If it is in the very near future, is the minister giving serious consideration to prolonging the time set for applications in order that we can get the benefit of the money supplied by the government?


Otto Emil Lang: There has indeed been some confusion about application date deadlines, Mr. Speaker, apparently because there are a number of programs with different deadlines. The program for employment overseas, for instance, which is a very special program and has existed for a number of years, has a March 31 deadline date. I believe the Secretary of State made it quite clear in the House and outside that April 15 was the date he was suggesting for the Opportunities for Youth program.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West on a supplementary question.
However, I wonder if we might not go on to another subject and if there is time, return to this very important matter later during the question period.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. The minister says that his colleague has suggested that the cut-off date is to be April 15. In order to clarify this matter and in view of the fact that many students are registering complaints about the short notice involved, would the minister take this matter up with his colleague and ascertain if there is any possibility of extending the time so that youth can take advantage of the scheme properly?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring this representation to the attention of my colleague, but the hon. member should not overlook the importance of these applications coming in early. The Opportunities for Youth program is obviously so popular that those that come in early may be given the greatest amount of consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is now in a position to advise the House of the outcome of this government's protest of February, 1970, regarding the Amchitka nuclear test explosion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when this question was originally asked I said that I would inquire from the United States government whether they would have any objection to my tabling the substance of their reply. The United States government has now agreed. Therefore may I first table the substance of the note we presented to the United States government and then give a short summary of their reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that this kind of statement ought normally to be made on motions, unless the minister can make the statement brief so that it will actually take the form of a reply to the question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to table the substance of the note we submitted to the United States government.
The United States government delivered a reply to our ambassador in Washington on March 17 indicating their appreciation of the Canadian government's concern over any effects of the tests on the environment. They also gave assurances that the environmental and other interests expressed by the Canadian government would be taken into full account and that they would give, in the thorough review of any proposed test on Amchitka, full and careful consideration to the possible impact of such a test on the physical environment.

March 29, 1971


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That is something less than a convincing and comforting reply, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he has also protested to the United States government about the western tanker route which he told a CTV audience yesterday he believes should be rejected?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have protested many times in the House of Commons and I understand my protests have been read in Washington. I have asked the Secretary of State to consult with the Canadian government on the subject and I now await the fixing of a definite date for such consultations.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Do I take it that the minister on behalf of the government has not presented the Canadian point of view to the government of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think the hon. member has heard me many times in the House of Commons and heard me in Washington as well.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicate the attitude he might or might not have expressed with respect to the east coast as a possible tanker route? Has he brought the same emphasis to bear with respect to the Atlantic coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps the hon. member would tell me about this proposed new tanker route on the east coast.


J. Michael Forrestall: You don't give a damn!


EAST PAKISTAN-REPORTED KILLINGS AND REPRESSIVE MEASURES-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS TO PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the disturbing situation in East Pakistan. In view of the fact that democratically elected representatives have been refused the right to take office and have been outlawed and in view of the reported killings on a very large scale along with repressive measures being adopted by the military government of Pakistan, can the minister tell us if the Canadian government has made any representations to the government of Pakistan, particularly with a view to preserving democratic government in that fellow member of the Commonwealth?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker; we seem to be a little less clear about the situation than the hon. member, but we are making inquiries. As soon as we can ascertain the facts we will consider whether any useful purpose would be served by making representations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister's lack of clarity about this subject is normal. In view of the fact that Pakistan is a fellow member of the Commonwealth, will the government of Canada consider making representations urging a cessation of the repressive military measures which are being pursued and an attempt to settle this matter by constitutional means?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member is oversimplifying the situation. If he were to ask me whether I think East Pakistan should separate, I would hesitate before making a definite reply.


EAST PAKISTAN-ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF REPORTED REPRESSION
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government been in touch with interested governments with a view to offering international humanitarian assistance to the victims in East Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we were in the midst of offering assistance to this country in connection with the recent disasters. We have not, of course, had an opportunity yet of doing anything more. The situation is still not very clear. I am sure the House would expect that before we intervened in such a delicate situation we should ascertain the facts and ascertain whether in fact our intervention would be useful.


EAST PAKISTAN-ACTION TO ENSURE SAFETY OF CANADIAN NATIONALS
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House what action the government of Canada is taking to ensure the well-being of Canadian nationals in East Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As far as we can determine, all Canadians in Dacca are safe and well. We have no information about the situation in Chittagong or other areas. Before the recent outbreak of hostilities, some 40 Canadian dependents and others had already left East Pakistan, acting on advice given by the deputy British high commissioner in Dacca to the effect that those without strong reason for remaining should leave. There are still approximately 150 Canadians in East Pakistan and, in accordance with arrangements entered into beforehand, the deputy British high commissioner will include them in arrangements made for protection and withdrawal to safe haven should this appear necessary.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the government's commitment to Canadian content on television, what action does the minister propose to take with respect to the recent decision by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to deny several Canadian television series to the Canadian television station in Windsor so that they can be sold to the United States networks for showing in Detroit?

March 29, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, but I would make the observation that it would seem to me that the decision in terms of what might be done will involve the CRTC.




Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to a question I directed to the President of the Treasury Board in the absence of the minister on March 19. Is Canada acting in concert with the United States to establish a large engineering project in Argentina of which Canada will pay 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the cost, and is one of the terms of that contract that all the machinery and equipment for this large project will be purchased in the United States and none in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Canada is not involved with the United States in an aid scheme in Argentina. However, through the good offices of the Inter-American Development Bank we have extended a $756,000 loan to Argentina. This is being used to retain a Canadian firm which is updating and expanding an engineering and economic feasibility study of the Salto Grande hydroelectric power project in Argentina. I can assure the hon. member that this Canadian loan is not being used to purchase equipment and machinery in the United States.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
John George Diefenbaker: I wish to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether he is now in a position to give an answer to the question I asked the other day as to what decision has been made in connection with the application by the government of Saskatchewan for $12 million in relation to the proposed establishment of a pulp mill at Dore Lake?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think the application is from the company, not the government.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is right.


Jean Marchand: A huge amount is being requested and the application is still being processed by the department. The department is requesting information from the company. I do not think there has been any unjustified delay up to this time, and as soon as we can make a decision we will do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the genial minister ever delays. I wish to ask him whether objections to this grant have been received from NDP members in the province of Saskatchewan and also from Mr. Wilfrid Gardiner, a former member of the cabinet of Mr. Thatcher who has recently become a self-appointed authority on these questions?


Jean Marchand: I am not aware of those objections, Mr. Speaker. I will inquire and report to the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question. Has the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion received any representations from the Pulp and Paper Association of Canada opposing such a grant?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with the whole industry. There is no doubt about that. We received representations, not specifically in connection with this mill but in connection with all new mills that are going to be established in Canada. There is a problem in the pulp and paper industry because of the rate of exchange.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only three or four minutes left in the question period. I suggest that we go on to another subject.




Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that the Canadian government, through the Canadian International Development Agency, has granted several interest-free loans for periods of between 50 and 60 years to certain developing countries, can the minister tell the House whether he will suggest changing that agency's name by substituting the word "national" to "international" in order that it may be authorized to grant interest-free loans to Canadian developing municipalities?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in saying that the Canadian government does grant loans free of interest to some underdeveloped countries. I point out to the hon. member we also make grants that are not repayable. We intend to continue this policy as a means of helping in the development of the underdeveloped countries of the world, a policy which has very strong support in Canada and which is strongly supported by this government. Our help to universities and in overcoming poverty in this country takes many times as much money as the assistance we provide to the underdeveloped countries of the world.
[Mr. MacGuigan.l
March 29, 1971


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister secure from Devco the names of the Canada Pension Plan authorities who acted with the Devco people in setting up their so-called preretirement leave scheme?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I will ask that the names be obtained. In view of the fact that the Canada Pension Plan is involved, possibly the names would be more easily obtained from the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the minister through whom Devco reports to the House of Commons.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. I do not wish to continue to tell the minister what his business is. The Min ster of National Health and Welfare failed to answer this question when it was directed to him. The Canada Pension Plan does not come under the administration of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Canada Labour (Standards) Code comes under this minister. This is the only law which can be used to require that information. If the minister no longer has authority over the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, what does he do around here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a question of privilege. We went through this battle last week. I do not think it should be allowed to develop as a question of privilege. I suggest to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that it is not a question of privilege, and I am sure the minister will recognize this. To whom the question should be directed is something which might be considered in due course, but I suggest to hon. members that there is not much point in pursuing the matter in view of the fact that there are only two minutes left before the end of the question period.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Maybe the hon. member is entitled to an apology. I thought he was referring to the Canada Pension Plan, but I now believe he was referring to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. He is right. That is my responsibility.


Donald MacInnis: On the same point, if a member of the opposition, or any member of the House requests information from a corporation in this country and cannot secure it, the only way in which he can get it is through the Canada Labour (Standards) Code from the minister. In view of the fact that the other minister has refused-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the hon. gen-
Government Organization Act, 1970
tleman say whether the grain handler's strike at Thunder Bay has been settled?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the dispute at the Lakehead involving the grain handlers has been settled at the conciliation board stage. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all the members of the conciliation board for arriving at what I think is a very fair and equitable settlement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have noticed some hon. members dutifully rising during the whole of the question period, including the hon. member for Churchill, the hon. member for Mackenzie, the hon. member for Simcoe North and a few others. I have made a note and will try to give them preference when we reach the question period tomorrow. Orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 26, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
On clause 8-Energy, Mines and Resources
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Friday, March 26, clause eight of the bill was being considered. Shall clause eight carry?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the discussion which took place on Friday last and I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate today, particularly since the subject has to do with the area opened up by my hon. friend from Northumberland-Colchester North, that is to say, the whole question of the realization of the energy potential of the Bay of Fundy in terms of the generation of electricity and other economic advantages.
In a sense, I want to pick up where my hon. friend left off and to bring one or two further points to the attention of the committee. In this connection, I should like to refer first of all to an article by the Associated Press, under a United Nations dateline, dealing with a report recently released for the use of the United Nations. This report strongly suggests that the way in which to give the world sufficient pollution-free power is to take account of the energy offered by tidal systems and tidal rivers, for example, the Bay of Fundy. The report lists a number of tidal power sites in Canada, the United States, Britain, India, Australia, the Soviet Union and Argentina. It refers specifically to the tidal power development at St. Malo, in France, and notes that cheaper construction

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
methods have been developed in recent years-more economic methods and systems of capturing the enormous electric energy potential of such basins as the Bay of Fundy.
By implication, and without referring directly to the tidal program study which was carried out a year or so ago in this country, the report suggests that the engineering and economic models which had then to be used were based on information which was probably eight or ten years old, in some cases considerably older than that.
In short, the report suggests that in very recent years, indeed, in the last 18-24 months, new methods have been developed for the harnessing of tidal systems and tidal rivers which are considerably more economic than in the past. In this connection we are bound, of course, to take the pollution-free aspect of tidal developments into account, as well as the basic cheapness of the energy provided by the rise and fall of the tides. Accordingly, the report calls upon governments at all levels to review the economics of development and harnessing tidal power.
There is in the Maritime provinces an all-party committee which crosses all political lines-it even embraces gentlemen from the other chamber who are interested. The single purpose of this committee is to further the application of the new economics of scale which attach themselves to the harnessing of tidal power so that we may take advantage in Atlantic Canada of the tremendous energy of the tides in the Bay of Fundy. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the unanimity of opinion on this subject. I want to say that the Village of Gunningsville wholeheartedly supports-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: I knew my whip would be interested in that one-I did not single it out, it just happens to be at the top of a list of 50 or 60 towns, cities and villages in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which have indicated their support. Their interest is no less than that expressed by the Mayor of the Town of Port Hawkesbury who wishes the undertaking every success, as do Bridgetown, Middleton and Truro. The municipality of the District of West Hants requests the earliest possible development of Fundy power, a sentiment which is shared by Lunenburg, Douglastown, New Brunswick and the Municipality of King's County, Nova Scotia. King's County placed their seal on the resolution they forwarded, making it official. The Town of Digby, situated on the Annapolis Basin, virtually on top of the greatest source of energy in the world, has formally passed a resolution in favour of the development of Fundy power.
Then, I have a resolution from the town of Wolfville, another eminent, very old town situated on the shores of the Bay of Fundy. I have others from the village of Hillsborough, in Albert county, New Brunswick; the town of Pictou, the town of Stewiacke, the town of Bridgewater, the village of Port Elgin and the town of Parrsboro. These communities are all in the area of this
energy resource, and all are concerned that this development be proceeded with.
I have other resolutions from the village of Fredericton Junction; from Dalhousie, New Brunswick; from the town of Tracadie, New Brunswick; from Halifax


Mr. Bell:: Where is that?


J. Michael Forrestall: This is the city of Halifax which lies across the river from Dartmouth. I have another from the municipality of the county of Halifax and one from Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. All of these towns are in either of the two provinces. If you were to read these resolutions supporting a review of this project, Mr. Chairman, you would find a wide variety of comments. One of these towns, I cannot recall which now, passed a resolution in 1921, 50 years ago, which it forwarded to the then rerpesentative of the community in this chamber with a view to getting someone to show some interest in the tremendous potential of the Minas Basin and the Bay of Fundy tides.
I have another resolution from the municipality of the county of Queens; one from the municipality of East Hants; and another from the village of Nackawic, in the county of York, New Brunswick. There are others from the town of Kentville, the town of Annapolis Royal, the town of Trenton, the village of Lewisville, New Brunswick, from Yarmouth, the village of Dorchester, the town of Windsor, the town of Berwick, the village of North Head on Grand Manan, which is in the middle of the Bay of Fundy, from the town of Sussex, from Fredericton, and from the village of Hampton, New Brunswick. All of these resolutions recognize the importance of an immediate thrust by all levels of government to implement on a properly planned basis a project to harness the tides of the Bay of Fundy.
In the Nova Scotia legislature the other day the premier of the province, the Hon. Gerald Regan, introduced a bill calling for the establishment of a corporation along the lines of the Sydney Steel Corporation-SISCO, as it is commonly known-to be funded with $10 million for the purpose of pursuing means of harnessing and developing the Bay of Fundy tides. I welcome this announcement by the premier of the province because this step is a good one. Unfortunately, there is some uncertainty and confusion as to how this $10 million is going to be spent and how the proposed corporation is going to be established. No answer has been given to such questions as whether or not the elected representatives of the area most directly concerned will have any say in the methods that are to be followed.
In this respect, it is with no hesitation at all that I commend to the minister and members of this committee the private member's bill placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley which sets forth, in terms that are quite acceptable to all hon. members, an initial form of development process. The hon. member's will recognizes the necessity for a permanent secretariat. It recognizes the necessity for a broadly based board of directors. In this regard, it recognizes the validity of political participation in the body that will initially
[Mr. Forrestall.l
March 29, 1971

accept responsibility for getting this mammoth project off the ground. It recognizes there should be a continuing, tangible link between the elected body and those who would do the actual development work.
I mention this because it is of consequence. For many years, attempts have been made to develop the tides of the Bay of Fundy and Minas Basin. In addition, attempts were made by the United States corps of army engineers to develop Passamaquoddy basin lying between the United States and the province of New Brunswick, but all of these attempts failed, even though a tremendous amount of engineering work and effort were put into them.
All of us recognize the interest shown over a long period of time by the late George C. Nowlan in the harnessing of the tides of the Minas Basin and the full development of the Bay of Fundy. The Bay of Fundy tidal program review board, following its most recent assessment, concluded that it would not be economical to go ahead with such a project now, and I have dealt with that aspect. Without impugning the integrity of this board at all, its engineering and economic models were based on information that was outdated. Its methods of construction were outdated, and its costing was outdated. The fact is that interest rates today are lower than they were. The fact is that new and more efficient methods have been developed. Indeed, it is now commonly conceded that a sustained source of power could be developed on an economic basis.
I say it is inevitable that the Bay of Fundy tides will be harnessed. It is inevitable if for no other reason than that it is the cheapest source of power we can find. It is a renewable resource which provides power. Most important of all, it is pollution free. I suggest to the minister that we must approach the development of these tides openly and with frankness. We must not do anything that might encourage or tend to promote a credibility gap. We must not in any way deceive ourselves or those who would be interested in investing in the project. In other words, we must not do things behind one another's backs but must be open at all times. There must be full involvement.
The corporation suggested by the premier of Nova Scotia is a worth while step, but it runs the risk of being the root cause of our once again fumbling the ball. And if we do fumble the ball, it will be many, many years before we will be able to pick it up again, because in the interval we will become deeply involved in programs of uranium enrichment and automatic self-breeders. I do not want atomic waste buried in my backyard, not when there is available pure, clean water which prevents no danger or pollution hazard. If we fumble the ball again, then these are the problems with which we will be confronted with respect to developing the Bay of Fundy tides. We must make sure that this concept is not controlled by some crown corporation narrowly controlled by the premier of one province. I think several hon. members have asked in the House whether the premier of Nova Scotia had approached the federal
Government Organization Act, 1970
authorities with respect to this type of review which the all-party committee, headed by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North, requested. Frankly, I wonder why that premier has not approached the federal authorities. I am sure that private talks have taken place. I say that because the minister has said publicly he would review the matter if he were asked to do so. I am concerned, because that approach has not been followed up by the premier of Nova Scotia. He has embarked on a course that suggests he wants to do it alone. That is fine, but the fact of the matter is that he cannot do it alone. This undertaking will involve more than $1 billion. If one includes the full potential of the project, namely, economic spin-offs in terms of tourism, and so on, the project will involve, perhaps, funds in excess of $2 billion or $3 billion.
Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, cannot afford the luxury of attempting to undertake this project alone. I am afraid of the difficulties that may ensue if the province, in attempting to go ahead with the project, finds it cannot complete this undertaking and if, in that attempt to put all the marbles in its own pocket, it finds that its pockets have holes in them. All the marbles may then be lost. In other words, I think the province would only undertake this project if it "had a hole in its head."
Statements have been made that this course will not be followed. These, actually, have not been statements so much as comments made outside this Chamber. Officials who have not been elected have made such statements. We have heard, for instance, that agreements have been reached between the federal authorities and the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Perhaps there are indications of what may happen, but I submit that these indications are not sufficient to offset the concern that I, along with others, feel. I do not think the provincial authorities ought to attempt to undertake this project by themselves. That is the message I wish to leave with the committee this afternoon in discussing this particular clause of the bill, Mr. Chairman.
I say, first of all, that it is inevitable that the Bay of Fundy tidal power project will be developed some day. That being so, why do we not undertake it now? Let us do it now; let us do it in an orderly way and let us do it with the full participation of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and the federal authorities. While doing that, let us not forget that Prince Edward Island is not very far away. Actually, I do not think that the province is more than 28 miles from the headwaters of the Bay of Fundy. Let us not forget that province. Let us, at the same time, consider the advantages that this ticular clause of the bill, Mr. Chairman.
We heard a great deal in this House, especially last Friday afternoon during private member's hour, about the benefits of this project. Speakers from the Maritime provinces indicated that we do not like to go on accepting subsidies.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him and the committee that his time has expired.

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, may I continue for a minute?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree to the minute the hon. member is requesting.


Russell Clayton Honey: Does the committee give its unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying that although it would be lovely if the Maritime provinces could undertake this project on their own, I do not think they can do it. Some complain that the Maritime provinces are given too much by way of subsidies and that the rest of the country does not wish to carry the burden. I am afraid that we shall have to continue accepting assistance, even though we may not like it, in the absence of maritime marketing regions sufficiently large to attract and support secondary manufacturing. In the absence of that, we shall need some continuing form of help. We shall need such assistance, for instance until we get on with the job of developing projects like the Minas Basin project and until we realize our investment in the exploration for oil deposits off the coast of Nova Scotia.
Not until we obtain benefits from investments in such projects can we expect to get out from under in the Maritimes. Nova Scotia has no hinterland. By the same token neither has Prince Edward Island, and will not have unless my hon. friend from Hillsborough can convince Joey Smallwood that Newfoundland should unite with Prince Edward Island. That would give the island province a hinterland. The hinterland of Nova Scotia, so to speak, is the ocean and the vast resources of the ocean floor and continental shelf. Of course, not until these areas have been developed will we realize the benefits of these resources. Not until then will we obtain the full benefit of the hinterland that is the sea. Until that happens, the rest of the country will need to help us in transportation and other fields.
I say in closing that the Bay of Fundy development could be the greatest single engineering project ever undertaken in North America. Its size staggers the imagination and fires some people with enthusiasm. That type of project would get Nova Scotia going and get New Brunswick going. The spin-off effects would be felt in Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island would look much more attractive from the viewpoint of Newfoundland. In short, the lot of the Atlantic provinces would be improved.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 8 carry?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I thought the understanding was that we would have an opportunity, while discussing this clause, to discuss the powers that are to be given to the minister and that the minister would make a statement. We had hoped that he would do so on Friday, but I suppose we took too much time and he was unable to make the statement. I think he should make the statement now, while we are discussing this particular clause. That should be done before we pass this clause.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Chairman, that, I thought, was the arrangement. I was not aware that hon. members opposite had finished so promptly, and that is why I did not get up. I will be very pleased to make such a statement, and to answer such questions as have been asked in committee to the best of my ability.
First, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the bill itself, and I think some hon. members were concerned about this, does not give any new powers to the department. I believe the hon. member for Kamouraska, in particular, asked why hydroelectric energy was included in the bill, and whether the words in paragraph (a) of clause 8 "energy, including energy developed from water," had any particular significance. I believe other hon. members also asked why mines and other non-renewable resources were included, and whether that part constituted new powers. I think it might be useful if, at the outset, I tried to clarify that point. May I emphasize that no new powers are envisaged with respect to energy, mines, resources and technical surveys in the bill as it is constituted.
The purpose of clause 8 is to clarify the relative responsibilities of the new department which is acquiring the water expertise that was formerly in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and what is left in the continuing Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The problem is that, although formerly most of the water expertise within the government was included in the department and now most of that expertise is going to the new department, the words "including energy development from water" are included in subclause (a) of clause 8 in order to indicate that while water generally is going to the new department in its aspect vis-a-vis the development of hydroelectric power, that particular expertise will remain within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. That is the reason those words are included there. When it refers to mines, minerals and other non-renewable resources, again this does not connote a new power to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources but is merely indicative of the fact that the basic line of demarcation between the new department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be that distinction between renewable as opposed to non-renewable resources.
The renewable resources generally will be in the new department of the environment, if this House sees fit to pass the bill. The non-renewable resources generally will be continued in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. While I say there will be no new powers, and that that is not the purpose of clause 8, I think it is inherent within the division of powers as envisaged by the demarcation between renewable and non-renewable resources that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources will be more inclined than it has been in the past to be an economics department. I think hon. members here have indicated some concern that there is not
[The Chairman.]
March 29, 1971

sufficient economic forethought, if you like, given to the planning of the use of our resources and energy resources in particular. That may well be a valid criticism of the past. I think the emphasis in the past with regard to the development of our mineral resources, our energy resources and our non-renewable resources generally, was to develop them and to find markets for them. I believe that until fairly recently that was pretty well what we were concerned with; that is, the economic growth, if you like, as applied to these resources as well as others.
I think it is very clear, not merely from the well understood indications that were shown in the debate here but from the debate generally in the country and in the world, that the importance of resources, and mineral resources in particular as well as non-renewable resources generally in the future, may be much greater than we had appreciated in the past. The equation may be put as simply as this. In a world that will double in population in the next 30 or 35 years, as the prognosticators indicate, in a world in which it took from the beginning of time to put some 3.5 billion people on earth, we will put that many more people on earth in perhaps 30 or 35 years. The population of the world expects what we have deemed to be a high standard of living. Even in the third world, the undeveloped world where the standard of living is so deplorable, the people, I believe probably more than others, want their standard of living to grow and expand. That inevitably means that the finite resources, energy and mineral, will be that much more important and valuable.
Under such circumstances I believe it is quite clear that possibly there needs to be a new emphasis in a country such as Canada, which is so rich in these resources, on the economic planning of the use of these resources, first for domestic purposes because Canadian interests must be paramount, and secondly for use in respect of Canada's position in the world in the years ahead. So, certainly there will be this new emphasis in a department whose main function to date has been the encouragement of development rather than economic planning in respect of the use of the resources. I think probably the old department of mines and technical surveys exemplified the philosophy that lay behind our energy and resource development people when they provided the infrastructure, if you like, scientific and technological, for development. The scientific services were there. The geological surveys were made and that information was available to the world at large. We said, here is the information with which you can look for minerals in the most likely areas. That was probably the main, if not the sole, function of the department.
Certainly, while I say there are no new powers envisaged within the bill, I cannot deny the connotations in the speeches of so many members that a new emphasis is required. I believe this is clearly understood, even though no new specific powers are envisaged in the bill. I think the demarcation in respect of emphasis on environment and renewable resources in one department, as opposed to the emphasis on non-renewable resources in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, clearly
Government Organization Act, 1970 indicates that the government appreciates that these two are affected in some way parallel in this country and in the kind of world in which we find ourselves today.
I do not believe I can today answer all the very valid questions asked by many members during the course of the debate so far, but I shall do my best at least to give a general review of what has taken place to date. First, I think the main concern has been in respect of energy policies rather than mineral policies, if I understood the tenor of the debate. At the outset, I may say there is no such thing as a static and continuing or constant energy policy. I do not think I could ever, no matter how effective and complete our research and planning should be, stand up in this House and say that here is the energy policy for Canada. We should then forget about it, because it is there for the next few years and we could turn our attention in this House to something else. Energy policy does not lend itself to that kind of definitive, lasting solution.
I might illustrate this best in this way. Let us say we attempted to have this sort of a complete and comprehensive over-all policy and then next week, as might well be the case, a new situation should arise. Suppose the rumour was proven true that there had been a great find of oil on the east coast, and we announced an over-all energy policy that did not take such a find into consideration. Quite obviously, we would have to rush out and revise our energy policy. That is why I say that the energy policy generally is fluid and changing, and must be so if we are to use our energy resources and meet the demands in the best interests of the total economy. In our thinking on the energy policy and where the policies of the government must go if we are to have the most effective direction in the national interest, I think it is most useful-and this is the way we have taken in the department and with the agencies that report to me-to think rather of policy objectives. What are the objectives of the use of energy in Canada? In this regard, we can classify some of those objectives.
The economic objective is one of them, to make the best economic use of our resources. National security is very clearly one of the objectives of our energy policy, because no modern industrial state such as Canada can be founded on anything but the most secure sources of supply that it can achieve, bearing in mind that these objectives have to be related one to the other. We would not want complete security at the price of economic foolhardiness. If we had complete security at too high a price for energy that the consumers of Canada, both industrial and household, paid, then we would have paid too high a price for security. Again these varying objectives have to be related.
Another objective is resource adequacy. That is certainly one of the great problems. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, assuring the adequacy of our resources has been, until fairly recently, our paramount objective. The quality of the environment is a fairly new objective. Until a very few years ago most of us did not foresee-and I certainly was not among the wise who

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 knew 10, 15 or 20 years ago-that this would be one of the paramount objectives in 1971; yet today it is clearly so.
If there is one criticism I have to make with respect to the debate, it is that there is an inclination to think, perhaps naturally, that the federal Parliament can solve these major problems without considering jurisdictional problems. However, under our constitution, the ownership of the energy resources is very clearly vested in the provinces. While we can say, yes, we have control of exports and hence we have a lever, which is extremely important and powerful, I think, as with many of the delicate balances within our constitution, we must attempt to consider jurisdictional problems which quite often are interlaced with economic problems. Certainly, so far as oil and gas are concerned, at the present time there is an inclination on the part of the province of Alberta to be rather more concerned with achieving the maximum returns from the product since most of these products now are situated in that province. The maximum return to Alberta, can be achieved through royalties resulting from the most rapid exploitation and development of these resources. On the other hand, I feel sure that to foist a completely unrealistic price upon the eastern Canadian consumers in order to achieve a maximum exploitation of resources in the west, particularly in Alberta where the resources are found, would be an untoward balance jurisdictionally in economic terms visa-vis the producers as opposed to the consumers.
Undoubtedly, this has been the story of Canada in so many of our economic endeavours. We have tried to achieve a balance jurisdictionally among the interests of the various sectors of Canada, bearing in mind that under our constitution the resources themselves are under the immediate jurisdictional authority of the provinces. Sometimes it is forgotten that the producing provinces of today may not be the major producing provinces of tomorrow. I often think that if we had designed policies for the objective of maximizing the well-being of the producing provinces at the expense of the consumer provinces, they would help one province today. However, the greatest potential for development of oil, gas and petroleum products in general outside federal territories is to be found in the provinces that are not the producers of today.
The Gulf of St. Lawrence is a great potential area, and so is the Atlantic and the offshore areas. Achieving that balance between consumer and producer interests will serve in the long run the very provinces which today feel they are not so well served by the policies because they tend one way or the other.
Public revenue is certainly one of the objectives which we must consider at all times. I do not think it would be acceptable to leave all of the returns from our natural resources, from our energy resources in particular, in the hands of entrepreneurs and developers. On the other hand, if we load too heavily those resources with what is known in the trade as "front-end loadings", either in provincial areas by provincial rules or in federal lands by federal taxes under our own rules and regulations, which would push up the price of the product, we might
well put some of that product out of the economic stream. This is particularly opposite in the northern territories where gas and oil would become very expensive. We were finding that out when we discussed in the House and elsewhere the problems of transporting oil and gas from the northern territories. We know how costly that may be.
There is a factor which would be of interest to members of the House, one which I came across the other day. In the Ontario market, 88 per cent of the cost of natural gas is the cost of transportation, and only 12 per cent is the wellhead cost of that gas. So, in the case of northern oil and gas, transportation costs will be an even more important factor. The costs of transportation are so great that if we front-end load the product with too heavy a cost, we will possibly price it out of the market for many years to come.
Our policy, as contrasted with that of the state of Alaska, would be interesting to hon. members in considering the problem. As hon. members know, the problems in the province of Alaska-the state of Alaska, it is not yet a province, I do not think-


J. Michael Forrestall: Shortly.


John James Greene: If I recall the figures correctly, after the exciting finds in Prudhoe Bay a year or so ago Alaska was able to auction the new oil rights at great prices. If I remember rightly they received something like $1 billion in payment for these potential oil lands. Well, all that means is that it will be that much more costly oil. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the oil companies do not asstime these costs out of their own coffers. These costs are pushed on to the consumers. They push up the price of the product.
The Canadian philosophy with respect to remote areas and offshore has been rather the opposite

don't front-end load the costs. The time to get the money is when markets are found and the resources are flowing. The way to get revenue is from royalties. The decision as to whether the markets will be domestic or foreign is one that will be made by the government, the Parliament of that day. So, I think we can see the diametrically opposed policies of Alaska and Canada, and in our respectful view the Canadian position is superior in that we are not pricing ourselves out of markets ahead of time. We are not putting an undue burden on the domestic economy. We are keeping our options open. We will charge those resources, or rather the then Parliament or government can charge those resources, when they are flowing, as much as it likes in royalties, but that decision has not been made ahead of time. So, we can see some of the conflicting points, and certainly social objectives constitute an important one.
It has been said that the Maritime provinces are among the have-not provinces. That may be so in economic terms, but I have never found that they are among the have-nots in terms of the quality of life that exists in that part of Canada. But certainly from the standpoint of

March 29, 1971

economics, I can think of nothing that would solve the economic problems of the Maritime provinces more than substantial and economic petroleum finds in the off-shore. I think that many of us of my vintage remember when Alberta was a have-not province. Certainly, it was the discovery of the very rich petroleum resources there that converted that province from a have-not into one of the really "have" provinces.
So again, if it is a social objective to give greater economic opportunity in the so-called have-not regions, then policies tending to encourage the exploration of those areas, whereby petroleum reserves may be found, are the kind of policies we must have in order to attain that objective. In the brief time at my disposal I am not really able to go over each of those particular objectives, and how government policies attempt to gear themselves to achieve those objectives, and to achieve a balance between those objectives in the total national interest. I think, however, I could briefly go over the economic objectives and indicate something on this subject to the House, because I believe most of the debate so far has been in respect of economic objectives. I think most of the criticism, or the doubt as to the validity of government policies, was centred in this area of economic objectives.
First, one of our chief economic objectives is to achieve the lowest cost energy mix so far as may be consistent with recovery of social cost and social objectives which involve a price tax penalty on uses of energy. Second, our objective is to realize the maximum over-all benefits to Canada from the domestic energy industries through making available a variety of energy supplies and facilitating the export of surplus energy at optimum prices. In other words, we think one of the fundamentals of Canada's energy policy, which may not have been appreciated, is to give the consumer, be he an industrial consumer or household consumer, the greatest possible mix of competing energy resources, and I mean truly competing.
I think we have seen this. I think it was not too long ago that there were many areas where the household consumer had two choices for heating his home, coal or oil. In most of those communities today he has four choices, coal, oil, hydro electricity, and natural gas. As I say, we have felt the policy should be to give this kind of true competition between energy resources themselves and in this method, by real competition, we would achieve the lowest cost and the greatest maximum choice for the consumer. In this regard, and despite some opinions expressed to the contrary, I do not think we can ever isolate the Canadian consumer from generally rising global energy costs. There is no way I know of that we can say, "Energy costs in the world are going up, but in some way we can keep them down for Canadian consumers despite world economic trends." I do not think this can be done. We do live in the world. We market our products in the world.
If we try to do this, attractive although it might appear, in our view what would happen would be that we would not get the kind of exploration, research and development in Canada's energy industries that would in fact keep costs down, no matter how great our supplies
Government Organization Act, 1970 may be, or how great our potential may be. One thing that has been made manifest in the last year or two is that risk capital available for exploration and development in the petroleum game is global capital. There is no such thing as domestic capital for exploration. It moves throughout the world to where the prospects are likeliest, and it is a finite amount.
No matter how powerful are the corporate entities, incidentally some of them owned by governments with all the financial power of governments behind them, and no matter how powerful are the great private corporations, they do not have unlimited amounts of money for exploration, particularly for frontier exploration. They go to where the prospects are best. We have seen this happen. We have seen a great movement into the North Sea where there was very little exploration activity until a few years ago, at which time there was a find. We have seen a great movement to the eastern off-shore in Canada because the geological prospects were good. Incidentally, and with humility, I think the geographical survey of Canada, and those responsible for it deserve a great deal of the credit for having done the spade work which demonstrated the geological interest of the off-shore, both on the east coast and in the north.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, these corporations go where the geology is good. They go where the political climate is good. Certainly, they will not be so prone to go to a country where, if they find oil, they may be expropriated the next week. And they go where they can market the product at a good return if they are successful in their exploratory activities. If we fix prices inordinately low in Canada, it appears to us all that this would result in the biggest proportion of the exploratory dollar going someplace else. Because if world prices are at a certain level, and Canadian prices are far below that, it must be remembered that it costs just as much to find oil here, and one of the principal costs of oil is that involved in finding it. Once you have the oil flowing, be it at Prudhoe Bay or in the Middle East, and you have 5,000 barrels a day coming out of a well-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Russell Clayton Honey: The minister may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John James Greene: I thank hon. members for granting me this indulgence.
So, Mr. Chairman, I say our policies are not founded on the premise that because we have this great potential in Canada-I think the best estimates are that as yet only 10 per cent of our petroleum resources have been uncovered-therefore energy resources should be very cheap in this country. They will not be uncovered, even though they exist, if we think we can shelter from world conditions. I do think that we can have advantageous

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
prices as compared with countries with no natural resources, but they must be related. If the price of energy increases throughout the world, so must the Canadian price. Although we must ensure that our prices do not increase as rapidly as others, still we cannot shelter completely or we will not get the development.
An example of this is the problem being faced by the United States at the present time with regard to natural gas. Contrary to opinion which has not researched the facts carefully, there is no innate shortage of natural gas in the United States at the present time. There is, however, a shortage of proven resources of natural gas. The opinions of the best experts that I have been able to read on this subject attribute this to the fact that prices were set too low perhaps because there was considerable political input. If the assessments that appear to be most valid are correct, it would appear that a few years ago the price of natural gas in the United States was so low it did not pay the entrepreneur to go and look for it. He took his money to other places in the world or invested it in bonds or something else, because looking for natural gas did not bring a good return on investment. The proof of the pudding in this regard is that today, when there is a problem of supply in proven resources of natural gas in the United States,-they have a great potential for producing gas from coal

regulatory agencies are revising the prices under contracts for natural gas in order to encourage more development and to ensure a good return to investors. They know that only by this method can they uncover more resources and meet the problems of shortage of supply in the future. Just because we have the potential in Canada, we cannot expect to shelter from the rising energy costs of the world. We can only make sure that we are always in a competitive or preferred position.
The third of the economic objectives of the policy directions for the development of over-all energy policies which will result in optimum economic efficiencies in all sectors of the energy industry, ranging from primary production to ultimate consumption must take into account such factors as the rates at which Canadian energy resources should be developed relative to Canadian energy needs and export possibilities; application of appropriate principles of conservation based upon developing technology, including such factors as increased recovery; minimization of waste; efficiency of energy conversion; utilization of by-products; substitution of more abundant energy sources in places of scarce energy sources; proper utilization of all energy sources, including imports within the consuming sector based upon cost-price relationships; premium quality of certain energy sources; appropriate contribution of each source to public revenue; pollution control aspects; consumer preference and convenience; the appropriate form and extent of government intervention which would range from exhortation through to state ownership within each sector of the energy industry and for each source of energy; the impact of other policies of government on energy matters; the integration of energy policies with other policies in order that energy development may make a major contribution toward national and regional goals. These
economic objectives call for the selection of policies relative to the availability and use of an expanding economic supply of energy which are based on analysis of cost-price relationships, energy industry performance under the various market and price circumstances, and the proper role of government.
These, Mr. Chairman, are generally the concepts with which the government attempts to approach the very difficult question of energy policies in Canada. To date, most of the production is in one region and most of the consumption is in another. As is so often the case in the Canadian conundrum, over the years decisions have probably been made which are not purely economic decisions-just as the CPR decision might not have been the best economic one at the time of confederation, though it made confederation possible. The decision regarding the original Trans-Canada pipeline was of that nature. Unquestionably, the natural economic market for Alberta gas was the midwest of the United States. As hon. members will recall, some people thought that Alberta gas should be shipped to its natural economic market of the midwest and the eastern markets of eastern Canada should be served with gas from the United States in exchange. That proposal was not accepted. The tradition and the necessity was to have transportation lines going east and west, and this included railway lines as well as natural gas pipelines. We found the typical Canadian solution and said that the major concern must be Canadian markets for Canadian natural gas. The Trans-Canada line was built, but in order to make the exploration and production economically viable, the surplus was set aside for the export market. Had it not been so, the entire exercise might not have been possible.
It is along these lines, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members have raised the very valid and possibly pregnant question of Canada's national oil policy which I think has been in existence since 1961. Whatever may be the current problems or the current need for review, I do not doubt that the time has come for us to take a very careful look at our oil policy. Whatever may be its present needs I think we can be happy with the past results. Whatever the need for the future, the policy has worked very well up to now, and I wish all our economic policies were as successful as the national oil policy and the national energy policy.
One of our great prime ministers, upon returning from a trip abroad and hearing some complaints from the opposition said, "I am surprised when I get back to hear how bad things are in Canada because I can assure you in many other parts of the world that I visited I found they would gladly exchange their problems for ours." I think that view would be a valid one with regard to Canada's oil and energy policies. Many things have contributed to the success of our oil policy. This success was partly, the result of policy, partly good timing in the world at large, partly good management by those responsible for managing, by the people in industry. Whatever the reason, the policies have worked well.
Our reserves of crude oil and natural gas liquids were 5.6 million barrels in 1963 and 10.4 million barrels in

March 29, 1971

1970. During that period, our reserves have just about doubled. These reserves can be used for whatever purpose we see fit from time to time. If in 1970 the Canadian government decided it was not going to export any more, it could do that. It would then be in the position of having almost double the reserves of seven years ago. Certainly, we would be in a far better position because of the policies which existed up to this point, including the policy of export which has enabled that kind of reserve.
I now wish to deal with the volume of sales during that period. The value of total sales in 1963 was $682 million. In 1970, it was $1,250 million. That not only connotes revenues to the federal government, and very great revenues in the form of royalties to the provincial governments, but a great deal of employment. This employment aspect includes people in the field doing the exploratory work and people in the factories of eastern Canada, including the province of Quebec. All our research indicates that the multiplier effect of the resource industries is very great. Also included are the people who produce the drilling equipment, rigs, steel and so on. These figures do not represent mere cash or profit. The sales figures represent a great deal of employment and economic well-being in Canada.
During the same period, our exports of Canadian oil also increased. The figure for 1963 is 260,000 barrels and for 1970, 750,000 barrels per day. Domestic sales of 520,000 barrels per day in 1963 increased to 700,000 barrels per day in 1970. Canada's net self-sufficiency in oil has increased from about 77 per cent in 1963 to about 100 per cent in 1970. I suggest that is an extremely important statistic.
With regard to our policies of expanding our export markets and maximizing our sales, the government is doing its best to improve the markets for those who have found oil. We are trying to get this oil to the market which pays the best price in the world, namely the United States market which is highly protected by the U.S. government. We could not compete if this market were wide open. The countries of the Far East could sell their oil much more cheaply than Canada. We have achieved a considerable inroad into the United States market. That kind of market place, as well as the Canadian domestic place, has encouraged exploration in Canada. It costs a great deal of money to keep a barrel of oil in inventory, just as it does to keep any item in inventory for an untoward period of time. If the market place is not available, we will not engender the kind of exploration which will give us the maximum development of our petroleum resources.
The fact is that these policies have worked and have engendered a great deal of exploration during the period 1963-70. Canada has gone from a deficit position where it was dependent on offshore oil, a position of some difficulty, to the position of being a self-sufficient nation. Today, Canada is 100 per cent self sufficient in oil, we deem that that is what we want to be.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question on that point? What percentage of our total oil consumption is met by purchases of offshore oil?
Government Organization Act, 1970


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have those specific figures. If my memory serves me right, 1 believe that approximately one half of our oil consumption is from offshore purchases. I want to be fair to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. With regard to the question of security, he feels that we should seriously consider the question of whether we should build a pipeline to Montreal, thereby making us more secure. I agree that this would provide a greater security. A greater percentage of our total country could then be directly served by Canadian oil. The question is whether this would be a good policy at the present time.
When I say that approximately one half of our needs are met by offshore oil, this means that we are conserving or replacing the resources that we use. The hon. member takes the opposite view with regard to natural gas. If I understand his argument correctly, his view is that we should conserve because this natural gas will be needed further downstream. He feels that we should conserve, rather than export. With respect, I do not think he can have his argument both ways. If that is valid vis-a-vis natural gas, then that is exactly what happens with respect to oil. We are now replacing the oil which we use by importing offshore oil at a far cheaper price than that at which we sell. If we can replace non-renewable resources with imports of offshore oil at a lower price, that is a pretty good policy. In fact, it is sometimes too good a policy. Our friends to the south, particularly those in the New England states, would like to be able to do exactly what we are doing. The policy of conservation possibly could not be justified if it stultified the growth of our own natural gas industry, the petroleum industry in particular. Such is not the case. As I indicated, that industry has been particularly healthy during the period when these policies have worked.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the minister permit a question on that point? Is it not a fact that we are really not conserving the oil that we are buying offshore? We are shipping an almost equivalent amount, or a very large amount, of oil out of the country. We are simply buying offshore oil in the east and selling our midwest oil to the United States.


John James Greene: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows about this better than I because he was in western Canada at the time of the Borden commission. I am sure that was a very vital topic in western Canada at that time. As I understand it, the Borden commission concluded that a pipeline to the Montreal market would not be sound economics for Canada. We should achieve an admixture, which is the Canadian tradition in many areas, with major movement east and west. The Ontario market would be reserved for western oil. Exports to the south render the whole exercise viable in economic terms.
What we could have done, and I suppose what we could still do, though I suggest the argument for so doing is becoming even less convincing than it was during the

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 time of the Borden commission, notwithstanding that the current price structure might not so indicate, is to have built, or build, a pipeline enabling us to use all our oil resources domestically. This must surely have resulted in one of two things. The cost of the pipeline would have to be underwritten in the cost of the oil; we could have kept wellhead prices low so as to keep prices relatively low in the east market, or we could have asked the eastern consumers to pay a far higher price for then-gasoline and petroleum products. With respect, I think this would have amounted to a misuse of our resources. In my view we have had the best of all worlds. We have earned a considerable amount of foreign currency, which is badly needed, and we have been able to keep consumer prices down in the eastern market while at the same time enabling the western producer in a large measure to get optimum prices for his production.
I must admit that the national oil policy, when you look at it as such, is a strange-looking bird-the Ottawa Valley line, and so on, part of Canada being served by offshore oil and another part of Canada by domestic oil. This pol'cy does not possess the completeness, the rational perfection which the academician so admires. But it works. It works well. It has resulted in a healthy oil industry. It has made possible the best possible prices in eastern Canada, taking supplies which are the most competitive on world markets. At the same time, it has enabled us to earn a considerable amount in foreign currency. Maybe this arrangement will not work forever. This is one of the problems regarding opening up the United States market further to our production, if that is deemed to be in our interest, that we do already in fact have the best of all worlds.
Some hon. members have expressed the view that the rise in world oil prices might well be sufficient to motivate the construction of a Montreal pipeline. They argue that as world prices rise, and certainly the OPEC agreement with the oil companies will mean an appreciable rise-


An hon. Member:: And Venezuela.


John James Greene: Venezuela has a new tax structure and Lybian agreement, although it is not yet resolved, will certainly result in higher world prices. Certainly, all this would indicate a need for review. But if world prices go up, it may be that United States domestic prices will increase that much more. We do not know just yet. It all points to the great difficulty of any Canadian sheltering from a world rise in price.
But the great question mark with respect to eastern markets being made available to Canadian production is the result of the exploration now going on offshore of Nova Scotia and in the north. This exploration, either of Nova Scotia or in the north, will be very expensive. Last summer, I had the pleasure of bemg on an oil rig something like 100 miles at sea, nautical miles or whatever Nova Scotians refer to in the terms of the trade. This being the case, if oil is found, in order to be economic it will have to be "big" oil and "big" oil in the trade means Prudhoe Bay type of oil. If oil were found in these quantities either in our great north or in our eastern
offshore, it would seem to me there would clearly need to be a revision of Canada's national oil policy. I cannot see how we could permit such substantial finds of oil to lie dormant once they had been proved, or how we could commit them to world markets rather than to the Canadian domestic market. Again, I would think that when exploration is at such an advanced stage in those areas, when there is such a great potential in those areas, it would be premature to make a decision which would certainly give greater security at some price, although that price becomes less as world prices increase, by the building of a pipeline to Montreal markets. So, with respect, while the question is an important one, I suggest a decision to change policy at the present time would be premature.
Perhaps I might answer one of hon. members' questions. Some hon. members keep asking me for a specific review, a specific feasibility study. I have checked this carefully and I cannot come up with any feasibility study known as the Jones study or Smith study which finds one way or the other. My best information is that from the time of the Borden report, the National Energy Board, which certainly has considerable expertise in this area, has kept under constant and continuous review world prices, construction costs, cost of right of way and so on. It is the opinion of my officials, including officials of the Board, that while the economics are closer than at the time of the Borden Commission Report, the situation is not such that at the present time it would be a valid enterprise unless wellhead costs were reduced in the west, or consumer prices were increased in the east. While the equation is getting more favourable I suggest with respect it would be premature, until we know one way or another in the next two or three years what is going to happen in connection with the exploration programs in the north and offshore, to embark on the construction of a Montreal pipeline.
I do not know how long hon. members are going to be patient with me. I should like to mention the subject of the northern pipeline which was raised in most of the speeches made so far by hon. members in this portion of the debate. Hon. members were very properly interested in determining exactly what, if anything, had been done by the government in preparation for such a northern pipeline. May I say at the outset that I believe there is a misconception as to the basis of the government's research. We have never approached the research from the standpoint of it being up to the government to determine how, when and under what terms a pipeline should be built.
As I understand our law, and the National Energy Board Act in particular, what we must prepare ourselves to do is to assess properly and effectively any application for construction so that we can make a decision in the interests of the Canadian public generally both present and future. This has an important connotation. It means that a great deal of the research is done not at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada but, very properly, at the expense of those who may gain economic benefits as a legitimate result of their research, as builders of pipelines and entrepreneurs. If the government did all of

March 29, 1971

the research and then decided when and how the pipeline was to be built, this would tremendously increase the cost to the Canadian taxpayers, and I do not think would be in keeping with our present law. It may be that Parliament, sometime later, will decide that it is up to government to build pipelines or to determine how and when pipelines should be built and that all research into the question should be conducted at public expense.
Our approach, and we believe it is sound, has been to prepare ourselves to deal with questions of economics, ecology, pipeline construction, safety of the tundra, the problem of permafrost and so on, so that if an application is made we can enlarge upon the guidelines of last August which resulted from the government's preliminary investigations over a period of two years. I think hon. members are more than familiar with them. What we said, in effect, was that these were the general guidelines to which any entrepreneur can look if he wishes to build a pipeline. As our research becomes more complete, I think undoubtedly we should define them more precisely and make the rules more clear and specific.
With regard to the wellbeing of indigenous peoples, the routing of the pipeline falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whose department, as I understand it, acts as a province would jurisdictionally in provincial areas. Undoubtedly, further clarification here is required. But may I emphasize to hon. members that our research has been oriented toward preparing all government agencies to deal effectively and responsibly, in the interests of the Canadian public, with any pipeline application that may be made.
We have not conducted our research as though we were going to go ahead and build the pipeline. We did feel that a considerable proportion of the cost should be borne by the public sector, and it has been; but a very major proportion should be borne by those who are economically interested in the potential of a pipeline, those who may reap reward from its construction. In all fairness their research has been made known to us. We have been kept abreast of everything they have been doing and have been permitted to share in their knowledge. Indeed, we have joined them in their research whenever we have wished.
I think it is of interest to note that from the standpoint of actual construction, it may be that a more comprehensive day to day type of research has been conducted by those entrepreneurs who contemplated building the Valdez line in Alaska. If they turn their attention to the possibility of a Mackenzie valley route, then we will, of course, expect them to make all their knowledge and information available to the Canadian government and its agencies in our determination of whether or not such a Mackenzie Valley route would be in the interest of the public of Canada. So again, in that sense, we are attempting to get the best of both worlds by obtaining information from both private and public sectors.
If I might deal as quickly as I can with some of the other matters it might help to indicate-
Government Organization Act, 1970


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before the minister leaves that, would he prefer questions now or later?


John James Greene: Whatever suits hon. members. I will take them at any time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has had a long spell and may be getting a little tired. While he is on this subject and his mind is fresh, may I ask him a question or two about pipelines.
The minister says that the government's position, in the main, is that it will respond to an application rather than do the preliminary work itself. It seems to me there are really three matters that have to be dealt with when any application to build a pipeline is made. These are, the effect of the line on the ecology, conducting an economic feasibility study, and what I would call the Canadian ownership or control aspect.
With respect to the ecology, I noticed that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry said the other day in a speech he made in Vancouver that at the present time only the engineering and economic aspects are being discussed. There is relatively very little ecological data available to the National Energy Board. Under those circumstances, on what will the National Energy Board make this decision regarding the ecological effects? Are they going to accept the report of the company? We have all had pretty bad experiences in days gone by of governments accepting the opinions of interested parties as to what will be the result of a certain project.
As members of Parliament, we are going to become acquainted with such a project only after the National Energy Board has recommended it and the government has endorsed the proposal. Therefore, it is of some concern to us to know on what ecological studies will the National Energy Board and government base their decisions. Will a decision be made on the basis of the company's studies? Will studies be made of the effects of such a line on wildlife, on permafrost, on the tundra? It seems to me we need clarification of that point.
With regard to the economic feasibility study, I agree that the National Energy Board is competent to deal with that aspect.
The other matter on which I wish to say a word is what I call the Canadian ownership and control aspect. If a pipeline is to be build from Alaska through Canada to the United States, under the guidelines it has to be a common carrier. But what does that mean? It can be a common carrier only if we have something to say about the input and output. The only advantage to Canada of such a pipeline-apart from what little employment we may receive from the original construction of the line- would be that Canada could put oil into the pipeline. But is this oil that is going mainly to the United States? Is it oil that is going to increase our exports to the United States, or is it going to be piped into Canada for shipment to eastern Canada to meet the increased needs of Canadian consumers?
If this is to be the case then who is going to own and control the pipeline? If the line is going to be entirely U.S. owned, is the United States going to decide the flow?

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 If Alaskan oil uses all of the capacity of the line, how can Canadian oil enter the line? Before the government embarks upon discussions, does it have in mind reserving a certain part of the capacity of the line for Canadian input and output? Who is going to set the rates? If the rates are set abnormally high, then the fact that it is a common carrier becomes meaningless.
It seems to me we should ask the minister these questions since we shall get very little chance to ask them after the deal is signed, sealed and delivered. I cannot believe that the government is discussing with the oilmen only a land bridge through Canada rather than the TAPS route-which in our opinion would be a disaster. But if it is talking about a land route, surely the government must have given some thought, first to the ecology question, and second to how ownership and control of the line would be exercised, and what protection Canadians would have with respect thereto.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer the hon. member's questions as best I can. I think there are two, if I caught them correctly. The first question was, will we only respond to an application. May I say what we are attempting to do. We realize that this would not be a normal type of application. Normally, the National Energy Board Act governs. We know that the National Energy Board employs engineers, economists and scientists with a great deal of expertise, and we, as a government, do not usually involve ourselves in applications for the building of pipelines, except to ratify a decision or to dissent from a recommendation. But this, obviously, is of such economic and social moment that it is important from the point of view of Canada that the government should involve itself in a way it does not normally in respect of ordinary pipeline applications.
The hon. member has asked whether we will take at face value the ecological studies of the oil companies. We certainly will not take their studies alone at face value. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has already said in a speech, I believe, that such studies are not sufficiently ecologically downstream, so to speak, and that may be so. He was speaking of the ecology. He said that he has a particular interest in the wildlife studies. Certainly, those studies are not the responsibility of my department, and we have not done very much about the wildlife situation. I believe that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, under the ALURA program, supports studies of this sort. I think that perhaps the new minister who will have responsibilities in this field will want to go ahead with such studies.
While talking of ecological studies generally may I say that the interdepartmental task force on northern oil as I indicated in my last review before the House, has appointed four subcommittees. One of those subcommittees was specifically the subcommittee to study ecological problems. My information is that that subcommittee is now sufficiently advanced in its work and will either issue or give to the government-perhaps I should not make them public because I do not know what the gov-

ernment will intend to do here-its guidelines. It seems to me that when we get their report we will look back to our own general, public guidelines and we will see that we said that one of the factors to be considered is the protection of the ecology. We will receive this report and we will be able, therefore, to enlarge upon it and say, "the ecology now means a, b, c, d, and e." I hope this research will go that far and, hence, that the picture will be made clearer in advance of an application being made.
Of course, both the departments as well as other departments, and the National Energy Board will be taking advantage of the research of the industry. I hope that we are able to assist them actively. Nevertheless, and I could not agree more with the hon. member in this, we must not overlook the fact, and I do not think anyone in this House overlooks it, that the oil industry, historically, not in Canada but globally, has not been altruistic and beneficent in its attitude to the public but has been, rather, a highly profit motivated industry. I could not agree more with the hon. member in that assertion. Certainly, we must look at these studies objectively.
For instance, I note that one of the companies is undertaking a study of the migration of caribou, a subject which I think the hon. member for Athabasca raised in one of his questions. We must consider this problem. Will the caribou cross the pipeline, or will the pipeline affect their migration, and, thus, not only the well-being of the wildlife of the area but the ability of the indigenous people who live off the caribou to maintain themselves. I am sure that we will not take the industry's study of the migration of the caribou at face value. The wildlife services will investigate the matter for themselves. I hope, thus, that we can make objective judgments and translate these into guidelines wherever possible or give the pertinent information to the National Energy Board, for it to consider in hearing applications.
The hon. member also asked about the regulatory authority over the line. May I point out to him that one of the guidelines in this area specifically says that the National Energy Board Act will prevail and that this pipeline, wherever it is built, if it cuts across Canada will come under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. That fact clearly indicates and connotes that it will be under Canadian regulatory authority.
The government could not agree more with another observation of the hon. member. If our land is used merely as a land bridge to enable American resources to get to American market places I would be the first to say, "go somewhere else." I would hate to see the oil pipeline go into Valdez, and then have the oil taken by tanker. But if that is all we were, a land bridge, I do not think we could consider a pipeline at all across the Mackenzie and I think our guidelines make this very clear. Nevertheless, in this area we cannot be specific or definitive, yet. We cannot say exactly what we mean by "common carrier" with respect to the pipeline. Because of the economics of the pipeline we do not know, yet, just how economic a proposition this is going to be and how much we can transgress on normal rules of economics and still have the line. If it turns out that this line can only be
March 29, 1971

built in such a way that Canadians can only enter this line it there is slack in it, then we can say that we do not want the line under those conditions. However, we do not want to make a pre-judgment until all the economic tacts are available.
There are problems connected, of course, with the economic concept. This is to be a very, very long line. If you fill the line completely with oil all the way from Prudhoe Bay to the United States, you will get a 100 per cent use of that line. If three quarters of the way to the market place a Canadian company wishes to introduce Canadian oil into the line and we say, "stop, you must make room for the Canadian oil in the line", then, of course, you will introduce slack in the line all the way back to Prudhoe Bay, or in about three quarters of the line, which might be an uneconomic or unprofitable use of the line or a "non-use" of the line.
As I understand it, under the present rules with respect to lines governed by the National Energy Board, the common carrier concept applies to oil lines presently, and not to gas lines. The board's concept works this way: if a downstream or downline user, in the judgment of the board, has an economic supply-some fellow with a thimble full of oil cannot come along and upset the economics of the line-it is up to the pipeline operators to allow this fellow to transport his oil. That is their responsibility, and that is one of the conditions of the original certificate. Whether this concept would work in this instance, and whether this would be a valid approach to the Mackenzie Valley line, we do not know yet.
May I say this with great respect to the House and to the country generally which is concerned about these problems, and quite properly so. Until a clearer picture of the economics of the line is seen, we really will not be able to tell how many burdens, if you like, which might be very much in the Canadian interest we can place on this line. Some of these decisions must await, therefore, the event of the application.
If, on the application, we see that this line cannot be a common carrier and that there is no way in which we can force Canadian oil into the line, our course is clear. Our guidelines clearly say that under those terms we must say, "we are sorry, but you cannot build the pipeline." Nevertheless, I feel certain from discussions to date, and from conversations I have had, that there will be an accommodation for Canadian oil in that line, and there must be such accommodation. We can determine these matters when an application is made. If the companies say, "if you want any more than that, you boys will be right out of the ball game," we can then decide to say, "it is you who are out of the ball game." Nevertheless, I do not think we should slam the door until, at least, we get a look at the horse. We should not close the barn door before we see the horse, if I may use such an analogy in my present non-agricultural portfolio.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How did a horse get into a ball game?
p.ra.)


John James Greene: Again, the same problem arises in respect of ownership about which my hon. friend has asked.
Government Organization Act, 1970 Although I do not believe he would put it this way because he is too much of a gentleman, he may find the guideline wishy-washy. It does not say the line has to be Canadian-owned. Again, for the same reason, the economics of this are fabulous and are unknown even to the entrepreneurs themselves. I recall that the original estimate in respect of the Valdez line was $1.2 billion but is now said to be in the order of $2 billion. This was a mistake that was made not by politicians but by the giant corporations which have expertise in the various fields and probably all over the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question in order to refresh my memory. Do I recollect correctly that the guidelines stated there must be some provision for a measure of Canadian ownership in any pipeline?


John James Greene: I will see if I can find the exact wording. I may be paraphrasing, but I believe the wording is to the effect that there will be "substantial opportunity to Canadians for participating in the financing, engineering, construction, ownership and management of the pipeline." Now again, the wording "substantial opportunity" is not very definitive. Members may find it is not very helpful. From all the economic advice we could obtain at the time, whatever may have been our shortcomings, we knew we did not know very much about the economics. That may not be to our very great credit, but obviously neither did anybody else. I believe it is becoming more and more manifest that this undertaking is of such gigantic proportion that in terms of Canadian experience it is almost beyond anything that has ever happened to us. Although I do not know the exact answer, I have heard figures kicked around running all the way from $4 billion to $8 billion for the two lines, and with all the good will in the world I cannot help the House concerning which figures are accurate. I doubt whether anyone else can.
It is thus quite obvious it would be impossible to raise in Canada a very substantial proportion of the amount of money required. When one takes a look at our total economy and the total amount of Canadian savings in a year, it does not look likely. The ideal, if we could do so, would be to find a Canadian entrepreneur who would ensure that the equity would be in Canada and the debt would be somewhere else. That is the way Trans-Canada was financed. I think we would all be happy with such a situation. This, however, may not be possible. From my discussions with representatives of the companies, as well as the other research entities, I am quite certain that in respect of the engineering, construction and management we will have no problem in having maximum Canadian content. I think this will be so because I believe we are as good as anybody else in the world in this particular field. I am not worried about materials. I think every Canadian pipe manufacturing company and every Canadian steel manufacturing company would be engaged for four or five years if these lines were built. I am informed that with regard to the construction of 48 inch or larger pipe, every entity in the world which manufactures such pipe would be going full tilt.

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
On the matter of financing, as I said we want the maximum Canadian content and, other things being equal, whoever comes up with the maximum Canadian content will be the winner. However, it is quite possible there will not be more than one application. As I say, it will take all the resources of all the companies put together to even have a hope. So, we have particularly let them know our concern about Canadian content but have not frozen out anything. We will give Canadians all the opportunity they want, but if they do not pick it up there might be an offer which would mean the control would be in non-Canadian hands and we might or might not accept that. It is a matter of having a look before we would move in any direction. The ideal, of course, would be Canadian ownership. I think we are all concerned about the effect of non-ownership of our resources in Canada, particularly our energy resources and our natural resources. There are varying views. I was very impressed by the effective speech by the hon. member, I believe for Don Valley, who feels that we should not worry too much about ownership of resources, that resources are resources are resources, and should concentrate Canadian savings in things like book publishing and such which do make Canada unique. That is one view.
There is a limited amount of Canadian savings. We should not kid ourselves above this. I believe even the most nationalistic of economy nationalists say we need continued foreign investment in greater proportion than before. The question is, how do we get that foreign investment in such a way that it does not involve ownership of our country and does not affect our ability to direct our own destiny. In respect of a pipeline, if we do not own it, is this one of the things which would inhibit our ability to develop this country as we see fit. This is a question to which I believe ail hon. members must address themselves. We might ask ourselves whether it would be good to have a great proportion of Canadian savings in the next few years end up in the pipeline and not be available for such things in the public sector as guaranteed incomes, public well-being and so on, or for the book publishing business and other things in the private sector, bearing in mind that this pipeline may be over Canadian territory.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. 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 Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Regional Economic Expansion-Incentive grants-Acquisition of proportionate equity in recipient companies; the hon.

member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Air Transport -Use of air space and airports by supersonic planes- Awareness of other countries of Canadian position.
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 motions and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer and more harmonious relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean through the convening of heads-of-government or ministerial conference, efforts to increase trade between the region and Canada, strengthening cultural ties and generally an upgrading of priority for this region in Canadian foreign policy consideration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is not for me a new subject, or a new interest. As many of my colleagues know, I have several times before raised this general question,, although previously in a different terminology. I think I have reached something of an apogee of excellence in my phraseology this time! My great concern in this general question is simply that we must raise the priority which we give to the Commonwealth Caribbean in our foreign policy. This is the underlying aspect in all my presentations on this very important and interesting subject. The area to which I wish to draw the attention of Your Honour and that of my colleagues is a small area but it is one with large problems. It is an area which has all the difficulties or nearly all the difficulties facing emerging nations across the world. All the economic pains of the developing states are found in the Commonwealth Caribbean. They, too, have these intensive and intense questions of race, color and identity which are such vital questions and often such difficult probing questions in today's sensitive world.
But these communities have something else which should mean a great deal to parliamentarians of our tradition. The political institutions of the Commonwealth Caribbean, in the face of many assaults, have stood well, and are, I believe, a magnificent tribute to the type of political institutions which are of the same general structure as our own. In looking at this area, I think we should never forget that in the area of political institutions we have much in common. We are of the same mould, and our Commonwealth parliamentary relationships with these people are, as they should be, of the closest.
Since I last spoke, there have been developments in the Commonwealth Caribbean; there have been incidents and occurrences which some Canadians have viewed with great anxiety as indications of considerable distress.
March 29, 1971

There have been riots and protests against Canadian property in Trinidad and Tobago. I must point out that it was not only Canadian property at which the excitement of the people who were at that time moving about the streets was directed. There have been demonstrations with some anti-Canadian undertones or overtones, and there have been some sharp criticisms of Canadian policies on other occasions. Not that I believe or think that Canadians should believe that they are somehow immune from criticism or that throughout the world we should be universally loved and everlastingly adored. We think it is quite normal that there should be such a thing as anti-Americanism, but surely we cannot be immune from criticism and misunderstanding, so I am not disturbed by these incidents. It would however, be a mistake to overemphasize the incidents and to regard them as typifying any deep hatred or continuing hostility toward Canada. To take such a view, to make such a judgment would be, I believe, most unwise. But to pass them off as a mere nothing, to pretend that nothing really had happened, is, in my opinion, equally erroneous. We must not and cannot take these neighbours for granted-neighbours never should. They have grievances, and I am glad that they are expressing themselves with candor and sometimes with feeling.
As I said in the House at the time that the unilateral decision regarding the termination of the 29 cent sugar subsidy was announced, it was a bad thing because it was announced, and it was terrible because it was done unilaterally. It was a boober of major proportions, and I am glad that the government, which deserved censure for doing it, backtracked, changed its mind and left the subsidy at least for a year, and I hope it will be longer than a year, until adequate, thoughtful and sensible arrangements can be made.
There are problems regarding immigration, although I am convinced that our policies in immigration today are far better than they used to be, but there are still some difficulties and misunderstandings. Many people in the Commonwealth Caribbean sometimes suggest that we are willing to accept only those people whose contribution to their own lands would be most valuable. Knowing the dreary and painful story of the migration of the people from the Maritime provinces to other areas in North America, I have much sympathy for these feelings.
When in Barbados a few weeks ago-and as I look outside today I wish I had been able to stay-many people asked me why Canada had no mission in Bridgetown, in view of the fact that Barbados has a very fine high commission office in Ottawa. This is one situation which I greet with incredulity and with embarrassment. Surely, our austerity is not so compelling that we cannot afford to open a mission in the friendly and beautiful country of Barbados where so many Canadians are involved personally, financially and as residents. Indeed, it is an area of most extensive Canadian interest and involvement. Of course we should reciprocate and open a Barbados mission right away. We have fine missions in Trinidad, Tobago and Jamaica. I had the opportunity of visiting these people not long ago, but I think it is unfortunate that it was found necessary to cut down the
Trade Relations with West Indies
personnel of these important missions. I recognize that good work has been done, and our country is generally well regarded in the area, not just for that oblique and negative virtue of our not being Englishmen or Americans, a kind of compliment which I never find very satisfying. I hope this is not the case.
The need is great and the opportunities for more service are immense in the area. In an earlier Parliament when presenting this subject I quoted a learned Canadian scholar, Professor Kontak from St. Francis Xavier University, who knows the West Indies and the Commonwealth Caribbean well. Professor Kontak returned from a recent extended visit to the Commonwealth Caribbean and reported that the friendship he found for Canada was almost unbelievable. He said:
This friendship gives a feeling of both pride and embarrassment; pride because Canada has conducted her affairs in such a way as to produce this feeling, and embarrassment because she has done so little compared to what she is capable of and can afford to do.
I cannot summarize in a better way my own feeling with reference to our stake in the area and our opportunities in the region. Although I come from a part of Canada that has long been neglected-and may I say in candor never more than by the present government-I do not join those who believe that cutting off foreign aid would somehow, some way, miraculously bring us internal prosperity. Such is not the case. We must, even in a selfish way, take an interest and become involved in other parts of what is sometimes called this global village. But having said that, I reiterate a statement that I have often made since I came to the House of Commons, and that is one of doubt that Canada with its resources can mount meaningful programs of aid to 65 to 70 countries across the world. It cannot be done.
In many cases it is a mere drop in the bucket. So, we must select areas where we can hope to be effective. I believe that no part of the world with which we have contact, for which we are concerned, and in which we have an interest deserves a higher priority than the Commonwealth Caribbean. In this important area we can, I believe, not only be effective, but in some parts of the Commonwealth Caribbean our aid, our interest, our assistance and our friendship could indeed be decisive as some of the communities, whose political and economic viability is very precarious, struggle with problems and cope with difficulties which might very easily overwhelm their institutions, assault their stability, and create the kind of conditions which would bring no good to them, no good to Canada, and no good to those people who believe in a peaceful free world.
My motion endeavours to set out some areas in which I think we can do more. I have been very worried for some time that the high water mark of 1966, when the former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, assembled in Ottawa a heads of government conference, was much higher than the level we are now performing upon. I believe we should have taken the initiative in assuring that there would be another heads of government meeting in our

March 29, 1971
Trade Relations with West Indies
time, or at least ministerial meetings, to indicate, to underscore and to re-emphasize the concern we have lor this area.
I believe we can strengthen our ties through parliamentary delegations. When I was in Port-of-Spain I was impressed to hear the Speaker of the Lower House and the President of the Upper House suggest that we should develop a pattern of exchanges between our legislative bodies and theirs. I hope it will be possible for this kind of initiative to be followed. I believe there are great opportunities for more cultural exchanges. I remember so vividly the magnificent performance of the wonderful calypso group who came up to Canada in 1967. Now, I am expecting to see another group which I believe the governments of Trinidad, and Tobago have indicated they will send, as they have been the winners of the great carnival contest.
Students have done a splendid job. Students from the West Indies, from the Commonwealth Caribbean area, have long been in our universities. I have seen them in my classes years ago. I have the highest regard for them. I think we should be doing more now in trying through our programs to assist students who would remain, for at least a large part of their course, down in institutions in that area.
We can also increase trade. I do not pretend that the opportunities are immense, or that it is a tremendous area of growth. And we do have to take into consideration changing tastes and changing technology. But there is ground for a substantial improvement. I believe, particularly, we should assist in increasing and stimulating the flow of seaborne commerce. Perhaps we are entering a new era where we must look to the riches in the sea, on the sea, and under the sea, and become more conscious of those possibilities. This is why I suppose we from the Atlantic provinces have long known the charm of the West Indies and the value of friendship with them.
Also important in the whole Canadian program with respect to the Commonwealth Caribbean is the work done by the individuals down there, sent by CDA and CUSO, and by the other group, the retired executives, CESO which some nasty person has called the paunch corps. There are many stimulating and interesting experiments being carried out there. In Jamaica, in their capital city, the Casa Monte hotel has been turned into a school for hotel training, run by a former dean of Ryerson Institute. A fine job is being done by that man, and by many Canadians who have outstanding experience in the hotel field here.
Canadian agriculturalists are helping with a program of agricultural development, especially in the raising of cattle. I discovered down there some fine Canadian Holstein cattle, which are being bred in the islands. I only ask one question: why weren't there more from Prince Edward Island, which is very famous for its Holstein cattle?
But to move from agriculture to teaching, I think there we get to the real ambassadors. I can well remember the vice-principal of the Manchester teacher training school, in Manchester, Jamaica, telling us one and all at a meeting that without its Canadian friends the school would have had to close long ago. Every year one meets and hears of bright Canadian people, interested Canadian people, outward looking Canadian young people who are down there doing a fine job.
I suggest again, as I did on motions the other day, that we do make a mistake in one respect. When we send people to various parts of the world they are given a briefing by the Department of External Affairs but when they come back, full of knowledge, and enriched with concern, no one pays any attention to them. The department should find ways to communicate with these people and draw on their knowledge, experience and concern.
We should and must do more. It may be unusual for a member of this House to enter into salutations to the other house, but I am convinced the finest study done on this question for a long, long time was that by the foreign affairs committee of the Senate. I commend their exercise. I support their recommendations. I believe they are giving leadership in a path which we should follow, namely, to do more, to think more on this whole question, and we will all benefit as we strengthen our bonds with the Commonwealth Caribbean.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). It is rather difficult to follow him in the debate because he has covered the subject so well. Those of us who were here in 1966 when there was a conference between the Canadian government and the Caribbean governments had great hopes at that time. We expected a dramatic improvement in relations between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. I must be frank and state that the results to date have not come up to our expectations. It is true that there have been improvements in some areas, but there has been deterioration in others.
As a member from Montreal, I cannot help but be aware of the riots which we had at Sir George Williams University. We have a large number of Caribbean immigrants in Montreal. I have been in touch with them often I have many friends among the Caribbean community, but I repeat that while there have been certain advances, in some areas there has been deterioration.
I endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hillsborough that another conference between Canada and Commonwealth Caribbean countries be held at the heads of government level. Last fall the Hon. Paul Martin, the Leader of the Senate and a member of the cabinet, visited some 13 countries and territories in the Caribbean area. He made an effort to follow up on many of the matters that had been discussed previously, and to bring about improved relations with those governments. The report on his trip can be found in the statement which he made in the Senate on December 8, 1970, and which was recorded in the Senate Hansard of that date at page 293. It was a very extensive report.
In addition, in 1970 we had the report of the Senate Committee on Canadian Caribbean relations. While I also congratulate the Senate and support most of its recommendations, I think we must realize that the evidence

March 29, 1971

which formed the basis of that report was evidence that was taken mainly from a Canadian perspective. If I remember my reading of the report correctly, I think all the witnesses were Canadians or non-Caribbean citizens. The report is valuable but I think more is needed.
In 1970 we also had the publication of the government's policy statements on foreign policy, but no special mention was made of the Commonwealth Caribbean. I agree with the report of the Senate and with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) when he said that the Commonwealth Caribbean should be given a special place in our foreign policy. I want to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker. The grounds for that special place were put forward when we had a conference in 1966 but were not followed up in the way we expected. The basis for that special place is primarily due to the fact that the Commonwealth Caribbean countries-as a matter of fact all Caribbean countries-are our neighbours and we share many things. We have historical ties in trade; we were both colonies of Great Britain; we share social and political institutions and, above all, we need each other. There are things that they can help us with and vice versa. These increased relations, Mr. Speaker, have to be carried on as neighbour to neighbour and friend to friend, as equals and not in a neo-colonial way nor a paternalistic way.
The areas where increased relations can take place, and these have been referred to in the motion, are areas of trade, aid, foreign investment and tourism. With respect to aid, the goal must be to develop the independence of these people. It should primarily be aid without strings, untied aid. It should be directed to the self-fulfilment of people living in these areas. Following on that, if we are serious in our aid programs, there must be trade. We cannot pretend to assist people, put money into their country so that they can develop, and then refuse to trade with them; trade is extremely important. The mistake we made with the sugar agreement was corrected, but I think it is important that in all trade relations with the Caribbean countries we work as partners and with full consultation.
Some of the most sensitive areas have been in the field of foreign investment. Canada and Canadian private companies are very visible in the Commonwealth Caribbean. You don't have to go very far to see that our banks, the aluminium company, many of the hotels and a lot of the tourist industry are Canadian owned and operated. In the past there has been criticism that Canadian companies operating in the Caribbean have not provided enough participation at the local level; that wages were at the minimum level; that not enough attention was paid to enlightened employer-employee relations nor to the wishes of the people as expressed in their local legislatures and local government. I think this is being corrected. I think Canadian companies operating in the Caribbean are aware of the aspirations of the people and are trying to correct some of the failings of the past.
The Senate Committee made several good recommendations which I think are worth while. In the area of
Trade Relations with West Indies Canadian government machinery, they suggested that the Interdepartmental Committee on Canada-Commonwealth Caribbean Relations should be given a clear and precise mandate to maintain a continuing overview of current and long term issues. They felt it was necessary that there be a co-ordinating agency within the Canadian government which would treat the Caribbean area as a special area. Another important recommendation was that there should be established in Canada a Caribbean marketing agency. This recommendation reads:
The Canadian government should suggest the establishment of a joint Canada-Caribbean marketing agency to be funded initially as required by Canada. Such an agency could conduct market surveys, establish distribution contracts, advertise and generally promote complementary two-way trade. This could be a relatively low cost assistance project yielding substantial and lasting results for the Caribbean countries. By selecting promising export products, (examples at this time would include bananas, rum, and certain citrus products), the agency could have a highly beneficial impact.
Then, there is tourism, Mr. Speaker, and this is an area which is likely to be sensitive. Very often Canadians take the point of view that all the tourism that is directed to the Caribbean countries by Canadians is valuable. It can be touchy when Canadians live in very luxurious hotels in those countries, often to the benefit of the Canadian hotel owners and the Canadian tourists, without too much benefit going to the countries themselves. I thought the Senate Committee made some worth-while points on this issue as well when they said, at page xxii of their report:
Evidence given before the committee indicated that tourism has had a number of undesirable social side-effects without necessarily bringing all the expected economic benefits. The committee recognizes that the responsibility for solving these problems rests primarily with the local governments, but has several specific proposals to make.
The committee goes on to suggest that goods and services required by the tourist industry should be purchased in the Caribbean countries, so that the industry will stimulate secondary and tertiary effects in the economy. This is a worth-while recommendation.
In the area of immigration we see a considerable increase from the Caribbean over the last few years, especially in Montreal. Many outstanding citizens have come to us from the Caribbean but there is that touchy problem of "brain drain". Sometimes we are in a dilemma to know whether we should encourage the best trained people to come to Canada when they might be needed in their own countries. On the one hand, we are helping the university of the West Indies to train people but often we find the best ones coming to Canada. This is a touchy problem, but I don't think it is for the Canadian government to put any type of restriction on immigration from the Caribbean. In this area we have to work in close co-operation with the governments of that area: we have to respond to requests with respect to immigration, especially the immigration of their highly-trained people.
There has been some unrest and hostility over the past few years, but there has also been a lot of good will. The worst that Canadians could do would be to react too
4704

March 29, 1971
Trade Relations with West Indies quickly to some of the social movements that are going on in the Caribbean. We should continue to act in a positive way toward this problem. We should not become too upset when demonstrations are made against our companies and government, because these will pass if we act positively toward these people and improve and strengthen our relations with them.
Although there has been deterioration since 1966, there has also been improvement. Last year a bilateral air agreement was signed with Trinidad, Tobago and Jamaica. Canadian development assistance was effectively utilized with an allocation of $24 million. The Caribbean Development Bank, with Canada as a non-regional member, was formally established. The sugar rebate was extended for 1971, and an agricultural development fund of $5 million was established. These are some of the gains that were made in 1971.
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough for his continuing efforts to improve our relations with Caribbean Commonwealth countries. Many on this side of the House give him full support.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I will make just a brief intervention. I join the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) in extending congratulations to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for presenting this resolution to the House.
I wish to comment on two matters with regard to our special relationship with the Caribbean arising out of a common language and underlying cultural affinity. This is an ideal field for Canada to work closely with area governments concerned to develop policies of a pilot nature which could then be employed in furthering our relationships with other nations of the world. If this argument sounds involved, I will attempt to be more specific.
Any developed nation which attempts to establish relationships with developing nations, and in so doing provides economic assistance through public means and private capital, encounters the difficulty-such as we have seen in the Caribbean-of eventually becoming charged with embarking upon neo-imperialist policies. Because of the special affinities between the Caribbean and Canada, the Caribbean is an ideal area for us to begin working out ways of avoiding this particular problem, which will become greater because over the past years our government has become committed to a policy of increasing the amount of foreign aid to other countries.
Could we not use our special relationship with the Caribbean, in consultation with the area governments, to attempt to develop ways and means of providing the assistance they require which will not carry with it charges of neo-imperialism? Could we not develop ways and means of ensuring that Canadian private investment in the Caribbean area meets with the criteria for economic self-development and the maintenance and control of their own economies which the Caribbean would like to see? In short, could we not put some special effort into the particular problems of this area in the hope that the formulas thus established would have wider application?
The second matter which I wish to draw to the attention of the House is one in which we might have some success in developing a pilot project in conjunction with the Commonwealth Caribbean nations. I refer to immigration. The two previous speakers have indicated the problem with regard to immigration. We tend to skim off the cream of developing countries by bringing their best educated people to our country. In this way we are dealing an economic blow to the country which has spent money to educate these people to the extent that they become acceptable under our immigration laws. At the same time, we are doing very little to assist those countries in dealing with the many problems they have with regard to the vast numbers of lesser skilled people.
In consultation with the Caribbean governments we could develop a pilot project whereby Canada would undertake to bring in certain numbers of people who do not meet our strict immigration requirements. This could be done on the clear understanding that the government of Canada would undertake to provide them with the necessary training and education to live within our boundaries. I am not speaking of a program of bringing in vast numbers of people; I am simply suggesting a pilot program which could be worked out in the Caribbean area where there is so much in the nature of cultural and linguistic affinities, the results of which could eventually be applied in other areas of the world.
While I have not stated these suggestions in a detailed form, they are in keeping with the suggestions in the resolution of the hon. member for Hillsborough. I hope that some member of the government will find time to examine these suggestions to see if acceptable programs of the type I have suggested could be worked out in detail.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very brief. I think there are at least three other members who want to speak. There have been three very thoughtful speeches on this important resolution. I concur with a great many of the points raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). The hon. member raised three specific points in his speech which was filled with important points, which is typical of the hon. member.
One suggestion, which was reinforced by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) was basically sound. We should not be diverted from maintaining close relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean countries because of unpleasant instances, such as occurred in Montreal, or difficulties which Canadians or Canadian institutions encounter in the Commonwealth Caribbean countries. These are often short-term difficulties which are associated with problems of development and relations between developing and developed countries. This is an important point.
The hon. member for Hillsborough stated that we should not yield to the misguided pressure that comes from some quarters-that charity begins at home. He stated that aid should not be viewed as a charitable operation. Relations between developing and developed countries are mutually advantageous, even self-serving.

March 29, 1971

Where aid is involved, this is part of a process which helps the developed countries as well as the developing countries, particularly through developing new markets. When the claim is made that we have problems in our own country which should be attended to, we should not be diverted from the main thrust and purpose of foreign aid programs, albeit that some of our problems are compelling and must receive attention. However, one cannot be solved at the expense of the other. It is up to the members of this House to maintain the balance in public argument on this question.
Another interesting point which the hon. member raised was that our institutions are similar and our problems as legislators are in some ways common. He stated that we should have more contact with each other, not simply during the winter months. I would certainly welcome a month's sojourn in the Barbados. He stated that at times convenient to both sides we should meet and discuss mutual problems. He stated that when parliamentary delegations visit these countries, there should be some form of follow-up approach with the Department of External Affairs. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) is in the chamber. On at least one occasion we have travelled together on an important mission. We were very gratified by the fact that following a mission a real interest was shown by the Department of External Affairs. There could be an important input from parliamentary delegations who have visited abroad.
I disagree with the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that our relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean countries are not developing. I found his argument difficult to accept. Furthermore, it is not clear to me what both hon. members mean when they talk about a special case in our foreign policy. Listening to their speeches, I did not detect supporting arguments for this contention. The only way in which the degree of priority attached to the Commonwealth Caribbean can be judged is by the facts-and it seems to me the facts are impressive. I will return to this point.
In his resolution, the hon. member for Hillsborough made an issue of one point. To quote from the motion before us, he argues that close and more harmonious relations should be brought about with the Caribbean through convening conferences between heads of state or ministers. Personally, I do not feel strongly either for or against meetings of ministers or heads of state. I have an idea that this type of arrangement is no more effective than the kind of close bilateral contacts we presently have with the Caribbean. I do not think it can be argued that because we have not convened successive conferences between heads of state or ministers our ties with the Caribbean are not rated as of first-rank importance by the Canadian government. I happen to support bilateral relations of the kind being pursued at the present time; I believe they are more effective.
I should like to put on record an indication of the extent and complexity of our present ties, because this is the only way in which we are able to judge the impor-
Trade Relations with West Indies tance the government attaches to the relations between Canada and the Caribbean at the present time. I think we ought to review the extent and complexity of Canadian interests in the area, both governmental and private. At present it is estimated that there is $450 million to $550 million in Canadian investment in the region. During 1970 Canadian exports reached $134.1 million as compared with $113 million in 1969, and imports totalled $77.9 million as compared with $108.7 million in 1969. In the past five years over $100 million has been allocated to the Commonwealth Caribbean under the Canadian development assistance program, including $24 million in 1970-71.
At present there are over 3,000 Canadians living as permanent residents in the region, and over 125,000 Canadians visit the islands annually. During 1970 nearly 14,000 West Indians emigrated to Canada. Here is the best kind of cultural exchange-an exchange of people. There are Canadian High Commissions in Jamaica, Trinidad, Tobago and Guyana, and these three countries, plus Barbados, maintain High Commissions in O.tawa. The Leeward and Windward Islands have a commissioner in Montreal.
Consider our development assistance program. I am reciting this because I believe it is a basic fact upon which hon. members can judge whether or not priority is given to our relationship with the Commonwealth West Indies. In the 1970-71 fiscal year, $24 million were allocated to the Commonwealth Caribbean, with a major concentration in the sectors of education, transportation, water and sewage systems, and civil aviation, including airports and infrastructure. In addition to specific projects in individual countries, assistance within the aid allocation I have outlined is being provided to the multinational University of the West Indies and to the University of Guyana.
On a per capita basis, the Commonwealth Caribbean is the largest recipient of any region receiving Canadian development assistance. This is the point I am making. If we are to assess whether relations are developing or deteriorating, one can best do so in terms of facts such as I have put on record. This brings me to a point which was raised by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
The relationship between a developing country and a developed country poses extremely difficult problems for both. If we go beyond the pious sentiments we express from time to time about the need for assisting developing countries, we are bound to think intelligently about what we mean by trade. We cannot simply provide assistance to help build up a domestic industry, and then exclude from our markets the exports of the country concerned. I suggest that hon. members look closely at the results of the UNCTAD conference, or take a look at the Algerian resolution setting out the demands of the developing countries in terms of their trade relationship with the developed countries.
As I say, the difficulties attached to these relationships are great. All of us have industries in our constituencies which would be affected by any meaningful easing of import restrictions. All of us have constituents employed in Canadian industry who would be affected if we were
24081-17J

March 29, 1971
Trade Relations with West Indies to admit more freely exports from developing countries which would compete directly with domestic manufacturers. Decisions in this area are hard to make-but I hope we have gone beyond the stage of rhetoric, the stage at which we are prepared only to talk piously about assistance, and have reached the point at which we ask ourselves what precisely we are prepared to do to allow developing countries to sell their products to us. We have some tough decisions to take, but that is the point we are now at.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my hon. friend from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) and others in saying a few words about this proposal. I congratulate my hon. friend, not only because his motion is in front of us today but because this distinguished member of the House has spent a great part of his life voicing concern about the relationship between Canada and those delightful islands not too far south of us.
With respect to the delightfulness of the islands, I have yet to be made aware of any government aid having anything to do with my desire to be in the Caribbean during the wintertime. It is just that on occasion it is a hell of a lot more delightful down there than it is here. I had intended to make other comments to reinforce the arguments of my colleague who brought this matter to our attention, particularly with respect to the absence of representation in Bridgetown, but I think trade is a useful way to measure the reality of our relationships and the concern we have for them.
A previous speaker asked us not to get carried away by our own rhetoric, but I cannot resist answering him by saying that although he left us with the impression that there has been an increase in trade-true, there has-the relative impact of trade in general and the relative position of our fish and flour exports to the Caribbean in terms of their imports are the true measure of our concern. Our trade with the Caribbean has been going down. Our flour exports to the Caribbean are away down, even though consumption of flour on the islands has not gone down. I am not saying whose fault it is. In many instances it may be the fault of our own entrepreneurs. Perhaps we should have encouraged Canadians to build flour mills in the Caribbean; but we backed away from this, and I should like to know why.
I do not want to isolate flour from other commodities. Let me take fish. Traditionally, Canada has supplied much of the fish eaten in the Caribbean area, but in recent years, while in absolute terms trade has gone up, in relative terms our share of the market has gone down. Perhaps this is because we have not catered to the increasing sophistication of taste and well-being on the part of the residents of the islands. Perhaps we have taken them for granted. Perhaps we are continuing to take them too much for granted and this is why our relative trade picture has worsened. Perhaps we have not done enough to encourage imports of certain fruits and other traditional north-south trade commodities for hundreds of years. It is to this point that I wish to address myself.
Throughout my life in Halifax-and, I suspect, the lives of my great, great grandparents too-our Maritimes relations with this part of the world have been warm and continuous. But it is here, at the level of the central government, that the emphasis must be placed? The degree of our interest in the Caribbean must find its source of authority here, not in the Maritimes. I said a moment ago that our declining trade picture is not our fault. I could have mentioned meats. Why cannot we compete with Australia and New Zealand in meat exports to Caribbean countries? Why have we not done those things that encourage, at the senior minister level, an ever closer and growing relationship between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean? Why have we been satisfied to rest on the success of bilateral relationships? I suggest this is no way to measure the degree of concern that we should have for our friends in the Caribbean. I have spent a number of years in that part of the world, very delightful years. I have also spent some time in South America. But never have I sensed, in and around the islands, anything but good will toward Canada. Nevertheless, from my own personal experience in the area, not to mention the evidence we have had in recent years, the fact is we are not paying the attention to the Caribbean that we should and could without any cost to ourselves.
As the hon. member for Hillsborough said, there should be more consultation and meetings at a higher level, to the mutual benefit of us both. We would not be the benefactors, as was the impression left by the speaker who has just resumed his seat. We are two separate entities who enjoy very much in common. But we are in a position to do much more. We are in a position to take advantage of our ability to do more, to do that which we have failed to do. In the narrow area of trade, the fact that while our trade has increased, its relative position in the Commonwealth Caribbean has diminished must be the measure of our sincerity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hichard):: Order. It being six o'clock the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. The House will now resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada. Spring seems reluctant to appear, but hon. members have
[Mr. Faulkner.)
March 29, 1971

4707 moved very quickly from the rigours of the north to the sunny comfort of the Caribbean in less than one hour. However, the committee will now adjourn and will return to the north at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. When the committee rose at five o'clock it was considering clause 8.
On clause 8-Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members for being so patient with my rather lengthy review of the matters raised in questions posed by hon. members. I have tried to the best of my ability to answer at least the major questions asked by hon. gentlemen opposite. May I finish the point I was making at five o'clock respecting foreign ownership. Although we have stressed that Canadian ownership would be one of the ingredients which would receive preference under the guidelines, we have purposely not made any complete, final and definitive resolution as to the quantum or nature of the ownership because we did not known the complete economics of such pipeline or pipelines. We wanted that decision to be made when applicants came forward with active propositions.
Very likely, this will be a single applicant because of the magnitude of the enterprise. We can determine at that time whether the degree of Canadian ownership is sufficient. If it is clear from the economics of the project that we might either have to take a certain degree of Canadian ownership or postpone the project, or not go ahead with it for the time being, if it were not feasible in any other way, the decision would have to be made at that time. To make the decision in advance, before knowing what the economic connotations of the pipeline are, we thought would be prejudging the issue before we had the facts with which to judge it.
As I was saying at five o'clock, we must determine our priorities for Canadian ownership or, if you like, the gradual improvement of Canadian ownership in our resources and in our Canadian industrial complex generally. We can then determine whether we want this quantum, be it at $5 billion, $4 billion or $8 billion, to be made up of Canadian savings in pipelines, or whether we prefer to have that amount of money put into other areas of Canadian ownership. I was pointing out that the line will be on Canadian territory, subject to Canadian law, subject to Canadian regulatory agencies and, no doubt, the subject matter of some pre-existing agreements either with the companies or with the United States
Government Organization Act, 1970 government which will determine in large measure the responsibilities of the line for the carrying of Canadian products. It may be that this will be one area in which we will not require the quantum or percentage of Canadian ownership that we feel is essential in other Canadian resources or industrial entities.
Again I say that we have in some measure left that question open, but with a clear indication that the matter of Canadian content in all forms, including that of financial ownership, will be very much in our minds. An application with the provision of maximum Canadian ownership would quite clearly receive priority over an application with provision for a lesser content of Canadian ownership.
May I briefly deal with one other point which was raised by hon. members, the question of gas reserves. This is a very important question, and I would not want to leave in the air any question or suggestion that the government had any doubts as to the capabilities of the National Energy Board in determining gas reserves before making its decision to permit gas exports. I think the record of the National Energy Board is an extremely good one; it has been extremely good in the period that the board has served the Canadian public. I think the board has been right in a large percentage of times although, as in any other human institutions, it may be wrong from time to time. But it has been more often right than wrong. With regard to the question of gas reserves which the board determines to be available for Canadian use, present and future, before declaring a surplus for export, I think it is extremely important for the record to be kept clear. The estimates of the National Energy Board, of the requirements of Canada as indicated in their decision of August, 1970, in the matter of export applications, make substantial allowances for an increasing share in the Canadian market for natural gas.
Specifically, the estimates provided for, (a) the expansion of services to Vancouver Island, (b) a generous allowance for thermal electric use in British Columbia, which is not used at the present time, (c) a total allowance for Alberta, almost identical to the estimates made by the Alberta Oil and gas conservation board, (d) an allowance for Saskatchewan to support a much higher level of potash production than foreseen by some of the applicants for export licences, and (e) an allowance for the use of natural gas in the Hearne plant of Ontario and two possible other hydro plants.
The National Energy Board, in declaring the quantum of gas which could be declared surplus to Canadian requirements, and thus available for export, sought to establish an amount equal to approximately 30 years of Canadian need at the current level of demand. It may be argued that this amount is not enough or is too much, but I would point out that in the producing areas some people feel that this is far too conservative an estimate. They have argued that this would inhibit exploration and thus, in the long run, diminish the reserves that would be available for Canada.
So we can have the argument both ways. It may be argued that this amount is not enough, or is too much.

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 However, in the board's judgment it was the correct amount to set aside for future Canadian requirements and the government relied on the board's judgment. I am prepared to back the board against any so-called experts upon whom others feel they can rely. In this regard, I might say the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands indicated he relied on other experts. His view of the board's judgment was the opposite to that of those in Alberta who contend the board was too cautious and, hence, inhibited growth. The hon. member's experts apparently are of the opinion that the board was too optimistic and should have kept much more gas for Canadian use in inventory.
If there is such a group of experts, I am sure the government and the board would be glad to hear from them and compare their expert judgment to that of the very great expertise which exists on the board. But until we hear from experts whose credentials are more notable and whose record is established as being superior to that of the board, or whose argument is so profound as to indicate the board was wrong in its judgment, I think we can and should rely on the judgment of the National Energy Board in this regard.
My hon. friend frowns on exporting that which is surplus to Canadian needs. Perhaps I might examine the economics in respect of no further exports of surplus. As I indicated, in respect of the non-export of oil there will be a substantial cost of holding the surplus in inventory. The Canadian Petroleum Association has estimated that it would cost $3 million to carry one trillion cubic feet in inventory for one year. That, of course, is a cost that would be borne by the consumers of gas be they Canadian or others, and most of the gas-I believe some 60 per cent or more-is consumed by Canadian consumers. These consumers would, of course, bear the cost of holding the gas. The price of holding these resources in Canada in the long run, as I say, would have to be borne by Canadian consumers through much higher prices and a decrease in additions to reserves because of reduced cash flow to producers and explorers.
My hon. friend also asked what proportion of the readily accessible gas is being held in reserve for the use of Canadians. I would point out that some 36 trillion cubic feet, or two-thirds of the established reserves of 54 trillion cubic feet, are dedicated to the Canadian market. The Canadian Petroleum Association estimates the potential reserves of gas in Canada are 725 trillion cubic feet. Reserves found to date represent only about 9 per cent of Canada's potential reserves and, as I say, two-thirds of those are held for the Canadian domestic market.
I might also briefly refer to the hon. gentleman's concern in respect of the recent hearings of the board at which the president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines indicated there was insufficient gas to satisfy the needs of current application. I would point out that as a result of hearings and subsequent investigation, the board has found-and the decision of the board is now public record-that Trans-Canada has sufficient gas to meet the requirements of application and could deliver the gas to satisfy those particular contracts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you still believe the president?


John James Greene: Well, Mr. Speaker, the applicants before the board of course are there to make a particular case and to seek approval of the board for a particular application. They are partisans in the particular application, and, of course, make-as I believe would any applicants in such a proceeding-as forcible a case as they can. But I am merely citing the decision of the board in that particular case.
One further matter I might briefly touch upon, which I believe hon. members would be interested in having an answer to, concerns the allusion to the report of the National Energy Board on the subject of energy supply and demand in Canada from 1968 to 1990 which was published in December, 1969. First, I would point out that this is the report of the staff of the National Energy Board and is not binding on the board itself sitting as a judicial or quasi-judicial body. The board, of course, is not bound by the findings. Its staff is presenting this report, so that the Canadian public generally, the parliament of Canada and potential consumers might be advised of the prognostications in respect of supply and demand. The board in each case, however, must be satisfied by any evidence current at the particular hearing as to what reserves are available on that particular day.
I think this should resolve any qualms hon. members might have that this report of the board's staff is in any way binding on the board in any future hearings. It is merely an information document which is available to the people of Canada and to parliament concerning the prognostication for energy supply and demand.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands had some concern that in the 1990 prognostication the board indicated that the demand for natural gas in Canada would be, on a per capita basis, the same as that which existed in the United States in 1975. He found, by reason of our climate, that there was something inordinate in this conclusion. Might I point out that, again, these are the prognostications of the staff and are not binding upon the board. That conclusion was based upon the premise that some 42 per cent of Canada's energy needs in 1990 would be met by electricity generated in Canada, whereas in the same period in 1990 the prognostications are that only some 9 per cent or 10 per cent, if memory serves me correctly, of the United States demands for energy will be met by electricity. This possibly is the reason, in making its conclusions, that the board's staff determined that a far higher percentage of the needs would have to be met by natural gas in the United States.
I think, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my ability I have tried to answer most of the questions. I apologize to members for having taken so long, but this is a subject matter of great importance and one, needless to say, in which I am very much involved and exercised about. I thank hon. members for bearing with me.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I know there is some agreement, and I give the minister his due because I think much of what he said in the last hour and a half

March 29, 1971

has been most useful and will bear re-reading. But I am a little disappointed that he did not have anything to say about tidal power. I wonder, before we move on, whether he could indicate whether or not meetings are contemplated between agencies responsible for the generation of power in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and officials here in Ottawa in respect of power generally, and the Minas Basin tidal power in particular. If he would tell us when meetings might be contemplated and give some indication of what they would be talking about, I would be happy to move on.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the point raised by the hon. member and, I think, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants who spoke on the same subject, I apologize that I did not go to the question of the Minas Basin power. I did not do so, advisedly. I hope I am not betraying a confidence-I do not think I am-when I say that at the request of the provinces there are to be meetings tomorrow between my officials and the officials of the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia power authorities in respect of the Minas Basin study and the possibilities of review. So I did not think I could add anything useful by discussing the matter at this time.
Whether or not as a result of those discussions I will be able to make any public announcement, I really do not know; but this is a tripartite study embarked on by the federal government, the government of Nova Scotia and the government of New Brunswick. I have felt all along that as the government we should not embark unilaterally upon any changes or upon any frolic of our own with regard to the Minas Basin, but that we should move, as we have before, in any study procedures, at least, in conjunction with the provinces if they so wished. I am informed that the provinces have requested this review at the official level, on a technical level, which is to take place tomorrow morning.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is not here at the moment, but I am sure that if he were he would agree with me that whether or not the minister has answered all the questions which he raised when he was speaking on Friday, at least the minister has tried to deal with the subject matter of those questions. In fact, I must say that in listening to the minister I had a feeling that if the late Hon. Jimmy Gardiner had been here today to hear him, he would have been willing to admit that at last he had met his match in the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I do not rise to prolong or to renew the debate that has taken place between the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the minister on this question of the energy policy, the export of gas, and so on. My only comment would be that as I listened to the minister relating his remarks to those of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands it became abundantly clear, to me at least, that whereas the minister kept referring to gas resources as if they were property of a few individual corporations, my leader was thinking in
Government Organization Act, 1970 terms of the fact that they really are the heritage of the Canadian people and, as the minister indicated-and on this he agrees with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands-are in the classification of non-renewable resources.
I would like to ask one or two questions related to another passage of the minister's statement today, namely, the question with which he dealt at some length pertaining to the possible construction of an oil and gas pipeline down the Mackenzie River valley. He himself indicated that much of what is involved, because of the very size, nature and complexity of the project, lies outside the ambit of the ordinary considerations of the National Energy Board. Some of us, as we listened to the pronouncements of the minister in response to questions and in an earlier debate on this subject, felt as if here in Parliament we were being asked to consider positions being taken by the government almost in a vacuum.
I would like to ask the minister one or two questions in this context. It seems to me that very germane to the question of what can or should be done in connection with the construction of an oil or gas pipeline, or both, down the Mackenzie River valley is the legislative action which we took in the last session in respect of the Territorial Lands Act and, in particular, with reference to the land use regulation. When we discussed this bill in committee, some of us in the committee and in the House thought we had a pretty clear undertaking that some time during the earlier part of this session the House or the standing committee would be seized of the draft regulations that were proposed, because it was not disputed in committee that the meat and substance of the legislative changes that we were being asked to approve lay in what would in fact be the land use regulations.
So far we have not had a chance to see what those land regulations are, and this is what I mean when I suggest to the minister that in effect we are being asked to consider and discuss the pros and cons of the proposed pipeline construction in a vacuum. We have no point of reference that has any real meaning or solidity to it.
I recognize that the administration of the Territorial Lands Act is the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and that he is absent on a trip in connection with another aspect of his duties. But it does seem to me that it would be very useful, in considering the questions that have been raised in this debate on the proposed changes to the operation and function of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, to have some definitive information on what in fact is in those land use regulations. We would then be in a much better position to discuss and assess the kind of questions that come to our mind with regard to whether or not this development would be ecologically sound.
We do not know what areas will be encompassed in those land use regulations. We do not know, except in a very general way, whether they will be drafted in relation to the varying degrees of sensitivity of the ecology in the northern areas. The House of Commons is being asked to come to grips with what the minister himself has described as some of the most momentous and far-

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
reaching decisions in which Parliament will be involved in our lifetime, decisions of magnitude that vitally affect the whole future course of events for the Canadian nation. Such a simple thing as honouring a commitment to place before Parliament these land use regulations should be fulfilled before we get further into the decision-making process, further in our attempts to assess the pros and cons of the statements that various ministers have been making.
I hope that the minister, who I know has been closely involved with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in the formulation of what he referred to as guidelines and in discussions that they have had with the oil interests, will be able to shed some light on when, in fact, we can expect to be given the kind of information that might flow from a chance to examine and study the land use regulations for the territories.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member quite properly says, the land use regulations under the Territorial Lands Act do not come within the purview of my responsibilities. Quite apart from any possibility of a pipeline, I think that if an undertaking were given it would be fulfilled as soon as possible by the government or the responsible minister. I want to assure the hon. member, whose concern in these matters is not of recent vintage and who has shown a great interest particularly in the ecological problems affecting these questions, that prior to any hearing taking place before the National Energy Board the government's ground rules and the basis for them will be made very clear.
I might point out that this has been a very different situation from 1956 when, as I understand it, the debate in respect of the construction of the pipeline was probably the first opportunity Parliament had to get its teeth into the problem. I would point out that since then we have had the National Energy Board Act. Many hon. members have evidenced their concern that there should be a hearing. I do not know whether there will be other hearings. There may be other hearings; for instance, to determine problems peculiar to the administration of the Northwest Territories. But certainly there will be hearings before the National Energy Board, something which was not the order of the day in 1956.
The application of any applicant before the National Energy Board will be a matter of public record, a public document, a public application which can be studied by any interested members or by the public. Any government decision affecting the hearing will be made public well ahead of any hearing, and certainly any member of the public or any public organization will have full right to appear at such hearing. There may never be a hearing about an oil pipeline in our lifetime, as I think we have made clear in our discussions with the industry. We have no assurance whatsoever that any application will be made with respect to an oil pipeline; so it may be that all our debate here will have turned out to be in vain, although it has been a very useful debate.
If such an application does ever come, I think it is extremely important that the House has considered all aspects of the possibilities well ahead of the event. And I believe, in my humble judgment, that there will be an application about a gas line. I think the economics of a gas line are very much a probability. I can only assure the hon. member that before such a hearing takes place we will make public any government determinations, including the land use regulations, if they are applicable, or such rulings apart from the regulations as may be made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with regard to the location of the pipeline. We will consider the corridor, etc., so that all members will have the maximum knowledge and information available to them prior to the hearing. Therefore, this public hearing, which will be available to the people of Canada prior to such an important decision, will in fact be a useful public hearing wherein there is maximum information and, hence, maximum capability not only to hon. members but to Canadians generally to make their views known to that tribunal.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 8 carry?


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, last Friday I posed several questions to the minister which he partially answered today. I would like to get a little more information from him tonight on matters which I think are of general interest to members of the House. I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister this afternoon. I think we all appreciate the information he gave us on the various matters with which he dealt. Everyone realizes the tremendous scope we have in the field of energy resources and how important these resources are to the well-being of Canada.
The other day I asked the minister this question-and I repeat it now: Are ecological studies under way in the minister's department or any other department to determine the possible effects of oil pipelines on the ecology of the north?


Mr. Hogarth:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have spent almost 20 days in debate on this bill. I understand that we are in committee of the whole considering clause 8 which deals with the differentiation between the duties of the minister who has just spoken and those of the new minister of the environment. I ask, what is the relevance of the question asked by the hon. member to this particular clause? It seems to me we must get ahead with the bill. We are getting absolutely nowhere by ranging over the whole field of natural resources when considering clause 8.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West will appreciate that he must relate his remarks and questions to the subject matter of clause 8. The explanatory notes to the clause are clear enough. They read:
The amendments proposed by this clause would distinguish between the duties of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and those assigned to the Minister of the Environment-

March 29, 1971

On the other hand, during the good speech which we listened to previously we heard a great deal about the ecology and studies on ecology, even though I must admit that I still know very little about the ecology after listening to a lot of what has been said about it. I hope the hon. member for Kootenay West will relate his question and statements to the clause under consideration.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that any hon. member would try to stop others from asking questions about problems connected with a pipeline in the north, when the minister himself has spent two hours this afternoon and this evening dealing with one-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. The Chair has been trying to co-operate with hon. members on both sides. I ask the hon. member to proceed with his questions and statements on clause 8.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am quite certain that the points I am going to raise are along the lines which the minister has been discussing this afternoon. He has given the House a complete outline. We are trying to get a little more information from him on the various points which he raised this afternoon.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Let us get on with clause 8.


Randolph Harding: That is exactly what I am doing. I would like the minister to indicate what research programs are being undertaken by his department on the effect of pipelines on the ecology of the north.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise the same point of order. With the greatest respect, that question has absolutely nothing to do with clause 8.


An hon. Member:: Where were you this afternoon?


Douglas Aird Hogarth: It appears to me that when the hon. member suggests-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. The Chair does not need to be reminded of what has already happened. I ask the hon. member for Kootenay West to speak to the clause and avoid any reference to the point of order, whether it was a legitimate point of order or not.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. However, I should like to raise this point of order: Why have you permitted a wide ranging debate on the very topic that I am trying to discuss now?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Randolph Harding: The minister has ranged over the whole field.


An hon. Member:: From 3.30 to six o'clock!


Randolph Harding: All I am asking is the same privilege that you extended to the minister and other members in this matter.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. I think the hon. member should realize that I have been asking him to proceed. The hon. member has been given the floor repeatedly to speak to clause 8.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have already asked the minister a question and I was waiting for his reply. I asked what studies are going on in the minister's department in connection with surveys on the ecology in relation to this pipeline.


An hon. Member:: That will take a full day's debate.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I did the best I could this afternoon in more than the time allotted to me to answer the very wide range of questions posed by hon. members of the opposition, including the leader of the hon. gentleman's party. I think this is what hon. members would want, that I should try to answer as best I could in the time available to me.
With respect to the various studies on ecology and other subjects that are going on, if the hon. member for Kootenay West will take the time, he will find that when this question was raised on a previous opposition day, I think a week from last Friday, I tried to give as comprehensive an answer as I could regarding the various studies going on in my department, in the National Energy Board and in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. My colleague, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, spoke in the debate as well.
I felt we gave a very comprehensive review of the studies being made both in the private and public sector and in the universities in regard to the ecology safeguards in the north. If the hon. member does not find this answer satisfactory, I regret that in the ten days or so which have elapsed since, nothing new has been added.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have gone over the debate for several days and have found no reference to any specific program. That is what we are interested in.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Randolph Harding: I am not asking the minister what is going on in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-his own department, I still have not received that information. In fact, on Friday the minister said that when the estimates were up-he was referring to these estimates-he would expand on the projects that were under his department, but apparently he is not going to do that.
There are a couple of other questions, Mr. Chairman. The minister was speaking about natural gas supplies and indicated that apparently Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have recently been before the National Energy Board. I ask the minister now how recent was this hearing between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and the National Energy Board, on natural gas supplies to eastern Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's leader referred to the hearings. As I recall it, these hearings were within the last month or so. I cannot put my finger
4712

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
on the document but I believe that is so. I referred the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands to the board's decision, and I think that answered his query.


Randolph Harding: A further question, Mr. Chairman. There was some indication that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines had an opportunity to vastly increase sales to their customers in eastern Canada. Some weeks ago, before the final hearing took place, there was an indication that they had been told by the pipeline company that the supplies just were not there; there were not sufficient supplies to increase sales. Do I understand that this problem has been solved, and that an unlimited amount of natural gas is available to customers in eastern Canada?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think that was the point raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In its report of February, 1971, the board found that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines has in fact contracts to meet the gas requirements of the particular application. The board does not make findings in vacuo-, they have not found they have sufficient gas to meet all possible demands from now on. What they found in the August decision was that there is 54 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves in Canada. In the February decision they found that Trans-Canada had sufficient gas under contract to meet the particular application in question, and that the February decision adverted to-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. With all due respect, I think there has been sufficient discussion outside of clause 8 at the present time. Further discussion should be limited to the subject matter of the clause.


Randolph Harding: I am going to go back to the question of a national grid which I raised the other day. This deals with hydro power, energy derived from power, if that is what my friends on the other side want. I am going to ask the minister-


Mr. Borrie:: A point of order-


An hon. Member:: Filibuster!


An hon. Member:: This is the first time he has got to his feet since Christmas.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious from the explanatory note that this clause will distinguish between the duties of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and those assigned to the minister of the environment.


Robert James Borrie: It certainly does not appear to me or to other members of this House, Mr. Chairman, that the member is being relevant to the discussion.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please. I again ask the hon. member for Kootenay West to limit his remarks to clause 8 and not to introduce subjects which are foreign or may belong to another debate.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with energy, including energy developed from water. That is clause 8, and that is the very thing I am dealing with. I want to

know how this is going to fit into the national grid. This question was raised the other day in the debate. Nothing could tie in more closely than hydro power. We are not talking about the establishment of a new department; we are talking about clause 8, which reads in part:
(a)	energy, including energy developed from water;
(b)	mines and minerals and other non-renewable resources;
And so on down the line. I ask hon. members to read the section. My question to the minister is: What rules are being made to establish this national grid, and just where does the department stand with respect to it at this time?


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, I will bow to Your Honour's decision. I certainly do not want to transgress Your Honour's ruling as to whether I should answer this question. I am prepared to bow to your decision.


Jean-Thomas Richard: If the minister will confine his answer to the question within the limits of the bill, I would appreciate it very much.


Robert James Borrie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I was under the impression that Your Honour had ruled in my favour by disposing of the question that had been put by the member.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please.


John James Greene: Mr. Chairman, we are all anxious to move on with the bill. I know that hon. members opposite are as anxious as we are to get this bill through. It is the furthest thought from their mind to in any way delay or obstruct the passage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: It may well be that I can expedite the passage of this bill by answering the hon. member's questions, relevant or not. As the hon. member stated Mr. Chairman, some years back the then Minister of Trade and Commerce enunciated government policy to have a national energy grid. I am instructed that while this grid is most useful in areas of high-population density, it has been progressing at a considerable pace. The Trans-Canada grid studies were conducted in the period 1964-67. Since their conclusion, the Trans-Canada grid has been steadily evolving on sound economic grounds. This is evidenced by the New Brunswick-Nova Scotia strong connection, the Quebec-New Brunswick strong connection, the Ontario-Manitoba strong connection, the Saskat-chewan-Manitoba connection announced and one in place based on the Nelson River program; and the Ontario-Quebec connection, one existing and one planned.
Thus, a strong, economic power grid is evolving through these interprovincial connections which will in due course lead to a full grid from coast to coast. It may be that the hon. member's information on this score is the one case where he was not properly informed with regard to energy policy.
Clause 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
March 29, 1971

On clause 26-Department established.


Jean-Thomas Richard: The committee will now consider part VI of the bill, Post Office, found on page 8 of the bill. Shall clause 26 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 27 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some confusion. One of my colleagues wishes to speak on the Post Office section. Did Your Honour call it, or not?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. The Chair called part VI, and also the page number. If the hon. member wants to speak on clause 26-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the sound system is not working. That is the reason the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock did not hear Your Honour call clause 26. I ask Your Honour to call clause 26 again.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 26 carry?


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear Your Honour when this clause was called. I think the sound system was cut off at that moment.


John James Greene: Your colleagues can neither hear, nor comprehend.


Barry Mather: The proposal before us under this clause states that there shall be a Post Office and there shall be a Postmaster General. The point is that the Postmaster General shall be a full member of the cabinet. As far as Postmaster Generals go, Mr. Chairman, they go very rapidly. In the past 14 years we have had nine or 10 Postmasters General; I have lost count. The turnover of Postmasters General takes place at an almost indecent rate. This is one of the few things that is weakening the generally good record of our Post Office.
It might be worth while spending a few moments to discuss this great public enterprise which we operate, the Post Office of Canada. The Post Office Department handles close to five billion pieces of mail every year. It serves five million doors across the country. It employs 47,000 people and operates some 9,000 branch post offices. Financially, the last figures I have indicate that the Post Office takes in approximately $444 million a year. Out of that it is losing almost $52 million a year, $1 million a week. This sounds like a great deal of money to lose. In a way it is. But if we consider that we have between 20 million and 22 million Canadians which the Post Office serves, the loss per capita is not very great.
If we divide $1 million per week by 21 million or 22 million Canadians, the Post office is operating at a loss of
Government Organization Act, 1970
between four cents and five cents per capita each week. More than half of that four or five cents per week per capita is generated by the loss on second-class mail; that is, mail put out for commercial reasons in the hope of profit.
Over the years the Post Office has consistently done well with regard to carrying the ordinary first-class letters which it was basically set up to deliver. It has operated in this category either at a small profit or at a small loss. At the present time I estimate that the loss on first-class mail amounts to less than one cent per capita. But the Post Office has consistently lost on second-class mail, and this has long been a subject of criticism by the Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee which have recommended that steps be taken to deal with this situation. Lest anyone assume I am suggesting that the postal loss with regard to second-class mail results from carrying small weekly newspapers, I wish to add that this loss amounts to but $2.3 million a year out of a total of $27 million in connection with profit-motivated mail.
These are some of the broad outlines of the postal business we are operating. It is a vast business, and we should consider that its purpose and use to our country goes beyond exact calculation in terms of dollars and cents. It would not be wrong to say that our postal system is contributing something to our national identity in the same way as the CBC is doing in another field. Dollars and cents are important matters to take into consideration, but one ought not to measure what the Post Office is doing strictly on that basis.
In some respects there is something very odd about the way in which the Post Office operates. For example, the public pays, through the Department of Public Works, for the accommodation of post offices across Canada. This charge is borne by the public in addition to what it pays in the course of buying postage stamps. The postal buildings are free to the Post Office. On the other hand, the Post Office performs services for a variety of departments and also to members of Parliament, for example, who enjoy free mailing facilities during the session. My view is that this is a quaint and curious situation which should be changed. In this respect we should be able to place the postal service on a strictly business basis, on a dollar and cents level.
I have drawn attention to the fact that the great loss to the Post Office is incurred in the area of second-class mail. This loss amounts to about 2 to 2J cents per capita per week. If it desired to reduce this cost we should consider whether the second-class mail rate should be further increased, taking into consideration the social services which the Post Office provides through the circulation of all types of mail. I do not think we can sum it all up with a few references to dollar losses or gains; the postal service is much greater than that, in my opinion.
The second area in which the Post Office is losing money relates to the imbalance of what it must carry
24081-18i

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 free of charge, largely emanating from the United States. As hon. members know, the universal postal agreement is basically a simple understanding between countries that they will carry the mail of another free of charge. This is an excellent basis for co-operation around the world and 132 countries are now involved on this basis. But Canada finds herself in a unique position with respect to the United States, a country with ten times its population. Canada is naturally required in these circumstances to carry a much greater volume of mail from the United States free of charge than is the United States with respect to Canadian mail. The imbalance of foreign mail, largely from the United States, leads to a loss in the order of $5 million every year. Efforts should be continued-and I know that some are being made-to rectify this situation.
A third area in which we need to improve the situation of the Post Office involves our quaint procedure of giving free accommodation to post offices and then requiring the Post Office to service departments of government free. This is an outmoded way of doing business and we should change it. We heard from the Post Office last week some good news for a change. Instead of being told about impending increases in postal rates or reductions in the service or disputes with employees, we were told about a new and more efficient method of handling mail, a new zip code procedure, probably the best type in the world, which would speed mail deliveries. This is a good step forward.
It seems to me sometimes that in the postal service, as in other spheres of endeavour, we suffer from the fact that while we are actually living in conditions of the future, we are still mired in the old ideas of the past. Electronics, which no doubt will play an increasingly important role in the postal services, will in future make it unnecessary, for example, to mail millions of old age pension cheques or family allowance cheques, largely to the same recipients, every few weeks or so. It will be possible to have this money deposited regularly in the accounts of recipients across Canada by electronic impulses, thus eliminating the need to mail and deliver millions of these bits of paper.
In conclusion, I wish to make these recommendations. We have heard that the Post Office is contemplating an increase in first and second-class mail rates. My recommendation is that there should be no increase in the first-class mail rate. It is not very long since we increased the charge on local mail by 50 per cent and by 20 per cent in the case of on-going mail. First-class mail over the years has come very close to paying its own way and it is still in that area: out of the five cents per capita per week which I mentioned as being the cost to Canadians of the postal deficit, the loss on first-class mail amounts to between half a cent and one cent a week.
! Then again, the largest part of the first-class mail no longer consists of letters written by individuals to other individuals. The great bulk of it is sent out by business firms in the form of bills-hydro bills, telephone bills, oil and gas bills, and so on-to consumers. My contention is that if the first-class mail rate is again increased, these

corporations will find that their costs have been increased and will soon pass the increase back to the people who receive the bills. In effect, we may find that the ordinary letter-writers of Canada are paying twice- they will pay more when they buy stamps because the price will have gone up, and they will be charged more for their telephone or hydro bills because those bills will cost more to deliver. I say, please leave the first-class mail rate as it is.
In the second place, I think it would be wise if we were to take a hard look at the profit-oriented mail in Canada. This is the area in which we are losing about half of this five cent per capita loss per week. If we have to increase this rate further, let us do so, although we must keep in mind the services in employment, the creation of business and extent of the communications which come within the realm of second-class mail. It is not a matter of saying that we are losing "X" dollars on second-class mail and have to increase the rate. We have to think beyond that and take a comprehensive look at it. I think the loss on second-class mail is about 2J cents, at the most three cents, per capita per week.
Thirdly, let us press on to gain an adjustment of the imbalance of what it costs Canada to carry foreign mail under the international postal agreement. I think we can hope to reduce the approximately $5 million which that imbalance presently costs Canadians. Finally, I think we should realize that with all its difficulties and troubles, our postal service is a very excellent one and has set a very good example to private organizations in Canada. When you consider the millions of people it serves without error, the little cost to the community involved and the fact that it is part of a world wide organization-132 countries participate in the international postal service-I feel that our Post Office is a worthy one and that we should consider how best to improve it in regard both to its efficiency and the reduction of its costs.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Chairman, I am not philosophically a devotee of the doctrine of reincarnation but tonight I have some sympathy for those who believe in that doctrine, in that my distinguished colleague the hon. member for Brandon-Souris being absent, it is my lot, happy or unhappy, to discuss before this Parliament and on behalf of my party the important part of this very controversial measure now before the committee.
It is not for me an unmixed blessing to be cast across the aisle from the Minister of Communications who is still legally and technically the Postmaster General of this country.


An hon. Member:: We are going to miss him.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes, in some ways I might miss him. I am somewhat surprised to see this particular clause of the bill come so soon before us, because not too many minutes before the adjournment I heard the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in full flight and it was my studied judgment that it would be many, many hours
March 29, 1971

before he and those who questioned him would be finished with their interrogation and deliberation upon that particular aspect of this measure.
I should like to say that it should be borne in mind that in these last few months the government of this country has chosen to have in charge of the very important administrative functions of the Post Office a man who is not a full-fledged minister, honourable man though he be. The government has allowed to continue week upon week a situation wherein another minister, who conveniently or otherwise divorced himself from the operations of this very important department, has carried on as Postmaster General of Canada. This has been noted. One also notes in this legislation that in this new category of ministers, and something less than ministers, the man who has responsibility for a large group of diligent public servants-the employees of the Post Office-is cast in an inferior role, whereas the other minister of this some time quodam merit department, the Minister of Communications, has but a handful of personnel under his jurisdiction yet has the senior status of a fully-fledged minister. I may be quietly disturbed by this but if I were minister of state in charge of the Post Office I would be unquietly disturbed at this sort of judgment. But it is not for me to make comments upon the value judgments of ministers of the cabinet and ministers of state.
I should like to say that I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken with reference to first-class mail. I think that for too many months the people of Canada have had to pay through the nose-or through the stamp-for the outrageous maladministration of the office of the man who is now the Minister of Communications of this country. I think that to suggest that you pile Pelion on Ossa and ask for even more, and that you follow the dismal, dreary recommendations of Peat, Marwick in one of his committees so that we would end up paying 26 cents for a first-class stamp, is a little more than even the most tolerant and insomnolent Canadians can bear.
I should like to say right now that I oppose the suggestion-as I opposed it two years ago-that, whether because of maladministration, of which we have had, God knows, plenty, whether because of increasing technological costs or whether because of unfortunate comparisons with other departments, the people of Canada who still use the mails should be soaked in order to overcome the iniquities and stupidities of those who have been running the Post Office. I do not view with equanimity the suggestion emanating, I believe, from the minister who, when this bill passes, is to be in charge of the Post Office-a man whose judgment, moderation and cordiality I admire greatly-that the only answer to maladministration in the Post Office is soaking, soaking, and soaking still further the people of Canada who still use the mails.
I have said in this House many times that while it was all very glamorous and delightful for the Minister of Communications to speak, as he often did when he was in great trouble-and the Post Office was nearly always in trouble when he was in charge-of wired cities and
Government Organization Act, 1970 futuristic communications, there were still Canadians who, although I do not want to sound antique or quaint, like to have their mail delivered to them. This may sound preposterous, and Canadians may be old-fashioned or square, but they believe that a letter mailed with postage paid to the full should eventually be delivered- and this is what has not been happening in the Post Office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it happens eventually.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My hon. friend says it happens eventually. I have known of letters that have taken six months to travel 60 miles, and 12 months to travel 90 miles. I am not sufficient of a mathematician to work out the fascinating equations involved, but while the former minister talked about advancing technology we all know that the fundamental aspect of rapidity of delivery has diminished, and diminished in direct proportion to the minister's talk about the increasing cost of technological advances.
I have said before, and I say again, that I hope his successor, who has been through the ropes, who is a man of compassion and a man of understanding, will show and continue to show compassion for the problems of the users of the Canadian Post Office. We used to call them patrons. We have been cautioned against that, because a patron receives services, and that is not what you are to expect now of the Post Office. Perhaps I ought to call them users of the Post Office. In any event, I think the upcoming minister who will be in charge of the Post Office cares; and to that extent, and I am sure that in this regard I speak on behalf of my party, I would not wish to oppose his taking over the responsibilities of the Post Office.
I think he cares. I think he has been convinced that the wholesale, automatic, cold calculation whereby rural post office after rural post office has been closed has not been particularly good, especially when it has been found that under the alternative arrangements substituted therefor the treasury of this country has charged the citizens of this country who have supported this government more for service which is less satisfying and far less efficient than that which they had before.
I know that the minister who is to be in charge of the Post Office is a man of modern ideas and good will. I know that he would be the last man to accept certain suggestions and would not willingly be forced into a position in which he would need to repudiate the futuristic and 99 per cent nonsensical suggestions of his predecessor. I do not want to delve into or touch upon that particularly sensitive area.
I have spent some time in this House discussing the kind of extravaganzas the Minister of Communications has embarked upon. At times he seemed to believe that the transportation and communication of the written word was totally passe and that we should be thinking of the futuristic conveyance of ideas. Where the hardware

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
that was to transport these ideas was to come from was something which could be left for future generations to decide I suspect that the Post Office bothered and bored him. As I walked to the House of Commons at two o'clock this afternoon, I saw the Lapalme drivers. These are men who have come down day after day in good weather and bad weather. I thought that perhaps the minister was indulging in a sort of protective colonation. I thought that he was trying not to think too frequently of the Post Office service, which did not operate very well and which, under his inspired leadership, resulted in the diminution, decay or death of many important media of communication-daily, technical and weekly newspapers and many journals of opinion.
I thought perhaps he was adopting a protective colouration and the kind of psychological evacuation that all mortal men are inclined to follow, because I suspect he was not thinking very much of the Post Office. I suspected that he might look the other way when he saw these Lapalme workers, and that he might be thinking of Tele-sat and other devices for communication which were not so mundane, so dreary or so common as to involve something as simple as the delivering of mail from a remote child to its father or mother. With such devices, he would not be bothered about the delivery of a statement from a business house to one of its customers, or the delivery of a statement from the customer to the business house: he would not be bothered too much about church papers, about academic journals or about those media of thoughtful, intellectual communication which pleaded with the minister and which for months told him about the problems that would be created if he failed to relent. He was told of the strict, stringent, hurtful, unnecessary and improper inhibitions which would be placed upon the communication of ideas in a time and in a country in which the free market and movement of ideas was more important than ever before.
I can remember so well, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Communications, an eminent businessman far more successful in that field than I, an impecunious ex-professor could ever be, told us how he was going to assault and assail these iniquitous deficits in the Post Office and how he ranged back over the years, talking of the carelessness of his predecessors-I am afraid that I must include the minister-designate in this category-and how he condemned what he called wastefulness and lack of business capacity. I remember how he said that he was going to bring his magnificent acumen to bear and how we were to have a Post Office which by negation or by deprivation would operate in the black.
I am wondering just what he is thinking now, as he looks at the pertinent statistics. I am wondering whether he regrets the costly and painful fiasco relating to mail delivery in Montreal. I will not trouble him about the human problem; it is there for all to see, because day after day the Lapalme people parade outside this House. I will not bother him by talking of the many, many people in Canada who look upon the government as an organization which, while it takes much from them, gives to them very few things-and one of the few things it gives them is the capacity for communicating with their

loved ones and others in other parts of the country. I will not dwell upon the fact that Canadians have been denied, since the Minister of Communications brought in these money-saving reforms, the benefit of mail delivery on Saturday. I am told that as a result of pressure from the Liberal caucus-one cannot give credit to the Conservatives or the NDP for this because, after all, they raised this question every day!-a compromise was reached. If you lived in the country, you could get your mail six days a week; but if you were an urbanite, you got it only five days a week. I wonder how many have suffered from this particular and rather stupid form of discrimination which came about as a result of the activities of an unusual combination of pressure groups.
As I look back over the whole Post Office story and at the man who is to be charged with responsibility in this area-I try to build him up in my mind as a man of compassion, as I have always been, and look on him with an admixture of hope and experience-I wonder what is in store for the people of Canada. Thousands of dollars have been spent and costly examinations and studies have been undertaken. If I were a member of Peat, Marwick or whoever else may be involved why, my goodness, I would not even want to go to the Senate. But when I look at the recommendations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't go soft.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I am sorry that the Minister of Communications is leaving. In much more cogent terms I could have expressed myself, but being an eternally amiable person I tried to temper my comments as much as I could. I am just wondering what the future will be. Mr. Chairman, I have often been accused of not being sufficiently partisan and of not being eternally vigilant for political champions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Look behind you.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The Minister of Communications should know that as a Presbyterian I am well versed in scripture, and the inscription "Get thee behind me Satan" comes quickly to my mind. But as a continuing Presbyterian I have to say we owe something to the state. We believe that which is owned to Caesar must be given to Caesar. But I am not prepared to say that Caesar should get 26 cents for every piece of first-class mail, whehther it is the old Caesar behind me or the new Caesar with his good will and his good grace in front of me.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member may continue if there is consent. Order, please. It is difficult for the Chair
March 29, 1971

to know whether or not there is consent. I will put the question: Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I may say, Mr. Chairman, that in my 14 years here this is the first time I have exceeded the legitimate time limit. I apologize for it, although I appreciate the good will of members who have allowed me an extension. Someone called me Brutus. All I can say is that as Shakespeare said, Brutus is an honourable man. I will rest content with that designation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, that is a difficult act to follow. The next time I have to conduct a funeral service I will look to it as a model. I suspect the Minister of Communications will probably cut it out of today's Hansard and file it away and say, "When the time comes to bury me, please read this".
Mr. Chairman, we welcome the main purpose of clause 26 which is to reinstate the hon. member for Longueuil as the full-time Postmaster General. I would point out that it was not our idea the last time the government organization bill was before us to downgrade the office of Postmaster General. That was the idea of the present government when it established the Department of Communications and the Minister of Communications as the person in charge of the Post Office. However, it was the government itself, when the Prime Minister wanted to do a bit of reshuffling a while ago and found that he was the prisoner of his own legislation, which asked for a shift to be made so that the Postmaster General would be a full-time member of cabinet. However, there is a question which bothers me which I believe I should put to the President of the Treasury Board since he is the pilot of this legislation.
I do not know of any other full minister in the cabinet who has attached to the legislation which establishes his status a proviso-a Damoclesian sword-under which he can lose that position. For example, in this bill there is to be established a minister of the environment and he is to be the minister of the environment-period. By clause 26 now before us we provide that there shall be a Postmaster General, but we keep alive in subclause 3 the provision that if the Prime Minister does not name anyone as Postmaster General, the Minister of Communications gets the job again. It would be a fate worse than being buried to have him back again. However, as long as he stays on this side of the House we are probably safe. What is the reason for subclause 3 in the new section we are enacting by clause 26? Why do we not just appoint the Postmaster General and give him the job without any strings attached to it? Can the President of the Treasury Board answer my question?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, of course, one of the reasons for proceeding in this manner is to make as little change in the previous statute as possible. This particular provision makes a lesser change than a complete withdrawal of the procedure that would be involved in the re-enact-
Government Organization Act, 1970 ment of the position of Postmaster General by itself. It also provides greater flexibility for the future, without the necessity for statutory amendment should the occasion arise when the dual functions would be performed by the Minister of Communications as head of that particular department and also responsible for direct supervision of the Post Office, as was the case a year ago.
I think hon. members are aware of the studies under way, looking to the possibility of at least the feasibility of setting up the Post Office as a Crown corporation. Whether or not it would be desirable to have a full-time departmental minister in charge of a Crown corporation with no other duties, I believe is a question which probably remains to be answered. However, whether it is desirable or not, the proposed legislation would allow either course to be followed. I do not believe there is any significance in it other than I have outlined.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I confess I had thought there might be some relationship to the studies in respect of a Crown corporation set-up for the Post Office, but it seems to me if that were done it would require legislation to be placed before Parliament and surely in that legislation we would settle the question concerning the direction of that corporation. In other words, I am still left with my question as to why the present Minister without Portfolio who is in charge of the Post Office when he becomes a full minister is to be the only member of the cabinet who has to have a back door open out of which he might be pushed at any time. We like the hon. member for Longueuil and we want him to have the same status as any other member of the cabinet. Does the President of the Treasury Board not want that too?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think the continuing in office of the prospective Postmaster General is dependent on statutory security, but like him I share the view that the prospective Postmaster General is so adequately equipped for the job that he does not need statutory protection.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 26 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: No, Mr. Chairman. I have a question in my mind that I would like to bring forward. I am not sure that the President of the Treasury Board is ready to deal with it. We heard a big song and dance a while ago about the assured mail delivery plan, whereby mail is posted in Toronto in the morning and it is guaranteed that within 24 hours it will be delivered in certain cities in Canada. I will not mention which city the minister considers to be the most important in Canada, but Saint John, New Brunswick, is not mentioned in this list.
I would like to ask him-if he cannot give me the answer tonight, he can give it later-whether we did not have for many years a 24-hour delivery in Canada and, if so, what is the idea of all this big story about a new plan? In other words, how many cities in Canada did not

March 29, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 have a 24-hour service and are not getting it, or was this just a big smokescreen to try to play up the Post Office Department? Is there something really new in this service?


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I can answer that, Mr. Chairman. While I am on my feet I would answer some other points raised during this short debate. Certainly I consider Saint John to be as important as any other city in Canada, but the difficulty lies in the transportation system between Toronto and Saint John. This is what stops us from providing the guaranteed 24-hour service. This does not mean that Saint John will not get this service, but the guarantee can only be given once the air transportation system is reorganized. Shortly, mail from Saint John to other cities will receive the 24-hour guarantee.
I should like to make a few remarks regarding the point raised by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. The Post Office deficit is not $52 million. Last year it was $120 million and this year we forecast a deficit of $113 million. He believes that there should be no increases in first-class mail because this might stop some people from using the mail service. Let us not forget that 80 per cent of first-class mail is taken up by industry and commercial letters. It is for the government to decide if we are going to spend $120 million or a large part of it to subsidize industries and commercial concerns, or if we are going to use it in other departments for other purposes. I must say that I found the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough to be unfair with regard to my predecessor.

My predecessor, as well as my successor, did the reorganization work that was necessary. This was not an easy task and certainly created some problems. My predecessor continued the work already started and hired very capable personnel. Due to their outside experience, these offices were able to give considerable help to the Post Office Department, and they certainly will contribute to its modernization.
This covers about all hon. members have said, Mr. Chairman, and I am satisfied with these few remarks.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question for the minister. I should like to ask him whether the situation has reverted to normal since he took office. For example, he seems to have stopped the closing of post offices in rural ridings. Has this been stopped, and is the situation getting back to normal? Is he planning some improvement of the service, and what improvements is he planning aside from those he announced recently?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: The service has been improved to a certain extent. We have had a lot of trouble, not necessarily because of my predecessor but because there have been many problems with the employees. There have been many strikes during the time he has been in office. It just happened when he was there. Perhaps I was lucky not to have been in office at that time, because it might just as well have happened had I been there. Apart from
that, I think that we had to gain the confidence of Post Office employees, because for almost a year there have been many disruptions and unrest. So the service had to be improved, and I think that is what we have been able to achieve in the last few months.
We have decided to stop the closing of small, rural post offices because even if it saved us many thousands of dollars a year it is not worth doing as this may create a lot of unrest in the small communities where post offices would be closed. This is the reason that I decided not to close any more where it was possible. I think that the morale of the employees of post offices has improved greatly. Their productivity has increased, and as a result the public of Canada will obtain a better service.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and the reply given by the President of the Treasury Board who is not here at the moment. Frankly, I think the President of the Treasury Board was reaching a fair distance for the reasons for which subclause 3 of clause 26 reads. I think this is really a case of sloppy drafting, or an attempt by the government to preserve some kind of pecking order within its own ranks. Either we are to have a separate minister in charge of the Post Office, or we are not.
The Prime Minister may at any time choose to have a person in charge of each ministry, or he may choose to double up ministers and have one person in charge of two or three departments. There does not need to be any legislation. The feasibility of setting up a Crown corporation instead of a Post Office Department is something that is yet to be heard about in a formal manner in the House; and, as my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, that would require legislation. If at that time the government of the day wanted to set up such a Crown corporation, they would put a provision in the legislation which would do away with a separate minister of the Crown in charge of the Post Office. I think that essentially the clause is sloppily drafted, or it might be due to an oversight on the part of the drafters or the President of the Treasury Board.
Therefore, I would like to move an amendment to clause 26 as follows:
That clause 26 be amended by deleting the words "Subject to subsection 3" from line 16, and by deleting the lines 22 to 29 on page 8.
This would clean up the clause and eliminate what I think is superfluous wording in the bill.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman, could we get a copy of this amendment so that we can examine it before we are asked to discuss it?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. If members of the committee are in agreement-and I understand the concern of the President of the Privy Council-I will read the amendment, without putting it in a formal sense, so that hon. members may consider it. If hon. members wish to make representations to the Chair about its procedural correctness, and want to consider the question, I might see another speaker on the substance of the matter.

March 29, 1971

Perhaps I should read the amendment without accepting it, subject to what other hon. members have to say. It is moved by Mr. Benjamin:
That clause 26 be amended by deleting the words "Subject to subsection 3" from line 16, and by deleting lines 22 to 29 on page 8.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, because you have the only written copy of the amendment I am not surprised that hon. members opposite want to know precisely what is involved before they are called upon to vote on it. If I may take the two parts of the amendment in the reverse order, what it does is delete subclause 3 entirely. That is the subclause which provides for the Minister of Communications to be the Postmaster General if the Prime Minister does not fill the post itself.
Then having deleted subclause 3, as a consequence it is necessary to delete the words "Subject to subsection 3" at the beginning of subclause 2. If the amendment carries the clause would have only two subclauses, one of which would say that there shall be a department known as the Post Office Department and the second of which would say the Postmaster General shall preside over it. In other words, it would put this minister on the same footing as all other ministers. It takes away the Damoclesian sword, and I believe the President of the Treasury Board would like to accept the amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: If there are no other members of the committee who wish to make representations, the Chair is prepared to accept the amendment and put the question.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 41.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 26 carry?


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Chairman, it had not been my expectation to speak on clause 26, for the simple reason that those hard taskmasters across the way have been keeping us so busy in the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the last week or two that I did not expect to be in the House. But having had an opportunity to be here this evening and listen to the debate, I feel I must make a few remarks.
The hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock gave a pretty good resume of the situation existing in this important department of government, and the hon. member for South Western Nova touched on a question that concerns me as a member from Saskatchewan; that is, the cut-back in services which the people in the rural areas of western Canada had to accept under the administration of the predecessor to the minister state who is to take over responsibility for the Post Office. The minister designate defended his predecessor against the criticism of the hon. member for Hillsborough, but in all truthfulness those criticisms were justified. Last year in Saskatchewan some 175 or 176 post offices were eliminated, with a consequent diminution of service to people in the affected areas.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Naturally, there was a strong backlash of criticism from people who had been accustomed to this government service.
Some of the people most affected are those who live close to the boundaries of the province. For instance, I happen to live about 3', to 4 miles from Manitoba. Formerly, a citizen of Manitoba could post a letter on Friday afternoon around three o'clock and expect to have it delivered in the next town, or in the two or three neighbouring towns, an hour or so later by the truck which came up from Brandon. Then the government decided, as an economy measure, that it could not afford to have trucks crossing provincial boundaries. It said it could not afford to buy licences for trucks crossing the boundaries. As a result a letter posted in Pierson, Manitoba, on Friday afternoon is taken by truck back to Vinden, then to Brandon, forwarded from there to Regina, Saskatchewan, sent back down to Estevan and then back down to Gainsborough and is delivered about four days later. The pony express, the smoke signals of the Indians, and the use of carrier pigeons, gave better service than that. Can the minister say if he is giving consideration to the restoration of service across provincial boundaries?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are rearranging transportation for these postal facilities in the Saskatchewan area so that the service will be much improved in the future.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It is ten o'clock.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman has only one question it might be of interest to us all to hear it, to receive an answer and perhaps not see the clock right away.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is what I was going to suggest. It is not very often we have two responsible ministers here at the same time, or should I say two ministers who presumably are responsible in this area? Earlier in his remarks the minister responsible for the Post Office made some reference to the question of salaries of people working in the Post Office Department and to some of the events that have taken place over the last year or so. I would like to ask him, or the President of the Treasury Board, whether consideration is now being given to the salary of people in the category of postmasters.
I am thinking of staff office postmasters. I have not had an opportunity to explore this matter, but it has come to my attention that in some cases the man in charge of a staff post office is receiving less salary than some of the people working under him. I wonder whether this matter is under review and whether early action will be taken in regard to postmasters and other administrative personnel within the department.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have had representations about salaries being paid, and we have received demands by some people in charge of post

March 29, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion offices because it appears that some of them are making less money than the clerks or letter carriers. We are looking into this question right now.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 26 carry?
Clause 26 agreed to.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I ask the President of the Privy Council whether it is the intention to proceed with third reading of Bill C-215, the textile bill, tomorrow and, if not, would he indicate the business of the House for tomorrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow the business will be consideration of the government organization bill. If there is any disposition to alter that, we could discuss it later tomorrow afternoon.


John Angus MacLean: If we continue with the government organization bill and the section we proceed with is passed, would the minister indicate which of the clauses that have been stood would be reverted to? Shall we return to them in sequence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My understanding is that it was put
on the record by the President of the Treasury Board that when we passed the part dealing with the Post Office we would proceed to the superannuation clause, then return to the ministries of state and parliamentary secretaries and to the clause in connection with the department of the environment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice your impatience with the delay in proceeding with the adjournment debate tonight. I can only take it that you must be anxious to hear the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. For that reason, I should like now to take part in this debate because I think there is something basically wrong and inequitable in the way the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marc-hand) makes awards of public money under the Industrial incentives act. As I see it, what is basically wrong is that the priorities of industry rather than those of gov-

ernment initiate the series of procedures which culminate in a plant or industry locating in community "X" rather than in community "Y". We in Canada have some serious regional economic problems, and the Industrial incentives act was established to deal with them.
What was in my opinion originally envisioned as a palliative to employment in slow-growth areas should receive commendation from all quarters of this House. My intervention tonight does not deal with the principle of government stimulation to areas in need, but instead with the practicalities of how these grants are administered. As I said, it is a private corporation rather than the government of Canada which through its application of grants to industrialists-which are described by some as social welfare-provides the initiative. Little or no concern has been directed to the planning or recognition of our own national priorities.
What, for instance, does the department do about relating a particular industry to a particular area, its suitability, etc? On the contrary, it is up to the industry to make application initially. It then follows that a particular industry rather than the national government establishes whether or not a plant locates in a particular community. The celebrated economist and former Canadian, John Kenneth Galbraith, has made the point that large multicorporations have little difficulty in raising capital. They do it largely through retained earnings. What, I ask, is the rationale behind the recent awards which I will list: $1.1 million to Boeing of Canada, $6 million to that poor company from the United States called IBM, $1 million to Ashland Chemicals, and $4 million to Control Data of Canada? These are a few examples of recent grants to foreign corporations operated in our country for which, aside from the jobs produced, Canada as a nation may gain relatively little.
This prompted me to direct the following question to the Minister on February 25, as recorded at page 3740 of Hansard.
In awarding these various incentive grants amounting sometimes to millions of dollars and ranging in value from $3,000 to $5,000 per job, has the government considered acquiring equity in the recipient company proportionately equivalent to the grant made?
Your Honour suggested that this was a representation. I then said:
It seems to me that there is a basic inequity in the fact that when a recipient company makes a profit its shareholders get the benefit, but if it loses the public picks up the tab.
I asked this question for the following reasons, Mr. Speaker. First, it appears that we have put through incentive grants which total in excess of $100 million and this vast amount of money could have been used to acquire Canadian equity in certain companies, especially the foreign ones, and a greater control of our own economy-a crucial matter presently under study by the cabinet. Second, I was alarmed that grants tended to vary from region to region. This indicated no real planning at the decision-making or ministerial level. For example, Nova Scotia received $15,000 per job, Newfoundland
March 29, 1971

$1,600 per job, roughly 10 per cent of Nova Scotia's, and Ontario $7,000 per job. The Canadian average is $5,500 per job.
Certain provinces, notably Manitoba and the reactionary Saskatchewan government, have seen fit to tie equity into their incentive grants. For the proposed Meadow Lake pulp mill the government of Saskatchewan has assured 30 per cent equity as its price for its share of assistance. Surely for the $12 million requested, the government of Canada ought to consider eight per cent to 10 per cent equity as a fair proportion if the project is ultimately approved by the minister. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party envisions the Canada Development Corporation as a Crown corporation which with the involvement of the provincial and municipal governments and co-operatives could be a means whereby a substantially larger proportion of Canada's industry and resource development could be retained in Canadian hands.
I know that a substantial portion of the minister's rebuttal will centre around the argument that industries are granted public funds as an incentive to locate away from the comparative cost advantage areas in large metropolitan regions. This argument I repudiate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects of the hon. member's remarks this evening with which one could take issue. I will confine my remarks to reiterating what has been said previously in reply to similar questions. Under the terms of the Regional Development Incentives Act it would be impossible for the government to acquire equity in projects which it supports. While the government certainly considered this possibility and others when introducing the program, the legislation passed by Parliament provides for a program of grants and loan guarantees only, not one of government investment. In fact, the government would be defeating the purpose of the legislation if it were to take an equity position in these companies in return for the funds it makes available to them under this program.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Mr. O'Connell:: The program is designed to create new jobs in those parts of the country where they are most badly needed. To do this, it must offer a real incentive to industries to locate or expand in areas where they might not otherwise do so. The program therefore works by providing manufacturing industries with grants sufficiently large in relation to their costs-this is why there is a variation-to enable them to undertake viable projects despite the difficulties they may encounter as a result of location in a slow-growth region. If the govern-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ment were to acquire equity in return for its grants, the present incentive in favour of the slow-growth regions would disappear.


Mark Willson Rose: Oh, come on!


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Think about it for a moment. The government would simply become another source of equity financing, that is, in return for the grant it would acquire an equity in the company. There would be no incentive left. While there is perhaps a case to be made for the government taking equity in certain circumstances, it would have to be in addition to the assistance available under the existing incentives program rather than a replacement for it. This is a possibility which has been considered within the department although no action has been taken in that direction.
I would refer to the hon. member to the statement made today by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) before the Standing Committee on Economic Development. In this statement he referred to at least two new federal-provincial industrial development corporations which will operate in Newfoundland and New Brunswick and which, among other things, may supply equity capital in certain circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.



AIR TRANSPORT-USE OF AIR SPACE AND AIRPORTS BY SUPERSONIC PLANES-AWARENESS OF OTHER COUNTRIES OF CANADIAN POSITION

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, it always happens that when my hon. friend, my seatmate, appears on the late night show he insists that I appear along with him. We have to keep each other company.
On March 23 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) with regard to the use of Canadian air space by supersonic planes. I asked him whether other countries were aware of the position taken by Canada. The minister replied that he had certainly made our position known to the United States, for example, but he did not know whether this information had been formally conveyed to other countries which might be concerned. He had not done so personally. I then asked the following supplementary question:
Would the minister say whether he would formally convey that expression of opinion, which I heartily support, to the other countries of the world now engaged in supersonic aircraft programs?
At that point, Mr. Speaker, you suggested that my supplementary was, in fact, a representation.


An hon. Member:: He was right.


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, it was.


John Leroy Skoberg: At this point I think it is important we face the question whether or not our stand with regard

March 29, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
to supersonic transport is appreciated by the other countries which are involved in this experiment. All of us are aware that the United States Senate and House of Representatives have turned down requests for funds to continue the supersonic aircraft program in that country. This decision has resulted in repercussions not only in the United States but throughout the world.
All the unanswered questions regarding the effects of using supersonic aircraft are now being asked again, and I am sure that those who are concerned with the building of the "Concorde" in France and Britain are questioning whether or not the program should be carried on. Here in Canada we ought also to ask certain questions about these supersonic planes which travel between 1,400 and 1,800 miles an hour, cost between $40 million and $50 million each and create a disastrous sonic boom which could injure people and property lying under their path. Do these planes, flying at great height, produce exhaust gases which by polluting the upper atmosphere could give rise to real danger? At the same time we must realize that those people with the technical know-how to build this sort of plane are not concerned with the environmental pollution they create or whether people's brains will be damaged by resultant sonic booms.
The question that the government must answer is whether SST's are to be allowed to fly over Canadian soil and to use Canadian airports. People and planners say that airports must be built away from urban centres so that sonic booms will not wreck our brains. But how do these supersonic planes reach our airports? I am sure that the people who say we must build airports a long way from large urban centres also appreciate that rural communities are just as concerned about some booms as anybody else. It is clear from two answers that were tabled that Air Canada has on order at the present time ten supersonic jet aircraft. For the "Concorde" SST there are four line positions which call for delivery in approximately 1976. There are six line positions for the Boeing 2707 calling for delivery in the spring of 1980.
I asked the following questions of the minister: Have the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commission approved of supersonic planes flying over and landing in Canada? The answer was no. Then I asked: What specific research has been undertaken by any government agency or department regarding the effects of supersonic flying over Canada? The department replied there was none, that the Department is following the development of this type of aircraft from the viewpoint of applying restrictive measures should this action appear necessary. Another question I asked was: Is the Canadian Transport Commission or the Department of Transport aware of the recent announcement by Air Canada that six Boeing supersonic planes have been ordered to be flying in Canada around 1978? The answer was yes. Then I asked: Has approval been given to the flying of the above planes over Canada? The answer was no.
There is much talk in this House of protecting the environment, of national pollution standards and clean air standards. All these aspects must also involve use of

supersonic jets. I am sure we all realize that our nationalized airline has now on order a supersonic aircraft that has not been given permission to fly over our territory or to land at our airports. If the Minister of Transport wants to be a great statesman, all he has to do is introduce legislation to prohibit the landing of these planes at any of our airports and to prohibit SSTs flying over our territory. I am sure in this regard Canada could lead the way for other countries involved in the race for SSTs by introducing this type of legislation.
It is hard to imagine why the Canadian Transport Commission or the Air Transport Board of the commission has not done some research in this area. I am sure that if the people of Canada had their way they would not allow the SSTs, in which billions of dollars have been invested, to fly over our land and to land at our airports when they have no knowledge of the disastrous effects that could result from such flights.


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in replying this evening to the question raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), I would like to point out that the subject matter is one which in recent months has been very much in the minds of governmental officials and elected legislators in a good many countries.
I do not think anyone would question the need for proper and effective guidelines or regulations to which aircraft capable of supersonic speeds should be limited. I recall an earlier "late show" on this very subject in January at which time the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) spoke of the potential harm to the environment made possible by such flights, and specific mention was made of construction programs being carried out in the United States, Russia, and the "Concorde" program being developed by the British and the French. That evening Mr. Speaker, I stated this country's policy with regard to sonic booms. I also informed the House of the extensive research being carried out by the government and by the aircraft industry. Mention was made of the work of a number of government departments which have membership on a recently established interdepartmental committee on the sonic boom and also the ICAO sonic boom panel. Our government's policy on this matter is well knowno (10:20p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Gérard Duquet: -to the aircraft industry, not only in North America but in every other country which has an interest in marketing such aircraft for export. Without desiring to bore the hon. member, repetition of the air regulation affecting sonic booms might be very useful at this time. Air regulation 515(2) states:
No aircraft shall be flown In such a manner as to create a shock wave the effect of which is to create or likely to create a hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground.
I have already said, Mr. Speaker, that our policy is well known to all aircraft manufacturers in whatever
March 29, 1971

country they are situated. The minister made reference to his recent and personal public pronouncements on this subject in Canada and in the United States. I have no doubt that other countries have various means by which they are informed of such matters. As the hon. member knows, the regulations are public information and have been published in a formal way in the Canada Gazette, to which I suspect all foreign countries subscribe faithfully.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion I want to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and his departmental officials are following very closely the present development in supersonic aircraft. I will certainly bring to their attention the specific representations made this evening.
Motion agreed and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, March 30, 1971