1971-01-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clermont.
(Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.)

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. My motion deals with an announcement made this morning that effective June 30 this year there will be a reduction of 570 military personnel, representing approximately 40 per cent of the United States Air Force complement at Goose Bay, and also a reduction of 30 in the civilian force. As it would appear that the same pattern of phase-out as at other United States installations in Newfoundland-Harmon Field, Pepperel and Argentia- has commenced, and as the Goose Bay area appears to offer no alternative employment opportunities whatsoever, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs take immediate action to determine the full intent of the American authorities with regard to the future of the U.S. base at Goose Bay.
That the government immediately move to prepare a contingency plan to meet what would undoubtedly be an emergency situation of national importance should the Americans completely abandon this base as in the cases of Harmon Field and Fort Pepperel.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member who has just spoken. Before it can be put to the House unanimous consent is required under the terms of Standing Order 43. I will therefore inquire whether there is such unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and consequently the motion cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 43.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-218, to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the release from custody of accused persons before trial or pending appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance who I know is lurking behind the curtains because I have seen his pipe and his face behind it. I wonder if we could wait for a moment until the hon. minister takes his place. Can we give him a hand, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Tally-ho!


George Harris Hees: It is nice to see him back. My question is: As two months have now passed since the last federal-provincial finance ministers conference to which the treasurer of the province of Ontario submitted for consideration a plan to aid small business, has the Minister of Finance given consideration to this proposal during the intervening period and has he decided that it would be possible to utilize this excellent plan to aid small businesses across the country?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: I have not only reviewed this plan but I have reviewed alternatives to it. As I have indicated previously, we have been looking at the situation-the white paper proposals, the submissions of business and the submissions of the province of Ontario with respect to the small business problem-and I would hope that when the tax bill is ultimately produced it will be well accepted by small business in the country.
Another point I should like to bring out is that the treasurer of Ontario has asked for a further meeting between provincial treasurers and finance ministers and myself. I am trying to arrange such a meeting in February but I am having a little difficulty because there are some important things going on for the Tory party in Ontario in February.

January 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: I am glad to learn that the minister has compared this very excellent plan with the proposals contained in his white paper. In the course of this comparison has he not come to the conclusion that this plan is preferable to doing away with the 21 per cent tax rate and replacing it with the full 50 per cent levy, which seems to be the only real interest the minister has taken in small business?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of an argument and I would not think it is acceptable in such terms.



UNITED STATES PROPOSAL FOR GAS PIPELINE ACROSS CANADA FROM ALASKA-COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION -CONTINENTAL POLICY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of a statement made yesterday by the United States Federal Power Commissioner, Albert Brooke, to the effect that the Nixon administration is trying to hasten the construction of a natural gas pipeline across Canada from Alaska because of the energy shortages being experienced south of the border? Has such a proposal been received from the government of the United States, are any discussions going on and has any decision been reached?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, of course, about the building of this gas pipeline. Just how far those have involved bilateral discussions between officials of our two governments I am not quite certain at the moment. But it would be our wish that a gas pipeline be built, I think it would be in the interests of Canadians as well as of Americans.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the Acting Prime Minister be prepared to give an assurance that, before any decision is made with respect to the construction of such a pipeline, the whole matter will be referred to a standing committee of the House in order that we may have an opportunity of seeing what the gas needs of Canadians are, whether or not they would be affected, and also any studies that have been made of the ecological effects of the construction of such a pipeline through Canadian territory?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the ordinary procedure would be used in any application for the building of a pipeline in Canada. Parliament has laid down a procedure for the use of the National Energy Board. They would receive the application, and I am sure they would be as careful about Canadian interests as my hon. friend.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since U.S. Federal Power Commissioner Brooke also said, "Concurrent with this is the effort to develop a common continental energy policy with our Canadian neighbours",
may I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether discussions are going on at any level of government with respect to a continental energy policy, and would the government be prepared to make a statement on motions to give the House some information as to what energy commodities are being discussed and under what terms?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say quite categorically that no discussions are going on between Canada and the United States in regard to a continental energy policy. I do wish to add, however, that I think the respective developments in our two countries should be co-ordinated as much as possible so as to gain maximum advantage for both countries.



CONTINENTAL POLICY-PRESSURE BY UNITED STATES

George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were the ministers who attended the latest interministerial conference between Canada and the United States, which as the minister knows takes place once or twice a year, subjected to any behind the scenes pressure brought to bear on the Canadian government, as it has been in the past, for a continental energy policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED STATES PROPOSAL FOR GAS PIPELINE ACROSS CANADA FROM ALASKA-PROTECTION OF HUNTING AND FISHING GROUNDS

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would the minister inform the House whether any steps have been taken, or will be taken, by the government to protect the traditional hunting and fishing grounds of the native peoples of the north over whose lands the pipeline will likely be routed?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am
quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that if the National Energy Board were to recommend to the government the issuing of a licence for this purpose, the protection of the natural environment and the interests of the local inhabitants would be taken into account in reaching a decision.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that the President of the National Dairy Industry Council, Mr. Jackson, speaking at a meeting of the annual convention of Canadian dairy producers in Fredericton, predicted a shortage of milk by 1972 as a result of domestic and foreign demand exceeding the level of production for the current year, can the minister tell us whether his government intends to devel-

January 21, 1971

op a program for the purpose of helping farmers to produce more milk?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and some very constructive actions were taken by the dairy industry itself and a number of the provincial marketing agencies related to that industry within the last few days. I am not persuaded that there is going to be a shortage of milk or milk products in Canada for a very long time, and perhaps not at all.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary question.
In view of this threat, would the minister not consider immediately ceasing "penalizing" those farmers who are currently exceeding their quotas?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the supplementary question is in the form of a suggestion. The hon. member should assume that the minister will consider it.



PENITENTIARIES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has to do with the situation at Prince Albert penitentiary. Has the investigation into the recent riot or disorder in the penitentiary been completed, and will the guards or warders who were suspended be reinstated?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry has been completed and the correction officers who had been suspended have resumed work. At the present time, a grievance has been filed and it is still under study at the level of the Commissioner of Penitentiaries.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the minister whether or not the major criticisms that were made in the investigation were to the effect that orders from Ottawa from the head of the penitentiary service, who is totally unacquainted with penitentiary service having had no experience in that direction, brought about a situation in which the convicts in the penitentiary assumed superiority and authority even over the warders?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the officials in Ottawa who are responsible for the administration of the Penitentiary Service enjoy my utmost confidence and I think they are people of experience who know about the problems in the penitentiaries and who are in direct contact with those who manage operations inside the penitentiaries.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, was a person not recently appointed as head of the penitentiary service who had no acquaintance with or knowledge of penitentiaries whatsoever?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. He may have answered this question in response to the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. If he did I did not catch the answer. I would like to know whether the inquiry into the riot at Prince Albert has been completed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for not getting the answer the first time, would the Solicitor General be prepared to make the results of that inquiry public?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that it has generally been recognized by the House that such inquiries are of a private nature and must serve our own purposes. Had I not been satisfied with the inquiry that was conducted, I could have used other means and turned to a higher level, but I think that this inquiry was performed very efficiently and that the situation is back to normal in that penitentiary.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the hon. gentleman and counter his suggestion. It is not a well recognized practice. Such inquiry reports have been made public on previous occasions. In any event, inasmuch as there appears on the Order Paper under the name of the government a referral to the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee specifically dealing with penitentiaries, specifically for the committee to travel, and specifically to look at the situation in Prince Albert, does the minister not think he could take the members of that committee into his trust and let them see the report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



SUGGESTED STUDY OF PROBLEMS BY COMMISSION

['Yes, Mr. Speaker. The number of civilian employees involved is 30. As I understand it, about half will be laid off and the remainder will accept alternative employment with the United States Department of Defence. The Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are working very closely with the local authorities in an effort to minimize the impact. As a result of the representations we made to the United States government, they have substantially improved the conditions for the release of the employees. Under the circumstances I think we have done everything reasonably possible to mitigate the effects of this reduction.\n* sfs *']
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the recurring riots and troubles at Prince Albert and St. Vincent de Paul penitentiaries and others across the country, would the minister set up a commission of experts to study these problems so we can have better enforcement of penitentiary administration throughout the country?


John George Diefenbaker: Better administration.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, following the publication of the Ouimet report, two

January 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
commissions have been established, whose task it is to inquire into the penitentiary system. There is, in my department, a commission that sits permanently, and there is an interdepartmental commission that meets as required. These days, this is indeed required, as was probably the case five years ago, and as it might be five years from now. Therefore, it is a permanent problem, and it is reviewed on a permanent basis in order to improve the situation that prevails in our penitentiaries.



Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, as some nameless voice keeps refusing unanimous consent to reasonable motions, I should like to direct the following question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of today's announcement regarding an approximate 40 per cent reduction of the military force at the United States Air Force base at Goose Bay and some reduction of the civilian force at the same base, will the minister undertake immediately to determine the intent of the United States authorities with regard to the future of that base?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the announcement from the United States government made clear, the United States and Canadian governments have already been very closely in touch on all aspects of this matter.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Defence. Will he give immediate consideration to the defence committee's recommendation that Goose Bay be reactivated as one of the strategic Canadian bases for maritime command operation, for Arctic patrol and for patrol of Canada's coastal waters?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have had that under consideration for some time.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think the people in that part of Canada have a right to know what their future is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was merely trying to lay a premise for my question which is very urgent and important. Has the government determined what are the intentions of the United States government with regard to the future of this installation which is so important to the economy of that particular part of the country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reductions are part of a thinning out process on the part of the United States government. To answer the question directly, it is not the
intention of the United States government to declare Goose Bay surplus to United States' requirements. They intend to retain the base.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct a supplementary to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister had any discussions with the United States military authorities in respect of the use of their base and facilities at Goose Bay?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have not personally had discussions but I would be quite prepared to inquire to see what departmental or military discussions have taken place.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has a contingency plan such as was alluded to by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and when the House might be apprised of the plan the government has in mind to offset the impact of the reduction or thinning out the minister mentioned, which is a reduction of 40 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The number of civilian employees involved is 30. As I understand it, about half will be laid off and the remainder will accept alternative employment with the United States Department of Defence. The Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are working very closely with the local authorities in an effort to minimize the impact. As a result of the representations we made to the United States government, they have substantially improved the conditions for the release of the employees. Under the circumstances I think we have done everything reasonably possible to mitigate the effects of this reduction.
* sfs *



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. David Lewis (York Soulh):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Communications who is scheduled to be here today, but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government decided to make a loan of some $30 million to Telesat during the next two or three years, with the intention that the loan be repaid in a few years by the issuing of shares to the public?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the question is so urgent that it should be asked during the oral question period. The hon. member is referring to something which

January 21, 1971

might be done within two or three years. It seems to me that normally this kind of question should be put in writing. If there is urgency which is not apparent to me, perhaps the minister might want to reply to the hon. member's question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will take the question as notice. It is the kind of technical question to which I could not ordinarily be expected to have the answer.


David Lewis: On a point of order, may I explain to Your Honour that I must have worded my question badly. The decision is being made now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In any event I do not think that should be considered as a point of order. The hon. member's question has been allowed and an answer of sorts has been given to him.


David Lewis: Yes, of sorts, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question? When he draws the matter to the attention of the Minister of Communications, would he consider whether it should be a loan or whether, in view of the fact that the Canadian people will be taking the risk, we should not add to our equity ownership in Telesat?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question is in the form of a submission.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As several weeks have gone by now since the implementation not only of the War Measures Act but of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, is anyone now incarcerated who has not been charged with a particular offence either under the Code or under the special new legislation?


John Napier Turner: I will take that question as notice in view of the way it was put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the proceedings at the Singapore conference. Would the Acting Prime Minister be good enough to obtain and hopefully table in the House a copy of the Prime Minister's set speech in which he urged the abolition of set speeches at such gatherings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Nesbitt:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest it would be difficult to accept a supplementary question to a question which is clearly not in order. I will return to the hon. member in a moment. At this time I recognize the hon. member for Spadina.



WELFARE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Acting Prime Minister. In light of the statement of the mayor of Saskatoon regarding a national survey of municipalities and their welfare and unemployment pressures this winter, is the government prepared to provide emergency funds for the municipalities beyond what was stated in the budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: I expect that this subject will be on the agenda of the meeting of welfare ministers later this month.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has the government conducted its own survey of the impact of unemployment on the services and finances of the municipalities? If so, will the minister table the government's findings?


Mitchell William Sharp: The government is generally aware of the impact upon the municipalities, but there is no special survey that could be tabled.



RECOMMENDATION BY TASK FORCE THAT SERVICE COLLEGES BE ABOLISHED-REQUEST THAT REPORT BE TABLED

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Are he and his officials giving consideration to the recommendation made by the task force appointed by the Secretary of State to look into the problems of youth to the effect that service colleges should be abolished?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would say that would be speculation on the part of the hon. member.


David Orlikow: I would like to ask the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada whether he would consider tabling the recommendations made by the task force appointed by the Secretary of State, which I understand have now been given to the minister?


Hon. Roberl Slanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: think the Secretary of State said in the House a few days ago that when the final report was available and had been considered by cabinet, he would give consideration to tabling it or making it available in some other way. I believe he answered that question a week or ten days ago.

January 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Is he in a position to tell this House whether he has had any talks with the government of the province of Quebec with a view to granting money one way or another to the SOGEFOR plants in Maniwaki and Lac-des-Iles?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minisier of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Abitibi wish to ask a supplementary question?


Gérard Laprise: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to get in touch with the Quebec authorities or the SOGEFOR management and come to an agreement which might forestall the closing of the plants on March 5 next?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a suggestion which he must assume will be taken into account.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether the government is giving consideration to a proposal from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council to allow primary industries in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to qualify for regional incentive grants in view of the failure of the program in these two provinces?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this request. It has likely reached my department and I shall have the opportunity to discuss it.



PARTICIPATION BY MINISTER IN NEWFOUNDLAND CONFERENCE

James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the criticism levelled at the minister and his department by the Premier of Newfoundland, is it the minister's intention to participate in the economic conference planned in Newfoundland for February 4, and will he have his five-year development plan ready by that time?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have seen several letters and statements from Mr. Smallwood congratulating the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, but I am not aware of the last one. Unfortunately, I shall be unable to attend this conference.
[Mr. Stanbury.l



LEGALITY OF POSSESSION OF HALLUCINOGEN MDA

Mr. Gordon Sullivan (Hamilton Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the recent death of Tom Coles in Toronto caused by sniffing the hallucinogen MDA, is the government considering making possession of this drug illegal?


John Napier Turner: I suppose that question falls more properly under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but because of its importance I should like to answer it now. The question, I think, is based on an editorial in a Toronto newspaper to the effect that MDA is not covered under the present legislation. I am advised that in fact the drug MDA was added to Schedule J of the Food and Drugs Act on November 26, 1969. It is therefore a restricted drug, and both possession and trafficking are currently unlawful.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the name of the newspaper? It is so far behind the times.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Because of a decline in the sale of lumber the Bowaters Mersey Paper Company closed its sawmill in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, on December 15. However, its employees have been unable to collect their unemployment insurance to date. In view of the seriousness of their economic situation, will the minister investigate the matter to determine the reason for the non-payment of claims?



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO EXPRESS VIEWS PRIOR TO ACTION ON TOLLS

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the visit of the Minister of Transport to Washington, presumably on the St. Lawrence Seaway toll matter, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that there will not be any action, unilateral or otherwise, by the Canadian government on this matter until members of the House have had a chance to express themselves, preferably in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think I can give one assurance, namely, that it will be some time before a decision is taken.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport is absent because of his meeting with his United States counterparts on

January 21, 1971

this very important issue, would the Acting Prime Minister, in his charitable way, advise or instruct the Minister of Transport to make a statement on motions immediately on his return to Canada on what conclusions were reached in his discussions with his U.S. counterparts?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a question for the Secretary of State, but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Acting Secretary of State or to the Acting Prime Minister. Possibly the matter should be raised as a question of privilege, but I think I will follow the alternative of putting it as a question.
I have in front of me a copy of a publication of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation called "Closed Circuit". The headline on the front page reads, "CBC Foreign Correspondents Picked Stories of the Year", and there are pictures of six so-called foreign correspondents, one from Moscow, one from Washington, one from the United Nations, one from the Far East, one from Paris and one, Mr. Peter Daniel, from Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It may seem somewhat humourous, but in view of the present circumstances in Canada it seems to me to be a rather serious matter that a Crown corporation, the CBC, should publish something like this that can be used by many in this country as an excuse for certain actions. I was wondering-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member proposes to ask a question following the statement he has made.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Your Honour, perhaps there was a little disturbance in the House. I was going to say, would the Acting Prime Minister or, preferably, the Acting Secretary of State look into this matter and provide some explanation to the House since the CBC costs the country $180 million a year?



INCREASE IN WHEAT DELIVERY QUOTAS TO FILL MANITOBA ELEVATOR SPACE

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that as of mid-December some 50 per cent of the elevator space in the province of Manitoba was vacant, could the minister advise the House whether a further immediate increase in general wheat quotas will be provided to allow more of this space to be filled more quickly than will otherwise happen?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the House well knows, it is our
Inquiries of the Ministry
hope that the elevator system will not be overfilled and that it will be in a position to operate at peak efficiency. It is true, of course that an extra number of deliveries out of Manitoba elevators led to a depletion of stocks in those elevators during the last part of 1970. Since that time wheat quotas have been opened and an additional five bushels has been added to the barley quota bringing it up to 20 bushels throughout all Manitoba blocks. We think that with these actions we will soon see an increase in the stocks in these elevators.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the number of complaints that various Members of Parliament have been getting about the amount of space in country elevators, can the minister advise us how quickly the remaining seven shipping blocks still on a three-bushel general quota will be raised to four bushels, and when we can expect a further general increase for all shipping blocks?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. My information from the Wheat Board is that most of the blocks were in fact put on the four-bushel quota for wheat. Those which were not were ones in which space was required for barley movement or the movement of other grain. The Wheat Board makes these judgments according to the amount of grain required for market, and with the system of shipping blocks it has some confidence that the grain can be delivered in time.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS PROGRAM-DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PASTURES

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask a related question. I raised the original question on Monday last when I asked the minister whether community pastures would no longer be opened up as has been done under PFRA. The minister indicated that I had misstated the facts. I have obtained a copy of the pamphlet issued by the minister in which he says that "any programs and policies which tend to encourage the breaking of new land would be discouraged." I wonder whether the minister wishes to correct the wrong impression he apparently left at that time and also his allegation that I misstated the facts?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say that the statement which the hon. member has just quoted is correct, whereas the statement he referred to earlier was not.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask the minister whether it will no longer be policy of the government to open community pastures?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with that question is that it goes well beyond the narrow issue contained in the other statement. The exact nature of ARDA agreements, which are very often involved and which I think the hon. member is really referring to, involves discussion between the provinces and the government. I would not want to preclude the possibility of, in certain cases, certain specific agreements being entered into.

January 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-CONSIDERATION OP ALTERNATIVE MANITOBA PLAN

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the answer the minister gave me on Wednesday with regard to his meeting with the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba. Since the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba has advanced a program for assistance to farmers that is obviously far superior to the stabilization program presently-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please ask his supplementary question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give consideration to the advantages of the alternative plan advanced by the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary question is a representation. He has to assume that it will be taken into account. The Chair will recognize one more member for a supplementary question on this subject, the hon. member for Regina East, after which we will go to another matter.



PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-METHOD OF TAKING INCREASED COSTS INTO ACCOUNT

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board if the government, in reviewing its original proposals in the grain policy statement, is giving consideration to means whereby increasing costs can be taken into account in its stabilization proposal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are of course looking at all suggestions which might be made to us, including the one put to me the other day by the Minister of Agriculture of Manitoba. Of course, while looking at it we should note that the producer contribution required for that plan would be in the order of 12 per cent.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of a statement made by the Ontario Minister of Mines that the federal government has discriminated against Ontario in the matter of a regional development-grant to build a smelter for Falconbridge Nickel at Becancour, Quebec, can the minister say if Falconbridge Nickel ever applied for a grant to build a smelter in Ontario and, if so, was its application turned down?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking about events which took place some time ago. I think his question ought to be put in writing or, if it is urgent, it could be considered at the time of adjournment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister which is related to a statement attributed to the Prime Minister in Singapore today. In one of his major contributions he delivered a lecture to his colleagues from Asia and Africa about the fact that the 1970's would be a decade of grave problems flowing from social unrest. While welcoming this belated recognition, may we also hope that it will also be reflected in a change of government policy toward the hundreds of thousands of unempoyed in this country?
$ $ ^


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the large numbers of unemployed persons, low income pension recipients and people on welfare who are provided with medical care under the medicare legislation but who have no funds to purchase drugs, and in view of the urgency of filling the prescriptions of these unfortunate persons without delay, may I ask if the minister has any plans to take care of this situation immediately?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will refer this matter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who will be in the House within the next day or so.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He is supposed to be here today.



WELFARE


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the importance of the federal-provincial welfare ministers' conference which is to begin on Monday, can he tell us what the agenda will be and whether extra assistance is to be advanced to provinces because of their rapidly depleting welfare budgets?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will not personally be attending that meeting. It will be attended by the federal ministers responsible. I am sure the agenda will be released as soon as it has been agreed upon. It has to be agreed to, as I think the hon. member will concede, by the provincial ministers concerned.
January 21, 1971



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman advise the House if studies now under way relating to overtime pay for the world's finest police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, will lead to action this year?
fTranslation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: This
matter is under very active consideration, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the missing CN bus in Newfoundland, with 25 people on board, been found yet? It has been missing since yesterday. This is a most important question. This bus replaced the Bullet. We are wondering if the bus has been found, with the 25 people on board, and if we could have a report on the condition of the passengers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will make urgent inquiries.
Hs *	*



FINANCE


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question either to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has $2 million been earmarked by a Treasury Board minute for the training of college graduates and others from the province of Quebec only? If that is so, why have these funds been earmarked for graduates from Quebec only?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice to see what type of program is referred to. Of course, the increases which have taken place recently have been across the whole of the country. This could be true only if it related to a specific program which might not have been proposed somewhere else.
% sH



WHEAT-MANDATORY SUPPORT PRICE LEVEL-SASKATCHEWAN WHEAT POOL RECOMMENDATION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister responsi-
Inquiries of the Ministry
ble for the Wheat Board. In view of the current study taking place in the agricultural industry with relation to the minister's statement last October on an agricultural stabilization program, can the minister indicate whether he is willing to accept the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool's recent recommendation that the present legislation be amended to increase the mandatory support price level to 100 per cent of the national average for the previous five years rather than the present mandatory level of 80 per cent of the national average for the past ten years?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that question has reference to a program under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture.


Richard Russell Southam: Could I then direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has made that recommendation directly to my office. I will check to be sure.



MANPOWER


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Bearing in mind the efforts the government is now making to reverse the tide of unemployment, is consideration being given to employing young people this summer such as is being done in the United States on motor vehicle safety and traffic accident research and prevention?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know this is not a part of the general programs which are being considered for this summer in particular. I will have to check with at least two departments to determine whether the federal government is taking any action or proposing anything with regard to this particular field.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (Souih Wesiern Nova):: My
question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Two separate studies published in the United States recently predict more violence in Canada in the near future. Can the minister say whether this subject has been discussed officially with the U.S. government? Also, can the minister say whether help was requested from or offered by the U.S. government to prevent an extension of violence in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to both questions is no, Mr. Speaker.

January 21, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



STATUS OF MORTGAGE ON ROCHDALE COLLEGE, TORONTO

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing in his capacity as the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Can the minister inform the House as to the present situation with regard to the outstanding mortgage on Rochdale College in Toronto?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: will be making a more elaborate statement on that situation in the not too distant future. In the meantime I can advise the House that the mortgagee met the payments in the last three months consecutively.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mortgagee or mortgagor?
Hs *	*



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is further to my question some time ago concerning the Canadian Pacific pension plan being brought under the provisions of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Can the minister now state whether Canadian Pacific has been required to bring their pension fund under the Pension Benefits Standards Act?


Edgar John Benson: Such a letter was written to the Canadian Pacific Railway requiring this. The CPR has objected, which it is allowed to do, to the Superintendent of Insurance. The matter is presently under review.'


John Leroy Skoberg: Can the minister state positively whether the CPR has been given a further deferral or is it now in violation of the law in accordance with this Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister to express a legal opinion. In those terms the question is not in order.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Gérard Laprise: I want to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
On December 17, I asked him whether he had any knowledge of evidence heard by the Senate sub-committee on internal security, as well as of reports and laws concerning security in the United States which were the subject of a study under the direction of Senator James O. Eastland.
The minister answered at that time that he would examine the report. Could he tell us now whether he has
read this report and deems it necessary to take action against Communist infiltration into Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I read the relevant part of the report but I do not contemplate at this time taking any action in this regard.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) that Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to speak on the amendment. I assume that it may be Your Honour's intention to deliver a decision on the amendment offered by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I will defer my remarks until after Your Honour's decision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As the hon. member for Peace River suspects, the Chair would like to make a decision on the proposed amendment offered yesterday by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
Hon. members will recall that during the course of the debate on second reading of bill C-193 yesterday, the hon. member for Yukon proposed an amendment which the Chair ruled to be not acceptable from a procedural point of view. The reasons for the decision were given at that time. The hon. member for Yukon then sought, and was granted, unanimous consent of the House to move another amendment. It might be helpful to hon. members if I briefly refer to the main motion and the amendment. The President of the Privy Council (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved:
That Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The hon. member for Yukon moved the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be left out and the following inserted:
"this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act."
Hon. members will notice that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon is in the same terms as the amendment moved on January 13 by the

January 21, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: May I first say, as a postscript to the decision which Your Honour has just delivered, that it is my intention to accept it. Of course, I am bound to do so. However, let me say frankly, it might be helpful, it might be useful that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), myself, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others did exercise our ingenuity not, as I said rather facetiously yesterday, to break new ground but to improve our practice. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) and others on the treasury benches are listening.
As a result of new rules adopted in this House we have argued on this side of the House, and I think correctly, and I think admittedly, that the rights of minorities, the rights of members of the opposition and of private members generally have been seriously restricted. That change, of course, was a direction of the House to the Chair. But it was done in the hope and belief that new precedents would be established and that the committee would from time to time examine the decisions of the Chair based on these new rules so that we could adopt procedures in this House adapted to the needs of today. Unfortunately, this has not been done. I understand the dilemma in which the Chair finds itself. The Chair is driven to resort to precedents and citations which are based on Standing Orders as they may have been 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The Chair cannot break out of that corral but we are in a different situation and there should be different rules. I will leave it at that.
I hope members on the government side will recognize that if opposition parties and members are to do their duty to the people of this country, and to their constituents in particular, there must be a more flexible approach. I am not saying this in a contentious way. I think it is an important problem; what we can do in this House, the restrictions which have been placed upon us, the new way we approach legislation must be borne in mind in our attitude to the rules. I am not saying this in criticism of the Chair. The Chair is bound by precedents and citations, precedents established 20, 30, 40, 50 or even 60 years ago. In the light of the rules of today, it is like comparing apples with elephants. I am grateful to Your Honour and to the House for being allowed to transgress the rules to this limited extent.
I want to deal with this bill. I commend to the House the arguments made by my hon. friend from Yukon which are specifically related to these proposals as they affect the people of the north. He has made a reasoned and eloquent statement of the facts. He has based it on principles which we in this country and, indeed, on this continent, have held for a great many years, that when we consider the question of power rates, like taxes, there must be an equitable disposition of them. I think my hon. friend made it plain that the effect of this amendment would be to create an unfair and inequitable distribution of power rates. My hon. friend from Yukon, speaking as a spokesman for this party, carries with him the full endorsement of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with regard to this issue.

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
Speaking in a more general way on the subject opened up by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), to some extent the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Buchanan) when he opened this debate took a wide approach; he gave us the background of this legislation and the reasons for it. I want to ask the House to look at one aspect in the light of an amendment I propose to make-and I have now been driven to accept the established precedents. I hope the House will take note of what I have to say. As a northerner, I flew over that part of the country many years ago. I flew over Yellowknife when it was only a gleam in some prospector's eye; I have been down the river with judicial parties years and years ago and I know something of my hon. friend's aspirations and beliefs as to what may be accomplished in that country. We want to see proper development there, but because of one or two incidents which have been brought to our notice we want to make sure that the development which is brought about is one which can be brought about without harm or damage to the people of the country, to the ecology or to the orderly development of northern Canada.
I can indicate this best by relating it to one incident connected with the development of power in the north. I am free to do so because clause four of this bill provides that the Commission may investigate projects and advise the Commission of the Territories or of the Yukon of the areas which might be served. Under this heading, it is possible for any project for hydro electric power or power derived from the use of gas which may come down from the northern part of the Territories to be devised and put into effect. The bill provides carte blanche for this Commission to investigate and engage in almost any power project. We had an example of such a project which was not in the Territories precisely. As was said by the hon. member for Yukon, this Commission is interested in power projects outside the Territories and outside the north. I recall the project for the establishment of the Bennett Dam on the Peace River, a project which was referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West in his speech yesterday. Anyone who knows the north knows that the Peace River and the Athabasca river systems join together to form the Slave River then flow into the Great Slave Lake and thence through the Mackenzie River into the Arctic. Up to about the 59th parallel of north latitude we find an extension of the great central plain of North America.
It is the only part of the North American continent where these rivers which are susceptible of the production of power also provide a means of transportation. There are in Russia three or four rivers which provide an equal and adequate service, but we have only one in this country. This whole issue was the subject of a discussion at Yellowknife early this year. It may well be that the Parliamentary Secretary was there when people prominent in public life, scientists and others interested in the north, gathered to discuss this among other issues. What about transportation into the north? What about the use of the rivers? What about the provision of power? How can it be done? How can it be safely and economically provided. One issue which was raised very

strongly was: will it be necessary in the future, to come to a decision as to whether or not the waters of the Peace-Athabasca-Mackenzie system might well be dedicated both to the provision of transportation and also to the provision of power through hydroelectric projects. No decision was made on this, but it is an issue we shall have to face. Just today a question was asked about the establishment of a pipeline for the carriage of natural gas from the far north to the central part of this continent. So we are dealing with a major issue.
Therefore, I return to the point I started to make about the dangers that may be faced if the commission has to consider whether or not it should recommend to the government the construction of projects for the production of power. As I said, we have had a classic example of what can happen in connection with the Bennett dam on the Peace River. As the hon. member for Kootenay West, and I think also the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris (Mr. Dinsdale), said yesterday, here was a situation where the province of British Columbia placed across the Peace River where it passes through the Rocky Mountains a gigantic earth dam for the production of power that would be taken down to the central and southern part of British Columbia, and possibly even to the United States. This dam was initiated in the beginning of 1963. It was because I was concerned about this construction, had been in the northern part of my province as well as the Northwest Territories, and had realized the relationship between the quantity of water that would be discharged into the Mackenzie system and the construction of the dam, that I started to ask some questions in this House.
I started asking questions shortly after the session commenced in June, 1963. I asked the Hon. Paul Martin, now government leader in the other place, who at that time as Secretary of State for External Affairs was greatly concerned with this project and attempting to arrange a tripartite agreement between the United States, Canada and British Columbia, the following question on June 5, 1963, as reported at page 673 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of a report he made to the house today on the negotiations with the government of British Columbia.
Did these discussions touch on the question of the application by the government of British Columbia or any authority of this government for approval under the navigable waters act of the Peace river dam project? If so, was any undertaking, conditional or otherwise, given to the premier of British Columbia?
With his classic capacity for uttering a great many words expressing very few thoughts, the minister replied:
As the hon. member will appreciate, while we are in the first stage of negotiations it would be undesirable as well as improper to deal with subjects which were or were not covered by the negotiations. I can say no more at this time.
I was still gullible enough to believe that the then Liberal government would be willing to answer my question, so I pursued the matter on June 14, when I asked the then Minister of Public Works, now the dis-
January 21, 1971

tinguished Speaker of the other place, the following question to be found at page 1167 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works which is prompted by the questions already asked dealing with the agreement between the province of British Columbia and the government. Has the minister any knowledge of an official application made by the province of British Columbia or any agency or authority of that government under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for leave to proceed with the Peace river dam project?
The then Minister of Public Works replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire and I will answer this question on Monday.
I then asked this supplementary question:
If any such application is received, will the minister assure the house that despite any commitment which might have been made by his government there will be an ample opportunity for the many thousands of residents who live downstream from this proposed project to make representations to the government with respect to this scheme?
On June 18, I again asked the then Minister of Public Works whether he was in a position to answer the question I had asked. He replied that it was a hypothetical question and went on to say:
However, if it should occur, the act provides for a 30 day public advertising periodand so on.
I kept pursuing the matter through 1963 and finally in the fall struck some gold. I had asked the then Minister of Justice, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, who on June 27, 1963 was Acting Prime Minister, the following question found on page 1633 of Hansard:
My question arises out of a reply I received from the Minister of Public Works last week. Has an opinion yet been formed in his department as to the legality of the province of British Columbia continuing construction of the Peace river dam without having obtained approval under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, while I remember the question, I am afraid I will have to take this as notice and inquire further.
So, at least I got notice taken of the question. Finally, on October 14 of that year, I repeated the question to Mr. Chevrier, as reported at page 3529 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he can answer the question I asked him the other day in a situation the urgency of which is sharpened by the fact that I understand the waters of the Peace river are now being diverted. The people of the country are anxious to know whether the river, which was plied by large ships 50 years ago, is still to be regarded as a navigable water.
Mr. Chevrier replied:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to remind me of this question some time last week. I have the reply to his question here and it is as follows. The advice I have received is to the effect that the works in question are included in the class of works to which the Navigable Waters Protection Act applies. The position has always been taken by the Department of Public Works that the Navigable Waters Protection Act applies to a provincial government or an agency itself.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
That was the statement that was made at that time. There is a rule, of course, about the securing of legal opinions, but because of the importance of the issue the then Minister of Justice was good enough to give me that reply. So, the fact is the record shows that more than seven years ago a statement was made by the constitutional adviser to the government, the chief law officer of the Crown, that it was essential that the province of British Columbia apply under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for permission to construct the dam, and to file a statement regarding the type of works to be initiated. That was not done.
I continued to press the Minister of Public Works for the next year and a half, but eventually I satisfied myself that because the federal government was overly anxious to secure the passage of an agreement with the government of the United States and wanted to get the credit for this, it had shut its eyes to the necessity of the government of British Columbia securing permission to construct the dam. As a result, the province of British Columbia, illegally and improperly, and in contravention of the act, constructed this dam and is at least morally responsible for the consequences.
I do not want to say anything more about the legality of this issue since actions are now pending. This is something that I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the minister will take into account. But what has been the result of this? We have here a situation where the damage to which the people of Alberta, downstream from the dam, might be subjected was obvious to me, both as a representative of the people and from personal observations that I had made. Yet this government and the government of British Columbia blindly, stubbornly and persistently refused to examine the matter and went ahead with the project. Today, several thousand people have suffered directly. The water and sewage system of the town of Peace River has been affected and damage to the tune of $100,000 or more has been suffered. The livelihoods of about 1,500 people, part of them in the Northwest Territories in the area of the Peace-Athabasca delta, have also been affected.
People have asked me what brought this about. With northern rivers, there is a seasonal flood in the spring. The seasonal flood of the Peace River was such as to prevent the waters of the Athabasca joining the Peace to flow down into the Mackenzie. In the result, there was a constant wash in this delta and it became and has continued to be a natural sanctuary. This delta was on the route of one of the international flight-ways for migration birds. The birds rested there. Wild animals were there in great quantity. Recently, the federal government made some studies and established beyond any shadow of doubt, from a count of the birds and animals, that there has been a very drastic reduction in wildlife in this particular area. Finally, Mr. Speaker, and this is the thing of consequence, because what has happened probably cannot be undone, the engineering by nature, which may have taken 15,000 years to develop, has been wiped out by man in seven years.

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
But beyond that, what about the north? What about the Mackenzie system, a river system which provides a moderately inexpensive means of transportation right to the Arctic for three, four or five months of the year, depending on what part of the system navigation is being engaged in during those months? I am sure that Northern Transportation officials, a Crown agency operating in that country, will bear me out when I say there has been a very substantial deterioration in the capacity of that basin to carry traffic because of the Bennett Dam. What was done by the Province of British Columbia, illegally and improperly, has caused, is causing and will continue to cause a very serious situation by reducing the level of the water with regard to the possibility of transportation. This is something at which the government and the people of Canada must look.
Is there enough water flowing down that system to provide for additional power production and still maintain a reasonable means of transportation in the months during which navigation can be pursued in the spring? In addition to that, what about the ecological damage? I pressed the government on this. I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) about this, and also the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I have received no answer.
Events, Mr. Speaker, have a habit of overtaking us. We may well find that the commission may make recommendations to the government concerning future projects in that country, and decisions will have to be made. If what I am told about future development in the north in respect of gas, oil and other things is correct, then we may find that time is not with us. We have not got that much time. I suggest it is incumbent on the government, without any further delay, to establish a commission of inquiry composed of scientists, of people from the north and of people in public life, to examine this issue so that a decision may be arrived at within a reasonable length of time as to the extent to which the waters of the northern territories, particularly of the Peace, the Athabasca and Mackenzie systems, including the Great Slave Lake and the Slave River, may be utilized for power production and/or for transportation.
I make this plea in a nonpartisan way. Time will not wait for us. Because of the great demand, both in Canada and in the United States, for increased production of power, of natural gas, oil and other minerals, there may well be a very considerable acceleration of development in the north. That happened when the government of the Right Hon. gentleman from Prince Albert decided to proceed in 1957-58 with the very wonderful project of the roads to resources, and finally the Pine Point railway. We found that this opened up development and brought people and industries there at a rate that had never been anticipated. Now, this has been slowed down but, Mr. Speaker, there is every indication of it being revived, and revived in a very substantial way.
Before this comes about, there is a responsibility on the government to ensure that there is close and detailed examination of the potential for the development of power as related to the need of the waters for transportation, and in particular as related to the potentially very

serious ecological damage as well as to the welfare and well being of the native peoples of the north. Probably this may be a little irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, but I point out that in the northern parts of this area there have been no treaties with the native peoples. Inadequate as the treaties are in other areas between native peoples and our government, in the northern parts of Canada there are no treaties at all. We have taken their lands; we have taken their forests; we have taken their waters. I submit there is a duty upon us, representing the people of this country, to make sure before any more damage is done that we have a good idea of what the situation is. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, and so that this may be brought about I want to move now, in accordance with the time honoured traditions and precedents of this House, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster (Mr. Bell), that all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted:
"this Bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise briefly on a point of order? It has been the last speaker's habit on Thursdays, at the end of the question period, to ask for the order in which the government will continue to call its business, but understandably in his anxiety to participate in the debate today he overlooked doing so. As I indicated last night when the same question was asked, there was no intention to change the order at that time, but there has been a slight change in the order now. We would propose to follow this debate by going directly to Bill C-215, the Textile and Clothing Board measure, and thereafter to follow with the Crop Insurance Bill, then Bill C-207, the government organization bill, the Canadian National Railways financing bill, the statutory instruments measure and then, after that order, the Yukon minerals measure. Again, if any changes are to be made from that order we would endeavour to notify the opposition House leaders at the earliest possible moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, because there had been this very momentous change, notice of which we received only today, I thought it better to wait until an announcement was made because it might well be that the government would have further changes to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the CNR financing bill is fairly high on this list, can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether some agreement has been reached regarding the pensions of retired employees of the CNR? This would facilitate the handling of that bill.
January 21, 1971


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware to what extent that would facilitate the handling of the bill, but I am not able to make any further statement at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate whether it is the intention of the government to withdraw the Yukon minerals bill and, if not, when is it likely to see the light of day again?


James Alexander Jerome: It is not the intention of the government to withdraw that measure.


Erik Nielsen: And when is it likely to see the light of day again?


James Alexander Jerome: As I indicated on that list, it follows after the statutory instruments measure.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) that Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this bill. The remarks made yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary and by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) about the far reaching effects of this measure, were very disturbing to a number of hon. members. From reading the act itself, the proposed amendments and the resume read into the record by the Parliamentary Secretary, it would appear that the purpose of the original Crown agency was to supply electric power and other public utilities in northern Canada. I wish to say a few words primarily to support some of the contentions offered and some of the questions raised in respect of the infiltrations of government and the consequent discouragement of private investment, not only so far as the Yukon is concerned but also the Northwest Territories and Labrador, which of course is one of the great frontiers of the Atlantic region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member at this early stage of his remarks, but I am inclined to place some close limits on the debate we should have on this bill. I realize that since the debate started yesterday we have gone rather far from the principle of the amendments which are before us at this time. Although I realize this might have been done a little earlier, today I must bring to the attention of hon. members that what we have before us are very specific amendments. The act which this bill seeks to amend is
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
not before us. I have some doubt concerning whether at this stage we should become involved in a debate on the policy of the government as it affects all northern regions of Canada. I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member. I always hesitate to raise a point of order, especially before an hon. member has spoken. Perhaps I am being unfair in this instance because I am not sure what the hon. member proposes to do. However, I feel that at one point or another there, should be a statement by the Chair to the effect that we should try to limit our discussion to the bill which is before us.
The rule of relevancy is one of the most difficult rules for the Chair to apply. Very often after an hon. member has spoken, the Chair rises to say we have gone beyond the terms of the legislation before the House. I am not sure if the right way to do it is by making this statement before the hon. member has spoken, but I thought we might become too involved in difficulties if in the course of today, tonight, tomorrow and perhaps on subsequent days, we should engage in a general debate concerning policy in northern Canada and, as the hon. member suggested, not only in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories but even in Labrador or perhaps other northern regions of the country. All this having been said, I am sure the hon. member will have an interesting contribution to make and we will follow it with interest.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by Your Honour, perhaps I might say with respect that Your Honour's lack of familiarity with the bill and the legislation which is in existence might be responsible for the comments Your Honour has just made. I point out to Your Honour that the bill under discussion concerns an agency of government, the Northern Canada Power Commission, which has authority to conduct its activities not just in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories but throughout the whole of Canada. The amendments which the bill before us purports to make, and which if passed would become law, affect indeed every region of Canada in light of the authority of the commission to operate in all parts of Canada.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me, with great respect, that not only are the hon. member's remarks in order but also all those made yesterday in view of the very broad operational authority which is conferred upon the NCPC by the initial legislation and by the bill before us.


Mr. Speaker:: That is the hon. member's opinion. I do not share it entirely. In any event, the Chair will hear the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, back east there is an expression about taking the wind out of one's sails. I certainly would not wish to leave the impression that that has happened, but it could happen under certain circumstances. When I have finished my remarks I am sure Your Honour will be in a position to judge whether or not I have established the relevancy of my remarks. One reason I want to address my remarks in a general way is related to the conclusion voiced in 1969 by the Yukon Electric Company at a committee hearing when it
2628

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
referred to the discouragement of private investment in the north. Perhaps I should say more correctly that the reference was to the uncertainty about whether the government wanted private investment to be involved. This would seem to be the essence of the principle involved in Bill C-193. I would interpret the bill as a disincentive for private investment and I believe the remarks of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) yesterday clearly indicated what could happen in northern Canada, in the Yukon Territory and in other parts of Canada if this bill were passed. As the hon. member for Yukon indicated, the jurisdiction of the commission is certainly much more extensive than merely the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. This view is borne out by the property the Commission has acquired outside this area.
Yesterday, in referring to the NCPC activity in the northern part of Canada, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned the breakdown of the investment in power between government and private enterprise. As recorded at page 2590 of Hansard he said:
The federal government, largely through the Northern Canada Power Commission owns approximately 75 per cent of the generating capacity in the north with 10 per cent being controlled by three private utility companies and 15 per cent being controlled and operated by private organizations primarily associated with mining operations.
In reflecting on this the Parliamentary Secretary, of course, is acknowledging quite rightly that the NCPC and the government are not the only agencies responsible for distributing power in northern Canada. He is acknowledging the fact that 25 per cent of the investment in that part of Canada is private. I believe the hon. member for Yukon elaborated on this, and perhaps clarified it somewhat, when he said some $250 million has been invested by private companies in the distribution of power and in the provision of utilities in parts of northern Canada where the commission itself found it impossible or not feasible to provide services of this kind.
Again, in advancing the position of the government, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated the reason for the amendments. As recorded at page 2591 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary stated:
The act we are considering today, Mr. Speaker, was last amended in 1956. It is being amended at this time so that the commission can adopt a more flexible approach in meeting northern needs and in planning future long-term power development in both territories.
Perhaps the key phrase in that expression is "a more flexible approach". The government is planning a more flexible approach. I think I should indicate that, although the statement here is not very explicit, it is very important in terms of its implications. The quotation continues:
The proposed amendments are as follows-: One, to increase the number of commission members by two. Two, to change the amount of the investigation or studies' fund from $50,000 to $250,000. Three, to allow the commission to set regional rates rather than to charge on the basis of individual plants costs.
Perhaps the following could be considered the key amendment proposed in Bill C-193.
Four, to allow the commission to defer repayments of principal and interest where new capacity is in excess of immediate demands.

Five, to eiminate the requirement that the commission obtain Governor in Council approval to undertake any project or enter into any contract in excess of $50,000.
The first thing that strikes me, having read the proposed amendments under Bill C-193, is that certainly we have to accept the argument that by not requiring each plant to operate as a most efficient unit we are actually encouraging inefficiency. The commission, and this has been stated repeatedly in reports and in hearings down through the years, was charged with trying to despatch its obligations with efficiency. Each unit was responsible for reporting to the government its operating costs, the generated revenue, as well as circumstances which would result in a loss by that unit because public tax dollars would have to be used to offset such loss.
It seems to me the amendments which are being proposed indicate that the government is asking all the units to pool their reporting, and in reporting to government to indicate in a general way what the situation is in respect of the distribution of power by the commission. In that respect it certainly will not be obvious to the Canadian taxpayer or resident of the Yukon or Northwest Territories exactly how successful each unit is in returning to its ratepayers some of the generated revenue through a reduction in rates.
The hon. member for the Yukon indicated yesterday a second position which is certainly worthy of notice, and that is that some of the operations in northern Canada have been so efficient that one of them declared a profit of 600 per cent in one year. Of course, the hope has been that at least some of the revenue would go to the constituents-and here I am using the word "constituents" in a general sense-in the form of a reduction in the cost of power. What we are going to get now, according to the hon. member for the Yukon, is actually an increase in taxes for the people in those areas where operations have been efficient and where the return has been the greatest. In other words, according to the reports made to the House yesterday, some areas will be receiving the benefit of the efficiency in other parts of northern Canada.
Perhaps the most serious aspect of the legislation is the lack of incentive to private investment in the north and the uncertainty as to whether any private dollar should be invested in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. I contend that this has tremendous relevancy to the whole question of northern development which has, to a large extent, been the area of development in Canada in the last decade. In 1969, the Yukon Electric Company indicated to the committee that they were very concerned about the position of the government with regard to private investment. As a matter of fact, the question of whether the government wanted private investment in northern Canada was raised specifically by that company.
I believe it was last Wednesday that one of the members from Canada's newest province raised a question in the House directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. January 21, 1971

Benson), which is recorded at page 2370 of Hansard. The question reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the decision by Wabush Mines to shelve plans for a three million ton expansion of its iron ore production in Labrador because of tax uncertainty, and in view of Brinco's reluctance to develop the Lower Churchill Falls power project for the same reason, can the minister say when he will present his tax reform legislation to the House?
The Minister of Finance indicated in response that he did not accept the premise of the hon. member's question and that he did not agree with the hon. member's conclusion. I might say for the record that later on, outside the House, the minister admitted he had misinterpreted the question. In fact, there has been a cancellation of a major development project in northern Canada because of the uncertainty of the direction of the tax proposals. I contend that this is a very serious situation and is certainly retarding the development of the northern part of Canada which, according to the members who have taken part in the debate to date, is the object of Bill C-193 and which, on the surface, appears to be a rather innocuous piece of legislation. The fact is that the utility companies in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories which are able to provide power in many parts of northern Canada make a profit, stay in business and are willing to expand. This indicates that there is certainly a place for private investment. As a matter of fact, if the Canadian north is ever going to develop, incentives must be provided as well as tax reform to allow private enterprise to participate in that development.
Last year we brought before the people of Canada a proposal in the form of a white paper to amend the taxation structure. Contained therein was a proposal to eliminate the three year concessionary tax arrangements which Canada has with mining, exploration, and development companies operating mainly in the northern part of Canada. The original reason for the concessionary tax arrangements with mining and development companies was to promote the development of northern Canada. The simple reason was that the risk factor in developing the north is great. Many more companies have failed than have succeeded. Companies have to gamble and a tremendous amount of risk capital is involved. In Labrador, which most economists, developers and planners feel is one of the great frontiers of the nation, there are great timber resources and especially a great mining and hydro potential. Private capital is badly needed. We have already heard that one company has shelved one of the major projects planned for that part of Canada because of the uncertainty which exists about the government's intention with regard to tax changes as well as the arrangement and organization of corporations doing what would normally be done by individual entrepreneurs.
In supporting the encouragement which is contained in Bill C-193 for Canadians to invest in the north, I would like to place on the record the conclusions reached by the president of one of the largest companies in the world, the British North America Company, or Brinco. Last July 22, 1970, Mr. Bill Mulholland, an outstanding North American and a young man with tremendous knowledge
23786-25!
Northern Canada Power Commission Act who replaced the former president who was unfortunately killed in a plane crash in northern Canada last year, was being interviewed by the Committee on Finance' Trade and Economic Affairs which toured the Canadian nation and heard the reports and briefs presented by various institutions and organizations in response to the government's white paper. Mr. Mulholland was being interviewed in St. John's, Newfoundland. I would like to read into the record one of the major reasons for the great concern among private businessmen about trying to develop our north and providing utilities in our last great frontier.
On page 7 of Report No. 77, the gentleman in question is reported as follows:
Finally, I would like to mention in particular that these proposals have some fairly serious implications for future projects, it WS, are contemplating today a project similar in nature to the Churchill Falls project,-
And let us remember, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about a project built with private capital in northern Canada costing $1 billion. We hope that it will start generating power some time in 1971. I continue quoting:
let us say in size, in the time period required for its construction and commercial arrangements extending over several decades the effect of these proposals would be to render highly doubtful whether or not you could responsibly undertake to do it as a private company or a company such as ours where our shareholders in Churchill Falls are a mixture of both government and private organizations.
I do not think these exchanges have ever been placed on the record of the House. The reason is, I think, that the hearings took place in St. John's and the national media are not greatly concerned about reporting events in St. John's. If the hearings had been held here, what was said would have constituted a major news story. Mr. Mulholland indicated pretty well that if the Churchill Falls project were contemplated today, with our present uncertainties, it would never get off the ground. On page 10 the report contains the following exchange between the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) and Mr. Mulholland:


Mr. Danson:: Yes, it is pretty apparent in your brief. And you also say that the proposals would discourage subsequent development of a similar nature. Would this really discourage them to the extent that they would not take place, or would a company such as yours adjust like all businessmen to whatever circumstances are and then make their deals according to the new rules?
The Parliamentary Secretary was talking to Mr. Mulholland about a proposal, on the drawing boards, to develop the lower Churchill complex at Gull Island. This is to cost $1 billion of private money. The report continues:


Mr.   Mulholland@: One of the principal reasons for being a private business is that it justifies our existence and our willingness to take risks. In this particular project, BRINCO, the parent company, had invested $115 million prior to the end of 1968 before we had a power contract. One does it, of course, assessing the risks and the returns. The problem under these rules in the future in another project, is where would you raise

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
the equity capital to get something like this started again. They do not, as a rule, spring forth full-blown with all of the uncertainties removed so that one goes to the market and raises money with no risk or uncertainties at all.
That was not the history of the Churchill Falls project. It is a history of great credit, I think, to private enterprise because individual shareholders of whom there are a great many right here in this province did have faith and confidence enough in the project to invest their money when it was not at all certain that all of these things would come to fruition and the project would go forward. Under this regime it is very difficult to see how one could responsibly ask people to do that, much less how one would persuade them if you were going to ask them.
There, in so many words, you have one of the most responsible men in North America in the field of investment saying that, in view of present tax uncertainties and encroachments by governments on areas that rightfully belong to business, such a project as the Churchill Falls Power development which could best be undertaken by private enterprise, would not be possible. This is especially true in view of present uncertainties and the psychological depression rampant in Canada. There, we were talking about a $1 billion project to develop a major source of power in Canada.
Last week, we heard that the government of Quebec was conducting an investigation into its rivers which flow into James Bay. That government wants to know the potential of Quebec rivers because great, future developments will be necessary on that frontier of Quebec if that province is to harness its resources. It hopes to harvest the benefits of such development. I do not know whether the government plans to move into this area


An hon. Member:: It does.


John Howard Lundrigan: -and dominate it completely. Does it want to control northern Canada and northern Canadian development?


An hon. Member:: It does.


John Howard Lundrigan: If that is its plan, that ought to be clearly and effectively spelled out, so that business concerns such as the Yukon Electrical Company can take their investment and go elsewhere. That, precisely, was the conclusion of that company which was of major importance in northern Canada. It concluded that private business, in this area, could do a much more efficient job than the government. Such companies are saying, "If you want us to go from the area, let us know, so we can move out and develop other projects in other parts of the world."
I contend that, in view of legislation such as Bill C-193 which is now before the House, the government has a responsibility to the Canadian people, and especially to those in the north engaged in business, to spell out exactly what are its intentions with regard to the development of the northern part of Canada. That is our last great frontier, a frontier which is eyed with envy by our United States neighbour to the south. It contains resources in abundance, resources which will loom large in my opinion, in the future of Canada.
The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Yukon and moved by the hon. member for Peace Biver

(Mr. Baldwin) would, if adopted, have the effect of opening up this matter for wider discussion. We could thoroughly explore the implications of the legislation that has been put forward. I submit that the House wishes to give this matter a much more thorough examination, so that the full implications of this kind of legislation for the northern part of Canada and especially for the Yukon Territory which, I submit, at the moment is being disadvantageous^ affected can be determined. Some hon. members think that what is being proposed is more or less an experiment with government control in northern Canada. If the experiment is successful, then I suppose the government will use it as an example for bringing about other types of control in northern Canada. If that happens, we can assume that private business will go elsewhere to invest its funds.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) yesterday said, as reported at page 2603 of Hansard the right hand column:
I am concerned that our study of this hill may he one of the few opportunities to really understand and know something about the Northern Canada Power Commission and the question of power in the territories. I suggest that perhaps this bill is begging the issue. I believe it is begging the issue of private power versus public power. I believe it is begging the issue of how we can ensure power development throughout northern Canada.
He went on to say that he hoped that an independent commission would be set up to look into the broad question of private versus public power, the functions of NCPC generally, and the like. I see the hon. member present in the House and I say to him that this amendment, if accepted, would do just what he advocated yesterday. It will enable the standing committee to do more than merely consider a few functions relating to the bill before us. It will enable the hon. member in committee to advance amendments which, if accepted, would enable his objectives to be accomplished by the House on the report of the committee. I urge him, and all others of like mind on the government side, to accept the amendment that has been advanced. No one is opposing, at this stage, the referral of this matter to the committee. What we want in committee is the authority from the House for the broadest and fullest possible inquiry into the functions of NCPC. The only way that can be done is for the House to accept the amendment before it. I did not have the opportunity yesterday to place one or two items before the House. I propose to do that now.
I agree with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), and other members who have spoken on the bill that the chairman of the Northern Canada Power Commission should not be the same person as the deputy minister of the department. It is the minister, deputy minister and other departmental officials who formulate the policy which NCPC follows. We will get shallow denials of that. The government will say that the policies are formulated by NCPC and that in most cases, approval is sought from the minister. I think we must be practical
January 21, 1971

and face the facts of life. Policies are designed in the department. The hon. member for Northwest Territories knows that his constituents, particularly those in Yellowknife, have been crying out for years for the establishment of some sort of control over rates. The only way that will be achieved is by establishing a public utilities board. A public utilities board, being an independent body, would be able to review rates and to approve rates proposed by the NCPC.
Another glaring shortcoming in the policies of NCPC is the fact that it does not have agreements for the sale and purchase of power. It now supplies power as a wholesaler to distributors in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. In many instances, where huge dollar amounts of power are supplied, there is nothing in writing. No other business operating in a sound and prudent commercial way adopts such loose policies. The agreements do not exist despite the repeated verbal and written requests of the distributors to have NCPC enter into a contract for the sale and purchase of power.
The history of the private distributor and the private generator in the Yukon is very interesting. In 1958, the existing owners of the private distributor in the Yukon acquired ownership of that entity. Prior to that purchase, Mr. Speaker, Yukon Electrical Company had made verbal inquiries at the federal government level, the territorial level and in the Whitehorse business community. All of these inquiries elicited approval of the acquisition. This required a substantial outlay of funds by the system then owned by the Yukon Electrical Company Limited. The previous owners of that company had been very hard pressed for the necessary money to meet expansion. Efforts to attract capital, including prolonged negotiations with such financial suppliers as the Industrial Development Bank, were unavailing.
At the time of acquisition of Yukon Electrical Company by Canadian Utilities, the distribution system and the diesel plant were in very poor repair. The service was very unreliable and the rates were extremely high. I wonder how many members in the province of Ontario and other provinces would be surprised to learn that my electric light bill in Whitehorse is $48 per month. The average electric light bill, on a monthly basis, in the Whitehorse area is between $15 and $25 per month. These rates are based on a maximum of five cents per kilowatt down to a minimum of 1.6 cents. Compare those rates with the rates existing in southern communities. Compare those rates with the power being supplied in the more northerly communities where diesel fuel has to be hauled in by air transport and other high cost means. The electric power bills for domestic, industrial and government users in those areas are astronomical.
The new owners, having purchased the assets of Yukon Electrical Company Limited, immediately undertook the reconstruction necessary to bring safety and service levels to an acceptable standard under the Canadian Eelectrical Code. In 1957, the lowest level on the step was five cents a killowatt. This has been reduced over the years. Today it is 1.6 cents. The new owners undertook an expansion program which was designed to bring central station service to the smaller communities in the
Northern Canada Power Commission Act Yukon. This was encouraged by the government. With the encouragement of the then commander of the northwest highway system, when the army was still a substantial force in the Yukon-


Mr. Dinsdale:: I thought there was a new policy of military persons in the north.


Erik Nielsen: There is a new policy. We are led to believe that it is for the purpose of establishing Canadian sovereignty in the Yukon, which I never doubted belonged to Canada. There are four members of the military. They are to resist any encroachment of our sovereignty in that territory.
In 1958, the commander of the northwest highway system encouraged the company. A diesel plant was installed at Haines Junction, 100 miles west of Whitehorse. Service was provided to the Department of National Defence maintenance establishment at that point and the property of the Department of Agriculture experimental station at Haines Junction. I am very sorry to say that is no longer in existence. It was an integral part of the promotion of agricultural development in the Yukon. It is now going to pot. I thought I should add that, since the minister is in the House. It was a very sad decision.
In 1959, the company acquired a small existing diesel plant at Watson Lake, 300 miles east of Whitehorse. At that time the users of electrical power at that location were paying 25 cents per kilowatt hour for their electrical power. The service has now been extended to the entire community. A private supplier is supplying power to the Department of National Defence maintenance establishment at that point and the Department of Transport establishment seven miles away. Private enterprise constructed a distribution line to the airport location. In 1958 the lowest rate at Watson Lake was 25 cents a kilowatt. Since 1965, the rate has been 3.5 cents. I cite that as a classic example for those proponents of a public board in the Yukon who say that private investor owned utilities cannot do the job of supplying power at low cost to domestic and industrial users.
The territorial government of the day and the individual members of the council urged the Yukon Electrical Company to instal facilities in Carcross, 48 miles south of Whitehorse, and Carmacks, 100 miles to the north. In 1960 diesel plants were constructed at both of these locations. At Carcross, 17 miles from that community, a new mine was put into production this year. In each instance, franchise agreements were obtained and entered into with the commissioner of the Yukon. The company subsequently acquired diesel generating and power facilities that belonged to the Canadian army, the Department of Transport and other government agencies throughout the Yukon. It succeeded in combining all of these tangential power developments into one closely knit efficient power system.
What, I ask Members of this House, was the Northern Canada Power Commission doing all this time, operating under a statute which required them to supply and dis-

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act tribute power to the very communities that the private entrepreneurs eventually went in to supply? They were doing nothing. What is more, all this expansion, requiring huge sums of capital, was carried out by private enterprise from its own funds with encouragement from the minister, from the government. Now, all of a sudden, we propose to change the ground rules and say: Perhaps we needed your capital then to do the job we ourselves should have done, but we do not want it any longer. That is about the size of what is being said.
I will cite another classic example. In 1964, the Territorial Government had to ask the Yukon Electrical Company Limited to supply electrical facilities to the community of Old Crow 60 miles north of the Arctic Circle. This was a responsibility unwillingly inherited by the Territorial Government from the old Department of Indian Affairs and National Resources. The cost to the Territorial Government to supply this community was estimated at 27 cents per kilowatt hour, but the company agreed on a trial basis to serve the community at a cost of 25 cents per kilowatt hour. Service is now being supplied at 15 cents. Again, a classic example-I speak facetiously-of private enterprise, of private investment capital "gouging the community". The government itself set the rate at 27 cents but the community is now being supplied at 15 cents.
As recently as September 1968, the federal Department of Public Works, through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, sold to the company its remaining distribution lines in the Whitehorse area valued at approximately $250,000. These lines are now being operated to supply various departments of the federal government as well as other customers in this area. This is significant. This is why I say the government has a responsibility to back away from the reneging it is doing in its business dealings with private enterprise here.
During the tenure of the Yukon Electrical Company Limited in the Yukon, the company has been encouraged by public statements by ministers in not only the present government but in the preceding government, and told that the policy of the federal government was to provide an environment conducive to the investment of private capital in northern Canada. We are backing away at high speed from those guarantees.
In the company's brief presented to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as my hon. friend who has just spoken has pointed out, the owners of Yukon Electrical said this:
We are concerned that there is developing an atmosphere of public ownership only, and no others need apply.
What they want is a clear statement of government policy that this is not the case, and that private investors will be required to continue to be interested in providing electrical services to the north. How else are the private utilities to plan their operations unless a statement of this kind is forthcoming from the government? They said constantly in the committee: If you do not want our capital in the north, tell us so; take it over and we shall get out and put the money somewhere else in the world where investment is more attractive.
There is another point in this regard. If members of the House examine the legislation of 1948, and the debate which arose thereon, they will find it is very clear that Parliament did not intend at that time to grant a monopoly to the Northern Canada Power Commission, a monopoly which it is now endeavouring by these stealthy amendments, for which the government must take responsibility, to acquire.
With respect to the establishment of a public utilities, board it has been advanced with a good deal of sense in the evidence before the standing committee that instead of the NCPC making policy decisions as to future developments in the areas under its jurisdiction, instead of the government making those decisions and passing them on to the NCPC to implement, and instead of putting forward the kind of amendments which purport to accomplish this objective in the bill before us, why cannot we use the National Energy Board and all the expertise which is available there for the purpose of reaching these decisions through the Territorial Government. Why cannot we use the National Energy Board for the purpose of adjusting and controlling electrical rates in the north? I hear some people, advocates of NCPC and of the government, talking on this subject, and one would think that the owners of the private development and distribution system in northern Canada were scared to death of rate control and rate approval. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing would be more welcome to the private generator and distributor in the north than to see a public utilities board or some similar body set up for the purpose of governing rates, provided, of course, that the NCPC would also be subject to the authority of any such public utilities board. It stands to reason that the user rates of the distributors of residential and industrial power depend on the wholesale rates at which NCPC pipes the power into the distributors' lines.
Another highly objectionable feature in this bill, and a most unbusinesslike one, is the idea of government going into areas on the assumption that only the government can do the job cheaply, although it is a principle accepted by most fair-minded Canadians that the public tender system is the only way to get a job done at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. Precisely this is happening in the operations of the NCPC. They go into an area and they do not give private enterprise the slightest opportunity to tender on the job. Indeed, when private enterprise hears of something which is to be constructed they write to the government and say: Let us take a crack at this; let us submit a bid; we think we can do it as cheaply as you, or more cheaply. The government says: We are not interested in your bids. We know we can do the job and we can do it more cheaply; we can get money cheaper than you can; you do not have the kind of capital we do to carry out such a project. Other shallow and groundless excuses are used as well.
I want to deal for a moment with the Carr Report which was a study of the economic future of the Yukon. The main thrust of this report as it dealt with the supply of electric power was to advocate government ownership of the means both of production and of distribution throughout the north. I see one of the members who was

January 21, 1971

vitally concerned with the preparation of this report in the House, and it is interesting to note that if you examine the report carefully you find not one single economic fact presented to justify this conclusion. There is not one single piece of evidence in the report to indicate that cheaper power and better service to the consumer would be possible under public as opposed to private development. Indeed, there is not one scintilla of evidence that the public interest would be better served by an organization such as NCPC as opposed to investor participation.
Reference is made in the report to pragmatic rather than ideological reasons being the justification for government ownership; and the suggestion is that the trend is toward government ownership. Nothing could be further from the truth. In support of that statement, I again refer members of the House to the evidence adduced in the committee contained in an appendix to the brief presented by the Yukon Electrical Company Limited. I refer to research into the ownership and regulatory structure of the electrical utility industry in the United States done by one Mr. Schantz. Some very interesting conclusions are reached in that study, among which are that the trend is not toward government-owned utilities, but quite the contrary; and that there should be interlocking co-operation between the private and public sector.
It is interesting also to note that the job of the NCPC is to supply power to northern communities where private investment capital is either unwilling or unable to go. Yet we have power installation and distribution systems-I am confining myself to the Northwest Territories-in the communities of Arctic Bay, Broughton, Cape Dorset, Clyde River, Grise Liard, Hall Beach, Igloolik, Lake Harbour, Padloping, Pengnertung, Pond Inlet, Coral Harbour, Eskimo Point, Rankin Inlet, Repulse Bay, Whale Cove. All of these are owned by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and there are others.
If it is the job of NCPC to supply power to those communities where private investment capital is unable or unwilling to go, then why is it not doing the job of generating and supplying power to the communities that appear in the appendix to the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for March 13, 1969? There is no doubt about the ability of the private sector to supply the necessary capital, and in view of the statistics I have put on the record by way of example, further of which is to be found in the reports of the committee in 1969. There can be very little remaining doubt in the minds of hon. members, I suggest, that private investment capital is not gouging the user in power rates. Indeed, the rates of NCPC where it supplies power on a retail basis are generally higher than those of the private generators and distributors.
This is not as innocuous a piece of legislation as it appears. There is every reasonable justification for the members of this House inquiring into the whole, broad aspect of the operations of NCPC and for the committee
Division
that will be examining the bill to make some useful recommendations to the government, having heard evidence throughout the north and from all interested power generators and suppliers, including NCPC. These recommendations may convince the government that it is going the wrong way as far as this legislation is concerned.
However, this kind of broad inquiry is impossible unless the amendment which is now before the House is adopted. Certainly, backbench members on the government side cannot be inhibited in their support for the resolution, because all they are supporting is the broadest possible inquiry in committee instead of the confined inquiry that would result if the resolution standing in the name of the government were accepted in preference to the amendment now before the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour on the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. member on our side rose to speak but Your Honour did not see him.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, it is almost time for private members hour. I was wondering if I might call it five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize that I have to interrupt the thunderous applause to bring to the attention of the House the fact that it is now five o'clock.



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 Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-National Security-Presumed infiltration into Canada by American communist party; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Post Office-Suggested meeting with Letter Carriers Union to resolve alleged administrative confusion; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Regional Economic Expansion-application by Falconbridge Nickel for grant-Alleged discrimination.
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 (papers), private bills, public bills. As there are no private bills, the House will proceed directly to notices of motions (papers).


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, there are quite a number of notices of motions for the production of papers that precede the one we shall very likely be discussing. May I say that all those standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaneouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) are to stand today, as well as the two following it. If notice of motion No. 21, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) could be called, we shall proceed with it as agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All the notices of motions referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary will stand, at the request of the government.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David Orlikow: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the nearly forty submissions presented to the Economic Council of Canada for its review of Canada's competition policy, as referred to in the Council's report of July 1969 at page 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this country has had legislation which was designed to prohibit or at least control the ill effects of firms combining to avoid competition. The legislation, now more than 50 years old, has been singularly unsuccessful in achieving the purpose for which it

January 21, 1971

was ostensibly dratted. For years there has been talk about the need to bring that legislation up to date. Repeatedly, on this side of the House, members of all parties have talked of the adverse effects of combines. There have been innumerable court cases in which some of the most respected firms in Canada engaging in various fields of economic endeavour have been prosecuted and convicted for violating the provisions of the anti-combines legislation. Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the available evidence shows that combines are more prevalent than ever, that they are more effective than ever, and that they continue to be detrimental to the Canadian people. This government announced some time ago that it was studying the question and that new legislation would be brought in at an early date.
The Economic Council was asked to make a study of combines. That study was to relate to the proposed legislation. The Economic Council presented an interim report. I do not want to refer to what is said in the interim report except to point out that, while making its review, the Economic Council received a large number of submissions from important organizations in business, labour and, I suppose, of the academic community, about the problem Canada faces in connection with monopolies and combines.
I am one who believes in that about which the minister has spoken so often since entering public life. I believe in participatory democracy. I believe in letting people know the facts so that they can give reasonable consideration to the problems we face and decide intelligently what can be done. I submit that this cannot be done if the government, whenever it proposes to act, proceeds to make inquiries, proceeds to call for studies and to ask for submissions, and then takes the view that all the material that has been gathered is its private property and that there is good reason for keeping the information secret. I submit that very seldom are there reasons for keeping such detailed information from the public. I am not talking just about Members of Parliament. The ordinary citizens of Canada, the press, the radio and those in television as well as Members of Parliament, ought to have the right to look at the record, to see the arguments advanced for and against a certain proposal, and to make a reasoned judgment as to why certain things should be done or not done. That is what I propose in my notice of motion for the production of papers. The government has refused to comply.
May I take a few moments to point out what has been happening in this country in recent years. Mr. W. F. Lindsay of the merger and monopoly branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs supplied certain relevant information to Marc Eliesen, Director of Research for the New Democratic Party, on the subject of mergers. I wish to look at the record and to show how many mergers have taken place in the last few years and how greatly accelerated the rate of mergers has become. According to Mr. Lindsay's report, in 1962 there were 185 mergers; in 1963 there were 129; in 1964, 204; in 1965, 235; in 1966, 203; in 1967, 228; in 1968, 402 and in 1969, the last year for which there are figures, there were 504 mergers. If we look at the rate at which foreign compa-
The Canadian Economy
nies are taking over or merging with Canadian companies, we cannot help but be alarmed. All this is taking place at a time when the government has designated a minister to look at the question of foreign ownership and how it affects Canada.
The figures show, for example, that in 1962 there were
79	foreign takeovers; in 1963, there were 41; in 1964, there were 80; in 1965, there were 78; in 1966, there were
80	such takeovers; in 1967, there were 85; in 1968, there were 163 and in 1969, there were 168. We must remember that, in most cases, American corporations are taking over our particularly large companies. Increasingly, American business interests are taking over the most important segments of the Canadian economy. This concerns the people of Canada more and more. It is a problem about which every political party in Canada is concerned. Both the Ontario Liberal party and the Ontario Conservative party are discussing this problem more and more. We, of the New Democratic Party, are not alone in our concern about the increasing control exercised by United States interests of many facets of the Canadian economy. I know that Members of Parliament are aware of the fact that the oil industry, the mining industry, as well as a host of other fields in the Canadian economy, are controlled now almost exclusively by United States concerns. For this reason, we feel that the entire question of combines-and I submit that combines are usually formed to thwart the will of the Canadian consumer-ought to be looked at. We feel that they must be controlled. We feel that the formation of combines such as we have witnessed, Mr. Speaker, must be severely controlled or stopped.
We have called on the government to modernize, to refurbish and to rewrite the entire anti-combines legislation. We are glad that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) has promised that there will be legislation along that line. We welcome it. I do not say that we shall welcome his proposals; yet we welcome the opportunity to discuss the whole question. Without taking too much of the time of the House may I say, very simply, that we feel we, and the people of Canada, have a right to discuss this question and that we have a right to know all the facts. That is why it is essential that we have the kind of information which was supplied to the Economic Council of Canada for the report which they made. I see no reason why the government has refused in this and many other cases to give the information requested. There can be no other reason for their secrecy except the arrogant feeling of the government that only they are entitled to the facts before they decide on issues and policies, and before they introduce legislation.
I urge the government to reconsider its refusal to supply the information which I requested and to table the submissions made to the Economic Council of Canada on combines and competition.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that his main concern in moving
2636

January 21, 1971
The Canadian Economy
this motion is the great number of mergers that have taken place in corporate structures in Canada in the last few years. While it is true that these mergers are taking place, the fact that they do take place is not necessarily bad. Also, the fact that some of these mergers may involve the takeover of Canadian companies by foreign-owned corporations is not something which can be controlled through competition policy. I am sure the hon. member is aware that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) is conducting a study to determine in what ways and by what means we can control the evergrowing encroachment on the Canadian economy by foreign owned corporations.
The report of the Economic Council of Canada does not suggest that we do this through a revised competition policy. I believe it would be of value to refer to this report and to quote directly from it. I quote from page 113 of the Interim Report on Competition Policy of the Economic Council of Canada:
The previous Chapter emphasized that the basic reason for public policy to be concerned with mergers is that in the majority of cases they result in permanent changes in the structure of industry-changes that may have important implications for the future performance of the economy.
This does not mean that mergers should be prevented in order that we may exercise a greater degree of control over our economy and prevent foreign firms from taking over Canadian firms. That is not the sense of this statement. The report continues:
These implications may be for good or ill or a mixture of both, and can usually be foreseen only very imperfectly. On the good side, mergers may be an important means by which owners who wish to divest themselves of a business or part of a business can do so with a minimum of disruptive economic effects. They may also be the most appropriate means of achieving certain cost savings, or of bringing about industrial reorganizations made necessary by changes in patterns of demand or in the technical conditions of production. On the bad side, mergers may bring about significant increases in market power capable of redounding to the disadvantage of consumers, and that can be extremely difficult to reverse or offset once the merger has been completed.
I wish to reiterate that the council was not concerned in this report about the aspects of foreign ownership which can sometimes be tied to mergers. I gather from the statements of the hon. member that this is his particular concern.
The first point I wish to make is that the 40 submissions referred to by the Economic Council of Canada were not really submissions to the council for its review of Canada's competition policy. In the introduction to the Interim Report on Competition Policy dated July 1969, the council made it perfectly clear that the 40 submissions which were received were in connection with the whole of its consumer affairs reference and not just competition policy. This reference by the federal government, dated July 22, 1966, requested the council and I quote:
In the light of the Government's long-term economic objectives, to study and advise regarding:
(a)	the interests of the consumer particularly as they relate to the functions of the Department of the Registrar General (now the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs);
(b)	combines, mergers, monopolies and restraint of trade;
(c)	patents, trade marks, copyrights and registered industrial designs.
The council has been carrying out this reference on the basis that it will issue a total of four reports. This is specifically set out in the Interim Report on Competition Policy. The first two reports have already been made. The 40 submissions to which reference has been made cover the whole range of the four reports, not only the second report on competition policy.
The first report was the Interim Report on Consumer Affairs which was published in 1967. The second report was the 1969 Interim Report on Competition Policy. The third report will be an interim report on the various aspects of industrial and intellectual property covered by paragraph (c) of the terms of reference. Finally, there will be a fourth and final report which will contain further observations and recommendations, notably on the subject of consumer affairs. It will contain a general summing up of the interrelations between the three main elements of the reference and their place in the broad spectrum of government economic policies.
Shortly after receiving the reference, the council advertised in the media across Canada its readiness to receive written submissions from individuals and organizations with regard to any of the areas to be studied. Nearly 40 such submissions were received. These are presumably the 40 submissions referred to in the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The council did not undertake to make any of these submissions public. Their invitation was couched in language which would lead the persons submitting briefs to expect that they would be held in confidence. In any event, there were not 40 submissions relating to the report on competition policy. As already noted, some of them deal with subjects about which the council has not even reported.
I suppose it would be possible for the council to identify those portions of Ihe briefs which deal with the competition policy and to secure the approval of each of the contributors to having these portions tabled. What purpose such a tabling would serve in connection with an understanding of the council's report on competition policy is very obscure. After the council made its Interim Report on Competition Policy, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) extended a similar invitation to all interested parties to make representations with respect to the council's findings and recommendations. A considerable number of such briefs were received.
On December 11, 1969, a motion was made by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) requesting copies of all these representations. Subject to agreement being obtained, from those who made these submissions, the minister agreed at that time to table all these documents. In due course agreement was obtained from all of the parties involved to the tabling of the documents and they were all duly tabled on April 29, 1970. Accordingly, it seems very likely that virtually all the substantive representations made in respect of competition policy as such have already been made available to the House as a

January 21, 1971

result of the tabling of documents by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The technique whereby submissions are tabled with the consent of the originator is a singularly appropriate one for this sort of situation and, undoubtedly, could be considered in respect of the documents which the hon. member for Winnipeg North wishes to see. Until, however, the Council has prepared its third and fourth reports, it would be unreasonable to require the submission of these papers which might give rise to a debate on the very subject which the Council is attempting to consider in a quiet and reflective manner for the purpose of reporting to the government its considered views. It seems quite clear that the public interest would not be served by the tabling of these submissions at this time. Precedent has left to the minister responsible discretion as to whether to recommend that papers of this type be not produced if he considers it against the public interest so to do. However, once the remaining two reports have been dully completed and rendered to the government, if it is considered by members of the House that there should be production of these papers, consideration could then be given by the government to following the same technique as was followed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs with a view to tabling the papers after consent has been obtained from each of the contributors of the briefs.
The interim report on competition policy has far-reaching effects. Its importance lies not only in the recommendations it made regarding mergers, the trade practices of industrial concerns and of certain retail and wholesale businesses. The Council also made recommendations concerning other areas which have not yet been subject to regulation by the federal government. The report suggests that instead of trade mergers, restrictions of trade and similar practices being treated as a criminal offence as we now do under the Combines Investigation Act, we should regard these offences as civil matters. In this lies a serious problem inasmuch as civil matters, as hon. members know, are the sole responsibility of the provinces under our constitution and before the recommendations in the report in this respect could be accepted there would certainly have to be agreement on the part of the provinces that the federal authorities take over responsibility for a field which would then be classified as falling into the civil section. This may be one reason why earlier action has not been taken on the report, but I am hopeful the minister will soon implement some of the recommendations made by the Council in its interim report on competition policy.
I hope that when these steps are taken they will be not only be directed at industrial practices in restriction of trade as we have come to know them; I hope that close attention will be paid to the recommendations the Council made with regard to certain courses of action which are now followed by many of the professional societies in Canada. This is referred to in the report, not at great length but sufficiently to bring to the attention of those concerned the fact that Canadians may be suffering because of restrictions imposed by professional societies
23786-26J
The Canadian Economy
in many provinces. This does not necessarily apply to all the provinces or to all the professional organizations but, in my opinion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North would be doing the public a service if he urged that early action be taken to curb the practices of various professional societies which restrict the number of persons who may belong to them so that the services of many skilled people are denied to those who need them at a fair price.
Some time ago I drew attention to the fact that the dental societies in Canada carry these restrictions to the extreme. I pointed out that it was very difficult for a person who received training in a country other than Canada or the United States to become licensed to practice dentistry in Canada. There was an incident which was well publicized during the Czechoslovak revolution. A number of dentists from that country came to Canada, but they were not allowed to practice here even though some of them were fluent in English and were competent in other ways. If my memory serves me correctly, there are only 33 dentists practising in Canada who have obtained their qualifications outside Canada or the United States.
On the other hand, the medical profession is very much dependent on practitioners who have received their training outside Canada. Certainly, half of those in Alberta received their training outside Canada. It seems as though we are allowing our professional societies to say: It is all right for you to do open heart surgery and major operations of that kind, but it is not all right to pull a tooth if you received your training at a university outside Canada. This is the type of restrictive practice which is causing a great deal of concern. It deprives Canadians of certain services to which they should be entitled, and this is the type of thing hon. members should urge the minister to control. I, personally, hope that when he presents a new bill to replace the existing Combines Investigation Act the minister will introduce provisions to ensure there is competition not only among industries and among retail businesses but also in the professions, because as pointed out in this interim report on competition policy this is an area in which there has been a lack of legislation.
I realize that to implement the recommendations of this report as far as the professional societies are concerned would mean stepping on the toes of the provincial governments because the regulation of professional societies, the statutes under which they were formed and under which they operate, are within the jurisdiction of the provinces. But I believe that in view of the concern felt on the subject in this country the provinces would be happy to see the federal government take a lead. I urge the hon. member for Winnipeg North and, indeed, all hon. members to encourage the minister to implement all of this report as soon as possible so that we can eliminate the unjust practices which are taking place in various aspects of the economic life of Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House for production of papers, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asks the government to release some 40 submissions made to the

January 21, 1971
The Canadian Economy
Economic Council of Canada in regard to Canada's competition policy. These submissions were made in 1969.
Since we live in a free and democratic society, I think our first impulse is to say that all such documents should be made public. On the other hand, the hon. member is asking that the Economic Council of Canada release the submissions. We must bear in mind that when the Economic Council of Canada was established it was made free from and independent of the government. If it were made subject to the wishes of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and other portfolios in the cabinet, its effectiveness would be destroyed and its recommendations would not be given credibility. So the cardinal principle here is that the Economic Council of Canada be free from and independent of the cabinet; that its recommendations which are made periodically shall not be subject to political pressure from the government. Therefore, it seems to me that if we make demands at will for documents and information from the Economic Council of Canada, pretty soon the independent character which it presently has will be lost. If the documents and submissions made to the council were released, the release should be made by the Economic Council of Canada itself, not by the council on instructions from the cabinet.
It has been suggested that this concept of being independent of and free from political pressure from the government should be expanded and that there should be established a pollution and environment council for Canada; that this council too should be free from and independent of political pressures to enable it to range over the whole sphere of the Canadian environment and to make independent recommendations to the government and to Members of Parliament-indeed, to the whole country. If such a council were established, I am sure we would want it to be an independent body like the Economic Council of Canada, a body freed from political pressure and from demands for papers and documents at will on instructions from the government.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, the present combines legislation has been in force for many years; I think he said about 40 years. The legislation has been very unsuccessful, he alleged, and has not really served the purpose for which it was designed. I do not accept that contention. For example, there have been many prosecutions brought under the act; we read of them at regular intervals. I should like to refer to some of the prosecutions of the Department of Justice under section 33 of the Combines Investigation Act during 1969 and 1970. For instance, there was a prosecution in September of 1969 brought against a company in Regina that was retailing gasoline, and a fine of $100 resulted.
There was a prosecution in Montreal, in August of the same year, involving a manufacturer. This prosecution resulted in a fine of $1,000. There were many prosecutions in that year, including one brought against Imperial Tobacco Products, a cigarette manufacturer, resulting in a fine of $3,000. Not only do companies that are prosecuted have to bear the financial sanctions levied against them, but they also suffer adverse publicity as a result thereof. I am sure it costs the companies hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising to offset the unfavourable publicity they have received.
Therefore, looking at it from all sides, I suggest the legislation is not as ineffective as the hon. member suggests. Many major investigations have been carried out, such as the one involving paving companies in the province of Ontario. In that case very stern action was taken by the provincial government and a great many paving contractors were debarred from tendering on paving jobs for the provincial government for a period of years. There was an investigation made into gasoline pricing in the Sudbury area. Also, there has been an investigation into business forms throughout Canada, as well as a separate investigation in the province of Quebec. However, I think we would all agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North that all political parties are concerned about price fixing and we all want to have an effective Combines Investigation Branch in our government to keep price fixing under control.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to notice of motion No. 21, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) gave the impression that he is still thinking of competition as it was in the days of Horatio Alger.


David Orlikow: You mean Mackenzie King.


Steven Otto: Yes, even in the days of Mackenzie King. It is a common belief in many circles today that we have competition of sorts. Any hon. member who has engaged in business during the last 20 years will have discovered that in reality there is no competition, only tolerance. The briefs submitted to the Economic Council of Canada probably reflect this old idea that there is competition, and as a result the Economic Council has made certain recommendations.
The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) referred to prosecutions of paving companies. I have been familiar with this phase of business enterprise for about 20 years, and the fact is that this industry has not found a proper method of ensuring that the lowest bidder does in fact get the job. This applies not only to paving but to the gasoline industry and many others. The fact is that in this business practically every contract put out for tender requires a great amount of capital to finance it. In other words, these contracts have to be bonded and new machines and equipment have to be purchased. As a result, only a small number of firms can adequately undertake this kind of contract.
On the other side of the picture you have the reliability of the contractor; you have to consider his financial position. I regret that the hon. member for Algoma has left the Chamber, because I am sure he would be interested to know that in this industry it is the large firms which can undertake contracts and the smaller firms usually suffer a loss. If you check the financial pages over the last number of years, you will find that there has been a succession of bankruptcies in this business.
For years municipalities and provinces have been searching for a method by which contracts can be awarded to the person who can do the job at the best price and most efficiently. Such a method has never been worked

January 21, 1971

out, because usually the person who puts in a low tender is the one who says, "I haven't much work to do, but I want to keep my gang working. I will bid a low price and hope that later there will be a contract on which I can make money." Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he loses money on the contract and cannot continue in business. The firms which make money are those which bid for the large contracts of $15 million or $20 million, but these firms are limited in number and they divide the contract among themselves. The same thing applies to gasoline companies.
The hon. member spoke about mergers. If I may deal with that matter for a moment, I would point out that this whole situation has been mixed up with economic nationalism. Originally, mergers were attempts by a company or a group of companies to get control of subsidiary industries which would help them in their manufacturing or sales. It was a good type of promotion. For example, York Air Conditioning or one of the other large corporations acquired control over its suppliers in order to make sure it had an adequate supply of materials and in order to become more efficient.
Mergers are not made for reasons of efficiency; they are made merely for the purposes of the stock market. A company will acquire another company, not because the second company will be of assistance in its activities but because it might have cash reserves. It might have a good sales record in the market; it might have a loss position which could be used by the purchasing company. It is required in order to enhance the shares of the first company.
If the hon. member traces the history of some mergers, he will find that usually they are done on the basis of a group of individuals, "con" artists, getting control of a company. Using the shares, or future shares of the company they have acquired, they acquire yet another company by the transfer of shares and some money. But the new merger requires still another merger with other companies. As they acquire more companies they keep adding to their financial statement as though, indeed, the assets of their great megalopolis were going up. Though they transfer shares back and forth and make a few million dollars on them, eventually the large monopoly finds itself in the position where it cannot pay dividends and naturally the market, in its shares, plummets to the bottom. This is the history of mergers entered into without common sense being applied.
The hon. member talked about competition policy. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, there is no real competition. The days have gone when a small manufacturer could compete against a large manufacturer. The days have gone when someone could start a plant with two or three workmen, eventually get a larger share of the market and expand. Now if he becomes a threat to a large company, he is put out of business in about five minutes or his company is simply acquired. One can no longer produce for the small market. You have to produce for the mass market, and that requires an investment of millions of dollars. How many small entrepreneurs have a few million dollars kicking around in their pockets? There are very few. Instead, you have the large corpora-
The Canadian Economy
tions, working fairly efficiently, having almost a monopoly of the market between four or five firms and tolerating small entrepreneurs on the periphery of the market who in turn will supply some good ideas and give the semblance of competition.
Sales are no longer controlled by the consuming purchaser. There is a presumption by the Economic Council and others that it is the purchaser who says, "I want that product. I have this much money. The product is good. This is the thing I want, and I will buy it." The presumption is made that this is a rational decision on the part of the buyer, but that is nonsense. The decisions that supposedly are made by the consumer are in fact made by the producer. The producer knows that he is going to produce so many millions of a certain article, depending upon what his market research has shown. Then he says, "I will spend so many millions of dollars on promotion and I will convince the consumer that he needs my product." As a result, you do not have a free market of any kind; you have the producer, who influences the consumer, who buys the product.
Competition between large corporations depends upon the success of their advertising promotions. This fact has been well documented in the financial pages of the Wall Street Journal and other publications. For example, there was trouble in the automotive market within the last few years because money was a little scarce. It was presumed that the automotive manufacturers would get very panicky because their cars were not selling; there was not much money around and people were not buying new cars. Mr. Speaker, that did not faze the manufacturers in any way whatsoever. The manufacturers had made their plans and knew how many cars would be sold in five years, because they had already convinced the American and Canadian public that every individual must have a new car every two or three years.
In between, when this recession cycle came into play, all the manufacturers did was switch the emphasis to the automotive dealer. To him they said, "For the next year or two we will let you make some money on repairs." As we know, each dealer is expected to have a repair section attached to his dealership. For the past two or three years the automobile dealer has been making money on repairs. Now, with the promotion back on new cars, he will be into that market again. The result is that the car manufacturer is not hurt.
Even if these papers were produced, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would derive no benefit from them because they are based on an assumption that competition exists, that there are small firms competing with the big firms and that it is the consumer who finally makes the decision. I hope I have explained to the hon. member some of the fallacies upon which he would find these papers had been based, and therefore will see that their production is not important.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, this motion gives us an opportunity to consider two' important aspects of our public policies. The points that occur to me as being important are, first, the operations of the Economic Council of Canada and, second, the questions of competition policy raised by the report of

January 21, 1971
The Canadian Economy
the Economic Council, published in July, 1969, on the subject of competition.
I take a very serious view of the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I am inclined to share the views expressed by my colleague the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). It would seem to me to be very dangerous for this House to adopt the procedure suggested with reference to submissions or other material acquired by the Economic Council which would have the effect in the future of impeding inquiries by that body.
.
As we know, in this country inquiries are now carried 'on by public agencies, broadly speaking, in one of two forms. The form best known by tradition is that of a royal commission appointed under the Inquiries Act. Such a body holds public hearings and receives well-publicized submissions. To a considerable extent its affairs are conducted in public. In recent years, however, it has been found in Canada necessary to supplement this type of inquiry by inquiries of another kind. These are studies conducted by specially appointed agencies, some of which, as is the case with the Economic Council of Canada, are creations of statutes of Parliament. These bodies are experts in their own right and produce studies of great importance.
We have only to look at the annual reports of the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada and other agencies of this type to recognize the importance of their studies. In addition, they produce special studies. Some of these studies are undertaken at their own volition, but sometimes they are requested by the government of Canada. The report now under discussion falls into the second category. I believe that in 1966 the government of Canada requested the Economic Council to study the subject of competition policy and to make recommendations. I have looked carefully at the terms of reference of the Economic Council, and nowhere in them was it suggested, even by implication, that this was to be a public type of inquiry to be conducted as if the council were a royal commission appointed under the Inquiries Act. It was very simply and plainly a reference by the government to this expert body requesting it to bring its knowledge and ability to bear on this important problem.
In the course of its inquiry the Economic Council solicited views from the public. I believe it is within the knowledge of hon. members that advertisements were placed in newspapers. Members of the public who were interested in the subject were invited to make submissions, and some did. The 40 submissions referred to in the hon. member's motion are stated, in the Economic Council's report, to have resulted from their advertisement for submissions. But these submissions were made not for public consumption but for the assistance of the council. Some of these submissions undoubtedly contain a great deal of confidential information.
I think the efficacy of the Economic Council's operations could be destroyed if it were compelled, on the basis of a study like this, to disclose submissions made to it by the public when those submissions were not made under the condition that they might be made public at a
later stage. Therefore, on the ground of broad principle I believe it would be a great mistake for us to adopt the motion of the hon. member. I believe in the long rum it would lead to a lessening of the ability and influence of the Economic Council in conducting studies which are of importance to Canada.
The other subject which flows from this motion, particularly from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) and the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto), is that of the report itself. This, perhaps, is one of the few times the House has made any reference to this report. I have no doubt it will be extensively referred to later in this session when it is expected that amendments to the Combines Investigation Act will be presented. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has repeated the cynical view often expressed-


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not say a
word.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I offer my apology to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North has expressed the oft repeated cynical view that combines legislation in this country has been ineffective.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with that.


Duncan Gordon Blair: The hon. member takes as justification for that statement the fact that the combines laws are still being broken and there are combinations in restraint of trade, and so on. If this argument had any validity, one might equally say that the Criminal Code is ineffective.


David Orlikow: Hear, hear!


Duncan Gordon Blair: One might also say that many other laws are ineffective-


David Orlikow: Hear, hear!


Duncan Gordon Blair: -because they have not completely
stamped out crime or any other type of unlawful act. I suggest the combines law has mitigated unsatisfactory business practices in this country. It is said that in the United States the anti-trust laws are always sitting at every board of directors' table. I believe the same is true in this country. There is no question that these laws can be made more effective.
One of the most important features of the report under discussion is the specific, positive suggestions which are made in order to give greater effect to Canadian combines policy. Among these is the suggestion that our combines laws should not be narrowly based, as they are now, on criminal law but should be expanded and civil jurisdiction and civil law should apply to the administration of combines legislation. If there were a greater variety of remedies and more flexibility available to the administrators of our combines laws, I believe it would be possible to achieve greater control and efficacy in combines policy.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

January 21, 1971



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) that Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity of reviewing carefully the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), yesterday and this afternoon. It is not my intention to be repetitive or to take up the time of the House in reciting what has already been so ably put by that hon. member. However, I should like to take a few moments to point out to Your Honour and members of the House why a number of people who have no personal knowledge of or immediate association with the Yukon, as I certainly have not, object to the type of legislation that has been presented to the House.
The Canadian north includes the Yukon, of course, as well as the Arctic islands and the Northwest Territories. In recent years the north has been the subject of great interest to all Canadians. I think everyone in Canada is very interested in seeing how this huge area, potentially vastly wealthy in minerals, is to be developed. I think all of us, no matter which party we support, are interested in seeing those resources developed in the best and most efficient way for all Canadians, particularly for those who live and work in the area.
Judging from the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary in presenting this legislation, and from the remarks of other hon. members, there seems no doubt that there has been very little consideration or analysis of the effects of contributions of private enterprise, as opposed to public or governmental enterprise, to the development of the north. Of course, many superficial remarks were made. As the hon. member for Yukon pointed out, the deputy minister made a number of superficial observations in this regard. Nevertheless, it is quite apparent that there has been no real analysis. We have had what one might call a guesstimate, if I might coin a phrase, as to which is the better of the two ways.
Some hon. members who may not have put their views on record-I do not think it is important whether or not their views are on record-have said that, the Northern Canada Power Commission must be effective because Ontario Hydro has been such a success over the years. I agree that Ontario Hydro has been a great success. It is a publicly-owned corporation, but it is just one publicly-owned corporation that has been a success. It is a non
Northern Canada Power Commission Act sequitor to say that therefore every publicly-owned corporation will be a success. From the evidence-I call it evidence-presented by the hon. member for Yukon, it is clear that the Northern Canada Power Commission has not developed power very efficiently. It has been unfair with regard to rates charged to some users, and particularly unfair in proposing to equalize rates among the users of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
The hon. member for Yukon pointed out that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) took a trip to Europe not long ago for the purpose of raising private capital for this and related projects in the north. That was a very commendable effort on the part of the minister. But the minister, despite his efforts in this regard, has apparently been snowed under by the establishment-by that I mean the establishment of senior mandarins in the civil service- many of whom have by hook or by crook penetrated to the front benches of the government party. This sort of thinking has permeated this government and 1he previous government led by former Prime Minister Pearson.
There is one point that I think is very important. Whether a private or a public enterprise operates utilities such as we are proposing in this bill, it is quite clear there must be some kind of review board to regulate the rates. I say this because public enterprises can become just as vicious, and more so in some cases, than private enterprises. One must consider the psychological effect on civil servants involved in these enterprises. Whenever members of the civil service or of the public service, or whatever one wants to call them, become associated with an enterprise, they invariably feel that they are infallible; they think their decisions are infallible; they become wasteful. Therefore, there must be some check on them.
All too often in the last few years have we seen the growth of boards, commissions, quasi-governmental corporations and organizations all over this country. Some have been federal, others provincial. Once they have been set up there has been no real control over them. In theory they must answer to Parliament, but this is a lot of nonsense. Your Honour knows that, just as the rest of us know it. Once these organizations are set up, they do as they please. The Public Service Commission is a good example, as is the CBC. I could present many other horrible examples of such organizations which, once set up, do as they please. Once they are established they are like Frankensteins' monster; there is no means of controlling them. For that reason, since the government has shown every inclination to establish bodies of this kind, there should be a board composed of members of the cabinet, or people who are elected, to review the rates decided upon by this or any related organization.
I have said on a number of occasions, and I repeat it, that this government and its immediate predecessor have adopted too paternalistic an attitude toward existing development in certain parts of Canada. I refer to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and elsewhere. Its whole attitude has been, mother knows best or, if you want to put it another way, big daddy in Ottawa knows best.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member was right the first time.

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Both terms are equally good. The government's whole attitude has been: We know what is best tor you. Most oi these people have never even been in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, yet they say; we know what is best. You come across that attitude very frequently. You see it in civil servants who came to this country in recent years and acquired senior positions. Of course, half of them have never been outside Ottawa or very far from here. Not only have they seen little of Canada but they have come from other countries. I do not intend to mention names, but there is a long list of them.


Erik Nielsen: They are the 24-hour experts.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: They did not do very well in their own countries and have tried to perpetuate their mistakes here.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is shameful. For a long time the elected members of Parliament have performed their functions adequately. We have always had a very good division of responsibility. Members of this House understand local problems. They enjoy the confidence of those who elected them. More recently the members of a very good public service have carried out the administrative duties relating to political decisions. Some of those engaged in the public service have wanted to do more. Their story is similar to the allegories of the seventeenth and eight-teenth centuries that were written in France, Germany and elsewhere. They were considered children's fairy stories, but really they were political allegories. I am thinking of stories like the fisherman's wife who wanted the sun, moon and everything else. Some of our senior public servants were not satisfied with influencing ministers indirectly or doing their jobs for them; they wanted to be in the driver's seat.
This situation became increasingly apparent in the Pearson administration. Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, the previous Prime Minister, was a former civil servant. Mr. Pickersgill, a former minister, was a very eminent, capable and able civil servant. These people did well. The mental attitude of the senior echelon, or mandarins as they are known, moved from the public service into the cabinet. We still find this situation. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are all graduates of the senior school of the civil service. There is little doubt that they dominate the cabinet. This bill is another example of mixing the administrative level of government and the political decision-making which is supposed to be carried out by the elected members. It is true that the Prime Minister and some members of the cabinet, former civil servants, have been elected. We know why they were elected. There are still a number of seats in this country which are regarded as safe political seats: that is how they got here.

There is one matter which does not relate in general terms to the unsatisfactory side of legislation but to this legislation specifically. This was pointed out by the hon. member for Yukon. This bill should not go to committee. It should not be passed by this House until related bills which were passed in the last session, and proposed legislation that will affect that part of Canada, are carefully analyzed as to the impact and economic effect they will have on the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Arctic islands. To pass this bill as it stands would do a great disservice to the development of our country. Canadians are looking forward to the development of our northern territories and their great wealth. This development must be carried out in a way that is best for all Canadians.
Grave doubts have been expressed by members of this House and by nearly all the major organizations in the Yukon. They know best; they have to live with this situation. Many of the theoretical types sit in armchairs in Ottawa and have never visited that part of the country. Some consideration should be given to local wishes in this matter, but the government has not done this in the past. Maybe in 1971, the first year of the seventies, the government will turn over a new leaf and will pay attention to the wishes of the local people, those affected by legislation invented by mandarins in Ottawa. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That all the words after "that" be left out and the following inserted:
"this bill be read upon a day six months hereafter"


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that "upon a day six months hereafter" means that it not be read upon a day six months hereafter, but just in the hereafter.


Erik Nielsen: As far as possible, in the hereafter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And read in another place.


Frank Howard: I think it is clear that the purpose is not so much to talk about the desirability of bringing power facilities and the like to the people in the territories as it is to kill and destroy the concept of the bill. But that is neither here nor there. I think we were all amused by the applause that preceded private members' business at five o'clock. There were two or three minutes of non-partisan applause. I noticed that government members participated with great relish. I enjoyed the applause more than the speech that followed, in terms of content and its value to the debate.
It seems that one of the fundamental objections to the bill is the idea that power rates should be equalized between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I have some sympathy for that concept. In the political development that has existed in both territories there has been a different and more advanced concept with regard to the political structure in the Yukon than there has in the Northwest Territories. Depending upon the degree of pressure that the government keeps on the brakes insofar as progress toward political autonomy is concerned, presumably the Yukon will reach the stage of provincial
January 21, 1971

political status before the Northwest Territories. The Yukon will have a progressive political, provincial status before the Northwest Territories.
Because of the British North America Act, in terms of power, we have a concept in Canada whereby the equalization principle shall apply within provincial boundaries and not overlap into other provinces. I appreciate and endorse that concept. That is a very minor part of the Conservative campaign with respect to this legislation. It is a superficial type of argument. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) made this abundantly clear in the speeches he made on this bill and the amendments. The Conservatives feel that the fundamental question is private power versus public power; there is no question about that. The Conservative party is at.empting to preserve the last vestige of exploitive private power whose purpose is to distribute and supply electrical energy in order to make a profit. We have gone through this argument in every province of Canada at one time or another, and every political party at one time or another has come out in favour of the concept of public ownership-only one of them out of conscience and principle and others out of political expediency.
It may be that the Northern Canada Power Commission is not the most sensitive to the needs of the people in the area; it may be that the commission is not the most efficient; it may be that it is bureaucrat-ridden; it may be that it is more concerned with its own paperwork than it is with the purpose for which it was set up; it may even be that some of the members of the commission are not even friendly toward the concept of public power. But I do not think this is reason enough, in a moral or philosophical sense, to defeat the concept we want to establish, namely, that public administration in this field is preferable to private enterprise. Every political party, every province in Canada has endorsed the idea that public power is more valuable to the people than private ownership, exploitation and development for the purpose of private profit.
It would seem to me that the contention on behalf of the Conservative party that the Northern Canada Power Commission is not responsive to the interests of the people of these territories somehow runs counter to their hope that they will be called upon to form a government after the next election. If hon. members to my right think it is likely they will form a government next time, surely it is a companion concept that they will be in a position to straighten out the NCPC and see that it is headed in the right direction.
The primary point to be considered in relation not only to the amendment before us but in relation to the earlier motion is that its purpose is not to have a task force study this issue in committee of the whole or elsewhere; the purpose of the Conservative party is to destroy the concept of the bill and establish over this last frontier the discreditive values of private exploitive power in the field of energy, despite the fact that it has been accepted for many years by every political party in Canada that public power is the most desirable, the most ethical and
Northern Canada Power Commission Act the most moral way of proceeding. We cannot agree with this attempt to destroy the principle behind the bill. I do not really think the Liberal party is any better disposed toward it than is the party to my right. It is simply that, sitting where they are, they have seen an opportunity to make political gain by taking something which is socially desirable and putting a political complexion upon it.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the bill before us. You can only call it socialism. No matter how you slice it, that is what it is. Look at what has happened to Britain. It has been destroyed by too much socialism in the last 50 years. Who would think that a dynamic, young country like Canada-I almost said "republic" because that is what we are rapidly heading to under the dictatorship of an arrogant government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Wait for it. I know you are ahead of me, but you are wrong. It is not a question of personalities but of principles. We are carrying on our back an old man of the sea-socialism. If you like, you can call it democratic socialism. It can only work under the strong fist of a top-heavy bureaucracy.
It is only a week or two ago since Air Canada, which has a good deal of merit-we all know it is one of the finest airlines in the world, and so it ought to be; we are spending enough money on it-was a little worried because it was losing a certain amount of business. What did they do? Did they improve their service? No. They cut into the private part of the economy. They took away the routes of small outfits such as Wardair in Edmonton, my home city. I hope they are not simply picking on Edmonton, but they are picking on private enterprise.
There is something more important at stake here than balancing the books of Air Canada. Canada is big enough for us all, as the leader of the Creditistes (Mr. Caouette) has said. I would think the airways are big enough for both Air Canada and private enterprise. Who built Canada's air fleet? It was the bush pilots, every one a free enterpriser. Air Canada itself looks to these bush pilots when they need men among the brass to help run their enterprise. They learned the business the hard way. I am sick and tired of seeing well-meaning bureaucrats nibble away at free enterprise in every facet of the economic life of this country.
I could spend all my time discussing agriculture, but of course this is not a debate on agriculture, though it comes close to it. We are now invading the last frontier. Agriculture used to be a frontier. At one time you could say to the hungry people of Canada, or of the earth: Go west and take a fresh piece of land and carve yourself out a career. You cannot do that any more because the socialists have taken over agriculture. That is gone. What has happened to those who want to run farms? They have been told: Go into the cities and live in high-rise apartments. If you cannot beat us, you will have to join us. They have taken over the fishing industry, both freshwater and deep sea, instead of encouraging free enterprise to become more efficient through thrift and hard

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act work. I heard a speech the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). In effect, he said: It will never do you any good to save your money, because if you save it we will take it.
I turn, now, to consider affairs in the north where we are carrying out another experiment. They tell us there is to be a new province there. What kind of province? Is it to be one where a young man can go to find relief from the cities, or prospect for oil on his own, or extract oil on his own or by forming a small company? Oh, no. Everything is to be done under government orders, under government quotas. The theory is that you can trust the government. How is it, then, that Mr. Pickersgill is now head both of the CNR and the CPR? He made the job himself under Liberal auspices. He is also the author of a biography on Mr. Mackenzie King. His self appointment is the biggest act of nepotism I have ever read about'

and I have read all I can find on political science and the history of the world in order to try to become an efficient Member of Parliament. If that is not true, I defy him to deny it. No eastern potentate ever had the power that the members of this government have today.


Mr. Mahoney:: It sounds as though you are the new leader over there.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I would welcome it, if you took on that job over there.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I will remember that suggestion.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: she were the England of old; the common market would be knocking at England's door asking to share England's wealth and to learn England's know-how. Every industrial nation of the world copied England when England was free, when its people believed in free trade, productivity, hard work, thrift, honesty-all virtues that are "square." I have even heard people in Canada suggest that we should be willing to cut off ties with the old country, and by "the old country" I am talking about the country that has shown the world leadership. I could almost go along with cutting ties with Wilson's England, because Wilson cut off common sense. But there is hope there today for a man who calls a spade a spade.
I am no racist, but in South Africa it is easy for Fabian socialists to scream racism and murder. But they say nothing about the domination of the Indian Ocean by Russia. This is the real issue in that part of the world. However, I will say no more about that. I do not condone South Africa's treatment of the blacks. A lot of wealth is dug out of the mines by black slave labour. Are the Fabian socialists willing to serve in our armed forces, in our navy, in our air force, in our army?


An hon. Member:: Are we going to war?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We might.


Erik Nielsen: We did once, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I went to war once. Perhaps I was a fool, but I don't think so. I will go again for the same purpose, and that purpose is not to save all the bourgeois or the rich of America. It is to try to keep Canada strong, safe and free. For this I would be a fool again, if indeed I was a fool once. I would rather be a magnificent fool than a despicable coward. We are not talking about defence; we are talking about the free enterprise development of Canada without which we cannot survive. We are alone. We are no longer a bridge between prosperous England and the prosperous United States. We are fighting for existence. So is England, because she listened to Wilson. The United States has her hands full because the world is not grateful for what she has done, no matter what her mistakes may have been. We are alone, like it or not.
I am not against Red Russia or China. I am not against selling them wheat. Hungry people have to eat. Are we going to put all the means of production in Canada in the hands of the bureaucracy?


Erik Nielsen: Of this government.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Of any government? Even if we had our 208 members back, or if we had 248 or 258 members I would vote the same way. I would not want a Tory bureaucracy to run Canada any more than I want a Liberal bureaucracy to run it.


Erik Nielsen: As it is doing.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: As it is. If any cabinet minister in our party were to carve out a $40,000 a year job for himself, I would oppose it; I would leave this party. Why don't you
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
leave yours? My hon. friend talks about leadership. Let him have the courage to stand up and say he defies this heartless, arrogant government. He would not be a party of one for long; he would have two in his party.


Mr. Francis:: He did.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: And don't think for a minute that he does not have the admiration of the Canadian people, whether they agree with him or not. He has character, he has courage-and he did not have to ruin the armed forces before he did it. I am looking for leadership.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I bet you are.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: But not to lead this party. I am looking for the leadership of other people whom I can follow. I am quite happy that our leader is not trying to run a coldblooded dictatorship in this country, and I am happy that there are no mandarins sitting in our party. There have been times when I thought there might have been people in my party who were going too far to the left. You can ask any of them if they know where I stand. They know, Mr. Speaker.
In the few minutes at my disposal I am trying to make a plea for good old free enterprise, ordinary free enterprise without compulsion, without any nonsense, without any flag-waving or exaggeration of any kind. I have seen the affluence in North America, particularly in the northern end of North America, which has been built on the free enterprise principle. I am afraid that if the government takes over the means of production, as outlined in the Winnipeg manifesto, the Regina manifesto and all the white papers we have had in the last five years, the free enterprise way of life which I am used to and which I think will still work, will be gone. I may be a minority of one, but I do not think so.
I have heard my colleague from the Yukon outline this matter beyond question. He comes from that part of the country. He knows what the people up there want, and I go along with him. I still believe that the people of Canada have the courage, the brains and the know-how to run their own affairs. We do not need a paternalistic government. We need leadership. We need help to create an atmosphere in which free enterprise can operate. Cut taxes, improve transportation, improve education, but by all means stop telling our young people, our old people and everybody else that they are incapable of earning a living without mamma government holding their hand, because when mamma government is holding your hand with one hand, she is into your pocket with the other.
I am willing to take the chance to work. Pay me decently for what I do and I am quite content to look after myself from the cradle to the grave. Don't get me wrong, Mr. Speaker. I am not against social justice. I am not against keeping the old people who built this country, but I am against keeping our young people in ignorance of how this country was built.
There is only one way to share wealth, and that is to dig it out of the ground, to hue it out of the mines and cut it out of the bush. We must work for it. If I did as little work as some people in this country, I would not be

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act able to digest the meals I eat. There is joy to be had in work. I have the scars of labour on my hands and I am proud of them. I spoke to a young man the other day who said, "I am not going to work. I have a Ph.D." Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a Ph.D. too. If he cannot be hired by a university as a political scientist, what is wrong with going out, climbing on an oil derrick and earning $50 a day? If you are young and strong, go to where the work is.


Mr. Hogarth:: Where?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: That's right-where?


Erik Nielsen: Get that on the record.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What has your administration done in the last seven years? What has the Liberal administration done to create job opportunities for young people? Nothing. That is the first good question we have had from that side of the House. Worse than that, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals don't care. The young people don't mind so much being neglected as that the Liberals don't care-and that has been officially told to them; a Liberal minister has said, "We will accept 10 per cent unemployment." That is intolerable. No percentage of unemployment is tolerable.
Countries that do not have our opportunities, our resources, our people and the Liberal government that we have, do not have unemployment. They do not have unemployment in the Netherlands, in West Germany or Japan: those countries are short of labour. West Germany is importing hundreds of thousands of Italians to take jobs and earn good wages there, and they are in competition with us. It is not the German government which is doing this; it is the German people using their own brains, their own initiative, their own guts and their own money-and they are going to beat us into the ground unless we smarten up, and smarten up fast.
Someone says, "If you don't like it, get out." Well, I don't have to get out. This is my country. I am going to stay here and see it through.


Erik Nielsen: Just while the Liberals are in power.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: That is going to be a long time.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You have the media on your side. Everything you do is right with them, but even the media are getting fed up, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, Charles Lynch is no particular friend of mine. He is a broadminded, positive writer, and he says this government is smug; he says it is arrogant. That is the understatement of the year. Mr. Lynch states that the Conservatives pledged themselves to save Mr. Henderson. Why should anybody have to pledge himself to save Mr. Henderson, who is one of the most valuable civil servants in this country and one who has at least tried to stop the leak in the dike so that there would be a bit of money in the reservoir with which to do something if the government should wish to save this country.
If the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) is glued to his seat, I can understand why. However, he is

free to rise and ask a question; this is a free country. It is not the man from St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) I am talking to; it is the red-shirted member from Calgary South, one of the wealthiest communists I know.
Mr. Lynch warns the Liberals that they are arrogant. I do not expect you to listen to me, because you never have, but you might at least listen to your own writers. When your own friends say you are becoming arrogant, you should listen to the warning. One hundred and fifty-eight members is not that many.


An hon. Member:: How many?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: One hundred and fifty-eight.


An hon. Member:: Not in this party.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: How many?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: All right, Mr. Speaker, I am not a hair-splitter. I am trying to make the government take a good look at itself whether or not it has gone far enough with nationalization of Canada's resources. Is it not about time these people returned to liberalism? There was a time when they had Liberals. Laurier was a Liberal.


An hon. Member:: That is one.


An hon. Member:: That is about all.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: St. Laurent was a Liberal. If Laurier were alive and suggested reciprocity, I would vote for it. I do not vote blindly for anything, but I would vote for it. I am giving a warning. I do not hit people without warning. Their own writers have warned them that they are cold-blooded, arrogant and do not care about the young people. The Liberal party is completely mesmerized and believes that 155 members represent a sufficient majority, that it can ignore the needs and rights of the young people of Canada and can play big daddy with everybody.
The Indians have never liked paternalism. They have hated having the government play big daddy with them. All they have ever wanted is to be allowed to be good Indians. This government has even succeeded in making them into poor white men. The young people do not like to think that 10 per cent of them must remain unemployed. Every young person in this country wants a job. In spite of being a working man myself, I do not believe I know enough about it to say which 10 per cent should sit back and not have an opportunity. I will not make that decision. I want to see a policy that will be big enough and wise enough to provide an opportunity for every young Canadian to be employed. I do not expect this government to accomplish that. No government has done it yet. There is nothing more discouraging than being unemployed. I have been unemployed myself for very short periods of time during the dirty thirties.


An hon. Member:: No wonder.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: It wasn't me; I didn't say a word.
January 21, 1971


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I hope the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) will always have a lucrative job in which he does nothing, because that is what he is doing as long as he sits on the back benches of the Liberal party and does not take the trouble to wake up the front benches.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: I cannot wake them up when you are putting me to sleep.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I suggest that if you want to sleep you should go where you usually go-somewhere other than this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is that true?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Do you think he has had enough, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Give him another one, Jack.


Erik Nielsen: Belt him again.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: When we think of free enterprise, we must remember people like Punch Dickens who was a bush pilot. We might ask what kind of man he was. De Havil-land Aircraft of Canada produced the best aircraft of its type in the world. Then we might ask who they wanted when they were looking for a man to head Canadian Pacific Airlines. It was the government of Mr. Diefen-baker that gave this airline a licence to compete with Air Canada. We all know how much better Air Canada has been with a little competition. When they wanted a leader they got Mr. McConachie, another bush pilot.
I could go on, but I bore the Liberals because they are a heartless bunch. They are arrogant enough to appear on TV and get up in this House and say we never had it so good. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) stood in this House and told us we never had it so good. Maybe we didn't, but there are many young people in this country who are looking to us for leadership. The main complaint from the government benches is that they do not get leadership from this side of the House. That is what the Minister of Finance said. This is one reason I am on my feet tonight. I am glad the minister is here. I admit having been delinquent, but I have been sitting here waiting for the dynamic leadership of this great party of the people.


An hon. Member:: Get Diefenbaker.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I was here when he was our leader, and we had leadership. I am on my feet tonight because I have not seen the contribution I expected from the other side of the House. I want to know what is the dynamic policy for the Northwest Territories, and if the government is to provide electric power, a pipeline, and so on, in northern Canada, how that will give us better light.


An hon. Member:: You tell us what you would like to see happen.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I go right along with the idea that we should encourage free ownership, private ownership of every industry, of oil wells, farms, orchards-you name it. I am in favour of the free enterprise system. It is the only thing I am fanatical about. I am fanatical about freedom. I am such a fool about freedom that I put my life on the line in 1939, 1949, 1959, and I hope I will in 1979, because I honestly believe it is the only thing that will work, and it has been demonstrated.
You want the empirical process? You want to see what happens? What happened in England? In only 50 years they went from the top to the bottom, but I hope they are on the way up again. We will do it now without any excuse, with the blueprints in front of us. We know that free enterprise works and that socialism does not. It does not work for me, and up till now it has never been the Liberal policy. I would admire the Liberals more if they decided that liberalism no longer works, that the free enterprise system no longer works. Let them be honest like my friends to the left; at least they are honest.


An hon. Member:: How far to the left?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They espouse socialism, and I honestly believe that if they were put in charge they would try it and see whether or not it worked. I honestly think it would be disastrous, and so far so do the Canadian people. If they change their minds in 1972, or whenever they spring an election on us, I will stand to be corrected. That is the view of most of the people I know, and of course I only speak from my knowledge of people who are generally over 30, as I happen to be a grandfather.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget to read your speech tomorrow.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I do not make speeches to read them myself. I make speeches in an apparently vain effort-


An hon. Member:: How right.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: -to help you people make your decision which, if you were truly Liberals, you would have made yourselves. My party does not need leadership from me.


An hon. Member:: But they need it from somebody.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: They want participation, and I want to know when you people will be allowed to participate in this democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: When are we going to do away with the 30 or so men who sit in the attic and really run this country today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) I might mention that I rose because the hon. member's time has expired.

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act


David Orlikow: The last speech was interesting, Mr. Speaker. It was interesting because to a large extent the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) when speaking for 40 minutes ranged from one end of the country to the other. He circled the world. I listened very carefully, but on no occasion did he deal with either the Yukon or the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: You weren't listening.


David Orlikow: I was listening. We were told that the great fault of this bill is that it is a socialist bill. The hon. member for Pembina asks Members of Parliament to reject this bill because it calls for nationalizing power. I wish it did, but it does not. My colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out, I think correctly, that the objections to this bill which we heard from the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are that the hon. member for Yukon really believes that the private power company in that area can do a better job than if it were publicly owned. He is entitled to his opinion, but the facts as we have seen them in Canada do not bear him out.
The hon. member for Pembina tried to tell us that the difficulties in respect of power have been brought about because we in this party and members of the party opposite have been seduced by the teachings of the British socialists. I think I am correct in saying that the hydroelectric system in Ontario was made a publicly-owned corporation in 1905 when the British Labour Party was just beginning. It was made a public corporation by a Conservative government, under Sir Adam Beck.
If publicly-owned power is such a terrible thing, I suggest to the hon. member for Pembina that now is a good time to put that argument forward. The Conservative party of Ontario is going into a leadership contest, and I suggest to the hon. member that he approach the five candidates who are vying for leadership and try to convince them that publicly-owned power is bad for Ontario. He should try to convince whichever one becomes premier of Ontario that he ought to sell Ontario Hydro to private enterprise. I wonder how much support he would get from the Ontario Conservative party. It would be interesting to see.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: What would that do?


David Orlikow: Ontario is not the only province which has publicly-owned power. In my province of Manitoba the last privately-owned power company was turned into a public utility by a Liberal government. In British Columbia the privately-owned power systems were turned into a publicly-owned power system by a Social Credit government. In Saskatchewan it was the CCF government which created a publicly-owned power system. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the power system is publicly owned. One of the things which distinguishes Canada from the United States is that we have hardly any privately-owned power systems in this country. Alberta is about the only province which still has a privately-owned power system.
Why do we have publicly-owned systems? It is because in every province they came to the conclusion, after the most careful study, that publicly-owned power could be brought to the people of the provinces concerned more cheaply and efficiently than by private companies. The reasons for that are pretty obvious.


J. Michael Forrestall: Prove it.


David Orlikow: If you want to build power facilities it is necessary to borrow large amounts of money, and no private corporation can borrow money as cheaply as can a publicly-owned corporation, provincial or federal.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nonsense.


David Orlikow: Let the hon. member look at what happened in Nova Scotia, where power is publicly owned.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is also privately owned.


David Orlikow: Not many years ago-I think most members in the House were here-a Liberal government in the province of Quebec took over all the private power facilities in the province and created one publicly-owned power corporation.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Sure, the Liberals did that.


David Orlikow: Yes, the Liberals in Quebec and the Conservatives in Ontario. That is precisely what I said. They did this because it has been proven conclusively that public systems can operate more cheaply than private companies. To appreciate this one only needs to go to Niagara Falls, in the province of Ontario, and compare the cost of power there with the cost of power in Niagara Falls, New York State. One sees the difference. In New York State power is still privately owned. So I say to the hon. member for Pembina that this bill does not call for the creation of a publicly-owned power system in the Yukon. If it did, I would support it much more vigorously than I do at the present time. But if it did, it would provide the people of the Yukon with cheaper power more quickly than the privately-owned system has, as has already happened in nearly all other parts of Canada.
I close by saying a few words about a matter to which the hon. member for Pembina referred repeatedly. I shall try to be briefer than he was. He suggested that Britain is in great difficulties because it was governed by a socialist government. He seemed to imply that all the resources and industries of Great Britain were publicly owned. That is not true. The vast majority of industries and resources in Great Britain are still privately owned. He compared Great Britain unfavourably with other European countries which belong to the European Common Market.
I suggest to the hon. member that if he were to read about countries like France and Italy, I am sure he would be amazed at what he would learn. He would also learn that what I am about to say is true. In France, Italy and other countries in western Europe, a much greater pro-

January 21, 1971

portion of industries and services is owned by the state than is the case in Great Britain. So I suggest to him that Great Britain's difficulties do not stem from the fact that the means of production in that country have been socialized, nationalized or whatever he wishes to call it. Britain is in difficulties for entirely different reasons. Also, the reason countries like France, in which a large proportion of industry is owned by the state, are doing well is entirely different from that suggested by the hon. member. If the hon. member wished to talk about power in Canada, which he did not, he should have looked at the record. It is not at all what he said it was.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if the hon. member would explain to me why the flow of immigration is all one way. Why are people leaving those havens of socialism and coming to this terrible North American, private enterprise economy?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the debate close without commenting on some of the remarks which were made, particularly by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. It is refreshing to see the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) in his seat with his chin held high, lording it over the empty front benches. He reminds me of his colleagues in cabinet and particularly of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) who is now behind the curtains and is treating the situation in Canada as if they were on an ego trip. They are completely oblivious to the situation. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) was objecting vociferously when my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg), was speaking. If I knew half as much about anything as he knows about everything, I would be on the backbenches behind him on the other side of the House.
The NDP members really amaze me, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Skeena, who is aspiring to the leadership of that great national party, has been acting like a chameleon and distorting everything completely, as is typical. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) tried to do the same. Nobody is arguing about the existence of NCPC in the north. I am expressing the views of all segments of the Yukon population and not just my own. Surely the views of the population of the Yukon should reach even the feelings of the hon. member for Winnipeg North. These people do not want to pay for the losses of this system in the Northwest Territories. What could be a fairer position than that? They do not want the surpluses, which these amendments would take away from them, applied to losses throughout the whole system; they want the surpluses applied to reducing the rate in the Yukon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member talked about public power in the Yukon. He said that the Crown agency was established in 1948, 22 years ago, to provide power in those places of the north where private capital was unwilling or unable to go. He also said that private
Northern Canada Power Commission Act capital has not been doing the job and now, just because there is a huge development in the Yukon in terms of mining, they want to go in and skim off the cream.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: They are robbing the Yukon; that is what he said.


Erik Nielsen: He said the NCPC could provide power more quickly in the Yukon. Tell that to the people of Old Crow who waited 20 years for power from the NCPC. Tell that to the people of Keno Summit, of Stewart Crossing and Pelly Crossing. Are these people not provided for by private enterprise, having waited 20 years for power from the public agency set up to do that job? Tell that also to the people of Carmacks, Burwash Landing, Destruction Bay, Haines Junction, Carcross, Watson Lake and Upper Canyon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: In all these communities Mr. Speaker, the public agency was set up, yet private enterprise went in and supplied the power. And the hon. member says that the public agency can do this more cheaply and quickly! The government specifically asked private enterprise to go into Old Crow. The hon. member could not have been here this afternoon when I quoted the rates. The government conducted the survey and came up with the answer that it would cost 27 cents per kilowatt to supply power to the community of Old Crow. They did not want to do it because it was costing too much, and they asked private enterprise to do it.
Private enterprise went in on the provisional basis of 25 cents per kilowatt, and private enterprise is now supplying power to this community at 15 cents per kilowatt, away below anything that public power could offer and below any rate that public power could be offered for in the Yukon. If you really want to go into the merits of the argument, you will see that power was first supplied at Watson Lake at six cents and it is now being supplied at 3.6 cents. At Whitehorse, power was being supplied at 6 cents and is now supplied at 1.6 cents. Do not tell me that private enterprise cannot compete, because it has supplied cheaper power to many communities of the country.
Regardless of the argument about public versus private enterprise, surely to consider the example quoted by my friend for Winnipeg North we must remember that it is the people of the provinces who make the decision regarding conversion; they have the right to make that decision. Surely we have the right in the Yukon to make the same kind of decision, instead of having it foisted upon us by another bureaucratic arm of government.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Erik Nielsen: This reminds me of the contribution made by the member who is now behind the curtain, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth). He reminds me of a former Liberal member from British Columbia, Mr. Byrne. The only time he opened his mouth when he was a Liberal member of the House was when he wanted to change the position of his feet. I think the feet of the

January 21, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act hon. member for New Westminster are even too big for that. There was deliberate distortion by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


An hon. Member:: He is here now.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad. He and others distorted the facts. They charged that the Conservative party-


Frank Howard: That is not true.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member would return to his seat and make his interjection, I would be happy to join issue with him.


Frank Howard: And what would the hon. member do?


Erik Nielsen: You cannot just charge-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the two hon. gentlemen want to have a private conversation, they might do so while both are in their places. Meanwhile, would the hon. gentleman kindly address the Chair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They could both go behind the curtain.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member wishes, I could join him in the corridor. He has charged, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative party's intention is to kill the bill.


Frank Howard: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is the intention of the people of the Yukon, the population that I have an obligation to speak for in this debate. I am expressing the views of the Yukon population, just as the hon. member for Skeena might express the views of his constituents.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: If he knew them.


An hon. Member:: He hopes to be leader of his party.


Erik Nielsen: I can tell the hon. member that the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Commerce, the Prospectors' Association and, he will be interested to know, the labour movement in the Yukon do not like the idea-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -of having the revenues generated as a result of their consumption of power in the Yukon going to pay for government extravagance in Frobisher Bay, Cambridge Bay and other places throughout the system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The truck drivers, the mechanics, the carpenters and the plumbers, who pay electric light bills far in excess of anything the hon. member has ever experienced, do not like it. That is why they want this bill turned down.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he identify the section of the labour movement to which he referred?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly. I have in my office a telegram from Local 31 of the Teamsters. Ottawa members certainly cannot say that is not part of the labour movement. The Buildings Trades Council in the Yukon is just as upset as all the little people in the Yukon who have asked me to express these views. They think it is not fair to pay the same kind of tax that every other Canadian pays and, in addition, to have foisted upon them the cost of supporting the revenue-losing areas of commission-operated plants throughout the north. That is their objection. What could be unreasonable about that kind of objection?
1 would inform the hon. member for Skeena that not only this party does not want this bill. It is not only me who does not want this bill. The people of the Yukon who use the power do not want this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Surely that is not an unreasonable position to take. All members of this House should listen to this kind of report. If they do not, the much-worn, threadbare phrase of "participatory democracy" will not mean a hell of a lot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I think I have once again placed the matter in proper perspective. Coincidentally, the views I am expressing are the views of my party, because I solicited their support. I also solicited the support of the Creditiste party. They all support the wishes of the people of the Yukon which I have expressed in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I hope hon. members will see fit to vote for the amendment so that the government will at least have an opportunity to consider something which is universally considered to be undesirable in the Yukon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is now on the main motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to see the Conservative party chicken-out after the declaratory speech we just heard.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. One cannot let a baseless assertion like that pass unchallenged. The only reason this party is passing the legislation, on division, is to save the time which would be required in recording a vote, particularly in view of the fact we had one recorded vote this afternoon.
[Mr. Nielsen 1
January 21, 1971


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-215 is to implement several essential elements of the new textile policy which I outlined in the House on May 14 last year, as you will remember. Hon. members will recall that this policy includes a whole range of measures dealing with the industrial, social and commercial aspects, with financial assistance, promotion on the domestic and international markets, technical assistance, and many other provisions. Some hon. members have expressed all along their interest, others, their support and still others their concern about this new policy. I shall therefore endeavour to be as clear as possible, and divide my statement in three parts, as I usually do. I shall deal first of all with what has already been done, then with the main features of the bill, namely Bill C-215, and, finally, with what remains to be done.
Mr. Speaker, the following has been done: first of all, my department has already expanded its export promotion efforts. The highlight of this increased promotion activity last year was participation by Canadian manufacturers of garment fabrics in the Interstoff Fair in Frankfurt, Germany, probably the most important international fair featuring garment fabrics. Although individual manufacturers had participated in the Fair previously, this was the first time they did so as a group. The results have been extremely gratifying. The participating Canadian firms received orders valued at more than $3.2 million; there are strong indications that $10 million in additional Canadian export orders will be generated as a result of this effort. I am pleased to note that our performance at the Fair elicited extensive comment in Germany and in Canada, for instance even from the usually unexcitable Dick Jackson of the Ottawa Journal. Our intention is to continue these highly promising efforts at the Frankfurt Fair in May and November of this year, a (9:40 p.m.)
I wish to emphasize how successful the fair was
because it shows quite clearly the very interesting pos-
Textile and Clothing Board Act sibilities international trade offers the textiles and clothing industries.
Secondly, increased attention has also been given to the promotion of apparel, both in terms of marketing and discovery of new markets, and of the quality of commodities. Although 1970 was generally a difficult year for garment-makers, exports to the United States increased from some $42 million to about $55 million. Advanced bookings indicate that the increase in sales to the United States may be even greater this year. Canadian creations are now featured regularly in American magazines, especially in "Women's Wear Daily".
I know that you do not read that magazine, Mr. Speaker, but I am told that it is the Bible of the women's fashion industry. Your wife is undoubtedly more versed in that field than yourself and judging from the results she puts it to good use.
Canadian fashions are gaining increasing acceptance on export markets, which is quite flattering for our industry.
With regard to the same matter, Mr. Speaker, on September 2, my Department launched the Fashion Canada Program to focus national and international attention on the best style garments being designed and manufactured in Canada. Fashion Canada is supported by the federal and three provincial governments as well as by several professional associations.
Its objective is to encourage greater design creativity and upgrade the quality in Canadian fashion products; to build a prestige image of fashion design in Canada; and to provide an environment which will encourage and retain Canadian fashion design talent. I am pleased to report that the program is meeting a good response from the industry, retailers, publicity media and the general public. In print media lone, FASHION/CANADA has so far been featured in some 350 articles appearing in close to 100 publications in Canada and abroad.
All this shows clearly, I feel, that there is, for the clothing industry of Canada, a very promising future, most promising indeed. I have had the opportunity to read, for instance, reports from American chain stores buyers who came to Canada and were most favourably impressed, even surprised, by the quality of products designed and made in Canada. There is an interesting phenomenon. The fact that the factory itself is small, may become, sometimes, an advantage. Since fashion, as we are all aware, is a most rapidly changing thing, there is even an advantage to being small since one has more leeway and can adjust far more quickly.
I had the opportunity to note, for instance-and this is obvious in the House-the extent to which Canadians have gone for coloured shirts. I recently addressed 50 persons. Nobody in the audience had a white shirt. The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) will have to change his habits. The fact that Canadians went for coloured shirts represented a significant contribution to the survival of this industrial sector in Canada, because those shirts obviously cannot be produced on as large a scale.
As producers do not exactly know what will meet with popular approval-for instance, the bright red shirt of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney)-they

January 21, 1971
2652_______________________________________
Textile and Clothing Board Act will hesitate to produce one million shirts. They will only manufacture 100,000 and will survey the market before producing a further quantity. It is then no longer a handicap to be a small manufacturer.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: For my part, Mr. Speaker, I wear my old white shirts.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is because of the very low salaries of the backbenchers.
The hon. member for St. Boniface will buy himself some coloured shirts. He will also make an effort, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has been doing for so long.
In the third place, the supplementary estimates approved by the house before the Christmas recess contained amendments to the General Adjustment Assistance Program which will provide Canadian textile and clothing manufacturers with better access to the various types of financial assistance available under it.
I have explained the features of this program to hon. members on previous occasions; I do not intend to go into it in detail now. However, in the committee we have recently seen the favourable effects the program can have for producers of clothing, particularly, and for manufacturers of footwear also, to whom, as you know, the program has also been extended.
In the fourth place, at the beginning of November, I informed the house of the establishment of the Textile and Clothing Board on an interim basis under section 18 of the Government Organization Act. I also announced at that time the appointment of Dr. C. A. Annis of Ottawa, Professor Jacques St. Laurent of Sillery, Quebec, and Mr. J. D. Campbell of Campbellville, Ontario, as chairman and members of the Board, respectively.
Hon. members will recall that-as a first priority-I asked the Board to inquire into the importation of cotton and polyester-cotton yarns, and woven shirts. The board is now at work, Mr. Speaker, and I expect to receive its first report in the near future. I mention this now to show that the board will be taking quick action and will not put off decisions for six months or a year. I shall describe later on the functions of the board in greater detail.
In the fifth place, Mr. Speaker, and this is still in the first part of my speech where I try to explain what has been done-an important aspect of the new policy, pending full implementation of all its various elements, is the government's determination to make use of all the currently available instruments to prevent serious disruption of the Canadian market. When I informed the House last May of the new policy framework, I indicated that the government was giving urgent consideration to the critical situation that had developed with respect to woven shirts imported at disruptively low prices.
On June 2, the government invoked section 7 of the Customs Tariff to impose a surtax, on a non-discriminatory basis, on such shirts. The action was taken after a careful study of the situation in the industry which
revealed that without it the long-term viability of the Canadian shirt industry would be seriously threatened.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, an ambassador called on me the other day and we were discussing the question of textiles and clothing in Canada and like many others, he expressed the hope that Canada would not adopt a protectionist position in this regard. And I asked him the following question: "Your Excellency, can you tell me how many shirts are imported in Canada?" He was taken a little by surprise, I suppose, but after some hesitation, he mentioned the figure of one million. I said: "Add 200,000, or 300,000 and say "dozen" instead of "units" and you will have a fair idea of the number of shirts imported by Canada at this time." I say these things that we shall repeat in committee, in order that some hon. members will not conclude too hastily that Canada is becoming a protectionist country.
Yesterday, I delivered a speech in Montreal on imports and I believe we do have not much to blame ourselves for in this field. Canada is a major importing country. In that speech, I quoted figures that I shall quote again in this House because they are very, very useful. But they might be used in this debate, because I hope no hon. member will launch into broad statements about free trade, without having at least consulted these figures showing present Canadian imports.
In any case, hon. members will recall that the decision to impose a surtax received the approval of the House on November 26. The House agreed to the extension of this surtax, pending a review of the Canadian shirt industry by the Textile and Clothing Board, which review will be initiated as soon as the Board has rendered its first decision on woven cotton and polyester cotton fabrics.
Sixthly, the government has extended the existing voluntary restraint arrangements while suitably modifying them in the light of circumstances. Officials of my department have re-negotiated and come to an agreement on the voluntary restraints applied by Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico and Greece. New arrangements have been concluded with Romania, Poland, Trinidad, Tobago and Macao. Arrangements have also been made with the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. The officials of my department are currently holding talks with responsible authorities in Brazil, Spain, Portugal, the United Arab Republic, Columbia and Israel with a view to reaching other agreements. Thus, our policy is and will remain to try and enter into agreements with those countries, before considering any unilateral action.
Pending recommendations of the Textile and Clothing Board, the government shall continue carefully to analyse problems as they arise and will take whatever action is required. As in the past, Canada will consult with the countries concerned, as I said earlier, with a view to finding a negotiated solution, before considering unilateral action.
These then, Mr. Speaker, are the elements of the textile policy that have been implemented and the steps the government has taken to ensure an orderly transition to the new policy framework.

January 21, 1971

That is the first part of my speech. I have tried to summarize what has been done.

I often say in French that I do not make any discours (speeches). I always say: take away dix (ten) and replace it by un (one). You will then have one course instead of ten on the subject I am dealing with.

The second part of my speech concerns Bill C-215 itself.


Louis-Roland Comeau: And about time.


Jean-Luc Pepin: An hon. member says it is time I got there. Perhaps it is idealism on my part, but I have always believed that if the foundations are good, the house stands a little more strongly. The hon. member for Southwestern Nova (Mr. Comeau) might benefit from my example, Mr. Speaker.
The bill has three main purposes. The first is to provide for the establishment of a textile and clothing board. The second is to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. The third purpose is to amend the Customs Act. First, dealing with the textile and clothing board, the bill seeks to place this board on a more formal basis. I have already said it has been in existence, but its existence is now being formalized. What is the role of the board and what are its functions? Hon. Members will recall that under the new textile policy special measures of protection against imports will be considered only after, firstly, a formal determination of actual or potential injury and, secondly, submission of acceptable plans by the companies concerned indicating how they intend to improve their operations or maintain their efficiency so as to make them progressively more viable. This is very important.
If a company or group of companies or sector of the industry want protection, they have to demonstrate that there is injury, or threat of injury, under article 19 of GATT. Secondly, they have to present plans that the board will assess. The board will recommend protection only when it is satisfied, firstly, that there is injury and, secondly, that the plans to maintain viability or to bring it about are worthwhile-only recommended. So responsibility for action rests squarely with the government. I repeat, with respect to the degree of protection needed, the board can make recommendations only. It is the government that must take action. This is contrary to what has been reported, erroneously, in some newspapers during the past week.
What criteria will the board use in passing judgment? In formulating its recommendations the board is to take into account, firstly, Canada's international obligations; secondly, consumer interests; thirdly, all relevant employment and regional factors; and fourthly, conditions prevailing in international trade relative to textile and clothing goods. In other words, the board must look at all aspects of the question. Everything must be consid-
Textile and Clothing Board Act ered. The board also has to take into account the principle that special measures of protection are not to be implemented for the purpose of encouraging the maintenance of lines of production that have no prospect of becoming viable. This is provided for in the bill.
In addition to its functions with respect to the new import policy, the board will also certify groups of workers for the purpose of the adjustment assistance program for workers. Details of this program will be outlined tomorrow by my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey). Upon hearing him, hon. members will recognize, I'm sure, that this is a very important and worthwhile social feature of the legislation.
Before I move on to the other aspect of the bill, I should like to emphasize the somewhat unique nature of the new approach to the problem of disruptive import competition. To the best of my knowledge, Canada is the first among industrialized countries to predicate special measures of protection for the textile and clothing industries on a careful evaluation of injury and of adjustment plans by an independent body. Such an approach coincides closely with the principles and objectives of various international trade agreements and, if emulated by others, should go a long way toward improving the world trading environment. At the same time, the government will be in a position to provide effective and prompt protection to domestic manufacturers agains injurious import competition when warranted by facts and provided they undertake the necessary steps progressively to improve their competitive position. Some hon. members may have noticed the recent suggestion in the Wall Street Journal that Canada's "positive response" to the problems created by disruptive import competition "would be eminently more sensible for the U.S.", and I daresay for a number of other countries as well.
In regard to the changes to the Export and Import Permits Act, this act in its present form makes it possible for the government to control imports unilaterally in three cases: firstly, articles which are scarce in world markets-and certainly this does not apply to textiles -secondly, certain products under domestic price supports and, thirdly, any article when necessary to implement in intergovernmental arrangement or commitment. According to the present understanding of the Export and Import Permits Act, only in these cases can the government take unilateral action.
Action under the act has been taken in the past with respect to certain products falling under these three categories and the act could, conceivably, be invoked again under these circumstances. However, in its present form the act cannot be invoked to control injurious imports unless one of the three conditions is met. There has been some debate on that subject. The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) believes that the act as it is now could have been used in this area of textiles. General opinion does not support that view.
The new textile policy envisages the application of unilateral measures, including import quotas in cases where a negotiated solution such as, for example, a restraint agreement, cannot be reached.

January 21, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the adjournment motion, would the acting House leader confirm that the bill under discussion will be the first item of business tomorrow and that any other items will be called in the sequence previously announced?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the understanding which has been reached through the usual channels.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, on December 17, last, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) whether his department was inquiring about the infiltration into Canada by the American Communist party which, with the help of outstanding Canadian personalities, publishes documents tending to undermine Canadian democracy and unity. Contrary to what he usually does, the minister chose not to answer my question.
Mr. Speaker, I put the question, which I felt was important, because the day before I had read an article published in Canadian papers, in Le Droit of Ottawa, amongst others, which read in part as follows:
American Communist Party influence reaches into Canada
Reverend Vincent Harvey, Director of the magazine Main-tenant, Reverend Louis O'Neil of the Laval University Theology Department, Frangois Aquin, member of the Quebec National Assembly,.. . songstress Pauline Julien and author Farley Mowat would be among those who signed a manifesto inspired by the American Communist Party.
This has been revealed in the testimony of Gerald Wayne Kirk, ... during the hearings of the Senate sub-committee on the administration of the Internal Security Act-
-Through selective use of methods . .. the American Communist Party has been able to worm its way into many groups... and advocate its Marxist-Leninist philosophy. In addition, not only has its influence reached into Canada but many Canadian personalities have endorsed these movements-
After having given as evidence the manifesto entitled, "An Appeal of Canada to Peoples of the Western Hemisphere", we find the names of American and Canadian movers-
Besides the names already mentioned, we notice those of James G. Endicott, president of the Canadian Peace Congress, Rabbi H. Leonard Pelier from Montreal and Rabbi Abraham L. Feinberg from Toronto, Dr. Denis Lazure, president of the
Inter-American Council of Psychiatric Associations, Mathias Rioux, president of the Alliance des Professeurs de Montreal, Roland Morin, president of the Quebec New Democratic Party .. . C. B. Williams, G. Gibley, president of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour and vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, A. R. Pauley, provincial leader of the Manitoba New Democratic Party, and Brian Switzman, president of the Ontario Students Union.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time last year and more precisely at the end of November 1969, Mr. Lucien Saul-nier, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the City of Montreal and Michel Cote, City Solicitor, appeared in Ottawa before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Committee proceedings No. 14, dated November 27, 1969, include Mr. Saulnier's statements, one of which, appearing on page 9, reads as follows:
We now know that in Canada, individuals and groups are working actively to implement a plan which will carry the destruction of freedom.. . These individuals and groups are inspired and financed, in many cases, by foreign political powers related to an "International".-
In other cases, the same ideas and the same plan of action are supported by the Government of Canada through The Company of Young Canadians.
And Mr. Saulnier continues:
The partial revelations to which I will limit myself today are but a small example of things I know and of which I have privately informed the Prime Minister of Canada in the past year.
On page 12, Mr. Cote's words to the chairman of the committee are reported:
-With your permission, if you will allow us to distribute to the members of the committee the document to which I will refer throughout the explanation of facts in support of Mr. Saulnier's statement.
-the document you have on hand includes 47 items-
And, on page 41, Mr. Cote goes on and invites us to
-look at document No. 13. It has three pages. All these documents were seized on the 10th of October, 1969, at the Workers' Committee of St. Henri. It is an invoice from the Gestetner Company of Canada Limited ... and it is addressed to "The Company of Young Canadians ... Chapel Street, Ottawa-
This duplicating machine had been delivered to a St. James street address in Montreal on July 31, 1969. It was being operated in one of the CYC's offices to print revolutionary literature to be distributed in Montreal.
On page 51, Mr. Cote mentions another raid on CYC members. He said, and I quote:
-We seized 18 metal filing cabinets, partly filled with documents, and newspapers . . . They are newspapers entitled Gramma which are French-language newspapers from Cuba-
At page 70, Mr. Cote mentions a picture part of the evidence and states:
One saw on several occasions during university demonstrations some Volvo cars belonging to the CYC. You have a picture of those cars. Those vehicles purchased by the Canadian government and registered under the name of the CYC were part of and were even leading marches-

January 21, 1971

Such is the evidence referred to in the proceedings already mentioned and which led Mr. Lucien Saulnier to state:
These facts justify me to request formally and publicly a public Royal Commission of Inquiry into the clearly subversive activities of the Company of Young Canadians.
I agree with most Canadians that an inquiry should have been carried out at that time and if the government refused to take action in spite of the evidence supplied by the Montreal authorities, perhaps it is because of our Prime Minister's background.
The Canadian Intelligence Service in their publication No. 36 supply the following details on the Prime Minister, and I quote:
Our record on Mr. Trudeau shows the following facts: 1940- He is thrown out of the Canadian Officers Training Corps for reasons of indiscipline; 1947-he is studying at the London School of Economics and credits the Marxist professor Laski with "the most stimulating and strongest influence he ever knew"; 1950-He is in Shanghai when the Communists take over and becomes an admirer of the Mao regime; 1951-Back in Montreal . . .


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him under our Standing Orders has expired.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, without necessarily recognizing the merits of all the allegations made by the hon. member, I can assure him that the branches of my department in charge of security are closely checking the subversive activities he has just described. Should he wish to bring to my attention more precise facts I will diligently see to it that inquiries are conducted in that respect.



POST OFFICE-SUGGESTED MEETING WITH LETTER CARRIERS UNION TO RESOLVE ALLEGED ADMINISTRATIVE CONFUSION

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on January 12, I raised with the minister in charge of the Post Office a question regarding the statement released that day-it was dated January 7 but released on that day-by the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada regarding conditions in the Post Office which were described in such a way as to cause me considerable concern. The press release reads as follows:
Roger Decarie, national president of the Letter Carriers' Union of Canada, which is composed of some 12,000 members across the country, is not at all satisfied with the department's attitude toward his union.
"We have just finished signing the contract and the struggle has resumed already, "he declared. Postmaster General Jean-Pierre Cote had expressed his wish to improve union/management relations after Mr. Kierans' departure, but since the publication of the Montpetit report, the situation could not be worse.
Senseless and ridiculous positions have arisen from the decentralization project. The Postmaster General is being completely ignored. The Deputy Postmaster General does not know more about the situation than a postal officer. The officer in charge of labour relations never shows up at union/management meetings. No one wants to make decisions, regional officers
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
couldn't care less about departmental authorities in Ottawa and refuse all instructions. Every Tom, Dick and Harry issues instructions to which no one listens, claiming they do not have the necessary authority to act upon them. In short, it is the worst mix-up ever!
In the midst of all this commotion, the Letter Carriers' Union is trying to muddle through and to find solutions to their problems. The national executive of the union is being totally ignored by the Deputy Postmaster General who has instructed his local district and regional officers to engage in discussions on various items at local level.
The press release continues:
The Letter Carriers' Union cannot tolerate such nonsense any longer especially when the bargaining unit is being ignored by the employer. The situation is most critical-we do not want a repetition of the May-August 1970 period.
In departing from quoting this very interesting and disturbing document, in that wish I am sure the Letter Carriers' Union has the support of all of us here and, I am confident, of all the people of Canada. We do not want any repetition of 1970. I have the highest regard for the personal qualities of the man now in charge of the Post Office. I believe he is a man with a conciliatory bent, and I believe he will want to do all he can to forestall what would be indicated by this document as an already pretty serious situation.
The Post Office is a department which serves directly all the people of Canada. It is often, indeed, the most omnipresent outreach and outcrop of the Canadian government as an institution. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the greatest care be taken in so far as the relations of those who work in the department and those who manage it on behalf of the government are concerned.
I would call upon whoever is responding tonight on behalf of the minister to convey to him my earnest desire that the most careful attention and consideration be given to this developing situation. It may now be, to use the Old Testament phraseology, a cloud just a little bigger than a man's hand, but we do not want it to become a heavily ominous cloud which would bring back the disastrous conditions which we all know so well existed in the last 2 1/2 years.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the minister responsible for the Postal Service, met with the representatives of the union on January 14, 1971, in order to prevent situations like those described by the hon. member from occurring.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-APPLICATION BY FALCONBRIDGE NICKEL FOR GRANT-ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION

Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question today in the House was directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) and was as follows: "In view of a statement made by the Ontario

January 21, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion minister of mines that the federal government has discriminated against Ontario in the matter of a regional development grant to build a smelter for Falconbridge Nickel at Beconcour, Quebec, can the minister say if Falconbridge Nickel ever applied for a grant to build a smelter in Ontario? If so, was this application turned down?"
The question was prompted by a newspaper report carried on page 2 of the Ottawa Citizen last evening, January 20, which quotes Allan Lawrence, minister of mines for the province of Ontario, as accusing the federal government of practising discrimination against the province of Ontario in its economic expansion program. He went on to say that the main reason Falconbridge was building the refinery complex in Quebec was that it was turned down flat by the federal government when it requested assistance to build the smelter in Ontario.
I have trouble believing Mr. Lawrence, as do the people of northern Ontario, but I think the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion should have an opportunity to set the record straight and that is why I ask the question. I have been advised that Falconbridge Nickel never applied for a grant to build a smelter plant in Ontario; they never even made inquiries of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Mr. Lawrence made his statement at a meeting where he was trying to woo the support of delegates to the forthcoming Ontario PC leadership convention, so perhaps he can be forgiven.
I believe his statements were based more on a desire to garner delegate support than on facts. Mr. Lawrence is very popular in the north. It is one of the few places in the province where he is running ahead of William Davis for the leadership of his party in Ontario, so perhaps he got carried away with the enthusiasm of his supporters and strayed from the facts on the Falconbridge smelter. However, his words are reckless and irresponsible for a man who aspires to be premier of the province of Ontario, and now he has a credibility gap where his greatest strength is, in northern Ontario.
The question asked in northern Ontario is this: If Mr. Lawrence wanted this smelter to be built in Ontario, why did he not persuade Falconbridge Nickel to build it in
Ontario? If he could not persuade them, why did he not force them to build it by passing legislation? That is the real question. This matter is of concern to me as member for Algoma because the closest access to Seaway shipping from Sudbury nickel mines is from the Spragge or Little Current area in the Algoma federal riding. Indeed, there has been talk at different times that the smelter might be located in the Algoma area. We certainly could use the 200 to 300 jobs that it would create. But more important is the question that residents of Ontario want answered. They want to know that they are not being discriminated against by the federal government.
I am convinced that had Falconbridge applied for a grant to build in northern Ontario, which is designated the same as the lower St. Lawrence area, the same grant would have applied. It seems to me that the main reason the company is building on the lower St. Lawrence is that there is year-round shipping there which is not available in the Great Lakes' ports.


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Parliamenlory Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) is to be commended for having raised so promptly and effectively an issue of evident concern him, and for his desire to serve the interest of the people he represents. Judging from his remarks, it appears evident that one of the candidates for the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative party was a little carried away.
The allegation by the Ontario minister that the grant discriminates against northern Ontario, the present base of the company's operations, because that area is not eligible for incentives, in nonsense. The facts are that northern Ontario is eligible for incentives and that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would have provided the same 8 per cent to Falconbridge if the company had chosen to establish there rather than at Becancour. However, the company itself selected Becancour.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.


Friday, January 22, 1971