1971-01-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for ihe Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, to implement an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax between Canada and Jamaica.


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

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

Mr. Paproski: 1.	How many students at Rochdale College list their country of origin as (a) United States (b) Canada (c) other countries?
2.	How many professors or instructors at Rochdale College list (a) United States (b) Canada (c) other countries as their country of origin?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The government has no knowledge of the country of origin of the students or staff at Rochdale College.


NATIONAL REVENUE-CONTRACT FOR STUDY OF LOCATIONS FOR BRANCH OFFICES
Mr. Asselin: 1.	Has the government entered into a contract with a firm of management consultants for a study on locations for branch offices of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Was the call for tenders general or by invitation and, if by invitation, what firms were asked to submit tenders?
3.	(a) How many firms tendered (b) what firms were they (c) what were their respective bids?
4.	Which firms were (a) Canadian (b) American?
5.	Which firm was the successful bidder and is it (a) a Canadian firm (b) an American firm (c) a Canadian subsidiary of an American firm?
6 If the successful bidder is a Canadian subsidiary of a U.S. firm, will the project work be carried out by Canadians or Americans?
7. Does the successful bidder have twinned staff to carry out part of the project study in the French language?


James Alexander Jerome: I can report to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the reply to this question has been prepared and I have it here. It is rather lengthy. I have had a conversation with the hon. member and he has agreed that the reply should be tabled but recorded in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The text of the answer follows.]


James Alexander Jerome: 1. On August 6, 1970 the Department of National Revenue, Taxation entered into a contract with a firm of management consultants to carry out a study which would assist the Department in making decisions on the best scheme of field officers to serve the needs of the public and the Department to at least 1980.
2.	The call for tenders was by invitation. The firms asked to submit tenders were: Booz. Allen & Hamilton Canada Ltd.; Ducharme, Deom & Associes Inc.; Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co.; P. S. Ross & Partners; S. M. A. Inc.; Stevenson & Kellogg, Ltd.
3.	(a) Five firms tendered; (b) and (c) Their names and respective bids were: Booz. Allen & Hamilton Canada Ltd., $152,000; Ducharme, Deom & Associes Inc., $99,800; Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co., $96,000; P. S. Ross & Partners, $271,000; Stevenson & Kellogg, Ltd., $55,500.
4.	All the firms which submitted tenders are Canadian firms.
5.	Booz. Allen & Hamilton Canada Ltd. was the successful bidder. It is a Canadian firm which is a subsidiary of an American firm.
6.	Most of the project work is being carried out by Canadians. Some specialist assistance is being drawn from the American parent company.
7.	The successful bidder is using bilingual staff where required for necessary interviews and research.


CO-OPERATION AGREEMENTS SIGNED WITH FRANCOPHONE AFRICAN STATES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What co-operation agreements have been signed with francophone African states during the past five years?
2.	What are the details of each agreement?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Agreement on Economic and Technical Co-operation between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Federal Republic of the Cameroon, signed at Toronto, September 15, 1970, is the only co-operation agreement having treaty status between Canada and a francophone African state. The agreement has not been ratified.

January 20, 1971
Questions
2.	The document will become public on the day of its ratification.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSIONSAVING OF MAN-HOURS AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: How many man-hours have been saved as a result of the utilization of computers by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion during each year since computers have been used?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The use of
computer facilities in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has contributed significantly to availability of information. Since the department's information systems have been developed on the basis of computer using techniques, there is no precise measure of the alternative manpower costs of manual methods of compiling, storing and retrieving the data. It is certain, however, that these costs would be high.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-CHANGE IN PERSONNEL AS A RESULT OF USE OF COMPUTERS
Mr. Robinson: As a result of the use of computers by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion how many employees have been (a) laid off (b) hired?


Abram Ernest Epp: (a) None; (b) 29.


REPAYMENT BY BOTSWANA OF $20 MILLION LOAN
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	What are the required conditions for repayment by Botswana concerning the $20 million loan made to that country?
2.	What is the rate in interest for this loan?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. This loan has a life of 50 years and a ten-year grace period with semi-annual payments of $250,000 beginning on March 31, 1981.
2. There is no interest charge on this loan.


SALE OF &quot;NO RETURN&quot; DISPOSABLE GLASS BOTTLES
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the request of the Consumers Association of Canada to make the sale of "no return" disposable glass bottles unlawful?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The government is concerned over all types of solid waste pollution, including that attributable to non-returnable bottles. Most non-returnable bottles are sold within a province in a limited geographical area and do not enter into interprovincial trade and are therefore readily controllable by provincial government.


IMPORTATION OF BUTTER
Mr. Lamberf (Bellechasse): Has Canada imported butter during the past twelve months and, if so (a) in what quantities (b) from what countries?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion
Bureau of Statistics reports that: From October 1969 to September 1970 inclusive, Canada's imports of butter were as follows:
Country	Quantity (cwt) Value ($'000)
Belgium & Luxembourg	19,115	440
All of the butter imported from Belgium and Luxembourg during the above-mentioned period was processed into ice cream and exported from Canada.


NUCLEAR POWER-SAFETY ASSURANCES FROM U.S. WITH RESPECT TO IODINE-131
Mr. Forrestall: Has the government sought safety assurances from the United States with respect to Iodine-131 which results from exhaust gases from nuclear reactors and associated fuel processing plants that could be carried over to Canadian soil from nuclear plants programmed for construction during the next ten years on the shores of the Great Lakes?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: The United States Atomic Energy Commission routinely transmits detailed information to the Atomic Energy Control Board on nuclear-electric generating stations which are planned for construction on the shores of the Great Lakes or elsewhere along the common Canada/-U.S.A. national boundary. This data is available for AECB evaluation and comment. All waste materials accumulated as by-products of the operation of a U.S. nuclear-electric plant whether gaseous (including Iodine-131) liquid or solid are subject to stringent regulations concerning handling and disposal. These rules may be found in Title 10 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and, as for most countries, are based on the standards recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the world authority in this field.


RELOCATION OF CRUSTAL GEOLOGY DIVISION, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 637
Mr. Forrestall:: 1.	Is the government considering a transfer from Ottawa of the Appalachian, Eastern Lowlands and Atlantic Margins Branch of the Crustal Geology Division, Geological Survey of Canada and, if so (a) what locations are being considered (b) for what reason is the transfer being considered (c) when will a decision on this move be announced?
2.	Has this Branch ever been located in an area other than the National Capital Region and, if so (a) where was the Branch located (b) when was it transferred to Ottawa (c) for what reason was it transferred?
3.	How many employees does this Branch now have?

January 20, 1971

4.	Would all employees be expected to transfer to any new location being considered and, if not (a) what categories of employees would not be expected to move (b) for what reason (c) would they be assured other jobs in the Public Service without a reduction in salary?
5.	What is the current annual budget for this Branch and what portion is allotted for salaries?


John James Greene: 1. A study has been underway for several months in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in an attempt to determine how the Department might best fulfill its scientific and regulatory roll in Eastern Canada and along the Atlantic Margin. In view of recent redistribution of functions within departments no plans could be definitely formulated. One of many proposals under consideration involves the transfer of some staff concerned with eastern activities on the Crustal Geology Division to the east coast, (a) The only location so far considered is at the Bedford Institute, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, (b) Such a move is being considered to coordinate departmental activities related to increased offshore exploration, (c) Hopefully before the start of the next fiscal year.
2.	(a) Two scientists of the Section (the "Branch" referred to in the question) were previously located at the Bedford Institute, (b) One scientist resigned and the second transferred to Ottawa in 1968. (c) The scientist concerned required a closer association with his scientific colleagues and better access to the scientific services provided in Ottawa.
3.	Twelve continuing positions including nine scientists and seven man-years of casual employees, mainly summer students in geology.
4.	According to the one proposal all would transfer.
5.	$277,000 of which $228,000 is for salaries and wages.


Mr. Korchinski:: Is No. 606 not to be answered, Mr. Speaker?


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, on the previous occasion when questions on the Order Paper were considered the hon. member who has asked question No. 606 made a similar inquiry. He has referred to the question again today. May I say briefly that the Canadian Wheat Board regrets the delay in answering the hon. member's question. The question is rather involved and the reply warrants extensive research. However, the reply is in the final stages of preparation and I will do my utmost to give the matter priority and see if we cannot bring down the answer on Monday next.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Paproski: 1. What lands and properties are (a) owned (b) leased (c) administered by the National Capital Commission in the Capital region outside the City of Ottawa?
Orders for Returns
2.	Of the lands owned, which were acquired by (a) sale (b) expropriation?
3.	Of those lands acquired by sale or expropriation, when were transfers made and, what was the price (a) per acre for land (b) per square foot for property?
Return tabled.


PRICE INCREASE REPORTS RECEIVED BY PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION TO OCTOBER, 1970
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many price increases have been brought to the attention of the Prices and Incomes Commisison to the end of October 1970?
2.	How many price increases or changes have been reported by companies, and how many have been reported by private individuals?
3.	For each price increase report received by the Commission (a) what was the result of the initial investigation (b) what criteria were used in the evaluation of these price increases?
4.	Of the total number of price increase reports received by the Commission (a) how many have been subjected to a preliminary investigation (b) how many have been subjected to a full-scale price review?
5 What criteria were used by the Commission for undertaking a comprehensive and full-scale price review into the particular price increase announced?
6.	What is the breakdown, by product group, of all price increase reports received by the Commission to the end of October 1970?
Return tabled.


ADOPTION AND DESIGN OF LOGO SYMBOL
Mr. Hales: 1.	On what date was the logo adopted by the Department of (a) Consumer and Corporate Affairs (b) Industry, Trade and Commerce (c) Labour (d) Manpower and Immigration (e) National Health and Welfare?
2.	Was it designed by the Department or an outside consultant?
3.	If it was designed by a consultant, what was the fee charged?
Return tabled.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Starred question No. 40, relating to the so-called information leak in regard to the interim report of the LeDain commission, has been on the Order Paper since October 8, and the leak occurred some time last spring. I raised this matter before Christmas. At that time either the minister of his parliamentary secretary-said they would look into it and provide an answer. Would they mind taking another look?


James Alexander Jerome: I will certainly undertake to do that and make a statement about it on the next day.

January 20, 1971
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions Nos. 44, 157 and 167 are acceptable to the government.



REPORT BY D. W. CARR AND ASSOCIATES REGARDING FUTURE ROLE OF SEAWAY IN CANADA'S RURAL TRANSPORTATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by D. W. Carr and Associates of Ottawa, prepared for the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority regarding the future role of the Seaway in Canada's rural transportation.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 157-Mr. Rowland:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Finance, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Housing and Mr. Sydney Bell, C.L.U., Managing Director, Insurance and Financial Consulting Service, Winnipeg, Manitoba, concerning the feasibility of establishing a public life insurance plan.
Motion agreed to.
CARR STUDY REGARDING ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY Motion No. 167-Mr. Douglas (Assiniboia):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Carr Study or Report regarding the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notice of Motion No. 37?



STUDY BY TIM RYAN FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Tim Ryan, Port Arthur, Ontario, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding "Evaluation on the activities of the CNR-ILA Joint Committee at North Sydney, Nova Scotia".
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, the study referred to in this motion is not yet completed and the author is doing further work on it at the department's request. When it is completed, consideration will be given to tabling the report. In the meantime, therefore, the member may wish to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: I wonder if the government would consider leaving it on the Order Paper until the report has
been completed. They can then make a decision on whether they are prepared to table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In working out the government's $50 million program for providing employment for our youth this summer, is the government giving consideration to employment in reforestation, cleaning up our salmon spawning beds and other waterways and partially subsidizing the wage cost of employment on farms, as well as other healthy and useful work, so that our young people may be constructively employed in work that is useful to the economy?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the hon. member's question, the work which is being done on the question of student unemployment involves an examination of all ideas which come forward and seem to be reasonable. I previously made it clear to hon. members that I welcome their suggestions whenever they seem to have an air of reason about them.


George Harris Hees: In considering constructive jobs that will or might be available for young people this summer, does the minister consider that there will be sufficient of this kind of work available so that it will not be necessary to send our unemployed youth throughout the country on free bus tours as is presently planned by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RETRAINING PROGRAM-NUMBER OF APPLICANTS NOT ACCEPTED UNDER PRESENT REGULATIONS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In light of the concern and possible confusion with respect to the effectiveness of the manpower retraining program to deal with substantial numbers of unemployed during this period of high unemployment, is the minister able to give to the House today in short form or is he prepared to make a statement on motions as to the number of people who have applied for training and assistance under the manpower training program and

January 20, 1971

have not been able to qualify under the present regulations?


Otto Emil Lang: I would be glad to give very serious consideration to the question of whether I can put together figures along the lines suggested by the hon. member in order to make a statement on motions.



FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING PIPELINE FROM WESTERN

[Stage Direction]
CANADA TO MONTREAI_____COMMITMENT TO

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the report that there is likely to be an increase of at least two cents a gallon in gasoline prices east of the Ottawa valley. In view of the fact that the reason given for this proposed increase is the rise in price of offshore oil, may I ask the minister whether this price increase now makes it more feasible from the minister's point of view to consider the extension of the pipeline east to Montreal?


John James Greene: We are not yet certain what offshore oil prices will be subsequent to the negotiations between the producer countries and the oil companies which are now under way. We do know that tanker prices have gone up very considerably in the current year and this, of course, lends itself to higher prices for offshore oil. But from the standpoint of the economic feasibility of extending the pipeline there is no certainty that oil prices will be such as to render such a project economic. If it is economic, I feel sure that the private sector will consider the construction of such a pipeline, and the government would certainly consider seriously any suggestion that a pipeline would be economic once offshore prices are determined.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement made by President Richard Nixon that Canada will have to satisfy United States security arrangements under its mandatory oil import program before the United States will be prepared to grant free access of Canadian oil to the United States market, has the Canadian government made any commitment as to the way in which this security is to be provided, and is the extension of the pipeline to eastern Canada part of this program for guaranteeing security as requested by the President of the United States?


John James Greene: We have made no commitments with regard to a pipeline or security. This is one of the concerns of the United States in connection with opening up the oil market to our western oil, and they pay a very heavy price for this security. But the Canadian position has been and will and, I think, should continue to be that question of security affecting Canada should be Canadian decisions. What the United States deems to be security and what Canada deems to be security might well be two
Inquiries of the Ministry
different things, and our constant representation to the United States has been that we shall make the decision in Canada as to what we deem to be security for Canadian sources of supply. We feel sure that decision will meet with the approval of the United States, as it will be a Canadian decision made in the Canadian interests and should satisfy the Americans, but it will not be made by the Americans for Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the decision as to what is in the best interests of security for Canada ought to be determined by parliament, will the minister reconsider his decision not to make available all the data to the appropriate committee of the House so that members may have an opportunity to examine the feasibility study which has been undertaken and determine whether or not an extension of the pipeline would be feasible in Canada's interests?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think I said previously that the government and several of its departments have the question of the cost of a pipeline and its feasibility under continuing review. But we have maintained throughout that in keeping with the practice in Canada, which I think has been a highly successful one that has brought prosperity to the oil and gas industries and has contributed to the well-being of Canada as a whole, the decision as to construction of pipelines or no will be made by the private sector. All pipelines in Canada are owned by the private sector, not the public sector. Therefore we do not really have a comprehensive survey as such, as to the economic feasibility and viability, of such a pipeline-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The minister set out some economic facts and partly answered the question a few moments ago, but I should like to know whether there is any study now being made under the sponsorship of the government regarding the economic feasibility of a pipeline to the Montreal market from western Canada? Is this just a matter of guesswork or is there any study being made so that the minister can provide some economic facts?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no complete, comprehensive study as such. Under the law in Canada, anybody who wished to build a pipeline would make a presentation to the National Energy Board who, with the knowledge and information they have of a continuing character, would determine the feasibility of such pipeline and would then make a recommendation to the government. It is in this way that such a decision would be made under existing Canadian law.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope Your Honour does not regard this question as argumentative because I am seeking knowledge from the minister. How, then, can the minister set out the economic facts as to the feasibility of such a pipeline if there is no study on which to base those facts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I would have to regard that question as at least slightly argumentative.

January 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



SECURITY OF UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION ROUTES- ANTI-SUBMARINE PATROLLING

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the security of United States oil routes. In view of the fact that the United States Department of the Interior published earlier this month a study showing that the Alaska pipeline and the offshore tanker route would be entirely within United States hands and thus would be more secure than a pipeline passing through Canadian territory, would the minister please inform me whether or not the United States government has entered into discussions with the Canadian government with a view to handing over anti-submarine patrolling on the west coast of Canada to United States forces rather than, as is presently the case, leaving it to Canadian naval units?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not as far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker.



FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING PIPELINE FROM WESTERN


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister stated that he has no study to present to the House for us to examine. Since this is a most important matter for the Canadian people, would the minister and the chairman of the National Energy Board be willing to appear in the near future before the appropriate committee of the House to answer questions so that the Canadian people can become better acquainted with the facts surrounding this important matter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, when the estimates of the National Energy Board are before the committee we would certainly be most pleased to appear. I reiterate that the question of the economic viability of pipelines in Canada is left to the private sector. It is not for the government to determine whether or not to build pipelines; that is not the way we operate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the minister but perhaps at this point we might pass on to another subject.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he make a statement on the articles published in the Mauricie newspaper Le Nouvelliste which referred to
one Hawai trip where the minister would have signed agreements with local businessmen with regard to a proposed ski centre in Saint-Gerard and the construction of an access road to the national park in the St. Maurice valley?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that this question could be placed on the order paper. If the hon. member considers this to be an urgent matter, perhaps he could send me notice so that it may be debated at the time of adjournment.


Hon. Jean Chreiien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


René Matte: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I wish to inform the hon. member that yesterday on its editorial page Le Nouvelliste extended its apologies to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for these unfortunate suggestions, and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of privilege is not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BANKRUPTCY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Is the minister in a position to inform the House whether he has received from the Quebec Minister of Justice, on the subject of the Tasse report on bankruptcy, a communication in which the minister expressed his opposition to several points of the report and asked the federal minister for a further delay that would allow the Quebec officials to make their own comments on this report? If so, would he tell us what has been his answer to the Quebec Minister of Justice?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there have been discussions between officials of the two departments but whether there has been formal communication I do not know. I have not seen any but I will certainly make an inquiry. If the Quebec government or anyone else wishes to make representations or comments on the report on bankruptcy and insolvency, naturally I will welcome those comments and representations whenever they may be made and will pay very careful attention to them.

January 20, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



REPORT OF STUDY COMMITTEE-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR REPRESENTATIONS TO MINISTER BY PUBLIC

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that many submissions may guide the minister in drafting the legislation, if it has not already been drafted, will he now indicate whether he is prepared to extend the time for receiving representations beyond January 31, as I asked him yesterday? In view of the fact the minister said that this government is interested in democracy, will he answer me point-blank and advise the House whether he is prepared to extend the time for submission of briefs before the legislation is to be drafted, namely, January 31?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is going to take a good deal of time to draft something so complicated as a revised Bankruptcy Act. Therefore it seems to me that during the time our people are working out this Bill there will be all sorts of opportunities to make representations. I certainly will receive these representations and look forward to paying attention to them as well as giving them a great deal of study.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the minister finds it so difficult to answer such a simple question. The answer he has given me today is the same as he gave me yesterday. My question is simply this; is the minister prepared to extend the time from January 31 to some subsequent date? That is all I am asking.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the hon. member has such difficulty in understanding the answer. I have obviously said twice that anyone is free to make representations at any time and I will be most interested in receiving them. That seems to me to extend the time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have one further short supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary question, but we should move on to another subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As a result of the minister's evasion I should like to know whether I can now be assured that we can disregard the January 31 date at this time?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I thought that is what I had said.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: No, you didn't.


Stanley Ronald Basford: But I should like people to get their comments in as quickly as they can because this would be helpful to me and the officials of my department.



DIRECTIVE RESPECTING DENTAL SERVICES TO CHILDREN IN SCHOOL

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from a directive sent out by the Department of National Health and Welfare in respect of Indian health services. Therefore I direct the question to the responsible minister, although I feel the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would also be interested. It refers to dental services to Indian children in school, and the following order is set out:
We are only allowed to supply such prosthesis where it is considered that better than average education is contemplated or has been achieved by the student, and where the student's likely vocation will require inconspicuous dentition.
Is this government policy in respect of dental treatment for Indian students and, if so, will the minister act to remove this obvious discrimination?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 will look into that matter and reply later to the hon. member.



REPORT OF U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION ON INEFFECTIVENESS OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADIAN ACTION

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister indicate to the House whether he is aware of the United States food and drug administration's recent report to the effect that 14 per cent of the over 16,000 drugs sold on the market were found to be ineffective? If so, would he make a statement on motions regarding what action he is contemplating inasmuch as the same drugs are sold on the Canadian market?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I am aware generally of the matter in the United States referred to by the hon. member. Although I have made a statement previously, I would be prepared to consider making another one later.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are discussions or negotiations going on at the present time, or about to start, between Canada and mainland China with a view to having a Canadian air carrier establish a route to mainland China?

January 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any such negotiations between the governments of China and Canada since in fact our respective diplomatic representatives are not yet in place. It is quite possible there will be. I have seen the speculative stories in the papers relating to one air carrier. The Canadian government has not yet made up its mind whether that would be the chosen instrument.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there was any reference to the establishment of such a service, or a reciprocal one between mainland China and Canada, when the negotiations were taking place with regard to the exchange of diplomatic representation?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course there were general assurances that we would want to promote intercourse between the two countries, but not other than that.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the abnormally high unemployment rate in Canada, particularly among our native Indian people, can the minister advise the House whether he has any plans to accelerate the housing program on Indian reserves this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this kind of information should be given to the House by way of a general statement. The minister might indicate whether he proposes to make a statement in this regard.
iTranslation'i


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement about this matter. However, I might say to the hon. member that I have asked the officials of my department to hasten this project in order to supply Indians with employment this very winter, and we hope this program will be proceeded with more quickly than it has been anticipated.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister consider giving priority to cases where few, if any, houses have been constructed during the last two years?


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



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the amount of press speculation concerning the possibility or probability of a basis of agreement being arrived at at the Prime Ministers' conference, is the minister in a position on the basis of the information he has to date, to assure the House that a reasonable prospect of agreement is apparent today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have been awaiting further information from Singapore about the course of events. I am not yet in a position to give a detailed answer, but it would seem to me from what we know that it appears that there will be a favourable outcome to the conference and that the Commonwealth, as both he and I wish, will be maintained.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am of course entirely in agreement with that objective. After that rather uncertain answer in respect of not having full information, is the minister in a position to say whether the basis of agreement will be in the terms of a declaration that is before the Prime Ministers' conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. I was referring particularly to the issue of South African arms.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has he received representations from the Public Service Alliance of Canada requesting the establishment of a day-care centre in downtown Ottawa for the purpose of assisting members of the Public Service, and will he give favourable consideration to this representation having in mind the strong recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member's question is in the form of a submission. To the extent that it is a question, I would not think it should be answered at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Has the federal Department of Labour taken any steps to offer assistance

January 20, 1971

in the negotiations presently going on between union and management at the Dunlop plant in Whitby? I ask the question in full realization of the jurisdictional problems that may be involved.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has answered his question. Under the constitution of Canada this is a provincial matter, and I am sure the Department of Labour of Ontario is quite capable, under its very efficient deputy minister, of looking after their own particular problems.


REJECTION OF NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT BY CERTAIN RAILWAY SHOPCRAFT UNIONS
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Labour received a communication from the secretary of Local 1233 of the United Transportation Union in Edmonton expressing its satisfaction with present negotiations with the railways in Montreal? Is he also aware that the railway shopcraft unions have rejected Jhc terms of the negotiated settlement, and what action is the department taking to avoid a potential strike?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that some of the craft unions have rejected the collective agreement that was submitted to their members for ratification. Other shopcrafts have accepted. Under the constitution of division No. 4, which is the collection of these craft unions, they are now going through what is known as the moratorium period of 30 days during which the craft unions meet to iron out internal differences of opinion concerning whether or not the proposed collective agreement between division No. 4 and the railways should be ratified.


CONSIDERATION OF PENSION CHANGES IN NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN RAILWAYS AND SHOPCRAFT UNIONS
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent vote to which the minister has referred and in view of the dissension that has been created by the lack of inclusion of the pension changes recommended by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, would the minister say now whether or not he would personally intervene in the situation and try to get the railways to include this matter in the so-called bargaining process or accept some of the recommendations proposed by the committee?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the question of pensions in the recent negotiations between the shopcrafts and the railways is not at issue. They have opted to consider the whole question of pensions outside the process of collective bargaining.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he tell us if he has definitely abandoned the idea of making a substantial grant to the Sno-Jet Company in Thetford Mines as he promised to do during the by-election campaign in Frontenac riding, if this riding would elect the Liberal candidate?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that the expurgated question could be put on the order paper.
*
[DOT] *


HIGHWAYS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Because of the importance of the project and of its effects on the employment situation in Montreal, could the minister make a statement in the House today in order to inform the public as to the provisions of the Quebec-Ottawa agreement concerning the East-West Highway in Montreal, and the use that will be made of the $68 million granted by the federal government. Otherwise, does the minister intend to table a detailed report on the matter in the House within the next few days?


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


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Has the Quebec government indicated, or been required to indicate the minimum number of jobs which will be created with these $68 million, and whether the cost per job will be more than $5,000?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations have been carried out with the Department of Finance and not with mine.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, when I put my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, he indicated that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I think that the latter should be called upon to answer this very pressing question for the people of Montreal.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I would simply refer the hon. member to yesterday's Hansard, page 2545, where I answered this question.

January 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion referred the question I asked him to the Minister of Finance for an answer. It is a very specific question concerning the minimum amount of employment that is going to be created by the $68 million to be applied to the auto route in Montreal. That is the question I asked and which was referred to the minister.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, again I point out that the question was answered yesterday at page 2545 of Hansard.


Georges-J. Valade: In that case-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would the minister get in touch with the heads of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and see if he can do something to cut, untie or burn the massive administrative red tape which is delaying the payment of unemployment insurance claims at the present time?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this question to the attention of the House because it is one that is receiving much publicity these days. I met with officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission this morning and found out that over 97 per cent of the claims are processed on time, which is a tremendous improvement over the situation two years ago. I know this is of little consolation to those involved in the 3 per cent of claims which are not always processed on time, but in 90 per cent of those cases the fault does not lie with the commission but with the employers or employees.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, would the minister have further consultation with the commission and find out what they mean by "on time"? There is a great difference of opinion on that matter.


USE OF IMPREST ACCOUNTS BY OFFICES
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In regard to those cases where delay has been caused by errors made by the officials in the unemployment insurance offices, would the minister not consider giving these offices an imprest account on which they could write cheques immediately rather than have to go through the area offices?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion is a very helpful one. It is being considered in light of the new legislation coming forward, and particularly closer relations with the welfare
officers in many communities. It might be of interest to the House to know that last year we took to court and prosecuted 186 employers who callously held up the records of their employees, presumably causing intentional hardship to their employees. We have not hesitated to take legal action and have prosecuted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TORONTO-REPORTED DELAY IN PAYMENT OF CLAIMS
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. I asked him several days ago if he would look into the situation in Toronto, which was widely reported in the Toronto press, concerning delays in the payment of claims. Has he looked into these cases, and what is the result?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into these cases and I would rather table the report or perhaps make a statement on motions later in the week. The hon. gentleman is quite familiar with the co-operation that is usually extended to him, particularly in his own riding, by officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and I know he would be the last in the House to complain about their efficiency.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the way that the minister has usually handled these cases. That is why I found it hard to understand the delays in Toronto.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he advise the House of the results of the meeting he had a few days ago with the Nova Scotia mines minister with a view to keeping the McBean coal mine in operation? May I also ask the minister whether he shares the view expressed by the Nova Scotia mines minister, namely, that he is totally behind the idea of keeping this mine open?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is no decision in that regard yet. As the hon. member knows, the Donald report indicated that the McBean mine was not economically viable. With the increase in coal prices it may be that that decision should be reviewed. My department is in the process of considering the representations made by the Minister of Mines from Nova Scotia at the present time.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the mine is scheduled to be closed in March, and in view of the fact that every second person in the Atlantic region is unemployed at the moment, will the minister do his utmost to see that this mine continues to operate?

January 20, 1971




Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is he now in a position to reply to my question of last Thursday, January 14, when I asked for an assurance that India has not produced weapon-grade plutonium since the Canada-India reactor was supplied in 1960?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the 1956 Canada-India agreement for the provision of a nuclear research reactor the Indian government pledged that the reactor and the products resulting from its use would be used for peaceful purposes only. We have no evidence to suggest that the Indian government is not standing firm on the assurances it has given to Canada.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the article by John Gellner in which he alleges that there is such a stockpile-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It relates partly to the rosy picture which he and other ministers have painted during the past couple of days about employment possibilities. Has he seen a report which I received today from the government of the province of British Columbia about that province's business outlook for 1971, which points out that of 300 businessmen surveyed 65 per cent say there is going to be no improvement in employment this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the minister whether he has seen a certain report. A question in those terms is not quite acceptable.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rephrase the question. Has the provincial government been in communication with the minister pointing out these facts?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


PARTICIPATION OF WHEAT BOARD COMMISSIONERS AND FARM ORGANIZATION REPRESENTATIVES IN NEGOTIATIONS ON NEW INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat
Inquiries of the Ministry
Board. Can the minister inform the House whether or not commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board and representatives of various Prairie farm organizations are assisting in the current negotiations at Geneva which it is hoped will lead to an acceptable new international wheat agreement?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Two commissioners will be attending the meetings in Geneva in connection with these negotiations, and a group of leaders of farm organizations is also attending as part of the delegation.


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether any Canadian cabinet ministers will be present at some time during these negotiations in Geneva?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no intention to turn these negotiations into a ministerial meeting.


NEGOTIATIONS FOR NEW INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT-CANADIAN POSITION ON GIFTS TO NEEDY COUNTRIES
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that gifts of wheat to needy countries may be curtailed under a new world wheat pact, which would adversely affect Canada's export position, can the minister indicate to the House the position the Canadian delegation is taking with respect to this development in the current talks under way at Geneva designed to draw up a new world wheat pact?


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, Mr. Speaker, no conclusion has been arrived at with regard to what will be contained in any new agreement. The Canadian position with regard to food aid is so very strong and clear in favour of food aid that there is no doubt about our advocating the inclusion of such terms in any agreement at any time.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. At the time the Department of Labour, Devco and the unions involved mutually agreed on an extension of time respecting the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code regarding overtime, was there any agreement arrived at respecting payment for overtime work outside that laid down by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code?

January 20, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would have to qualify my answer by asking the hon. member to give me the right to verify my facts later today. I have not been fully aware of the matter, but normally if there had been any exemption with respect to the application of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code to Devco it would have been the result of a joint request by management and labour and not only by management.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the minister has only repeated in his answer what I put in my question. I said there was a mutual agreement between the Department of Labour, Devco and the unions involved, but what I am asking the minister is whether, outside of the regulations laid down in the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, there was any arrangement respecting payment for overtime?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would have to take the question as notice and find out.


Donald MacInnis: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a further supplementary, but we are running short of time.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some weeks before Christmas I asked him about the possible date of publication or tabling of the white paper on immigration and also for an indication regarding amendments to the Act concerning the Immigration Appeal Board. He indicated that this would be done soon in the new year. Could he tell us how much closer we are to that date?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are closer by the amount of time that has elapsed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh , oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in
answering that question the minister has bitten just as he should bite. Will he now be more precise and indicate whether we are to see the legislation before Easter or is it going to come before us just before the June adjournment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I hope that it will be forthcoming earlier rather than later. Of course, many things have to be considered, including the whole question of the very important other business before the House.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the minister responsible for promoting sports in Canada and, more particularly, the Canada winter games which will be held in Saskatoon. I wonder whether, in promoting this event, he has yet had an opportunity to obtain his $2 ticket? I have one available if he wants it.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the serious allegations which have been made concerning the Churchill Forest Industries complex at The Pas, Manitoba, and the involvement of the present and former provincial governments in these matters, can the minister assure the House that no federal government money will be paid to that project until a complete inquiry has been carried out by the federal government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the subsidies will be granted according to regulations. It seems to me that if all regulations are complied with, the requests will be followed up by the department. If they are not, the subsidies will be stopped.


PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY-NEW COMMITMENTS -MEETINGS WITH SASKATCHEWAN AND ALBERTA GOVERNMENTS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Following the reported meeting of the minister and the Manitoba Minister of Agriculture and provincial officials, can the minister tell the House if there was any undertaking to make any new commitments with regard to the proposed stabilization plan other than the proposed transfer of moneys paid under the present Temporary Wheat Reserves Act? Also, does the minister intend to have meetings with the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there were no new commitments and nothing in the form of a final decision. I think the discussions were, as ever, very useful. We propose to have meetings with all the Ministers of Agriculture of the Prairie provinces together on some occasion. I think the date has now been set. I am also prepared to meet with them individually whenever this may seem to be helpful.
January 20, 1971


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In an effort to catch up on some outstanding matters before the Prime Minister returns, can the minister now answer the question I asked before Christmas with regard to when the first Crown corporation will be set up in the provinces to deal with regional expansion. If it has not been set up, will he say when it will be?


Jean Marchand: I have really no idea at this time, Mr. Speaker.


CHALLENGE OF GOVERNMENT'S POWER TO REGULATE USE OF CYCLAMATES IN FOOD
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of a British Columbia canning firm's challenge of the federal governments power to regulate cyclamates in food, will the minister inform the House as to the nature of the stand that the federal Department of Justice will take on this matter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows and as he himself has stated, this matter is before the courts. Therefore I cannot say anything about it at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I gave notice of it to his Parliamentary Secretary. When will parliament have the opportunity to deal with conventions supported by this country and adopted last October at the conference of the International Labour Organization in Geneva?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving me notice of his question. I investigated this morning and discovered that the conventions were adopted recently at the ILO conference. These conventions will be tabled in the usual manner in the House within the next few weeks.
Inquiries of the Ministry SPORTS
1976 OLYMPIC GAMES-CANADIAN POSITION ON PRINCIPLE OF NO RACIAL DISCRIMINATION


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering the firm decision of the International Olympics Committee to adhere rigidly to the principle that there shall not be racial discrimination in sports, can the minister give some indication to the House of the position to be taken by the government on that principle so far as the 1976 Olympic games are concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think that a statement in this regard could be made on motions, and not necessarily today.


POLLUTION
Mr. Louis-Roland  Coraeau@South Western Nova: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the added costs that pollution control represents for industry and in view of the unhealthy effects these costs can have on industries and municipalities, will the government make grants or low-interest, long-term loans available to industries and municipalities in order to help them to cope with this problem?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, action is presently being taken under CMHC to help the municipalities. The general question of industry and pollution will be dealt with by the new minister of the environment. We shall be looking forward to recommendations from him.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister anything to report with regard to my request yesterday that his department investigate the complaint about unfair and highhanded labour practices on the part of a paint contractor presently engaged under a Defence Construction Limited contract at Canadian Forces Base, Petawawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that is a question which ought to be asked at this time. I would think that the hon. member could obtain that information by giving written notice or by having the matter considered at the time of adjournment.

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act SOCIAL SECURITY


CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS-REPORT OF SENATE COMMITTEE ON POVERTY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbel:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very important conference which the minister is to hold with the provincial ministers on the twenty-fifth with regard to social security, can he advise us if he has received the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty as it will have such serious implications for the conference?
John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge the report of the Senate Committee on Poverty has not been completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Simcoe North wishes to ask a supplementary question. With the consent of the House, perhaps the hon. member might be allowed to ask his supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why the kind of assistance provided to welfare recipients cannot also be provided for old age pensioners who, because of government policy, have joined the ranks of the poor?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 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. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Northern Canada Power Commission is a Crown corporation operating under the authority of an act of Parliament known as "an act respecting the supplying of electrical power and other public utilities in northern Canada".


Mr. Nielsen:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should begin by misleading the House. I do not charge him with doing this intentionally. The NCPC is not a Crown corporation, but a Crown agency.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is not a point of order.
I suspect that the hon. member will be taking part in the debate. He may want to make the point at that time.


J. Judd Buchanan: Created in 1948 as the Northwest Territories Power Commission, its name was changed and its operations expanded by an amendment in 1956. The commission is empowered to survey utility requirements and to construct and operate public utility plants in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. The act provides that the commission is responsible to and subject to the direction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the governor in council. In particular, the rates charged the general public by the commission are subject to approval by the governor in council. In addition to the commission's facilities, there are small government-owned installations in the north operated by departments of the federal government or by the territorial government which supply power to airports and smaller communities throughout the territories.
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. During its first fiscal year of operation, the commission's operating budget totalled approximately $231,000. Consistent with growth in the north, the commission's operating budget this year will exceed $10 million. In the ten-year period 1961 to 1970, the generation of electric power by the commission has more than tripled, from 120 million to 383 million kilowatt hours. In 1961 the commission operated 10 plants; today it operates 22 plants in 20 locations. During this period gross revenue has increased from $3 million to $9.7 million. It can therefore be said that the commission has kept pace with northern growth. In these exciting days of northern development, the commission finds itself on the threshold of a new and accelerated period of expansion.
The private utility companies in the north are mainly involved in retailing power to a number of communities and do relatively little generation of power. These private companies are virtually free to set their own rates. At present there are no territorial utilities commissions in operation which would be responsible for regulating their rate-setting practices and reviewing their profit margins. In the Northwest Territories a territorial ordinance was passed in 1963 authorizing the establishment of a public utilities board, but this board has not yet been set up. A similar ordinance died on the other paper of the Yukon Council in 1968.
The Yukon Electrical Company Ltd. is a private utility company concerned with the generation and distribution of power in the Yukon. In 1958 the company became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Canadian Utilities Limited
January 20, 1971

which is currently controlled by International Utilities Corporation. As of January, 1969, the Yukon Electrical Company distributed power to 2,642 of the Yukon's 3,000 domestic customers, and to 741 of the 925 commercial and industrial consoumers. Gross commercial power generation in the Yukon in 1968 amounted to about 103 million kilowatt hours, 90 per cent of which was generated by the Northren Canada Power Commission. The Yukon Electric Company Ltd. registered sales of 55 million kilowatt hours in 1968, of which 46 million kilowatt hours were purchased from the NCPC at wholesale rates for subsequent distribution.
In the Northwest Territories, Plains Western Gas and Electric Company Ltd. distributes NCPC-generated power in Yellowknife under a franchise granted by the city of Yellowknife. The company has no generation or transmission facilities of its own. Northland Utilities Ltd., also controlled by International Utilities Ltd., operates generating and distribution facilities in three communities in the Northwest Territories-Hay River, Fort Providence and Enterprise. Northland Utilities Ltd. accounts for approximately 6 per cent of the territories' commercial electricity production. As in the Yukon, the bulk of commercial generating capacity in the Northwest Territories is currently being supplied by the Northern Canada Power Commission.
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 longterm power development in both territories. 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. Four, to allow the commission to defer repayments of principal and interest where new capacity is in excess of immediate demands. Five, to eliminate 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 amendment deals with commission membership. At the present time the commission consists of a chairman and two members appointed during pleasure by the governor in council on recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Appointments have traditionally been made from within the public service. There is a continuing requirement for close liaison and co-ordination with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as with other departments, particularly the Department of Finance and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Therefore, I believe that this practice should continue in the foreseeable future for those three members.
The minister had stated on several occasions that there is a need to involve northern residents to the fullest extent in the developments that are now taking place and will continue to take place on a steadily increasing scale In the years ahead. It is proposed at this time to increase
Northern Canada Power Commission Act the membership from three to five in order to provide for appointment of a member from each of the northern territories. These appointments will be made on the recommendation of the commissioner in council of each territory. They will allow the commission to benefit from the local knowledge which such members will bring to it. In this way the commission will be more closely related to the territorial councils and will be more readily responsive to the requirements of the residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I believe this to be of the greatest importance at this time in the development of northern Canada.
The second amendment is with regard to advances for investigations. Section 14(1) of the act now provides $50,000 as a fund for the purpose of meeting expenditures incurred by the commission in carrying out engineering and other studies in accordance with section 13 of the act. This amount is being increased to $250,000 to permit studies and investigations more in keeping with the growing scale of development projects in both territories.
The Northern Canada Power Commission, under the present terms of the act, is bound to set rates which will ensure that individual plants in each locality, no matter how small, are operated on a self-sustaining basis. Consequently, rates changed by the commission for utilities supplied must provide sufficient revenue to cover all costs attributed by the commission to that plant, including interest on investment, repayment of principal over a period of years, operating and maintenance expenses and a contingency reserve.
This rate structure is too restrictive in light of the present and future size of the commission's operations. The proposed amendment would allow more flexibility in setting rates. Most provincial utilities already enjoy some similar measure of flexibility. Rather than operating each plant on a self-sustaining basis, the commission would in future be allowed to base its rates on regional costs and to work toward some measure of rate equalization where this is felt to be desirable. Thus, the commission would be permitted to take regional differences into account, to consider the system's energy links and to preserve equity in establishing rates within natural areas and power grid zones.
It is a well-known fact that transmission lines and grids have no territorial boundaries. It is essential for the orderly development of the north that administrative boundaries do not prevent efficient and sensible steps being taken to help both territories. By encouraging the interchange of electricity the commission can take full advantage of economies of scale within the north's three major economic regions-the Yukon, the Mackenzie and the eastern high Arctic. Also, there is and most likely will always be a mutual benefit to both territories by reason of electrical interconnection between the two. A power plant in the Yukon may be generating energy which is consumed in the Northwest Territories and, conceivably, in the adjacent provinces to the south.

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
Mr. Speaker, It should always be remembered that the Northern Canada Power Commission is a public corporation operating in the public interest and bringing the benefits of low-interest borrowing and profit-free power to northerners. The commission does not seek a profit. It seeks to provide power at the most economical cost to its customers, three of whom are private distributing utilities. Therefore, its rates are based on costs. It is only logical that they be averaged within the regions and that there be some latitude to average costs throughout the system without excessive subsidies to high-cost regions at the expense of low-cost areas. This requires that the commission be given latitude, and the proposed amendments are designed to provide that latitude. However, the commission's schedule of rates will still remain subject to approval by the governor in council.
Also, the presence of territorial representatives on the commission, the minister's accountability to Parliament for the commission's activities, and the continual and close scrutiny of the Auditor General, provide the necessary safeguards. Power being produced and distributed by the public sector in the north will continue to serve the public interest. Further scrutiny by a board or committee responsible to the minister would, therefore, appear to be unnecessary as far as the commission is concerned.
I turn, now, to advances for capital expenditures. In developing power for relatively small markets it is sometimes necessary to build a plant which has capacity not immediately usable. A dam which will generate more power than can be used immediately might work at half load, for example. Such a situation would result in very high power rates under the present law. The amendments before us would allow deferral of part of the capital investment until load has increased to take up the capacity. Such deferral would require the approval of the governor in council.
Currently, the commission is required under section 16(3) of the act to commence payments of both principal and interest immediately following completion of a project, except that the principal portion of the first two instalments, which usually are relatively small amounts at that stage, may be deferred. In the Yukon, for example, extensive studies carried out over the past four years indicate that a large capacity power site may be required to enable orderly development and economic stability in the long-term supply of electrical energy. The only sites which offer long-term price stability are those which involve a relatively high capital cost for initial development.
The commission's capacity additions over the past few years have been based on a low capital cost consistent with dependability during the period of gradual load growth so as to cater to this concept of larger capacity installations. The addition of one or two large-scale mining developments, however, would triple or quadruple present power demand in the Yukon and would likely justify the initial development of a least one large scale installation within the next five years.
In connection with the approval of contracts, section 6(3) of the act requires the commission to obtain the approval of the governor in council to undertake any project or enter into any contract in excess of $50,000. While the proposed amendment to the act would delete section 6(3), the commission would still be subject to government contracts regulations under the Financial Administration Act, which limit entry into contracts without Treasury Board approval to $100,000 for construction contracts and $50,000 for purchase contracts. Thus, there will still be adequate review by Treasury Board of contracts entered into by Northern Canada Power Commission.
I wish to deal, now, Mr. Speaker with the question of surplus funds. Any surpluses or profits generated remain with the Northern Canada Power Commission system to the ultimate benefit of its consumers. Thus, profits are not drained off as a source of revenue to the federal government nor to other parts outside the north. Surplus funds may now be held for six months, after which time the commission may reduce rates or use surplus funds for the expansion or improvement of that plant in respect to which such surplus funds accrued.
Under the proposed amendments, surplus funds could be used to benefit the entire system rather than the individual plant in respect to which such surplus funds accrued. Again, the objective is flexibility. However, I should insert a few words of explanation as well as of caution here. There is a tendency to think that rate equalization will lead to two results. First, that rates in the smaller, higher-cost communities will be lowered by applying surpluses earned in the larger, more profitable communities until rates are equal across the board. Second, that the more industrialized regions in the west will be expected to carry much of the cost of supplying service to the eastern Arctic. If applied without thought or planning, this could be the outcome, but this approach will not be taken.
The policy of the commission will be to set rates on a regional basis with the Yukon and Northwest Territories regions, possibly encompassing areas beyond their political boundaries but within their economic development zone. Thus, consumers in Whitehorse or Yellowknife, for example, will not directly support the cost of electricity in communities literally thousands of miles away.
The precise boundaries of the regions should be left to the commission to determine. This will be one of the more important contributions that the new territorial members will be able to make. It must also be recognized that flexibility must be maintained so that extensive areas of the north can take advantage of the future development of large generating facilities capable of serving and, indeed, requiring the markets of more than one region.
I must also caution against great expectations or great apprehensions. As in southern Canada, rate equalization cannot be taken to the extreme and a uniform rate set throughout a whole region. Consumers in a lower-cost community expect to receive, and indeed should receive,

January 20, 1971

part of the cost benefit available. Thus, the rates in a larger community will not be increased by any substantial amount-indeed, in some cases it may not be necessary to increase them at all-while those in the smaller communities should not expect their rates to come tumbling down. There will be reductions possible in some regions, but do not expect miracles. I want to emphasize that the policy of regional rates will be applied in a sensible and fair manner. Some of the extreme suggestions already made about this new approach are gross exaggerations of the manner in which the commission will carry out its responsibilities to the public.
The commission's annual report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970, showed a total surplus of $1.19 million. The bulk of these surplus funds resulted from operations of the Whitehorse plant which commenced supplying the Anvil Mine with electrical energy in August, 1969. Under section 16(2)(a) of the act, repayment of principal and interest need not be commenced until the year following completion of a capital budget, and in the case of Whitehorse it was decided not to commence repayment of the loan-$10 million for the addition of new generating capacity and transmission facilities-until this year. The surplus has been delegated to surplus and contingency funds, consistent with good financial management practice, wherein it will be available for further plant improvement.
Consideration was given to applying a portion of this surplus to effect a rate reduction to customers, in this case the Yukon Electrical Company. However, part of this surplus will be required in the near future to provide peaking capacity and other plant improvements. It was therefore decided to delay action in this regard until the situation became a little more clear. There would be little point in lowering rates by what would be a relatively small amount, only to have to set them back at the old level within a short time.
The commission's record of rate reductions over the years deserves to be mentioned. In 1958, when the Whitehorse hydro plant began operating, the commission sold power to its customers at a wholesale price of 2J cents per kilowatt hour. Successive rate reductions have brought the commission's price down to 1J cents per kilowatt hour, exactly one-half of the original wholesale price.
The Northern Canada Power Commission is one of the important instruments of development in the north. It also ensures that as far as practicable power costs to domestic, commercial and industrial customers are at the lowest possible level. By providing electric power at cost, the commission serves to encourage both better living standards for our northern residents and to help in promoting orderly commercial and industrial development.
The government's commitment to northern development is again borne out by the fact that the Northern Canada Power Commission has supplied power to all major resource undertakings north of 60. These include Giant Yellowknife Gold Mines, Discovery Mines, the
Northern Canada Power Commission Act Imperial Oil refinery at Norman Wells, Pine Point Mines, United Keno Hill Mines, and the Anvil Mine. Possible new power loads to developments now under study include Casino Mines, Kerr Addison Mines, Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting, Cadillac Exploration, Cassiar Asbestos and the building of oil and gas pipelines along the Mackenzie River. The commission's position in the northern power field is underlined by the value of its capital assets at a cost of $60 million, and by the fact that it generates over 75 per cent of all hydroelectric power in both territories.
The government is well aware that power planning must take environmental factors into account. Thermal power does create air pollution. Hydro power developments alter the natural terrain. Every proposed development must be weighed against the alternatives, and the selection of a development plant must take environmental factors into account. The Northern Canada Power Commission will be considering these factors when making its decisions.
Providing sufficient northern power in the years ahead will require innovative thinking, effective management and the development of high capital cost generating capacity. This will most likely be in the form of hydroelectric plants and associated high voltage transmission lines. The commission is aware of future requirements and is developing plans accordingly. The publicly-owned sector of the utilities industry

which in northern Canada, as I have indicated, is by far the larger segment-must also be service-oriented and responsive to the needs of the people and industries it serves. Hence, the commission's concern with development in the years ahead must be matched by an equal concern for the welfare of northern residents and the protection of northern lands and waters.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when I saw the minister in the House this afternoon 1 thought he was here for the purpose of dealing with a very important piece of legislation, the bill now before the House which appears obstensibly to be rather innocuous but is far-reaching in its effect. Instead-and I mean to cast no personal reflection on the Parliamentary Secretary-the minister has left a boy to do a man's job, a member who has simply read by rote from a speech that had been prepared for him, obviously not by any member of the commission for they know that the NCPC is not a Crown corporation but a Crown agency whose chairman is the deputy minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. So that is the first correction that has to be made.
I was going to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for a copy of the speech from which he read but, as is usually the case when anything is being said by the NCPC or on its behalf either in this place or in committee, it is so utterly devoid of facts as to be absolutely useless. But even more seriously, it is grossly misleading to the members of the House who have to consider this legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary has attempted to explain small plant losses. He has attempted to explain why the amendments are being brought forward to deal with the

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
surpluses that are now required to be applied to the benefit of the individual plants-and until recently those surpluses were very few. He has informed the House for the first time, notwithstanding the very detailed examination of the officials of NCPC in committee in 1969, and notwithstanding the sidestepping on innumerable occasions by the minister, the general manager of NCPC and the deputy minister, who also wears the hat of chairman of the commission, that the commission, the government is going to adopt a policy of rate equalization, a question the answer to which was asked by northerners everywhere.
The Parliamentary Secretary has also been very sketchy in tracing the history of the NCPC, and what tracing there was has been inaccurate. Neither has he traced the history of private capital investment in power generation and distribution in the north. He said the NCPC was established in 1948 and that at that time its activities were confined to the construction of generating and distributing facilities in the Northwest Territories. Because a specific need had to be fulfilled in the Yukon, namely, the supply of power to United Keno Hill Mines Limited, which for several years had supplied its own power and was until recently the richest silver mine on the North American continent, the NCPC decided to have the act amended to permit the commission to construct this facility in the Yukon. I believe that amendment was made in 1952.
The hon. gentleman also inaccurately stated that the commission's activities are confined to northern Canada. They are not confined to areas above the 60th parallel. Of the 20 locations at which the commission operates, one is in northern British Columbia, at Field, and another is in northern Saskatchewan at Moose Factory. There are three locations in the Yukon at which the NCPC operates, namely, Dawson City, Mayo and Whitehorse. All the remaining generation and distribution facilities of the commission are in the Northwest Territories.
I shall have a few words to say in a moment about rate equalization and what that means to Yukoners as well as what the policy of this government means in terms of creating out of the area above the 60th parallel a vast experiment in state socialism; but for the moment may I rectify and set straight some of the omissions and inaccuracies in the material from which the Parliamentary Secretary read.
According to the evidence of the then chairman of the commission at the time the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was examining the commission's estimates in 1949, the NCPC was created for the purpose of generating and distributing electrical power in places where private investment was either unwilling or unable to go. This is a very important criterion, one that has been omitted from the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary. So apart from the installation at Mayo to assist the specific mine at Elsa, the commission had no other installation in the Yukon. The act was amended to enable the commission to supply electrical energy to communities that were being supplied by the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport and other agencies.
It was not until 1958, some six years later and ten years after the advent of the NCPC, that the commission decided to build that dam because of the power needs of the area which could not be handled by the Yukon Electrical Company, which at that time was still in the hands of the descendants of the original incorporators of that company in 1901 as a private enterprise. The NCPC sat on its hands for all that time. Even after 1958, when the Whitehorse plant was established, not until a year and a half ago did the commission awaken to the fact that development was occurring in the Yukon and the time was ripe to come in and skim off the cream.
So we in the Yukon waited from 1948 until 1968, 20 years, for the NCPC to do this job. There were communities at Old Crow, Keno City, Stewart Crossing, Pelly River, Carmacks, Beaver Creek, Burwash Landing, Destruction Bay, Haines Junction, Carcross, Teslin, Watson Lake and Lower Post all waiting for this government-established agency to go in where private capital investment was either unwilling or unable to go.
The Yukon Electrical Company was acquired, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, by Canadian Utilities through a purchase in the late 1960s. It went into each and everyone of these communities. There are powergenerating facilities established there, with power being distributed by the same company that is generating the power. The NCPC had an opportunity when Keno City was up for grabs and knew about the intention to sell out to the Yukon Electrical Company. Then, all of a sudden, the NCPC generated a good deal of interest.
When the Parliamentary Secretary plays down the role of investment capital in this fashion, by not mentioning the extent to which in terms of dollars-some $250 million-private enterprise has gone into the power-generating field in the Yukon Territories, he does this House a disservice. I am sure this was not intentional, because he was not reading his own material but was just distributing facts to this House. The truth of the matter is that the NCPC and its officials were dragging their butts. They did not know anything more about northern development than they could see from this distance, as is usually the case. I feel very sorry for the hon. member in that he was making sounds precisely like those that might be made about the Yukon and Northwest Territories, in terms of development, by a person who lives in Toronto or somewhere else. He certainly is not acquainted with the real facts of northern development.
Let me place in proper perspective some of the statistics he put on record. He spoke of rate equalization and he lumped together, as is the policy of this government, the two territories in the north for state administrative convenience. There is a role to play in the development of this country, particularly in the development of our northern areas, for private enterprise capital. I am not one who believes-I think I am speaking for every member of this party-that investment capital should be dried up and frightened away by state control of development processes. This is precisely what is happening.

January 20, 1971

The same story can be told of the Northern Transportation Company, which also comes under the minister's responsibility. The same story can be told of the formation of Eldorado Aviation. During the war years, the formation of these two companies was essential because they were producing a strategic mineral, uranium, and there was no other way the product could be transported to market. I well remember the debates in the committee which considered the continued usefulness of the Northern Transportation Company, I believe in 1958, and the continued operation of Eldorado Aviation.
At that time the functions and operations of the Northern Transportation Company could have been assumed by a private entrepreneur. They had expended considerable investment capital in providing that transportation service. They could have purchased the government-owned Northern Transportation Company. That is not what happened. The private enterprise was gobbled up with the support of the huge financial coffers of the federal government.
Pacific Western Airlines offered to purchase the assets and operations of Eldorado Aviation. I cannot understand why, in this world of today when investment capital is being spoken of by the government as being continually encouraged, there should be an Eldorado Aviation Company at all, with private enterprise willing to assume the task that is being discharged by this company, supported by the Canadian tax dollar. That is precisely what will happen here. In spite of the assurances which the Parliamentary Secretary read, rate equalization will not mean that the rates of large consumers in one area of the north, as he was pleased to describe them, will be applied to loss leaders in other areas of the north. That is precisely what will happen.
If we look at the financial statements of the commission for 1966-67 and subsequent years, we will find that the profits the commission made on the Whitehorse operation paid off the losses on the whole system. When the Parliamentary Secretary refers in a very casual way to the extent of these profits in the Yukon, let me remind the House that in the 1969-70 fiscal year this income amounted to $828,853. This exceeded by almost 600 per cent any other producer, including Pine Point.
Let me put it in percentage terms and tell the House that the income on the Whitehorse operation alone, given only eight months of operation, increased by 600 per cent and the sales increased by 100 per cent. Yet the Parliamentary Secretary stands here and reads to us that it is not the intention of the commission or the government to apply these profits to the losses on other parts of the system. That is rubbish; that is precisely where the profits will be applied. We in the Yukon ask: Why should the Whitehorse consumer pay for the loss in Frobisher Bay because of government extravagances there? Why should Whitehorse consumers pay for losses in Inuvik and Cambridge Bay? Why should they have this burden, any more than the residents of British Columbia should have the burden of supporting equalization in Nova Scotia? It should be done with tax dollars, but not with the con-
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
sumers' payments for electric power in Whitehorse or anywhere else where the system is making a profit.
That was precisely the reason for writing in the original legislation that each plant should be self-sustaining. That was a good, sensible principle then and there is no reason why it should not continue to be a good principle. Every year, in respect of the estimates of consumption the explanation given was that the plants were to operate on a businesslike basis. If they were suffering losses because of the nature of the business of the company, or if they were required to supply electrical energy to an area of Canada where private enterprise capital was unwilling or unable to go, the losses should be picked up by the general tax dollar. I submit it would be grossly unfair to the Canadian who lives in Whitehorse and who pays the same taxes as everybody else to add to his burden the tax which would be necessary in order to carry the losses of a government operation in other parts of the country.
When we look at the gross picture for the Yukon it becomes very obvious that with the exception of Whitehorse-I ask hon. members to refer to the 1969-70 financial picture-all other points served by the facilities of NCPC maintain in a general way the same profit or loss position which they had in the previous year. I have already pointed out that the Whitehorse operation had a 600 per cent gain in net income and a 100 per cent increase in sales. When examining the figures it is interesting to note that even in respect of the Talston River, Pine Point, system the commission realizes the same percentage of profit on sales as in the Yukon. It would seem to me this must be due to the fact that the major income of that system is coming from a mine, and hence the selling price of the energy has been priced as low as possible.
I charge that the officials of the NCPC have been aided and abetted by a succession of commission chairmen who have been deputy ministers of the department. These chairmen have been deliberately misleading in respect of the evidence they have adduced before the committee and the evidence they have supplied to their respective ministers. There can be only one motivation for this kind of evasiveness or this kind of misleading on their part. The motivation is that they want private capital out of the north so far as power-generating facilities are concerned. Private investment wants to know one thing, that is, whether it is wanted there. This is precisely what they asked at the hearings in 1969. Again, the answer was evasive. They want to know whether their capital is welcome in development efforts in the north, because if not they will put it somewhere else. This is what one of the officials of Yukon Electrical asked when he appeared before the committee. Did he receive an answer? He did not.
In the past two years, like other hon. members, I have received the annual report of the northern Canada Power Commission. In addition, I have asked for the comprehensive financial statements of the commission. These

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
become available at the end of March in each year. The financial statement was delayed for months before I got it. If the amendments to this act are passed, members will never see that kind of statement again in respect of the operations of this company. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to gainsay me on that. Right now we know the plant is operating at a profit in some locations and at a loss in others. Right now we know the rates charged to government installations at these various locations, compared with the rates charged the ordinary user. Right now we know that the profits from one location are being applied to pick up the losses on the whole system.
The government, through the Parliamentary Secretary, has asked us to believe that real equalization will not be applied except on a regional basis, and that the profits from large consumer areas will not be applied to pick up the losses of the smaller consumer areas. I would assume that when he uses the term "regional", he means geographic region. He certainly would not want to include an area embracing places in the Keewatin, the Mackenzie and the Yukon in order to make up the region.
If that should be the case I ask how, in all that is reasonable, is the NCPC-if it has to take the whole eastern Arctic region-to become a profitable producer, especially when its operations are continually broken up into projects like Frobisher and Cambridge. One has only to look at the financial statements to realize that such an assertion is as hollow as it is foolish. It does not seem realistic that places such as Inuvik, Frobisher and Cambridge, which are mainly creations of the federal government, should be supported by the consumers of Whitehorse. That is precisely what will happen.
It should be government policy that these plants be supported by the taxpayers of Canada as a whole. That was the original concept of the act, and conditions in the north have not changed so as to justify any alteration of that concept. All that has changed is that they have a pretty viable economic unit now in the Yukon, whereas there was only one mine producing at the time the NCPC went into Mayo. Even the much vaunted Mr. Carr of the royal commission and his colleagues who studied the economic prospects of the Yukon in 1968 grossly underestimated the growth of the territory when they said its mineral production in 1975 would reach the level it has reached this year. That is the reason the NCPC is there.
The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned Anvil Mining Corporation. Let me tell the House about events there. Upon realizing that the officials of NCPC and the department had better get in and skim off the cream of the operation and establish a solid base for state-owned power in the Yukon, it was decided that when dealing with the officials of Cyprus Mine and the major shareholders of Anvil Mining Corporation, in addition to other federal aid granted to bring that mining operation into production they should have federal assistance in respect of access roads and other facilities in order to supply power. That was the decision the government made. It was not a decision made by Anvil Mining Corporation or by Cyprus. Indeed, I strongly suspect, although I have no evidence for putting it forward as a fact, that the government said to Anvil at that time, "We will provide the monetary aid you need in order to come into production, in keeping with our general developmental policy in the north, provided you will take your power from NCPC."
The government had to do that because there was private enterprise in the area willing to do it. Although it may be difficult to obtain an admission in this regard from officials of the NCPC or from the deputy minister, the Yukon Electrical Company, before that decision was made by government, said, "We are prepared to build the generation and the distribution facilities to supply electrical energy to this mining operation," and the government said, "No, we are going to do it." Yukon Electrical then said, "Let us bid, and see who will do it at the lowest cost," and the government said, "No, we are going to do it." Yukon Electrical then said, "Let us bid on the basis of rates. Perhaps we can supply it at a lower rate than NCPC". Again the government said, "No, we are going to do it regardless of the cost."
The same story can be told of the events that led to the acquisition by the Northern Canada Power Commission of the facilities in Dawson City. Again an offer was made to the government by Yukon Electrical to take over those facilities and to provide power at a rate less than that now being charged to the consumers in Dawson City. The Parliamentary Secretary read from his script that the intention of NCPC is to supply power at the lowest possible rate. Tell that to the people of Dawson City, where private enterprise, had it been allowed to go ahead, would be supplying power to the consumers at a rate lower than they are being charged today. The Parliamentary Secretary speaks about rate reductions as though the commission is being extremely magnanimous in passing on these rate reductions. Let me tell the House that every single rate reduction made to the distributor in Whitehorse has been passed on to the consumer and, further, that Yukon Electrical have applied their own rate reductions to the consumer despite none being given by NCPC.
In committee we heard the argument of the deputy minister, John MacDonald, who said that NCPC can supply power at less cost to the consumer than private enterprise. I asked him, "How do you know?" His answer was, "We don't have the attendant cost of borrowing money." Mr. Speaker, the assets of NCPC are in the neighbourhood of $60 million, but the assets of the International Utility Company, which is the controlling shareholder of Yukon Electrical Company, are in the order of $250 million. Yet the deputy minister had the audacity to say in committee that private enterprise is not capable of raising the capital to establish these facilities in the Yukon and in the north generally. Again, that is rubbish. Let me also inform hon. members of the House that the Yukon Electrical Company, through its new majority shareholders, offered to buy the whole of the plant and generating facilities of the commission in the Yukon at one fell swoop. Again, naturally, they were refused.
I am now directing my submissions to the House to the relative merits of private, investor-owned utilities as
TMr. Nielsen.]
January 20, 1971

opposed to public utilities in the north. It is all very well for the government, with great fanfare, as the minister is wont to do, to announce all these schemes which offer incentives for the development of northern resources and to hold out his arms in an embracive fashion and say, "We welcome foreign investment capital." Indeed, he takes trips to Europe to try to raise investment capital to plunge into Canada's north. In effect, the government says to International Utilities, "We want investment capital, but we do not want any of your $250 million to help develop power because we are going to do it ourselves and we will charge the consumer a great deal more."
For the first time, Mr. Speaker, from the notes of the Parliamentary Secretary we have an indication that there is to be no review board. His notes say there is no real reason to have a review board because there is to be an expanded commission of five members, including one representative from the Yukon and one from the Northwest Territories. I submit to the House that whether a utility is owned by the private sector or by the public sector, there is an increasing demand by the consuming public that the utility's activities, particularly the rates of suppliers and generators, be subjected to the decisions and reviews of a public utilities board.
That position was taken very recently in the province of Ontario by the resigning Premier. Here I refer to a report in the Globe and Mail of just a month or so ago, where Mr. Robarts was quoted as saying with regard to a recent Ontario rate increase that his government was looking for an appropriate forum to review rates, but he added that no decision had been made on whether the review body would have authority to reject planned increases. Unlike what is written in the notes of the Parliamentary Secretary, I urge that regardless of the outcome of this debate, regardless of what hon. members' views might be as to public versus private utilities in the north or anywhere else, there should be established a public utilities board to review rates. There is no reason why that board should not be established forthwith.
The excuse that is made in the notes of the Parliamentary Secretary is that the Yukon Territorial Council rejected an ordinance which was placed before them in 1968, which would have set up a public utilities review board. The reason they did not agree to this was not explained to the House by the Parliamentary Secretary, as is usual with the kind of evasion prepared by people who write nonsense like that read to us by the Parliamentary Secretary. The reason was that the proposed body was to be too confined. What the people of the Yukon wanted, as expressed through the Territorial Council, was a public utilities commission similar to that which operates in the province of British and the province of Alberta. It is essential that any electric utility, including Yukon Electrical, Northern Canada Power Commission and Plains Western in the Northwest Territories, be subjected to regulatory processes. The introduction of such a review board would provide protection to the residents of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon.
I am sure no one would be too disturbed if it were proposed that the commission be allowed to pool the
Northern Canada Power Commission Act revenues in the Yukon to the benefit of the Yukon consumer, no more than my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories would object if revenues generated by the NCPC were applied for the benefit of the Northwest Territories. That sort of principle and that sort of application will not meet objection. I do not think anyone in the Yukon would object to rate equalization in the Yukon, any more than anyone in the Northwest Territories would object to the same kind of principle. But we do object to the government continually, by its policy, lumping us together for the purpose of bureaucratic or administrative expediency.
We object to revenues generated in one territory being applied to the benefit of the other, just as the citizens of British Columbia would object to revenues arising from the consumers of that province being applied to the benefit of the province of Manitoba, Quebec, or other places. If the notes of the Parliamentary Secretary mean what they say, namely, that the revenues from the Yukon are not to be applied against losses in the Northwest Territories, it would be a simple matter to write this into the act now. Consumers ought to have that assurance.
It is interesting to note, too, that the Parliamentary Secretary's notes speak of certain northern developments. This merely shows how insidious is this kind of forked-tongue approach taken by the government. They speak of the need to keep pace with development, and of the operations of the Northern Canada Power Commission throughout the north. What developments did the Parliamentary Secretary mention? Among others, he mentioned Casino Mines, Kerr Addison Mines, Hudson's Bay Mining and Smelting, and one other. These operations are all taking place in the Yukon, every last one of them. Perhaps he did not do his homework. He forgets, too, that private investment capital to the tune of $3 billion was ready and available to carry out the development of the whole hydroelectric potential of the Yukon watershed in 1953, and that this would have generated twice the existing capacity of the St. Lawrence Seaway projects. He could not have done his homework, because if he had he would have read the remarks of the minister of that time, Mr. Lesage, and the remarks of the prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, indicating that the private investment capital was rejected by that Liberal government.
An hon. Member; Shame!


Erik Nielsen: That development did not go ahead. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The government headed off that development. In 1961 the Northern Canada Power Commission retained a Montreal engineering firm, Montreal Engineering, to carry out a study of the cost of rehabilitating Dawson City.


An hon. Member:: Which government was then in power?


Erik Nielsen: They wanted to know the cost of rehabilitating the utilities, the electrical power system and the

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
water system. This was prior to the departure of the mining operation of the area, Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation. This was a field in which it had operated as a monopoly for over half a century. Later, Mr. Humph-rys, who was the general manager of NCPC in Ottawa, said in public that the commission could not justify the spending of public funds in such a venture because of Dawson City's uncertain future. That was the end of the first chapter written on the opportunity on the part of NCPC to fulfil the reason for which they were established.
In 1964 a private company, Yukon Electrical Company, attempted to negotiate the purchase of the Dawson electrical system, and got nowhere. It is interesting to note that the NCPC would not do it and neither would they give it to anyone else. The chairman of the commission is also the deputy minister. I can imagine him juggling his hats, receiving an application from Yukon Electrical *Company to do the Dawson City job, saying no to that company and then putting on his hat as chairman of the NCPC, replying to himself as deputy minister and speaking as chairman of the NCPC, saying, "NCPC would not do it." This is a great state of affairs. That body ought to be a Crown corporation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It should not be a commission whose chairman is the deputy minister, through whom the commission chairman must report. He must have a gay time at annual report time, reporting to himself. In 1965 the same private company, Yukon Electrical, tried again. It confirmed its offer to provide electrical generators and to take care of the operation of the water system for Dawson City. The result, again, was nil. The Yukon Electrical Company at that time guaranteed to supply the electrical services as soon as Yukon Consolidated Gold Corporation closed down in September, 1966. They pointed out that the capital would not come out of public funds, that the company was operating other, similar diesel' plants and was well equipped to enter into a franchise agreement with Dawson City. Also, they said that the company's facilities would be added to the tax rolls of the community. This brings me to another point.
The government has been saying, "We can supply your electrical power at lower cost." The residents of Dawson City are finding, to their sorrow, that this is not the case. The government authority pays no interest on its investment, whereas private capital does. It pays no fuel taxes in the Yukon, although it does in the Northwest Territories It has all these fringe benefits in order to compete with private capital, and still the government cannot do it. These amendments would give the commission more power. All this is done for the sake of complete state control.
In 1966, to carry on with the sad saga of Dawson City, the deputy minister of the day, Mr. C6t6, who was also chairman of the NCPC, wrote that there were several reasons why it was deemed better and in the public interest-we heard the same words spoken today by the Parliamentary Secretary-to develop this entire project

with federal government financing. The power portion was to be operated on a self-supporting, self-liquidating process by NCPC. The act says it is to be self-sustaining. In other words, the answer was the usual no to private enterprise; the government said, "We will run it ourselves."
Let us see what the picture has been in Dawson City since the commission went in there. I am reading from their financial report. Their loss for the year 1967-68 was about $39,000. Their loss for the year 1968-69 was $13,823. Their loss for the year 1969-70 was $10,590. There are some pretty nice losses in other plants as well. In particular I have picked out Fort Simpson, where they suffered a loss, and Frobisher, which suffered a dandy loss of $17,000 according to the last statement, and Chesterfield, which suffered a $5,000 loss. Only marginal profits were made with the other operations, the exception being, perhaps, Pine Point. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech writers are trying to convince the House that these losses will not be set against revenues obtained throughout the whole system. If he believes that, he is less intelligent than I give him credit for being.
In 1968 there was a closed meeting in Whitehorse. The problems of Dawson City were discussed, problems posed by the high cost of power production. These questions were faced by the federal, territorial and municipal representatives. It is my understanding that the session had been called because it was discovered that it was costing $90,000 to operate the water system for 200 outlets at Dawson City. Half that amount was recovered; the remaining $45,000 was to be forked out by the territorial government. No business will ever take over a utility under those conditions. I will not continue with the sad saga of Dawson City. That is the tale of only one area into which the NCPC has ventured.
We speak of the obligations of the commission with respect to northern employment. It is a pity that instead of reading from the notes which he was provided, the Parliamentary Secretary did not take the trouble to read the minutes of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The actual statistics are set forth there as to the efforts made by private enterprise as opposed to NCPC in the employment of our native peoples. Some of the members of that committee had the opportunity of travelling throughout the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in order to take a comparative look at the two operations. In Watson Lake they saw a diesel electric power generating and distribution facility that was being operated with a total staff of three. It was automated and required only three persons to operate it. A similar operation is being carried out by NCPC in the Northwest Territories. They are operating with a staff in excess of 20. The excuse given is that they run the boilers in the hostels because it is in keeping with a homogeneous operation in the generation of power.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not know a grid from a waffle iron. When he presented the kind of arguments contained in the notes that were prepared for him,
January 20, 1971

this became even more obvious. This bill, if passed, will have a harmful effect on northern development, perhaps not so much in the Northwest Territories as in the Yukon. It will have an immediate and harmful effect on private investment capital being attracted to the Yukon. I urge all members to consider the whole package with which Parliament is being presented with respect to northern development. This includes not only the amendments to this act but the amendments to the Yukon mineral act which follow. Other land use regulations which will be introduced will literally inhibit the existing base of development and exploration in the north. In addition, the impact of the regulations of the inland waters act are being felt. Above all, there is the white paper.
I have been almost universally charged by the residents of the Yukon to urge this government to stand this bill until such time as the impact of all this legislation can be viewed as a package in terms of its economic effect. The Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the Prospectors' Association, the Mining Association and hundreds of Yukon citizens make this appeal through me to the government. Failing that, they make the plea to all members of this House to support the motion I am about to make. They do so because of the intense and universal objection of the principle embodied in this bill, the danger inherent and the likelihood that revenues generated in the Yukon or any part of the system will be applied to defray losses in other parts. Because of the unacceptability and unfairness of that principle, I wish to move a motion. I hoped that my motion would be seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), who is in his seat, but I do not think he will do that.


Mr. Orange:: Right.


Erik Nielsen: I move:
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 of the recommendation in relation to the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to hear representations from hon. members at this time. I have some reservations about accepting the amendment. I state frankly that I have a completely open mind. It appears, initially, that the amendment purports to change the procedural aspect of the motion. As I understand the motion now before the House, the bill now under consideration will be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Hon. members may be able to make a distinction. The amendment moved by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) suggests that the subject matter of the recommendation with relation to the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House. I have some reservations about the procedural acceptability of the motion and I will be happy to hear argument.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, prior to the change in the rules hon. members will recall that it used to be the
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
practice of the House to discuss the principle of a bill at the resolution stage, because of the requirement in regard to the financial responsibility of the government. Because of the far-reaching economic impact this measure will have, the motivation behind my amendment is that the matter is far too important to deal with other than by this House in committee of the whole. That is precisely what will happen if the amendment now before Your Honour is accepted. Rather than going to a standing committee, a committee of the whole House should deal with the matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) in a moment. The hon. member for Yukon refers in his amendment to the subject matter of the recommendation. I presume he is referring to His Excellency's recommendation. My impression is that this is a prerogative of His Excellency; it is not within the capacity of this chamber to go to His Excellency with a directive even though a committee of the whole House may make such a directive. I would like to hear from the hon. member on that point.


Erik Nielsen: With respect, Mr. Speaker, a motion cannot, even inferentially, be read so as to result in a reference back to His Excellency. The House is now seized with the matter through the recommendation of His Excellency. The motion simply asks that the recommendation of His Excellency be dealt with in a slightly different fashion than is called for by the resolution on the Order Paper, that is, that it be dealt with by a committee of the whole House.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing to plow new ground in connection with these motions. I think we are developing very useful jurisprudence which will extend the rights of the House to deal with motions of this kind in a more adequate way. I agree with Your Honour that if the motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) purported to indicate that the committee of the whole had the right to make suggestions to His Excellency with regard to changing the recommendation, I would have some difficulty supporting it.
Implicit in the motion is that the committee of the whole might have an opportunity to consider this issue, and its consideration would be directed not only to His Excellency but to the government. I recognize that under the British North America Act there is a connection between the government and His Excellency, and that His Excellency should listen to his advisers and not necessarily to this House: the government must intervene. I am assuming that the purpose of part of the motion by my hon. friend is that the committee, having considered this matter, might then make a recommendation to the government. The government may or may not act upon it. The committee might decide, in its collective wisdom, that the original recommendation was proper. In those circumstances, that is the way it would be brought about.

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
As to the substantive part of the motion, with respect, I would think there is that freedom, I do not think a motion could be put that the bill be referred to a committee-I think we had some discussion on that-and Your Honour might well, within the terms of the Standing Order, require a different form of motion than one to refer the bill itself. But my hon. friend has been most careful to make the distinction between the bill and the subject matter of the recommendation.
The bill is founded on the recommendation, and I think this is a neat device permitting the committee of the whole in a very brief way, I hope, at an appropriate time, to consider this recommendation and make suggestions to the government. If it is a sensible government-which I always hope for, so far without anything to back up my hope-it will accept the suggestions and say to His Excellency: We think this recommendation should be changed in accordance with the suggestions of the committee of the whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to me that the amendment we are discussing amounts to a direct negation of the motion before the House, which asks that the bill be read the second time and referred to a Standing Committee. It would appear to the Chair that if hon. members do not agree with the main motion, they will vote against it. I wonder whether any other hon. member would care to assist the Chair on this point.


Erik Nielsen: It certainly was not my intention, when the amendment was prepared, to negate the motion now standing on the Order Paper, though it would have been very easy to do so; one would simply have to present a motion that the bill be not now read the second time. But I was careful to avoid doing so and to direct the amendment toward removing this bill from the Standing Committee and discussing its subject matter, because of its importance, in committee of the whole.


Frank Howard: With great respect, I was rather surprised to hear the comments Your Honour made a few moments ago while in the chair. In any event, I think that what we have to consider is the practicality of what we are doing. On other occasions, in the absence of any formalized procedure for dealing with matters in this way, Mr. Speaker has ruled that it is not possible to do these things; in other words, unless there is an ability on the part of the House to handle matters in the way proposed, such motions are out of order.
I believe the reverse situation is easy to understand. If a bill is set down for referral to a committee of the whole House, it is quite proper to move that it be read a second time and that the subject matter be referred to a Standing Committee. This is because a Standing Committee has the opportunity to examine witnesses in an informal way, explore the possibilities of the subject matter and then report its findings back to the House.
The amendment under discussion conceives putting this course in reverse, that is, not reading the bill a second time but sending the subject matter thereof to committee of the whole, without any procedural conception of what is to happen after that. I submit that the force of the
amendment is to defeat the bill, because if it were carried the bill would not be read the second time and, as I understand the rules, that would be the end of it. The subject matter of the recommendation would be referred to a committee of the whole House. But for what purpose? The recommendation might be debated or examined, but there is no connected follow-up procedure for bringing the bill itself back before the House. On this ground alone, I believe Your Honour must find the amendment is not in order and should so rule.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their assistance in connection with the procedural point. The hon. member for Peace River said we were plowing new ground for the Chair. Speaking personally, I should like to have some time to consider the arguments made by hon. members. If the House is agreeable, and if no other hon. members wish to contribute to the procedural discussion, I will reserve my decision on the procedural question and we will proceed in the interim.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it would be very easy to amend the motion the Chair now has before it and simply move that the bill be not now read the second time. But I did not want to deprive the House of debating the subject matter of the recommendation.


Mr. Davis:: You are all heart.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Before I begin my address, Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to make sure I understood him correctly. Did he say he was in agreement with the principle of the equalization of power rates within the Yukon or within the Northwest Territories?


Erik Nielsen: That is correct. No one would object to Yukon revenues being applied to Yukon equalization. I am sure this principle would be agreed to by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange).


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wished to make sure I understood the hon. member correctly.
I should like to comment on one statement the hon. member made in his speech, namely, that a public utilities commission or board should be appointed to review electricity rates in the Yukon and in the Territories. I must say this is my view. I think we should set up a board to look after the interests of consumers in that part of the world, perhaps a local board which could have regard to local situations. It could take into account the profits made locally by these companies and see that they are providing service of an appropriate standard. I commend the hon. member on his suggestion and regret it is not embodied in the legislation. This is something which should be done in the future, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Buchanan) will consider it in this light.
The stand taken by the New Democratic Party in connection with public power is well known. We believe

January 20, 1971

public power is a good thing, for a variety of reasons. Let us consider the general situation, not confining ourselves to the arrangements made for one particular region of Canada. The economics of public power are better because of the non-profit motive, because of the lower interest rates which can be obtained and because large public corporations are in a better position to undertake long-term financing.
Some of these projects are so huge that they require 33-year or longer financing before they can go into production. I am thinking of some of the hydroelectric plants or atomic power stations we have at the moment. Since a large corporation would have a larger market, it could afford to initiate hydroelectric projects of a size frequently beyond the capacity of the small, individual, private power operators. It is for reasons such as this that the members of this party in general favour publicly-operated power stations.
I understand from my reading of and acquaintanceship with the situation in the Yukon that there are a large number of hydroelectric power sites available just waiting to be developed once an adequate market has been found. It seems to me that here a large public corporation would be able to guarantee a power capacity that small individual corporations might not. In this respect, a market for power may well be developed, since mining operators and business concerns would be sure of a power supply to put their projects into operation. As a result, these concerns might proceed with their ventures where otherwise they might hesitate.
In cases where a mining operation, say, required additional multimillion dollar loans over and above normal capital needs, the assurance of power supply by a public corporation might make all the difference between commencing and not commencing operation. Consequently, I feel there are some definite advantages to having a government-operated power corporation in this part of Canada. In addition, I think that a large public corporation would tend to standardize its supply of parts. Certainly this was the experience in Saskatchewan where we discovered that small individual corporations had a whole variety of differently sized parts. One large corporation would combine volume, parts would be cheaper, and as a result everybody would benefit.
We would favour the government going further than it already has. We feel the bill should have implied a direct undertaking to proceed with public power development in all its phases in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, not simply in what I might call the fringe areas. Too often we feel that the profitable power developments, as is the case with other industries too, are left to the private corporations and the fringe areas, areas in which the others cannot make money, are left to government corporations. It stands to reason that in such circumstances the establishment of a public power corporation does not show up to advantage. The only way to view such a corporation is to look at it from the over-all
Northern Canada Power Commission Act aspects, as one corporation that looks after the power requirements of a particular area.
I should like to talk for a moment about equalization of power rates. I come from a farm situated in a scattered farming area in Saskatchewan. From the point of view of straight economics, I doubt that it would ever be profitable to put a power line through my part of the province. However, I do not believe that the waters of the South Saskatchewan River or the North Saskatchewan River impounded within the Squaw rapids, for example, belong solely to the people of Saskatoon, Prince Albert or other large cities in Saskatchewan where power development makes money. These cities are there to serve farmers such as myself, and I have equal claim to power from the Saskatchewan River and to equality of price as anybody else in Saskatchewan.
Whether power users are assisted by operating or capital grants, or in some other way, it is to the advantage of all that there be one over-all rate. I am not talking about rates only; I include the establishment of power lines to distant areas where it may never be economically feasible to provide power. I remember when parts of Saskatchewan had no power. I personally had trouble with my private power plant and finally with public power moved from a 5-horsepower to a 10-horsepower transformer. I have seen an expanding use of power in the province, and this has had an effect upon businesses and allied ventures in some of the fringe areas. In this regard I take particular issue with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who had much to say about the people in Whitehorse and other cities and hardly said anything about those living in the fringe areas. When he did say anything about them it was to point out they had no power, and I think his criticism is justified there.
From my experience, if power is produced purely from the point of view of straight economics, the fringe areas will have no power supply. Or if they have a supply, the rates will be expensive or they will have trouble with the supply. There will be no connecting grids and as a result the supply will be uncertain. This is why I say we must look at the supply of power in the over-all sense, in the total economic picture of areas of the country as a whole, rather than individual cities. In this respect people living in Whitehorse and other cities, and operators of mines, should not object if some of their money is used to extend power to other areas of the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Why not a reduction of rates?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I come from an area which would never have had power if economics had been the sole consideration. But the waters of the Yukon River are not only for those who live in Whitehorse; they are for the people of the Yukon as a whole. Similarly, mines are not for the benefit of the operators of the mine alone but are, rather, for the benefit of the people as a whole. The people of Whitehorse should help pay for the power needs of others. After all, must the people of the Yukon live in Whitehorse or in mining areas only?

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: Would it not be a fairer application of the principle to say that the kind of equalization to which the hon. member is referring should come out of the common tax dollar? After all, all Canadians are taxed at the same rate. The hon. member is suggesting that an additional burden be placed on the citizens of Whitehorse in the matter of consumer rates for electricity. I suggest that the common tax dollar should be the consideration, and with that principle I would agree.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree completely with the hon. member. I think we in Canada have made some attempt at least to provide equity on the tax dollar basis.
Let us go back to the consideration of power. What we have been referring to is a form of tax, and I agree this will cost the people of Whitehorse more. I am sure the hon. member who represents Whitehorse wants his area of the north developed and hopes that it will one day become a province. That is also my hope. It seems to me that the areas which are developed already and which have some natural advantages should be willing to contribute to areas which have not. If, for example, the people of Whitehorse service the needs of people in adjacent areas, those who live in small or rural communities, they benefit because these people are carrying on mining and trapping. Why should they not contribute something? I have argued this point in respect of Saskatchewan.
I agree that the problems of the Yukon are somewhat different since the population is more scattered and the centres are smaller; it would be more difficult to put in a good system. But I think the principle is the same. The hon. member suggests there are inefficiencies in this Crown corporation, if this is the right term. I will not argue with him in that regard. There should not be any inefficiency.
Having regard to the total picture and the principle, I think the people of large centres, whether they be in Toronto as compared with the rural areas of Ontario, in Regina as compared with the rural areas of Saskatchewan, or in the Yukon, should display a sense of reasonableness. We cannot all live in Toronto, Regina or Whitehorse. Let us accept the fact that there are people on the fringes of these large areas who want power, and that the only way they can get it is through an extension of the services from larger centres. This is a reasonable and rational approach.
From my experience, the small communities have little one horse putt-putts to generate power. Very often they only run them on Mondays so that people can do their washing, and for several hours at night. In the larger towns they have a reasonable source of power but no real commercial supply. Individual farmers have their own electricity plants. I am sure this is the case in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. These areas have this type of power supply and, logically, this will be the

situation for some time. In the future we must look for a better system. We must consider an over-all system to provide power in bulk on an economically sound basis and at a cheap, efficient rate that everybody can afford.
I consider electrical power as a building block in the development of any economy. I have had the opportunity of visiting a number of electrical power-producing plants in Canada. I was at an atomic energy plant in Quebec in October. I visited one in Pickering before Christmas, and I visited the Portage dam in British Columbia. I also visited the Squaw Rapids dam and the South Saskatchewan River dam, not to mention several other steamgenerating plants using coal or natural gas. It seems obvious to me that without power a country will go nowhere, but with a cheap, efficient and secure source of power we will develop business and industry to serve the people well in the outlying areas as well as Canada as a whole.
With specific reference to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, I think a Crown corporation in charge of power should insist that businesses pay a fair price for energy. Businesses should contribute to the well-being of the people in their areas. Perhaps they should contribute to an even greater extent in relation to the power they consume, because of the security of their power needs.
As I indicated earlier, I believe that the Yukon and Northwest Territories will eventually become provinces. I am certain this will be the case in respect of the Yukon. There should be some kind of equalization of costs in respect of power, roads and other development features. This is the logical approach, and I agree with the hon. member for Yukon when he talks about equalization within these two areas. The hon. member may have a point when he refers to the comparative cost of power in the Yukon and in Frobisher Bay. Perhaps there is a logical reason for this difference.
If I understood the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, this equalization is to be conducted on a regional basis. Perhaps he would tell the House whether it is the intention of the government to equate these different costs. Is the cost of power in Frobisher Bay to be at the same rate as power produced at Whitehorse?
I have not visited the Yukon but I have been in the Northwest Territories, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan and northern B.C. I envisage a great future for these areas if we have patience and a willingness to invest our wealth. It seems to me that one of the best things we can do is make certain there are adequate sources of power for people who move in to develop these areas. In this way we can help them avoid additional development costs.
We should, logically, look toward a larger power service and a grid system such as exists in other sections of the country. This may be a long time coming for areas such as the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, but I think we should look for something of this nature in the north. For this reason, we hope the government will extend services to supply power-hopefully, ahead of business-while at the same time encouraging business to take advantage of such an energy supply.
January 20, 1971


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) received a baptism of fire today in presenting this bill regarding the Northern Canada Power Commission. It was suggested by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that because the minister was not in the House to present the bill, the Parliamentary Secretary was like a boy sent on a man's errand. I suggest to the hon. member and other members of this House that the hon. member for London West is a big boy, and big boys can be rougher than little boys.
I should like to refer to the words of the hon. member for Yukon regarding the comparison between the power plant at Watson Lake, which he indicated was fully automated and required three people to run it, and a plant somewhere in the Northwest Territories. He did not identify the plant but suggested that it required 20 people to carry out the same type of operation. I shall not attempt to be an apologist for the Northern Canada Power Commission. However, I think that when this kind of an assertion is made it would be helpful if we knew precisely the community concerned. Basically, what we are concerned with in the Northwest Territories and in other areas of the north is the provision of power.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I will answer questions in due course. We are primarily concerned with the provision of power through the cheapest and best possible system to all users, commercial and residential.
This bill proposes to do a number of things. It proposes to increase the size of the board of the Northern Canada Power Commission, to involve the commissioners and councils of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory in the selection of individuals from the two territories in the policies and planning of the commission, and to establish a form of rate equalization through various regions of the north. I believe it is rather far-fetched to think that rate equalization would take into account the rates in a community or in a city such as Whitehorse and suggest that the rates in Frobisher Bay should be lowered at the expense of the people of Whitehorse, Yellowknife or Pine Point.


Erik Nielsen: You are picking up the losses, now.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The bill is also intended to provide additional financing to allow the commission some latitude in terms of investigation and studies and proceeding in a much more effective and efficient manner than in the past. It might be useful if we reviewed for a moment the development of the electric power systems of the Northwest Territories. At the present time and over the past number of years, three basic agencies have been involved in the provision of power. The private sector has been involved in communities such as Hay River, Yellowknife, Providence and Enterprise.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
The federal government, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and now the territorial government itself, took on the responsibility, with the development of health and school services in the Arctic communities and other isolated areas in the Northwest Territories, to establish small diesel plants for schools, community freezers and nursing stations. These power plants were gradually upgraded to five kilowatts, ten kilowatts and 40 kilowatts. When they reach the magic figure of 100, the Northern Canada Power Commission comes in with the expertise and equipment required.
NCPC, as we like to call it, has been the basic source of supply for communities such as Frobisher Bay, Fort Smith, Inuvik, Fort Simpson and in the past four or five years for smaller communities such as Copper Mine, Baker Lake and Pond Inlet. There is a continuing move in this direction. Having been involved, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in one stage of the development of power plants, I find it rather interesting to recall the frustration the officials of the department faced when they wanted to increase power plants from five kilowatts to ten kilowatts. In addition, they had a generator here and a generator there and were faced with the problem of providing operators. Then the Northern Canada Power Commission took a look at the situation and proposed to do an adequate job for the communities.
The problem, basically, is one of cost of providing power to the person who must pay for it himself. In most of the small communities in the north the government, through one means or another, is able to absorb this cost in its budget. The Northern Canada Power Commission, in the arrangement it has with the territorial government, has set a maximum rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour in respect of any small community. In Inuvik, for example, probably 98 per cent of the power generated and used is used by the government to heat the school, the nursing station, the RCMP station and house, and the housing and offices of the territorial government. However, the missions and the Hudson's Bay Company are required to pay the 12 per cent rate in this community.
People might ask, what does it matter what rate the Hudson's Bay Company must pay? Well, this company, like any other successful enterprise, must make a profit. It operates on the basis of every store showing a profit at the end of the year in these isolated and remote communities. At Fort Resolution, for example, two years ago the cost of power for the store and for the manager's accommodation was in the vicinity of $500 a month. The same situation would apply in respect of places such as Inuvik. The people who buy from such a store would pay for the power through their purchases. Therefore, one problem we face which is very important to the people of both territories is how to provide the best service at the lowest possible cost.
I am concerned that our study of this bill may be 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
2604

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act 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.
I had hoped that as a result of the committee hearings of 1968, the representations made to ministers by people of the north and representations made by the private sector, somehow or other a thorough examination of power development in the north might have been made. I would have liked an independent commission set up to examine the respective roles of private and public power in the north and to clarify the uncertainty, to which the hon. member for Yukon referred, which the private sector faces when it wishes to stay but says that if it is not wanted, it will leave. The private sector says: For heaven's sake, at least tell us whether or not you want us.
I would hope the terms of reference of such a commission would include an examination of the development of a power facility in the smaller communities and responsibility for the power sources. In other words, the question is: Who will develop the major power sources which at the moment remain undeveloped? Such a commission might also look at the areas which perhaps should remain as they are in perpetuity, for purposes other than electric power development. It could examine the relationship of private companies to public companies, the possible establishment of new or alternative sources of energy such as the use of gas in the Mackenzie valley, if and when it is discovered, as well as the value and use of a public utilities commission in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
It might also examine the granting franchises in small, unincorporated communities, without the government moving in and saying to such communities: We are going to do it. It might also determine what is best for those communities, and examine the costs and the efficiency of the Northern Canada Power Commission. Mr. Speaker, when I refer to the efficiency of the commission I want to be very careful, because over the last couple of years I have developed a great respect for the manner in which it operates generally throughout the north.
Rather than have the board comprise a majority of civil service representatives, I would like to think that the chairman could become an independent person and no longer be the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Here, again, I do not reflect on the ability of the present chairman of the commission. I would like to see discussion take place on where the headquarters of the Northern Canada Power Commission should be located, whether it should be here in an ivory tower in Ottawa, or in Yellowknife, Frobisher Bay, Chesterfield Inlet, or Old Crow. I would like these matters to be discussed and examined by an independent commission without having to accept recommendations coming from just one side.
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary committee met with the private sector, we did not come
up with any recommendations about where to proceed from here. Our discussions were virtually of no value to the development of a proper power system throughout the territories.


Erik Nielsen: How about a task force?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I do not care whether it be an independent commission or a task force. You name it. But let us have it set up from outside so that we in Parliament can get a picture of what should happen and where we should go from here. As I said, the Northern Canada Power Commission is a good organization. I believe it can become better and that it is working in that direction. In the past, part of the problem of NCPC was that they tended to hide their achievements under a rock. They do not take credit for many of the things they have accomplished in the north, nor do they seem inclined to want to project a better image. However, this changed somewhat in centennial year when the commission sponsored the Mackenzie canoe race and donated approximately $10,000 for the purpose. Within the last few years the commission has taken an active interest in fostering the employment of local people. For example, in Fort Simpson three out of four people employed by the commission are local residents. That is a move in the right direction.
I express concern about the proposed grid system. Probably my concern is little different from that expressed by the hon. member for Yukon. I hope that one day we will be able to develop our resources in such a way that we will have a grid system that will provide equalized rates throughout the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This would be a very desirable objective. But until that day comes-and it is a long way away-we must be concerned about including in a regional program the private sector of the industry. In Pine Point, Yellowknife, Hay River and Fort Smith, power is primarily supplied by private enterprise. The rates charged normally apply to a community in which 95 per cent of the power used is for government operations. In such a situation we see the problem of the little guy, of the small businessman or of the fur trader who lives in the community, who owns his own house and who must obtain some relief from the exorbitant rates that exist at present.
I believe it is important that in the committee we hear from members of the commission on this subject. I believe that in 1965 a study was made to determine what the cost would be to the taxpayers of Canada to provide an equalized rate-and this not a low rate-for all the residents of the Northwest Territories. It was based on rates of 3, 4 and 5 kilowatts which, by the standards of the south, are still very high. Nothing came of that report. I am not sure what the final results were. However, there was an indication of the effect on a minimum number of people, particularly people in the smaller communities throughout the Arctic and throughout the Mackenzie.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, there are many unanswered questions as a result of the introduction of this bill,

January 20, 1971

which must be discussed in committee. When the minister and his officials appear before the committee it may be possible for him to indicate whether he is prepared to have a task force examine the matters referred to in this debate. In conclusion I wish to make one point that may not have much relevance to the bill under discussion but which must be considered in connection with potential power development. There are many beauty spots in the north where a conflict arises between the developer and the conservationist. I give one example of this. We have already witnessed the fuss that occurred as the result of the declaration by one arm of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of a region on the east side of Great Slave Lake as an area suitable for a national park, an area in regard to which a second arm of the department, the Northern Canada Power Commission, had just completed an expensive study of power development on the Lockhart River. I have visited the South Nahanni, which is one of the areas where such potential conflict may arise. I hope that a decision will be made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, taking into account the interests of all parties concerned, to create a national park in that absolutely magnificent area. It is practically the last wild river area in Canada.
I appeal to the minister and his Parliamentary Secretary to listen to the suggestions that will be made by hon. members during the committee study of this bill.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the comments of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) that this bill does not deal, in the comprehensive terms required, with problems of northern development, particularly with respect to the subject of power in the north. It is for this reason that I enter the discussion at this time.
I think the hon. member for Yukon has offered a solution for the dilemma in which both these hon. gentlemen, in light of their particular concern for northern development, find themselves. It provides the vehicle whereby the subject matter may be referred back to committee of the whole House, and something more adequate to deal with the subject of power at this most critical juncture in the entire program of northern development might be worked out.
As has been pointed out by the spokesmen who took part in the procedural discussion this afternoon, under our former rules we had the opportunity to debate, in a preliminary way, the propositions and proposals of government at the resolution stage. This useful device was automatically available to Parliament. Although we have streamlined parliamentary procedures to the extent that the participation of private members of the House has been considerably downgraded or, in some cases, is no longer possible, I think that in a matter as important as this we might be well advised to adopt the solution that has been constructively proposed by the hon. member for Yukon.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
I am disappointed, as is the hon. member for Yukon, that the minister is not present this afternoon. We are given far too few opportunities to discuss the problems and prospects of northern development. There is a dramatic story to be told in this regard, in light of developments which have taken place in both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories over the past decade. Perhaps the minister's absence from the House this afternoon, when a topic of such priority is being discussed, indicates that he too is not greatly elated by what is contemplated in the legislation before us.
Without doubt, the question of power is fundamental to the entire subject of northern development. The thorough investigation recommended by the hon. member for Northwest Territories is long overdue in this respect. I know, as one who had responsibility for northern development during an important period in the expansion of the department, that we considered power to be of the essence inasmuch as the main potential in northern development is in the area of resources. The development of the natural resources of the north which, as we now know, exist in abundance will draw heavily upon the power potential of the north. In particular, it will draw substantially on hydroelectric power. There are a great many undeveloped sites in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories which have substantial hydroelectric power potential.
The hon. member for Yukon has outlined the gradual evolution, if I may use that term, of the functions of that body now known as the Northern Canada Power Commission. I should like to expand further on that developmental picture. The NCPC has been used in other areas of Canada where the federal government has become involved in power developments specifically designed to assist resource development. I am referring to areas such as Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces. As the hon. member for Yukon pointed out, it is significant to note that the name of the commission when it was first organized in 1948 was the Northwest Territories Power Commission. That is when there was urgent need for public involvement in the supply of power to the isolated areas of the Northwest Territories because private enterprise had not yet moved into this area of northern Canada.
The NWT Power Commission, as it was known in those days, moved into the Yukon Territory in 1950. In 1956 the name was changed to Northern Canada Power Commission. There was a further change, in 1958, in the functions of the NCPC. This occurred when the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act was passed in this House. The NCPC, as I have already intimated, was the federal vehicle used to bring considerable benefits to the province of New Brunswick. I see the former Premier of that province, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming), smiling in approval at my reference to the assistance that was provided in his province at that time. It was also provided in Newfoundland, in connection with the Baie D'Espoir project which now is a reality in Newfoundland and is bringing considerable encouragement to the development program in that area.

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
The interest rate on money provided under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act was one-eighth of one per cent, which I think hon. members will agree was pretty generous on the part of the federal government of the day. A 40-year repayment period was provided for. I am not sure whether the NCPC still carries out this expanded function under the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act. The point I want to make in referring to this development in 1958 is simply that it was obvious that the federal government was using NCPC to assist in power development in areas where private enterprise was not willing to undertake the risk involved, and in the undeveloped and isolated areas of Canada where public initiative was required.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to cover the same territory that was covered by both the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories. As the members most familiar with the current situation, they have adequately covered the ground. As a former minister of this department, I strongly support the amendment that has been put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. As I have said, it is fundamental to the entire developmental pattern that has emerged in the past decade, particularly in the Yukon Territory and to the development, albeit on a smaller scale, of the Northwest Territories. The bill that the government has placed before Parliament will further discourage the movement of private investment into this great, undeveloped, geographic empire that has fallen to the government of Canada. There are 3.5 million square miles in the Northwest Territories alone.
I am sure that all ministers who have assumed responsibility for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will agree that it has been difficult to interest private enterprise in the development of the potential in our northern territories. This is partly due to the rugged nature of the terrain, the difficulties of distance and expanse of the geography and, in some instances, to the approach of the government with respect to the role that private enterprise can play in the developing north.
The present minister made a recent trip to Europe in order to interest investment from private sources in that part of the world. When I was minister, I visited Japan. This was based on the continuing contact that we had with the then Japanese ambassador. I am speaking of the early 1960s. He displayed enthusiastic interest on behalf of his government in the investment opportunities of the Yukon Territory. Since that time projects such as the New Imperial Mines and the Anvil Mine have become operative much more quickly than would have been the case had the investment potential in Japan with regard to natural resources not become available to the Yukon Territory. I could mention other cases where private enterprisers, at great risk to themselves, moved in and developed projects. These are now producing dramatic results in terms of income, as outlined by the hon. member for Yukon.
Figures that the Carr report indicated would not be realized until 1975 have already been achieved. This is because Canada Tungsten, which produces a rare mineral in the space age, created an entire community based on this resource. Clinton Creek, which is close to the Alaska border, is another extremely important development which has been made possible by the interests of private investment in the Yukon Territory. The course the government is now taking under the bill now before the House reverses the encouraging trend that has been under way in the past decade. We have been endeavouring to minimize the natural impediments and difficulties to private investment. We have adopted a positive attitude by providing specific incentives so that private enterprise would be encouraged rather than discouraged.
As I said at the opening of my comments today, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the urgent consideration of the government with respect to the psychological implications of the amendments proposed with respect to the functions of the NCPC. Perhaps at this stage this applies more to the Yukon Territory than to the Northwest territories. In every way possible, the federal presence of Ottawa in the territories should be gradually diminishing. This revolves around the whole question of growing autonomy in the northern territories. In the early 1960s the Yukon Territory was moving ahead dramatically. This was largely on the basis of the assurance that they would be able to control more of their destiny with respect to administrative matters as well as with respect to resource development. The purport of the bill before us reverses this trend. It is bound to have a discouraging and negative effect on the impetus of northern development which has been achieved during the past decade.
The hon. member for Yukon has offered the solution for the dilemma which is obviously causing agonizing second thoughts for the hon. member for Northwest Territories. In his remarks this afternoon, he did everything except publicly repudiate the bill. Hon. members from both sides of the chamber must work together to review the principle of the bill. We normally would have had the opportunity to do this at the resolution stage, under the old rules. We must take an in-depth look at the whole trend of northern development, as recommended by the hon. member for Northwest Territories. We would then have before this House a bill of which the minister could be proud. Instead of ducking his responsibility of piloting the bill, he would be happy to come before the House of Commons. He could use the bill as a further source of information and propaganda-I use that word term in the best sense-in the interest of northern development.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this afternoon with a great deal of interest. I thoroughly enjoyed the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange). They have given the members of this House a much better insight into the problems facing the northern areas of Canada.
It is not my intention to spend a great deal of time debating the various clauses of the bill now before us. I

January 20, 1971

wish to take this opportunity to make some rather general remarks about northern Canada and this bill. The bill which we are discussing deals with what I have always looked upon as two separate entities, the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. The federal government should take another look at its plans for the future development of our nation. If at some time in the future the government feels we should have an additional two or more provinces in the northern part of our nation, we should logically and sensibly proceed to develop the various economic interests and ties of these areas. By this I mean that eventually, I suppose, the Yukon will be a Canadian province in its own right, with power to deal with its resources in the same way as other provinces.
In these circumstances, it is only sensible that we should develop plans for this territory along lines which will eventually suit it as a self-governing province. This applies also to the Territories. If, on the other hand, there is a move by the federal government to incorporate the two regions into one vast province, that is a different matter. As far as I can make out, there is no clearcut plan to govern the way in which these areas are to develop as far as power transmission to them is concerned. I realize there is a degree of self-government in these regions, but I feel there should be far more responsible self-government than there is at present.
Although the measure before us is not the best bill in the world, the act which it proposes to amend has certainly been of service to the areas concerned. I think there are opportunities for vast improvements in some respects, though I disagree greatly with parts of the speech made by the hon. member for Yukon. I believe that public ownership of power, if sensibly handled, can become a tremendous weapon for full economic development in areas such as the north. I was shocked to hear this afternoon that many of the smaller communities have been neglected for more than 20 years by a commission which was in fact set up to look after the interests of those rural areas, if you can call them rural.
When we are dealing with remote areas such as the north, subsidies are certainly in order if there is to be proper development there, even in connection with the supply of power. The hardy citizens who go to these areas are entitled to some of the amenities which we in a warmer climate enjoy.
The bill proposes to increase the membership of the commission by two members. I understand the new members are to be local people who understand local needs. This is an excellent idea and I have no objection to it. But the composition of the commission is another thing. I firmly believe that the deputy minister has no right to be sitting on the commission as chairman. If the commission is to show any measure of independence, it must be divorced from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Unless this is done, the minister and departmental officials will be giving too much political direction concerning the way in which the commission should operate. The government should look into the
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
possibility of appointing a chairman from outside the department.
I note that it is proposed to increase from $50,000 to $250,000 the amount of money the commission can spend on investigations. Again, this is a step forward; the commission cannot do much with $50,000 to investigate the possibilities of sites for power development in the north. I hope that when we talk about investigation of hydro or power sites we shall not fall into the trap into which a number of hydro utilities have fallen throughout Canada. We have experienced this in British Columbia. Frequently hydro sites have been chosen because engineers have said, "This is a good site for the production of power." Tremendous ecological damage has been caused because adequate surveys were never made. There is still no legislation to oblige Crown corporations to carry out surveys to ascertain what ecological and other damage could be done if a dam were built. Consequently, huge hydro dams have been built at a number of sites throughout Canada, resulting in tremendous ecological damage.
I should like to see a safeguard put into the bill before us. A very simple amendment would do the job. It is that Crown corporations would be subject to the terms of the Navigable Waters Act. If this were done, they too would be required to make sure, when applying for permission to build a dam on a particular river, that they had a good case to present to the federal authorities and had taken into account possible damage to the ecology of the area. The way things are today, there could be a repetition of what happened on the Peace River when the Bennett Dam was built. No authorization was needed. The hydro authority was not required to tell the government what they proposed to do. No surveys were made to find out what damage would be done, and now we find that the whole of the Mackenzie Delta is in jeopardy because of a dam which was built before adequate surveys had been made to determine its effect on the ecology of the area.
Another point was raised in connection with rates. Again, I appreciate the objection voiced by the hon. member for Yukon. He looks forward to the Yukon becoming eventually a separate province, and feels that profits made from the sale of power there should not go to subsidize a little plant thousands of miles away in another part of Canada. There is some logic to this, certainly. In the case of an operation such as we have in British Columbia, covering the whole province, everything can be put into a pot and the rural areas can be subsidized. But in this case we find settlements set up all over the north separated by many hundreds of miles, and this amounts to a different proposition. We were not given a very clear explanation of what "regions" means. I think these regional areas might afford the Yukon protection in the matter of price equalization. This might well be the answer; I do not know. However, this matter can be examined during the committee stage.
With regard to setting rates on a regional basis, a point raised by some hon. members in the House, it is for the commission to decide rates as well as regions. I do not

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act think you will get complete uniformity throughout. It might be very difficult to apply rates evenly across the entire area. I have looked at one of these reports and I can see nothing wrong with government subsidization. For example, the government has subsidized some of the coal used in coal-fired plants and this has helped reduce the end cost of the product-in this case, the cost of the electricity produced and supplied to residents. Something of this sort could be done for those living in the remote areas.
However, let me make it clear that I do not think the ^private utility companies are going to be a sort of fairy godmother to people in the north in regard to bringing power to remote areas. I was a member of the provincial House in British Columbia for a number of years. We fought for some time to try and force the private utility companies to put lines through some of the rural sections of the province, but they refused to do so. We carried on the fight before the public utilities commission, before the B.C. legislature and in the press. We held meetings and put all the pressure we could on the private companies. In many cases people had been living for generations without the enjoyment of the amenities of electricity, something they should have had. Public power finally did the job. I think the same pattern will emerge in the north.
For this reason I think the Northern Canada Power Commission could do an immensely good job of assisting such areas to obtain power at an average or moderate cost. I do not think these people should be called upon to pay high prices for electricity. If necessary, I think the government of Canada should not hesitate to give residents living in such areas large subsidies to help keep rates down. I think we owe this to these residents.
I should like to say a few words about power in northern areas. I feel not enough planning has been done in regard to power projects and other economic developments in the north. Generally speaking, to date the north has proved to be a huge treasure house of raw materials. Mining companies have moved into the north and set up operation. Unfortunately, we have witnessed all this raw material being shipped out of the area for processing. It is here that I suggest planning be done. The power commission should sit down with officials from other government departments and discuss steps to be taken to bring about more fabrication, more processing, of the raw materials that are presently being taken out of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. This processing should be done in the north where the raw materials are found.


Erik Nielsen: Such as smelting.


Randolph Harding: Yes, smelting and processes like that. That is what the north needs. Such a development would be based upon huge quantities of power being made available to the smelters, the concentrators and so on. I understand there are some concentrators in the north now, but I am sure other industries would also spring up.

This is the kind of planning that should be provided for in a bill such as this or in some other type of legislation.
We must concern ourselves with what we will do for the people in the north. We talk about the Indians and the Eskimos who also live in the north, but alongside the Indians and Eskimos are a large number of other people who have gone north because they enjoy tough conditions and the type of life there. We must learn to develop the Canadian north economically. To do so we will require huge quantities of power which will have to be subsidized. As I say, we must first plan how we are to develop the north. In this regard, it is time the government laid down some guidelines. For example, the province of Ontario is insisting that a certain amount of processing of raw materials take place before those materials are allowed to leave the province. I see no reason why areas of the north should not enjoy some of the prosperity that comes from this type of economic development, though it is economic development in its very first stages. I urge the minister and his departments take another look at this problem.
I notice in the last report that there has been a considerable increase in electrical power consumption in the north. There has been a 10.1 per cent increase in electric power consumption and a 6.6 per cent increase in consumption of power for heating purposes.


Erik Nielsen: There has been a 100 per cent increase in Whitehorse.


Randolph Harding: The hon. member for Yukon says there has been a 100 per cent increase in Whitehorse. This is an indication that people are using and want more power, and that the population of the north is growing. As I say, the north is one of the few remaining treasure houses of the world. With proper planning we can make certain it is adequately developed.
One last matter in conclusion. I do not think we should always think of power in terms of diesel or hydro generation. There are gasfields in the north and gas is one of the cheapest and best sources of power. Eventually there will be a number of localities in the north where power will be generated by gas turbines-turbines might be used in some areas even now-fed by the natural gas that is found there in abundance.
One hon. member made reference to the oil and gaslines that might eventually come down along the Mackenzie River to Edmonton and be dispersed to other parts of Canada, and possibly even further south. Again, I believe we cannot leave this entirely to free enterprise. The government must make certain that there are proper plans regarding gas and oil distribution. This is another essential factor as far as development in the north is concerned.
There may be someone else who wants to say a few words on this rather interesting bill. In closing, I should
January 20, 1971

like to say I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. Let me congratulate particularly those hon. members who represent northern areas of Canada and who this afternoon gave the members of this House a picture of the north and the developments taking place there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), put a motion before the House. At that time I asked the House for an opportunity to consider it and to look at the authorities. If hon. members agree, I intend to dispose of the motion now and make a brief comment on my reasons. Before doing so it might be useful if I read the main motion and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon. The main motion is the following:
That Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The proposed amendment thereto is as follows:
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 of the recommendation in relation to the bill be referred to a committee of the Whole House".
I have had an opportunity to consider the very helpful arguments on the procedural point posed by hon. members, and to consult some of the authorities. I will very briefly give the two points which I feel make the proposed motion unacceptable to the Chair, on a procedural basis.
The first point relates to relevancy. Hon. members will note that the amendment is that the subject matter of the recommendation be referred to a committee of the whole House rather than the subject matter of the bill itself. I might point out that the recommendation is not before the House in any legal or formal sense. The relevant Standing Order provides that a recommendation is to be attached or annexed to a bill. I believe this is for the convenience of members.
It seems to me that the recommendation is not part of the bill and that we cannot consider it as such. The recommendation, therefore, is not relevant to the provisions of the bill; rather, it is extraneous to the provisions of the bill. Without reading it, I might mention Beauchesne's citation 203(1), which is helpful in this regard.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) put forward a very helpful argument on procedural aspects and the substance of this amendment. If I followed him correctly, he suggested that if the motion were adopted by the house, our procedure would not allow us to follow through after the committee had considered the subject matter of the recommendation. That was a useful argument, but before accepting it the Chair must also determine whether the motion is acceptable on the basis of precedent. I was not able to find any precedent in respect
Northern Canada Power Commission Act of this type of motion. That, in itself, may not be sufficient reason to rule it out of order.
There are precedents which would suggest that the subject matter of a bill, or an amendment providing that the subject matter be referred to a standing or select committee, or an established entity, commission or agency, would be acceptable; but there seems to be no precedent providing for a referral, at this stage of the proceedings, to a committee of the whole House. For those reasons I regret that on procedural grounds I cannot accept this motion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House indicated that the Chair might put the motion I have proposed by way of an amendment, with the consent of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has indicated that where the House is agreeable-and in this regard I must ask for unanimous consent-the amendment to the motion might be put in the way the hon. member has suggested. Without making a ruling on the procedural correctness of this amendment, I should like to ask the House whether there is unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, I think the motion as suggested by the hon. member, might be put to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: The proposed amendment to the motion would then read:
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."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before ruling on the proposed amendment to the main motion I should like to refer to its procedural acceptability. Hon. members will recall that a similar procedure was before the House on January 13 in respect of a motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Although that motion was somewhat extended, it was similar in terms. After considerable argument about its procedural acceptability, there was unanimous consent and the Chair felt the motion could be accepted. The motion was then put along the same line as now suggested in the motion proposed by the hon. member for Yukon.
Before I put the proposed motion, and so we will have this on the record, I should like to draw a distinction between this motion and what seems to be clearly acceptable in respect of this kind of motion. I refer to citation 386(1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. I shall not read the whole citation, but it reads in part as follows:
That the bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.

January 20, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
There is an indication that this was procedurally correct, but there is a fine distinction and I think it is important that we make it. The formal motion which Beauchesne indicates to be correct, and for which there are precedents in this House, differs from the proposed motion of the hon. member for Yukon and the motion of the hon. member for Calgary North. The amendment advanced by the hon. member for Yukon proposes the referral of the subject matter to a task force appointed under the Inquiries Act. That is the distinction I should like to make at this point. It seems that it might be procedurally acceptable to refer the subject matter of a proceedings at this stage to an entity, group or commission which is in existence.
I had reservations last week as to the procedural correctness of referring the subject matter to a task force which was to be subsequently appointed. I have the same reservations in respect of the proposed motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). However, if there is unanimous consent of the House, and if it is the desire of hon. members to follow the precedent established last week, I would, by unanimous consent, be prepared to accept the motion.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, apropos your last remarks, there was unanimous consent of the House to allow the hon. member to amend his motion, but I hope this will not be taken as unanimous agreement in respect of its orderliness or regularity. In addition, since it is obvious the debate will not conclude this evening and the vote on the main motion for referral would have to be taken at a later time, perhaps tomorrow or later in the week, it was our intention to ask Your Honour to call it six o'clock if a ruling were to be given.
That being the case, it would perhaps be in order to request You Honour to consider the regularity of the motion for the reason Your Honour has just pointed out, namely, that there does not appear to be any precedent for referring either the bill or the subject matter, at this stage, to a body which is not yet constituted. Complementary to that problem is the fact that there may not, certainly on a casual reading, be authority under the Inquiries Act to set up a task force. If this is not an argument that stands alone, it is certainly one that tends to support the feeling Your Honour may have concerning the regularity of an attempt to refer something to a body which does not exist, because it may not be possible to bring such a body into existence. I submit that Your Honour's fears are well grounded in respect of the regularity of the motion, and I would ask Your Honour to reserve your ruling on it and to consider the matter further.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might say a few brief words. I am sure we all agree that whatever happens, it should happen tomorrow rather than now, since six o'clock has gone by. However, with reference to Your Honour's
query concerning whether the amendment now before us, like the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) of last week, is in order, in view of the fact that the proposed task force does not exist, may I point out that citation 386 paragraph (2) seems to permit an amendment of this kind which urges the setting up of a select committee to consider the subject matter of a bill.
What I am saying is that there does not seem to be anywhere the kind of requirement that the entity to which the subject matter is to be referred must already exist. It so happens that the Board of Railway Commissioners did exist, but there is also this permission to refer the matter to a select committee that is to be set up.
The whole issue raised by the Chair is in respect of whether the body to which the matter is to be referred must already be in existence. I submit that under citation 386 (2), that requirement does not obtain and that whatever we may decide about the substance of the motion, it would seem to me, having gone this far, we should find it in order. But that, of course, is for Your Honour to do. I support the Parliamentary Secretary in his suggestion that whatever finding is made be made tomorrow.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on the proposed amendment before us and the dilemma the Chair mentioned, of the very thin line involved here and the question of whether or not it might be resolved by unanimous consent. Although the hon. gentleman who just sat down is an acknowledged expert on the rules, I would point out that the significant thing in respect of the amendment of 1934 which referred a matter, I believe, to the Board of Railway Commissioners is that in so doing the statement was made that the amendment was as much a declaration of policy as if it had stated that the question of adjusting the railway rates on grain should be investigated by the board.
I believe this is a very fundamental point. In the reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, the inference was that there was not a deviation in policy. In other words, it was being referred to a type of board which would not in any way indicate any deviation from the basic policy enunciated in the bill. The basic point is covered in the first part of citation 386 rather than the point the hon. gentleman raised when he referred to paragraph 2. I do not think the amendment should be permitted.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before Your Honour calls it six o'clock I have a very brief word to say about this matter. Also, before Your Honour calls it six o'clock perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Jerome) will indicate the business for tomorrow.
In respect of the question to which Your Honour is now giving consideration, cluttered up with the arguments advanced by the other side, in the last few years the words "task force" have been engraved upon the

January 20, 1971

hearts of the people of Canada. This is a government of task forces. The expression "task force" has now been given a specific meaning like the Holy Writ. I think Your Honour might take judicial notice of the fact that this is a government which operates by task forces.
While there might be some merit in the argument raised by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) and the Parliamentary Secretary, I suggest we are a body which from time to time must advance, like the principles of constitutional law, by comparing it with a growing tree. We on this side believe that while the rules are there for the guidance of Your Honour, they must be changed and adapted to the need of a changing society. We are prepared to see Your Honour make some advance in this way and hope you will follow the precedents which have been sanctified by unanimous consent. I think this is a point Your Honour should take into account.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act
Without meaning to prevent other members participating in this interesting debate, I think the Parliamentary Secretary might tell us what we might hope to accomplish tomorrow and Friday.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would refer Your Honour to the several inquiries set up by way of motions in 1963, 1964 and 1965. Such matters were referred to bodies which did not exist at that time.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I will simply say there is no intention to change the order of business from that announced by the House leader earlier this week.
At 6.12 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 21, 1971