1973-02-16

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to an answer I received, as recorded on page 4893 of Hansard, for April 5, 1971, to my question No. 1184 on the slaughter of polar bears. The minister's assistant replied: "No polar bears were shot in 1971".
Figures released on Monday, February 12, 1973, at the Northwest Territories Council meeting revealed the killing of 2,735 polar bears in the eastern Arctic alone in a six year period, an average of 450 bears a year. This appears to contradict the answer given to me on page 4893 of Hansard. Obviously, the information supplied by the government was incorrect and deliberately evasive.
I bring this to the attention of the House because it indicates the lack of respect with which this House has been treated, and I request a complete investigation by the responsible minister. At the same time, I would request the minister to clarify the policy in view of the resolution of the Northwest Territories Council which promotes polar bear hunting by advertising in Europe.
I find, Sir, that this is a clear case of contempt of parliament by the minister or his officials. This House deserves an explanation of this apparent discrepancy regarding the fate of this great national asset, the polar bear, whose preservation is a matter of concern not only to conservationists and nature lovers but to all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter is obviously an important one, but I doubt that it can be raised by way of a question of privilege. The hon. member might be able to ascertain what the facts are during the question period or in some other way, but I suggest to him, with respect, that a dispute as to facts cannot be the basis of a question of privilege. Therefore I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that while the bears might have a question of privilege, I do not think the hon. member has one.



MR. HERBERT-OTTAWA &quot;JOURNAL&quot; ARTICLE ON VOTE ON INTRODUCTION OF BILL CONCERNING ABORTION

Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of all members of the House, concerning an article in the Ottawa Journal of February 14 under the byline of Mr. Richard Jackson. In reference to the vote on first reading of a private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), he states:
What bothered the Liberals was that while many insisted they were voting not for abortion, but for the principle that every M.P. has a right to bring in a bill, their vote would reflect on them as pro-abortionists.


An hon. Member:: You sure are.


Harold Thomas Herbert: This statement, and others in the article, are inaccurate and misleading. Many of us, and not solely the new members of our party, were primarily concerned with parliamentary practice and the right of all members of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harold Thomas Herbert: -to introduce bills and motions-


An hon. Member:: Are you for or against?


Harold Thomas Herbert: -whether or not we agree with the proposition. The content of the bill was secondary to the consideration of the principle involved, that of freedom of speech in parliament.
I would also state, Mr. Speaker, that I consider it an indictment of the individuals that a former member of the judiciary and a former Prime Minister should seek to deny to their fellow Canadians the right to freedom of speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will deal with one thing at a time. The hon. member did give the Chair notice of his intention to bring this situation to the attention of the House by way of a question of privilege. While the hon. member may have a grievance, I suggest that it is not a question of privilege. In any event, the hon. member did not propose a motion for the consideration of the House, so a ruling is not necessary.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, the hon. gentleman has no right to impute motives or to reflect on the vote of any hon. member of this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: -and, more particularly, to impute motives to or to reflect on the vote of a very distinguished member of this House, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, a former Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe that the hon. member should be made to withdraw that portion of his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!
25789-14J

February 16, 1973
Lake Ontario Water Level


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East is quite right that no member has a right either to impute motives or to reflect on a vote. I certainly find fault with the hon. member's statement to the extent that he reflects on a vote of the House. That is entirely out of order. But whether an hon. member should be required to withdraw a statement which is out of order is another thing. I think that the hon. member for St. John's East is quite in order when he protests against what was said, and it is the duty of the Chair to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Vaudreuil that he has no right to reflect on a vote of the House.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Let there be no mistake, Mr. Speaker. There is no complaint whatever on my part about the remarks read by the hon. gentleman, which were apparently prepared extramurally.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the dangerously high level of Lake Ontario and the present and potential damage to property arising from this situation, and in view of the request made yesterday by the city of Toronto to the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That this House directs the federal government to make immediate representation to the International Joint Commission to the effect that steps be taken without delay to reduce the water level of Lake Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member proposes for the consideration of the House a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. This motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity, therefore the hon. member cannot put his motion.


RURAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE BILL
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-145, to provide for the establishment of rural airport development advisory committees.
(Mr. McGrath.]


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in recent times not enough attention has been paid to the need for airport development in rural areas. The purpose of this bill is to attempt to overcome that by establishing rural airport development advisory committees, the members of which would be selected by the municipalities and regions within the area for which they are appointed. These committees would advise the Minister of Transport on airport development in those areas.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put again the motion that was put yesterday under Standing Order 26. I move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the statement made by the President of the United States yesterday that he prefers the Alaska route to the Canadian route for an oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, and because of the statement made two days ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the Canadian government does not plan any further representations to the American government on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member gave notice of this motion yesterday under the terms of Standing Order 26. Because of the developments in the afternoon it was felt, after consultation with the hon. member for Vancouver South, that he might be given an opportunity to propose the motion for the adjournment of the House this morning.
Hon. members know that the Chair is required by the Standing Order to consider whether there are other opportunities for debate. I would think that such an opportunity exists this very day since the House has before it, in Committee of the Whole, Vote 20a relating to the Department of the Environment. The next vote, 5a, Department of External Affairs, also seems to provide an opportunity for discussion of the matter raised by the hon. member. I would doubt very much that in the circumstances much would be gained by setting aside the consideration of these items in Committee of the Whole for the purpose of an emergency debate. I would hope that in the circumstances the hon. member for Vancouver
February 16, 1973

South would agree that it would be rather difficult for the Chair to put the motion at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which I understand is necessary today, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about the imposition of oil export controls. The minister indicated a number of days ago that controls would only be imposed if it became clear that the industry itself could not assure an adequate supply of oil for the month of March and the spring. What has happened since the minister made that statement to cause the government to believe that there will be a shortage?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may attempt to respond in a general way, it was obviously on the advice of the National Energy Board, concurred in by the government, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works last night that:
Recent levels of export demand for our oil have been such as to strain the capacity of our oil production and transportation systems and to threaten the continuity of supply of Canadian oil to domestic refiners dependent on such supply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister whether he is able to assure the House that, with the imposition of controls on the export of oil from Canada to the United States, that part of the country east of the Ottawa Valley will have adequate supplies of oil and that normal supplies of oil to eastern Canada will not be interrupted or endangered?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources give more detailed replies, but it is my understanding that it is his desire to see that steps are taken to ensure that kind of result.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I will leave that question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question appropriate to his jurisdiction. Can he assure the House that the prospective shortage of oil in Canada in the coming months will not result in significant increases in the price of oil and related products, and has the government any contingency plans to meet such possible increases in the price of oil products?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the circumstances to be such as to suggeest that there is a prospective shortage of oil in Canada itself if measures of the type
Oral Questions
that were announced yesterday are taken. However, I am following this matter very closely and am consulting closely with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, with a view to ensuring, so far as I am able to do so, the consumer interest in this matter.


OIL-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT STUDY OF TRANSPORTATION OF PRODUCT AND POSSIBLE PIPELINE TO MONTREAL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Prime Minister. In view of the evidence before the standing committee last night which projected carefully the reserves of crude petroleum-the problem is that the pipeline transporting crude petroleum is carrying a full capacity load and the licence for interprovincial extension of the pipeline which would increase the volume by 125,000 barrels a day has not yet been granted-will the Prime Minister consider seriously, and I have asked this question before, setting up an independent group other than the National Energy Board to review the question of transportation, which really brought about the decision of the government that was disclosed last night?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly bring that suggestion to the attention of the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary. In view of the questions put by the leader of my party and as we are still importing almost as much crude petroleum as we are exporting, within a few hundred thousand barrels per day, would the Prime Minister also set up a study to look into the economics and the possiblity of a pipeline to the Montreal market from western Canada as he has taken, and I say this in the proper sense, Mr. Speaker, a new interest in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my interest in the hon. member's question is as perennial as grass.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the decision made last night, which was not based on a shortage of reserves but on the question of transportation, was the price that the government had to pay the NDP for its support of the budget?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


OIL-ACTION TO ASSURE SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last night, when the announcement of the change in oil policy was made, all predictions and calculations were based on western oil going only as far as the Ottawa Valley and no consideration was given to requirements for the Montreal area and eastern Canada. Since the calculations made by the National Energy Board will be completely out of kilter if oil supply to that area is cut off, as they do not take into

February 16, 1973
Oral Questions
account the needs of eastern Canada and the calculations as to what we are able to export will be wrong, will the minister take a look at this situation with a view to discontinuing all export of oil from Canada until we are assured of supplies for eastern Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to look at the situation and consult with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. It is clear that eastern Canada will be threatened in the event of a disruption of oil deliveries from overseas sources. I wish to ask the Prime Minister what contingency plans the government has, even in a general way, or what approach the government is taking in its thinking regarding this problem. Also, when will we finally get a definitive answer to this question, considering the importance of oil supply and energy to eastern Canada and the fact that, in any event, western delivery systems could not supply this market at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear a member from Calgary show such interest in eastern Canada. I thank him very much. I think my best answer would be to refer him to the discussions that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was referring to the other day. Exchanges have been going on with the United States on the problem of supply to eastern Canada and there have been similar conversations with the OECD countries.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary.

Then I will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf and we will return later to supplementaries on that subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister very earnestly whether, in light of the proposed restrictions upon the export of oil from our Canadian west to the United States, he is able to assure us that there may not be an interruption in the supply of oil to eastern Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only give the assurance that the minister has been engaged in talks with the United States and European countries to make this assurance possible. I cannot, of course, engage the government on the conduct of other countries.

The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, it has been customary to recognize each party in order for a first question. There has been no first question from this party. Mine is not a supplementary question. No question has been asked yet on behalf of this party.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Portneuf. As I said, I will return to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in a moment.


HOUSING
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he read the telegram sent to him by a group of citizens from Neufchatel, in Quebec, advising him of their dissatisfaction with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation over recently built substandard houses? If so, can he tell us what steps he intends to take with regard to this serious problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not read the telegram mentioned by the hon. member but I shall check with my office to see, if, in fact, I received it before the hon. member.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, as the government has granted a certain amount of money to the Indians towards the cost of their expenses with regard to their James Bay claims can the people who are currently at odds with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and bad contractors expect to receive some financial assistance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am being asked for a legal opinion, but if my memory serves me right in my time the code of civil procedure allowed the poor to plead in forma pauperis before the courts.


Mr. Speaker:: As I said a moment ago, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf and then return to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the hon. member for Calgary South and others for supplementaries.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member, but-


PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIONS-EXPRESSION OF OPPOSITION BY HOUSE-POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the announcement by President Nixon that he will seek legislative authority to proceed with the trans-Alaska pipeline project. In view of the fact the Premier of British Columbia has advised the Prime Minister that he is seeking a meeting with either President
February 16, 1973

Nixon or Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton, would the right hon. gentleman himself, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, seek a meeting with either the President or Mr. Morton and invite the premier of British Columbia to accompany him as the premier of the province most adversely affected by this project which will entail large tankers plying the coastal waters of British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I might preface my answer, Mr. Speaker, the House might be interested in being reminded that the action to which the hon. member referred follows a court decision in connection with which the leader of the Liberal opposition in British Columbia made an important input. On the question of representations, the Department of External Affairs and our embassy in Washington are always ready to help premiers of Canadian provinces to arrange interviews with important government officials in the United States. In this instance Mr. Rogers Morton knows, of course, the Canadian position. It was stated forcibly by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last March and has been expressed publicly many times. We are very happy that the premier of British Columbia now wishes to make representations to support our views.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I had hoped that the Prime Minister would himself support such representations by personal intervention. In view of the fact the previous parliament unanimously passed a resolution expressing its adamant opposition to the United States government proceeding with the trans-Alaska pipeline project, would the Prime Minister undertake to have such a motion introduced in this parliament so that the present Members of Parliament might be able to express their views and have those views conveyed to the government of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that personal representations be made to the President. I would remind him that when I met the President last spring I did make representations about this question and about the danger of a tanker route on both the east and west coasts of Canada. As to the second part of the question having to do with a resolution the House can, of course, study such a resolution if it wishes but at this time we do not see any advantage in doing so. Our representations have been made known very strongly at all levels in the United States, and I think there may be a limit to the efficiency which this House could expect to achieve by passing resolutions urging the government of the United States to conduct its affairs in a certain manner rather than in another.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In light of the right hon. gentleman's expressed concern about pollution on the two coasts of Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given any consideration to introducing legislation similar to the Arctic pollution control legislation which would bring all oil tankers entering the coastal waters of Canada under rigid supervision and control?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question really requires a complex answer. The trick is, of course, not to
Oral Questions
pass legislation but to make it acceptable in international law. I think the hon. member appreciates that the steps taken by the government in the Arctic are of a particular nature because of the special circumstances of the Arctic. We cannot expect to make similar legislation stick as successfully in international law, especially if, as I understand the suggestion of the hon. member, it were to extend to some of the waters under United States jurisdiction.


PROPOSED WEST COAST OIL TANKER ROUTE-SUGGESTED CONTROL BY INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
John Allen Fraser: Can the right hon. gentleman tell the House, bearing in mind the fact that the United States government now appears to prefer the trans-Alaska and tanker route, what steps have been taken recently, or at all, to try to negotiate with our United States friends to the end that the tanker route might be controlled by an international commission consisting of both Canadians and Americans, in which case, rather than simply worrying about the effects of a spill we would have a maximum chance of preventing a spill from taking place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the very subject I discussed with the President last spring. The suggestion we were making at the time was that it be done through the International Joint Commission. It has been found, since those meetings I had with the President, that a more useful and acceptable way would be to set up a committee composed of representatives of our two countries, and this has been done.


John Allen Fraser: Can the Prime Minister tell the House when he will be able to report as to the success of these negotiations, since it appears that time is now of the essence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was already of the essence last spring when I talked to the President, and action has been taken along the lines I suggested. As to the exact date and nature of that report, I will refer the question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources so that he can attend to it.


OIL-CONTINGENCY PLAN TO ASSURE SUPPLY FOR EASTERN CANADA-INCENTIVES TO DEVELOP RESERVES
Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the Prime Minister on the question of security of oil supply to eastern Canada. It is now clear that there is a threat and a danger of interruption of continuity of supply. The Prime Minister has told us that discussions are under way. The government has been aware of this problem for several years. When will a contingency plan be presented to the House so we will know what the government intends to do? Will the right hon. gentleman also be urging the Minister of Finance to encourage Canadians through proper incentives to develop further reserves in Canada, giving Canadians a chance to own the oil we should be finding here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is right, of course, when he says the problem has been known for several years. But the imminence of the

February 16, 1973
Oral Questions
danger is, of course, no greater than at the time when the pipeline will in fact be constructed across Alaska, which is not as close as seems to be suggested. As to the government being aware of the problem, I would remind the House that under Mr. St. Laurent, as many hon. members will recall, the late Mr. C. D. Howe was very forthright in having pipelines built across Canada precisely to meet the type of problem that is being discussed this morning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will appreciate that we are spending a good deal of time on this question. I appreciate that it is important, but we should very soon move on to the next question. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South.


Peter Colwell Bawden: I appreciate the Prime Minister's explanation, but he did not answer my question. Can he tell us when a contingency plan will be made known to the House, and will he say something about the question of encouraging Canadians to develop oil reserves that will be owned by Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think I can add much to the answer I gave a few moments ago when I indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand a lot of hon. members do not want me to answer anyhow. This is the subject we have been discussing. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources reported to the House at least a couple of weeks ago about these talks. The question at that time was on the other aspect, the so-called continental oil policy. The minister explained that his discussions with United States officials had to do with security of supply to eastern Canada.


OIL-DISCUSSIONS WITH VENEZUELA ON SECURITY OF SUPPLIES FOR EASTERN CANADA
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has there been any discussion with Venezuela regarding security of supplies to eastern Canada in the form of offshore oil? Can he tell us whether Venezuela is interested in receiving firm assurances from the government of Canada, as to future contracts rather than continuing to negotiate with private companies?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the second part of the question, there has been no intimation of this kind from the government of Venezuela. We have not had any specific discussions recently with that country about the security of oil supplies although, as the Prime Minister has said, in the question of the security of oil supplies for Europe and North America as a whole Venezuela is included.


LABOUR RELATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the west coast pilots have walked off the job, does the minister now intend to intervene personally in the dispute, the prolongation of which could have very serious consequences for the economy of western Canada? I might say to the minister that this is not the time to be timid.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's invitation to be bold, but I want to advise him that in this case there is no federal legislation that applies to industrial relations of this kind. The pilots in this dispute are not considered employees but, rather, contractors in their own right and in that sense employers. This is not the typical situation of a collective agreement between employees and an employer.


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the consequential effects of this strike, may I suggest to the minister that the situation warrants that he not hide behind the letter of the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Transport. How long is the minister willing to see this stoppage of movement of freight and other commodities through the west coast ports continue before using his good offices to intercede to bring the parties together so that freight movements through these ports can be resumed?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am as anxious as the hon. member to see this situation end. Officials of my department are already on the scene trying to get the parties together. As the Minister of Labour mentioned, this is a dispute between two corporations, not between a union and a company.


Harvie Andre: The point is, freight is not moving.


James Aloysius McGrath: We are looking at the results.


Jean Marchand: The only thing we can do is
to try to get the parties together. The last offer made by the pilotage authority was 7i per cent, which will bring the average salary of pilots to $32,000 a year. That is the situation at the moment. According to law, the pilotage authority has to pay for its own costs. It is a difficult problem and we are involved in it. The pilotage authority has waived the obligation upon shipowners to use pilots in certain waters. I hope our efforts will be successful; otherwise parliament will have to compel people to go back to work.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is diverted to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the demands of the B.C. coast pilots for the most part have to do with working condi-

February 16, 1973

tions, safety procedures and equipment, would the minister say whether he or his officials are taking any part in the discussions with the pilotage authority to see if agreement can be reached on these matters, since I understand that it is not the salary negotiations that are causing the strike?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think this is only part of the picture. It is not only a question of security but of working conditions. The pilots are asking for the same type of security as civil servants, but at the same time they do not want to become civil servants. They want to be regarded as a corporation and are seeking conditions that are unknown anywhere in Canada. This does not mean, of course, that we should not try to solve the problem, and we are trying to solve it. We know what the case is and we are trying to be helpful in the circumstances without embarassing anyone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Abitibi.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Since the government recently secured passage of Bill C-124 to grant the Unemployment Insurance Commission unlimited public funds to pay the unemployed not to work, is the Prime Minister ready to have additional funds voted for the Manpower and Immigration Department to allow more local initiatives projects to be approved and more unemployed to find useful occupations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member's preamble and the assertion that the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to pay people for not working, which is simply not the case. It's an insurance. If someone burns his house down, he gets nothing; nothing is paid him to keep him from doing it either.


Gérard Laprise: A supplementary, if you will allow it, Mr. Speaker.
Would the Prime Minister be ready to indicate that the purpose of the Local Initiatives Program is to combat winter unemployment? If so, and the Prime Minister told us it was the case, why ask for additional funds to combat winter unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is starting an argument and not asking a question as such.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REJECTED PROJECTS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Oral Questions
Since many projects have been submitted and very few approved and considering the limited budget, is it the intention of the right hon. Prime Minister to at least discuss with his colleagues the possibility of reconsidering the projects which have been rejected, in the interest of the localities which have submitted them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to commit the government in that respect. In December or November the government almost doubled the funds earmarked for LIP. Surely there is a limit to what the government can spend in one area. If the hon. member would wait for the budget speech he will see what the government intends to do to help the economy in different ways, but as far as LIP is concerned, if the member will allow me, I will quote the Gospel: Many are called but few are chosen.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should try to make some headway. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere for a last supplementary and will then recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
During consideration of Vote L12a of the Department of Finance, the minister told the House that he would look into the possibility of increasing the funds for the Local Initiatives Program by $10 million. Can the minister tell us now whether he has reached a conclusion?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I am considering the situation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Three supplementaries have already been asked on the same subject. I recognize its importance, and I shall recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere in a moment.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will not take advantage of your indulgence.
The right hon. Prime Minister said no to my question and the Minister of Finance said he was examining the proposal. Then, can the Minister of Finance say if it is his intention to submit to the cabinet a proposal to increase the budget of the Local Initiatives Program as soon as possible or will he be discussing that with his colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration?


John Napier Turner: I just said, Mr. Speaker, that I was examining the proposal. In any case, the second half of the votes for local initiatives projects is still before the House. So, our friends the Progressive Conservatives should be told to speed the passage of this bill.

February 16, 1973
Oral Questions


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT OF BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT TO MAINTAIN PRESENT LEVEL OF MEMBERSHIP IN CERTAIN PROVINCES
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the suggestion I made three weeks ago and since concerning redistribution, has any decision been made by the government in relation thereto, particularly in view of the fact that time is of the essence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We carried out our part of the undertaking and the House leader has effectively met with the House leaders of the other parties. He indicated ways in which we thought the problem might be approached, but as of this date, or rather as of yesterday, our House leader told us that the House leader of, shall I say, some other party has not been as forthcoming as we had hoped. However, I hope the particular House leader will read in Hansard that the right hon. gentleman feels that time is of the essence.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTENTION IF DEFEATED ON BUDGET OR ITS RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Simplifying the question, I ask him why parliament should not know that which is being spread around by himself and other ministers concerning what will happen? Will there be an election or will there not, or are these ultimatums pretence and sham on the part of the NDP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot really instruct the right hon. gentleman on the constitution. He knows that two possibilities are always present.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: He knows what he did, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the right hon. gentleman has given me reason to pause and welcome this redistribution because I would not want to miss this battle of the century.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I will, of course, recognize the right hon. gentleman for a supplementary, but I think I owe it to the House to remind hon. members that there are just five minutes before the end of the question period.
Right Hon. ]. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is apparently in good humour this morning in answering questions so I shall ask him another one. Having regard to the almost daily pronunciamen-tos and ultimatums on the part of the New Democratic Party as to what the government must do in order to get its support, and the statements that have been made by the President of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister outside the House, would the Prime Minister now say whether or not, if the government is defeated either on the budget itself or on the resolutions, an election will be called? Apparently he has made his decision.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the hubbub I missed part of the end of the question, but I think the attempt was to make a distinction between pronunciamentos and ukases, and we are not quite sure which carries more weight.


John George Diefenbaker: The noise came from members behind the Prime Minister who apparently were endeavouring to answer for him. I ask him now whether or not some of the statements he has made outside the House and also a couple that were made on television by the President of the Privy Council mean that a defeat either on the budget itself or on the resolutions will result in dissolution? I ask him that for two reasons. First, the House has the right to know and not to be told outside the House. Second, if such an election should be called, with redistribution having been completed, the Minister of Justice and I will be in the same constituency because his home is there. That will be the battle of the century.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that the applause comes from the NDP which fears the next election. I ask the Prime Minister why the House of Commons should not have the information which he and some of his ministers are spreading around the country that there will in fact be an election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to state here in the House what I have stated on the outside, that the constitution provides two ways to solve this problem. Either I can go to the Governor General and hand in my resignation as Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: I think he is home this weekend.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that this alternative has received applause but not from the front benches. The other way is to advise the Governor General to dissolve parliament. These are the two possibilities.


John George Diefenbaker: Ask the NDP. They will tell you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Which one would be exercised is a hypothetical question because we do not really expect to be defeated on the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we should perhaps leave the debate on this matter now.

&


ABILITY TO MEET CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS FOR GAS AND OIL IN LIGHT OF EXPORTS-RECONSIDERATION OF POLICY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the warning by Professor Tuzo Wilson that Canada cannot meet its energy needs if it permits continued rapid export to the United States of gas and oil, and in view of the contention by the president of Union Gas that Canadian companies are now unable to let contracts to Canadian customers because of the exports of oil and gas, is the government asking the National Energy Board to reconsider the whole policy in respect of the quantities of gas and oil being exported to the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, government policy on energy will be made public. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has told the House of Commons, and we said it in the Speech from the Throne, that in the course of this session we would put our position before parliament and the country. In the meantime the National Energy Board is conducting hearings on this very question, and I am sure Professor Wilson will have an opportunity to be heard if he so desires.


David Orlikow: In view of the warning by Professor Wilson and the president of Union Gas, will the government give consideration to the proposal made by Mr. Walter Gordon that the oil and gas resources of the high Arctic should be developed by a Crown corporation rather than by private industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will consider that too. I am sure Mr. Gordon will be happy with the support he is receiving from the NDP.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has the government formally considered the study done for the Department of the Environment entitled "An Analysis of the Federal Interests Affected by the Proposed James Bay Hydro Development", which deals with the constitutional rights of the Indian and Innuit people and the federal government's responsibility thereto? Has the government reached a decision in respect of this study and has that decision been communicated to the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has discussed this study with me. Perhaps he might be prepared to comment on it. I believe it was the work of a law student during the
Oral Questions
summer. It was studied with interest by the minister, but it does not carry the authority of government policy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In view of the statement in the report of the Indians of Quebec Association dated October 11, 1972, that the federal government was asked to intervene to get the Quebec government to consent to stopping the project until the project could be made acceptable to the Indian and Innuit people, can the Prime Minister say whether this has been done and what has been the response?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the House what I have heard the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell the House in the past few days, that there have been discussions with the Quebec Indians and that it had been decided that the best and least paternalistic way to approach the problem would be to subsidize them heavily so they could put their case before the courts. This has been done.
MiBs MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands): Is the
Prime Minister therefore prepared to make a statement on motions clarifying the federal government's responsibility and position on the constitutional rights of the native people in the James Bay area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I told the House a few days ago that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would be coming before the House later this session to put before the House a position paper of the government on all these subjects. I hope that, as happened last time, the opposition parties will respond and say the government is doing the right thing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to a question raised on February 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the moment, the Chair has recognized the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. I will recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie later.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. If he does not accept this student's study of the environment and the rights of native people in the James Bay area, is the government now preparing its own study so that the House may know what the government's stand will be in respect of the Indian people in the James Bay area and their environment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have just indicated to the House, as the hon. member would have known had he been listening, that we would make our views known in this session of parliament. I take it that this is what the hon. member wants.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the position of the government with regard to projects going forward simply to have environmental studies car-

February 16, 1973
Oral Questions
ried out but to allow the projects to proceed before the environmental studies are completed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is this a question in relation to general principle or is it in relation to James Bay, airports, or what? I am not certain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It relates specifically to this situation.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Or is it on heavy water?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh,!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the
Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize to other hon. members waiting to ask questions but I should like to point out that I asked the Prime Minister a perfectly serious question and I do not intend to be put down by the Prime Minister or by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers he is discharging his responsibilities to the Indians by simply having the government conduct an environmental study while at the same time allowing the project to proceed before the environmental study is finished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What are you doing, then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do not discharge our duties in that way. The environmental studies have been going on and, as the Minister of the Environment said, there has been a first report and there will be a further report. In the meantime, the Indians are before the courts of Quebec taking action to stop the project proceeding. I said a moment ago that this was done with federal support, with federal funds.


Mr. Nielsen:: You are not discharging your responsibilities to the Indians.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to know how the opposition would propose to deal with this particular responsibility in better ways than we have.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. On Friday, January 19 I asked the minister this question:
Is the minister giving consideration to an amendment to the War Veterans Allowance Act or to the regulations under that act to make sure that when there is the promised substantial increase in the old age pension this will not be subtracted from the war (Mr. Stanfield.]
veterans allowance but will result in an actual addition to the income of our war veterans?
May I ask the minister if the necessary action with respect to this matter has been taken?


Hon. Daniel I. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the necessary action has been taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say when it will be announced?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: That is a matter of government policy, Sir, but it will be announced before very long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Monday night?


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I should like to ask him whether he is aware of the scheme which has been proposed by Mr. Lome Henderson, a member of the Ontario Legislature and chairman of the Ontario Select Committee on Land Drainage, in which he suggests that 14,000 square miles in the Lake Nipigon area of northwestern Ontario be flooded, thereby creating a huge reservoir in an effort to control the water levels in the Great Lakes?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we will take a careful look at it. A reservoir in that area could not affect the lower lake levels for at least a year, and possibly two.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Henderson is reported to be taking his committee to northwestern Ontario to examine this scheme. I should like to know whether the minister will make the services of his department available to us in meeting this committee in order to counteract their mad proposal?


Erik Nielsen: Ask that question in caucus.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government in the near future to open the three Canadian services colleges to young women wishing to make the armed services a career, and so make available to them the same very real advantages now available to young men?
February 16, 1973


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to announce in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


George Harris Hees: Is it then the policy of the government, in educational institutions over which the federal government has complete jurisdiction, to deny to young women the same opportunities now available to young men, made available by the federal government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps before calling orders of the day I will recognize on supplementary questions the hon. member for Mackenzie and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


INCOME TAX
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I will forgo my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and will direct my question, after three weeks, to the Minister of National Revenue. I wish to ask him if he is now prepared to answer the question I raised on February 1 whether evaluations made of farmlands by so-called appraisers will be recognized by the Department of National Revenue? I must apologize at this time, Mr. Speaker, but I feel a supplementary question coming on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, noticing the difficulty which the hon. member had in being recognized, I wrote him a letter some time ago giving him the answer. However, I know that this is a matter of concern to many farmers, and I want to respond in the House so that farmers will beware of people who misrepresent themselves as employees of the Department of National Revenue. Any appraisers offering their services at a fee are not employees of the department, and any appraisals made by them would not necessarily be accepted by the department.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I do have a supplementary question. May I ask whether the department will now consider accepting some of these evaluations because of the difficulty in carrying out estate planning and because next of kin or those who may be left behind may have difficulty in trying to explain the position which has been established by former appraisers? Will the department at this time accept these appraisals? Will it consider that possibility in order to facilitate estate planning?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I will be glad to have any particular cases looked into that the hon. member might want to draw to my attention and see if that can be done. If the department is not satisfied with the valuation offered by an
Supply
owner, then of course any valuations done by the department would be at the department's own expense, not at the owner's expense.


Stanley James Korchinski: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and then call orders of the day.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. lohn Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact the Prime Minister stated in the House today that the Indians of James Bay have had to take the government of Quebec to court, and in view of the fact that the people of Sea Island are taking the government to court on Monday to seek stoppage of the expropriation of land for the Vancouver Airport, is it the policy of the government that the only recourse the people of Canada now have is to the courts of Canada, not through the parliament of Canada, to stop this government's illegal actions in expropriation proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question but argument. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe on a point of order.


Mr. Marshall:: Thank God for points of order, Mr. Speaker, or I would never get recognized. Can the government House leader advise when the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs will be called to deal with the basic pension rate and the joint study report?


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I understand work is under way to try to bring the committee's organization into being about Tuesday.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 15, consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEac-hen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening Vote 20a in the schedule relating to environmental services was under consideration. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order in connection with speeding up the business of completing this bill. As you will recall, Sir, last evening we offered to

Supply
sit beyond ten o'clock, and this was rejected by the NDP. We also offered to pass certain items, and this too was rejected.
I now make the suggestion to the committee, in order to speed up the business of supply and get this bill through this afternoon by, as I and we in this party hope, three o'clock, that by unanimous consent we agree to pass items 5a under External Affairs without debate, la under Finance without debate, la under Justice without debate, items 10a and 15a under Public Works without debate, the item in connection with parliament without debate, items 31a and 32a under Regional Economic Expansion without debate, items 15a, 35a and 90a under Secretary of State without debate, items 65a, 85a, 90a, LI 10a, 115a under Department of Transport without debate, the Treasury Board item 5a without debate, Urban Affairs item 10a without debate, and item 10a under Veterans Affairs without debate. We on this side are prepared to pass all of those items now without debate.


Mr. Peters:: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to see that the Official Opposition wishes to go home, and I am quite prepared to let its members do so. However, we are prepared to discuss, within a reasonable length of time, some of the estimates remaining before us. We are well aware of the fact that most of the discussion that has taken place has come from the hon. member's own party. I am surprised that he has now become the leader of that party, and asks that his suggestions be taken into consideration. I reject his suggestion, and certainly do not give unanimous consent.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would urge the hon. member and his party to reconsider. With respect to the number of speakers who have participated, the combined NDP and Social Credit in the House have 46 members and they fielded 22 in the debate while in committee of the whole. We in this party have 107 members, and we fielded 25 speakers. I think those facts should be on the record, and I urge my hon. friends to the left to agree to pass these items by consent.
I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has specified three departments on which his members wish to speak. We have left those deliberately out of our suggested items to be passed by unanimous consent. If we do this, we could be through by three o'clock this afternoon. I appeal to them to be reasonable, and to complete and pass these items by unanimous consent.


Daniel Aiken Lang: On the question of order, Mr. Chairman, I am certainly delighted that at least hon. members opposite are arguing about who is now going to be the most cooperative, in trying to make sure that we get through these estimates with some expedition. It seems to me that in view of this discussion we may be able to reach agreement about not debating certain items when they are called, particularly where there is some general agreement about not speaking on them. But given that, and in view of the exchange, I think we should simply call the items in sequence, and hope we have a real spirit of co-operation in fact from all sections of the House and not just from the spokesman for a party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is just one point that should be made clear. As I understand it, what we are now discussing is the schedule to the bill in its entirety, and by the rules we are not permitted to vote on or pass individual items. When the hon. member for Yukon gets up and says, "Let us now pass items so-and-so and so-and-so," he should be advised that this cannot happen. If that were possible, if it were possible to have votes on some of these items then we could have the votes and get them over with, but all that needs to happen to expedite the conclusion of the consideration of the schedule is just for us to get along.


André-Gilles Fortin: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Our party has always agreed to co-operate in speeding up the business of this House and I do not like the rather unflattering remarks made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I should like him to know that we think-and I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said-that what he suggests is counter to the practices of this House. As far as we are concerned, we would be ready to have the Chair call the votes one after the other as they are before us, and we will do as we have done since the beginning, that is to say we will express our opinion on those votes if we think it is necessary. We are prepared to co-operate.
However, one thing is sure, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Yukon had agreed to talk it over with parliamentary leaders of all parties before making his little stage act he probably would have received better co-operation from his colleagues.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We will continue to discuss vote 20a in the schedule, relating to environment. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, as I was indicating last night much of the discussion that has taken place, particularly with respect to the James Bay situation, has been about the effect on people of the environmental changes resulting from the development. But there is also the major question of what the environmental experts themselves have to say on this matter. I was urging the minister to give some consideration to this question and to consult other departments that may be involved with the subject.
As the minister is well aware, a great deal of hydroelectric development has taken place in the province of Ontario. In that province most of the rivers in the James Bay watershed have already been harnessed. Probably the largest of the early developments that took place in Canada was that at Fraserdale in the Abitibi canyon. Since then there have been many projects, the last one the Cannal project in the James Bay watershed. I am sure the information is available to the minister on the effects that have taken place. Many of us are interested in knowing whether, as a nation, we should be pursuing a project as large as the James Bay project.
February 16, 1973

I indicated some of the fears that were being expressed by environmentalists were related to what would happen to James Bay, what would happen to the water, what would happen to the fish and fowl in the area. The minister has probably not had time yet to consider the project that was announced yesterday for the large lignite deposits in that area.
One of the major pollutants, of course, is coal and if a steam plant is established in that area for the development of thermal power for approximately a 20 to 25 year period using 200 million to 300 million tons of coal there is obviously going to be a lot of smoke and pollution. Anyone who listens to the weather forecasts is aware that much of the weather that affects northern Ontario coming out of the James Bay and the Hudson Bay area, goes through central Quebec, central Ontario and ends up in the central United States. A project the size of the one at James Bay is going to be one of the nation's largest polluters and this weather picture should be given some consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the Minister of the Environment does not seem to be taking into consideration work done by other bodies. The Department of Mines for the province of Ontario, our own Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and some other agencies as well as the many universities, have undertaken studies on this subject. It has been known for hundreds of years that lignite exists in that area, and I am sure that many companies and universities have made studies of it. The Ontario government has made at least five studies. I am sure the environmental effect has been considered in all of them. I feel that this government should make all these studies available to the people of the area who could then decide whether to go ahead with the project.
When the Churchill Falls project was developed, obviously more hydro became available than the province of Quebec could use and the surplus was for sale, but that did not affect Canadians. The only work derived from a hydro project is in its construction and all the mess is then left. The plant is automated to the extent that one man comes in by helicopter to check the dials and see that all the red lights are off and all the green lights are on and that is all it takes to run a multimillion kilowatt per hour plant. All that is left in the area is destruction or perhaps some small advantages attendant upon the construction.
I am not sure if anybody knows whether the minister is responsible for the mess that is left. According to his argument he cannot establish water standards for Canada under the Canada Water Act; they must be set by the regions or provinces and there is not a Canadian water standard as such. He gave a number of constitutional reasons why he could not set the standards and he gave a number of economic reasons why he would not if he could.
The last very large hydro project to be built in northern Ontario was in my area. They not only cut all the trees but they put in bulldozers to clean the land. In addition, they built a lake that was to be used for a number of other purposes. In that part of the country there are areas that were flooded by lumber companies almost 100 years ago,
Supply
and today the trees are almost the same as they were two or three years after the flooding. It was a disaster and will be for many years to come. Some members have had an opportunity to see a film of an area in British Columbia in which the trees were standing in water. They have been there now for some years, and it is predicted that they will be there for many years to come.
Does the minister have the responsibility to do something about the future environment of this nation? He has the responsibility for the Navigable Waters Act and, Mr. Chairman, very few hydro projects are possible unless they take place on navigable waters. The Navigable Waters Act is one of our earliest pieces of legislation and gives the federal government responsibility for the areas where hydro projects are constructed. I imagine that this minister will wait until the project is developed and then when nobody has cleaned up the area and we cannot get a boat through, he will tell us he did not have any authority to act. Mr. Chairman, he will not have the authority unless he tells members of this parliament exactly what the conditions are and what the economics will be. Then, we can make an honest decision on all the facts so that we do not have a calamity.
It is all very well for members to speak about the rights of Indians, Mr. Chairman, and those rights are very important. They are not only important to the Indians but to all Canadians. However, it seems to me there is just as much responsibility to tell other Canadians what is going to happen to the environment in the James Bay area as there is to explain how the Indians will be rewarded because they have to move out of the area. Frankly, that is all that is going to happen in that area. If the area is to be developed I think we must minimize the destruction that wil take place. Canada does not need that project. It is like the Arctic oil reserves and other reserves-they are of no value to Canadians today. The value is in the sale of the product to another country. Is it now time, Mr. Chairman, that the minister assured this committee that he has used every tool available to the environmentalists to ascertain how we can get the maximum advantage from any development that takes place. In this way, future generations of this country would not have to pay the penalty for our selfishness and greed in wanting to make the biggest dollar from present day developments.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I should like, briefly, to answer several questions raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming. Environment Canada has in its employ many of the top biologists in the country. It has entered into contracts on a number of projects on which we need environmental assistance, and is employing many of the environmental consultants in Canada. These are people who can assess the effect on fisheries, forestry wildlife, air quality and land values that major projects can have in the future.
The business of looking into the side effects of major developments is new, and the expertise in Canada, our competence in this field, is already strained to the limit. We are finding it difficult to obtain enough competent people to carry out more environmental impact assessments. These are assessments that the Canadian government must undertake to honour its policy commitments in

February 16, 1973
Supply
this field. Provincial governments are also beginning to follow this course, although few of them so far have made any environmental impact assessments. Municipalities have made hardly any.
There has been considerable discussion in this chamber of late about the James Bay power development project. In that case, a series of environmental appraisals has been underway prior to the construction of any dam. The project calls for the building of a series of dams, not merely one or two big dams. I might add that the entire schedule of building has been turned around as a result of the preliminary environmental impact appraisal, or as a result of the findings of Phase 1 of the over-all appraisal which was completed late in 1971. The development, instead of proceeding from south to north, has now been reversed and may proceed from north to south. So, already in the case of the James Bay development, environmental impact assessments have had a decided effect on the scheduling or sequence of dam construction.
Many other big projects are now being contemplated. One is contemplated in northern Manitoba. Actually, there we are faced with a fait accompli, although our people have been asked for advice. That project has already been undertaken. I urge the hon. member who represents the party in power in that province to see to it that that government does the same sort of thing that is being done in James Bay. Let it take environmental impact assessments seriously and adjust its plans to the findings made in the assessments, instead of proceeding unilaterally, regardless of the recommendations in the assessments.


Frank Howard: Would the hon. minister care to spell out that suggestion?


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member asked about a possible coal or lignite plant in northern Ontario. I understand that the Ontario government has already taken a cursory look at the environmental effects of this proposition. If there is some prospect of the project proceeding, we will look into its possible climatic and downstream effects. Fortunately, we employ people who are competent to make this kind of appraisal.
With respect to the James Bay project, the preliminary findings of our people are that the projected building sequence will not affect the climate of the James Bay area or of adjoining areas. Last night, I think, the hon. member mentioned that there might be a change in temperature of several degrees. Our people who have looked at the atmospheric effects do not forecast any marked change in the climate there.
In summary, we are embarked on a number of environmental impact appraisals. This is new, in that we are carrying out these assessments before construction actually begins. Our expertise is stretched to the limit, but we are doing our best. Naturally, we cannot cover all projects and study others in the depth we would like.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? I was pleased to hear what he had to say about studies in connection with projects. I am not familiar with the project in northern Manitoba. I presume it has to do with hydroelectric power as well. Does the Minister of the

Environment have power to see to it that land, say both in Manitoba and northern Ontario, is left in a natural and decent state after the project is completed? In other words, after the basin is built and the area is flooded, does he have authority to see to it that tree stumps and debris are cleared up? Does he have power to prevent the sort of thing that happened in the Peace River project a few years ago? In other words, after all the cutting is done and after all the levelling has been finished, does he have power to make sure that the area is turned, say, into a recreational area, to compensate to some extent for the loss of other land?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes and no. It depends on the project, where it is and what its effects are likely to be. The provinces have substantial powers in the area of the environment. For example, the provinces control land and property, and this control can be very forceful indeed. The federal government can mobilize other powers and make them felt. It can use one power or a combination of powers. It may use its powers if, for example, there is to be a substantial impact on fisheries, or on navigation. Or, it may be asked to determine what the effects will be outside the province, or outside Canada, of the development. If the answer is yes, Ottawa can get involved in the project.
It can also become involved if federal money is to be spent on the project. Strings can be attached to the spending of federal funds and so on. But there is a limit to our powers. Many projects can be carried out in a part of a province where none of these effects are observable and federal money is not involved. That environmental control is a matter for the province. Only the province can act, because, if federal action were taken the courts could rule it ultra vires. That is the dilemma we face in the setting of national standards. There are circumstances in which we cannot enforce national standards. We do not have the necessary powers under our constitution. The development in northern Manitoba which I mentioned involves the diversion of most of the flow of the Churchill River to the Nelson. It is one of the biggest hydroelectric developments in prospect on this continent.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a further question. Leaving aside the diversion of the river in Manitoba, does the minister have authority to see to it- I do not know what the word is-that, after a development is completed and the waterbed or basin constructed, the land is returned as nearly as possible to its natural state? Does the minister have authority in Manitoba and in the James Bay area, and does his authority extend to navigable water that may be contained in the flood basin?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, in the matter of clearing reservoirs, we do not have authority to do that in northern Manitoba. All the lands involved, as I understand it, are under provincial jurisdiction, with the possible exception of one or two Indian reservations where the federal government has authority by virtue of the federal government's responsibilities under the Indian act. In northern Manitoba along the course of the diversion of the Churchill River into the Nelson, we do not have responsibility, nor do we have authority.
February 16, 1973

If, however, the construction of the diversion were to be detrimental to navigation, we could perhaps prevent structures from being built or have them modified. Or, if they were to have a detrimental effect on the fishery by drying up the lower Churchill, we could, in that case, rely on federal law. Unless it is a case of flooding across an international boundary, the flooding of a national park or that kind of thing, the federal government is not usually involved in the clearing of a reservoir or in the passing of regulations for the clearing of a reservoir. The federal government does not have the power to act, but it can recommend certain actions that ought to be taken.


Mr. Haliburton:: Mr. Chairman, I realize that the committee is anxious to finish its deliberations with respect to the department now being considered, and I will not delay it longer than necessary. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate last night spoke about the fishing industry and the comments he made applied generally to my area.
There is one area of particular concern in Southwestern Nova about which I would like to obtain a statement from the minister. I refer to the scallop fishery in the Digby and Digby Neck area, that is the Bay of Fundy scallop fishery. When the minister was in that area last fall, he announced that the season would remain open, presumably subject to some limitation on the size of scallops in the future. At a meeting the fishermen in that area unanimously agreed that the appropriate means of preserving the scallop fishery would be the imposition of a season similar to that which had been in effect prior to that time. Will the minister state whether this matter has been reviewed, whether his department has come to a decision and, if so, what that decision is.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, when I was in the area last fall, I saw a large number of fishermen at different locations. They were divided in their opinion, at least the opinion they expressed to me, as to whether or not there should be a limited season. The hon. member tells me that they have since voted in favour of a limited season instead of no season or open fishing at any time of the year.
The fundamental problem is that the scallop resource has been heavily overfished on the United States side and in Canada as well. The sizes of the remaining scallops is already small. This is in itself evidence of overfishing. In order to help bring back the resource, we set a lower limit on the size, a limit which will be raised as time goes by. The industry is already restricted because of the condition of the resource which is general on the Atlantic coast. Whether we should also introduce a short season is a matter which we are prepared to review at any time. I will inquire as to the nature of our discussions between officials and the fishermen to see what can be done to meet the latters requests.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions I would like the minister to answer before we complete our study of this department. I listened with a great deal of interest to his answers concerning the jurisdiction of his department in connection with some of the projects about which we have been talking, such as the James Bay project and the project in Manitoba. Is the minister trying
Supply
to tell this House that his department does not have jurisdiction, for example, when the diversion of a river is at stake? Have you no jurisdiction in this respect? I understand that it is completely within the confines of federal jurisdiction. A province might say it is going to divert one river into another and another and another. As far as I can understand, that proposal is subject to federal jurisdiction. In connection with this, I wish to ask the minister whether the province of Quebec applied to his department for the right to divert any of those rivers involved in the James Bay project.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the province of Quebec has not applied to Environment Canada or any other federal government department for authority to divert one river in Quebec into another river in Quebec. The hon. member suggests that the diversion of rivers or streams from one to the other inside a province is a matter of federal jurisdiction. I am sure if he were speaking in a provincial legislature, he would say it was totally within the provincial jurisdiction. He undoubtedly knows of many instances where diversions have taken place solely under provincial jurisdiction and without federal law being abridged in any way. Unless there are effects outside the province, effects on the fishery, navigation or a substantial effect on human health, and there are a few other conditions I might add, unless those things happen, one or several in combination, there are no legal grounds for federal intervention. This is a fact of life in Canada.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, here we have major rivers running into James Bay in which there are fisheries and with deltas at the mouths of them. The whole picture is going to be changed. This is federal jurisdiction. Damage is being done. As far as I can make out, such a situation comes within the prerogative of the federal government. I am not talking about a little stream being diverted here, there or somewhere else. I am talking about a major river being diverted into another major river and so on, where you are bound to destroy fish runs. This directly affects the fisheries department. I again ask the minister, have there been any discussions between his department and the province of Quebec with regard to the diversion of these rivers and with regard to the damage that might be done when diversion takes place?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, this is a different question that the hon. member has raised. We have a number of our top people, experts in the area of fisheries, involved in the environmental appraisals on the effects of the James Bay project or series of projects. They have already published their preliminary findings. They are now involved in a more extensive examination of the new construction schedule which the James Bay Corporation is studying.
We will have all of that information. If there is a substantial effect on the fishery, of course there is a case for federal intervention. But the preliminary report of our fisheries exports was not all that conclusive as to damage to the fisheries. I recommend that the hon. member read the published reports on this subject before he says that there will be substantial damage to fish in this case.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question. The minister spoke earlier about the environmental

February 16, 1973
Supply
impact studies being carried out in connection with James Bay and, I presume, other projects. He indicated that this information is going to be available prior to the beginning of construction. This is the very point which our group and other environmentalists have been making. It is stupid to start on a project, spend tens of millions of dollars getting it ready and then finding out that an environmental impact study shows that immense damage is going to be done. At that time you are committed to the project.
The point that we are making is that these impact studies should be made first. They should be properly evaluated. The project can then proceed on the basis of the evaluation coming out of the study. With regard to James Bay and other projects, this procedure has been reversed. The cart has been put before the horse. After the Quebec government has spent tens of millions of dollars putting in roads, setting up base camps, building bridges over rivers and doing a variety of things, it is a fait accompli. The people of Quebec and Canada have taken another top-notch shellacking as far as the environment is concerned. This is why we are protesting and why we say the government has been negligent in not pushing this more effectively and vigorously.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the hon. member's frustration. I notice that he is commenting on projects which are either largely or entirely within provincial jurisdiction. The James Bay project is novel to this extent; the Quebec government has asked the federal government to join in an environmental appraisal before the construction of dams begins. I urge him to apply the same criteria to the Churchill diversion in Manitoba.
tTranslation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Chairman, 1 listened with great interest to the debate on the James Bay question which has been taking place for a few days, and I wonder whether this problem is put frankly. As a matter of fact, I doubt it.
According to questions which are asked and objections which are made to the government and to the minister, most hon. members seem to be opposed to the implementation of the James Bay hydro project. In a way, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the fact that this project may have been implemented 20 years too late but without any preparation, without any study. The minister and the federal government are in a bad position if they want to oppose the James Bay hydro project, on the strength of their authority under the Constitution, for this will immediately give rise to a war with Quebec separatists saying once more that the federal government is taking exception to the growth of the province of Quebec.
With the experience of other developments as important as the James Bay hydro project as well as the environmental damage and disorders of all kinds which resulted, whether we think of the Peace River hydro project or of similar developments in Asia or Africa, I do not think that we can do any better in Quebec than elsewhere.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious-and I take as a basis some reports made by scientists-that these hydro projects will have serious effects not only in terms of climate but

especially in terms of migration of fish, of birds and particularly, which is worse, of men, women and children who have been occupying these territories for generations.
In fact, work has not started yet but preparation has begun and Indians living in these areas have already felt some changes in their way of life. There are rightful complaints about the effects of that development for the power of those who need the power is known, these are the Americans. It is known that power generated in the James Bay area will be used to supply American plants.
Mr. Chairman, I was going to say that the Americans are financing these projects. Instead I should say that the Americans are lending money to the province of Quebec for the execution of these projects as a fairly high rate of interest so that there will be no profits from the sale of electricity by the province. Our natural resources will be sent out to a foreign country.


André-Gilles Fortin: And we are going to lose money.


Gérard Laprise: Perhaps we will lose out.
They had to honour an election promise made in 1970 and try to create those 100,000 jobs. There are many Quebecers involved. The only advantages resulting from the James Bay projects are jobs and high salaries, even though gangsters have taken over most of the administrative jobs.
Now, I wonder whether the federal government is in a position to interrupt this project or if the Quebec government should establish the extent of its usefulness.
It may be already too late to take adequate measures, but the Quebec people will bear judgment on the government that launched the James Bay hydroelectric project.
[Eng lish]


William Arnold Peters: Despite my colleague's eagerness to go to lunch I should like to ask one other question. It relates to a totally different field. To what extent is the department involved in the development of sewage lagoons as a method of sewage treatment, especially in northern areas? What environmental studies have been undertaken in this connection?
I was interested to see that one of the government departments recently put out a statement to the effect that the evaporation factor in northern areas was something like 30 to 35 inches a year. This figure related to the mid-Canada corridor stretching from the constituency of my hon. friend from Skeena, to the Maritimes. Rainfall varies, of course, along this corridor but in my own area it amounts to some 37 inches a year which would leave an excess of some four to eight inches of liquid in the lagoons.
Has the department done any work in this field, or can the intention to clean up the Ottawa River system be regarded as just a smokescreen? In the area with which I am familiar the lagoons are flushed out every spring when the ice goes and the contents are discharged into the river. I should like to know whether in the discussions being held with the provinces the department is drawing attention to alternative types of sewage treatment which would supersede what is obviously an elementary expedi-
February 16, 1973

ent, and one which is not working successfully in many parts of the country. I have no doubt the system works adequately in the United States where the evaporation rate reaches 140 inches a year and rainfall amounts to 40 inches or so. Obviously, we are kidding ourselves if the federal government is advancing money to build additional lagoons in northern Ontario where they are frozen half the year and where evaporation amounts to less than the rainfall, particularly when we say we are trying to clean up local rivers as part of a total clean-up of the Ottawa River.
Mr. Chairman, the minister may wish to reply after lunch, so I will call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before lunch I was talking about the effect of pollution in various areas and the methods used to fight it. I had said that in many parts of the mid-Canada corridor the weather conditions and rainfall are such that the outdoor lagoons used by some small communities are not effective for meeting the standards for which the minister is hoping. I suggested that a number of communities in northern Ontario were of absolute necessity dumping sewage into these lagoons, but the amount of rainfall and lack of evaporation meant that in the spring much of the effluent in the lagoons ran in an untreated condition into watercourses. The question I was asking was whether this matter had been considered by the minister's department and any recommendations had been made. The situation is similar to that in the United States, particularly in the southern states, where conditions are considerably different from those in our area.
Last week I was in Timmins where they have installed a new lagoon close to a housing development. Although these lagoons are not supposed to smell, the stench of this lagoon was so bad that some people in the housing development were considering moving. Obviously, that particular lagoon is not functioning in the way expected, and I suspect that the discharge from that lagoon is not such that should be dumped into watercourses. I should like to ask the minister whether he has considered the matter, whether studies are being carried out on the question, and what recommendations he is making to the provinces with regard to developing as an alternative low-cost treatment plants for small communities in areas where lagoons are not functioning well.


John (Jack) Davis: As the hon. member says, there is a problem about treatment of lagoons in northern communities. The department is looking into this. I do not have the details on hand, but I will make sure that they are made available to the hon. member.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Does that complete consideration of the items under the Department of the Environment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now consider item 5a of the Department of External Affairs.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates were before the miscellaneous estimates committee no indication was given of the purpose of this item. One or two paragraphs appeared in the proceedings of the committee just to show that the item had carried, without anybody knowing what the amount of $490,500 was for. I wonder whether we could now discover that.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-absent perhaps partly because it was the view that there would be no discussion of this item-I shall ask that a detailed explanation be given to the hon. member and to other interested hon. members by the parliamentary secretary.


Frank Howard: I could obtain that information by phoning somebody. I suppose I could obtain it more quickly in that way which might satisfy me.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of answering a question.


Mr.   De Bane@: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First I wish to apologize for being late. The expenditure of $490,500 is for the purpose of opening offices in Atlanta, Budapest and Lusaka which is in Zambia. In the case of Atlanta, the amount is to be $115,000. In the case of Budapest, the figure is $60,500 and in the case of Lusaka $315,000, for a total of $490,500. Those are capital expenditures and are not in respect of operations or other matters.


Frank Howard: Fine. Presumably we are building something. From what I can gather from the estimates some of this expenditure would be for the construction and acquisition of land, buildings and equipment. Some of it would be for the acquisition of major equipment.
If I have the correct figure here, it would seem that out of the total of $490,500 an amount of $300,000 would be for the construction and acquisition of machinery and equipment. I can understand that we would be constructing buildings and this sort of thing, but I wonder what we are doing in respect of machinery and equipment.


Mr.   De Bane@: I hope to be able to have the precise information for the hon. member in a very short time in respect of that question.


Frank Howard: Probably by not paying as much attention to the Department of External Affairs as we should, unfortunately we seem to have a tendency, as was evident in the committee and elsewhere, to think that the Department of External Affairs is a structure which should not be subjected to any questions about what it does. It operates at a level which is presumed to be helpful and beneficial. I think that, as a result, very little attention is being paid to what the Department of External Affairs does, on what it spends its money and the like.
There would seem to be a fantastic amount of waste involved in the Department of External Affairs-probably

Supply
as much as in any other department-because it operates to a large extent outside of Canada where people cannot see what it is doing. There is a lot of fat in some of the expenditures which do not provide any great benefit to Canada, even in a diplomatic way. When I recall my visit to the United Nations some eight or 10 years ago and saw the offices and the staff which operated there in support of our delegations and groups at the United Nations, and then recall my return visit there recently I was amazed to see the tremendous growth which had taken place in that operation. It seemed to me that the people who were there were more interested in providing good conditions for themselves in respect of office space, conference rooms and so on than they were in respect of what they were trying to do in terms of representing Canada.
Too often we find government departments operating in this manner. In this respect I think probably the Department of External Affairs is the worst offender, probably as a result of being run by people who have no relationship whatever to everyday life in Canada. They do not concern themselves about the workers, the farmers and the majority of the people but are merely intent on living the easiest possible life they can and doing the least amount of work. This expenditure has been explained briefly, but I think that if the people who are acquiring these buildings, equipment and staff wanted to do so they could save money for the Canadian taxpayer. I am sure they could save half the expenditure in this item. Many people in this nation are getting fed up with the growth of the bureaucracy in the federal government and the squandering and waste of money without any real benefit accruing to the people of Canada. The Department of External Affairs is the worst offender of any I know.
Probably the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce runs a pretty close second in this regard. If that is the case, it is because the industry section was set up by a Liberal government specifically for the purpose of finding a Cabinet seat for one of the ministers who is sitting in the front bench now. They set up the department of industry specifically for the gentleman who presently is the President of the Treasury Board. Later, the government put the department of industry in with the department of trade and commerce and created the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. There is a lot of duplication involved in this. However, that is a matter with which we can deal later. Knowing the way buildings are constructed, and knowing that if someone representing the taxpayers of this country said to these fat cats it was about time they started justifying their existence, I believe if they sharpened their pencils a little these buildings could be acquired for half the cost shown here.
In order to try to instill in this group some sense of responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer, I intend to move a motion which would have the effect of cutting this amount of money in half. If we must have these facilities and buildings in Budapest, Atlanta and Lusaka I would like to see this accomplished a lot more cheaply than is planned here. Accordingly, I move:
That the schedule be amended by reducing the amount set out in Vote 5a of the Department of External Affairs to $242,250.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say that in a few moments I will have the details concerning these expenditures for which the hon. member has asked.


Frank Howard: That is what you said before.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with the reduction in this item. When I look at the main estimates I find that we have in the capital budget in relation to Brazilia $2,200,000 which we previously estimated to which is now added $1,620,000. We are going to spend another $4,230,000 for the construction of a chancellery residence and staff accommodation in Islamabad, Pakistan. We have already spent around $8 million there, which is probably about one third of the budget of that country. In New Delhi we have spent, in the second stage of the current estimate, a total of $1,300,000. The previous estimate was $1,400,000. That involves the war. Everything is cheaper there now. In Dakar, Senegal we are putting in $285,000 for a chancellery. I suppose that this goes with our religious attachment to these places. Now we have Atlanta, Budapest and Lusaka added to this list.
I believe, as does the hon. member, that we should also be giving some consideration to the expenditure on the monument which was built down the street. I suppose this monument is worth $20 million and to staff it will probably cost another $20 million. The hon. member for Assiniboia has been asking some questions regarding the salaries. It is my guess that the salaries of Members of Parliament will look very small in relation to the salaries of the staff of the chancelleries which we are going to build as well as the salaries of those in the other buildings which we are putting up in these countries. Almost every one of them will have four or five people to staff them.
A few years ago I had some experience in a hospital in a country in Africa. I became part of the native population there for a three week period. Of course, there was no official from the Department of External Affairs coming to visit me, but a representative of Mau Mau came to vist me, as well as some other people. I found that the sole function of our senior staff representative in that area in eastern Africa was to keep whisky, and all the delegates who were there were very unhappy because she would not allow us to buy any of the whisky at embassy prices, as is done everywhere else. She was in another country and they kept the whisky and would not give it out. Maybe that was judicious of her, maybe it would not have been wise for her to do so, but the booze was very cheap in that country. They made it for the natives and allowed us to buy it at the same price. Her main function was to be keeper of whisky. She was responsible for three embassies, and I suppose we have buildings for them.
I have looked into our main estimates to find out what our embassies are doing. They are supposed to help Canadians. Help Canadians be damned. They do not help Canadians at all, in any shape or form. In most cases they do not even help delegations which go there unless a minister is attached to them. I remember attending one particular conference where we finally told the ambassador-and he is one of the long haired ambassadors who has been there a long time-that if he did not supply us with a car, we would confiscate one. Finally, he supplied
February 16, 1973

us with a car under great duress. That was his contribution to that conference, which was an international conference for which we paid a large sum of money. The Canadian delegation did not make much of a contribution, but we did pay more than our share for that conference. The ambassador's contribution was one small party at which a number of us ended up dancing on a table. He finally gave us each a bottle of booze and asked us to leave, which we did. I have not found him to be of any help.
I think that most Canadians, including me, do not know where those countries are in which we are going to spend $115 million. If it is Georgia, O.K., but I am not sure that we should start dealing with the state government of Georgia. If we have done that, then perhaps we have recognized the state of Georgia. How about Alabama? Have we recognized Alabama yet? Has George Wallace been elevated to head of the state, and do we intend to put some money there? I have heard of Budapest-it is very reasonable over there. We are only going to spend some $60,500. In Lusaka we are going to spend $315,000.1 do not know where that is either, Mr. Chairman. Probably it did not exist when I went to school; neither did Brazilia, but I know where that is. I do not know whether this town in Pakistan still exists after the war they had out there. New Delhi, everybody knows where that is.
I am suggesting that my knowledge of geography is not any worse because of my age than other people's knowledge of that subject. There are many people who do not know where those places are, and we are spending a lot of money putting up buildings in those places. It is my suggestion that we should do as we have done in many other countries with which we have established relations, namely, rent accommodation in these areas. I think it is rather ludicrous for us to be spending such large amounts of money on putting up buildings and facilities of the kind mentioned here. I have no objection to the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggesting that we spend money on an agency which is established to help some country. I have no objection when in my locality the principal of one of the schools goes to Africa and establishes a school over there. I have no objection when I hear of him going to South America and establishing a school there. Such projects are worthwhile, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder if Canada is not deluding itself and deluding Canadians into thinking we have reached the scale of countries such as Britain or the United States and a couple of other old super powers which have to have large buildings of their own flying their own flag in a country which needs their help.
My experience in external affairs is limited. It is probable that I have not taken as many trips as I should have. Perhaps I have not been allowed to do so by some of my confreres. In any case, it seems to me that our committee is failing totally in trying to approve such expenditures. We have on our committees in many cases people who know the countries which I have mentioned, and who have spent some time living there. It surprises me that they have not asked more questions about such a large expenditure as half a million dollars. Obviously, they all know where those places are and why we should have some representation there. They are familiar with these situations, but I and the general Canadian public are not.
Supply
This is certainly a place where we could cut off an awful lot of fat.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I was interested to read in the newspaper yesterday that a former minister of this House, who in my opinion was a very competent minister of trade and commerce, said that unless he could get some kind of arrangement with his former colleagues in the cabinet, he personally would set up a consortium that would trade with other countries across the word. He would set up a trading agency on behalf of entrepreneurs in this country and conduct business with traders in other countries. The minister should be asked what he anticipates such an agency would be doing. Are we helping peoples poorer than we are by establishing large diplomatic buildings in their countries? What is the purpose of the expenditures we make?
Many hon. members who have attended meetings of the United Nations realize we are not the powerful country that we sometimes think we are. The simple reason for that is that we have not given leadership to the third power nations due to our close association with our great neighbour to the south, that great neighbour who sometimes dominates us. We have not given leadership to the South American countries. We have not given leadership to the Asiatic countries. Yet we seek to impress the Canadian public that we are doing a wonderful job by the establishment of huge monuments in those countries. We are spending a fantastic amount of money on such projects. It seems to me that all we are doing is providing a lot of salaries for a lot of people. I think that an appointment to one of these overseas posts would even be a softer job than an appointment to the other place, provided I did not have weak kidneys and was not susceptible to cirrhosis of the liver.
We have a contribution to make to countries across the world. We have an obligation to participate, but I would like to know if Zambia, for instance, is going to build similar kinds of facilities in our country as we are building in Lusaka. I would like to know if India is going to build the same kind of facilities in Canada that we are putting up in New Delhi. Will Pakistan do so? In my opinion these countries will not do that. I live on the street where most of those countries have their embassies in Ottawa. That is where they conduct their business, and where occasionally they get blown up. I would like the minister to explain why we should put on this kind of face across the world, without showing some accomplishment for the Canadian people, or some accomplishment for the people we are supposed to be helping. I have looked over the list of overseas investments and foreign aid contributions that we make. I am proud of those contributions. For a country our size we have done an excellent job, but I do not think the capital expenditures that we put into palatial edifices in other countries do anything for the Canadian people or for the interests of Canada. If Canadians knew about this they would be opposed to it.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

Supply
Amendment (Mr. Howard) negatived: Yeas, 6; nays, 72.
February 16, 1973


Gérald Laniel: We will now proceed to the consideration of item No. la, Department of Finance.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I did not realize that we had left External Affairs. I wonder if I can now be given the information that the parliamentary secretary was going to give us previously, but which he did not give us.


Gérald Laniel: Order. If I understand the situation correctly, we are still on External Affairs. I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I had not really completed what I started to say. I repeat that the information was not given previously, and now I cast an eye of suspicion on those righteous hon. gentlemen to my right who are bent on squandering all the money they can without thinking of the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr.   De Bane@: Under heading No. 8, Mr. Chairman, the sum of $190,000 is for the purchase and acquisition of four residences in Lusaka. Under heading No. 9, $300,000, that amount can be broken into three, of which $125,000 is for the purchase of furniture and furnishings for the chancellory, the official residence and staff quarters in Lusaka; another amount of $115,000 is for the purchase of furniture, furnishings and appliances for the chancellery, the official residence and the staff quarters, and two vehicles in Atlanta; a third amount of $60,500 is for the purchase of furniture and furnishings for the chancellery and staff quarters, and one vehicle in the city of Budapest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Could the minister explain why we need an office in Atlanta?


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may be permitted to answer some of the questions that were asked by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, Mr. Chairman, I will begin by saying that the offices in Lusaka are being opened for reasons that will commend themselves to members of his party, particularly the hon. member for Greenwood who has been urging the government for a very long time to establish a High Commissioner's office there. Lusaka is the capital of a country, which I am sure he would want to support, which is beleaguered by South Africa, Rhodesia and other countries with whose racial policies we do not have very much sympathy. This is the fundamental reason and one which I know will commend itself to hon. members of his party.
On Budapest, we have also been urged from both sides of the House that we should not be governed by ideological considerations when establishing our embassies around the world, and that we should be opening offices in eastern European countries even though their ideologies do not agree with ours. I am sure that is a view that would commend itself to the hon. member and his party.
As for Atlanta, I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will support me in saying that this is in the centre of an area with which we are doing [The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
increased business and it is necessary for us to be able to service it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I do not entirely accept his reasons why we should support this item. I am not interested in the arguments about whether this one is a good one or that one is a good one; my main argument was that the minister himself mentioned Zanzibar-


Mitchell William Sharp: Zambia.


William Arnold Peters: One country is the same as another to me. I have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman; most Canadians do not know where these countries are because they keep changing their names. The point I was trying to make to the minister was that it might be to our advantage to do what other countries are doing in Canada and that is to rent the premises. This gives some flexibility in where the representatives can be located. I am thinking particularly of the representation that is being made by many of the attaches that are in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and other locations. Their purpose in being there is to do business with that particular area.
In many of these establishments abroad we are talking about diplomatic establishments of a permanent nature. It seems to me that to have one in each of these countries is a luxury that most Canadians would not necessarily support. Whether we have representation there or not is a different story. We are making capital expenditures, we are building buildings and to my knowledge this is not the normal procedure for countries dealing with Canada. Many of them are operating from rented residences in Ottawa. There are some permanent ones like the French Embassy, the British High Commission and the Russian Embassy, but I do not know of any others in that category. This is why I make the suggestion that we should be considering different methods than capital expenditures in these countries.


Mitchell William Sharp: As my parliamentary secretary has said, the only place that we are buying a residence is in Lusaka. If my hon. friend had been there he would know it is not a place where we can rent any suitable accommodation. It is a rapidly growing small town and it is necessary for us to buy a residence. It has been our experience over the years that it is cheaper to buy than to rent if we intend to be there permanently. In the city of Ottawa, the rule is to own the premises rather than to rent because our friends from other countries have found it cheaper to buy than to pay rapidly increasing rent for this kind of accommodation.


Gérald Laniel: Is consideration of Vote 5a completed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: If so, we will now proceed to Vote la, the Finance Department.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Chairman-
February 16, 1973


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member for Mackenzie rising on a point of order?


Stanley James Korchinski: No, Mr. Chairman, I just want you to repeat that. I do not have it at this particular time.


Gérald Laniel: I will repeat, we are now on Vote la, the Finance Department. We are proceeding now to Vote 5a-that is finished. Now, we are going on to item 30a, Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Knight:: No.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Assiniboia.


William George Knight: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we have now hit the estimates related to the funding of the building of hopper cars, an amount in the neighbourhood of some $48 million less $7,700,000. This issue arose last spring as a result of the impending general election when the minister, hopeful of gaining some support in the west, decided that he ought to go out with a program to build some 2,000 hopper cars to carry grain. It was suggested, sometimes by farm organizations and sometimes by members, that although the need for rolling stock to keep the grain moving to market was realized, it was opportunistic of the federal government to buy the rolling stock and supply it to the railroads when it was the duty of the railroads, under the Railway Act, to supply the rolling stock.
If this gesture were followed further, the government could move into the business of supplying hopper cars to move potash out of Saskatchewan or lumber chips from the northern part of British Columbia or to move goods anywhere in Canada. We could get into the business of supplying the railways with rolling stock. With $48 million, we bought 2,000 hopper cars to roll on the tracks in western Canada. The question that arises now is how long will the government pursue the policy of having the people of Canada serve the railways? When will the railways be put in the position of serving the people of Canada? That is the fundamental question. The minister can have the grain councils and his other representatives, but the fundamental thing is that when he goes out of his way to buy 2,000 hopper cars and supply them to the railroads, the government is failing to make the railroads live up to their responsibilities. They must serve the farmers of the west, whether in the riding of Assiniboia, Regi-na-Lake Centre or Saskatoon-Humboldt. It was learned that in those parts of the west where the 2,000 hopper cars are to operate, 50 per cent of the track will not carry them. They cannot be used. What a reflection that is on the railway system of this country. Fifty per cent of track in western Canada cannot be used. I suggest that in Saskatchewan the figure is a great deal higher. In that province, it will be difficult to use hopper cars for the carrying of grain.
The other night we heard the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain arguing about policy. It was an excellent debate, each member being right about the policies of the
Supply
other. What has happened with respect to hopper cars is a prime example of what hon. members were talking about. The central government has developed a special relationship with the railroads. When they run into trouble, the government bails them out, mostly with grants of money. When the minister in charge of the Wheat Board was asked what he would do about the question of hopper cars, he suggested he would leave the matter in the hands of the railroads.
There is no clearcut agreement between the Canadian Wheat Board and the railroads with regard to paying for the cost of operation of those 2,000 hopper cars. There is no kind of maintenance agreement and we do not really know who will pay for the maintenance. I suspect we shall learn, when we get all the facts, that the Canadian Wheat Board and therefore the farmers of western Canada, will pay for the cost of operating those 2,000 hopper cars. It doesn't matter whether the Grits or the Tories are in charge of the railways of this country, whether the hon. member for Vegreville is the minister of transport, or the present minister, whose constituency I forget. It would not make a tinker's damn of difference, as there is no agreement. Oh yes, there was an initial agreement to allow the railroads to use the cars. That makes sense. When you buy 2,000 hopper cars and present them to the railroads, it makes sense to use them. The railroads are using them. Who knows how much the railroads are making out of the business. Who knows what the Wheat Board will have to pay and, therefore, indirectly the western producer.
When it was pointed out that 50 per cent of the track in western Canada cannot carry the hopper cars, the minister said we will tell the railroads that they must improve those lines in order to use the hopper cars. The minister knows as well as I do that the state of the track gives the railroads a perfectly legitimate excuse to do what they intend to do in 1975, namely, abandon certain rail lines. They intend to abandon them and say that certain railway lines are not up to par and cannot be used for moving grain. This merely presents the railroads with a good excuse for abandoning lines. In Assiniboia constituency there are 1,170 miles of track. Of that total, 605 miles, used for carrying 22.5 million bushels of wheat will be abandoned by 1975 unless the government proposes an alternative policy. Mr. Chairman, in 1975 the moratorium on rail line abandonment in western Canada will be lifted by the Canadian Transport Commission.
During the election campaign, the former minister of finance was made the head of the Canadian Transport Commission. That really cheered us up in western Canada. The Conservatives, during the election campaign, wanted the head of the Canadian Transport Commission to be fired. That is a good idea, but it really does not matter because if the Tories were in power they would, after firing the present chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, instal in his place the president of the CPR; there would be no difference in policy. So, in 1975 some of the recommendations of the McPherson Commission, which was set up by the Tory government, will be carried out either by a Grit government or a Tory government, unless we once again operate in a House of minorities. Barring that possibility, 605 miles of track in Assiniboia will be abandoned. The elevator capacity on

February 16, 1973
Supply
those lines is in the neighbourhood of 11.7 million bushels of grain.
I listened to members of the Tory party speaking in this committee on the agriculture estimates. They mentioned transportation. I know some of them belong to a particular type of organization that talks of abandoning 30, 40 or 50 country elevators in any given area. I also know that in Assiniboia constituency during the election the Conservative candidate said, "We will not abandon any of your rail lines. We will not permit the 5,100 farmers served by branch lines in Assiniboia to be left without rail service." That candidate and others suggested that the government should build 18 inland terminals and close certain country elevators. Farmers in western Canada can put two and two together. They should realize that the Tory party and some of the members who support it, particularly in Saskatchewan, want nothing more than the wholesale abandonment of those lines. That policy is not different from the one followed by this government in railine abandonment. Let the hon. member for Vegreville not doubt that the Tory government would abandon those lines. We have listened to his party spokesmen and know what they recommend in Saskatchewan in terms of rail line abandonment.
I could educate members from British Columbia as to why some of us in the west do not vote for the Tory party.


Mr. Mazankowski:: You are fighting for your political life, and you know it.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, when I ran in the byelection they said I was fighting for my political life, that the Tories or Grits would get me, but I took care of them. In the general election I was also told that the Tories or Grits would get me, I was too young; yet here I am. I took care of them. I tell my hon. friend that in the next general election, in Assiniboia, or whatever the name of the riding may be, Bill Knight-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let's talk about hopper cars.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member knows the rules. He should refer to the item before us.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, I wanted members of the committee to know of the difficulties they will encounter in presenting certain policies on transportation to the producers of Assiniboia. Those policies with respect to transport interest all the producers of western Canada. I think I have made my point.
In Assiniboia an experiment in trucking grain was undertaken. Frankly, it was a good experiment. After cleaning some barley, it was trucked from inland terminals right through to Vancouver. I say to those who feel that it would be better to truck grain to large terminals, then load it unto unit trains and move it to the coast after it has been screened, that we have not been given a detailed cost study of such a project. All we were told, Mr. Chairman, was that this process was costing the farmer more than if he were using the railways and country elevators. I do not think that is good enough. I think the

minister in charge of the Wheat Board and those members of that "think tank", the Canada Grains Council, should appear before the Committee on Agriculture and explain to western producers or their representatives what exactly are the cost factors involved in the running of the system. What are the cost factors in using trucks, in using hopper cars and in using unit trains to run to the west coast. I do not think we have been given an adequate explanation.
An inland terminal using a trucking method can be used along with hopper cars and unit trains. This might save producers money and increase the efficiency of moving grain. There is certainly some room to allow for the movement of a top grade of wheat. The sorry situation dealing with this estimate on hopper cars points out the bankruptcy of the national government, regardless of which old-line party is in power, in terms of producing a transportation policy for the producers of western Canada and, in fact, people in all of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Vote against the item.


William George Knight: It is no solution to merely offer much needed hopper cars. That is a piecemeal solution. It is another subsidy. Once a year we give the CNR a subsidy. Last year we gave both the CNR and CPR a subsidy by supplying them with cars. This points out that there is no national direction in the area of transportation.
The Speech from the Throne set out that there will be a meeting in western Canada to discuss our transportation problems. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion forgets that when he was Minister of Transport not once did he speak of equalizing freight rates in this country so that those in the west could develop secondary manufacturing industry. Not once did he mention an equalization of the freight rate structure.
What we need is a federal government that will tackle the railways in relation to providing service to the producers. We need a railroad commitment of providing rolling stock, not a government that bails them out when the going gets rough, gives them 2,000 hopper cars and still allows them to lease cars to the United States. The government allows the railways to use Canadian cars to haul American grain over Canadian rail lines to American ports to go to American customers. They do not even know about it, much less care. You cannot build a national transportation policy by adhering to the idea that in order to save yourself in a general election you should supply 2,000 hopper cars to western Canada.
What we need is to attack the problem of upgrading the track and the elevator system. There is no question that between Weyburn and Yellow Grass there are about four elevators within sight of each other. There is no argument there. Where the argument comes is in an over-all program such as in a task force report or the report coming out of this "think tank" called the Canada Grains Council, or the Canada Grains Group which came up with the idea of banning them and not keeping up the track. That is where the area of massive transportation in western Canada falls down. With the removal of the pools from the Canada Grains Council as well the National Farmers'
February 16, 1973

Union, it might as well fold up its tent and go home: the Canada Grains Council might as well shut down because it will be representing only a very limited group in our society. They certainly represent the private interest.
I congratulate the hon. member for Churchill for raising the subject of the port of Churchill, something which is dear to my heart. I have never seen a port which has been more discriminated against or more ignored. It is absolutely incredible. The Dalglish Shipping Company, one of the major shippers in and out of that port, stated it would no longer go into the port at a certain time in the fall because it was not kept up to date. Eventually we will be faced with the situation where no one will use the port of Churchill as an alternate route for moving grain out of western Canada.
We must also develop a secdnd route through the Canadian rockies. Last winter the mountain route was plugged and the grain was not being moved. At that time the minister in charge of the Wheat Board came up with the fantastic idea-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: How about the unions?


William George Knight: I will get to that. My colleagues will enjoy that. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board suddenly went to Vancouver and made a great to-do while standing in front of one of the terminals. Who did he take along with him? Almost all the Liberal candidates in the province of Saskatchewan. I do not know how they got there or back.


Erik Nielsen: In a hopper car.


William George Knight: They were all there. They sent home pictures. I want to say to them that they did not learn very much about the blockage of the movement of grain in the mountains by flying over them. Two and a half weeks later I tried another method. I rode through those mountains on a passenger train. I could see what was blocking the movement of grain; it was large boulders.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Did you take along a shovel?


William George Knight: I should have taken along a shovel. I could have done more good than the minister in charge of the Wheat Board.


Daniel Aiken Lang: You could use a shovel right now.


William George Knight: Sooner or later an alternate route through the Rocky Mountains must be developed. This is fundamental to the movement of western grain. This brings me back to my first point. We in western Canada have suffered under two gentlemen who have been in charge of our most basic product, wheat. Each tries to collect the little bouquet of salesman of the year. One got a group in Regina to name him. I am referring to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the minister from Saskatoon-Humboldt. They beat their chests and make great pronouncements.


An hon. Member:: The crown prices.


William George Knight: It is the crown price against the old wheat king. They beat their chests and cry aloud, "We sell the
Supply
wheat." Well, we do not care who sells the wheat. We appreciate the fact wheat is sold, but I say to both these gentlemen from the old-line parties that this solution is not good enough.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board in this House of Commons told the farmers to diversify and not just grow wheat. When you look at the estimates, you find that the grassland incentive program to get farmers out of growing what-I think the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek will be interested in this-will have only $4 million in the fund by 1974. The minister says he helped the farmers to diversify. He and his good friend, who used to be the premier of Saskatchewan and whose name I will not mention-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the committee. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We made the offer at the outset-


Robert Jardine McCleave: There is not unanimous consent within the committee.


Erik Nielsen: Will Your Honour hear my point of order? At the outset of the day's business we made an offer to complete this bill in all its stages by three o'clock. This being so, and it appearing that the NDP is filibustering, we feel we cannot give unanimous consent.


William George Knight: On the point of order, I find it incredible that the hon. member for Yukon should take the line he does. I suggest it is out of order to imply that one group or another is filibustering. I want him to know that rural transportation in the constituency of Assiniboia is a very important subject no matter what the official spokesman for the Conservative party may think.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. My suspicions were perfectly right; I should have proceeded at once to recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie. I now do so.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not know what the official spokesman, or whatever he may be, is thinking in his own mind but I do have a few comments to make without conferring with him. Nor do I rise at the prompting of the hon. member for Assiniboia, though I do think some of the observations he made should be answered and that the opportunity should be taken to acquaint hon. members opposite with other circumstances which arise.
This having been said, I believe the hon. member should be fair and acknowledge that the minister who authorized the ordering of the boxcars did so with more than just politics in mind. I think he really was concerned about putting some of these railway lines into efficient operation. The trouble is, he was putting a lot of the other rural lines out of operation at the same time.
1376

Supply
If the minister tells us that the railways will be persuaded to improve their lines, I am not going to believe him. It is true the railways have been given a $40 million grant by way of boxcars, but can anyone imagine them rushing to spend two or three million dollars on rights of way? They will obviously not be much impressed by the type of argument which the minister uses. They will take no action.
What will the railways do? They will simply close off those rural lines as soon as possible. They have already given an indication of the branches they intend to close. It is not a secret. The minister knows this. Can he tell us, for example, of any lines which the railways have stated they intend to improve? Not one. They will improve none of these lines. What the Minister of Justice may tell us in the House of Commons is beside the point. No extra money will be put in either before or after 1975. The fact has to be accepted that the lines will be maintained until 1975. I had a very interesting experience in connection with the Chelan line. I had to challenge the president of the Canadian National, Mr. McMillan, on that particular point in order to get a bridge rebuilt.
Does the minister think the government will be able to convince the companies to rebuild the rights of way, putting in more ballast or whatever is necessary throughout the whole of the system in this area? I come from an old railway family. My father worked hard on the railway and I grew up to understand the railway business. I appreciate the difficulties the companies have experienced. But I say the minister's assurance that the railways will change their attitude is not worth a pinch of salt. Why should they suddenly reverse the position they took five years ago when they prepared documents for the Transport Commission specifying the lines they wanted to close? Nothing the government has presented to them will change their minds. The provincial governments have done nothing except document the fact that their action will cost the farmers more money.
The Minister of Justice, who speaks for the Wheat Board, has had to account for the $40 million expenditure on boxcars. Originally he said it was $48 million, and that is the figure that registers in the mind of the public. Now he says it is $40 million. So he has done a heck of a lot for them. But what has he really done? He is speeding up the closure of the lines which are not able to accept those cars.
There is no way in which the minister can bring pressure to bear upon his colleague, the Minister of Transport. Witness what happened yesterday. The Minister of Agriculture did not appear before the committee in defence of farmers. He gave an explanation to justify his absence. But the whole cabinet, 23 or 26 members, put pressure on the Minister of Agriculture and he could not be present to accept the fact that farmers need an increase in some of the prices they have been getting. In the last few days the Minister of Agriculture has been subjected to pressure from other members of the cabinet, including the Minister of Justice, the minister from Saskatchewan.


An hon. Member:: You don't know what you are talking about.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sorry to say so, but what I have said is the situation. Can the government tell us that up to this point they have initiated talks on this question or made a written request to the railway companies? If they have not, the closure of these lines will take place in 1975.
Although I think this whole thing was started by a group of people who felt it was necessary, the government has the final decision. It is the government in power which has the right to stop this closure in its tracks. I cannot simplify it for hon. members any more than that. The fact is that we must keep these railways in operation. I suggest there is only one thing for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to do, and that is to divert these cars from the main line to the other lines.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Nonsense.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister has done nothing like that, and he now admits it.


Daniel Aiken Lang: No, I did not. I said "Nonsense."


Stanley James Korchinski: If the minister says it is nonsense, I will accept his word for it. Nonsense is nonsense if it comes from the Minister of Justice. The minister will admit that he has no jurisdiction over the railways or over the Minister of Transport. Is the minister going to bring pressure on the Minister of Transport to use heavier steel for these lines? I have a close connection with the railways because my father was a rail line maintenance man, and I know that if the Minister of Justice cannot get the Minister of Transport to use heavier rails we are going to be stuck with smaller cars, which in turn will mean less movement of freight.
A few years ago the Minister of Justice made a speech in which he said there would be only five or six terminal points across Canada. The minister must explain-


Daniel Aiken Lang: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The Minister of Justice is rising on a point of order.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I know there is a tendency, not only on the hon. member's part but also on the part of his colleagues, to suggest that if I sit silent I approve of what is said. Therefore I must make the point that at no time have I favoured a system that would use a small number of inland terminals. The suggestion has been made along that line by some people, and it is one of the proposals studied in the grain handling and transportation report, but I have personally never advocated at any time that particular configuration.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is not a point of order but a matter for debate. The minister can make his contribution in the regular way. I recognize the hon. member for Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: I accept the minister's comment, Mr. Chairman, but I assure the committee that the burden of our studies in the agricultural committee during the last few years has been to the effect that the minister did

February 16, 1973

make that speech and we used it as a reference point. We are not going to stray from our argument in that regard. If he wants to change his suggestion and make it 40 or 50 terminals, I accept it, but the minister did make a speech in which he guaranteed there would be something like 40 inland terminals-


Daniel Aiken Lang: Never.


Stanley James Korchinski: That speech was made about five years ago. If that were the case, the railways would not be justified in using 60, 70, or 100-pound rails, or whatever the weight is, since the minister has indicated that certain lines are going to be closed. After all, the railways are not stupid; they will latch on to every bit of information they can get. They will not do any more than they have to. I remember at one point the railways had decided to build a bridge until it was discovered they had to maintain rail service at the same time. Although the government can put pressure on the railways to do something, it cannot guarantee it will be done.
We have seen closing of rail lines and of stations. Although the government has said it is going to put pressure on the railways, where is the estimate to indicate that this will be done or that any particular line will be improved? The people are being fooled; it is as simple as that. We are not being honest with the people and telling them what is going to happen. I am sure the railways will not be allowed to close down the line between Keewatin and Kenora, or the Tisdale to Reserve line. I should like the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Justice to tell the committee now how much money they are going to put up. I hear hon. members laughing, but if these closures happen in their areas they will not laugh so much.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: You can hee-haw at this particular time-
An. hon. Member: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: -but I tell the committee that nowhere in western Canada is this matter being greeted with heehaws. No Liberal who would go out there and read this speech which indicates that they hee-hawed. That would not endear them to the people there. I am not too concerned because I knew exactly what the reaction would be. The reaction is a natural one when you do not give the farmer an opportunity to reduce his costs of production or delivery costs.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. The point of order raised a moment ago, to the effect that members are asked to address the Chair, is a perfectly proper one. When one hears the word "you" being used, one expects that the words are being addressed to the Chair rather than to a member on the opposite side. Such a member should be referred to by constituency.


Mr. Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on these estimates because the movement of grain is of great importance to western Canada.
Supply
The future plans of the government and its transportation policies are being questioned by many people. Not only do they affect the largest industry on the prairies, agriculture, but they also affect the future of many rural communities.
Last year, when the government announced it intended to purchase 2,000 hopper cars to improve the movement of grain in the Prairies, there was a great fanfare from the government to the effect that this would be a major step in solving the grain handling problem in western Canada. We all know the problems Canada has faced in respect of moving grain to world markets in the last few years. Ships have been waiting for grain in Vancouver. Because of severe weather conditions, according to the government, we have seen grain move at a snail's pace to the west coast. All these delays were at great cost to the farmer and also affected our future export markets for grain.
It seems odd to me that the government waited until an election year to announce the purchase of these hopper cars when these problems had been facing us for many years. So far as I am concerned, this was just another smokescreen by this government to cover up its mismanagement of western agriculture. It sounded great in other areas of Canada that the government finally was assisting western farmers by an expenditure of $48 million. Did the farmers really benefit from the purchase of these hopper cars? I would question this and the farmers question it. I feel the greatest benefactors were the railway companies and the foundries in eastern Canada which built the hopper cars.
At the time the announcement of the purchase was made, we in the opposition asked the government how much trackage in western Canada would be capable of handling the hopper cars. The government said that we were just spreading gloom and that we should not worry. This year, when the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board appeared before the committee on agriculture, he admitted that less than 50 per cent of the railway tracks in western Canada are capable of handling these hopper cars.
At the present time nothing concerns western farmers more than the question of rail line abandonment. This affects many communities in the Prairies. By its plan to purchase these hopper cars I say the government is merely accelerating its program of rail line abandonment which most farmers strongly oppose. We hope the minister will explain why this program is being accelerated. How can areas that are fighting rail line abandonment survive if the tracks are not capable of handling hopper cars? Why did the government not tell the CPR and the CNR that it would purchase these hopper cars provided they upgraded their roadbed and tracks so that the majority of areas would benefit from this mode of transportation? The railway companies have an obligation to the Canadian people: they are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers of Canada, yet in many areas they are not prepared to offer any kind of service.
We know that most branch lines are protected until 1975. Every year the railways accept a subsidy and at the same time decrease service on their branch lines knowing that after 1975 they will just close them down. They should be using these subsidies to upgrade their branch
1378

February 16, 1973
Supply
lines, thus fulfilling their obligation to Canada. It is time the government took a strong stand with the railway companies. Instead, the government protects the railways. For a change, let us protect the farmers.
The railways are making a fool of the government. Every winter and spring they allow no traffic on many branch lines because in the winter they say snow creates problems and in the spring they say their roadbeds are too soft to stand traffic. Because of this, some lines are closed for four to six months of the year. Then they appear before the transport committee and say that their tonnage is away down on such a line and that it should be permanently closed. The railways cannot deny this. At the present time, in the riding of Marquette, this is the situation in respect of some lines. This winter, because of the light snowfall in Manitoba, snow is no problem; the roadbeds are frozen solid and can handle most trains. Yet we see no trains using these lines. The government should demand from the railways action in respect of these lines.
I have knowledge of cases where either the Manitoba pool or the United Grain Growers wish to improve present grain elevator facilities and even build new ones. However, construction is delayed for one of two reasons. Either the railways will not guarantee how long they will service the line, or the proposed cost of putting a spur line into the elevator is not realistic. This is just a charade on the part of the railways, and unfortunately the farmer is the loser.
During the last few years the government has given the impression that it wants only 50 delivery points for grain in all of western Canada. I maintain that the purchase of these hopper cars is only the first step in this program. The end result will be long hauls for many farmers. The government should announce its intentions. It should announce a program now, as we urged last session, under which farmers would be paid for storage of farm stored grain. Despite what some experts say, Canada must have large supplies of grain on hand if it is to survive in world markets.
The government should also announce a program to assist farmers who have extremely long hauls to elevators. In areas where there is good and sound justification for the closing of a delivery point-and these are few- farmers should be compensated if the result is that they will have to haul their grain great distances.
One fear expressed by many farmers about the purchase of hopper cars is, who will pay for the maintenance of these cars? Will it be the railways, or the government, or will this expense come out of the farmers' Wheat Board account? They also wonder whether the government has received any assurance that the railways will use these hopper cars for grain only, or whether they will be used for other commodities. It is my understanding that the CPR and CNR presently are wrecking 2,000 boxcars. What is the reason for this? Could these cars not be kept to meet any emergency movement of grain?
In closing, let me again tell the government that it is time it got tough with the CPR and the CNR. If the purchase of these hopper cars is to be truly effective, the railways must upgrade their present tracks so all areas of the west will benefit. For a change, the farmer rather than the railways should be protected.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, I must deal with a number of issues which have been raised this afternoon. A number of the issues on the subject of hopper cars and the rail transportation system were gone over in the very lengthy debate we had on the first item in this schedule when members of the official opposition and members of the NDP spoke one after the other, presumably in competition for the filibustering role.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Do you want to get your estimates passed?


Daniel Aiken Lang: The question is, who pays the price? I see the Leader of the Opposition is trying to blackmail me by threatening not to pass the estimates, after two or three days' discussion by members of these two parties have come to naught. I do have to deal with some of the matters which have been raised. I would appreciate it if the Leader of the Opposition would not mind my attempting to deal with issues which are of key interest to prairie farmers, namely, the movement, handling and transportation of grain.
The item before us deals with the purchase of hopper cars. One or two hon. members, including the hon. member for Marquette who has just finished speaking, asked what benefit this has been to farmers. We have also been asked why this was not done earlier. I am not quite sure how they would like us to proceed on this matter. Should we not have done it at all, or should we have done it earlier? We have the dilemma that we must have been right or wrong or right too late. The interesting point, of course, which hon. members forget is that it was only when we had gone into the feed grain market in a big way-something that had never happened before-that we began to move volumes of grain which were likely to test the capacity of our delivery system in a regular fashion.
Hon. members may think that we should have a delivery system which is at all times ready to handle any volume of grain which we may have to move at any particular point in time. That is not sound economics, which I hope they will appreciate. You do not build a system to handle two billion bushels of grain if chances are that once in 150 years you might get to that kind of volume. You build for the realities, for the likelihoods.
We had a system which we were told could stretch itself and move 700 million bushels of export grain, and we stretched it to that limit. When we wanted to get exports up to 800 million bushels of grain, we ensured that additional facilities were there in order to move to that limit. We were getting to the point where I and the government could see that if the Wheat Board chose to move a particular volume of wheat and barley into market in the coming crop year, we might have some question about the ability of the existing system as it was operating to handle the grain. Notice those words: the existing system as it was operating and its ability to handle the grain.
The problem was that with the rail equipment in use, and with the turnaround formula for that equipment, there could be some finite limits put upon the volume of grain which could be handled, given the problems of
February 16, 1973

trying to move more in some months and less in other months which are natural to a selling and delivery system. We were told by the railroads that with their equipment and with the elevator system running on a five-day week in certain areas rather than on a seven-day week, the maximum of the handling and turnaround volume might be just above the 800 million bushel figure which we had achieved in the 1971-72 crop year.
This was true even after we had done a few things to improve the system. We put a block shipping system into effect which allowed for far faster use of equipment. We put a co-ordinating system into effect at the terminals, and a pooling of cars at the terminals, which allowed a far faster turnaround of equipment at that point. In every way we were getting the maximum use out of equipment. However, we were in a dilemma when we said to the railways that the Wheat Board might want to move so much wheat and barley so that along with the volume of other grains including rapeseed we may have the challenge of moving 900 or 950 million bushels, or even a billion bushels of grain in a crop year.
In such a case, what about the equipment to do it? We were talking to the railways in terms of our view that it is their basic obligation to have in place equipment to handle grain in an ordinary way; not necessarily to handle an extra 100 million bushels suddenly in a month or a week but their ability to do so in a regular way. The railroads did not deny, in this confrontation, that this was a basic obligation on their part. What they did say was that they had no natural obligation to have equipment to handle that grain from the elevators on a five-day week basis. If they had enough equipment so that if the elevators would operate on a seven-day week basis, they could easily handle it.
The dilemma is that in this particular area you do not have ordinary negotiations between the shipper of a product and the railways. As difficult as those negotiations may be at the best of times, you do not have ordinary kinds of negotiations between the two parties about the price at which they will handle the product and, therefore, the manner in which they will handle it, because there is the Crowsnest pass rate, a fixed rate at which grain is handled. Therefore agreement could not be achieved between the railways and the elevator companies.
It was not a case of the railways saying, "We will handle it at such and such a rate if you work on a seven-day week, and at a higher rate if you work on a five-day week." There was no such bargaining nor willingness on the part of elevator companies to accept the challenge of the railways. I asked the elevator companies to accept that challenge and to operate on a seven-day week and then tell the railways that they should handle the grain. It may be that we could have sorted out that question after a year or so of arguing, but I was not sure of it and I therefore asked my colleagues to provide money from the general revenue to put the hopper cars into place so we could be sure we would be able to move the grain which the Wheat Board may want to move.
The hon. member for Marquette said-completely erroneously; and he was wrong in a number of respects- that I said something before the committee. But I was not there at all. He also made reference to some comments
Supply
which he and his colleagues, he suggested, had made a year or so ago when hopper cars were being bought. If he will check that, he will find that they did not say that either. It was well known to us that the existing rail lines could not, to a very large extent, carry the hopper cars. We were also aware of the fact that a significant number of the most important lines, those which carry the largest part of the grain, could in fact handle the hopper cars.
Hon. members seem to be aghast at the fact that the lines cannot carry the hopper cars. Again, what a strange mentality! They were surprised that we suddenly needed the hopper cars to start moving 900 million bushels of grain, when no one thought of more than 700 million or 800 million bushels of grain until two years ago. Now they somehow think that the lines should have been able to carry the hopper cars, when until that point no one had in fact thought in terms of running hopper cars over those lines.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, since the minister has pointed out to the committee that we are discussing a serious matter, would he like to fill us in with any information he may have that would be of service to those of us who have asked very serious questions related to this matter? Since he said that the hopper cars were there to facilitate the movement of up to 900 million bushels, I wonder whether he could give us an outline or table in the House an outline of when those cars came into operation at different intervals, and how much grain they have moved until now.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to supply the information to the hon. member personally, or indeed to table it if that is his wish. There are now about 1,700 hopper cars in use. They are coming into use during the winter months, which is not the key period in terms of their operational use, but they are quite a help in getting grain to Vancouver, for instance, in a given time if difficulties arise there. So already they are acting as a reserve.
The real opportunity to prove themselves will come with the peak movement of grain in the summer months. I say again that if the Wheat Board chooses to sell that amount of grain that will require a peak movement, then we want to be in possession of a transportation system that will allow it to move all the grain necessary.


Stanley James Korchinski: On another question-


Daniel Aiken Lang: I shall accept questions afterwards, if the hon. member doesn't mind. Hon. members expressed surprise that some lines could not carry the hopper cars. We have had discussions with the Wheat Board and the railways about putting the hopper cars on lines which can easily carry them and have the cars turned around as quickly as possible so that we can achieve maximum movement of grain more easily, and indeed test some new things in the movement of grain.
Hon. members have asked, what about upgrading the lines? This question did not really arise until we got to the point where we were going to have the hopper cars. In fact, the elevator companies had not raised all of the spouts to deal with hopper cars, but now they are raising

Supply
the spouts in order to be able to load the cars. It is not surprising that the elevator companies waited to do this, but they are doing it readily because they want to use those hopper cars. They are eager to use them. They compete with one another for the use of these cars.
It is now possible for us to say to the railways, "We have the hopper cars in position so now improve some important lines to carry them." To give an example, Mr. Chairman, consider the line between Rosetown and Kindersley, a line which in my opinion should be brought up to a standard that can carry hopper cars. These cars can be run on that line on the western end and on the eastern end, but there is a link-piece between on which they cannot be run. Clearly, the challenge there is to bring that line up to standard.
I have said previously, and I repeat now, that the government has tried to take this issue about the kind of rail and grain handling system that we really require out of the narrow range of both petty party politics and the interests of the railways and elevator companies, and out of the hands of other individual groups. We have tried to reveal the facts and to make those facts available to provincial governments, the railways, elevator companies, and particularly to grain producers, so they can face up to the fact that with certain changes they may be able to have their grain handled at far lower rates and thus get the benefit of changes in the system.
I hope hon. members will not misunderstand my objective. My objective is to see that any benefits which come from changes in the system do not get lost in the system, as happened so often in the past when individual elevators were closed and individual branch lines were abandoned. The producers living in those areas lost by those actions. My objective is to have the benefits passed on to the producers. Indeed, I have indicated that the provision of some compensation in the period of adjustment would be a good thing. I have not heard that suggestion taken up eagerly by hon. members opposite or by groups and various organizations on the prairies, perhaps because some of them are concerned that they would lose something if that particular matter were proceeded with. I submit that it deserves further examination. Of course, it is not a matter on which one can move rapidly without co-ordination.
Here are the words of Ira Mumford, general manager of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, as reported in the Star-Phoenix of January 31 last. Under the heading "System Wearing Out" he is reported as saying that the country elevator system is wearing out and that over the next few years more and more elevators will no longer be useful; the logical step would be central locations for replacements. This is his view, a view supported by the progress in this direction made by elevator companies over the last ten years, even though unco-ordinated with the railways.
Hon. members will have to determine for themselves whether they want moneys paid to the railway companies under the existing transportation act to keep a branch line in place when it moves only relatively few bushels of grain, or if they would prefer that money being put to better use to serve the producers. These are the real challenges with which we are faced.

Some hon. members say, "Oh, woe betide us. Our rail system is handling American grain. Oh, what a tragedy. Only last year, in February, we could not move all the grain that we wanted to move to Vancouver. How illogical it is that some American grain is moving to Seattle on Canadian lines." I suggest that they are confusing two problems. We are moving American grain on our lines this winter, when the supply of boxcars is more plentiful than in the peak period of summer. I ask why not, when this does not interfere with the orderly movement of grain in Canada? Why shouldn't the railways move this grain to Seattle if they can make a profit on it? There must be a very strange feeling of some hon. members about the railways if their argument is that the railways should not make a profit on this movement, that there is something sacred about Canadian lines and that they should be used only for the movement of Canadian grain. That does not make sense to me.
What I have said to hon. members, and what I tell farmers, is that we will do everything we have to do to make sure that our transportation equipment is not used to handle American grain when it is needed for handling Canadian grain. But when there are 17 million or 18 million bushels of grain already in Vancouver, when grain experts, the Wheat Board, the elevators and everybody else agree that that amount is actually higher than is ideal, why should we load additional cars with grain and just hold them in readiness to move out there? That does not make sense. This is not the proper way to operate the system. We do not make progress that way.
I hope hon. members will recognize that this purchase of hopper cars was an extremely important demonstration by the government of Canada of a willingness to pledge the resources of the people of Canada to make sure that grain, which is of such importance to the prairie region and indeed to all of Canada, does in fact move to market. It is extremely strange and really rather difficult for me to sit here and listen to Members of Parliament from the prairie region attacking this purchase, suggesting to some of my colleagues from other parts of the country that that money ought not to have been spent by the treasury. I suggest to them that that is not a very useful thing from the point of view of the prairie farmers, particularly when such a step is taken and such expenditures are made by the people of Canada for the good of the people of Canada and, more particularly and directly, for the good of the prairie region and of the farmers there. That step will be even more important in the days ahead. We may need more such action, and it should not be attacked by hon. members from the prairie region. Hon. members representing or purporting to represent farm constituencies in that region, under the guise of defending their local communities are attacking those helpful steps which have been taken and I hope will continue to be taken to help the prairie farmers.


Mr. Drury:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is now almost four o'clock and I think there would be agreement to continue with this debate and hope that we could make progress, rather than proceeding with private members' hour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will certainly agree, Mr. Chairman, and I hope other ministers will not find it necessary to make long speeches of a rather inflammatory nature.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Chairman, I was scheduled to proceed first in private members' hour. I will be very happy to give way so that the true facts can be presented on this important matter of the grain industry. However, I understand there will be an opportunity during private members' hour on Monday next to pursue the subject I was going to take up.


Mr. Reid:: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member for Brandon-Souris that we will bring forth his resolution, which was to have been discussed today, on Monday at five o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: These things should be done with Mr. Speaker in the chair. Perhaps hon. members will allow me to rise, it being four o'clock, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the committee of the whole have leave to sit again? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with discussions that have already been held, we agree to return to committee of the whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is there agreement to forgo private members' hour at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan).


Mr. Buchanan:: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to obtain the consent of the House to revert to motions in order to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that we revert to motions to allow the hon. member to present this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Buchanan.
Supply
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose, it was considering the schedule relating to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, vote 30a. The hon. member for Wellington.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but I would ask a question of the minister-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, with all respect to the hon. member for Wellington, your predecessor in the chair recognized me before the points of order started on this item.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I do not think we should try to create confusion at this time. The procedure was taken to report progress. I was not present, so I am not in a position to know who was recognized. I have now recognized the hon. member for Wellington.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I have two questions for the minister in charge of these estimates. I have seen very many estimates go through this House, but I have never seen such a bundle as this one where the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is asking for $40.3 million to enable the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase hopper cars. Now we have the Minister of Justice handling the estimates, so it is really a bag of tricks.
My first question is, why are the railways not buying these cars? I refer to CP and CN? When was this decision made? Why is the Canadian Wheat Board in a business they have no right to be in? They have no right to be in it, in my opinion; buying cars is railway business.
Secondly, if the Wheat Board is providing these cars, is it going to receive a reduced rate from the railways? Thirdly, will this gift of $48 million to the railways appear on their profit and loss statement as income? I will follow these questions with another short one later.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for these questions. Let me explain, first of all, that it is

February 16, 1973
Supply
known to some members of this House that in addition to being Minister of Justice I am the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board has traditionally had a relationship with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, indeed, supporting staff for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is largely carried in the budget of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and located in their offices. Therefore, while this item appears under that departmental heading, it is in my responsibility as minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board that I am speaking to the item in the grains area of that department.
In my short explanatory remarks a few minutes ago I explained why the railways were not, on their own, likely to purchase this additional equipment in a situation where the elevators are operating on a five-day week basis at the terminals when the railways are arguing that the equipment to handle the grain to the elevators should move on a seven-day week basis. The rates for the movement of grain for export are the Crowsnest rates. That means there was no bargaining position between the railways and the elevators to arrange the best system without some intervention. In reply to the hon. member's question about reduced rates, the Crowsnest rate is applicable in this area.
This is not, as the hon. member claims a gift of $48 million to the railways. It is a purchase of cars by the Wheat Board at the government's request. This is not a gift to the railways of these cars but, rather, the cars are in the hands of the Wheat Board to be made use of by the railways. There will be a possibility in the future of examining the question of when it is appropriate for the railways to purchase the cars rather than to continue to have a loan of them. That may be determined by the changing configuration of the railway transportation system.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The minister did not say when the decision was made to buy these cars.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, the decision was made and announced, I believe, in February a year ago.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The final question is a technical one but it is very important. This item appears in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce estimates under the heading of "marketing." I think we need great imagination to put hopper cars under that heading. This is equipment and capital expenditure; it is not marketing. We are being asked to pass estimates to buy equipment which is a capital expenditure, when it appears under the heading of "Marketing." Furthermore, the department is using $7.7 million from their 1972-73 estimates under that heading for the purchase of equipment and for capital expenditures. I think this is wrong and this House should not be asked to pass such estimates.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, this is an item which is needed to purchase the cars. I do not know how the hon. member can say it is a capital item in that sense. It is very much a budgetary item in terms of the government putting funds into the hands of the Wheat Board for that purpose. This is quite similar to other measures within the over-all marketing category within this whole title, where from time to

time grants or payments, and indeed grants in respect of the purchase of capital equipment by an individual company, may be made to encourage the additional marketing of Canadian grain in an ingenious variety of ways.
In my earlier remarks, I explained to hon. members that the particular purpose of this purchase was to enable the Canadian Wheat Board to continue making sales beyond a certain volume of exports where they would have been stopped if there had not been more equipment available to handle grain and haul it to market. The point, in other words, is that the marketing of this grain for export depends on our having the handling and transportation system which can move the grain from where it is produced on the Prairies to the ports which, in Canada, are far removed from the production areas. Therefore, this kind of step is directly related to the capability of the Canadian Wheat Board to market grain.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a final question? Under what department will this rolling-stock or equipment appear? Will it be on the books of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of the Canadian Wheat Board, or of the railways?


Daniel Aiken Lang: It will be on the books of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Chairman.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, having listened to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, I feel I must make some remarks. The minister has thrown out more straw-men and heifer dust than normal. No one objects to the purchase of rolling-stock for the movement of grain. Members on all sides of the House, the grain industry and farm organizations have said for many years that we do not have enough rolling-stock for the movement of grain. For the minister to throw out the strawman that somebody is objecting to the purchase of additional rolling-stock to move grain is sheer nonsense, and he knows it. He knows as well as I do and others who were elected to this chamber at that time that from his first year in office there was repeated discussion about the shortage of equipment for moving grain. So that problem is at least four years old in my experience and his, and it is 44 years old in the experience of people in the farming and grain handling industry. There is no argument about the necessity to increase the rolling-stock available to the railways for moving grain. The argument is whether it is the responsibility of the railways to buy such equipment.
It was pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Wellington that the Wheat Board and the Government of Canada are being required to shoulder responsibilities that should be shouldered by the railways. When the minister suggests that all he can do is discuss this question with the railroads, does he mean that the government and the Canadian Wheat Board in a better position to order hopper cars and ensure delivery more quickly than the railroads? If that is what he suggests, he is doing nothing but letting the railroads off the hook. When the government decided last February to purchase these hopper cars for grain movement, responsibility could have been transferred to the management of
February 16, 1973

both national railway systems and they could have been required to buy that rolling stock.
We considered the Canadian National financing bill, and the entire $48 million could have been included in it one year ago. The minister knows that. For him to pretend and suggest that the cars have to be bought by the Canadian Wheat Board because the railways would not buy them, or could not, is nonsense, and he knows it.
The people of western Canada and members of all parties have been pleading for many years for an improvement in equipment used to handle grain. The minister's position is completely illogical. If it is logical for the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase hopper cars for the movement of grain, it is equally logical, I suggest, for the government to buy other cars for other uses. I am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who has a great deal of experience with livestock movement, would agree with that. Every year there is a crying need for stock cars for moving cattle. Following the logic of the minister's position, does the minister not think that the government should also purchase another couple of thousands stock cars so that we can solve the chronic problem that arises every year of insufficient rolling-stock to move cattle to eastern Canadian and U.S. markets?
This problem has been with us ever since I began working for the railway in 1947. Will the minister also, if he is to follow through with his logic, not purchase refrigerator cars? Every year there is a chronic shortage of refrigerator cars for moving potatoes from the maritime provinces, particularly P.E.I. and New Brunswick, to market. Does the minister, in his logic, not think that the government ought to purchase 2,000 refrigerator cars to move potatoes out of the maritime provinces to central Canadian and eastern U.S. markets?
The minister talked much of being non-political and of not following narrow, partisan lines, yet he threw out the nonsense that members from other parties opposed the purchase of hopper cars. Such is not the case and he knows it. He ridiculed statements made by hon. members who pointed out that United States grain has been moving on Canadian rail lines, in Canadian equipment, to U.S. ports and he tried to tell us that that is all right at this time of year because there is no need for equipment to move Canadian grain to Canadian ports. Let us remind the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, if he feels that we do not need that equipment, that 450 rail cars of the CPR are being used to move American grain. Let me remind the minister in charge of the Wheat Board that there is space for 63 million bushels at the lakehead. Why not utilize some of that space? If he feels that at this time of year Canadian equipment is not badly needed, why does he not phone the Canadian Wheat Board and suggest that they use those 450 Canadian Pacific Railway cars for moving grain to Thunder Bay? I am sure he will find the Canadian Wheat Board and the elevator companies only too happy to say yes. If the Canadian Pacific Railway wants to haul U.S. grain over its tracks, let it use U.S. equipment to do so.
The minister made a great fuss about elevators working a seven-day week. When I asked him if he meant country elevators or terminals, he said mainly terminals, if I heard him correctly. The minister knows as well as anyone does
Supply
that long before these hopper cars were delivered, and about the time it was decided to buy them, the terminals in Vancouver were operating five days a week, week after week. The railways were incapable of delivering sufficient grain to keep them operating seven days a week, and the minister knows it.
I am sure the minister remembers the tables the Saskatchewan wheat pool sent out. In some weeks elevators worked two days, in some weeks three days and sometimes they were on a four-day week because the railways did not spot enough cars to enable them to keep working for five days a week, let alone seven. What the minister suggested was nonsense when he said that because elevator companies would not go on a seven-day week they would encounter problems handling large amounts of grain. The elevator companies will be able to handle 750 million or 800 million bushels of grain and work every day of a five-day week if the minister will see that sufficient cars are spotted every 24 hours over five successive days to the elevators in order to keep the shifts working. The minister has thrown out nothing but strawmen and heifer dust, as I said, ever since the announcement he made one year ago, and it will not wash.
I shall ask the minister some questions in a moment. Another point was made with respect to rail links in British Columbia. The present government and its predecessor, the Conservative party, allowed the Canadian Pacific Railway to let its rail system in British Columbia deteriorate. I am speaking of the entire Kettle Valley line through the Crowsnest pass, that second route through British Columbia. It has now reached the point of not being as good as some branch lines. Here is the second rail link in British Columbia and it has been neglected for 20 years.
I ask the minister if he will note some specific questions regarding the handling of hopper cars. Earlier in the House, as I recall his replies, he suggested that agreement had been reached with the railroads over the handling of these cars. I believe in an earlier public statement he had said that arrangements had been made. He can correct me if I am wrong or partly wrong. When we examined in committee the supplementary estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I heard that the matter had not been resolved either in whole or in part. In any event, it sounded to me as if the official was saying the opposite of what the minister had said. I should like to know which of these things has not been resolved. Can the minister tell us who is collecting the freight charges? I wonder if the minister can listen to me, Mr. Chairman, while conversing with his colleague.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I can listen with one ear.


Erik Nielsen: The minister can listen to the hon. member without any ears.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will the minister tell us who collects the freight charges with respect to these hopper cars? Are the hopper cars leased to the railways, or is there merely a verbal arrangement under which they have agreed to put them between an engine and a caboose?
1384

February 16, 1973
Supply
Who is responsible for the repairs to and maintenance of the cars? Who pays for it? Is the Canadian Wheat Board being charged now, or will they be later, or have they been charged in the past for any item such as cleaning of cars, switching charges or any other items that normally go as extra charges in the handling of railway equipment, both loaded and unloaded? Will the minister inform us whether an agreement has been reached with the railroads on all of these details? What is the division of responsibilities? Who gets the revenue from the freight charges? Who pays for the leasing of them? Is any recovery being made toward the capital cost of these by the Canadian Wheat Board? These are questions the minister needs to answer.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, if I may briefly refer to some of these questions, the Wheat Board and the railways have entered into an interim agreement which for the time being has the railways in fact taking care of the maintenance of the cars. No lease or rental charge is involved. The final agreement is being drafted at the present time. It is not yet finalized. It will be made available to members of the House when it is finalized. The exact point or problem that is involved here is a basic agreement between the railways and, if you like, the Wheat Board or, more correctly, now the government, about the appropriate arrangement which genuinely shows what the proper obligation of the railway is in this arrangement and what is properly the obligation of other parties within the system.
One thing that I can say is that throughout, it has been the understanding on all sides that no costs of the cars will be borne by the producer, the farmer or the Canadian Wheat Board on his behalf. The only cost the farmer or the Wheat Board will bear will be the regular Crowsnest rate in connection with the shipment of grain in these cars, as with other cars. That part is clear. The question of the exact final arrangement between the railways on the one hand and the government on the other remains to be settled. It may well be settled with another agreement for a fairly short period of time which allows us to do further analysis of the very complex questions the hon. member asks about the proper relationship.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the minister's answer that the railways are collecting the normal freight charges. Are they collecting the full rates, or have they agreed to a lesser rate since they are not supplying any equipment for that grain?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, at the present time they are collecting the full rate, that is to say, the Crowsnest rate which, of course, the railways claim is less than their full cost.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. The minister pointed out at some length that the capacity or throughput of our present handling and transportation system has increased, but not much, through upgrading the basic concept of the system.

Can the minister advise whether we are achieving maximum throughput under the present system? Also, can he enlighten us as to what he sees in the future for maximizing the throughput without extraordinary changes in the basic concept of our handling and transportation system? In other words, is it really necessary to have extraordinary changes in the system to meet our throughput for the next ten years?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, the question of any changes in the system is not really related to the question of throughput. The existing system could be modified and improvements made to it which would allow for more grain being continually handled through it. The key question is the cost of handling it in that way. If 200,000 bushels of grain are handled at ten elevators when they could be effectively handled at one, you have to compare the cost of handling it in those two ways as well as the cost of the additional trucking involved, and so on, in handling it in a more consolidated way. The question of the kind of system is more one of cost than throughput.
With regard to the other question, what is required to improve the throughput, there is a very long and complicated list of things each of which can help a bit to improve that throughput. For example, I believe that additional storage facilities on the west coast and perhaps some additional handling facilities there are at the top of anybody's list for increasing the throughput. The number of things that can be done is virtually unlimited.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Am I to understand that what the minister is really saying is that we are looking forward to a modification of the present system over a period of time, rather than any fundamental or radical change in the system in the future?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, I have rather pointedly avoided making a personal conclusion on the studies of the handling and transportation group, simply because I am fearful that if I take a position some people might, politically, take an opposing position. Instead, I hope they will make a sensible analysis of the situation. I am willing to say to the hon. member that my view of the proposals studied, and my view of what is likely to come about is that we will have a system which retains what is basically our present system, but with fewer delivery points. That possibility, as examined in the studies, is likely to be the most sensible step at the present time. I do not say what may be true many years from now; that is a little too complicated an issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This gives rise to a further question, that is, the question of fewer delivery points. Is the minister in a position to elaborate on what he means by fewer delivery points? Does he mean a reduction of 10 per cent, 25 per cent or 50 per cent? Can he give us some indication?


Daniel Aiken Lang: No, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to pretend that I have a final answer to that question. When I was talking about fewer delivery points, I was talking about the model which was studied by the handling and transportation group, namely, an examination of the cost of the system if we had two-thirds of the present delivery points. There is nothing magical about that number. It was a
February 16, 1973

number picked at random to check the costs. Further review may well vary that upward or downward.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be only four or five minutes. I believe there are a couple of items, one in particular, that should be emphasized at this time. So far in committee the members have been talking about the hopper cars and their purchase. One concern that is very evident in my constituency, and indeed across the province of Saskatchewan, is that these hopper cars can be used on roughly 50 per cent of the trackage. There is considerable concern in the minds of many people that this situation will probably expedite the abandoning of branch lines in many parts of Saskatchewan. I believe this presents a very serious social problem in terms of the small marginal farmer and the rural way of life. I believe on February 8 last the Saskatchewan legislature debated such an item. I wish to spend two or three minutes putting on record why they recommended that no railway abandonment be carried out until 1980, that is, until further studies have been carried out and the government of Saskatchewan gives prior agreement.
Mr. Chairman, the purchasing of the hopper cars, no matter what the intention might have been, will I suppose have some bearing on expediting the abandonment of railway lines which cannot accommodate the new cars. If the railways decide to go ahead in Saskatchewan and abandon the lines they wish to abandon, it will mean that about 35 per cent of the rail lines will disappear-about 3,000 miles of the 8500 miles of rail lines we have in the province. This will disrupt the economy as far as many rural people are concerned. May I remind the House that the Government of Canada donated land, mineral rights and other things to the CPR many years ago. These are matters we should be considering should the applications to the CTC go through.
In terms of elevators and delivery points, one or two other statistics which have come to my attention are, I think, shocking. There are some 2,700 elevators in Saskatchewan. If the branch lines are closed, about 800 of them will close down. About 375 elevator points will disappear altogether from Saskatchewan. The railway companies said they lost about $27 million in 1969 as a result of servicing the branch lines. The government of Saskatchewan has commissioned a study to determine the effects of the abandonment of branch lines across the province, as well as the effect of such abandonment upon the prairie region as a whole. No final conclusion has been reached but many facts have been revealed in interim reports.
One of the things those engaged in this study say is that if the lines are abandoned-and I believe there is a chance the hopper cars will expedite this process-it will cost the farmers in the prairie region $20 million a year because they will need to transport their grain to elevator terminals by other means. It would also mean an additional cost to the taxpayers. If railway lines are removed, some of the tax base will be gone and an extra charge will fall on businessmen living in small communities, for example. It is stated that every year, on average, every mile of railway line which is eliminated will cost the prairie
Supply
economy an additional $1,525. Additional costs will arise in terms of highway expenditures, amounting to between $5 million and $12 million. And, as I say, it will mean the elimination of part of the tax base available to communities.
We are concerned about the cost of the hopper cars. We are concerned about who is to pay the bill for servicing and maintenance. There is a group in Saskatoon which has carried out a study. Those taking part have found that of the 540 communities in my province, about 200 will disappear completely in the next two years and a further 100 will have populations of fewer than 25 should these proposals for rail abandonment be carried out. That is a measure of the profound effect such a decision would have on the province of Saskatchewan and, indeed, across the Prairies.
We are all familiar with the shift of population from the countryside to the cities and the disappearance of the small farm. I wanted to spend just a few moments alerting the minister and the committee to the concern felt by myself and by my constituents, most of whom are small farmers, are operating farms of average size or live in small hamlets and villages from one end of my constituency to the other. I hope the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the minister of industry and others will take very seriously the points I have raised when they consider long-term planning as it affects grain handling and transportation in Canada.


Gérald Laniel: Is the Chair to conclude that this completes the examination of vote 30a of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Harney:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this matter before we move to the next item on the list. I know we agreed the other day that we would proceed through the schedule item by item. This appeared to be a reasonable decision at the time and I agreed with it. I also know that the schedule is arranged alphabetically, which appears to be reasonable because this is one matter most members of the House will, I am sure, agree on-that there is an order of precedence in the letters of the alphabet and that these letters are roughly comparable in English and in French.
There is one thing, however, we are not taking into consideration. It is that the titles appear alphabetically according to their English names. The point is this: although we may pay respect to the French language by giving the French equivalent of the English names, the titles are nevertheless in the order in which they would appear under the English names. If we were to arrange the titles according to their French names, a different order of precedence would emerge, one which at any rate would mean quite a bit to me and to other members representing urban constituencies.

We must consider, Mr. Speaker, that if we had drafted this schedule in the French alphabetical order of the departments, we would not have spent the past two days discussing only the problems of agriculture, but we would have perhaps been able to deal with the problems of
25789-16J

February 16, 1973
Supply
citizens who live in the big cities of Canada. After all we must bear in mind that most citizens live in the major centres. I must recognize that today, yesterday and the day before, I have heard about wheat and fish-which is a good thing-but I think that we should pay attention to the people who form the major part of the population.
I would like to suggest that for this time we proceed as if the schedule of departments had been drafted in French. We would first consider the items of the Veterans Affairs, External Affairs and then Urban Affairs departments.
And if you are looking for a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, I could perhaps suggest that since the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not in the House we proceed to the examination of the Department of Urban Affairs item.


Gérald Laniel: Order. First of all, I must say that the point raised by the hon. member should have been raised when the agreement was reached by the various parties. Obviously, at this stage, it has been agreed to proceed according to the alphabetical order of the schedule to the bill. The Chair wants to be fair to the hon. member, but it must also do the same for hon. members who want to speak in the debate and who would like to know in advance the item which will be examined and, which is more important yet, for the person who must answer the questions. As far as I am concerned, if it is the wish of the committee to proceed to an item other than that of the Department of Justice, I will do as it wishes.


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that an order of the House having been made before the House resolved itself into committee of the whole, to the effect that we would deal with the estimates department by department as they appear in the schedule, the committee now has authority to change that order. I would like to be co-operative if any hon. member wishes to discuss another subject, but we are sitting today in committee of the whole.


Daniel Aiken Lang: I would certainly agree with the last comment made. I hope we can continue to follow the present order. On the other hand, the point raised by the hon. member for Scarborough West is a good one and I would be glad to undertake that when we are next in the House in these circumstances we shall try to have the French alphabet in use rather than the English alphabet.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, I suggest it is not a matter of having the French alphabet. The French alphabet, as you may have noticed, is exactly the same as the English except there is not common usage of the letter "w" as in "railway wagon."


An hon. Member:: Or in "Wagner".


John Paul Harney: I said the French alphabet. I would not want to impose upon the committee the sudden reversal of an ancient custom that lists everything according to the English title, so I simply suggest that we adapt slowly to it in the future by drawing up lists of subjects according to their order in the alphabet in English and list the titles

according to order in the alphabet in French, and then alternate between the two. This may be a rather sneaky way of getting around a discussion on urban affairs but I cannot see how else I can do it.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I do not want to prevent the hon. member from making his point, but I think this subject has been sufficiently discussed at this time. There is a process that is followed to simplify the work of the committee and the Chair, and that is to study estimates as they appear. At the same time, once study of one estimate has been completed we cannot refer back to it. I think the procedure followed is the correct one. If the estimates should be printed in another way, that is a matter for consideration at another time, not a matter for this committee. The point raised by the hon. member for Yukon was also quite valid.
The committee will now revert to the consideration of vote la of the Department of Justice.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it is now 17 minutes to five, so this may be the last opportunity I will have to make this proposal. I propose at this time that we pass all the remaining items without debate and we pass both remaining stages of the bill without debate, so as to complete this matter today.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a sudden desire on the part of the hon. member for Yukon to make himself House leader for the government. But whatever his intention is, it does not meet with my approval and I do not give consent.


Erik Nielsen: These are the people who want to see parliament work.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, you have called item la of the Department of Justice. I was amused by the remarks of the Minister of Justice recently-I am not speaking of his organic remarks in the agricultural sense-concerning some of the recommendations made by members of the judiciary. I see there is a grant of $10,000 to the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges. Does it cover the total expenditure of that body, or are there other expenditures for ad hoc purposes or on a per capita basis?


Daniel Aiken Lang: Mr. Chairman, I am not fully conversant with the financial operations of the provincial court judges' association. As the hon. member implied, this is largely a matter for themselves and for the provincial governments. The grant referred to in the estimates in this case is specifically for the purpose of assisting the financing of a conference of provincial judges from across the country. We are conscious of the tremendous importance to the operation of the criminal law of having them meet to consider ways in which they determine appropriate sentences and other court matters. After consultations with the provincial attorneys general to be certain that they did not object to our involvement in this way, we propose to make this grant to assist in this single conference.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a follow-up question? Is the federal department making suggestions along certain lines in relation to sentencing, and will this be on the agenda? In other words, are we asking them for some
February 16, 1973

co-operation in regard to sentencing, which has become a major problem in interprovincial relations in regard to certain crimes in various parts of the country?


Daniel Aiken Lang: We are not making any suggestions to them, or indeed proposing to them what their agenda should be. Their agenda deals with the general subject matter of their role in the judicial process. If they invite persons from the Department of Justice, we will be glad to cooperate in lending them resource people, but I do not think that to this point they have requested them.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I have one question for the Minister of Justice. A few weeks ago at a press conference he made the statement that he may expunge jail sentences imposed for simple possession of marijuana and hashish. Is it government policy to eliminate jail sentences for offences of this nature? If so, when might we see amendments to the Criminal Code brought in?


Daniel Aiken Lang: As minister responsible for the agents prosecuting in drug offence cases, I have asked-and this instruction has been issued to my agents-that in cases of simple possession of first offence marijuana the court should know that it is our view that the conditional and absolute discharge provisions may well be applicable. It is, of course, a matter for the judge himself in light of the particular case, but this is our view and I thought we should have a consistent one across the country. That is why the instruction was issued.
We hope to be able to come forward with legislation before too long which will allow the House to consider a lower maximum in cases of simple first offence possession. There are cases where what seems to be a rather higher penalty than the norm is imposed. We will be introducing in the House our proposals in due course. However, it is not our intention to make the offence of trafficking any less serious, though even there there will be an opportunity to examine whether the exact penalties that are in place are desirable.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I am aware of that, but the press used quotation marks when it reported the minister as saying that in cases of possession of marijuana and hashish the government may eliminate jail sentences. I am aware of the policy regarding the instructions that have gone out to the provincial attorneys general and the minister's agents in the two northern territories, but is the government considering the elimination entirely of jail sentences in cases of simple possession of marijuana and hashish? If so, is it the intention of the government to introduce amendments to the Criminal Code in that respect?'


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is what we are considering, Mr. Chairman, in cases of simple first offence possession of the lighter drugs to which the hon. member refers. However, it is not amendments to the Criminal Code that may be involved; it is the removal of this matter from the present act into either a separate statute or another statute.


Gérald Laniel: Does that complete the study of vote la, Department of Justice?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of votes 5a, 10a, and 15a of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and vote L30a of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it is with the greatest reluctance that we let these items go at this time. This has been the first opportunity for any examination of this program. We have had an extremely limited opportunity of some 45 minutes in committee. In the interest of getting the estimates through, we are prepared to hold off our examination of this program until another time and place, perhaps on the main estimates when they are referred to the committee.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this item, and before this matter is concluded will be pleased to reduce the item by a considerable amount. There seldom has been a government department established which has been of such little use as this department. I remember when Manpower was established in order to make a place for one of the three ministers from Quebec. It was set up in such a way-


Miss Begin:: Hey!


William Arnold Peters: The lady disagrees. She was not here and it would be very difficult for her to say whether or not this is what happened. I assure her that it did. For her edification I would say that we formerly had unemployment and employment in the same department. Then we split them and placed unemployment in one department and employment in another. The employment end was called Manpower, and unemployment remained under the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Employment was taken out of the Crown corporation and placed in a government department. It has so great a failure that the unemployed are divorced in such a way that they cannot establish that going to the manpower office every week looking for work is an indication that they are seeking employment; it will not meet the requirements of a proper search even if they go to the manpower office three times a day.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, it is right. The hon. member may think he knows something about this, but I consider he knows very little about it. He may not be aware of this, but it is a fact that in respect of the next item, involving $454 million, we have established ex-policemen of all forces, including the RCMP and security guards, to go around and do the job of checking up in respect of search to make sure that person is employed.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.

Order. The hon. member for Saint-Michel on a point of order.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Why did he not ask this kind of question during the question period a month ago?

February 16, 1973
Supply


William Arnold Peters: I have not asked the question because obviously there is a difference between my thinking and the thinking of the government. I am also trying to point out that there is a difference between the thinking of the government and the thinking of the unemployed.
Mr. Chairman, I realize we cannot carry on a debate across the floor but I should like to ask the Quebec members, who seem to be taking such offence to my statements, whether the fact that one registers with manpower in the province of Quebec entitles one to draw benefits as having been actively seeking employment.


Mr.   De Bane@: May I answer?


William Arnold Peters: Yes.


Mr.   De Bane@: It is obvious that-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The chair is having difficulty.

Order. The Chair has some difficulty in following the procedure. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has the floor, but another member is answering one of his questions and this leads to confusion. It would perhaps be advisable to wait till the member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) gets the floor.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make is that we have established a new agency for unemployment insurance which is very expensive. It has several hundred people-it would not be difficult to find out exactly how many-going around checking on whether a person is actually looking for work. The hon. member is making a lot of noise from his seat. If he has something to say, I hope he will say it. I suggest to him now, however, that while he is standing on his feet he should walk behind the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Welland is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Railton:: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. gentleman asked if I knew anything about expense. I think I do. I know pretty well how much it costs to keep hon. members in this House listening to drivel.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, before you rise and indicate that the hon. member is out of order, I might point out that he has already established his ability in this House. I am really surprised at the attitude of the people from Quebec.
In Ontario we have a practice that if one is unemployed for a short period of time there is what is called a proper search statement. This means that a person must establish
that he is seeking work. It is not sufficient for him merely to attend at the manpower office to establish his right to unemployment insurance. Unemployment counselling services have been established to help people obtain jobs. One of the employment agencies is manpower. At one time we had established that office as the only office.
I remember going to a mine in Timmins when one had to make a payment to a private agency in order to get a job working underground for 52 cents an hour. We thought that kind of a situation had disappeared. We established an agency which is costing well over half a million dollars. We created that agency to make jobs available to people and to retrain those who were not competent to fill job vacancies. This program has failed completely.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, before Your Honour leaves the chair, may I once again suggest that you ask whether there is unanimous consent to pass all stages of these estimates tonight? If that is not agreeable, perhaps Your Honour would not see the clock.


Gérald Laniel: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Yukon. Is the proposal agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I must inform you that we have other members who have a few things they would like to say. We are not impressed with this sudden interest in expedition.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it is not sudden. It has been done for the last few days. Members at that end of the House say they want to see parliament work, but it will not work with their filibustering.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member's halo seems to be hurting him.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. There does not seem to be consent.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I should like to ask the acting House leader if he would confirm that we will be continuing with this supply bill on Monday afternoon.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It would be our intention to continue, and hopefully complete, this item in the early part of Monday afternoon. We then intend to return to Bill C-2, the Criminal Code amendments.
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. February 19, 1973