1971-03-26

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At the opening of Wednesday's sitting the hon. member for Crowfoot rose on a question of privilege in relation to an all-night sitting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. In the course of his remarks the hon. member suggested that he was prepared to propose a motion in the following words:
That the question of the validity and regularity of the sittings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, which began at 8 p.m. in the afternoon of Tuesday, the 23rd of March, 1971, and continued thereafter until 7.30 a.m. o'clock in the forenoon of the 24th of March, 1971, and of the proceedings at such sittings be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
At the opening of his comments the hon. member asserted that when the Standing Committee on Agriculture was called at 8 p.m. "there was a firm intention by the government members on that committee to sit until the committee was exhausted." It might be that the hon. gentleman in the main rests his submission on that assertion, but I suggest to him that prolonged sittings of the House and of committees are not unknown in our parliamentary history.
It seems to me that the length of the sitting is a matter for determination by a majority of the members then present when we are dealing with a committee meeting. The situation is, of course, different in the House where the Standing Orders provide for specific hours of sitting and these cannot be extended or changed except under the Standing Orders or by unanimous consent. The hon. member recognizes that a meeting of a committee may be terminated at any time by the adoption of a motion to adjourn.
The hon. member then touched upon the responsibility of the Chair in relation to the hours of attendance of the respective officers and clerks of the House, and I may say that it is a responsibility of which the Chair is very conscious. It must be said, however, that prolonged hours are an ever-present and a built-in condition of service in the House. As hon. members know, the hours of the House may be, and are, altered at a moment's notice under the provisions of Standing Order 6(5)(a). A different procedure is used for such a purpose in a standing committee, but the principle remains the same.
The hon. gentleman also stated that, prior to eight o'clock the clerks employed in the Standing Committee on Agriculture were all notified that there was to be an
all-night sitting and, having been duly notified, arranged among themselves to work in two shifts, some to work up to midnight and others to carry on until the committee adjourned. That may be so, but again I suggest that notwithstanding any notification which may have been given to the committee staff, a majority of the members present in a committee at any given time are in a position to decide when the committee shall terminate its sittings.
The hon. member then suggested that a committee should be regularly adjourned from day to day and went on to say that the committee has not been regularly adjourned for a long time. It seems to me that, because of the informality in most cases in committees, the pure form of adjournment may not be observed in every case, but again I suggest that no committee meeting can be adjourned unless a consensus, or the general consent of a majority of the members then present, is obtained.
There remains the reference of the hon. member to proper decorum in the committee and, in specific terms, the hon. member's observation that food was sent in to the committee room while the proceedings were under way. I am in full agreement with the hon. member that standards of decorum should be observed in committees just as they are in the House. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that committee proceedings are by their very nature conducted in a much less formal fashion. For example, smoking is allowed in committees. I suspect that on hot days there have been occasions when hon. members have removed their coats, and I suspect also that coffee and other liquids are consumed from time to time. I feel it is essential that there should be standards, but again I observe that proceedings in committees are more relaxed in nature and that the same requirements which we feel must be observed in the chamber are not so strictly enforced when hon. members sit as committees of the House of Commons. Having said all this, I would add that the observations of the hon. member are generally applicable to proceedings in all committees.
The one grievance which stands out is that relating to the length of the sitting in question. I have to reiterate in this regard that, although it may be most unusual, this in itself does not affect the regularity of the proceedings of the committee. The committee was authorized by the Standing Orders to make a decision to continue in session; this decision could be made and obviously was made by a majority of members of the committee.
I might add that I have often expressed serious reservations about the regularity or advisability of having the proceedings of one committee investigated by another standing committee of the House, be it the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I have serious doubts as to the effectiveness of such a procedure.
4640

March 26, 1971
Tribute to Members
I want to assure the House that I have not treated this matter lightly and that I have given serious consideration to all aspects of the hon. member's submissions. My conclusion is that if the complaints raised by the hon. member are to be remedied, this should be effected by amendments to our Standing Orders as they relate to committee proceedings rather than by a reference to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. For these reasons, I do not think that I am at liberty to put the hon. member's motion to the House.



THIRTY-FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF CONTINUOUS SERVICE BY MEMBERS FOR PRINCE ALBERT AND OTTAWA CENTRE

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might have the indulgence of the House for a moment to call attention to a happier occasion than the one to which Your Honour has just referred. I believe today is the thirty-first anniversary of the entry into the House of two of our most distinguished members, my right hon. friend from Prince Albert and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: The contribution of these hon. members to the public life of Canada is remarkable not only for its quality, one having served as prime minister and the other as minister in numerous portfolios, but also for the length of their survival in the very perilous occupation of Member of Parliament. They have longer continuous service than any other member of the House at the present time, and I thought it would be inappropriate for this anniversary to pass unmarked.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the two official languages-Mr. Clermont.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.-Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski) (on behalf of chairman).

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hymmen.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I seek leave to move a motion concerning the provision of transportation facilities between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, a matter in the jurisdiction and responsibility of the government and Parliament of Canada. Seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), I move:
That this House refer to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the question of the removal of the newest and largest icebreaking ferry from the Borden-Tormentine service and the consequent reduction of the service to one icebreaker.
That the committee be asked also to study the general question of transportation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland and the degree to which the Dominion of Canada is carrying out its confederation commitment to Prince Edward Island to provide continuous and efficient communication with the rest of the dominion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hillsborough. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and I regret to advise the hon. member that the motion, under the terms of Standing Order 43, cannot be put at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but I shall direct it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the oil route is still a great national issue, has the Canadian government suggested a specific date for talks with the United States government and has the United States government refused to meet for formal talks on the TAPS route?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: To the best of my knowledge we have sug-

March 26, 1971

gested no specific date, nor has any refusal been made, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated, as has the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that there is still much to be done on the Canadian side by way of research into the ecological and sociological as well as the economic problems before we can have a clear, final and definitive Canadian position.


Louis-Roland Comeau: In view of the time factor and the fact that the Canadian people as a whole, including the member for Esquimalt-Saanich, have expressed their position, will the government make its formal position known very shortly?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the government made its first position known last August when we issued guidelines based on the scientific and technological information available after some two years of work. We will refine and define more explicitly the government's position as the science, technology and research become available.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSITION FOLLOWING DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPANY PRESIDENTS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Following the meeting with the oil company executives last Wednesday pertaining to this matter, can the minister indicate whether or not there is still room for a good deal of optimism that the pipeline will come down the Mackenzie Valley route?


John James Greene: Just a few moments ago I think most of us were under the impression that the first line would definitely be the Valdez line and thence by tanker down the coast. At the present time, and this was confirmed by our meeting the other day, because of the delay in respect of that line I think there is certainly a much better chance that the first choice for a line would be the Mackenzie Valley line if this should be acceptable to Canada, and certainly every chance that a gas line, if this should be acceptable to Canada, will in the not too distant future be built to transport gas.



TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-POSSIBLE CANADIAN RESTRICTIONS ON TANKER TRANSPORT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I understood from the Minister's statement the other day that in the discussions he and his colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had with the representatives of the group of United States companies operating in Alaska the Valdez route now looked much more likely than the route through mid-Canada. Were the representatives of the oil companies made clearly aware of any restrictive measures the Canadian government would impose should they attempt to bring oil by tanker from Valdez to the United States down the coast of British Columbia?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can put track
Inquiries of the Ministry
odds on the likelihood of one route versus the other. Certainly the companies had very clearly made a decision, which was a very public decision, I think, as evidenced by the fact that pipe is piled up on the Valdez route, to go that way. The delay by reason of United States decision and United States department has certainly made the Mackenzie Valley line worth looking at by them. With regard to indicating what we would do if they should go via Valdez and then by tanker, provided they keep beyond the 12-mile limit in transporting the oil I do not know of anything we can legally do under international law.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that government members turned down our proposal for a 100-mile pollution control zone on the Pacific coast, has the Canadian government any proposals at all that would protect the coastline of British Columbia in the event the United States should decide to ship oil from Valdez down the Pacific coast?


John James Greene: I do not think Canada unilaterally can change international law, much as we would like to. I feel sure, in the event there is a decision that the ships will go in this direction, that the Department of Transport and other affected departments undoubtedly would have contingency plans to try to meet the problems in respect of any accident.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he drew to the attention of the representatives of the United States oil companies the fact that this Parliament has already unilaterally claimed the power to control ships carrying pollutants in a 100-mile area in the Arctic and if he made it clear that this Parliament could, if it so desired, exercise the same power in respect of the Pacific coast?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think those men were very conscious of the fact of our Arctic decision in which the Prime Minister, when he announced it, very clearly enunciated the principles under international law whereby this is a valid decision. In respect of whether those principles would apply, as my hon. friend suggests, to Pacific transportation, I think there may be some doubt in international law.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister yesterday told us that members of his staff censor the utterings of certain of his ministers, will he in the case of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources either change censors or look at what he says himself so we will understand what is going on?



POSSIBLE PIPELINE FROM PUGET SOUND AREA TO CALIFORNIA-DISCUSSION WITH COMPANY PRESIDENTS

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In the discussions with the representatives of the oil companies and in the consideration of a possible routing of Alaskan oil through British Columbia to the Puget Sound area, was there

March 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
any discussion whether, in the event that took place, oil would be transported from there to the California area by pipeline rather than by tanker route from the Puget Sound area to California? I ask this question in light of some of the studies that have been made public by the Department of the Interior of the United States about the ecological dangers.


John James Greene: I do not think that that specific topic was a subject matter in our discussions.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that individual indebtedness is on the increase and that, according to the most recent figures of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, it totals $11.5 billion, and considering also that insidious and dishonest means are used to bring people to buy on credit, does the Prime Minister or the government intend to take concrete steps, considering the size of the amounts involved, to give greater protection to Canadians who are high-pressured in this way?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question which I shall forward to the minister concerned.



TRANSPORT


John Angus MacLean: I should like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister. What action is the government taking to restore the icebreaking and rail carrying capacity of the Borden-Tormentine ferry service?


Mr. Gerard Duquef (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I should like to take notice of this question and bring back an answer early next week.


John Angus MacLean: I should also like to know what reply the Minister of Transport has given to the suggestion of the Prince Edward Island government that the John Hamilton Gray, which was built to replace the original ferry, the Prince Edward Island, should be retained on the Borden-Tormentine service and the other older ferry, the Abegweit, lent to the Newfoundland service. Perhaps the minister could also table the letter which
he sent to the government of that province and which I understand was tabled in the legislature there.


Gérard Duquet: I will refer this question to the minister, but I think I can say that the negotiations with regard to the ferry service are proceeding very well and there should be very good news within the next two days.



SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF RULES AFFECTING OPERATION OF COMMITTEES

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. I shall wait until the conversation between him and the Prime Minister is over. I did not want to intrude on that conversation.
Having regard to the decision rendered today by His Honour the Speaker, with which I am not in disagreement I wish to ask the House leader whether, under the circumstances disclosed by the hon. member for Crowfoot, he does not agree that unless changes are made in the rules respecting committees a squalid caricature of Parliament will be the result and the disrepute of Parliament will be in further evidence across the country? Would he be willing to discuss with the party house leaders the convening of the rules committee in order to meet such situations as disclosed by the hon. member for Crowfoot, which can only have the effect, if it remains unchanged, of making members of the opposition serfs of the government?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will make a deal with the right hon. gentleman. If he will attempt to change the attitude of the hon. member for Crowfoot I will attempt to change the Standing Orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Crowfoot is absent, that statement was scarcely what I would have expected from a good parliamentarian.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. May I say that I do not think the comment by the government House leader should be applied to any member of that committee. Will immediate consideration be given by the government House leader and other house leaders to doing something about the situation that has developed in the committee whereby the majority makes the decisions as they go along, which I think is not parliamentary-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: -and not advantageous to the work of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 26, 1971


William Arnold Peters: Possession of the ball seems to be the criterion, but it seems to me that all members on that committee are equal and that the rules should not be changed in the middle of its work. I would hope that consideration will be given to this question by the house leaders very shortly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned about the situation that has prevailed in that committee for some time. The bill, and it is an important one, has been before the committee and the House for more than a year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that more than 140 meetings of the standing committee have been held, about 300 witnesses have been heard, and more than 3,000 printed pages of evidence have been taken. If we are interested in enhancing the reputation of Parliament it seems to me we ought to do something about a situation that has been caused by the attitude of one or two members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the government House leader if he considers committee by exhaustion to be a solution to this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battle River has a supplementary and after that I suggest that we move on to another subject. It seems to me we are spending most of our question period on two or three subjects, and we will soon be running short of time.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader if it has not come to his mind, and to the minds of other members of the government, that possibly the legislation which the agricultural committee is studying is the reason for all the trouble, that basically it is at fault and should be withdrawn?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I may make one comment, and I shall attempt to be brief, I do not believe that exhaustion or the process of exhaustion is an ideal solution to the deliberations of the House or of a committee, but I believe that hon. members will agree that when one extreme position is taken in the House it inevitably leads to another, and that is the situation that we have in the committee. I would say that after a year of intensive debate and discussion the committee and the House should be allowed to take a decision by a majority even though a minority is opposed to the bill. That is the principle upon which this Parliament is based, on the opportunity of the majority to make a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR RELATIONS



LAKEHEAD GRAIN HANDLERS DISPUTE-INQUIRY AS TO SETTLEMENT

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Labour or his parliamentary secretary. In view of the lengthy and worrisome negotiations between the management and the workers in the grain handlers union at the Lakehead, can any report be made on that dispute, has a settlement been reached and, if so, what are the terms of the settlement?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, this is not the minister's roster day. However, I would be pleased to suggest that the question be redirected to the government House leader who may wish to answer on behalf of the minister today.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader if he can report whether any settlement has been reached in the negotiations between management and the employees who are members of the grain handlers union at the Lakehead and whether the report of the conciliation board has been made public and agreed to by both sides?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am wondering about the direction of the question. As hon. members know, a question can be directed to a minister only to the extent that he has responsibility for the administration of a department. However, it may be that the President of the Privy Council is the acting minister today and in that capacity might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot locate the note that I brought into the House but I can tell the hon. member that a settlement has been reached in this important dispute involving about 1,600 handlers at the Lakehead. Settlement has been reached at the conciliation stage, and I believe the House would want me to congratulate all those involved on reaching a sollution at that stage of the dispute.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the government House leader in that the original question was relayed to him because the Minister of Labour was not on the roster today. It is obvious from the most recent release concerning the roster system that the President of the Privy Council, who is the government House leader, is also not supposed to be here today. Is this the first break in the roster system that has been introduced and which is destroying Parliament?



VANCOUVER TRAINMEN'S WORK SLOWDOWN-ACTION TO SETTLE DISPUTE AND ASSURE GRAIN MOVEMENT

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the government House leader or the Prime Minister. In view of the urgent necessity of moving grain to export positions, can we have an early

March 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
report from the Minister of Labour on the serious wildcat strikes and slowdowns that have been developing on both CP and CN rail lines? Is the Minister of Labour taking immediate action to intervene, to mediate and to achieve a contract settlement between the labour unions and the railroads?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to direct the question and the request for a report to the attention of the Minister of Labour so that he may give the necessary information. Based on the previous performance of the Minister of Labour I can assure the hon. member that every possible step will be taken in this situation.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he received representations from the various hog producers associations in western Canada requesting exclusion from the provisions of Bill C-176, and can he indicate the nature of his reply?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have no notice that I have received such correspondence but I will look into the matter.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport but in his absence possibly I may direct it to his parliamentary secretary. As there has been growing concern among Atlantic shippers, most recently expressed by the Maritime Co-Op Services in a letter to the minister, that subsidies under the Maritime Freight Rates Act are being phased out without any announcement of other special assistance, as promised by the government, will the parliamentary secretary advise what action is being taken on the recommendation of the federal-provincial committee that the government immediately draft regulations to provide such special assistance?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, officers of the department are looking into that matter very closely and preparing a prompt answer for the minister. That is all I can say at the moment.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Would the parliamentary secretary indicate when we may expect special legislation in the House?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, probably it will be soon, but I would rather the minister answered that question.


Charles Humbert Thomas: The report is two years old, Mr. Speaker.



STUDIES OF POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF PIPELINES ON NORTHERN ECOLOGY

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Are any ecological studies under way in the minister's department or any other department to determine the possible effects of oil pipelines on the ecology of the north?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, as I think I indicated in the debate on this subject matter the other day, comprehensive surveys have been under way for more than two years, not only by the department, but by the National Energy Board, universities and the private sector, which cover all aspects of research required. I think the hon. member for Athabasca asked me specifically about the ecology, and I do not think I was able to answer him at that time. But certainly ecological studies are among those being very actively pursued.


Randolph Harding: Where are these ecological projects being carried out and who is conducting them?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this is a very lengthy question to answer on orders of the day. They are being carried out in many areas and by many entities of both the private and public sectors. I can try to give the hon. member a more comprehensive reply, possibly in a debate or on estimates when they are considered.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, both of whom are on the roster to be present today and both of whom are absent. Perhaps I can get around the dilemma by addressing the question to the Acting Minister of Transport or the parliamentary secretary. In view of the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs passing the responsibility for protecting the interests of Canadian consumers who were overcharged on international air fares to the Minister of Transport, will the Minister of Transport make a definite statement on this matter as soon as possible?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that whatever has been said on this matter is not quite right.
[Mr. Gleav<* 1
March 26, 1971

The United States government shall refund to the airlines without interest all royalties paid under the agreements if the United States terminates the program to develop the supersonic aircraft prior to United States state-type certifications.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, that is not quite an answer to the question I asked.


An hon. Member:: It is the wrong answer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My question is: Since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has passed the responsibility of protecting Canadian consumers against being overcharged on international air fares to the Minister of Transport, will the Minister of Transport make a definite statement on this matter as soon as possible?



FINANCE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence I shall address it to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the application of government policy.
Since the budget presented yesterday in the National Assembly of Quebec forecast a deficit of $466 million, and since the Quebec Minister of Finance has laid the blame for it on the federal government, because of its tax sharing policy, could the Prime Minister say whether the government will review tax sharing agreements when the next budget is brought down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the words quoted by the hon. member are accurate, but, nevertheless, he should know that the tax sharing system now prevailing is due to expire next year and that, in the course of this year, there will be discussions between the federal and provincial governments to see under what form, if any, the sharing will be renewed.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. In order to elucidate the Prime Minister's answer, does the federal government intend to review during the current fiscal year the tax sharing arrangements between the federal and provincial governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that an increasing number of agreements with the provinces have been existing under one form or another since 1942 and it is normal to review the formula every five years.
It is for that purpose that discussions will effectively be held with all the provinces during the year, including Quebec.
Inquiries of the Ministry



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the new regulations he has promulgated regarding the catching of Atlantic salmon, have any new negotiations taken place or are any new initiatives contemplated with respect to the overexploitation of this species by Denmark, which in fact poses the most serious threat to the survival of the species?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I expect to have discussions with the Danish authorities in late May.



ATLANTIC SALMON-INCREASE IN NUMBER OF RIVER GUARDIANS AND LENGTH OF SERVICE

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise if agreement has been reached by the government to provide funds for increased numbers of river guardians and to lengthen the time of service of these guardians, as proposed by conservation officials, in order to better protect our rivers?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, more money has been made available. One of our problems, however, is that these gentlemen enjoy a higher rate of pay and shorter work week and we are not getting as many man-hours out of the same expenditure of dollars as before. We are doing our best to expand the service, but it is costing a great deal more money.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is some time since I directed a question to him concerning the United States-Canada car pact. Since parity in wages has been brought about between Canada and the United States in this industry and since the Canadian dollar is practically at a par with the U.S. dollar, can he give the House any reason why Canadian citizens should not be able to buy made in Canada cars for the same price that prevails in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have doubts about the form of the question. It seems to me that the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a rather general statement. If the minister can find it within himself to give a brief and concise answer to the hon. member's question, perhaps he should be allowed to do so.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question well, I think I can. This subject is one that has been

March 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
debated from the beginning, from 1965, and involves what is referred to as the manufacturer's privilege in importing and exporting. To determine what would happen if this privilege were to disappear, I suggest that my hon. friend check with the manufacturers and the labour unions concerned before coming to a conclusion himself on this matter; mine is that the privilege should not be eliminated at this time.



PULP-REPORTED FEAR ON PART OF COMPANY OFFICERS ABOUT GOING TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. My question is in connection with a report that in the past 18 months Canadian businessmen have been afraid to go to the United States for fear of being brought before a United States grand jury. These people are in the Canadian pulp industry and are acting in accordance with Canadian laws regarding exports. Has the minister any information on this subject? If he has information showing that this is actually occurring in the United States, what action does he intend to take?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I do not have any information, but I will look into the matter and report either privately or in the House next week.



CATALINA EXPLORATION COMPANY-ACTION RESPECTING OPERATION OF FOREIGN VESSELS ENGAGED IN SEISMIC WORK WITHIN THREE-MILE LIMIT

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. It has to do with the Catalina Exploration Company. Yesterday, as the minister and other members of cabinet are perhaps aware, that company met its creditors as a direct result of the government's failure to enforce certain laws and measures on our statute books. Can the minister indicate what steps he has taken with respect to the incursion into Canadian waters inside the three-mile limit by foreign registered vessels for the purpose of undertaking seismic work while Canadian vessels equipped and ready to do this type of work remain idle? What steps is the government taking with respect to extracting penalties or protecting Canadian enterprise?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question, but I can inform him that the present law provides that ships coming temporarily within the three-mile limit must pay full duty and tax due, unless it is established on the advice of the Canadian Transport Commission that for the purpose in question ships were not available, in which case there is a possibility of a partial remission of the duty and taxes involved. I have instructed officials of the department to ensure that the provisions of the law in this regard are being followed in so far as the law comes under the jurisdiction of the customs and excise division.


J. Michael Forrestall: Am I to understand from the minister's reply that he does not intend to take any action with regard to the two vessels which did work within our three-mile limit while a Canadian owned and crewed vessel lay at the dockside at Halifax, which caused bankruptcy and the loss of 200 or 300 jobs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am having the two cases referred to by the hon. member looked into. Such action will be taken that seems appropriate after a report has been made to me on this matter.



FINANCE


Cliff Downey: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the expression of opinion within the last few days by officials of a western Canada oil producer that they may be laying off up to 40 per cent of the staff of their western Canada explorations division, can the minister provide some assurance that the forthcoming budgetary and tax changes will not make this step a matter of immediate necessity for these resource companies?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The hon. member might like to direct his question on a day when the Department of Finance is answering questions in the House.



REPORTED DISCOVERY BY PANARCTIC ON KING CHRISTIAN ISLAND

Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the rumour that is circulating to the effect that the Panarctic Oil Company has discovered oil on King Christian Island, is the minister in a position to confirm or deny this rumour?


John James Greene: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue. When is the minister going to table the long-awaited report on foreign ownership? If he is not going to do so immediately, what is the cause for the delay?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that the

March 26, 1971

work in question in this important area of policy was being done within the government for use of the cabinet. I think what this House will be looking forward to is the making of a statement by the government on its decisions in this regard. However, I can assure the House that this matter continues to be one of high priority for the government.


John Gilbert: Are we going to be totally Americanized before the report is tabled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: In the absence of the Minister of National Defence, perhaps the acting minister can at least take my question as notice. Is it a fact, as alleged, that honorary life membership in RCAF messes, which was granted to RCAF officers on their retirement from the service, are no longer honoured by Canadian Armed Forces messes, although they are honoured by messes of the Royal Air Force, United States Air Force and Royal Australian Air Force? Will the minister take this question as notice, look into this matter and assure the House that these honorary memberships which were given to retiring officers as a commitment by the chief of the air staff will not be downgraded in any way?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Presideni of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to bring the representations of the hon. member to the attention of the Minister of National Defence.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: I would like to ask the
Prime Minister whether the federal government has invited the president of Yugoslavia to come to Canada on an official visit later this year and, if so, whether any reply has been received?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I know of no such invitation having been issued. I believe the government has no knowledge of President Tito's intention of travelling to North America. Until such intention is known, there will be no question of an invitation.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Government Organization Act, 1970 Resources. In view of the possible building of an uranium enrichment plant in Canada, is the minister inviting representations from all companies or provinces which have the potential to build such a plant?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think such an invitation would be premature, although we have heard from more than one province, inasmuch as the technology is not yet available to Canada for uranium enrichment.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: In view of the problems we have had before in building heavy water or atomic energy plants, will the minister assure the House that any such plant will have the supervision of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?


John James Greene: I am not able to do that since there is no clear policy which in turn is because of the fact there is no immediate potential for enrichment. I can assure the hon. member that the adequate government agency, be it AECL or Eldorado Nuclear Limited, would have a very important role of surveillance.



RESEARCH ON PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION IN HIGH ARCTIC

Paul Yewchuk: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the intensive exploratory activity in the high Arctic islands and the suggestion of the hon. member for Vegreville, can the minister indicate whether specific studies or research are being done with regard to pipeline construction from the high Arctic in view of the fact there are special circumstances there, such as ice floes, which do not exist with regard to the Mackenzie valley pipeline?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the question as notice. I have been so preoccupied with the Mackenzie valley route that I am not current with respect to research on pipelines from the high Arctic. If the hon. member will permit, I will take the question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 17, consideration in committee of Bill C- 207, respecting the
4648
[Stage Direction]
March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Wednesday, February 17, clause 2 of the bill with the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East was under consideration. Shall the amendment carry?


John Angus MacLean: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe there is agreement that Part I of the bill be stood at this point and that we go on to consider Part II.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think there has been agreement that Part I will be stood. It is hoped that we will proceed to Part II, Energy, Mines, Resources and Technical Surveys. These are consequential amendments. Then, subsequently, we would pass over part III, which has been approved, pass over, or let stand, part IV, let stand part V, deal with part VI and following that, with part VII, Public Service Superannuation. It is thought that in this way we shall be able to make more rapid progress than we have done up to now.


John Angus MacLean: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board represents an agreement which has been reached. I think you will find the committee ready to proceed with clause eight.


Russell Clayton Honey: I shall not repeat the agreement. It has been stated for the record by the President of the Treasury Board. Is this course agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: Then, the committee will proceed to the consideration of clause eight.
On clause 8-Energy, Mines and Resources


Paul Yewchuk: March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 not challenged as an economic method of transporting oil. However, some of the reasons for re-evaluation of the TAPS system include a suggestion by a study that two to four tanker collisions could occur in this area within the next ten years. The extent of the damage which could be done by even one collision is such that could turn the entire west coast area into a dead sea.
Ecological harm to the Alaskan countryside caused by melting permafrost is a problem similar to that faced by the Mackenzie Valley route. The frequency of earthquakes in Alaska brings up the possibility of breakages in the pipeline which could result in extensive spills and pollution. Earthquake activity is such that it may prohibit construction of port facilities at Valdez. The alternative, which I have already briefly discussed, is the Mackenzie Valley pipeline which is considered to be both ecologically safer and probably as economic or even more economic than the TAPS system.
Because of the controversy surrounding the Mackenzie route, the government has laid down a few guidelines: the pipeline should stay in a specific corridor; it should be a common carrier; allowance should be made for participation by Canadians in engineering, construction and finance; the northern ecology must be preserved and natives should be employed during construction. I think there should be one other guide-line-provision should be made for Canadians to invest in the pipeline, by way of buying shares.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, a consideration of the TAPS tanker project and the apparent effects of this system suggests that Canada should seriously oppose it on the grounds that severe ecological harm could result on the west coast as a result of the collision of supertankers bringing oil from Valdez through Puget Sound to Washington. A recent meeting with American oil executives suggest that Canada is probably too late with its objections.
We are also aware, given the increasing consumption annually, that the United States will need Prudhoe Bay oil in the foreseeable future. If agreement could be made with the Americans, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline could go ahead but there are several other considerations that must also be taken into account. How useful will this route be as a common carrier, in view of the problems that are likely to be encountered in building additional pipelines from Inuvik to Prudhoe Bay and from the Arctic Islands to Inuvik if oil is found higher up in the Arctic?
To my knowledge no research is being done with regard to the transportation of oil from the high Arctic to the northern tip of the Mackenzie Valley route. There are a host of new problems. Where will the pipeline go, over the ice or on the bottom of the sea? What are the dangers to the pipeline in this area? How great is the pollution threat with this type of pipeline? A proposal to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Inuvik, a distance of about 600 miles, could very well meet with similar objections from conservationists as has the Valdez line.
That particular piece of pipeline could be a great threat to our ecology as well, since Inuvik is in the same earthquake zone as Valdez.
What information do we have as to how to deal with a ruptured pipeline in that particular area and what is our knowledge of mopping up procedures under Arctic conditions should such a rupture and such pollution occur? It is virtually nil. Other considerations that we must look at from the non-ecological point of view are the possible expansion of existing facilities from Edmonton to Chicago to meet the anticipated increased oil flow through these facilities. If Alaska oil goes to Chicago via the Mackenzie pipeline, what guarantee is there that the oil will not infringe upon existing markets for western Canadian oil in the U.S. midwest?
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that decisions made now pertaining to the transport of energy from the north will have far reaching effects in the future. Canada must not be panicked into development which is not based on thorough and complete research in the field of Arctic ecology, pollution and pollution prevention. At the same time, I want to say I disagree with the government in its stance concerning who should benefit the most from development in the north. I do not feel Canadians are so greedy as to consider that developments in the north should not be primarily for the benefit of native northerners directly. The greatest benefit to all Canadians in general, however, still remains in the area of prevention of the destruction of the environment of the north.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, we are now dealing with Part II of Bill C-207, which deals with Energy, Mines, Resources and Technical Surveys and which adds to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources additional powers, including, first, energy development from water and, secondly, responsibility for non-renewable resources. It seems to me when we discuss these new powers which are being given to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and his department, it is encumbent on the minister to make a statement to the House concerning what the government's policy is in respect of energy resources. I think we should remember we are dealing with non-renewable resources. We are dealing with such things as uranium, oil, gas and certain ores. Such resources are not unlimited. These are resources which, once they have been dissipated, will no longer be available to the people of Canada. We should like to have a statement from the minister setting forth the government's policy with regard to how these resources will be husbanded, on what basis they will be expended and what provision is being made for their long-term use.
What we should remember is, that in this generation we are merely the trustees of these resources, and that we have the responsibility to see they are not dissipated. I think it is our duty to make sure Canada does not become a mere hinterland supplying energy resources to the more technically advanced nations which need our energy resources but which, if they are allowed to com-

March 26, 1971

pletely dissipate them, will leave this country a veritable wilderness. The problem we face in this regard, of course, is the whole attitude of the government in respect of making policy statements. The government is always preparing white papers. No one objects to white papers; as a matter of fact there is a good deal to be said for the preparation of policy statements with regard to various departments. But, in the main, these white papers have been so long in preparation that events pass them by. The government does not seem to be aware of the fact that time will not stand still while several years are spent in the preparation of a policy position.
I read in one report that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is preparing a white paper and I read in another report that his department is preparing two white papers, one on energy resources and the other on minerals. Possibly the minister could tell us what it is that is actually being prepared. I submit to the minister that we have been waiting now nearly three years for a white paper, and the difficulty about waiting so long is that events occur in respect of which the government has no position and problems arise for which the government has no solution. Consequently, we get a series of ad hoc arrangements and temporary policies which are contradictory, non-productive and in some cases counterproductive. What I am hoping today is that in the course of our discussion of Bill C-207 we will get a statement from the minister concerning the energy policies of this government I shall touch briefly on this because I wish to ask some questions in the hope that later we will receive some answers from the minister.
First of all, I raise the question of what the government policy is in respect of uranium. Last May the government took a decision in respect of Denison Mines in order to prevent that company passing into the hands of a foreign company. When the government did this the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made clear that the purpose was to prevent Canadian ownership of the uranium industry dropping below the 40 per cent which then obtained. Since that time, however, the regulations issued by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources excluded companies which were already engaged in exploration work. The result is that a discovery in Saskatchewan by the Gulf Mineral Resources Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gulf Oil Corporation of Pittsburgh, will not be covered by the policy laid down in May of 1970. I should like to know if Gulf Mineral Resources, a foreign-owned corporation, is to be allowed to share in the development of the uranium industry, how much this will reduce the percentage of the uranium industry which will be Canadian owned and how many more companies which were engaged in exploration work in May 1970 will be allowed to enter into production. I am wondering whether this means that bit by bit the Canadian control of the uranium industry will continue to decline. We should know that. Then, I should like to know whether the government has any cutoff point or any policy for retrieving control of some of these uranium operations which are in the hands of foreign corporations.
Government Organization Act, 1970
The second matter on which I hope the minister will make some statement is in respect of the production, sale and export of natural gas. Last fall, because members of this party took very strenuous exception to the government's decision to approve the recommendation of the National Energy Board of Canada in respect of the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas to the United States, we had a debate in this House. We were assured at that time that this was surplus to our needs. We were assured by the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company, whose officials appeared before the National Energy Board, that there would be no difficulty about meeting the needs of Canadian gas consumers in eastern Canada and for that reason the government should allow the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas over the next 20 years. Our worst fears are being realized. Just recently the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Company officials have appeared before the National Energy Board and have said they are not going to be able to meet all the demands of their eastern customers. They have notified some of their eastern customers that they should not take on any additional commitments and that they should not enlarge their areas of operation because they will not be able to meet the increased demand. Mr. V. L. Horty, the president of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, said at the hearing before the National Energy Board that his company did not anticipate the Canadian market would expand so rapidly. He said that the consumption had gone up by a surprising 122 billion cubic feet to the astronomical figure of 660 billion cubic feet. This increase did not happen over a long period of years. We are talking about a period from last October to this spring, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and the government, who were saying last fall that there would be no problem about meeting the demands of the gas customers in eastern Canada, are now faced with the prospect of the curtailment of gas to eastern Canada unless the National Energy Board or the government are prepared to allow Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to be relieved of the 1966 requirement which calls upon them to supply 50 per cent of their gas from Canadian sources. In other words, we have made so large a commitment of gas to the United States that we may not be able to meet the requirements of our own people here in central Canada.
What we need from the minister is a clear statement as to what are the realistic gas needs for Canada. How much gas are we going to require over the next period of years? The National Energy Board in its projections suggests that the per capita consumption of gas in Canada by 1990 will be the same as the per capita consumption of gas in the United States in 1975. Does anyone think that this 15 year time lag is realistic in a country like Canada where, first of all, we have a very cold climate and where, second, we are only beginning to understand the utilization of natural gas and, third, where more and more of the power utilities are turning to natural gas as one of the few non-polluting energy resources?
My conviction, backed up by many of the experts whom I have read, is that the estimates of the National

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 Energy Board of our gas needs for the next 25 years are not realistic. We want to know, what does the government estimate we will need in terms of natural gas, and what protection will there be in price for domestic users? I know that the government's stock reply is, "well, if we are hard pressed for gas in Canada, we always push out and develop new sources of gas". That is quite possible, particularly with gas being discovered in the Arctic, but I wonder if the public realize what the government is doing. What the government is doing is selling the gas in Canada which is readily accessible and relatively cheap, and as the Canadian market expands we will have to develop the less accessible and consequently much more expensive gas for our own use. Surely, we ought to have a clear-cut policy with respect to the whole question of gas. When I look at the projections made by the National Energy Board, which estimates that about half our gas production is going to the United States and that in 1990 two thirds of our natural gas will be going to the U.S.; that we are now meeting some 3 per cent of the U.S. requirements but by 1990 we will be meeting 15 per cent of the U.S. requirements, I begin to wonder what we are holding in reserve for the use of Canadians of readily accessible and reasonably cheap gas.
I notice a report from Washington which says that the United States will face a possible gas shortage by 1976. I do not blame the Americans if they try to make all the agreements they can to purchase gas in Canada. As a matter of fact, they will be prepared to pay us a better price than we are now getting from our own domestic consumers, and the effect of that will be to push up the price to our domestic consumers because if the gas companies can get a better price in the U.S. than they are now receiving in Canada, they are going to raise the price to domestic consumers.
So what we want to know is, what is the government's policy with respect to natural gas. It is not enough for the minister to say that we are going to sell only that which is surplus to our needs. That is a lovely stock phrase that means nothing. What do we mean by "surplus to our needs", surplus to our needs for today or next year or ten years from now? These supplies of gas will not replenish themselves. They are here once and when they have been utilized, they are gone. To suggest that we can sell anything more than we require ourselves from day to day is to embark upon a policy that will allow two thirds of our natural gas to be siphoned off to be used elsewhere. The result will be that future generations of Canadians will not be able to get the necessary gas and the necessary energy to convert our raw materials into manufactured goods or to produce electric power and provide other services to the Canadian people.
I hope the minister will also make a clear-cut statement during the course of the passage of this clause of the bill with respect to the government's oil policy. What is the government's oil policy? The national oil policy has been completely overtaken by events. The idea of using
Canadian crude up to the Ottawa Valley, and allowing the area east of that to be served by off-shore supplies of oil, is becoming increasingly untenable. Venezuela has just increased the price of oil. The oil countries of the Middle East have done the same, and so has Libya and some of the other African countries. Within the last two weeks several oil companies have announced that they expect to raise the price of oil and the price of gasoline because of the increased costs of imported oil.
Another factor has entered the picture. The President of the United States has been questioning the security of oil supplies for eastern Canada. Under the U.S. mandatory oil import program, the U.S. was concerned that in the event of war and submarine havoc on the Atlantic coast, we would have to depend upon the United States to supply the area east of the Ottawa Valley. This was one of the reasons which the President gave in the statement which he made with respect to quotas on Canadian crude oil from western Canada.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that we have to scrap the old national oil policy and think in terms of the feasibility of building a pipe line to Montreal to serve the eastern market. We have not been able to get any of the economic feasibility studies from the minister; studies carried out by the government. I have seen some of the economic feasibility studies done by the-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I thank the committee. This saves me from breaking up what I have to say into two parts. I will try to bring my remarks to a conclusion quickly.
There is now a need for a serious investigation as to the economic feasibility, and the desirability from a national standpoint, of extending an oil pipe line to Montreal. The minister always meets this proposal by first saying that the feasibility studies do not indicate it would be economically desirable. Mr. Chairman, we have not seen those studies. I have seen some of the studies prepared by some of the independent producers, and I would welcome a chance to see some of the government studies and make a comparison. There are those in the oil industry who believe it would be economically feasible, provided such a pipeline were protected against undue dumping. They believe it could meet the normal competition of off-shore oil. That may be arguable, but I would like to see more data than has been given to us to date to determine that a pipeline to Montreal is not feasible.
The minister's chief argument for not doing something about this is to the effect that if it were a feasible proposition the private companies would see that such a pipeline was built. That statement is much more naive

March 26, 1971

than the minister really is. I think he is a pretty shrewd cookie and I do not think he swallows that argument himself. Interprovincial Pipe line is owned by Imperial Oil, which in turn is a subsidiary of Standard Oil, and Standard Oil is the company bringing crude up from Venezuela to Montreal. Thus, it is not keen on having one of its subsidiaries bringing western oil into Montreal in competition with Standard Oil brought from Venezuela.
It makes sense that Standard Oil Company would like to have a national oil policy that will keep western crude west of the Ottawa River, and leave it the eastern market for Venezuelan oil. I do not blame it for following that policy, but I blame the government if it is prepared to accept a policy which is advantageous to Standard Oil but is disadvantageous to the welfare and well being of the Canadian people. That is why I want to see this matter discussed further, and to have more information from the minister.
The minister has to give us something more specific about the government's policy with respect to Home Oil. I am not going to deal with that at any length, but when the question of Home Oil being sold to Ashland of Kentucky came up, the government said there was nothing it could do. Then it relented, and said some of the Canadian private companies might want to buy out Home Oil. When that did not materialize, the minister announced that the Canadian government was willing to buy it. Now, the minister tells us that Mr. Brown, president of Home Oil, and the government have not been able to make any deal, and that the company is back in the market place.
This underlines the point I made when I started. The reason the government is not able to grapple with the danger of losing Home Oil to American companies is that the government hasn't any policy. For three years and more, we have been waiting for a policy on foreign onwership and control of the Canadian economy. The longer the government delays formulating a policy the more the problems pile up, and the more we get ad hoc deals that have no meaning and no direction. I hope the minister is going to tell us what the government intends to do about Home Oil, and whether it will be bringing in legislation designed to give the government the necessary power to deal with Home Oil before this company, the last of the large Canadian-owned companies, passes out of the control of Canadians.
I hope the minister will also make a statement regarding the oil pipelines. According to reports from Washington, the President of the United States instructed the State Department in February, 1970, to approach the Canadian government about the possibility of building a pipeline from Alaska to the United States through Canada. The report says that the Canadian government rejected that proposal. Whether that is correct or not, we do know that the oil companies which were active in Alaska then began to advocate what has come to be known as the TAPS program, the Trans-Alaska pipeline system, which would bring oil from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, and by tanker from Valdez to Cherry Point,
Government Organization Act, 1970 Washington, as well as to other points on the American coastline.
The Canadian government became alarmed at this prospect, and very understandably so, because one has only to look at the coastline of British Columbia to see what will happen if oil tankers of 100,000 tons, 200,000 tons-and now they are even talking about 300,000 ton oil tankers-were to come down the west coast of Vancouver Island and through the Straits of Juan de Fuca. The wreckage of one of those tankers would pollute the coastline of British Columbia and would ruin the finest salmon fishing area in the world. It was only at this point that the Canadian government began to make noises through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It asked the United States government to look at the possibility of a pipeline through the Canadian Arctic and down through Edmonton, to the United States. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a speech, the report of which I have before me, said that it would be 30 cents a barrel cheaper to take this gas down to Chicago instead of taking it by sea from Valdez.
I think we ought to make two points clear. First, we, in this party, are vigorously opposed to any program that will bring oil tankers down the west coast of Canada. We believe that the results of such a program could be disastrous for the people of British Columbia and for the industries of British Columbia. That is why we introduced an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, which was rejected by the government, asking that Canada establish a pollution control area up to 100 miles from the west coast, just as we have done in the Arctic. The government has rejected this proposal, although it introduced the concept of a pollution control zone for the Arctic. It has never been able to explain to the House why it makes sense to protect the Arctic and why it does not make sense to protect the Pacific coast.
The second thing which ought to be made clear is this: Although we are anxious to avoid the pollution of the Pacific coast by encouraging the TAPS program, we should not be stampeded into building a hot pipeline over the Canadian Arctic. This should not be done unless all the ecological studies have been completed and the government can assure us, so far as scientific know-how and technology can assure us, that this will not bring disastrous consequences for the Arctic.
If the ecological question is settled, I hope the minister will tell us what the government has in mind about the ownership and control of such a pipeline. Who will own this pipeline? Will it be an American pipeline to take oil from Alaska to the United States? Will there be any Canadian ownership? Will there be a participation by the Canadian government? Who will control the input and the output? Who will control the rates that will be charged for the oil which will be put in the pipeline in the Canadian Arctic and probably taken out in Alberta or some other part of Canada? It is all very well to say that this is a common carrier; but if someone else

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
sets the rates, and sets them at a high level, it no longer in reality would be a common carrier. Those who decide the rates for input and output are the people who will decide whether, in reality, the pipeline will be a common carrier. Therefore, the information we have asked for is vital information which the House of Commons ought to have before we are asked to make decisions.
The real difficulty for members of Parliament stems from the fact that the government makes these decisions and announces them on motions. We are then given a chance to comment for three minutes or five minutes. Surely, as members of Parliament, we ought to have the opportunity to assess all the facts and to discuss them. After we have discussed them and expressed our views, the government must of course make a decision. That is its responsibility. Surely, however, the government ought not to make that decision until all the information has been made available to hon. members and hon. members have had an opportunity to express their views. That is why I make an urgent appeal to the minister that he give us a full and frank statement as to what the government has in mind. We do not need more platitudes. We do not need more statements to the effect that we are only going to sell such of our resources as are surplus to our needs or, to quote that lovely phrase, that the resources of Canada will be developed for the best interests of the Canadian people. What we need are concrete statements from the minister regarding some of the problems which I have raised here today. I hope the minister will make these statements, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to question the minister after he has made them.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, the importance of the bill before us this afternoon is not underscored by the attendance that we have. I expect that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be here in a moment.


An hon. Member:: Here he is now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Good. Friday afternoon provides an opportunity for an atmosphere that is conducive to discussing these important issues in a cool, calm and collected way.


John James Greene: And a lonely way.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: At the outset of my remarks, I wish to suggest that this atmosphere provides an excellent opportunity for the minister to make a statement on resource

policy. Parliament and the country has been waiting for this for many a long year.
The question before the House this afternoon is the reorganization of the Department of Energy, Mines, Resources and Technical Surveys. It is logical to assume that the reorganization of the department concerned with the most important subject in our economic development is concerned, resources, provides an opportunity and a platform for the minister to clarify some of the confusion that has existed within the cabinet ranks during recent days. The policy of the present government seems to be to move in several directions at the same time. I suppose they feel that a moving target going in different directions is harder to get into focus, but unfortunately it produces a sort of schizophrenic reaction on the part of the country. I am sure the minister realizes from very significant events that have taken place in important areas of influence, not only in Canada but elsewhere on the North American continent, that an unhappy state of economic schizophrenia exists. It is a shocking situation when the leaders of the financial institutions of Canada have to go to New York and, in an important discussion with the American business community, make a bitter attack on the economic policies of the present government.
There was an article in last week's issue of the Financial Post which pointed out the tendency of the government to be schizophrenic in its approach to fundamental problems. The area of communications is basic and vital in order to get across ideas. There has been a situation of schizophrenia in the Department of Communications since it was reorganized. Obviously reorganization does not necessarily mean increased efficiency. It can sometimes lead more in the direction of disorganization than in the direction of reform and efficiency, as a comment by Jeremy Brown published recently in the Toronto Daily Star and quoted in the Financial Post indicates. This points out the situation that I am briefly describing this afternoon. I quote:
Eric Kierans, minister of communications (which formerly included the Post Office), sent a text of a speech to a Toronto address before the Feb. 11 delivery date. The package arrived 13 days later. The title of the Speech? Canadian communications: outlook and alternatives.
This quiet Friday afternoon does provide the minister an opportunity to give us an outline in the same terms as the minister responsible for communications. It could be called something like this-"Canadian Resource Development-Outlook and Alternatives". It has become increasingly clear in the past two decades that the basis for any great economic development in Canada must be our abundant supply of resources, particularly the growing development in the north. The wise utilization of the rich resources we have there, will be to the benefit of all our people. It is this growing interest in the management and development of our resources which in the latter 'fifties turned the attention of the Government of Canada in the direction of ensuring that these resources were managed as wisely as possible.
March 26, 1971

An important conference was planned and it took place in Montreal under the appropriate title of Resources for Tomorrow. Out of that conference came any number of suggestions for the development and wise management of the resource potential of Canada for the future welfare of citizens in all parts of this great country.
Unfortunately, not much progress has been made since the early part of the 'sixties. One of the reasons the spokesmen for the government are so confused in their counsels is that they suddenly find themselves in a situation where they have neglected to outline in any comprehensive manner the economic targets which ought to be achieved if we are to realize the great economic potential of our resources at a time when opportunities for their use are suddenly available. Moreover, and this is most important in the light of the growing concern with respect to environmental pollution, neither have they conceived any comprehensive or co-ordinated policy for the long term development of those resources while at the same time controlling any threat to the environment as a result. There has been a flurry of government legislation in the last two years which purports to deal with these fundamental issues, but again it would seem to be that this has been the result of a crash program rather than of careful long-term planning for the future.
I will mention one example. The Canada Water Act, which was passed as recently as last year, outlined the problem very clearly but unfortunately it supplied none of the answers. It described the "why" but it failed to answer the question "how". We have become aware of these problems to an increasing extent during the last decade. In fact, volumes outlining them came out of the Resources for Tomorrow conference of 1962. The difficulty was that we are short on solutions and on policies designed to deal with the long term development of resources in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
I wish to outline briefly at this stage in my remarks some examples of the government's neglect which has resulted in loss of time in this area, a neglect arising from a negative attitude to the management of our resources which has been motivated largely by political reasons. It so happens that the Conservative administration from 1957 to 1963 placed emphasis on national resource development. The Liberals, being in opposition at that time, took a negative attitude and as a result now find themselves hoist by their own petard. I hear comments coming from the other side of the House. If any hon. gentleman over there wants to ask questions-


Mr. Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: We were applauding.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I wish hon. members would either be attentive or else not participate in the debate from behind the curtains.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not know whether they were asking questions or whether it was sound and fury signifying nothing, to quote the great bard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


An hon. Member:: Why not quote Voltaire?
Government Organization Act, 1970


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Unfortunately, my knowledge of Voltaire does not make it possible for me to quote from that source.
Let us consider the national energy policy. It was laid down in 1959 with the establishment of the National Energy Board, and there has been no fundamental change in policy since that time though the difficulties have grown astronomically. We are now trying to extemporize a national policy to meet the changes which have taken place.
Early in the 'sixties a concerted effort was made by the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, to establish a national power grid. These comments, it seems to me are quite apropos because one of the new responsibilities of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources under the re-organization proposals in part II will be energy development from water. This is not a new concept by any means. In the conference which took place in 1962, it was optimistically hoped that within a comparatively short time we would see the beginning of a national power grid which would make it possible to use the abundance of hydroelectric energy available in Canada, thereby conserving our fossil fuel and minimizing environmental pollution. A national power grid based on hydroelectric power would obviously be the cleanest and most economical kind of energy development and, as I say, it would conserve our limited fossil fuel supply. After all, fossil fuels are not renewable and once they have been extracted, that is the end of them. Certain agreements were undertaken at that time so that they could become the basis of an expanding national power grid. The development of the tremendous Hydro project in northern Manitoba was the beginning of such agreement. Unfortunately, the ensuing nine years has not seen any further development in the national power grid. When the minister takes part in this debate, I hope he will give us a report on his programs, policies and plans, if any, to bring the program of national resource development up to date and in tune with today's needs. There is a golden opportunity this afternoon for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to explain some of the contradictions that have appeared in government policy as enunciated by important statements made outside this House. There are not too many important statements made in this House of Commons. The ministers have formed the habit of making their policy statements south of the border in cities like Denver or Dallas, or in some of the major centres in Canada. If the minister wants to get part II of the reorganization bill through this afternoon, I think it is incumbent upon him to remove some of the anxiety and concern that has arisen as a result of his contradictory statements.
The minister's Denver speech became famous-or infamous depending on your viewpoint-because it seemed to be a frontal attack on American investment in this country. Then just recently the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has some responsibility for resources as well, travelled to Dallas. Whilst there he

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 reversed the position and made an attempt to gain continued interest in investment in the resource development of Canada by American capitalists.
If all goes well the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry will become the minister responsible for the environment. He has made speeches in various parts of Canada which seem to be selective in so far as they choose little bits from the statements of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Let us get our stories straight in the House of Commons on this peaceful Friday afternoon. Here is a golden opportunity for the minister to sort out some of the contradictions and confusion in government policy that is having untold harmful effects upon the economy of Canada.
There are others who have entered the debate. The premier of Quebec made a visit to New York recently in an apparent attempt to offset some of the harmful effects of the speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in Denver which had tended to cut off investment in the province of Quebec. A recent editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 24 outlining the difficulties commented, "The troubled Canadian economy has been suffering from an accumulation of uncertainties concerning government policy." Let me re-emphasize that any resource development has for its final objective the development of the economy of Canada. We cannot have a consistent or co-ordinated policy unless the government speaks with one voice. The debate on tax reform has been going on for 16 months and has brought disastrous results to the economy.


The Deputy Chairman:: I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the wish of the House that the hon. member shall extend his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hon. members. I shall endeavour to bring my remarks to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
I want to make one further fundamental point. We are debating in the abstract if we think that the policy of resource development is linked to any consideration but the economic potential of this country. We have to rationalize, we have to organize, we have to end the confusion that has been rampant as a result of the lack of leadership from the spokesmen for the government of Canada.
Now that you have extended my time, Mr. Chairman, I should like to spend a few moments on the most urgent aspect of resource development. I refer, of course, to the situation that has developed with respect to northern oil and gas in the past two years, particularly since the Americans brought in oil at Prudhoe Bay. Canada has lost the initiative here because we were exploring the high Arctic area as early as 1961, before the Americans. We were on Melville Island drilling what it was hoped

was an oil well to a depth of 1,500 feet. This drilling proved that the geology of the high Arctic was favourable to oil development. This is a story of Canadian initiative that has still to be told because the initial exploration met with a lot of resistance and criticism. It was 100 per cent a Canadian operation spearheaded by Dome Petroleum and some of the minor oil interests of Canada.
Three fundamental problems emerged as a result of that pioneer effort in 1961. Had Canada come to grips with them as they emerged, as a government providing vigorous leadership in the resource area should have dealt with them, we would be in a much better position to come up with solutions today. I refer to the three problems of transportation, protection of the ecology and sovereignty. All these matters have had major public attention in the media during the last year as a result of the oil find at Prudhoe Bay on the Alaskan slopes. Research was going on in the early sixties regarding the transportation of resources out of the north. This included such far out ideas as the "big wheel", submarine transportation, tanker transportation and the possibility of a pipeline. Judging from the lack of certainty on the part of the government today, this research into transportation facilities must have died shortly after 1963 because everything that is mentioned now is of a crash, ad hoc nature.
No research material has been brought before this House by which members can judge the wisdom of the current approach of the government to northern development. The minister has been asked time and again to table the results of research so that the situation can be properly evaluated. Because of delay in implementing the findings of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference of 1962, we are now extemporizing solutions to environmental problems of northern resource development rather than operating on the basis of information that should have been available had the policy initiative continued through the decade of the sixties.
p.ra.)
The question of sovereignty, of course, is one which arose because of the epic voyage of the Manhattan back in 1969 and some confusing statements which emerged from the government, from the Prime Minister down. I should like to point out that the voyage of the Thord to Melville Island in 1961 was just as epic a voyage as that of the Manhattan, because this was a much smaller vessel which got the drilling crews and their outfits through to Melville Island in time for the winter drilling of 1961-62. That voyage did not arouse any concern at all because at that time the general sentiment in Canada was that it was a bit of a nightmare to ever conceive that there might be an oil potential in the Canadian high Arctic. The only real initiative in dealing with the sovereignty question came from the committee on northern development which travelled to Resolute Bay. That committee, in no uncertain terms, suggested to the government a policy by which Canada declared that this entire area was under Canadian control and jurisdiction.
March 26, 1971

So, Mr. Chairman, without trespassing any further on the time of the committee, may I say I hope the minister will use this opportunity to clarify the contradictions and to end the schizophrenia that has caused untold damage to the economy of Canada. The problem of chronic unemployment, or under-employment if you like, is directly related to the confused state of our economy. We have a resource potential which could be used for a magnificent economic development if the government had the wisdom, initiative and courage to co-ordinate its policies in this regard. A reorganization of the kind outlined in Part II of Bill C-207 is merely a musical chairs gesture unless it is backed by strong coordinated policy statements on the part of the government. I hope the hon. gentleman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will use the energy at his disposal this afternoon to place on the record a definitive statement concerning government policy and plans in this regard. We are approaching a weekend, and such a statement would receive good coverage in the press. I am sure it would end the anxiety expressed by people in all walks of life, from bankers and financial leaders down to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians who are waiting for government leadership to resolve their economic problems.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make some remarks in a somewhat similar vein to those we have heard today in respect of the problems related to energy in Canada, and particularly some of the resources we have. When I look at the answers the government has given to the questions regarding oil or atomic energy in the past few months, I am reminded of a story during the Boer War when things were not going very well for the British. One government member was heard to say, "I suppose we will wander through somehow". That is how it would seem the present government hopes to solve the energy crisis, unless it adopts a better attitude than it has had in the past few months. I suggest it is not worthy of the minister or the government to take such an approach. Surely, they can make some decisions and recommendations in this area, and present something to us which we can discuss.
I think one of the attributes of a good government is the ability to anticipate the problems which might develop in a country, what might be needed in the way of energy or something else, and come forward with some firm recommendations concerning what should be done about them. I feel in this regard the present government has been sadly lacking. I believe it is fairly obvious that the United States has oil in Alaska which they will get to market somehow, and that we have some oil in our Arctic which we will get to market somehow. During the meetings the minister held with the oil company presidents this week, I wonder whether he was able to present a constructive proposal to them. For example, was he able to say on behalf of the government that the research has been done in respect of preservation of the ecology? In connection with the building of any pipeline, was he able to say we have done some research into the practical problem of building and operating a gas or oil pipeline
Government Organization Act, 1970 through the permafrost? I wonder if he was able to make these statements.
I would like to know also whether the minister was able to say a comprehensive study had been made of a route for a Canadian pipeline or pipelines through the Mackenzie Valley or at any other location. I would like to know if he was able to talk in an intelligent fashion about this proposal with these people. Was he able to suggest what type of business organization should operate any such pipeline which followed a Canadian route? I wonder whether he had ideas to present to these people or whether he was stumbling in the dark. Certainly, I feel he should have been able to do so because it is some time since the oil was discovered and, therefore, he must have been aware that something would have to be done. If he was not thinking about it, then his officials should have been.
We have been told it is all very well to be critical but that one should have some practical suggestions. I should like to make some practical suggestions to the minister. I believe it is obvious that if such a pipeline were built, the oil which would flow through it in the immediate future would be mostly United States oil. Hopefully, there would be some Canadian oil. Obviously, there would have to be some United States money used in the building of any such pipeline. As Canadians, we have an interest in this pipeline and the type of organization that would construct and operate it. I suggest the most logical type of organization would be a Panarctic type organization through which we would use both Canadian money, expertise and control and United States money. In effect, it would be a joint effort. I suggest to the minister, without going into great detail, it would seem logical that a realistic approach to the problem would involve the resources of the two countries. I think this is a practical suggestion.
I should like to switch for a moment to atomic energy because I feel here we have a problem which is somewhat similar to the problem in respect of oil. Once again the minister seems to have been stumbling from atom to atom or from molecule to molecule. He does not seem to be able to make up his mind and seems to be concerning himself mainly with whether or not we can sell an atomic plant abroad and what we should build in Canada. I certainly believe his officials should be able to give him better advice. I hope some firm recommendations will be forthcoming along this line. I realize we do not have all the answers in respect of atomic energy. I realize also that the technology required in a field of this nature is pretty extensive and has not been developed in all countries. In answer to a question I asked this morning, the minister suggested we did not have all the technology necessary to build an enrichment plant in Canada.
I ask him directly, did he make a request of the United States government to make their technology available if we wanted to build an enrichment plant in Canada. Has he offered to put any money into a Japanese experiment,

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 or make a deal with Germany or Britain, regarding a new method that they are using to produce enriched uranium. I wonder if the government has considered any alternatives of this nature. I realize that there are many problems in the field of energy, but let me suggest that this is a very important matter and Canada may have some energy which we could sell to advantage. If we did so, we might be able to provide jobs for some of those who are unemployed and thus move forward in the technological age.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, Part II of Bill C-207 offers us an opportunity to discuss the problem of energy.
We have heard this afternoon some very eloquent and detailed speeches on the problem of natural gas and oil transportation, which affects mostly the western provinces at the present time owing to the new Prudhoe Bay oil discoveries.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have this problem in eastern Canada; however, I feel that we would invite discussion of similar problems. Recent decisions reached by Venezuela and Asian countries that have been supplying us with oil until now are a cause for grave concern to us and we would prefer to see the province of Quebec get its gas and oil supplies from Canadian oil sources.
Mr. Chairman, why we be always dependent on some other countries, such as those of Asia or South America, since we have in Canada oil deposits and reserves as substantial as theirs? Moreover, we are told a considerable part of our territory has not even been explored yet. Therefore, the government should decide to make the studies that are required, if it has not already done so, and it should get in touch with private enterprise in order to find a way of supplying the eastern part of Canada with oil and natural gas. I think this would benefit the whole of Canada.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to answer a few questions when he takes the floor in a few minutes. I should like him to explain this addition to the act.
For instance, the act passed in 1966 did not deal with hydro-electric power whereas the present one covers energy generated from water under the item "energy". As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the production and sale of hydro-electric power falls within provincial jurisdiction.
I know, where the province of Quebec is concerned, that there have been considerable developments in the last few years. Even greater developments are now under way in the James Bay basin. This development interests me more particularly, because the basin is located in my riding.
It is expected that this development will take place in the next few years and involve investments of over $2 billion. We already know that Quebec's premier, the hon. Robert Bourassa, has made two trips to the United States to seek funds for the development of hydro-electric power in that part of the province of Quebec. We do not know as of yet whether his representations have been successful and will permit this kind of development.
It goes without saying, for the moment at least, that we do not expect to use all the power which will be generated in this basin. Outlets will therefore have to be found and I think this was another purpose of the premier's visit to the United States. However I fail to understand how in order to develop a portion of our land, we must kowtow before foreign financiers and ask them for permission to do so.
Recently we heard the Quebec budget speech. It was stated that there would be no tax boost, in order to allow the development of the economy, to allow people to enjoy a little more of their income.
On the other hand, this same government tells us that it will have to borrow many millions of dollars to make up the deficit. So, they do not raise taxes, in order to leave a little more money in the hands of the citizens to allow a better development of the economy, but they will try to get the savings which may exist to finance the administration of the province of Quebec. If individuals are left with a little more money, they will try to take it away from them through loans to administer the province of Quebec. So, how much will be left for developing private industry, for developing the natural resources of our province of Quebec?
This whole system of borrowing should be improved and our governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels as well as all government agencies should not have to turn to private investors to borrow the money required for the administration of public affairs. If the government of Quebec, for instance, which is trying to borrow two billion dollars to develop part of its territory, had access to the Bank of Canada, it could borrow this amount and implement this project which could last for some ten years. Then the government of Quebec would not need to offer or sell a part of the Quebec territory to the Americans.
By borrowing from the Bank of Canada, the government would no longer have to run after foreign capital. Furthermore, these Canadian funds would be available for developing private enterprise, for creating new industries and new businesses.
Would the minister clearly indicate what this addition to the present law is all about? I understand its effect would be to insert in clause 8 of the bill all that concerns electrical energy.
Would the minister tell us also what he intends to do with respect to paragraph (d) concerning explosives?
We are all aware that recently we have had problems in connection with the use of explosives and more especially dynamite. We have too often seen dumps of explosives intended for building highways or digging being diverted to persons who were not too anxious about the proper operation of the administration.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to ask the minister to see to it that stored explosives will be better watched so that burglars could not get hold of those explosives and divert them from their purpose.
I think that the few questions which I wanted to ask the minister will considerably clarify the bill under con-

March 26, 1971

sideration and indicate to us what the minister intends to do in the fields of hydro electric energy and the use of explosives.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few remarks concerning the programming board report on the development of tidal power in the Atlantic provinces. This is a matter of the utmost interest to the people of the Maritime provinces, and the minister himself has indicated an interest in it. At the same time, I wish to point out that there are some aspects of the potential associated with Fundy power development with which the minister is not as fully versed as we in the Maritime provinces would like him to be. I hope to bring some of these aspects to his attention, trusting this will result in his developing an ever-increasing interest in the harnessing of the tides, stimulating a dialogue within his department that will result in the updating of the programming report which was prepared and made public in 1969.
I would first like to tell the minister that, I personally, and I believe the people of the Maritime provinces in general, appreciate his indication of willingness to review the findings of the programming board. We hope that a review will be undertaken immediately by officials of his department. There has been some laxity on the part of the provincial government of Nova Scotia in requesting the review which the minister has said he would carry out if he were asked to do so by the premiers of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Premier of New Brunswick has said he believes such a review would be in the interests of the public, but the Premier of Nova Scotia, for reasons still best known to himself, has said he sees no particular value in such a review. He is carrying on negotiations with private interests with respect to development of power from the tides.
I believe it is in the interests of Canada that the federal government undertake an immediate review of the programming board report, because I think that everything associated with the tidal power that would be generated would involve the federal government. Because of this, it is essential that the federal government become involved in all discussions that transpire or are undertaken, either with private interests or with public interests. There is firm evidence to indicate that the bases on which the programming board made its conclusions no longer exist. Much new technical information is available with respect to lowering the construction costs of the dams necessary to harness the tides, and thus reduce the cost of the power generated.
I wish to put some evidence on the record of Hansard to indicate the degree of the problem that faces the northeastern part of the United States. I do so because it is evident that the amount of power generated from the tides will be far in excess of the requirements of the Atlantic area, and there would be a ready market for that surplus power in the New England states.
Government Organization Act, 1970
An article by the New York Times news service, which appeared in the Chronicle-Herald on December 11, 1970, stated among other things:
The problem of long-range scarcity of energy in the United States, however, remains unsolved. And even for this winter, fuel reserves are precariously low.
Since December 11 last, we have discovered that article was founded on the basis of real evidence because they have been experiencing sharp shortages of power in the New England states. The article also contains these paragraphs:
The price of coal in October was more than 50 per cent higher than a year ago according to the Wholesale Price Index prepared by the Bureau of Labour Statistics. The cost of residual oil which is used for fueling steam turbines and other industrial purposes, has risen by about 60 per cent.
The cost of electric power has not climbed steeply yet, but the price of electricity inevitably will reflect fuel costs. In fact many, if not most, electric utilities have already applied for rate increases, citing fuel costs as their chief reason.
Gulf Oil, Humble Oil, and a number of other companies have announced an increase in the price of crude oil-
There is wide agreement that the sharp rise in energy consumption over the last five years has been an important factor in producing the fuel shortage. Energy use has grown by nearly 5 per cent over that period while in the years 1947 through 1964 consumption grew by an average of 22 per cent a year.
A new emphasis on clean fuels that will not pollute the air has created heavy demands on natural gas and low level sulphur oil and coal. Supplies of gas are limited. Demand for residual oil has soared, both here and in Europe.
I might point out that the energy produced from the Fundy tides would be completely pollution free. Recently, the United Nations has shown an interest in tidal power as a form of energy because of its pollution free aspect.
The programming board, in effect, said, exactly what the minister said when replying to questions from me and other Maritime members about Fundy Bay power, that the decision would be made on strictly economic grounds. If I felt it were a fact that cheap power could not be produced from the tides, then I would hold that the Fundy tides should not be harnessed at the present time. But I point out to you, Sir, that most of the experts disagree with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his officials. They say that the Fundy tides should be harnessed at the earliest possible date. They base their case on the ever-increasing cost of competing fuels. They say that everything is increasing in price, and that there is no reason to expect that power will not increase in price. They say that the sooner we undertake to build the dams to harness the tides the better chance we will have of producing power economically.
Mr. F. L. Lawton, the former director of the study group which produced the programming board report, later made certain statements which were referred to in an editorial in the Daily Gleaner, May 26, 1970. I quote from it as follows:
Mr. F. L. Lawton, former study director of the tidal power programming board, in a speech yesterday kept to the interest rates theme. Interest rates would have to drop to about half their current value, he told the conference, to make power economically attractive in the Bay of Fundy. But, he said, despite the findings of the board, "there are a number of other in-

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
fluences affecting the economic viability of a tidal power scheme, all tending to operate in favour of tidal power. These are changes in fuel costs for alternative power sources, and technological changes influencing capital cost comparisons."
Even the man who produced the report in 1969 which concluded that it was not economically feasible to move forward with the harnessing of the Bay of Fundy tides, in 1970 indicated a change of heart and said it may not be long before power produced from the tides would be economical. In addition, international experts at a conference on tidal power in Halifax have stated there are alternative methods of harnessing the tides that were not considered by the programming board. In this connection, I would like to quote from The Evening Times-Globe of June 2, 1970, as follows:
Dr. T. J. Gray, Director of the Atlantic Industrial Research Institute of Halifax, said Fundy tidal power development would have to be on a bigger scale than envisaged to be economically feasible.
There would have to be "in the area of 4,000 megawatts with a peak of 8,000 to 10,000 megawatts before it can become saleable,' but even though that would mean a higher construction cost 'this shouldn't scare anyone.' He said the cost of power from nuclear and thermal generating stations in the United States has been spiralling and is still rising. Tidal power costs would be considerably less than present conventional costs in the United States if developed on the required scale.
What the experts are saying is that first there is new technology available that would make the construction of the dams cheaper; second, that the project should be larger and allowed to produce a greater amount of power, and if this were done the cost of power would be reduced. I believe this to be correct, Mr. Chairman: there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that it is correct. I think it is imperative that a review of the programming board's report be undertaken at the earliest possible date.
The minister has come a fair distance. Both he and the Prime Minister initially indicated that they were not willing to review the programming board's report. The minister, after consultation and discussion, has now agreed that a review should take place if the two participating partners with the federal government, the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, request such review. The Premier of New Brunswick has indicated such an interest. The Premier of Nova Scotia, for reasons best known to himself, as I said earlier, has not been willing to make that request.
I believe we have now reached the point where it is in the public interest for such a review to be initiated by the minister, whether the Premier of Nova Scotia makes such a request or not-because I believe that the harnessing of these tides will bring tremendous benefits and will be of tremendous future value not just to the maritime provinces but to the whole of Canada. That project would produce great amounts of energy and in addition the federal government could export and sell surplus power that would be produced from the tides. Such a review must be undertaken soon, because the longer we wait before making it, the more it will become obvious that the report, prepared at a cost of $2.25 million two

years ago, will be useless. In other words, the investment of $2.25 million is not being protected because we are not going to have the review.
I would now like to approach this matter from a slightly different point of view. I quote from an article by Harold Shea that appeared in the December 11, 1970, edition of the Chronicle-Herald:
Why hasn't Canada taken the plunge Into the Bay of Fundy tidal power project?
High capital costs? High interest charges?
That's the reason Ottawa gives for its steadfast refusal to fund the Fundy.
But the argument no longer holds water because:
1-	The critical energy in the United States, and the end of that country's era of cheap power and cheap fuels, hand Canada a gold-platter invitation to cash in on a premium price market for much of the energy the project could generate.
2-	By selling surplus power to the eastern United States, Canada could realize a return sufficient to underwrite much of the capital cost.
3-	And interest rates are declining.
Could it be that there are other reasons for Ottawa's reluctance?
Mr. Shea then points out some of the reasons why he feels that Ottawa is reluctant. I will not quote further from the article. This week I received a reply to a question I directed to the minister about CANDU, the Douglas Point plant which was produced by AECL in arrangement with Ontario Hydro for the production of power by nuclear energy. I have examined the information that was provided. I do not think that I can reach any conclusion other than that for every dollar we are spending we are receiving not more than a 50 cent return. In the explanation that was provided I was informed that we should not expect a dollar back for every dollar invested; this is a prototype plan and because of this fact, other reasons and financial involvement, we cannot expect a 100 per cent return on an investment. I will accept the fact that we should only expect a return of 50 cents on every dollar spent if it can be shown that the investment is of some value to me.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must advise him that his time has expired. The hon. member may continue only with the consent of the committee. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I will take only a few minutes to finish this argument. I accept the argument that there may be a reason for receiving a 50 per cent return on every dollar invested. However, I cannot imagine any businessman becoming involved in a venture in which he expects to realize only 50 cents on every dollar invested. I can appreciate why Ontario Hydro is involved in this scheme. They cannot lose. They are buying from the Douglas Point plant power at six mills which has cost the Douglas plant at least 12 mills to produce. That is a ridiculous situation if carried to any length.
March 26, 1971

When in Nova Scotia, the minister pointed the finger of scorn at the leader of this party because he convinced the people of that province that they should become involved in the construction of a heavy water plant. The minister laughs at the people of Nova Scotia. He has the impression that we are a bunch of rubes or hicks because we became involved in something that was new and not technically feasible. Because we got into difficulty, the minister derides the Leader of the Opposition. He says that we acted in a stupid manner. The same minister who made fun of the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for a scheme whereby the people of Canada have invested $90 million in a plant which is producing electricity that is costing the taxpayers of this nation twice as much as it should. If the minister feels he can justify that type of proposition, that is dandy.
The minister has pointed the finger of scorn at the Leader of the Opposition by saying that at the heavy water plant a plaque should be erected which reads "Bob Stanfield slept here". I say that a plaque should be put on the Douglas Point plant which reads "Joe Greene slept here, and every day he sleeps here it costs 50 cents for every dollar's worth of fuel that is produced".


John James Greene: That hurts!


Robert Carman Coates: The point is not whether we run into problems with new technology when trying to produce energy; it is that the tides going in and out of the Bay of Fundy can be used to produce energy. The experts say that it can now be produced at a saleable price and in amounts that are almost unbelievable. There is no source in Canada that can produce the kind of power which the tides in the Bay of Fundy can produce. We have invested $2.25 million to determine whether dams can be built to harness the tides. The engineering and economic experts say they can be built. The President of the Treasury Board agrees that this power can be produced, but says it will cost too much. There are a great many experts who are knowledgeable in the field.


John James Greene: Who?


Robert Carman Coates: Who said "Who?"


An hon. Member:: The minister.


Robert Carman Coates: I can send the minister an article from the Evening Times which quotes the experts. It is a sad situation when the minister does not know who these experts are. It should not be up to me to supply the minister with this information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: If the minister were really concerned about the Atlantic provinces, he would consider undertaking this project which is as big as anything ever imagined in this country. Instead of asking me "Who?" the minister should know the name of every expert. His interjection demonstrates the interest he has in the Atlantic pro-cinces. It is obvious that the minister is saying "My mandarins tell me that it cannot be done".
Government Organization Act, 1970


John James Greene: Yours too?


Robert Carman Coates: Not mine.


John James Greene: Nova Scotians.


Robert Carman Coates: If the Nova Scotia mandarins are saying this to the minister, why are the same mandarins, including the Premier of Nova Scotia, talking to the Rothschilds, the public utilities in the New England states and others? They are doing so because they know there are these markets. They are talking to the Rothschilds because they know that the money can be produced. The federal government has a very real interest in this matter. If the power can be produced, we should produce it. If we produce it, we shall be able to sell it. The longer we delay producing it, the longer it will be before we can sell it, because it will take at least ten years to build the dams to harness the tides.
The President of the Treasury Board is laughing to himself. I can understand his laughing, because this matter concerns the Atlantic provinces. He comes from Montreal and he does not give a damn what happens in the Atlantic provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: If the President of the Treasury Board is really interested in protecting the taxpayers' dollar, I would remind him that he has a $2.25 million investment in the report of the programming board. If he is really interested in protecting that investment, he will see that the report is brought up to date so that it can be utilized and work can go forward as quickly as the economic evidence deems advisable. The report is no good today because it is outdated. It is the minister's duty to see that this deficiency is rectified.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the debate on part II of the reorganization bill, the part which deals with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I listened with particular interest to the preceding speaker's views on the subject of generating power from the tides of the Bay of Fundy.
Earlier we heard a speech by the leader of my party, in the course of which he asked a number of interesting questions about government policy. I am sure we are all anxiously waiting to hear from the minister just what the plans of the government are. If there was ever a mixed-up program it is in the field of energy policy. The minister has time and time again made trips to the United States as well as to various parts of Canada, and on every occasion he has adopted a different approach to the question of how Canada's energy resources are to be used.


An hon. Member:: He is flexible.


Randolph Harding: I'll say he is flexible! We might have another word for it. It is high time the Canadian people knew where the government is going as far as the overall development of our energy resources is concerned.
4662'

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 There is one question I should like to deal with in the limited time at my disposal this afternoon, namely, a national energy grid. The subject has already been touched upon by one or two speakers, but it seems to me it is one of the major fields which the government and the minister responsible have been neglecting.
I have in mind a grid which would cover Canada from the east to the west. This makes sense. We have been talking about the development of such a grid for years and we have every right to ask what is holding up this project, what the government is doing or what the minister and his department are doing to ensure that such a grid is set up.
We have just heard an interesting speech about the power which could be produced from the Fundy tides. The best way to use that power would be to tie it in to a national grid. As all hon. members know, across Canada there are a number of different time zones. They also know that when hydroelectric power is produced, there must be sufficient power to meet peak demands. This is why a national grid is a necessity. As peak times differ, loads could be switched from one region to another. We could save ourselves hundreds of millions of dollars in energy costs if we had the foresight to set up a national grid and pass reserve power from area to area as requirements change. Yet here we sit, in 1971, while the department does practically nothing along this line.
What is happening, Mr. Chairman? I will tell you. A north-south flow of power is developing. We are selling it over the line. Take natural gas, for example. Natural gas is one of the best energy sources we have, and it is one of the cleanest. We are fighting pollution. Instead of selling as much natural gas, as we do, south of the line, why should we not use it from one end of Canada to the other to produce clean electricity? This would help solve our pollution problem while at the same time using Canadian resources in our own country. The government's lack of policy in this direction is discouraging to those who have been trying for many years to move its thinking in this direction.
We have solved the technical difficulties attached to transmitting electric power over long distances. Other countries have done so. It can be transmitted from east to west and west to east.


An hon. Member:: Really?


Randolph Harding: Yes. It is late because the north-south transmission of energy is taking place. It is late because governments such as the Liberal government which has been with us for years have not realized the immensity of the benefit which would accrue to Canada if more emphasis were placed on use within our own nation, and less on the export of natural resources, including energy resources in particular. I understand studies have been made on the basis of which an east-west grid is feasible. We have all heard stories about a mid-Canada corridor. Then again, hon. members say we ought to do something to arrest the population drift to the cities. They argue that the population should be spread out more evenly. It is predicted that within a few years 80 per cent of the

population of Canada will be residing in the urban areas. Here is a chance to distribute industry and population and to develop other sections of this country. To achieve this end, of course, power and an east-west grid are essential. The lack of activity along these lines is detrimental to the nation generally. The previous speaker said that the Fundy power project is feasible. Some time ago it was estimated that if this project were in operation, $100 million would be saved on the importation of coal from the United States. Incidentally, there would be less pollution. These are matters which the minister should take into consideration. It is well known that the most expensive power in the world is peak power, so if the load could be spread the cost would decrease. I sometimes wonder whether this aspect has been sufficiently surveyed. A great deal can be done to cut down pollution caused by energy resources, and to solve the problem of regions of low employment, and so on.
Another problem which I would like to deal with briefly, Mr. Chairman, is the projected pipeline from Alaska through northern Canada. Numerous questions have been asked about the amount of research being carried on in the north. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have stated in this House that a great deal of research is being carried out. However, details have not been forthcoming. I am aware that some oil companies and some government departments have initiated research, but I doubt if much of it relates to the effect of oil spills upon fish and wildlife. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry made an amazing statement in Victoria the other day at a convention of the Liberal party. He said, "I am 90 per cent sure that the building of a trans-Canada corridor can begin by 1972." From the information we have it is clear that it will take three or four years to gather sufficient knowledge to determine whether such a pipeline would be safe.
I ask the minister, what projects are afoot in the north to deal with the flora and fauna, who is doing them, who is in charge, where are they taking place? Surely the minister could give us this information right now or when he speaks in the debate. I assure him that if we do not get the answers we will keep after him until we do. I am of the opinion that a number of these projects have been agreed upon but that there is practically no research taking place. Yet the stories coming from the minister and the government generally are that we have almost enough information now to make the decision on whether the pipeline shall go forward.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The minister has said the opposite.


Randolph Harding: We must think of all the factors before committing ourselves to any type of pipeline. It would be a disaster to find out that it would destroy the northern ecology. Blunders can be made, so we must endeavour to ensure that we proceed from the firm and sound basis of research. Mr. Chairman, I should like the minister to tell us what research is being done on the movement of cari-
March 26, 1971

bou in the north. This question affects the entire Indian and Eskimo populations. Who is in charge of this? Who is doing it? How long has it been under way? How many men are in the field? I must speak out, Mr. Chairman, and emphasize that the native peoples in the northern part of Canada have every right to make certain that this Parliament protects their right to earn a livelihood in the part of the country in which they have lived for generations. We must not forget this fact. Has the minister any plans if it is found that there will be caused tremendous disturbance and upset for the people concerned?
We know that economic development is now going on in the north, without any land use regulations. It is hard to imagine a government carrying on economic development that could destroy the ecology, without laying down strict regulations. Land use regulations have not been brought in by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and no one knows the type of land use regulations that will be introduced in respect of gas and oil exploitation in the north. I say that this is a disgraceful situation.
We are told that when the regulations are brought in they will cover only about 5 per cent of the main mining areas, and the remainder will be open. If this is so, I tell the minister that it will be one of the most stupid steps the government could take. Every bit of oil drilling and gas exploration which is going on in the north should be under strict government regulation. It is our duty to protect the whole of Canada. It is our duty to protect the natural environment in which our northern inhabitants live.
We are not saying exploration in the north should be stopped, but we are saying that this government should produce the regulations so we can see where we are going, what the government intends to do and how much freedom exploiters of our natural resources will have when they start to dig for the natural resources which rightfully belong to the Canadian people. Over the years we have experienced enough government delay, delay and delay until it is too late. We have had an example of this in the southern part of Canada, where our lakes are polluted and where in many areas we have made a sewer out of the air until it is not fit to breathe.
We say it is time that the north, which is relatively unpolluted, was protected. It is said that one learns by experience and what has happened in the past. I suggest it is time now, in 1971, that we realized this and made sure that when we move in these new areas pollution does not occur over and over again.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but I must interrupt to advise him that his time has expired. The hon. member indicates he would like to continue. He may do so only if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall take only another 30 seconds or so. There is one more question
Government Organization Act, 1970 I wish to pose to the minister. Last week the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry suggested that the new Department of the Environment should have the power of veto in respect of environmental problems in the north. I ask the minister whether he agrees with this and whether he would support a move to have this power written into the legislation covering the new Department of the Environment or into another appropriate statute.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words about a great natural resource of Canada which has been touched upon this afternoon but has not been mentioned specifically. When one flies over this great country of ours one is struck by the great potential of our water resources in the form of lakes and rivers, some of which are unpolluted and many of which are polluted. I wish to speak about both.
We must ask ourselves how we can derive the best use of this great natural resource. Today people talk about selling it to the United States. They say we have more water than we can use in the forseeable future, and that therefore we should sell it. In this sense there are many questions one might raise. First, I think we should take a hard look at the present and future needs of Canadians. It would be simple to establish a system of canals and waterways in order to get the water to the United States. In other words, we could turn on the tap-but once the tap has been opened, the question is how to shut it off if we should wish to do so.
From an agricultural point of view, I think we should remember that one of the prime uses to which the water would be put in the United States is in the irrigation of farmland in arid areas of the United States midwest, where crops could then be produced which would be competitive with those of western Canada and, indeed, of all parts of Canada. So let us be very careful before we enter into agreements to sell our water to the great nation to our south.
I shall now come closer to the area I represent, namely, the Great Lakes area. There we have a great water system which bears the commerce of the world into the heartland of North America. Along it has been developed, at ever-increasing speed, a great industrial corridor which many people have referred to as the Ruhr of North America. This resource will continue to be used for that purpose whether or not it is polluted, unless the water becomes so thick that ships cannot pass through it.
This great waterway of central Canada is also an important source of supply to the municipalities which have grown up along it. The purity of the water is most important in this regard. Obviously, if the water is polluted, the municipalities and industrial plants can become involved in very great expense in respect of purification. There are many industrial plants along the shoreline of the Great Lakes. One example is the hydro-generating plant at Nanticoke, which will be one of the largest in Ontario when completed. Water will be taken from Lake Erie for this plant not only for the generation of steam but also to be used as a coolant. The water will be discharged into the lake again at a temperature several degrees higher than that at which it was taken in, and

March 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 some ecologist who have studied the lake say this will have a detrimental effect on fish and plant life in Lake Erie. So we must be careful that this water is used wisely and well.
The Great Lakes system provides an opportunity for the harvesting of a great many fish. I do not believe anyone is now unaware of the fact that the pollution problem in the Great Lakes system has dealt a severe economic blow to the people who try to derive a livelihood from fishing, particularly in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, and in fact in all the Great Lakes. Another point is that the Great Lakes system is being made a carrier of waste. There are those who tell us that some of the rivers flowing into Lake Erie on the south shore are so polluted that the water itself is a fire hazard because of the pollutants from the refineries along the shoreline near Cleveland and Erie. I understand a warning has been issued because of the fire hazard. This seems almost beyond imagination. Therefore, we must make sure we do not make our waterways into merely carriers of waste.
I should like to deal particularly with Lake Erie. It is the shallowest of lakes. It is in danger of becoming the settling basin for the pollution spewed into it from the St. Clair River, chemicals from industries on the Detroit River and the great industrial city of Detroit. From these sources and others there is a great danger of eutrophication in Lake Erie, that is, the enrichment of the lake with nutrients which cause plant growth, the green algae with which we are all so familiar. This is becoming a menace to people who live along the shores of the lake.
Phosphates are major nutrients which contribute to the growth of algae and to the eutrophication of our lakes. The source of phosphates, one of the great culprits, has been detergents which until the last year or two have been largely made from a phosphorus base. Hence, the very wide use of detergents in the discharge of effluents through our sewage systems ultimately causes the pollution of our lakes. This has been cited as one of the great culprits. There are those who will argue with that statement. I think the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his officials through their studies have come to the conclusion that this is the major source of phosphate pollution in our lakes. There are people who have contrary views. I should like to read, for the edification of hon. members, from the scientific paper "Chemistry and Industry," published in London, England, in March of 1970. Part of the article reads as follows:
Detergent phosphates are only one of the sources of the phosphate content of the effluents causing eutrophication; other sources such as human excreta in sewage, fertilizer and animal manure run off from farmland and natural erosion contribute much larger amounts. Thus it is open to doubt whether a ban on detergent phosphates will in itself lead to a material or indeed to any improvement in the condition of Canada's inland water.
I would ask the minister to pay particular attention to these scientific authorities who have carried out extensive research in this field. Let us not think that our problem is solved just because we ban detergents with a

phosphate basis. Human excreta is another major source of pollution. It comes from cities and towns. Many of them spew raw sewage into our rivers and lakes, and many have no treatment facilities whatsoever. We do not have to look very far from here to see a major city which does just that.
Fertilizer from agricultural land runoff has also been charged as one of the culprits in phosphate pollution. Much of the fertilizer contains three major ingredients, nitrogen, phosphorus and potash, but any soil chemist will tell you that phosphate is one of the chemicals which is added to soil as a fertilizer, locks itself into the soil and is least subject to erosion from any of the chemicals applied. So let us not condemn agriculture too strongly when we hunt for the culprit of phosphate pollution.
I have talked about many bad things, but what are some of the remedies? I will suggest three. Let us have a "get tough" policy with industrial polluters. The Ontario government has launched a suit against the Dow Chemical Company for $25 million. Surely it cannot be considered a licence to pollute if they are going to be forced to pay that large amount of money. Let us be tough with our industries. When the Canada Water Act was reviewed, severe penalties were imposed. This was a step in the right direction. Let us not get soft with industry, and let us not be carried away with the economic impact that will result if we make it so tough for industries that they cannot locate in these areas or serve our society.
Another thing the government can do-and this can have many side effects-is direct federal grants to municipalities for the construction of primary and secondary sewage treatment facilities. I remind hon. members that in 1959 the Conservative party in power made a series of such grants to municipalities. I think this is a program worth considering again. As I said, it can have many side effects. The construction industry will have a shot in the arm through such a program, there will be increased employment, and so on.
As I said earlier, the discharge of raw sewage into our lakes and rivers is a major source of pollution. Let us treat it. I would like to see our government take a tougher stand vis-a-vis the United States regarding the sharing of responsibility, on the International Joint Commission. It is all very well to ask, what can a little country like Canada do against the great neighbour to our south? But believe me, we could make enough stink about it, to put it bluntly, that the media would get the message and it would get across to our neighbour. The rank and file of the people in the United States are not happy about this situation either. I think we need a "get tough" policy. Let us not have so many reports from the International Joint Commission, but let us see some action from it.
I would like to conclude on a more optimistic note. I have painted a rather gloomy picture of Lake Erie, which is very close to where I live and which I do not consider to be polluted in any sense. I will close by quoting from a
March 26, 1971

newsletter from the Lake Erie region economic council. They start as follows:
"Lake Erie is so polluted that if anyone falls into it, he doesn't drown, he just decays".
Do you know who said that? Hon. members have heard it before. The Duke of Edinburgh is reported to have said it during an address to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France. A high school student said:
I am afraid to swim in Lake Erie because if I swallow some water I might die.
He said this during a conference on our environment. The newsletter goes on to say:
We can perhaps forgive the young enthusiast for the exaggeration. It is more difficult to forgive the inaccurate statement of the Queen's husband and the international attention it provoked.
Believe me, it did provoke international attention and the people on Lake Erie suffered from it in an economic sense, as this quote will illustrate:
Observations such as these, no matter how well meaning, do nothing toward a solution and are harmful in other ways.
Let's consider Lake Erie for a moment.
To say Lake Erie is polluted is just not true.
Sections of it are polluted and the water quality varies with location, time of year, lake levels and weather.
Sweeping generalizations create very detrimental impressions which are hard to overcome.
"Stories and statements about the pollution of Lake Erie are having a very damaging effect upon tourism along the north shore''-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. It being four o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Charles Humbert Thomas: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately declare a transportation policy for the Atlantic region based upon modern solutions to present and future problems and should introduce, in this session, legislation to implement that policy for debate and enactment by Parliament.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I present this motion to the House not just to be repetitious on a subject on which I have made many representations to the government but, rather, in the hope that somehow I may be able to inject some new emphasis into my remarks which would prod this government to action-action to honour its promise of 1966 to bring in legislation which would lead to a comprehensive transportation policy for the Atlantic area.
Atlantic Region Transport Policy
Why am I so concerned about the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces? Why have I made so many representations to the minister, in the House, in committee, and in fact anywhere that I could get his ear? Why have I continued to call for action when it seems that all my pleas fall on deaf ears? To understand, one must be aware of the peculiar problems of the Atlantic area; one must be aware of the great important transportation plays in the economic life of Atlantic Canada; one must realize that the development of a region is directly related to its ease of access to resources and to outside markets, that a major impetus for growth comes from the ability of a region to produce goods and services demanded by the national economy and to market them in competition with other regions.
One must also realize that the ability to compete in exports is related to the efficiency with which the region is able to assemble the factors of production. This ability relates not only to adequate physical systems but to a realistic rate structure designed to overcome the handicaps created by geography. This was recognized by the Fathers of Confederation in the discussions that preceded the entrance of the Maritime provinces into the union. It was tangibly expressed by the construction of the Intercolonial Railway to enable the people of the Maritime provinces to secure access to the larger markets of the whole Canadian nation. Until 1912 government policy maintained a rate structure below that of the rest of the country, but between 1912 and 1920 steadily increasing freight rates, increases which were greater than those in the rest of Canada, brought on the dissatisfaction that culminated in the appointment of the Duncan commission in 1926.
The Duncan commission recognized that the Intercolonial rate structure had to be maintained to enable the area to compete in the markets of the country. But the commission found that successive rate increases had destroyed the historic rate structure and recommended that action be taken to assist shippers and producers in the area. The recommendations of the Duncan commission led to the passage of the Maritime Freight Rates Act in 1927 in a stated attempt to restore the former Intercolonial rate structure.
It may appear to some that I have dwelt too long on the background of this problem, but I have done this deliberately because of the tendency of many people to look on assistance granted for transportation in the Maritime area as assistance to the carrier rather than to the movement of products and produce of the region. I again emphasize something that I will refer to later in my remarks: assistance in respect of transportation must not be considered as assistance to the carrier but, rather, as assistance in the movement of products and produce of the region. This is the keystone of my argument. It is a fact which has been too often overlooked by governments and by those who deplore th eamount of money spent on assistance in the region. I also wish to dispel the notion, too commonly put forward, that transportation is not an important factor in economic development.

March 26, 1971
Atlantic Region Transport Policy
Although I agree that transportation costs are not the only problem, many businessmen in the area have stated that assistance in their transportation and distribution problems, would mean more to them than the financial incentives which are being provided by various governments or their agencies. The most recent submission has come from Maritime Co-operative Services Limited. This group is very disturbed about the several increases in transportation rates which have caused signicant increases in the costs of manufactured products moved out of the area. They point out that these increased freight rates have great significance for industry in general in the area, because they have eroded and will further erode any possibility of Atlantic industry being either supplied with materials from outside-or shipping manufactured products elsewhere.
Transportation, Mr. Speaker, is indeed an essential element in the economic development of the Atlantic region. I refer to transportation in its broadest sense to include transportation costs as well as the availability of transportation facilities. This principle is recognized in the Maritime Freight Rates Act which established that the Atlantic provinces had special transportation needs, just as the Crowsnest Pass grain rates recognized the special transportation needs of western Canada.
What, then, should be the elements of a rational Atlantic transportation policy? For guidance we can do no better than turn to the report of the four Atlantic Premiers, a report, incidentally, which was endorsed fully by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. This report emphasizes that transportation assistance in one form or another has been used throughout Canada as a means of developing the economy of the nation. Special regional transportation assistance has been provided to meet political, social and economic needs of various regions of the country. Such regional assistance has a continuing role to play in the economic development of the Atlantic area. It is admitted that the Maritime Freight Rates Act has not been completely effective because in many cases the assistance provided does not benefit the shippers but is, rather, a subsidy to the railways.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act requires revision. Any revision must be designed not only to assist the economic development of the area but it must also be considered in terms of total economic development. The Atlantic Premiers agreed that modification should be made to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, but on the clear understanding that any such modification would be made only on condition that a federal-provincial agency be set up to administer the operation of the act and to ensure that such assistance would benefit the shipper through special selective assistance to the industry concerned. This assistance would be available for raw materials, semi-finished materials and component parts which industries bring into their plants for further processing. Also, industries could apply for and receive transportation assistance on products shipped to market in the rest of Canada.

The over-all guidelines for such assistance should be the degree to which this assistance would enable a company to expand. The agency would be equipped with a fund to provide assistance, and assurance would be given that any reduction in subsidies would be offset by corresponding assistance to industries and shippers involved. While it was agreed that it would be desirable to phase out the subsidies under the Maritime Freight Rates Act gradually, the amount of assistance so phased out should be replaced by more effective benefits granted to the regional industries involved. Effective competition among the various modes of transportation must be created, and an integral part of the proposals concerned a long-term program for upgrading arterial highways, for improving connections between the island provinces and for lowering the costs of providing rail transportation.
A new air transportation policy should be evolved to permit redistribution of air routes between trunk and regional carriers. Water transportation facilities should be reviewed and improved. In short, the report agreed that a regional transportation policy should encompass all modes of transportation-road, rail, water and air

and should be designed to assist shippers and manufacturers in the area to compete in the Canadian market.
Let us see what has happened since the Atlantic Premiers report was tabled. On June 17, 1969, when introducing the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) referred to the Premiers' report and agreed that it would be desirable immediately to set up an agency of the type requested in the report. This joint committee, as he referred to it, would be asked to consider the recommendations of the Premiers and to make recommendations on these matters to his department. He also pointed out that ARFA was only a temporary measure and that once the joint committee got under way and made recommendations he intended to bring in legislation of a more permanent and extensive nature. That was two years ago. At the same time, the minister gave the following commitment, as recorded at page 10386 of Hansard:
I am giving the House a commitment that there will be no change in the rates under the MFRA unless the committee so recommends and unless the amount to be spent in some other manner is at least the same as the amount originally provided.
Since that time we have seen the subsidy reduced from 20 per cent to 17-J per cent; and even though the federal-provincial committee recommended that the government should act immediately to draw up special recommendations to provide equivalent assistance, no action has yet been taken. Is it any wonder, then, that the people in the area are afraid that this is the start of a phase-out of subsidies without equivalent assistance being provided? In the two years that have elapsed since the report was tabled we have seen a continuing erosion of the situation as a result of successive freight rate increases which have been imposed by the railways and which have destroyed the position of the Atlantic shipper vis-a-vis the rest of Canada.
The committee has met several times and has made recommendations to the minister. Several times during the present session I, along with other hon. members, have
March 26, 1971

asked the minister about the progress being made on the recommendations of the committee. On December 16, as reported at page 2019 of Hansard, the minister stated that a great many of the recommendations had already been implemented and that others were in the process of being implemented. He went on to say that the committee was still meeting and that as recommendations were made they would be put into effect.
I would point out to the minister that although some of the recommendations have been implemented, for example, the subsidy has been extended to trucks-incidentally, there has not been a decrease in rates that the minister prophesied-the rates on the Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island ferries have been equalized and the subsidy has been reduced to 17.5 per cent, the most vital and basic recommendation has not yet been acted upon. The whole basis of the Premiers' report was that the subsidies should not be altered unless and until equivalent transportation assistance was provided for the shippers.
We on this side of the House are fearful that what we indicated to the minister during the debate on the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act is now beginning to happen; there are indications that subsidies will be reduced and gradually phased out completely without equivalent assistance being provided. I therefore urge the minister to take immediate action to have regulations drawn up to provide special transportation assistance and to carry out what the federal-provincial committee recommended, that additional financing be provided during the first years of the subsidy phase-out.
I suggest that there are several ways in which this could be done. It could be done through supplementary estimates, as in the case of subsidies to the truckers, or the minister could use the balance of the funds which were originally provided to reimburse the railways when the freight rates freeze was imposed. At that time, as the minister knows, approximately $12 million were voted to reimburse the railways for revenue lost because of that freeze. When the freeze was lifted, only about $6 million of this money had been used. So I suggest to the minister that he could use the remaining $6 million as a start to develop some programs of special assistance.
The minister could also call on his colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), to provide funds and assist shippers to build up the infrastructure he is always talking about; that is to say, he could ask his colleague to assist shippers in their transportation costs as a means of promoting the over-all economic development of the region. I should like the minister to think seriously about those suggestions and to give serious consideration to announcing his. program of special assistance as soon as possible.
I had the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, of being with the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in February, 1969, when it went on its trip to the Atlantic area, and I heard the many fine briefs which were presented at that time. The Maritime Transportation Commission produced figures to show that prohibitive freight rates had destroyed much of our former industry and had discouraged potential industry from setting up in the area. The Maritime Provinces Board of Trade, in
Atlantic Region Transport Policy their excellent brief emphasized that the kind of special transportation they were asking for was not at all unprecedented in Canada. For example, they pointed out the vast St. Lawrence Seaway which operates at a deficit, the fleet of federal icebreakers being used to keep the St. Lawrence open in winter for shipping, at public expense, and the fact that export rates on western grain had been perpetuated at 1897 levels. We note that this type of assistance has been granted to western Canada, and 1 submit that the Maritimes are entitled to be treated as well as other areas of Canada.
A key point in this brief was that the Atlantic provinces have as much right under confederation to have economic access to the central Canadian market as French Canada has in its claim for a bilingual and bicultural society. In other words, if the central government is committed to spending many millions, or possibly billions of dollars on language facilities and constitutional changes in an effort to hold Canada together, are not we in the Atlantic provinces entitled to financial assistance to develop our industries and to help us remain in confederation? Does Canada stop at the Quebec-New Brunswick border, or is anyone interested in keeping the Atlantic provinces as part of Canada?
I hope that these remarks will do something to convince the government that we in the Atlantic provinces are not simply seeking federal hand-outs. We seek recognition of the many regional problems which have been created by federal government policies, and we seek action which will correct these problems. In other words, the people of the Atlantic provinces who have the basic rights defined in the Maritime Provinces Board of Trade brief are at long last demanding simple justice.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to express my opinion on the matter now before the House.
May I commend the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) for introducing this motion which is of particular interest to me, as member for Rimouski, inasmuch as the region of the lower St. Lawrence, including the Gaspe peninsula, has much in common with the Atlantic provinces.
The mover is asking the government to declare a transportation policy for the Atlantic region based upon modern solutions to present and future problems. He also states that the government should:
-introduce, in this session, legislation to implement that policy.
Although I agree with what the mover said, I understand that in the Maritimes, the question of the improvement of the transportation system by road, rail, sea and air must receive special attention from both the federal and provincial governments.
We have the same problem at home in the lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area where we try, by making all the representations possible at all levels, to get the provincial government, with the help of the federal govern-

March 26, 1971
Atlantic Region Transport Policy ment, through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to build once and for all a modern road around the Gaspe peninsula which would enable people not only to travel our region, but also to communicate easily with central Canada.
However, I think it would be good to remind hon. members that in the area of concern to the hon. member for Moncton, this government has already done quite a lot so far and we trust it will pursue this activity. I will mention the history of transportation in the Maritime provinces, that is the national transportation policy, and more specifically the Atlantic transportation policy. There is no need to go back very far. One merely has to remember that in 1967 the federal Minister of Transport had asked the premiers of the four Maritime provinces to express their views concerning transportation in their respective provinces and to bring these views to the attention of the federal government.
In my opinion, this, to start with, is at least evidence of the good intentions of the federal government and I appreciate this method since this government is giving not only the premiers but also the taxpayers of the Maritimes provinces through their premiers, the opportunity to state readily and with authority what they actually want.
In 1969, the premiers submitted a joint report and that very same year the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act was passed by Parliament.
The act included several principles brought forward by the Atlantic region's first ministers. That is why a federal-provincial commission to deal exclusively with Atlantic region transportation was implemented.
The commission has since remained active, carrying out the responsibilities conferred upon it and the Maritime Freight Rates Act, based on its recommendations, produced good results by way of rail transportation subsidies, later extended to road transportation.
An over-all look at national transportation policy inevitably brings to mind the 1967 National Transportation Act which, as I understand it, is based on the principle that to the extent possible transportation organizations in Canada should be able to avail themselves of certain rates in order to finance their operations.
This policy is, so to speak, meant to be an incentive for transportation companies to meet public demand, not only for quantity but also for quality of transportation in the areas involved. In this way, it is to be hoped that those organizations will be able to ensure in the long run the best health possible, if I may use the word, to our national transportation system.
As for a transport policy for the Atlantic region, it is obvious that there must be very close links between the national and regional policies.
The latter can only be an extension of the former and must be based on the same principles, but only when and where the national policy is applicable, bearing in mind regional conditions.
In the report they submitted in 1969, the premiers of the Atlantic provinces stated that they supported a general national policy but that, on the other hand-as the
hon. member for Moncton said a moment ago, and I agree with him-in the Atlantic provinces, because of a general lack of facilities and material and owing to light traffic and great distances between towns, it was difficult to fully apply the economic principle outlined in the National Transportation Act. The member for Moncton agrees with the premiers when he discusses a transport policy based on modern solutions to present and future problems.
The goal seems to be to modify the national transportation policy for the Atlantic region so that transportation would serve as an instrument for stimulating economic growth in our areas. According to certain statistics that I will not quote, economists may say that the Atlantic provinces, as a region, are not neglected and this is generally true if we consider current federal spending in respect of transportation particularly. The Fifth Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada indicated that the four Atlantic provinces received more per capita in 1964-65, in respect of federal spending on transportation, than any other economic region of Canada.
It seems that the Atlantic region has somewhat more transportation facilities than would be justified by the importance of the market, if we take into account the general principle spelled out in the National Transportation Act. In spite of that, this region has so far failed to obviate this handicap, when we consider the enormous distances which separate it from central Canada markets. It prevented it from developing its economy as much as it wanted to. Finally, some regional analysts proclaim that it was instrumental in the national economic integration, at the expense of the more industrialized regions of central Canada.
We agree that transportation must play an important part in the development of the Maritimes. But even if it is very important, it is not the only instrument in the necessary infrastructure for the development of these areas. It must be part of an overall program of development. Indeed, for the past few years, the citizens of these areas have prepared development programs.
This system must be fully integrated in a comprehensive plan. But if we conceive the transportation policy as separate from the national policy, this could have disadvantages.
Thus, I think that in considering what the government has done so far, as well as the economic general principle on which the national transportation policy is based, considering what has been done up to now with regard to the transportation policy in the Maritimes, we think that we should continue to ask the federal government and other governments to modernize increasingly the means of transportation in the Maritimes consistently with the development in other fields. However, we must always avoid what we often call "balkanization". It is good to think in regional terms but we must also do so in Canadian terms and draw up plans for the general progress and development of our country.
However, I am pleased to have heard the hon. member for Moncton who is greatly interested in transportation

March 26, 1971

in his area and as for myself, as a member for a neighbouring area adjacent to the Maritime provinces, I congratulate him for having expressed his views and those of the citizens of my area. I remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) that the Lower St. Lawrence area and the Gaspe peninsula have approximately the same problems as the Maritime provinces. Those problems should not be left to experts who, despite their high qualifications, live far from us. It would be preferable to listen to our people who have their own way of expressing themselves and who know what they want as far as transportation is concerned.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in speaking in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas). I shall be brief. I know the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) wishes to speak, and I thank him for yielding the floor to me because I have to leave soon.
The hon. member's motion is a positive one. He talks about a comprehensive policy for transportation in the Atlantic provinces. He talks about modern solutions to present and future problems, and he proposes that the government should introduce legislation this session to implement an Atlantic transportation policy. It is not very clear to me whether he is suggesting there should be a study of Atlantic transportation separate from any studies of a national transportation policy. Like the hon. member and others in his party, I want transportation policies in this country which will benefit the Maritimes, because I believe that if Canada is to remain a federal state, if it is to remain one country, certain regional considerations must be borne in mind.
For example, the Maritime Freight Rates Act seems to be a constitutional concession to the Maritimes. I think it is evident that Parliament has in the past accorded preferential treatment to the Maritimes in the field of transportation. This had to be the case. While a national transportation policy might be good from a national point of view, and while the philosophy of encouraging competition might be a good way of ensuring an efficient transportation system over a large area, it could be most detrimental to regional effort and to the Atlantic provinces in particular.
The hon. member for Moncton complained that his representations were falling on deaf ears. I do not think they are. Some action has been taken both by this government and by former governments to assist transportation in the Maritimes in different ways. After all, transportation does not consist only of rail freight and passenger services. It involves an infrastructure. In my constituency, in my part of New Brunswick, I would say that priority in transportation centres on the building of roads; I would place this before improvements in passenger services by air or by plane or the lowering of freight rates. Unless we can travel over good, all-weather highways our region cannot compete with other parts of Canada nor, for that matter, with other parts of the
Atlantic Region Transport Policy Maritimes. We have to consider government action in this light and not only as it affects freight rates.
On the subject of freight rates, I too at times deplore increases in those rates. I would like everything to go down.


An hon. Member:: What about indemnities?


Herb Breau: I did not hear that remark, but since it came from a west coast member I will not listen to it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Herb Breau: I am thinking only in terms of Atlantic transportation policy. If there are freight rate increases, it does not mean that the government does not wish to help the Maritimes in the transportation field. We have seen actions by this government in the last few years which have been of help to the Maritimes; for example, the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act which provided assistance to truckers within the select territory and leaving this area. While this action may not have reduced freight rates or trucking rates, it is a fact that now some goods may be transmitted more cheaply by truck; trucks are now in a position to compete more favourably, on a selective basis, in the transportation of goods provided a certain volume is available or if other stipulations are met. The fact that trucking rates have not risen leaves me with the impression that increases may have been averted, because it has been a traditional pattern in the Maritimes for trucking rates to increase soon after railway freight rates are increased.
I do not have the figures before me to prove this contention, but I believe the Atlantic provinces have received more assistance per capita from the federal government toward the establishment of transportation infrastructure than any other region of Canada. I would cite the fifth annual report of the Economic Council which indicates that the four Atlantic provinces received a larger per capita share of federal transportation expenditures since 1964-65 than any other region. So there has been some action.
What has happened is that a lot of the investment in infrastructure through the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, and so on has not necessarily helped only the Atlantic provinces. There is a great deal of travel and migration from the Atlantic provinces to Toronto and Montreal. It may be cheaper now to bring products to Montreal, but it has also increased the incentive for Montreal companies to sell products in the Maritimes. Investors from the west coast can now come to the Atlantic provinces and compete at every level. Whilst this helps us, it also has the effect of giving a boost to anyone in central Canada who wants to go to the Maritimes to sell, manufacture or take over businesses there.
We have not been hit as hard by the CNR in the reduction of passenger train services. The Atlantic region receives a $1 million subsidy for air service, although I think this includes Labrador. This subsidy is given to Quebec Air and EPA to help promote their routes. Par-

March 26, 1971
Atlantic Region Transport Policy liament has taken this action through the CTC to help transportation in the Atlantic provinces. The hon. member for Moncton mentioned the phasing out of subsidies; he says he does not want hand-outs. Nor do I. But I want subsidies to help us obtain business and find new markets, though I do not want them to remain forever.
I am a Canadian and I do not want to see the MFRA and ARFA go on forever. I hope they can be phased out. But we have to be careful not to reduce them at the wrong time. We cannot have it both ways, saying we don't want handouts and we don't want subsidies to be phased out. Let's not fool ourselves, though-we cannot expect the national treasury to subsidize the Maritimes forever. I appreciate the efforts of this and former governments in regional development, be they with respect to infrastructure or job creation, but I hope the Maritimes will not always require this type of assistance. The new premier of Nova Scotia seems to think that in the near future the province will not be receiving equalization grants. I think this is a good sign. I hope to see the day when my province will not need equalization payments, MFRA or ARFA, because we will be self-sustaining and competitive.
I thank the hon. member for Moncton and congratulate him for raising this question. I know the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East wishes to speak on the motion. I think it is a good motion and is consistent with what this government has been trying to do. It is good to use modern approaches, but we must recognize the problems. As I said, we cannot have it both ways. When we look for assistance for the Maritimes, we must make sure that it does not help central Canada to exploit us more. It must be selective and it must help maritime investors develop the area.
I am sure we will have contributions from west coast members from both sides of the House. I think my remark of a short while ago may have been taken the wrong way. It was not intended to give the impression that I do not like to hear their views; I am always ready to listen to their advice.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, if I had the art of talking with tongue in cheek I would say that I was astonished that the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) felt it necessary to put this notice of motion on the order paper, calling for the establishment of a transportation policy for the Atlantic region. I recall very well how that knight in shining armour from the Atlantic region, the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate-at that time Minister of Transport-with great verve brought into this House a new national transportation act. We were to have a brave new world of transportation in Canada. It was to bring to an end all the problems of transportation that had beset us since confederation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With him as president!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The strange part is, Mr. Speaker, that since his departure from this chamber we seem to have heard less and less about this brave new world and the millenium. In fact, 1 find myself wondering whether he
wore himself out in his rhetorical efforts when piloting the bill through, with its flowery preamble, so that when he got into the ivory tower of the Canadian Transport Commission he had to spend his time recovering.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate support and sympathy for the sentiments expressed in the motion and by members from that part of the country who have supported it in this House. However, I think it would have been even more appropriate if the mover of the motion had left out the phrase "for the Atlantic region" and suggested that the government should immediately declare a transportation policy based upon modern solutions. This would put us back where we were when the former Minister of Transport moved second reading of the new transportation act and we could once again engage in a vigorous and, at times, inspiring debate such as we had then.
I am not saying this because I am unaware of the transportation problem. As far as British Columbia is concerned, I sometimes think that the national transportation policy for that province began and ended 100 years ago when we entered confederation on the basis of the railway being built to the Pacific coast. Since then we have been as much on the fringe of things as the Atlantic region. I might say there is in this regard a particular point to be made by a member representing a constituency on Vancouver Island. Unfortunately, we jumped rather prematurely at a proposition which seemed enticing to the people of the area at the time. I understand the same question is now under some consideration in the Atlantic provinces. I refer to the formation of a union. I have often thought what a difference there might have been in federal action in respect of transportation had the Crown colony of Vancouver Island not joined the Crown colony of British Columbia prior to 1871, when we joined the rest of the union that is now called Canada.
When I said the original commitment related to ownership more or less, the fact is that the commitment which was understood at the time to involve the building of a railway line to Esquimalt at the southern end of Vancouver Island is one which has not yet been fulfilled. That, of course, is an area of debate which comes up from time to time in the part of Canada from which I come. It is also one which is illustrative of the fact that to many of us, whether we come from the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast, much still needs to be done before we will be satisfied that we have what the motion refers to as a transportation policy based on modern solutions. Mr. Speaker, with those few comments I will yield the floor to any hon. member who may wish to comment on the resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) very courteously yielded the floor to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) who has a local interest in this motion and had to

March 26, 1971

catch a train. Therefore, I wonder whether Your Honour might be induced not to see the clock until after five o'clock in order to give the hon. member a decent opportunity to make his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed by the generosity of the House, but I do not think I shall keep hon. gentlemen very long after five o'clock. In discussing the motion of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) I should like to touch briefly on the question of Canada's regional air policy. I am tempted at times to refer to it as the "appearance" of a regional air policy, but that is not really true. It is a policy which is constantly under review, but unfortunately is one which has not been presented to us in this chamber or in committee for an extended period of review and examination.
This afternoon we have heard quite a bit about the difficulties of regional transportation. The difficulty in the Maritime provinces, of course, is that we do not have the marketing centre that is required in order for industries to be established and by means of which they may survive. No matter what is done, this will always be a fact until we have within our region a centre comprising 500,000 or 600,000 people. Until that day comes, the proposition put forward by certain hon. members will not be possible of achievement. We all agree that at some point subsidies, and so on, should come to an end. But I suggest this is not something which can be determined by the degree to which we are aware of the need to bring these policies to an end. There are physical matters involved which have to do with our ability to market and sell our produce.
In respect of air transportation there was completed recently in the Maritimes a fairly extensive document entitled "Atlantic Provinces Air Transportation Study." This study has to do with the future of airport facilities, transportation by air, and so on, in our region. In the past 18 months or so there has been a very definite change in the approach to air transportation problems by the national carrier, Air Canada. We have seen an attempt to get on with the job of integrating into their system the principal regional carrier in the Atlantic provinces, Eastern Provincial Airways. We have seen the tendency to reduce Air Canada establishments at some of the smaller airports in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia and in New Brunswick.
In the Atlantic provinces-I wish I had time to properly develop this theme because it is very important-there is a fear on the part of both personal and commercial users of aircraft that within the next two or three years Air Canada will end up with only two centres in the Atlantic provinces, one at St. John's, Newfoundland, and one in Halifax, with the next point in the national trans-
Atlantic Region Transport Policy portation system being where I suppose the system really begins, Montreal. This is the question I would develop if I had a few more minutes. I would have liked to express the fears about the problems created when Air Canada withdrew from centres such as Gander, Stephensville, Moncton, Saint John and Fredericton in the frequency, level of service, and so on.


Thomas Miller Bell: They will run it into the ground first.


J. Michael Forrestall: This is partly what I am afraid of. I am afraid that until we have in front of us a concrete proposal from the Department of Transport in respect of the intentions of the government and its guidelines for phasing out the national carriers' responsibilities in respect of what might be called feeder centres, we will face a very serious difficulty in the Atlantic provinces. We need those policies before this elected body so that they might be viewed from the point of view of what I consider to be the true purpose of the national carrier, that is, that it should exist where we want it to exist and not necessarily where it is economically feasible.
In considering the motion before us this afternoon, I hope the minister will demonstrate a sense of urgency in respect of the problem that faces users of the national air carrier, not only in the Atlantic region but in other regions of Canada where there is a very clear indication that the national carrier intends to get out of the shorter routes and into the longer routes. There is the question of whether we will have a modern and efficient system such as we have had from Air Canada, when we are served by the feeder lines which will take their place. If we continue this policy much longer, I am afraid that the confusion, the fear and the downgrading of service will result in an undesirable situation with respect to air traffic in the Atlantic provinces.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your indulgence in letting me continue for a minute or two beyond the time of adjournment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour provided for private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
I thank all hon. members who took part in this Friday's debate for their co-operation with the Chair. I wish all hon. members a pleasant weekend. My "thought for today" is that we are fortunate indeed and should thank the Lord that we are alive to share once more nature's transformation. I wish you energy and blessings in the new season.
At 5.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
4673

Monday, March 29, 1971