1968-02-09

AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That the order for resuming debate on item No. 32 under the heading "Private Members' Notices of Motions" on last Monday's order paper, reading as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of immediately introducing legislation to provide the following increase of the compensation paid for the cattle slaughtered under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; (a) purebred cattle, $200.00 (b) cross-bred cattle, $125.00. standing in the name of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot be discharged and that the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development be empowered to consider and report upon the provisions thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. the Prime Minister in connection with the visit to Canada of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. In view of the announced intention to withdraw British forces from east of Suez and in view of the concern this announcement has occasioned in a number of countries, does the Prime Minister anticipate that this will be one of the matters to be discussed by him and the British prime minister? If so, what attitude will the Prime Minister take on behalf to the government of Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite certain this will be one of the subjects we will be discussing, because I feel the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom will want to explain the circumstances which made it necessary for the United Kingdom government to take this decision which, of course, is a regrettable one in some
ways. I feel quite certain that we will be talking about it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the Prime Minister in a position to indicate what attitude he will take on behalf to the government of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This, of course, is a matter for the United Kingdom government to decide. What I would feel like doing in the circumstances is to express my regret that circumstances were such that a decision of this kind, which on the face of it might seem to minimize British influence in that part of the world, was necessary.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the disastrous escalation on both sides of the war in Viet Nam and in view of some very frank suggestions made by Senator Robert Kennedy only yesterday, could the Prime Minister inform the house whether there has been any encouraging or other word from Canada's envoy at Hanoi who I understand has been there for three weeks.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes. He has been there longer than he expected. As my hon. friend may have learned, at least from the newspapers, it has been difficult to get a plane from Saigon to Hanoi to bring him back, in the present deplorable situation in that capital. We have not heard from him in recent days, and I should prefer not to make any comment on his mission or what might come from that mission until we receive a report from him.
My hon. friend has mentioned the developing feeling that events of recent days have underlined that this war should be brought to an end and negotiations should begin. I should like to see an escalation of that feeling in the world.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, is the right hon. gentleman planning on his behalf and on behalf of the government some special discussions, not through the regular ambassadorial

February 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry channels, with the government of the United States in order to take such steps as will escalate the desire for peace negotiations or some action toward them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no plan on behalf of the government to initiate any special discussions at this moment, Mr. Speaker. If there is anything we can do to increase this feeling, having regard for the difficulties, which we appreciate, the United States government is having, we will be glad to do so. That is all I can say at the moment.


Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister can tell the members of this house, in view of the considerable number of requests, what plans there are to expand either the size or the responsibilities of the international control commission.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think an expansion in the size or in the formal authority of the control commission in Viet Nam would be of much value at this particular moment, especially in view of what is happening in the demilitarized zone. So far as the control commission in Cambodia is concerned, and that is a very important area, we have done our very best to see that this commission is given greater authority and more facilities to deal with problems on the border. If there has been a delay in that regard it is not the fault of the Canadian member of the commission.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he will impress the views of this government upon the right hon. Prime Minister of Great Britain when he meets him tomorrow.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the right hon. Prime Minister. Considering the renewed interest in the topic following the recent Canadian Welfare Council report; and in order to avoid too much confusion as a result of conflicting statements that are and will be emanating from hon. members on that side of the house; and following the example set by the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister appoint a commission to
[Mr. Lewis.)
examine into the practicability and possibility of a guaranteed annual income program for Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not at this time. I know this is a very important matter which will undoubtedly be examined in due course, as it is being examined in other countries, but I do not think it would be useful at this particular moment to appoint that kind of a commission for that kind of investigation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether he would outline the government's plans for combating growing unemployment. He replied as follows as recorded at page 6495 of Hansard:
-Mr. Speaker, this is a very worrying matter. I hope there will shortly be an opportunity to discuss this subject in the light of general economic conditions.
I examined the order paper carefully and found no item which would allow such a debate. There will be no estimates presented until after the next budget and, as the Prime Minister knows, there are no motions to go into supply which would make it possible to have such a debate. Will the Prime Minister set aside a day either next week-or, at the latest, the week following so this very important matter-and I am sure the Prime Minister believes it is very important-can be thoroughly discussed in this house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should examine the record even more carefully than he did. If he does he will find at page 6407, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Perth, a statement by the President of the Treasury Board that he will be tabling the final supplementary estimates and the main estimates for 1968-69 on Monday next. My hon. friend knows that when those estimates are called, that will give him and other members the opportunity for the kind of discussion he has mentioned.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the Prime Minister give the assurance that this will permit a full and unrestricted debate on this most important subject.
February 9, 1968


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that unemployment in Canada has reached an alltime high for recent times, that is for the last four years, and in the United States there is a decline to the lowest level in 15 years, to what does the Prime Minister attribute the difference in conditions in this respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the all-time high was reached in the period 1960-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister say whether he, on behalf of the federal government, advised the province of Ontario that they would not be receiving their share of the $71 million federal grant now due under the cost sharing arrangement for provincial vocational schools?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not inform the government of Ontario that it would not receive the amounts agreed upon. The only notice I gave the Ontario government and all other provincial governments was that the amounts would be distributed over a longer period of time than had been anticipated.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister care to advise the house over what length of time the federal government has asked this grant to be spread?


Jean Marchand: This means that instead of giving the provinces the full amount in the course of the same year, a minimum period of two years has been set.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the provinces have financial commitments based on earlier joint agreements which must be met this year?


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



SYDNEY. N.S.-ADDITIONAL FEDERAL ASSISTANCE RESPECTING STEEL PLANT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I shall be glad to investigate the matter and report to the hon. member.']
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has signed an agreement whereby Canada will lend India $20 million, will the Prime Minister adopt this same generous attitude toward Canadians in Nova Scotia and provide the government of Nova Scotia with a share of the money that is required by that government to assist in the purchase of the Sydney steel plant?


Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as Nova Scotia is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of generosity; it is a question of justice.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is justice when Nova Scotia-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, what is justice when Nova Scotia is seeking money to maintain its steel plant, compared to the millions and millions of dollars, not just in this particular arrangement but in other arrangements, which this government sees fit to give to foreign countries?


Mr. Greene:: That's a silly comparison.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Queens.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Speaker-


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture just said "Don't be stupid." Will he stand up and say that? What kind of government do we have over there? I ask the minister to get to his feet and say that.


Mr. Starr:: Show some leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has the floor.


Malcolm MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.

February 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton South rises on a question of privilege and should be given an opportunity to state his question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the interjection by the Minister of Agriculture. When I put my question to the Prune Minister I was putting a fair question and asking why it is that this government cannot see fit to lend the Nova Scotia government far less than $20 million to purchase-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Michael Starr: What is wrong with that
question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly proceed. I am listening to him.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have referred to a snake pit over there before, and I refer to it again.
I am putting my question of privilege as the result of an interjection, and I do not see why further interjections should be made from the government benches while I state my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: There are no interjections now. I am listening, and the house is very quiet.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
Prime Minister spoke of justice, and I ask what is wrong with an appeal from the Nova Scotia government for financial assistance to enable an industry in that province to continue operating, an industry which is paying taxes to this government? The amount of money the province is requesting is no larger than the sum the Minister of Trade and Commerce has signed over to India. If the Prime Minister or anyone else on the treasury benches wants to refer to other programs of assistance in Nova Scotia, such as ARDA or any of the others, I can refer to many foreign assistance programs on which money is being thrown down the drain.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it supplementary to the question of privilege?


Robert Muir: No, Mr. Speaker. Actually I have a question of privilege. Why is it that every time we, the representatives of Cape Breton Island, and indeed members from Nova Scotia and the maritimes, try to speak in this house on behalf of the people whom we represent we are howled down by the idiots in the cabinet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Muir: I ask the Prime Minister to straighten out some of these popinjays, idiots and pseudo cabinet members, because members of the cabinet such as the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources find this a big joke.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member please resume his seat.


Robert Muir: This is no joke. We want assistance. We have the sincere sympathy of the Prime Minister, and I think we should get it from the rest of the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member please take his seat. The hon. member for Queens has the floor.


Robert Muir: Hon. members opposite laugh at this situation. This will be remembered.


An hon. Member:: I have not said a word.


Robert Muir: Of course the Minister of National Health and Welfare laughs also.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: It is a big joke as far as he is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Only one mmber at a time can have the floor and at the moment it is the hon. member for Queens.


Robert Muir: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, and it is in reference to the
February 9, 19G8

continuing war in our sister commonwealth state of Nigeria. Can the Prime Minister advise us whether consideration has been given to seeking through commonwealth machinery some avenue leading to a peaceful settlement of this continuing and very serious conflict which should surely trouble all commonwealth states?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration is being given to that matter and to the possibility of using commonwealth machinery to bring this unhappy conflict to an end. It is also one of the matters which I will be discussing with Mr. Wilson, and if I can say anything on the subject early next week I will be glad to do so.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Was the President of the Privy Council expressing the view of the government when he said in Toronto recently "the fact remains that we have become an economic colony of the United States"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult the President of the Privy Council as to whether he actually used the words reported by my hon. friend.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to advise the Prime Minister that these words were a direct quotation from a statement which appeared in last Saturday's issue of the Globe and Mail.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to pour oil on troubled waters I wish to direct a question to the Member of the Administration from Newfoundland. Has the minister ever suggested to the Prime Minister that as a member of the administration he could perform a very important and useful role in the economic development and tourist promotion of all the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Charles R. Granger (Member of fhe Administration):: I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of his question and for 27053-413
Inquiries of the Ministry affording me an opportunity to answer it, I am also interested in the Atlantic provinces, but I am sure the Prime Minister can best assess how I can be useful.


Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, since he seems quite anxious to say something to the house today. I should like to ask him if he can make any statement with regard to the policy statement approved by the western Liberal conference a few weeks ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suspect the question is not in order.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the action taken recently by the food and drug administration of the United States in removing the generic imitations of Chloromycetin from the market because they apparently did not give satisfactory results on patients tested with these drugs, I wonder if the minister can inform the house what action is being taken by the food and drug administration of this country to prevent the importation or use by consumers of similarly inferior products.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall be glad to investigate the matter and report to the hon. member.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence which arises out of the meeting the minister had yesterday with the premier of Prince Edward Island and the premier's statement which appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian. There is a suggestion that the defence department wishes to phase out the Neptunes flying out of the Canadian forces base at Summerside. Can the minister assure members of this house and the people of Prince Edward Island that no

February 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry major cut-backs will be made in that establishment, because of its vital importance to the already depressed economy of Prince Edward Island?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I can give assurance that no reduction will be entertained so far as the base at Sum-merside is concerned without prior consultation and preparation with the provincial authorities.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: While the minister was kind enough to assure us that no such cut-back would take place without consultation, can he assure us that no cut-back will take place?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Unfortunately I cannot; because as the hon. member knows we are contemplating phasing out the Nep-tunes and redeploying the Arguses which, of course, will apply to Summerside, Comox and other places in Canada. I cannot say there will not be any reduction.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: I
have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the minister make every effort to facilitate consideration of the inclusion of red circled positions in the recent civil service salary increase?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Presideni of the Treasury Board):: Representations have been
received from the Public Service Alliance, as was pointed out by my parliamentary secretary last night. These are now under consideration by the Treasury Board staff who will be consulting with officials of the Public Service Alliance.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: My question in a sense is supplementary to the one directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I should like to ask him if he can advise the house about the position of registered nurses in the employ of the federal government, the lowest paid registered nurses in Canada, as to when they can expect their long awaited increases?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this particular question under advisement. I doubt that nurses in the public service are the lowest paid in Canada; I do not

think I could accept that. However, from time to time in this particular category adjustments are made based on conditions across the country. Therefore I should like to take the question as notice so I can find out what is the situation at present.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I infer from the answer given that if what I have represented is correct the Treasury Board will take immediate steps to overcome this disparity?



PROPOSED TELEVISION COVERAGE OF PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: should like to direct a question to the government house leader in his capacity as chairman of the committee on procedure. In the aftermath of public involvement in the constitutional conference through radio and television as well as in print, and in view of the experiment under way in the British House of Lords, can the house leader advise us when we might expect a recommendation from the committee which would permit broadcast coverage of at least the proceedings of the committees of the house?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe the Prime Minister dealt with a similar question yesterday. The special committee on procedure has from time to time considered this matter, but has not yet reached any conclusion. I believe the general sentiment is that we might make a start at least with the committees of the house, and we would be glad to try to bring forward a positive recommendation at a later date.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: My question is for the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister is in a position to advise the house as to what progress, if any, has been made in straightening out the conflict between the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the treaties with our Indian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe this is the type of information which should be given to the house by way of a statement on motions.
February 9, 1938


Robert Simpson: I submit with respect, Mr. Speaker, that similar questions have been answered on other occasions. I believe the Prime Minister advised the house the government had the matter under consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the matter to see if the question can be appropriately dealt with by an answer on orders of the day.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to again ask the Prime Minister whether he has had an opportunity to check into reports emanating from Vancouver in connection with the statement of the Minister of Agriculture in regard to policy respecting the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe I asked this question on January 29.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend for not having sufficiently checked into this matter at the moment to give an answer, but I will try and check it with the Minister of Agriculture over the week end.

British Columbia-inquiry as to
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. I do so really on behalf of the hon. member for Skeena who is unavoidably absent today.
May I ask the Prime Minister, if the informal representations which I understand were made by a minister without portfolio of the British Columbia government to the Minister of Labour are followed up by an official request from the premier or provincial secretary of British Columbia for assistance in the flood damaged areas of Bella Coola and Ha-gensborg, will the matter receive immediate and sympathetic consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if that request were made it would certainly receive immediate consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-REPORTED LAY-OFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the considerable number of lay-offs by the Northumberland consultants, he could give the house an assurance there would be no further slow down or retarding of the causeway construction project. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has gained any information on this question and can say whether this is a significant development.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to discuss this question with the Minister of Public Works, who was unavoidably out of Ottawa yesterday, but I will do so later today.



PROPOSED UNDERWATER TUNNEL BETWEEN QUEBEC AND LEVIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works dealing with the $125 million underwater tunnel that is proposed for the Quebec-Levis area, for which plans have been approved. Can the minister tell the house whether government approval is pending and is delaying this project?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find it difficult to determine whether there is urgency about this matter. The hon. member might like to put the question on the order paper.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of the question is that they are ready to go ahead with the plans pending a government decision.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice. I had some difficulty hearing it owing to some conversations being held in the house. I will forward an answer to the hon. member immediately.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, would the minister inquire at the same time whether the government has been asked to share in the project and, if so, what was the nature of the reply?


George James McIlraith: I would be glad to.

February 9, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



POSSIBLE CHANGE IN PROFIT ALLOWED ON LIMITED DIVIDEND CONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board; I believe he has received notice. Is the minister in a position to confirm or deny reports to the effect that the government intends to bring forward legislation to increase the amount of allowable profit in relation to limited dividend housing construction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should not ask whether reports can be confirmed or denied, but I assume the question is in order if it is asked directly.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of increasing the return on capital that is allowed to people engaged in limited dividend housing projects. Because we think this is a very useful form of housing, what we are doing is to set aside money this year in order to encourage this type of housing to be built and rented at low rentals. We are also emphasizing the building of public housing.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house if any difficulty is being experienced by the authorities in allocating funds to the major labour areas?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the only difficulty we may be having is that the response to the reinstitution of this program has been so great that we may not be able to meet all the requests that are coming in for permission to build limited dividend housing.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on December 15 the Prime Minister said he hoped the situation would improve while he is still in office to the point where the government would be able to reconsider the question of increasing pensions of retired civil servants, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he still has that hope?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the situation will improve.
IMr. Mcllraith.l



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the serious increase in interest rates that has taken place in this country, and has a committee of cabinet been appointed to study this serious matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had time to consider that.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would care to answer the second part of my question, which was whether a committee of cabinet has been appointed for the purpose.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter is of such importance that it should be and is being considered by the whole cabinet, not merely a committee.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for the Atlantic Development Board. I wonder whether the minister is contemplating introducing legislative changes in respect to the Atlantic Development Board so as to give that body the autonomy that was suggested by the premier of New Brunswick?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the premier of New Brunswick made some constructive suggestions at the conference, and these will be considered by the government.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Transport arising out of the Boeing 707 accident at Vancouver. Will the government now be reconsidering this policy in light of the representations made by the
February 9, 1968

Canadian Airline Pilots Association concerning the leasing of aircraft by Canadian carriers with air crews other than Canadian?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that matter and discuss it with the minister.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister; I believe it is a matter of close personal interest to him. Is the Prime Minister hoping or intending to make a statement next week in regard to the report he has received on the feasibility of establishing an international development centre in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I will be able to do this next week because I have not had a chance to discuss the interim report made by Mr. Plumptre which has been considered also by the external aid branch of the department; but I would certainly hope to make at least an interim report the week after.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-32, to amend the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would make a statement and outline the procedure it is intended to adopt if this bill receives the assent of this house.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)


Arthur Laing: I should be happy to make a short statement on this bill. For a great number of years there has been a feeling in that particular area north of the sixtieth parallel that certain services for which the government and this parliament are responsible are not available with that degree of efficiency that is expected in other parts of Canada.
When I assumed my responsibilities here the first thing I heard in that vast territory was that they wanted what they called government on the ground. One of the most distressing aspects of administration that I heard
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands about was the difficulty of acquiring the right to crown lands in the two territories. The procedure that had been adopted over the years was resulting in delays of up to, I was told, five, six, and even eight months. At that time, of course, the registration of these lands was by letters patent, and the proposal now is to replace that by a simple fiat from myself, as minister, to the appropriate registrar of land titles.
We expect to have the registrar of land titles located very definitely on the ground, and it is our hope that we can give the people living in those territories the opportunity of acquiring those lands in a matter of as little as a week or ten days, if everything is in order.
This bill, Your Honour, came to us from the other place, where it was passed. It is a housekeeping bill and is designed to give the type of efficient service to those who live north of the sixtieth parallel, in respect of acquiring crown lands, that they might expect to receive in other parts of Canada. This is very important to them because the building season is so short that if interruptions take place, as the hon. member for Yukon knows, there may be, as there have been, instances where the entire building season is lost.
We think the bill, which was referred to
the committee on banking and commerce__________I
understand that it went through in about five minutes-is in order. We are quite confident that the location of the registrar in the capitals of the two territories will result in great benefit and will remove many of the objections-I hope it will remove them all-which have been raised by those who are trying to acquire crown lands for building purposes.


Erik Nielsen: Mr .Speaker, I had expected the minister to elaborate more fully on the procedure it is intended to implement if this bill receives the assent of the house.
The federal legislation that is affected by this bill runs beyond the Territorial Lands Act, the Public Lands Grants Act and the Land Titles Act. Other acts referred to in this bill include the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act and of course' oy implication in any event, the Yukon Act itself as well as other pieces of legislation.
Since land is the resource that it is, any action with respect to it brings into sharp focus the policy of the government with respect to its disposition and the approach to the whole field of resources that can properly
February 9, 1968

Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands be classified as coming under the umbrella of public lands. As the minister is aware, in the Yukon we are concerned with some 207,000 square miles and the Northwest Territories, which is across the way, with some 1,300,000 square miles. Yet in this vast area that comprises some 40 per cent of Canada's surface, it is so difficult to obtain a 50-foot by 100-foot lot that development and settlement are being unreasonably retarded.
One reason has been, as the minister has stated in the past-and I use this term not in an unkind sense-that so many bureaucratic barriers have been placed in the way of settlers who have attempted to obtain land that they have been discouraged-discouraged from coming in to settle permanently and discouraged, once they get to the territory, by finding that they have to wait these inordinately long periods of time in order to obtain a small plot to build a home, start a business, or whatever else it may be.
This bill brings into focus more than the question of land disposition. As the minister said, one of the desperate urges of the people of the north, and this is true of the people of the Yukon and has been for many years, is to have government by the people in the territories. The minister called it "government on
The Carrothers commission reported some time ago, yet no implementation of their suggestions has been forthcoming. The minister has not even hinted whether the government intends to implement any of those recommendations. He has had in his possession for about two years now the views of the Yukon legislative council with respect to constitutional reform which would place the entire responsibility for the disposition of lands in the hands of the people of the Yukon.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
I ask the minister why should we continue to have Yukon lands administered by the minister's fiat. Why can we not develop a system that would be on all fours with that which exists in the several provinces of Canada, which would permit the disposition of crown lands in the Yukon without having to go for the minister's fiat? Probably the minister's answer will be that these lands belong to all Canadians, and therefore the federal government must retain its control over their disposition. I reject that theory. Canada is a federal state. Eventually the Yukon will achieve provincial status. I assume this is the minister's belief as well. Why not commence this process now?
the ground". The bill goes beyond the mere consideration of land; it goes to the very root of the government's approach with respect to governmental structure in the northern territories.
The Yukon has come through a trying time in its confrontation with the minister and his officials with respect to certain taxation bills that were passed last January 23. The minister and the department, I presume, took the position that there would be no constitutional reform which would give the people of the territory, through their elected representative, the power to deal with such matters as lands, the subject being considered in the bill before us, unless our people complied with the minister's wishes with respect to the passage of legislation which was laid before them, to be rubber stamped by them.
We are more than fed up with the situation, and we are more than fed up with the almost pathological reluctance of the minister to relinquish some of the responsibilities that are being discharged by the federal government with respect to our resources in the Yukon. I am sure the people of the Northwest Territories, and particularly in the Mackenzie area, feel the same way.
Arguments have been advanced against commencing the process now. The two most frequently heard are that there are not sufficient people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to permit this kind of transfer of jurisdiction, and the other is that until such time as the economies of the two territories reach the point where they can pay their own way the federal government is not justified in implementing any constitutional reforms at all.
In reply to repeated questions of mine in this connection, the minister has said that a white paper will be tabled in the next month or two. I presume that one of the subject matters to be dealt with in that white paper will be the disposition of lands in the territories. Yesterday in reply to a further question of mine he said he is awaiting the economic report now being undertaken in the Yukon before the white paper will be tabled.
I detect a rather ominous inference from that answer. I suspect, but I hope I am wrong, that what he will be attempting to do in connection with the economic report is to justify the position being taken, that since the economy of the Yukon will not permit it to

February 9, 1968

pay its own way there will not be any constitutional reform until such time as the economic situation will permit that state of affairs. I reiterate the argument he has heard from me many times in the past, that every province in Canada is subsidized in one way or another by the federal government.


Arthur Laing: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I might draw to the attention of Your Honour that many of the things the hon. member is saying do not relate even remotely to this bill. I have no objection to his wandering over into the Northwest Territories if I have a chance to wander too and tell the house about the economic developments taking place in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories at present, which are the greatest in Canada in relation to the people who live there. But if the hon. member is going to wander abroad-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I appreciate the point raised by the minister. It is really a point of order, not a question of privilege. I must say that I am not familiar with all the terms of the bill. I have to judge by the title which refers to the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. The hon. member for Yukon knows the rules, and knows he has to confine his remarks to the four corners of the bill.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe I am doing that; and in the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was sitting on this side of the house addressing the Speaker on one occasion during a debate on wheat, perhaps the reason that Your Honour is not following is that Your Honour fails to appreciate the finer points involved in the effect of the amendments set out in this bill.
We are confronted with seven pieces of legislation in connection with this bill. I outlined them at the outset of my remarks. They are the Territorial Lands Act, the Public Lands Grants Act, the Land Titles Act, the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, the Yukon Placer Mining Act, the Yukon Act itself and the Northwest Territories Act. We are also dealing with a new procedure affecting the disposition of resources, of lands, in the Yukon. That disposition affects all these other statutes, and in my submission since the government has opened up the question of how the lands are to be disposed of, then the procedures for transfer of jurisdiction in all these matters are relevant.
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands
I would welcome the minister's comments with respect to the matters I am raising because they are very current, very pertinent and very urgent. They are urgent not only to the people o fthe Yukon and the Northwest Territories in connection with the other pieces of legislation I have outlined; they are also urgent with respect to the thousands of Canadians living in those territories who, as it were, have been left out of the main stream of constitutional development in Canada.
All I am saying is that this bill and all the other statutes it affects do not go to the root of the problem. As the minister has rightly stated, the bill will assist in solving some of the delays. These delays have extended over six, seven or eight months in cases of people trying to obtain small plots of land upon which to build. But the bill will not solve the root problem, which is the compelling desire of the people of these two northern territories to have complete control not only over the disposition of the lands that come under the Territorial Lands Act but also over the resources contemplated in the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and the Yukon Placer Mining Act, which this bill affects.
Further, since this bill also affects the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act, which set forth the division of powers between the federal government and the territorial governments, I want to say, and I am sure the hon. member for the Northwest Territories will also want to say, that the time has long passed when another hard look should be taken at the division of these legislative responsibilities not only in the field of land but in the area of the other resources affected by this bill.
In order to consider how best to achieve that division of responsibilities we have to discuss the procedures the government is employing in the principle established by the presentation of this bill. That principle is that under the terms of the bill the federal government will still retain control of the disposition of lands. I say that principle is wrong.
Instead of invoking the procedure which this bill attempts to set up, what we should be doing is transferring jurisdiction completely to the legislature of the Yukon Territory. In order to establish this alternative principle it is necessary for me to debate the reasons for advancing suggestions as to how the structure of government can be altered in order to achieve that objective. Until such time as there are governmental reforms in the Yukon which will permit the elected body
February 9, 1968
6562	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands to assume this kind of jurisdiction over the disposition of lands, it will not be possible to establish time tested methods of procedure such as those which exist in the provinces. In order to have a situation in which the administrative procedures in the Yukon will be such as to permit the administering of this kind of legislation by the territory it will be necessary to reform the structure of the council and the structure of government itself both in the Yukon Territory and in the Northwest Territories.
[DOT] (12 noon)
The suggestions of the wholly elected council in the Yukon are now before the minister in the form of a resolution passed by that assembly on June 23 last. In that resolution they have requested unanimously, I might say, that the council of the Yukon Territory be known as the Yukon legislative assembly, that the number of members of the Yukon legislative assembly be increased to 15 and that the term of the assembly be increased to four years. Under subparagraph (c) they have suggested that the advisory committee on finance be replaced by an executive council of not less than five members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is now going rather far afield. He must realize that we are dealing with a particular piece of legislation to amend the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. I appreciate the argument the hon. member made a moment ago in respect of the point of order raised by the minister. This is perhaps a complicated piece of legislation which affects a number of acts but, as the hon. member knows, when we have amending legislation before us the rules do not permit us to go behind the amending legislation to discuss legislation which is not being amended. Therefore the terms of discussion are rather narrow. I say this realizing full well that the hon. member should be granted some leeway. I hope he will try to relate what he is saying now to the terms of the bill which is before us.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My submission with regard to the point raised by Your Honour is that the bill relates to a change in procedure concerning the disposition of territorial lands. I am raising arguments in objection to the procedures which the bill would establish. In order to discuss those changes it is necessary in my argument that I suggest alternatives. The alternatives I am


suggesting relate to a change in the structure of government in the Yukon so as to implement procedures which I feel should be substituted for the procedures suggested in the bill. Therefore it is very necessary to go into the matter of the structure of government since the structure of government in the Yukon now does not permit the adoption of administrative procedures I am suggesting that until that structure is changed it will be impossible to implement the kind of changes I am suggesting in respect of this bill. Therefore, with great deference, I suggest that my arguments are quite relevant to the principle the bill is attempting to establish.
As Your Honour will see as I go along, apart from the other changes which the council wishes there are direct references to the distribution of lands in their suggestions. I referred to sub-paragaprh (c) of the council's resolution. This suggests the replacement of the advisory committee on finance by an executive council. In effect this would be a mini-cabinet that would have executive powers in regard to certain classes of subjects related, as the minister knows, to section 16 of the Yukon Act which is affected by this legislation. They say they wish jurisdiction in the following fields: education, health and welfare, territorial resources including land, public works, justice and corrections, revenue and finance, also affecting the disposition of lands, forestry, also affecting the disposition of lands, fisheries, also affecting the disposition of lands, and all the other necessary residual executive powers which may be necessary to effect transference. They have also suggested other constitutional reforms which I shall not read into the record at this time.
From the points I have made thus far it will be seen quite clearly that until the governmental structure is altered at least to the extent suggested by the Yukon council and by myself and others from time to time, we will not be in a position in the Yukon Territory, nor will they be in the Northwest Territories, to administer the disposition of resources which come under this bill and under the other federal legislation affected by the bill.
In order to have government on the ground, to use the minister's term, there must be a new approach. That new approach must be to transfer the responsibility completely to the people on the ground. There are responsible individuals in the Yukon who are prepared to co-operate in the building of a new,
February 9, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	6563
different and reformed governmental structure. These individuals are sufficiently responsible to take on the administration of the disposition of lands and those other resource functions that are now retained by the federal government.
In this jet age why should we have to come hat in hand to the minister for his fiat for a 50-foot by 100-foot lot? Why indeed should a resident of the Yukon who wishes to purchase a parcel of land on which to build a house have to go any farther than the administration which exists in the Yukon? Why should he have to even tolerate the delay in the mail when submitting an application to the department here in Ottawa for the purchase of a piece of land 4,000 miles away? This is an archaic, cumbersome and completely unnecessary procedure.


Arthur Laing: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that in the Yukon at the present time all surveyed lots have already been transferred to the control of the commissioner and that all the lands surrounding Whitehorse and other settlements will be transferred to the control of the area council? I am quite sure the hon. member is not aware of this because otherwise he would not be presenting this argument.


Erik Nielsen: I am very keenly aware of this development, but these lands do not even make a dint in the 207,000 square miles which the minister knows is the land area of the Yukon.


Arthur Laing: It has some relation to 15,000 people.


Erik Nielsen: This was not the argument used when the province of Manitoba was carved out. Surely the minister must get rid of the idea that democratic forms of government rest on mere population or that population must be a precedent for the establishment of an institution which will give the people the right to govern themselves. The minister thinks there is a great concession in the transfer to the commissioner, in the right of the people of the territory, of these lands he has mentioned which represent only a tiny fraction of the whole. We resent this and can see no reason for continuing this colonial process of having a commissioner, who takes his instructions from the minister, who has control over these resources. Why can they not be subject to the decision of the elected representatives of the people in those two territories?
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
As the minister refrained from doing so, I will not go into the great economic progress that is being made, particularly in the Yukon, at this moment, but this progress has its accompanying problems. History has shown that land problems follow in the wake of any such development. We have received inquiries already from people who want to come up from the provinces to establish such enterprises as cattle ranches. As the minister knows, unlike the southern and more fertile areas of Canada much more grazing land is required in order to sustain a head of cattle in the north. Where it takes 160 acres in the south, it takes substantially more in the Yukon or Mackenzie areas.
The commissioner has no power to make a decision for a group of ranchers who wish to establish a ranching operation in the north. He has no power to make any disposition of lands. This is maintained in the ministry and will be even following the passage of this bill. This situation only retards development inasmuch as the minister and the federal government retain control by virtue of the simple fact that the commissioner in the Yukon and the commissioner in the Northwest Territories are employees of the government of Canada.
The same argument applies in respect of the recent constitutional conference. The government thinks it granted a great concession when it said the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would be "represented"-I use that word with quotation marks -at the conference. They were not, because the commissioners of both territories are federal government employees. What sort of representation is that? It is time for the government to take a more enlightened attitude toward the development of democratic institutions in both territories. Only then will the people be in a position to assume the responsibilities which are retained by the minister in this bill.
There is no need for the continuation of this archaic structure. While this bill will improve the situation in respect of the long delays which have hitherto existed in connection with obtaining titles to lands in both territories, it is not going to cure the situation. Any improvement is welcome and therefore the minister will not find me resisting even the modicum of improvement set forth in this bill. However, as I say, it does not go far enough.
Before moving from the principle of the bill I should like the minister to outline in a
6564	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands little more detail the procedure which he anticipates will be adopted by the administration at the federal level and by the administration at the territorial level in substitution for the procedure that now exists. All the minister has told us so far is that there is going to be this change which will permit a simple fiat to issue from his office over his signature, thereby speeding up the obtaining of titles to lands. This does not tell us very much, and I should like him to go into some detail in respect of these procedures.
I know that the matter of legal interpretation is involved but there is a point that greatly concerns me in the first amendment. I refer to the use of the term "notification". Over the centuries the term "grant" has come to mean something in the law and has been the subject of interpretation in hundreds, if not thousands, of legal precedents. I should like the minister to assure me that my reading of the provision of the bill is accurate and that "notification" is going to mean exactly the same thing as "grant", because it will make a good deal of difference, I submit, if "notification" means something other than "grant". A grant of land has come to mean something in the law, and specifically in those laws relating to title to land. I am somewhat fearful that unless the term "notification" does mean precisely the same thing we are going to run into a good many problems.
I will leave my remarks there for the moment, Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that the minister is going to deal more elaborately with the procedures which are to be invoked once this bill is passed. I should also like him to clarify the use of the term "notification" instead of "grant".


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: 
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Did the appointed members on the Northwest Territories council also vote tor that resolution?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: 
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Your Honour has allowed a reasonable latitude of discussion on the terms of the legislation now before us-


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker is always reasonable.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -and in particular to the two members of the house who represent the areas most directly involved in the bill the minister has introduced. I am glad this is so because the bill touches on a very vital subject. The whole subject of land, jurisdiction over it and the manner in which it can be held by individual citizens is a rather important and fundamental one in this country.
There was an understandable difference in the tone of the presentations of the two hon. members who have spoken. I suppose this is based, in part at least, on where they happen to be sitting in this chamber. There are those who normally support the government in power and those who do not, which means that members do not have too many opportunities to voice in this chamber the real feelings and sentiments of the people they represent in the house. That of itself is, I think, a reason sufficient for these two members to use this bill as an opportunity to give expression to those feelings perhaps in the context of the more general debate that has been going on about the confederation of tomorrow.
I gather from the remarks of both hon. members that they consider this bill to be a useful step forward as far as it goes. I am quite prepared to accept some guidance from them in this respect and I think all members of the house should have the same inclination.
I understand that the bill will simply change the procedure under which people can acquire access to and use of land in the two territories.
6566	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands [DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I have a continuing interest in what the hon. members have said and in legislation which the minister brings forward in this general area. My interest arises from a trip I was able to take as a member of the northern affairs committee when I was able to see a little of that part of Canada. Any hon. member who took part in that tour of the north certainly could not have helped becoming aware of the very healthy urge on the part of the people who live there for an increasing voice in matters which affect them most vitally and in the running of their affairs in their communities and territories.
I should like to make one reference to my own experience when I was in the capital city of the Yukon Territory. Some of the people whom I met there discovered that I was a member of parliament representing a British Columbia constituency. I was immediately assailed strongly on what some of them felt was the desire of my province to take over the Yukon territory.


Erik Nielsen: Is the hon. member aware that the premier of British Columbia has now withdrawn that offer?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have not received any official notification from the premier of my province that he has changed his mind-


Erik Nielsen: Unfortunately.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -but I gather he has had some second thoughts. I know that as a British Columbian I hastily assured them that in my view this was just one of Mr. Bennett's wilder dreams and it was not taken too seriously by most citizens in my province. Perhaps Mr. Bennett, who does on occasion have some regard for the views held by the citizens of his province, may have recognized that most of us were not prepared to embark on this particular form of colonialism in this day and age. So I think it is understandable that in their own ways the members representing these two territories have sought, in speaking on this bill, to give a glimpse of the real impatience which the people whom they represent feel about their continued substatus in the Canadian confederation-


Erik Nielsen: Vassalage.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -in relation to the rights and constitutional arrangements enjoyed by those who live in the provinces. As a matter of fact, I was born very shortly after Alberta achieved provincial status and prior thereto it

DEBATES	February 9, 1968
had been part of the Northwest Territories. Although I cannot say I have reached an advanced age, that period does seem to be rather remote in the history of the country, and certainly no one would suggest now that Alberta should revert to a territorial status.
I feel there is perhaps some danger that the people in these two territories, in their anxiety to enjoy similar rights as the rest of us in such matter as land holding, might feel they are being bypassed when arrangements are made with regard to the allocation of powers and jurisdiction, particularly in the resource field. Certainly it is my hope that once we settle some of the individual rights which were under discussion recently in Ottawa and will probably be discussed further in this chamber, many members of the house and people throughout the country will be prepared to take a realistic and rather unemotional approach to the whole question of resource jurisdiction. The subject is close to home for me because my constituency is involved in the whole matter of resource jurisdiction in areas over the continental shelf. For this reason I have been giving this matter some thought.
I think there may be a growing feeling on the part of some Canadians that if we are going to move away from drastic regional disparities the basic resources of this land must be considered to a greater extent as part of the national heritage. I, like many other people, am just feeling my way on this subject. It may be that some of the questions which were raised by the hon. member for Yukon and by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, about which the people in those areas feel so strongly today, may be matters on which there will be a shift of view in the rest of the country in the years that lie ahead. Perhaps we may be ready to move toward the position which they are in now rather than them moving to the more extreme positions held by some people I know.


Erik Nielsen: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would he agree that whatever shifts may come about the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should have at least the same rights with respect to resource jurisdiction as are enjoyed by the provinces of Canada?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not think that anyone, not even the minister who the hon. member for Yukon claims is pretty conservative in his
February 9, 1963

approach to change on such matters, would disagree in principle with that idea.


Erik Nielsen: He does.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister can of course speak for himself, but my own feeling is that this is a matter which lies deeply in the minds of most Canadians no matter where they live. I would be surprised indeed to find the minister expressing violent disagreement with that principle. He will have an opportunity in closing the debate to comment on the matter if he so desires. However, I do not think this is a subject which it would be appropriate to continue discussing at any great length in this debate.
As the hon. member for Yukon admits, the bill brings about a minor improvement in the administration of the transfer of land. Perhaps it is a fairly important one. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the Territorial Lands Act to be able to offer a final judgment. Certainly I would go along with the hon. member for Yukon in welcoming a more detailed outline of the way in which the new technique will operate. I indicated that as a member of the committee which visited the north I have an interest in this matter. I would be interested to see whether the other members who took part in that trip have any contribution to make in support of the measure proposed in the bill and are sympathetic with the desire expressed by the hon. members representing the territories that we should quickly move beyond the changes set forth in the bill.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of entering this debate. Matters concerning the Yukon and the Northwest Territories can generally be handled very ably by the representatives of these areas, but I can recall a previous occasion a few months ago when I was prompted to speak by the remarks made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) in the course of a debate. Again today we have been treated to a series of fatuous, facetious and frivolous remarks by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) who has wandered rather far afield from the terms of the bill. This pattern was set earlier. I cannot quite understand how he can advocate strong centralization in terms of natural resource and at the same time pour scorn on any suggestion that the Yukon and British Columbia might eventually amalgamate into one. The timing of these remarks seems to be very poor on a
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands day when the Atlantic provinces are beginning what I trust will be a series of meetings which may lead to economic and political union of those provinces. Even the smallest of them, in terms of population, is vastly larger than either the Northwest Territories or the Yukon.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does the hon. member not realize that the Atlantic provinces could probably be put very handily within the boundaries of at least our two constituencies, if not one of them?


Howard Earl Johnston: I am aware of the vastness of the territories. However, a most important federal-provincial conference which concerned itself very much with human rights has just finished. I am talking about the human rights of Canadians and the hope for the proposed amendment to the constitution which would grant equality of rights to all Canadians right across the country. Of course, if we have a small group of people in terms of population, not in terms of land area, in a privileged position in any one part of the country, then some of the rights of the rest of us are somewhat diminished. While you can argue a certain geographical justification for the suggestion, surely that is not the over-riding consideration. The hon. member is certainly right about the size of the area I represent now and the size of the enlarged constituency as a result of redistribution.
Both the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories occupy a somewhat privileged position in this house at the moment as a result of the votes of a small group of people. Following redistribution they will be in an even more privileged position because while the norm for the country will be 70,000 people in each constituency I believe the Yukon will have about 15,000 and the Northwest Territories something like 30,000. These areas, which are apparently requesting provincial status, really cannot qualify as constituencies in terms of population.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. member who is making this somewhat invidious comparison recognize that following redistribution the Northwest Territories will be the sixth smallest constituency and that the four constituencies in Prince Edward Island will be the smallest?
February 9, 1968

Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands


Howard Earl Johnston: Of course I realize that. I have already talked hopefully about maritime political union which, if it comes about, will rectify many of the problems to which the hon. member for Northwest Territories has drawn the attention of the house this afternoon.


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


Howard Earl Johnston: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: Would he suggest, based on his reasoning, that we should do away with the constituency of iles-de-la-Madeleine?


Howard Earl Johnston: I would not do away with the Magdalen islands for a moment. As I understand, under redistribution the constituency will include a chunk of the mainland. I realize it has been something of an anachronism for a long time. I believe that the redistribution commission for Quebec agreed to do something about it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does the hon. member recall from his reading of history that at the time British Columbia entered confederation that province had a population of between 6,000 and 10,000 and was represented by six members in this house?


Howard Earl Johnston: I entirely agree, but time marches on.


Arthur Laing: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think there is any chance of me getting my bill passed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest there might be an opportunity for the bill to be passed. However, in order to accomplish that I would expect hon. members who are commenting on this bill to confine their remarks to the bill.
temporary withdrawal. The problems of British Columbia will be solved to such an extent that the province will look to new areas to assist. Quite beyond the developing of the Yukon Territory, the government the hon. member represents is at the very moment suggesting that the provinces become more involved with external aid. I am sure we would be only too happy to develop a neighbouring portion of Canada. Certainly any statement made by the premier of British Columbia should have validity because, in spite of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says about whom he represents, I feel the premier of British Columbia has been willing to go to the people for a renewed mandate more frequently than even the members of the N.D.P. find satisfactory.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that I hope that we will seriously consider a reduction in the number of provinces in this country rather than the creation of additional provinces that may have considerable potential for the future but a very limited population.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In
introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, the minister referred to it as a housekeeping item, and that is the main reason why I should like to make a few comments at the second reading stage. The bill has come to us from the other place where it was given rather cursory consideration. I note in reading the debates there that the gentleman who introduced the bill used precisely the same phrase, that it was merely a housekeeping bill and therefore did not require much attention or too much of the time of that body. Actually the original recommendation came from the Glassco committee which had been looking into administrative affairs in detail both in the north and in the department and had made strong


Howard Earl Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the admonition. This bill applies to the Territorial Lands Act, the Land Titles Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. The new act will probably remain on the statute books for some years, I assume. Probably it will be voided by eventual union of the Yukon Territory and the province of British Columbia I feel that the remarks I have been making were therefore, not entirely off the point. In addition the subject was introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni when he spoke.
If the suggestion that the premier of British Columbia has withdrawn the offer of amalgamation is true, then I am sure it is only a
recommendations that this particularly obvious administrative problem should be dealt with as quickly as possible.
* (12:50 p.m.)
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am rather disappointed that the other place did not seize the opportunity to use this bill as a vehicle for examining the problems of northern development in a broader perspective. It seems to me that this important arm of parliament could serve a useful function by delving a little deeper when matters of this kind are referred to it. In looking at the treatment that the bill received in the other place I

February 9, 1968	COMMONS
notice that it went to a committee. Opportunity could have been taken then to call witnesses to discuss the broader implications of this so-called housekeeping bill that is before us this afternoon, implications that were raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and to a lesser extent by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange).
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) made reference to the tour that the parliamentary committee on northern affairs made of the north some two years ago. I think it might be a good idea on any future tours to include in the party some of the hon. gentlemen from the other place. In this way they too could become more deeply and personally involved in the challenge of the north and could use their more leisurely procedures to assist in creating a climate of opinion in parliament, as well as across the country, that would make it possible for both the government and parliament to proceed much more expeditiously in dealing with the obvious delay in northern development.


Arthur Laing: Did the hon. member say "delay" in northern development?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The fact that this measure is referred to as a housekeeping bill indicates that the government itself has a leisurely attitude to the challenges that have been placed before parliament since the department of northern affairs was established in 1953.
I notice the minister is objecting to my use of the word "delay"-


Arthur Laing: You want more vision.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -so perhaps I will deal with that question for a moment. I say that what is needed at this time is much more than a housekeeping approach to the problems of northern development. The minister said that if he had had the opportunity he would have placed before the house some of the rather impressive figures relating to the development that has taken place during the past decade. Perhaps I can briefly do this in one or two instances in order to indicate that the time is long past when we need more than housekeeping procedural changes in administration.
For example, Mr. Speaker, in the matter of mineral production the figure for the Yukon in 1965 was $13.3 million. It is projected that this year the figure will be $30 million, a rather impressive and spectacular index of
DEBATES	6569
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands development. The figure is even more spectacular for the Northwest Territories. In 1965 it started with a base of $72 million and it is projected that this year the figure will amount to $115 million.
Even in the area of population or human resources the statistics are impressive. In 1941 there were only 5,000 people living in the Yukon Territory. In the next decade the number increased to 9,000 and in the decade to 1961 to 12,000. Since 1961 the population has moved forward proportionately at a rapid rate and it is estimated that the population today is 17,000. This indicates that economic progress in the north has been quite dramatic since prime minister St. Laurent introduced legislation in this house in 1953 to set up the department of northern affairs. At that time he stated that this great land mass with its proven resources had been administered in a state of absentmindedness by successive governments of Canada.
There was a dynamic upsurge of interest under the leadership of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the former prime minister, during the period 1957 to 1963. I recall a speech that he made on September 26, 1958 during the course of which the former prime minister used these words:
It is my hope that by the time of Canada's centennial in 1967 the Yukon and the Northwest Territories will have gone a long way, if not all the way, toward self-government.
That was the ambition the right hon. gentleman had for the development of this 40 per cent of Canada's land area.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have before us a piece of legislation dealing with one of the more controversial aspects of administrative red tape, the administration of land resources in both of the territories. This bill is referred to as merely housekeeping. I repeat that the time is long past when we have to get beyond the housekeeping stage and move rapidly in the direction of greater self-government and autonomy both in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. It has been pointed out by the hon. gentlemen who represent those areas that the demand for this from the people there is vociferous. I think it is high time that the government and parliament responded to this demand. May I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the house took recess.
6570	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at one o'clock I was speaking briefly to the bill that we have before us, which is aimed at streamlining the procedure that has been required in the past to obtain land in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. I suggested in my preliminary remarks that at this stage the government might have gone farther than merely producing a housekeeping measure such as this one. I have long had the feeling that both territories are ready for a dramatic leap forward to greater local control and self-government. Unhappily, it is true that on those issues that are of significance in the development of confederation the people of the country seem to be ahead of parliament and of government.
The two hon. members who are most familiar with this matter have both stressed the point I again wish to stress now, that the legislative councils of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory are demanding in increasingly vehement terms that parliament and the government, which have certain responsibilities under the British North America Act, move much more quickly than they have up to now. I am not being critical of the present minister in this regard. Once I had ministerial responsibility for this department but at that time I was fortunate in belonging to a government which was genuinely interested in northern development. My responsibilities as minister-


Arthur Laing: I knew that remark would make the hon. member laugh.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -were easier, consequently.


Arthur Laing: I knew the hon. member could not say that without laughing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister wants to know if I can say this without laughing. If he suggests that I laugh when I refer to the activities of the former administration I must say that I could not mention the activities of the present administration without crying. Up to the present the actions of this government have been to introduce studies on this and studies on that. We have had the Carrothers commission, task forces, royal commissions, and so on, to accumulate the necessary background of information on which government action might be based.

DEBATES	February 9, 1968


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Is the hon. member objecting to the Carrothers commission?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member for Northwest Territories asks if I object to the report of the Carrothers commission.


Erik Nielsen: A perpetuation of bureaucracy.


Arthur Laing: Are the two hon. gentlemen getting together, on the opposition side?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: My answer is that I do not object to the sentiment that is expressed in the Carrothers report with regard to the development of self-government in the Northwest Territories. It would not be politic for me to do so since many of its recommendations were based on the researches of the Winnipeg based firm of Hedlin and Menzies. Knowing both these men personally I may say that they are outstanding enthusiasts in regard to devleopment prospects in northern Canada. As a matter of fact, Doctor Menzies worked closely with the former prime minister as his economic adviser. It is obvious that Doctor Menzies' viewpoint, to the degree that it appears in the Carrothers report, was reflected in the vigorous policies of development that were brought forward by the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Erik Nielsen: Which the minister has since lauded.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes. I am sure that members of the house on both sides believe we must move forward in political development if we are to realize the potential of the north in terms of economic development. We must move forward toward self-government and away from the colonial status which still persists in both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This is the point that my colleague from Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories have made. I am sure that in the minister's heart of hearts it is the objective which he has in mind. For years the rationale has been that the population and fiscal resources of these areas do not justify any further move toward self-government. But under the program of development such as has been taking place in Canada since 1957 we have moved forward to broaden the economic base. As the minister has indicated, there has been an encouraging development in this regard.
The programs that were initiated following 1957 have produced results. We have new
February 9, 1963
COMMONS DEBATES	65!
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands
mines developing in the north. We have roads to resources. We have airfields. We have railroads into the north. We have modern communications such as the C.N.T. running right down the Mackenzie river to Inuvik in the Mackenzie delta. We have a governmental infrastructure. We have all the government, communication and transport services that are needed as a preliminary to dealing with the problem of local government control. The next step forward in northern development must be in the area of progress toward responsible government. At the outset of my remarks I said that this housekeeping measure can hardly be regarded as a tremendous leap forward. In making these few remarks this afternoon I wish to underscore a point and a position I held when I was the responsible minister, that we now must move forward to the objective outlined by former prime minister Diefenbaker in 1958 when he said that by centennial year he expected that the territories would be well on the way to self-government. Perhaps it is natural that someone from Manitoba, and I represent a Manitoba constituency, should be an enthusiastic supporter of this viewpoint. But I hope there will be others from other parts of Canada who will speak on second reading of this bill in the spirit of the new impetus toward a new confederation and that they will encourage the minister and the government to get busy on this long delayed objective. Manitoba was carved out of the Northwest Territories in 1870 when it had a population of only 25,000. That would not have happened if the Fathers of Confederation had lacked vision. Just a moment ago the minister used the word vision. Where there is no vision the people perish, is the inscription on the peace tower over the parliament buildings.
If the Fathers of Confederation had not had the vision to anticipate what would come out of the great movement from the colonial status of the Northwest Territories they would have used exactly the same arguments as are being used today, namely, that the population base and economic resources were not substantial enough. Indeed when it was decided to build a railway into the northwest it was described by a Liberal opposition as a railway that would go from wigwam to wigwam and would not pay for its own axle grease. Much the same arguments are being used by a Liberal government now in opposing progress toward self-government in the territories.
We all realize that progress toward selfgovernment will be gradual. We are not going to have provincial governments overnight. There has to be a series of gradual movements toward this goal. This legislation could have provided a golden opportunity to move forward in the area of resource control. At this stage no one is asking that the legislative council of the Yukon have control over such resources as oil, minerals, water and so forth. But so far as surface land resources are concerned that control could have been given in toto to the Yukon government. It would have given a tremendous boost to the morale of those Yukoners who are away ahead of us in parliament and ahead of the government in demanding that they be masters of their own fate and captains of their own destiny in the field of democratic government.
We all agree that rapid progress has been made. What we now need to be convinced of is that if this forward momentum is to continue the next step is self-government so that the people themselves will be strongly motivated to carry out the responsibilities that should rightfully be theirs in the area of public administration. Procrastination is the thief of time. Studies are good. The Carrothers report has merely verified what northerners have known for years. The white paper which is to be tabled in the Yukon will merely be a rehash of many of the things put forward in the recent resolution of the Yukon council, which was partially placed on the record by the hon. member for Yukon. It is not studies and white papers that are needed now. It is action on the part of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tardif):: Is the
house ready for the question? If the minister speaks now it is understood that he will close the debate.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, you have permitted a very wide-ranging debate on this proposal to enable the registration of land titles in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to be done on a businesslike basis. I do not intend to use the same privilege as you have granted to previous speakers and range quite so widely, but this gives me an opportunity which I am going to embrace, if you permit me, to make some small review of the economic development taking place in these territories.
I do not think that any member who participated in the debate endeavoured to minimize the development taking place but at
6572	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands least two or three of them did not try to magnify it. In the area north of 60 which comprises 40 per cent of the land mass of Canada there is an economic development taking place that, having regard to the population of the two territories, has never been equaled in any country previously. I do not know how many hon. members know that in the Yukon Territory there has been a commitment to spend $127 million in the next 24 months, covering a population of 15,000 persons. I am quite certain the hon. member for the Yukon will agree with me when I say that this government has not been wholly responsible for that situation, but it certainly has been responsible in part. Today, by means of a number of measures we have been able to interest the financial institutions of Canada and the mining interests of Canada in looking northward. I am of the opinion that within the next 25 years we will be able to prove that the part of Canada which embraces 40 per cent of the land mass of Canada also has 40 per cent of the resources of Canada.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I decided that the first thing that would be needed is an economic base under the feet of the people who live there. At the present time, as minister I must come to parliament every year to ask for about $57 million from the taxpayers of southern Canada to put into the Canadian Arctic. This is necessary because in this area we have a school system which is excellent, we have welfare standards which are excellent and are equal to those in southern Canada, and we also have health and welfare services which, under circumstances of difficult geography, are comparable with those in southern Canada. It is necessary, therefore, to ask for a great deal of money from the taxpayers of southern Canada.
This government has not always been the government of this country. It has been in office only five years. I should like to ask the hon. member for Yukon and my predecessor in this post why no great leap forward was made in the days when they were in office. I mean the great leap forward that is suddenly being called for today. I wish to repeat that the first thing we must have in the territories is an economic base. When we have an economic base we will have a stable population. At the present time there are some 15,000 people in the Yukon Territory, some 8,000 of whom live in Whitehorse or vicinity.
[Mr. Laing.l
DEBATES	February 9, 1968


Erik Nielsen: There are 18,000 people in the Yukon Territory.


Arthur Laing: Your figure must be contained in something which has come forward since I read the last figure concerning the population. The figure I saw was 15,000.


Erik Nielsen: Those are D.B.S. figures which are usually wrong.


Arthur Laing: I do know that because of the type of investments being made in this area people are moving north rapidly. I hope the figure is 18,000. Nevertheless, there are difficulties there. I admit that there is a shortage of housing and a great number of things because of the almost unbelievable investment all at once.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) introduced the possibility of extending the provinces northward. This is a proposal which has been advocated many times by certain persons. In my own province of British Columbia I believe the first suggestion was made by the late Thomas Dufferin Pattullo. Some British Columbians may remember him as the most competent administrator British Columbia ever had as its head. Premier Pattullo went to the Yukon with the suggestion that it would be advisable, from the standpoint of those in the Yukon, for the boundary of British Columbia to be extended northward to take in the Yukon. He was very convincingly told by those valiant residents of the Yukon that the Yukon was prepared to take over British Columbia tomorrow but that it would not work the other way around.
I had a talk the other day with premier Bennett. He and I have resumed conversations. I do not think he would mind my repeating his words. He said that at the present time he is less interested in the Yukon than in securing some economic connection with the Mackenzie river area. I made a suggestion to him which I hope is followed by his province. It might give him the economic ability to participate with the adjacent province of Alberta in some of the developments that are going on in the Northwest Territories.
I should like to thank the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) for his contribution to the debate. He lives in a much more difficult area than the hon. member for Yukon. The Yukon has had a longer experience in government because of the great developments which took place there in
February 9, 1968	COMMONS
1898. It has been populated for a longer period. Some families have remained there all through the years. On the other hand, in the case of the Northwest Territories the hon. member has a vast expanse of country to serve which is populated by people living in a great number of small communities.
If we are to bring the services of Canada to these people it is necessary that there be an administrator on the spot. The administrator carries on his duties with limitations and directions concerning what he may do. A great deal of time will elapse before all the necessary services can be provided for the people. I do not think anyone is as much aware of this as are the councillors of the Northwest Territories. I regret that the hon. member for Yukon has indicated that he believes it is unwise to have appointed members on the Northwest Territories council. I do not think the people of the Northwest Territories share his feeling. I believe they would like to have some of the reports concerning development in this area carried to the people of southern Canada because they want their friends in southern Canada to know something about the north and the tremendous *opportunities that are there.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker-and I ean say this now because the annual report in question has been made public-that when you have a mine such as the one in the Northwest Territories which in one year shipped out ore and concentrates to the value of $42 million and in so doing made a profit of more than $32 million, you have a real mine. In the western cordillera in the Northwestern Territories and the Yukon Territory today we probably have the best place on this continent to search for minerals. I am certain the economic development of this area is assured.
The hon. member for Yukon asked me to be specific concerning the methods by which land registrations are now taken and what we propose in comparison. The sequence of steps required to produce the present letters patent involves the following:
1.	The preparation of a letter to the Department of Justice by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requesting a draft of the letters patent.
2.	The preparation and transmission of the draft letters patent from the Department of Justice to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
3.	The retyping of the draft letters patent in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to insert the legal description of the land.
DEBATES	6573
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands
4.	The transmission of the completed draft letters patent to the registration section of the Department of the Secretary of State for initial preparation of the document and signature by the deputy registrar general.
5.	The transmission of the completed letters patent to the Department of Justice for the signature of the deputy attorney general.
6.	The transmission of the letters patent by the Department of Justice to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for signature by the deputy minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
7.	Their transmission by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Department of the Secretary of State for the impression of the Great Seal of Canada.
8.	Their transmission by the Department of the Secretary of State to government house for signature by the deputy governor general.
9.	Their transmission from the deputy governor general to the Department of the Secretary of State for registration.
10.	Their transmission by the Department of the Secretary of State to the Public Archives for microfilming.
11.	Their transmission from the Public Archives to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for recording.
12.	Transmission of the letters patent from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Registrar of Titles who then issues a certificate of title to the purchaser.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
To complete the above requires from six to eight weeks, and as most of the steps are statutory requirements few, if any, can be omitted.
What is now proposed is the replacement of the present letters patent by a simple fiat prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to be sent directly by the minister to the registrar of land titles who will issue a certificate of title in the same manner as he now does. This substitution will in no way affect the present system of issuing a certificate of title but will replace the present preparatory steps one to 12 by the following:
1.	A flat in the form prescribed by the Department of Justice describing the land to be granted, setting out the reservations and containing all the information essential to enable the registrar to issue a certificate of title, will be prepared in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2.	The flat, when signed, will be sent by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Public Archives for microfilming.
3.	After microfilming the document will be returned to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for transmission to the registrar who will issue a certificate of title.
This procedure is expected to require a maximum time of seven to ten days.
6574	COMMONS
Procedure jor Granting Territorial Lands
In conclusion, I want to thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Probably something has been gained by the wide-ranging permission you have granted to us, Mr. Speaker. It may not be necessary for the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to put once again on Hansard his ideas about freedom for the Yukon. There is a pamphleteer in the Yukon at the present time who has made certain recommendations as to how freedom should be brought to the Yukon. He has eight steps, the first of which is the creation of an impasse.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask to what document the hon. gentleman is referring?


Arthur Laing: I am referring to a pamphlet entitled "Blueprint for Autonomy" which provides eight steps to provincehood, written by Ken Shortt. Since the hon. member has recently drawn to my attention that an impasse has been created I knew it was not necessary for him to ask me what document I was referring to.
I think we have made some progress today. I ask for the confidence of the house in passing this bill which I know, as the hon. member for Yukon knows, has been badly needed for a great number of years, both while this government was in power and while the government he supported was in power. I know he wants to get along with the business at hand as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Tardif in the chair.
On clause 1-Grant.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to hold up passage of this legislation but I think I should clarify one or two things said by the minister. In the first place let me disassociate myself completely from the document to which he referred just before the conclusion of the debate on second reading. I am sure it will be of interest to all hon. members to know that this document was prepared by a vice president of the Yukon Liberal Association. The tactic outlined in the document is one I cannot adhere to, condone or endorse. Some of the things Mr. Shortt has said are valid but most of the pamphlet is a resume of resolutions which were passed by the Yukon council in 1965. I think that should be made very clear.
The great leap forward about which the minister was speaking is something I wish to discuss. He asked what steps were taken by

DEBATES	February 9. 1988
the previous government. I am sure he would want to be fair enough not to overlook the fact that under the previous government a pattern was designed for the evolution of government in the Yukon. The previous government increased the size of the council and created the advisory committee on finance which is the nucleus of what will eventually develop into a cabinet system of government with executive responsibility. Other similar advances were made at that time.
The minister's attitude in closing the debate indicates to me that he is lumping the two territories together. He made some remarks in respect of the historical development of the Yukon and its greater familiarity than that of the Northwest Territories. He also referred to the governmental structure and so on. I am sure I need not remind the minister, but for the benefit of other members of the house let me say there is a vast difference between the two territories. We cannot apply the same norms to both. I am sure the people in the Northwest Territories are as resentful as we in the Yukon about this constant endeavour to apply the same standards to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
It is my hope that the procedure outlined by the minister will result in the whole process of obtaining title to land taking only seven to ten days. I am rather doubtful of this because that is only little more than a week. It is impractical to think that once the minister receives a request for a fiat the process of providing it, sending it to the archives for microfilming and returning it, remembering that the mail takes two days each way, will result in a seven to ten day process. This will not be the case. The substituting of this new procedure for the cumbersome procedure of obtaining letters patent will help to speed up the time required to obtain a title to crown land. I hope it is the eventual intention of the minister, the government and parliament to go the whole way so that the minister will relinquish the entire responsibility for commencing the chain reaction which is necessary in order to obtain title to land.
Coincidentally, the annual report of the minister's department was delivered through the mail to hon. members today. If hon. members will examine that report they will see that the federal government is involved in the granting of agreements for sale, the granting of agricultural leases, the granting of grazing leases, the granting of title in fee simple, the granting of agreements to individuals who wish to obtain title to land eventually, and
February 9, 1968

the imposition of certain requirements in these agreements. It involves itself in all the myriad administrative processes normally carried out at the provincial level. It would cost less, I submit, to go the whole way and would be in keeping with the kind of advancement in which the minister believes. While the minister has not yet admitted that he is in favour of this kind of advancement I am sure, as my friend the hon. member for Brandon-Souris said, that in his heart of hearts he believes in it. It is our hope that he will go the whole way eventually and transfer this administrative process, in which the federal government should not be involved, to the territorial level.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
There is one last point I should like to make on the first clause of the bill. That is the question of the use of the term "notification." On page 2 of the bill the provision in clause 3 (3) reads as follows:
The issue of a notification pursuant to subsection (1) has like force and effect as a grant of territorial land made by letters patent under the Great Seal of Canada.
On a closer examination of the bill I am now satisfied with respect to the legal implications which will flow from the use of the term "notification". I am satisfied it means the same thing as a grant and will have every effect of the legal use of that term as it has been interpreted over the years.
In strict compliance with the rules of relevancy, Mr. Chairman, these are the only remarks I wish to make on clause 1 of the bill. I should like to reply in detail and at greater length to some of the suggestions which have been made by the minister and by the member from British Columbia who belongs to the Social Credit party and whose riding escapes me for the moment. I shall reply later to his entirely untenable observations with respect to what I am sure are not the greedy land aspirations of the majority of the people of British Columbia. I am sure that the Vancouver based population at least would like to see more projects going forward in the more heavily populated areas of British Columbia before taking on the responsibility of an area that is almost twice as large as that province.
I should like to comment on some of the more constructive remarks made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am glad he took the position he did. However, another opportunity will present itself to deal with these matters. I understand we are to have a debate
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands next week on constitutional reform. Perhaps that will provide a forum in which to discuss these questions or it may be that we can discuss them on the supplementary estimates.
However, Mr. Chairman, the minister can rest assured that this will not be the last time he will be hearing from this side of the house concerning these constitutional reforms which we believe to be essential. I am most sincere in this plea to the minister. We are putting them forward now not in the sense that I or those whom I represent in the Yukon wish to be critical at all but in the hope there will be that degree of enlightenment in this day and age that will permit a change of heart, a change of policy and a change of approach to these developing areas of Canada.
I cannot speak for the whole of the Northwest Territories because conditions are different in various areas. The hon. member for Northwest Territories performs very ably indeed the function of making recommendations on behalf of those whom he represents in his vast riding. I know that he and I are of the same belief in this regard. I put these observations forward, Mr. Chairman, with the intent of being entirely constructive and in the hope that the minister will react favourably, particularly when it comes to making recommendations in the white paper, to the growing requests made in all reasonableness by the people of the Yukon and which are just commencing to flow from the people in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Hamilion:: Mr. Chairman, as one who held brief responsibility for the administration of the Territorial Lands Act I should like to make one or two remarks on this bill. I hope they will be helpful not only to the minister and the commissioners of the two territories but to the people in these areas. One of the responsibilities that bears most heavily on the minister, who has had the responsibility of initiating the transfer of crown lands into the hands of private individuals, is the protection of future generations in these territories and acting as trustee for them. In my experience, the amount of time I put in trying to make certain that there was no abuse of the right of future generations to access to the land of the territories was considerable. Yet I do not begrudge that time for the simple reason that until we have evolved a system of responsible government in the territories, under which these duties can be carried out with complete
6576	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands responsibility to the electors, this responsibility remains and does bear heavily on a minister.
The technique of speeding up the transfer of crown lands to the individual has been improved under this bill. I do not think there is any question about that. The problem that concerns me as a matter of conscience is the fact that there are in the territories two groups of people who have not the same protections that people have in the provinces. I am speaking about the Indians particularly and I suppose eventually the Eskimos. If my memory serves me correctly, there are no treaties which cover the Indians in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, or at least they were never promulgated. Therefore even on reservations the Indians do not have protection in these areas.
I have talked with the Indians in these areas. They still follow the traditional, cultural habit of moving into an area because the factor of transportation is their main concern and they squat, if you will, along a river, around a lake or some place where it is convenient to get from one area to another. Over a period of time they sometimes change the places in which they squat and settle in a village.
I recall a personal approach that I made to one group of Indians in regard to giving them title to their land in a particular area in order that they would be protected from any person coming in, asking for and getting a grant of land over which the Indians had prior squatters' rights. This is a matter you cannot deal with specifically in this legislation. The responsibility is a subjective one which falls on the minister or the commissioners, as clause 3 of the bill points out.
I ask the minister not only to consider this problem but to advise the commissioners that the persons who have the responsibility for signing the notifications should consider the problem of the Indians and see that in no case does the requirement for private property take over an area in which the squatters' rights of the Indians are paramount. Squatters' rights are an ancient part of the customs in undeveloped areas. I want to make certain that the minister will ensure that in no case will the officers of the commissioner or the minister's officers allow anybody to move into any area in which an interest is held by the Indians if that move is not legal. I do not know how this can be done legally but it is a matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the commissioner or the minister.

DEBATES	February 9, 1968
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
The second point I wish to make is that I agree with those who have said that there is a strong desire on the part of the people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to acquire more responsibility. Additional responsibility is not given to them in definite terms in the bill now before us except to the extent that we give to the commissioner the right to initiate these notifications under sections 4A to 11 of the Territorial Lands Act and under other sections we give to the minister and the deputy minister the right to officiate. I would feel much happier, as I am sure the minister and the people in these areas would, if the inhabitants of the territories had more say in that notification.
I have talked this matter over with the hon. member for Yukon and he told me that if we tried to amend the bill so as to give the local bodies some say in these notifications, it would interrupt the smoothness of the legal procedure. I bow to his superior knowledge of the area. However, I should like to put my fears and worries on public record that not only does the minister of the crown acting as trustee for these people now and in the future but also the commissioner have a responsibility to ensure that nothing is done counter to the wishes of the people in these territories. Therefore, even though I recognize that no amendment can be made workable I wish to put these views forward.
I strongly believe that regardless of the financial inability of the territories to govern themselves completely at this time, we must carry on the precedent we set by granting them the financial status which we have given them in the agreements and by encouraging them at every step to take on more responsibility. Eventually we will have to turn over to the local people jurisdiction over their mineral rights. I believe that the sooner we do it the better.
The final comment I wish to make has to do with the matter of riparian rights. The act makes it very clear that jurisdiction over these rights is held by the federal government. I am referring to the strips of crown land along the navigable rivers and lakes. I hope that no government and no administration at any level will allow to be repeated in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories the disgraceful practice with regard to land along the rivers and lakes in the settled parts of Canada.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall
clause 1 carry?
February 9, 1968


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister arising out of clause 1
which, as I understand from what was said during the second reading stage, has to do with the modification of the method of providing an instrument of title to lands in the territories. I wonder what the situation is. Does the basic position of the lands being held by the crown not alter the right in respect of lands lying within the boundaries of municipalities in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon? I believe that recently some communities have been incorporated. Will the new municipalities as corporate bodies acquire title to the lands lying within their boundaries, as has been the case in other parts of Canada where unsold municipal lands are one of the assets of the municipal level of government? It seemed to me this might be an appropriate point at which to ask for some clarification on this matter.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, may I say in reply to the hon. gentleman's question that I am informed that lands adjacent to or within municipalities such as Whitehorse and Yellowknife have been or will be totally transferred to the commissioner for control by his office.
While I am on my feet I should also like to comment on the representations made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in respect of our first citizens and tell him that there are two treaties, treaties Nos. 8 and 11, which extend into the Northwest Territories, principally around the southern extremity of Great Slave Lake and north from the Wood Buffalo park area in Alberta. Departmental officials are now in consultation with the Indians with regard to the means whereby the people of Canada can keep their undertaking to Indians.
In the case of the Yukon, as a result of our experience we have set aside certain lands to be occupied by the more or less migrant Indians to whom the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has referred. I will not defend the conditions under which some of these poor souls have been living, but I wish to assure my hon. friend that they are not getting worse but better, particularly in view of the investment which is being put into that area. I wish to pay a tribute to the investors, and I am referring now particularly to the Anvil Mining Company Limited which gave us an undertaking that when they commence operations in September or October of 1969, five per cent of the employees on their payroll will be native people. They undertook further that
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands within five years after the commencement of their operation 25 per cent of their employees will be natives of the area. This places a great responsibility upon us, upon the Department of Manpower and Immigration and upon other departments of the government to ensure that by that time we can provide them with competent people to employ.
I can assure the hon. member that a great number of Indian people driving trucks and doing other work in plants are, according to the managers of these plants, as good and in some cases more efficient than other workers. The situation is improving, and I wish to thank the hon. member for having brought it to our attention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: May I ask the minister a question? Does he find any reluctance on the part of the Indians to take out land grants for homes in the area where they are working? Are they still using the squatting technique?


Arthur Laing: In the Yukon there has been very little tendency on the part of the Indians to live in areas where the white men have been living. I do not think this has been entirely the fault of the Indians. I know the area to which my hon. friend referred. He and I and all those who have had the responsibility of this department have been concerned about Indians on the outskirts of Whitehorse and various other settlements living around the corner and down the hill. I want to assure the hon. member that we have in mind these enclaves and we are making every possible effort to ensure that reasonable living opportunities are being afforded these people and that they are being adequately informed of opportunities for employment.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I believe that this custom on the part of Indians does not exist to such an extent in the Northwest Territories. I am quite certain that when my hon. friend was the minister he got the impression that every citizen in the Northwest Territories was a citizen of the Northwest Territories, regardless of his colour or where he came from. This is, of course, a product of a more recent development, it seems to me. We have none of that condition in the Northwest Territories that I can see.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was interested in the last points to which the minister referred covering the situation of the Indian people. However, I should like to return for a moment to a question I raised with the minister. I am not sure exactly what the relationship is between the commissioner of the territories and the
6578	COMMONS
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands municipal level of government. If there is an equivalent to the municipal act in the Northwest Territories, I have not perused it. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that jurisdiction over lands in municipalities was being transferred directly to the jurisdiction of the commissioner of the respective territory. The question I originally asked was, is it within the discretion of the commissioner then as to where and to what extent a municipality will acquire jurisdiction over property Within its boundaries and possibly offer it for sale or engage in town planning as municipalities are becoming interested in doing?


Arthur Laing: The municipalities are incorporated under the territorial acts. I am informed that the commissioner has power to transfer his control of lands within the area of the municipality itself. I think there has been good satisfaction, generally speaking, in respect of this procedure within the incorporated areas in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The difficulty is or has been in respect of crown lands.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has raised a point which is another argument, as I am sure the minister is aware, as to why jurisdiction over disposal of lands should be transferred to the local level. We have a current situation within the municipality of Whitehorse which is a municipal corporation under an ordinance passed by the legislative body of that territory. The same situation prevails in the Northwest Territories. There is a group which wishes to establish a shopping centre in this municipality. The land upon which the intended development is to take place is crown land and therefore the federal government must give consideration, through departmental officials, to whether or not it is in the public interest to release this land for the municipal purpose of a shopping centre. This is a function in which the federal government should not be involved. A decision has been made now that this land is going to be transferred to the territorial government from the crown in the right of Canada to the crown in the right of the territory and then transferred to the municipality of Whitehorse. Then the municipality will make a decision as to its disposal.
Of even more seriousness-and I see the minister's officials before him-is what I sincerely hope is an oversight which has prevailed for many years. I refer to the fact that in the transference of these municipal lands for municipal development the streets and

DEBATES	February 9, 1968
lanes have been overlooked. We have, therefore, a no-man's land here because the municipal councils of the territory exercise jurisdiction over lands that really do not belong to them. This is a current problem in the Yukon. I daresay if it has not already become a problem in the Northwest Territories it will. Perhaps the minister, after consultation with his officials, might inform the house whether there is going to be a serious, immediate review of this question of public streets and lanes within municipalities with a view to the immediate transfer of the land comprised in these streets and lanes to the respective municipalities.
There is one other point I want to leave with the minister and it involves section 73 of the Land Titles Act which stipulates:
The title to the land mentioned in any certificate of title granted under this act is, by implication, and without any special mention in the certificate, unless the contrary is expressly declared, subject to...
(c) any public highway or right of way or other public easement, however created, upon, over or in respect of the land;
Section 73(c) of the Land Titles Act relates also, which gives one an indication of the complexity of a so-called housekeeping amendment, to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, section 126. This section reads:
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit the right of the proper authorities to lay out, from time to time, public roads across, through, along or under any ditch, mill-site, water right or mineral claim.
This legislation purports to reserve the right of the crown to unimpeded access to public roads, highways, streets and lanes in the Yukon. The minister must be aware of a very serious problem that is being created by the mushrooming growth of the mining industry in the Yukon. Under earlier provisions of the quartz mining regulations there were certain crown granted mineral claims. These now exist in the form of fee simple titles. These claims are scattered throughout the Yukon and a problem is going to arise in respect of access to current mineral developments unless the government now takes action to establish trails and roads which have existed for 50 to 60 years as public highways or public roads, thus giving unimpeded future right of access to mineral developments that are now taking place. Before these developments can take place there must be an assurance to an investor that the developer is going to have the right of access. If a developer is confronted at some time in the future with people erecting a gate or fence across trails that are crossing
February 9, 19S8
crown granted mineral claims or private land granted by way of certificate under the act, then you are going to stifle investment and consequently retard development. These two very serious problems exist in the Yukon. I am sure they will exist in the Northwest Territories if they do not now. There has to be immediate consideration given to the approval of streets and lanes within municipalities.
Even more serious is the problem of considering the right of access to mineral developments, regardless of where service roads must travel. I do not mean to suggest that a mineral developer is to be given a future right of access through the front room of an expensive home that has been erected on a piece of private land. I am thinking more particularly of crown granted mineral claims, lands that have been reserved for railways, lands that have been set aside for the use of the Indian people but not utilized by them or lands still set aside for the use of the old department of mines and resources. Some of these lands to which there is existing title are now being traversed by mineral developers who are gaining access to their site of operation. However, the whole question has to be clarified, and the minister's officials should ascertain the position of these access roads with a view to declaring that a public right of access does indeed exist.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Chairman, I have two small matters about which I should like the advice of the minister. As I mentioned earlier today, one of the basic problems in the past has been the incredible delays that occur in issuing title to land, either letters patent or leasehold. I am sure that in the course of my short experience in Ottawa as the member of parliament for Northwest Territories I have received as many complaints on this matter as I have on a number of others combined.
I understand that within the framework of the minister's department and as a result of the recent reorganization the lands administration section has been relocated. I should like to ask a question about this for two reasons. One is that prior to this change the administration itself was located in the section of the northern administration branch that was transferred to the territorial government, and I am wondering whether or not it still remains under the direction of the northern administration branch or has moved to the new resources group.
The second question on which I should like the advice of the minister concerns the defini-
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands tion of territorial lands. Are we still in the position where people who wish to take leaseholds of large areas for such pursuits as ranching or farming must come down through the administration to Ottawa, or are these lands now to come under the control of the commissioners for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon?
Two matters raised by other hon. members I think should be commented upon. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle made a very valid point, one that has concerned people in the north before. I refer to the use of land for government purposes. I think the system has changed substantially in the last several years. I understand that now, so far as lands that lie within the boundaries of municipalities under the control of the crown are concerned, the municipality determines the use the land is put to unless it is for crown purposes.
With regard to lands that lie outside the municipalities-and these comprise the vast majority of the communities in the Northwest Territories-community societies, local advisory councils and development councils are responsible for making recommendations to the senior administration with regard to the use of the land. I am thinking in terms of the sort of town planning that is under way in many northern communities. Between the time the town planning authority first consults with the local officials and the time the plan is approved, agreement is reached among the town planners, the government and the local advisory group on what use the land will be put to.
I think the situation is a little different in so far as the Indian and Eskimo people are concerned. In the case of the Indian people it has been the policy of the Indian affairs branch to acquire lands on behalf of bands of individuals in order that permanent housing may be built in some of these settlements.
However, I understand that the situation is a little different in regard to the Eskimo people. I am thinking of a situation that was brought to my attention within the last month in Tuktoyaktuk where a group made application to purchase lots in the community and made a payment of $5 as a sort of holding payment. About one year later the $5 was returned to the families concerned with the explanation that they could not purchase the land in question because it has not been surveyed and was not up for disposal. The individuals concerned already had their houses on the particular lots. I do not know

6580	COMMONS
Procedure jor Granting Territorial Lands whether or not leases had been issued, but I think this situation does raise the important philosophical and very practical question: What land rights do the Eskimo people have?
At the present time there is a rental housing program under way in the north intended to provide adequate housing lor the Eskimo people. This program is in its second year. Within the next two years it will be completed and the total Eskimo population of the north should have adequate rental housing. These people will be paying rents according to their ability to earn and the size of their families. However, Mr. Chairman, I understand that unless these people wish to purchase these homes-and believe me, Mr. Chairman, it would not necessarily be economic for them to do so in view of the price of oil and utilities in the north-they will never be able to acquire land in their own right.
That is one part of the question. The second part relates to the policy of the department. As I understand it, at the moment lands can be leased for long periods, if necessary, but not purchased unless a survey is undertaken. Many cases have been brought to my attention of people wanting to go ahead and build their own homes and become permanent residents in a community, but they are unable to raise the necessary financing because of the problems of surveying and leaseholding. I hope the minister will be able to comment on the various points I have raised.
This morning I raised the problem of disposal of lands in the north, about which there seems to be some confusion in the minds of many people there. The bill before us today is intended, I firmly believe, to remove a lot of the doubt and confusion. I cannot help but smile to myself when I hear others condemn this government for a lack of activity during the last five years. This period has been the greatest five years in the history of the north. We may have had the opportunity to correct some problems but somehow or other did not get around to it. With those few remarks I hope the minister will be good enough to answer some of the questions I have raised.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the hon. member for Northwest Territories for his intervention. In asking his questions he has given me an opportunity to learn something myself. The departmental change to which he referred eventuated as a result of the establishment of our resource group which today I believe comprises as competent a group as we have in government. We are
tMr. Orange.]
DEBATES	February 9, 1968
proposing to turn over to the resource group the responsibility for the lands here.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The hon. member asked for the definition of territorial lands, which I believe is contained in the bill. I think the hon. member was thinking of large properties such as the one he mentioned along the Slave river, which might be used for agricultural purposes. Such properties might contain several thousand acres of land. He was wondering, since agriculture is a territorial responsibility, whether an application for such land would have to be made to the territorial government.
Soon after a settler settles on a piece of land, he wants to be accommodated with roads and other forms of transport, and that brings the matter back to us. Then we should have to have discussions with the territorial government. Where it is a matter of opening up brand new territory which is large in extent, and of providing for transportation, my answer to the hon. member is that we should need to have conversations with the territorial government.
In the case of the Eskimo people at Tuk-toyaktuk and elsewhere, I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that our main difficulty in the northern territories is to get surveyors in when we want them. This problem applies to a lesser extent to the Yukon territory or to that part of the territory which has a reasonable population. I might say that quite suddenly these days we are attracting a great number of engineering firms to and around the main population centres of the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: They travel all over the territory now.


Arthur Laing: In the Northwest Territories it is much more difficult to bring a group of engineers in for a specific job which might involve only three or four surveys. That can be pretty costly. As a result we are leasing land for 30 years. The leases are conditional, and depend on surveys, but they do enable people to obtain mortgage money. Lands can be occupied and their exact description confirmed by survey. I think that covers most of the questions which the hon. member asked. I thank him for his intervention.


Erik Nielsen: Could the minister elaborate on the problem which concerns public streets and highways, both within municipalities and
February 9, 1968

without. Could he also elaborate on the aspect of mineral developers?


Arthur Laing: I have an idea that streets and sidewalks were probably retained under federal crown authority for the influence that that might have on planning within the area. Since the towns have grown to a large extent I would think that this arrangement, as a protection to the government, has outgrown its usefulness and we shall also look at that aspect of the matter.


Erik Nielsen: What about the mineral developers and their future rights of access?


Arthur Laing: The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle warned me that in the case of lands or Indians, Indians must come first. The hon. member for Yukon says that in the case of Indian lands which are not being used by Indians, the mines must come first. I shall try to steer a middle course and help both hon. members. I am fully aware of our responsibilities to the Indian people, as is the hon. member for Yukon. Probably we are talking about two different types of land. In any event we shall try to see that access is provided for mining companies.
The hon. member knows the encouragements we have given the mining industry in recent years. We build them roads and pay them 40 per cent of their hunting costs-and it is good hunting ground, I can tell you. If they want an airstrip, we pay for half of that. These are all things we are doing to encourage the investment, which has been going on in the area, and these policies are being followed not only in the interest of the parties who are directly concerned but in the interest of Canadian development as a whole.


Erik Nielsen: I could not agree more with what the minister said about policies, but no doubt he will agree with me that these are policies which have been continued by the government. They existed before this government came to power.
I do not want to be misconstrued about this business of putting mines before the Indian people. It is not that, at all. We have here an access problem, a problem involving access over crown grants of land. Not only is the department custodian of Indian lands, but there are also crown grants to private individuals and crown grants of mineral lands. That is the problem.
The problem involves the survey rights and access across the entire spectrum of and private lands. There is an impelling urgency,
Procedure for Granting Territorial Lands because of the rapidly accelerating development going on, to give mineral developers the assurance that they will have future rights of access; otherwise the investment potential just will not be there, especially if investors feel that they will be confronted with land problems.
As the minister knows, some of these mineral developments are away in the hinterland. In some cases roads are constructed entirely by the mining companies and must extend 70, 80 or 90 miles. In so doing they encroach on the surface rights of various classifications of land. I point out that section 73 of the Land Titles Act and section 126 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act gives the minister power to make a declaration that the government assures the mineral developers that they will have future rights of access. That is what I am trying to get the minister to say this afternoon, that he will exercise the discretion that is available to the crown in right of Canada, in respect to this and other relevent sections of federal legislation. I should like to hear the minister give that kind of assurance which is necessary at this time, if developments are not to be retarded.


Arthur Laing: I am told that we can give the kind of assurance that says that we shall look into the matter. There are certain instances where surface rights preclude the interests of a mining company from being developed. Nevertheless if it is advantageous for the economy to let a certain mine go into an area, of course we are interested and will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Issue of Notification
Erik Nielsen: I wonder if the minister can inform me when the government will appoint a registrar of land titles for the Yukon territory?


Arthur Laing: The answer is, almost at once. We expect to incorporate in his office the administration of other resources also. This is because these relate to one another, and a person is sometimes qualified to undertake both.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister say whether the appointee will be a professional lawyer, a barrister or a solicitor? I am sure the minister is aware of the complexities of the laws surrounding the disposal of lands and mineral
February 9, 1968

Procedure jor Granting Territorial Lands rights in the Yukon. I think the appointment of a professional person would be a great advantage.


Arthur Laing: I am sure the hon. member will agree that in the Yukon we have some of the finest public servants anywhere in Canada. I can assure him that when the organization is set up we propose to run as efficient a ship as we have in the past, even more so, with wider powers, covering all of the arts, including the law.


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Chairman, I did not intend any criticism. Once more the minister has taken me wrongly. He knows that until recently the post of registrar of land titles in the Yukon was held by a lawyer in the employ of the government of Canada. The succession of lawyers who occupied that post did excellent jobs. I hope the minister can tell us he will follow the policy of appointing professional people with specialized knowledge of the administrative problems involved. Can he go so far as to say that the appointment which is to be made almost immediately will be of a person of professional standing?


Arthur Laing: This is certainly our intention. The hon. member has used the words "professional standing." It will be necessary to pay a great deal of attention to this appointment because I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that the future of the Yukon is metal and mining.


Erik Nielsen: For a moment, Mr. Chairman, I thought the minister said mental.


Arthur Laing: We will certainly give our earnest attention to the calibre of the people with whom the office is to be filled.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: As I understand this legislation, responsibility for the registration of land titles will be turned over to the commissioners of the two territories. Will the individuals to be appointed be federal civil servants or will they be hired by the territorial governments? If they are to be hired by the federal authority and are federal civil servants, what will be the relationship between the commissioners and these federal employees?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5.
Robert John (Bud) Orange: A matter which has been of great concern to people who live in the smaller communities of the north has been the

land grants made available in the past to missions, and bodies such as the R.C.M.P. Believe it or not there is a lack of building space in the north, particularly in the centre of towns where land grants were made to such agencies many years ago. Many of the-land grants are not being fully utilized by these agencies. Does the minister have any plan to work out arrangements with the Hudson's Bay Company, various missions, the R.C.M.P. and branches of his own department whereby they might release some of their lands for building purposes?
The time has come when we should take a look at large tracts of land held by missions or agencies which are not using them fully. As settlements grow and people move to them they are being forced to build on the fringes of those settlements because of lack of space in the centre. I hope the minister will make some comment on this matter.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with the hon. member. In both territories, but probably more so in the Yukon than in the Northwest Territories, there are grants covering very large properties, dating back to wartime. These are serviced lots and I think a thorough study is necessary of the requirements of the department. I have an idea that this work could probably be done as well by the commissioners as by anybody else.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
On clause 9.
Erik Nielsen: May I point out to the minister that there may have been a mistake in the drafting of this clause. Clause 9(2) sets forth that paragraph (c) of section 2 of the Public Lands Grants Act is repealed "and the following substituted therefor." But that which follows sets forth not only new paragraph (c) but also paragraph (d). I have compared this paragraph (d) with the paragraph (d) already in the Public Lands Grants Act and there is no change in it. Perhaps an amendment would be in order, emanating from the minister, to delete paragraph (d) of subclause (2) in this bill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I hope my legal friend is not being unfair to the farmer's boy. I am informed that the object here is to keep the definitions in alphabetical order. This easy definition may mean something to the hon. member. I hope it does. If not he may have to ask another question.
February 9, 1968


Erik Nielsen: I see what the intention is. I think this is a long way ol going about it. Parliament is not relettering a subsection which becomes (d) but is re-enacting the whole subsection. This seems to be a rather cumbersome way to do it. I am sure parliament does not intend to do things in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, and read the third time and passed.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-28, to amend the Defence Production Act.


Mr.   Kowe@Wellington-Huron: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the minister to make a statement in respect of this bill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be helpful if I were to make a short statement. I should begin by pointing out that this is a bill which has been considered at some length and approved by the Senate. It is a simple bill of a housekeeping and unexciting nature. The purpose is to achieve a more efficient way of doing government business than is possible under the present act. This bill arises from the recommendations made by the Glassco commission. Members of the house will recall that the royal commission under Mr. Glassco discovered that the paperwork involved in the letting of government contracts was unnecessarily detailed and recommended that there be a substantial further delegation of the authority to enter into contracts.
The result of this was that in respect of government contracts, not otherwise governed by statute, and entered into under authority of the government's contract regulations, the Treasury Board would delegate the authority for entering into contracts to departments on a much larger scale than had been the case hitherto. However, contracts entered into by the Department of Defence Production on behalf of the Department of National Defence are entered into under the authority of the Defence Production Act. The Defence Production Act as presently written in section 17, subsection (1), paragraphs (d) and (e), provides a limitation on the authority of the minister to enter into contracts without government approval of the governor in council in
Defence Production Act the amount of $25,000 in cases where no tenders are called, or where there is only one tenderer, and in the amount of $50,000 where there is more than one tender and where the contract is awarded to the lowest tenderer.
Under the government contract regulations evolved as a consequence of the recommendation of the Glassco commission, the authority of departments to enter into contracts without the further authority of the Treasury Board, but with a provision for reporting on such contracts entered into, is limited to contracts in the amount of $250,000 where there have been no tenders or where there is only one tenderer, and $500,000 where there is more than one tender and where the lowest tender has been accepted and a contract has resulted therefrom. There is an obligation periodically to report such contracts to the Treasury Board. The result of this has been that the Department of Defence Production, which has been progressively taking over the purchasing responsibilities of civil departments, and will be taking over the procurement work for all government departments, both civil and military, finds that where procurement is undertaken on behalf of civil departments the arrangements for contracting are carried out within the limitation laid down by the Treasury Board now, namely $250,000 and $500,000.
Where contracts are entered into for the Department of National Defence in respect of defence contracts there is a limitation of $25,000 and $50,000 which involves as a consequence not only disparate procedures but a vast amount of what I think the Glassco commission recognizes to be unnecessary paperwork. The purpose of this amendment is to alter the Defence Production Act in such a way that the procurement for defence purposes under this act will be subject to the same rules and regulations as procurement for civil departments, through the delegated authority from the Treasury Board.
I should point out that in addition to making the limits correspond this also removes a provision in the present act which authorizes the minister to enter into a contract without Treasury Board authority in any amount at all, provided that in his opinion the contract must be entered into immediately in the interests of defence. This was perhaps a wise provision at one time, but it does seem that perhaps it gives the minister unlimited authority which is not required. This particular authority is being removed by means of the amendment to the act which is now before the house.

February 9, 1968
Defence Production Act
In the interests of rationalizing and sim-plyifying the procurement I would commend this amendment for the favourable approval of the house.


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


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, the non. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) intended to say a few words at this time. May I say that those of us who have been here for some years remember the defence production debate of 1955, which went on for so many weeks and days and had so much to do with the downfall of a government at that time. However, this amendment, as the minister has pointed out, is more or less a case of housekeeping. It was suggested by the Glassco commission and is one in respect of which this party gives its complete approval. We have no objection to the passing of this piece of legislation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1.
Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister could answer a question which probably arises from a confusion in my own mind, rather than in his explanatory statement on the motion for second reading. Is the housekeeping effect of this bill the removal of the ceilings from $25,000 and $50,000 without tender to $250,000 and $500,000?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct in so far as procurements for the Department of National Defence are concerned. As I tried to explain, the Department of Defence Production acts as purchasing agent on behalf of civil departments, such as the Department of Agriculture. We have now been instructed by the Treasury Board to operate within limits of $250,000 and $500,000 as recommended by Mr. Glassco. For the past two years we have been doing this in respect of procurements for civil departments.
In so far as procurements for the Department of National Defence are concerned, these are governed by the Defence Production Act and not by government contract regulations. The purpose of this amendment is to bring the practices and procedures for procurement for the Department of National Defence into line with what has and is continuing to be done in respect of procurement for other civil departments.
[Mr. Drury.l


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you. In other words, where there are no tenders the ceilings will be $250,000 or $500,000?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In his remarks at the second reading stage the minister made reference to increasing emphasis and expanded activity of the department in the field of procurement for civil departments. I am wondering why the minister when bringing in this bill to amend the act did not bring in an amendment which would change the name to something more indicative of the role the department is playing. There is a little confusion in my mind, as well as in the minds of people throughout the country, about this business of the Department of Defence Production being involved in the procurement of things for other activities of the federal government. Can the minister tell us why he did not take advantage of this opportunity to bring about a change in name?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There may be some confusion in the minds of the public as well as in that of the hon. member. It is our intention to set up efficient purchasing arrangements for all government departments, including the Department of Defence Production. This is being evolved progressively, and I hope on an orderly basis. When we have a little more experience and know precisely what is needed, a rather more comprehensive bill should be brought forward to incorporate in a single statute those authorities which are now obtained largely through the authority of the Transfer of Duties Act. At that time perhaps the bill will also change the name of the department to one more appropriate than the Department of Defence Production. Perhaps a year hence or thereabouts, would be the right time to do this. As we are not yet prepared to advertise that we are fully in this business, it would be a little premature the change the name now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister is running sort of a department store that has not yet reached the position which would justify an official name. Perhaps the minister could give us some explanation as to the manner in which regional agencies act in respect of procurements, for example, in the province of British Columbia there are times when people are confused as to whether they should approach authorities in Ottawa or Vancouver for information about contracts, eligibility to
February 9, 1968

tender and that sort of thing. Could the minister take advantage of this opportunity to enlighten us, and through us some of the people, as to what the present situation is in respect of regional management in this area of the operations of the Department of Defence Production?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope to be able to reassure the hon. member that in so far as interested people in British Columbia are concerned, they should be able to obtain answers to all these questions from the regional representative in Vancouver. Inquiries seeking information should not be referred by him to Ottawa.
When deciding which procurement should be undertaken locally and which should be undertaken on a national basis we apply the principle that we should follow the procedure which will obtain the best value for the taxpayer's dollar. One has to offset administrative expense in regard to the calling of national tenders for relatively small orders, to satisfy purely local demands, against the slightly higher cost. To take an extreme example, the cost of obtaining a dozen pencils for a local administrative unit in Vancouver would not warrant setting into operation the national tendering apparatus. By the same token one could readily assume that the taxpayer would not get the best possible value for his dollar if tenders for a ship required in Vancouver were called for by the regional office in Vancouver and limited to the province of British Columbia. In the broad general sense the test is related to procurement on the basis of the best value for the taxpayer's dollar. I suppose one could really generalize fairly safely, although all generalizations are supposed to be dangerous, by suggesting that procurement is undertaken by regional offices to satisfy local demands; that is, the demands of administrative units for which they are responsible and for which there exists within their region sufficient competence and interest to ensure that there will be real price competition, and consequently value obtained for their money.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned pencils. This brings to mind another question, as to whether or not the department is engaged in what might be described as the operation of regional warehouses in which there are held such items as pencils, stationery supplies, and so on, from which offices in the regional area requisition their requirements for such items. Is this activity
Defence Production Act being developed in centres like Vancouver, shall we say, where there are quite a large number of federal departments in operation at the regional level?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, this is an activity which is in the process of being put in place. This is one of the things we have not yet accomplished to the point where we would want to change the name of the department, which implies the ability to operate effectively under such a regime. We are now endeavouring to consolidate and forecast demands for all the departments and buy on a consolidated basis, which tends to reduce quite considerably the unit price. We are now endeavouring to have these items contracted for on a large scale, delivered in large quantities and held for distribution and use in regional warehousing centres, as the hon. member suggests. An administrative unit of the government calling for these items of normal use will merely provide a requisition and will be able to get them off the shelf, rather than our having to enter into a separate, individual purchasing arrangement in respect of each item as it arises.
I have one example here of what this program has been able to achieve in the way of savings on one rather prosaic item, namely typewriters. By adopting the system I have outlined, that of consolidating demands, purchasing under a single contract and holding and issuing as required instead of operating under separate purchase contracts, we have in the last 12 month-period been able to save about $94,500 in respect of the year's acquisition of typewriters. I think hon. members will agree that this is a significant and useful system and that we should continue to proceed along these lines.


Mr. Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Chairman,
I should like to ask the minister whether this program has anything to do with the purchase of drugs.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Department of Defence Production does purchase the pharmaceutical needs-I presume that by "drugs" the hon. member has in mind pharmaceuticals-of most government departments, the most important of which, of course, are the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Defence.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Chairman, if it is appropriate, I should like to ask the minister what the experience has been up to

February 9, 1968
Defence Production Act this point with regard to the purchase of generic drugs as opposed to brand name drugs? What practice does the department follow in this regard?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In respect of pharmaceuticals, where we can we purchase by specification rather than brand name. This has the effect, of course, of producing competition between the purveyors of a given specification under a brand name and the manufacturers of the same specification not carrying a brand name, or so-called generic drugs. It as been our experience that in cases-and this is almost universal-where the prescribing physicians are prepared to accept the specification, the result is a significant saving of money. There are of course cases-and responsibility for this must reside ultimately with the prescribing physician-where for professional, clinical reasons a general specification is not regarded as satisfactory and a brand name, which is another way of calling up a special specification, is called for. In those instances one has no choice but to acquire under the brand name.


William Dean Howe: Mr. Chairman,
I apologize for using the word "drugs"; "pharmaceuticals" is certainly a preferable term. I should like to ask the minister two questions. Are these pharmaceuticals sold to the department by tender from various companies under their generic names and, second, has the experience of the department been that doctors will prescribe the generic drug by generic name as readily as they will a brand name? Is this found to be just as effective as far as purchases by the department are concerned?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We do call for tenders by specification, which is neither brand name nor generic name. It is a specification without, in a sense, the name at all. Our experience generally has been that the medical practitioners in the government service using these drugs have been satisfied to prescribe the specification. I tried to explain that there have been some instances where special circumstances, in the view of the medical practitioner, demand the special qualities or what in his view are the special qualities, of a brand name pharmaceutical.
Where this arises we, as a service department, buy what is asked for. We do not try to tell him what he should use. It is our job to acquire what the user wants under the best possible circumstances from the taxpayers'

point of view. But with regard to pharmaceuticals it is the doctor who says what is needed. It is not our job to tell him what he should use.
In so far as the experience of medical practitioners is concerned and whether the pharmaceutical purchased has been satisfactory or not, I would really hesitate to express an opinion. I do not know. The question should perhaps better be directed to medical practitioners. I do know that in the past two years this has been our experience in buying pharmaceuticals, that is, that we purchase according to specification. These pharmaceuticals have been bought, delivered and used in very large quantities indeed, and I suppose one might assume from the fact of their acceptance and consumption that they have produced reasonably satisfactory results.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, I understand that under the Financial Administration Act the minister has absolute power and discretion in respect of contracts up to $250,000, but with regard to contracts of $500,000 he has to receive competitive tenders and the lowest tender is accepted.
* (4:40 p.m.)
My question is whether these tenders are open to the public and whether a report is made of the number of people who tender, the number of tenderers who do not get them, and the reasons why certain people are not allowed to participate in these jobs.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The object of the tendering system is to endeavour to obtain for the purchaser the best possible price arrangement, and unless the tendering system succeeds in doing this, much time and effort is wasted and it becomes an inefficient and costly procedure. To achieve the most effective price competition, and consequently the most advantageous prices, it is necessary to have the prospective sellers believe that the system which is being proposed is a satisfactory and fair one. After some years of experience we have evolved the practice of not disclosing the results of these tenders in an organized way, but making available to anyone interested the publishable information, that is the price, and the name and address of the tenderers if this is desired.
The private opening of tenders by officials of the department is subject to a procedure which is understood and agreed to by the manufacturing industry in general. They have sufficient confidence in the department, and no sense of unfairness is experienced by
February 9, 1968

them. I should mention one general exception, and that is in respect of construction contracts. The construction industry has asked that tenders on construction contracts should be subject to public opening, and this is being done. We would be prepared to have a public opening of tenders in respect of any group of commodities or any industrial operation if the consensus within that industry was in favour of it. Public opening imposes a cost on the tenderers in that one of their representatives must attend this opening and this costs money. Our experience has been that most manufacturers would sooner leave it all to us rather than incur the expense of having a witness attend the opening.
There has been one other exception, a fairly recent one, when the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association asked for a public opening of the tenders for the four D.D.H. naval vessels. As I have indicated, in any instance where the tenderers ask for a public opening, we are only too willing to accede to their request. In the case I mentioned, there was a public opening. Whether or not the shipbuilding industry as a whole will want public openings, I do not know.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, there is just one question which I should like to ask the minister. It came to my mind as a result of his reference to the construction industry. I believe it was the policy in the past when calling for tenders in the construction industry to set forth in the specifications what is generally known as the prevailing wage rate in the area. To the best of my knowledge the prevailing rate was the trade union rate in that area. I should like to ask the minister whether or not this is the present generally accepted policy, and if so why it is that in the recent calling for tenders, of which I have personal knowledge, the prevailing rate in the specifications was sometimes as much as $2 an hour lower than the prevailing trade union rate.
I have also noted that in some instances the rate in the specifications, which was supposed to be the prevailing rate, was almost identical to the rate in a tender which was called in almost the same area four years ago. I am certain that the minister knows there has been a considerable change in the rate of wages and fringe benefits in the last four years, and yet I have recently noted the two instances which I have mentioned. I thinV this is distinctly unfair, and I believe not in accordance with what we were given to
Defence Production Act understand, at least in the past, was the policy of the government in the mapping out of the specifications and calling of tenders, especially in the construction contracts.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman, who is clearly speaking from detailed knowledge of a specific contract, whether this was a contract awarded by the Department of Defence Production or by some other department.


Harold Edward Winch: By some other department, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: He will understand then that I would be hesitant about offering comments on the administrative practices of other departments.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister a further brief question? What is the policy on contracts which come under the minister's department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as we are concerned, the prevailing rates are established by a body which reports to the Treasury Board. These
rates are established by that body as a result of surveys carried out in various regions in Canada. This body, on behalf of the Treasury Board, establishes for the various trades and classifications what are said to be prevailing rates. Whether these are the present union rates, a particular union rate, an amalgam of union and non-union rates, high, low or average, a portion or a quartle of the prevailing rates, I do not know.
If it interests the hon. gentleman, I would be glad to have inquiries made at the Treasury Board and to advise him accordingly. The determination of prevailing rates, however, is not a function of the Department of Defence Production. We merely use the information we receive. The official prevailing rates for government are determined by the Treasury Board.
o (4:50 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: I should not like the minister to have to go to the trouble of getting the rates all across Canada. Perhaps he could assist me by sending me the presently accepted prevailing rates in the construction industry in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. I regret that the hon. member for Wellington South is not here because yesterday I discussed with him an answer to one of his questions directed to the Department of

February 9, 1968
Defence Production Act Defence Production. I have ascertained, and have so advised him, that information obtained subsequent to the preparation of the answer in respect of the contract about which he inquired makes the answer as given no longer valid. I should like, therefore, if I may to make a change in Hansard to the reply to question No. 628, asked by the hon. member for Wellington South. The answer given to part 5, now reads "in Canada". The answer to part 5 would now read-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order.
The minister's request for a change will have to be made when the Speaker is in the chair.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I stand corrected.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to ask three more questions which the minister may be able to answer to help clarify this bill. Will he tell me when the civil procurement procedure was changed to bring it to the $250,000 and the $500,000 that was mentioned? Second, what was the recommendation by the Glassco Commission in connection with changing defence procurement? Was the change to bring it directly in line with civil procurement or did the commission suggest certain figures? Third, is it possible to say what percentage of government procurement is now handled by the minister's department in relation to civil procurement? Perhaps the first answer might help me in trying to rationalize the change, but is there a material change in procurement in the sense that civil procurement is half or three quarters of the government procurement, or what is it? This is what I am trying to get at.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In respect of civil procurement, the change which authorized the department to undertake this work was made on March 18, 1965, not quite two years ago.
In so far as the relationship between the department and the civil field, it is now running on behalf of civilian departments at the rate of $8 million a year. This represents roughly 40 per cent of the total civil procurement. We are half way to doing the total. The figure for procurement on behalf of national defence per year is considerably higher than that. I am not sure whether the hon. gentleman wants that information publicly now or whether I can give it to him privately later.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister, because this was part of my concern. While this is a housekeeping change, I think the minister would agree with me that the change is going to involve many more millions of dollars than

any other change in civil procurement regulations, is that correct?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As things stand now, this is correct.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As I understand it, before the change in civilian procurement, the Treasury Board authorization was $25,000 and $50,000. What was the reason the Glassco commission suggested the increase?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It was increased because the commission, I think quite rightly, reached the conclusion that it was unnecessary, undesirable and inefficient to engage competent staff for procurement in a department such as defence production to buy intelligently, subject to all the normal checks and subject to audit by the Auditor General, and have those transactions reviewed by the staff of the Treasury Board. I think the test as to how much delegation one can engage in is a measure of the responsibility which one feels can be entrusted to others. The view of the Glassco commission, which I must say I would heartily endorse, was that competent, trustworthy people were not being trusted to make full use of their talents by placing responsibility in the Treasury Board rather than in the department itself. This was a waste of time and effort on the part of the treasury staff and is also an encouragement to irresponsibility in the department in that they are not answerable for their mistakes.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Can the minister advise what the limits are, say in the province of Ontario, for tendering for civil procurement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I cannot answer that. I do not know what the practices are in any of the provincial governments.


William Marvin Howe: I wonder if the minister could tell us what departments of government defence production buys for now?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Chairman. They are public printing and stationery, public works, excluding some specialized services; manpower and immigration; Royal Canadian Mounted Police in respect of vehicles; national health and welfare, prosthetic services-I am sorry, national health and welfare is not limited to prosthetic services-Department of Veterans Affairs; Department of Trade and Commerce; Department of Fisheries; Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Department of National Revenue and the Department of Industry.
February 9, 1988


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



AGRICULTURE


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, a short time ago when the house was in committee I believe the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) wanted to say something by way of a correction to a question. It seems to me that if the minister would like to do this there might be a disposition to revert to motions so that he could give the answer that he was not able to give in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it is the wish of the minister to do this I will ask the house for unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the house for its indulgence.
I should like to make a correction in Hansard in respect to the answer given to question No. 628 asked by the hon. member for Wellington South. In light of the remarks I made earlier I wish to change the answer to part 5 of the question to: "in the United States".



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could indicate the business that we propose to submit to the house for its consideration on Monday. We propose to submit item No. 51 on today's order paper, a bill to amend the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act; then item 55, a bill to amend the Income Tax Act; item 57, a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act; and then item No. 43, resuming debate on the second reading of the bill to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.
Oaths of Allegiance Act I should add that consideration is being given to setting aside Thursday, February 15, for a debate on constitutional matters, but I am not able to make a statement on that in absolute form at the moment. Nevertheless I give that indication, and there will be further conferences on this point with the leaders of the other parties early next week.


Mr. Monleith:: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether by his remarks the minister is limiting the debate to one day, or is that open to consultation next week with the leaders of the other parties?


George James McIlraith: My understanding is that the proposal was to limit it to one full day. Perhaps it could be raised with the house leaders next week.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Could the minister tell the house which item of business will be before us when this matter is being discussed?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the form in which it will be presented at the moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will probably be a motion to adjourn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE ACT


William Dean Howe: the second reading of Bill No. C-24, to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act (affirmation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the house very long over this bill; I am sure it can be passed very quickly. This bill is only common sense, as I will try to point out, and it will be well understood why there has been great need for it for some time.
In September 1964 a Dutch couple were refused Canadian citizenship because they would not take an oath stating "so help me God". To this wording there is no alternative, even within the Bill of Rights. According to the Bill of Rights freedom of religion does not allow freedom of no religion. Second, the Bill

February 9, 1968
Oaths of Allegiance Act of Rights was not applicable to this couple because they were not Canadian citizens.
The main purpose of this bill is to declare the rights of Canadians and those who want to become Canadians to freedom of conscience in pledging allegiance by providing that any person in Canada may affirm his allegiance as well as swear to it. A second purpose is to enlarge the pledge specifically to include Canada as well as sovereign. A third purpose is to validate oaths that have been taken in the past, as well as those that may be taken in the future, by persons without religious belief. A fourth purpose is to validate affirmations of allegiance that may have been administered in the past where, by law, an oath of allegiance should have been administered. And finally, this bill would bring the Oaths of Allegiance Act into conformity with the Royal Style and Titles Act, 1952-53 acts, Chapter 9.
In support of this bill I should like to say that, aside from atheists and agnostics, any other people who believe in other than Christianity of Judaism could not in all honesty take the oath as it now stands. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask whether we really have freedom of religion in this country. I should like to quote Dr. J. R. Hord of the United Church, who said, at the time this subject received much publicity in the press:
Canadians boast of their freedom. We are not free to believe in God if we are not free to disbelieve.
Shortly after this, Mr. Speaker, I received a document from the Baptist convention of Ontario and Quebec. This document was a brief, part of which dealt with freedom of and freedom from religion. On this subject it had this to say:
Because the law of Canada, as interpreted by district and provincial courts in Ontario in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Bergsma, seem to bar from Canadian citizenship persons who do not believe in God and are thereby unable to take the required oath, and
Because Baptists have traditionally opposed any religious test as prerequisite to the enjoyment of civil liberties-either political or economic, and Because this law deprives a prospective citizen of liberties enjoyed by native Canadians,
WE-although we believe that faith in God is essential to a full and complete life-
Therefore
(a)	commend Mr. and Mrs. Bergsma for their honesty in refusing to invoke the name of a deity in which they do not believe,
(b)	express our appreciation to the government of Canada for its offer to pay the expenses of testing this law in the case before the Supreme Court of Canada,

(c) request that, in the event that the Supreme Court sustains the ruling of the lower courts, the Canadian parliament should, without delay, remove from our statutes every last vestige of any religious test as prerequisite to the full enjoyment of the civil liberties of native, naturalized and prospective Canadians.
This, Mr. Speaker, is simply one aspect of the bill that I am presenting. Another, possibly more interesting aspect is that at the present time members of parliament are sworn in by an oath of allegiance that is known as the fifth schedule to the British North America Act. It is worded as follows:
X, A.B. do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
The reference to Queen Victoria gives hon. members an idea how old is this provision and how much it needs to be changed to bring it up to date.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The interesting part is that the British North America Act is a British act, and therefore is in English. At present French speaking members of parliament are sworn in by taking a French oath. Since there is no official translation of the B.N.A. Act their oath or acclamation in French is not valid. This bill to amend the B.N.A. Act provides that members of parliament may swear their oath of allegiance with the words "So help me God". Or, they may affirm. Also, since this bill would become a Canadian act, we could have an official French version of the oath in the French language.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-24, which is to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act. The question before us raises further interesting questions, some of them legal, some religious. While I have little familiarity with the legal aspects of Canadian life I do claim to have some familiarity with the religious aspects.
The very question which is considered in this bill, the question of an oath, is somewhat anachronistic, since the roots of this question are buried in the past of our society and in the past of other societies which are much older than ours.
In the past, swearing an oath was taken very seriously. When you gave a man your blessing, and this was taken very seriously, the recipient of the blessing knew that you intended only good things, only pleasant things to happen to him. On the other hand, when a man was cursed, everyone knew that
February 9, 1968

the curse was intended to inflict an undoubted tragedy on the recipient in the unforeseen future. Men took seriously what they said on their honour and what they said under oath.
These days we do not believe nearly so much that the taking of an oath involves the forging of a bond, in some supernatural manner, with a supernatural being. In earlier days people believed something like that. In days gone by people believed in a very real sense that when they swore an oath the divinity was involved. The idea that the divinity is involved is retained in our modem concepts of oath taking, though to a somewhat lesser extent. For instance, in the past when a man swore to uphold his rights as a citizen he was, in a very real sense, expressing his veneration and affiliation with the divinity.
In earlier societies a man's right to citizenship was related to his religious beliefs and development. If a man had reached that stage in life where he felt that he should be accepted as a citizen of a country, he was quite willing to express his belief in and affirm his respect for God.
As the first speaker and introducer of the bill said, our society has moved away from its earlier concepts. Today we believe that for a man to have freedom of religion he must also be free to have no religion. He must be able to say that he does not believe in God. It has been said by many theologians that if man has free will, he has the concomitant freedom to deny the existence of God. As a result the question before us this afternoon entails an accurate reflection of our present society and also a refinement of theological understanding.
Though in an earlier age a man knew what you were talking about when you talked of God, today, when a group of people get together and discuss God, it is difficult for us to know what they mean. Not only in Christianity but in many other religions there is discussion, controversy and confusion, not so much about whether, as one theologian said, "God is," but as to what form He takes. The question becomes very complex and in our search for God we tend to distinguish between God and the state.
This afternoon I wish to talk about the clearcut distinction between man's religious rights and convictions and his allegiance to the state. We have opted for a society which understands the value of an independent church, a church that can reflect on and be the conscience of man and the state. I think it is a mark of maturity in our society that we can distinguish between a man's religious
Oaths of Allegiance Act convictions and his convictions as a citizen. As our Lord himself said in an earlier age, we must render unto God that which is God's and unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's. To the detriment of our society do we lump God and the state together.
Having taken this short diversion into theology I wish to return to the substance of the bill that is before us. It raises some interesting questions about the quality of citizenship in our country today. For instance, we all know that when a person decides to come to this country, decides to become a resident of Canada and a citizen of Canada, he must meet a considerable number of conditions. There is a waiting period of about five years; often this is considered a period of probation during which he must show certain minimum qualities in order to be acceptable as a Canadian. He must study diligently the history of our country and the social and political system under which it operates. He must write examinations and then take part in a formal ceremony of acceptance in a court. He is then officially granted citizenship. In other words, he is acceptable as a Canadian citizen.
I suggest that few in this chamber have undergone that experience, and this is unfortunate. A person said to me the other night that in this country there are two great roles, two great professions, for which one needs absolutely no qualifications. Both professions or functions go to the very heart and soul of our nation. Both need absolutely no qualification. One is to be an elected member of parliament, legislature or city council; the other is to become a parent.
I have had some experience with the political aspect and I am on the threshold of the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Whether I shall be better qualified with respect to the other aspect remains to be seen. Yet I thinir the person who made the observation about our society should have included a third factor, and that is that most Canadians inherit their citizenship. They are Canadians, not because they have chosen to be, not because they have had a chance to exercise a choice, but through accident. They are accidental Canadians. They were born into this country, as I was, and they have inherited their citizenship. They have not had to undergo any trial period. There was no probation, no examination for formal acceptance, and most personally distressing to some of us is the fact that

February 9. 1968
Oaths of Allegiance Act we have no real way of proving we have citizenship. We have no certificates to hand up indicating that we are citizens of this country. I suppose such certificates can be obtained from the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh) for $2 each, and I doubt if there are any extensive examinations, apart from the financial penalty, that would prevent any of us from obtaining them.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Earlier this year we had some discussion in this house about reducing the voting age to 18. There is also something very easy about inheriting the right to vote in Canada. I suggest that we should make much more of our inheriting of Canadian citizenship, not perhaps in a legal way because it might smack of so many other things that are against the grain of tradition. Instead of allowing only our new Canadians to have all the benefit of education for citizenship and for the ceremony that I am sure is invested with great meaning for them, we should assist our accidental Canadians, and these comprise the majority of us, to a more useful development in citizenship through a co-ordination of activities in our schools and other community ventures. If the right to vote has any meaning it has to be tied to the meaning of citizenship itself.
I congratulate the hon. member who introduced this bill in an attempt to clean up one of the anachronisms that exist under our current citizenship laws, but I would suggest we go further to make citizenship meaningful for all Canadians, both those who are new and those who are accidental.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the previous speaker. I think there are very few of us in this house who will forget the Bergsma case when it occurred in 1965, and when the hon. member who introduced this bill gave it so much attention, attention which it rightly deserved.
I am interested in the hon. member's bill because a somewhat similar case occurred in my riding of Victoria, B.C. It concerned a family by the name of van der Pol who, under similar circumstances, were denied the right of citizenship because the judge of the citizenship court when hearing their application, and understanding they refused to give the oath of allegiance, returned the certificates to Ottawa and refused them citizenship.
I hope that this important private members bill before us today will come to a vote. To try

and establish just exactly what I will be voting for if it does, I have gone into the bill as carefully as I could. I have sought the advice of experts, because I am not a lawyer, to interpret some of the implications of the bill. I found this difficult to do, and it points up one of the frustrations of being a private member of this house, in that we have so much to do, so little time to do it in, and so few facilities to help us. Because of this I have found great difficulty in marshalling my thoughts on the matter, but I hope this will not be too obvious to hon. members as I try to outline them. How much easier it would be for all of us if, as private members, we had more research assistance; how much more intelligently we could vote on bills presented to us, such as this bill, if we were able to devote more time to research or had more facilities available to us. I know that this is in the works and that sooner or later we will get more assistance. I most certainly look forward to that day, and I know that a lot of other members do so, as well.
Returning now to Bill C-24 which has to do with the oath of allegiance, may I say that laws are made for the public. They apply to laymen and they must be understood by laymen. As I understand it, as a layman, when one becomes a citizen the taking on of citizenship also assumes the taking on of responsibility for obedience to law, and the taking on of responsibility in the defence of one's country. To give solemn significance to the taking on of such responsibility the oath of allegiance is taken on the Bible, and at the end of it we use the solemn words, "so help me God." The reason for this has been outlined by the previous speaker.
To digress in a personal vein for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and speaking of defending one's country, it has always seemed rather curious to me that the first time the oath of allegiance appears in Canadian law is in the British North America Act, an act of the British House of Commons. I cannot speak for either of the other services but I do know that in the British navy they do not swear an oath of allegiance. Members of the Royal Navy, defenders of the crown and defenders of the country, are not required to be sworn men. In the British navy no officers and no men take an oath of allegiance. Neither did we in the Royal Canadian Navy, as I recall it, until some time during the war when certain members were required to take the oath of allegiance. Those responsible, however, seemed to overlook some of the other men, including
February 9, 1968

myself, and in fact they did not catch up with me until some time around 1952. In the Royal Navy the only exception to this rule was the Royal Marines, who were sworn men.
The substitute for the taking of an oath of allegiance in the British navy was that, every quarter, all members of every ship and establishment were mustered and the Articles of War, which state what a man's conduct is to be in the line of duty, in the face of the enemy and so forth, are read by the commanding officer to the men lined up and, to signify the difference between sworn men and those not sworn, the sworn men were allowed to leave their caps on. These, as I say, were the Royal Marines.
When we in the Canadian navy were required to swear the oath of allegiance we continued with the quarterly reading of the Articles of War, but we still carried on with the matter of taking off our caps, regardless of whether we were sworn or not. I bring this up to show that sometimes traditions are carried on after they have ceased to have any meaning.
Returning to the bill under discussion, Mr. Speaker, I notice that in my research I uncovered the same references which the sponsor of the bill uncovered. At the time of the Bergsma case the public press came out very strongly in support of the suggestion that the law should be changed to permit people to take the oath of allegiance without swearing an oath, not that this was supporting the fact that they should not have any religious convictions but supporting the stand that freedom to believe presupposes freedom to disbelieve.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
This is the reason I was very anxious when the van der Pol case in my own riding, which is so similar to the Bergsma case, was before the court that these people should be provided with some means of becoming citizens without taking the oath of allegiance as it was then written. I think it is useful to remind the house of what the government did on that occasion, because I believe it was a good step. I believe the minister at the time that case came up for final review was hon. Mr. Nicholson. He undertook to have the Bergsma case appealed to the supreme court and the government bore the costs of the appeal. The appeal was granted and the Bergsmas were allowed to become citizens by taking the affirmation rather than the oath of allegiance. It
Oaths of Allegiance Act was because of the precedent set in the Bergsma case that the van der Pols and many others since have come citizens of Canada.


William Dean Howe: This was only in Ontario.


David Walter Groos: The hon. member points out that this was only in Ontario. I should like to mention that at the time the van der Pols were granted their citizenship the minister of citizenship and immigration of that time came to Victoria and presented the certificates to the van der Pols at a special ceremony. So I am sure it applies outside the province of Ontario. We all admit that Ontario is a wonderful province, but some of the wonderful things they do there are also done in British Columbia.


William Marvin Howe: I meant that the precedent was set in Ontario by the Bergsma case, rather than federally.


David Walter Groos: I accept that. Mr. Speaker, the Oaths of Allegiance Act as it stands at present supplies a form of oath of allegiance for use whenever any person is required by law, or desires, to take an oath of allegiance. There are only two stated exceptions-the oath required under the British North America Act, 1867, and the one required by the Canadian Citizenship Act. In both cases the form of oath to be used, which has already been read in the house by previous speakers, is set out.
The act also provides in section 3 that in certain cases no other oath is required, and provides in section 4 for the time within which the oath may be taken. Section 5 of the act allows the prescribed oath to be affirmed by "all persons allowed by law in civil cases in any part of Canada to affirm instead of making oaths". The last section of the act, section 6, designates what persons may administer the oath as set out in the act.
We have perhaps heard enough about the Bergsma case, so I shall not go into that, although I have some fairly extensive notes which I made in respect of that case. In view of the judgment of the court of appeal of Ontario in the Bergsma case I wonder whether any change in the existing law is required in order to achieve the main purpose of the hon. member's bill as set out in the explanatory notes. I have already explained how it seemed to apply to the courts in British Columbia.
The bill would eliminate the two stated exceptions-the British North America Act

February 9, 1968
Oaths of Allegiance Act and the Citizenship Act-retaining only that portion of the British North America Act provision which relates to the provinces, which a federal act could not change in any event. The result would be that the oath of allegiance set out in the amended act would purport to apply to the Canadian Citizenship Act and the British North America Act. Having spoken to members of the legal profession I am of the opinion that it is doubtful whether this would be the actual result, because the bill does not purport to repeal the oath of allegiance set out in the Canadian Citizenship Act, or any of those sections of the Canadian Citizenship Act that specifically state that the oath of allegiance required to gain citizenship is the oath set out in the Citizenship Act. In view of the judgment in the Bergsma case it would appear undesirable to confuse the situation by any amendment at all, but if an amendment still was thought to be desirable the better method of proceeding would be simply to amend the Citizenship Act itself.
I might make an incidental comment concerning the form of the oath. The draft bill is said to enlarge the oath in the existing act by adding the requirement of observing the laws of Canada and fulfilling one's duties as a Canadian citizen. These things may have some relevance to a person newly acquiring citizenship under the Citizenship Act, as being a promise for the future that he must make as a condition under a grant of citizenship, but as noted at the outset the Oaths of Allegiance Act does not purport to provide an oath for that purpose. It provides an oath for other general occasions where it might be required or desirable to have someone swear an oath of allegiance. This was presumably to include persons who already are Canadian citizens and who already have been obeying the laws of Canada and fulfilling their duties as Canadian citizens.
While it probably does no harm to draw these matters to the attention of a person who is already a Canadian citizen, nevertheless it hardly seems appropriate that these matters should be added to a general oath of allegiance. Furthermore, on grounds of policy one may question the two objects of validating past oaths that were wrongly given to persons who, at law, were unable to swear, and of validating past affirmations that should have been oaths. Rewriting the past is, even if justified, somewhat unusual; but unless we are dealing with specific and known instances of injustice, little can be said in favour of a retrospective amendment. At any rate it is

not clear that the purpose is accomplished by the wording in the draft bill. The bill in its proposed amendment to section 5 of the act, in the first subsection, reads as follows:
Where, prior to the 1st day of January 1967 or thereafter, an oath has been duly administered and taken, the fact that the person to whom the oath was administered had, at the time of taking the oath, no religious belief, shall not for any purpose affect the validity of such oath.
Presumably the reference to "an oath" would be broad enough to refer to any oath, not just an oath of allegiance, and the implication that the words "of allegiance" would be read into the section may be open to some doubt because they are included specifically in the second subsection of the proposed section 5 which reads as follows:
5.(2) Where, prior to the 1st day of January, 1967, an affirmation of allegiance has been made instead of an oath of allegiance taken, that fact shall not for any purpose affect the validity of such affirmation which shall be of the same force and effect as if the person who made his affirmation had taken the oath.
Moreover, in conclusion it seems to me that if on its face the proposed new subsection applies to all oaths, it might be declared ultra vires. Therefore I feel that while I sympathize with the objective of this bill I cannot vote for it.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being unkind to a very important group of people I was about to say I have enjoyed very much this discussion on a subject of this kind because I noted that no lawyers participated in it. We are hearing from doctors, clergymen, professors and gentlemen from British Columbia. This may have something to do with the remarkable state of the discussion.
I find this a very interesting piece of proposed legislation. My colleague, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald)-in this case there is double jeopardy today in that two members from Prince Edward Island have discussed the measure-referred to the place of an oath in society. Like that hon. gentleman, I have encountered very devout people in my part of the country who were affronted by the idea of ever taking an oath to tell the truth or to swear to the contents of a document. They felt that the word of a good man was always good and one did not have to buttress it in this way.
Many countries, as we know, in our own western tradition do not require swearing of
February 9, 1968

the oath. The constitution of the United States indicates that the president may assume office and take the oath either by swearing or by affirmation. Interestingly enough, I understand that not a single president has even chosen to affirm. They all have been prepared to swear. It is not surprising, of course, that this should be the case in a country like the United States which, in its inception, laid great stress on the separation of the church and state. This was very much a part of the thinking of the philosophers and political figures of the eighteenth century.
The separation of the church and the state is something very appealing. Many of us are attracted and impressed by the thought that secular institutions like schools should not be schools for religious instruction. Many believe that we should separate the church from the state, and that the state should allow the church to function freely within it. This appeals to many.
On the other hand, there are few things which are clear-cut, or black or white. Our own state is not a wholly secular state. Many of our institutional patterns of government and society are based upon Judaic law and Christian precept. We always open our sittings here with the ceremony of prayers, to which the public are not invited, for historic reasons which I shan't go into.
This bill does to my mind have much merit. It provides for those people who are not Christians; it provides for those people who are not believers in any God or gods, and another group of people, I think not mentioned so far-those Christians inclined to believe that man should not swear. They take very literally the injunction against swearing "by anything in heaven because it is the Lords, or by anything on earth because it is his footstool." These people believe that man should not swear.
Another thing that is very disturbing about the compulsion to oath taking is that it instils hypocrisy. You must take an oath. You have no belief in any deity but you comply and you invoke a deity. This leads to and spreads hypocrisy. As that great debunker of an earlier day, George Bernard Shaw, said: "Sir, I am an atheist, and I thank God for it." This is the sort of situation we are developing by the existing legislation.
Unlike the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Groos)-I believe there are two parts of the bill which are very helpful and might bring a measure of ex post facto equity or
Oaths of Allegiance Act justice to situations which are unfair. I hear an interruption about the other Victoria.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What other Victoria could there be but Victoria, B.C.?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Victoria, Prince Edward Island, is the one I had in mind. It is a most beautiful place. It is a little smaller than Victoria, B.C., but equally sedate, I might say.


David Walter Groos: Distinctive.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was looking at the explanatory notes and I thought perhaps the hon. member, when he referred to enlarging the pledge to include Canada as well as the sovereign, was moving into an area which gave status to the country as a focal point of one's allegiance, just as the Americans have done by using the phrase "My country, 'tis of thee". On reading the proposed bill I see that his mind is not working in that direction. I wonder exactly what is the advantage of a reference to the country, and what is really meant by:
*	'ie faithful and bear true allegiance to
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs ?".t.fU?cessors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
It seems to me the last part of that is redundant. Under a monarchial society, if the crown is the emanation of the law and the centre of authority, an affirmation of true allegiance to the sovereign would naturally imply obedience to the laws which emanate therefrom. It is not sufficient merely to say or believe that we are not a secular state and we must also look pretty carefully at the whole monarchial structure of our society. We get into a very intricate and sensitive area.
If we accept, and we must of course, under present circumstances, the crown as the centre of our political and legal structure, then the addition of the portions of the bill I have read add nothing. They are at best unnecessary. If the hon. member enlarged his scope of allegiance and broadened the focus of the citizens' inspiration, if I may use that word, to the country itself, then he would have made an advance in our thinking if not in our legal structure and our society.
I suppose we might typify this by the two national anthems about which we have talked. One is devoted to the historic institution of the monarchy and the other is devoted to the land itself. I see nothing in the proposed legislation which does broaden the concept in that way.

February 9, 1968
Oaths of Allegiance Act
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Since the inexorable hand of time is cutting me short, and one theologian has already spoken, I say simply that with the exception of the redundant part, which could be misleading and at best is unnecessary, I find much value in this piece of legislation. Therefore I will desist from further remarks so we will have time to take an orderly vote on the bill.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I read with a great deal of interest my hon. friend's bill, and I praise him warmly for his initiative. He had a very commendable thought for those whose religious convictions are different from those of some important sectors of the population. I think that it is quite appropriate to change, if need be, the institutions as well as the wording, in order to enable those who are entitled to their convictions to be normally accepted in our civilized society.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, in view of the decision rendered in the Bergsma case the bill under consideration is now unnecessary, in my opinion, because it does not add anything new or change the situation. In fact, the Ontario court of appeal ruled that section 15 of the act was of general application with regard to making a solemn statement instead of taking an oath.
Such a ruling makes the bill under consideration unnecessary since its passage would not change the situation, as the matter has been settled by the Ontario court of appeal and constitutes precisely a solution to the problem which the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Howe) generously wished to settle.
I notice that the form submitted to us is respectful of the traditions of our country, in that we live under a constitutional monarchy.
The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) was happy to point out a moment ago the efforts made by the hon. member for Hamilton South with a view to eliminating archaisms and an obsolete terminology. However, if we refer to the proposed terminology, we note that the hon. member does not act in accordance with his convictions, which are well known to me. In suggesting this wording, he is respecting a certain traditionalism which is basically distasteful to him.
I had the opportunity of participating in a debate which took place in Quebec city before an audience of about 1,500 people.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
Another participant was professor Charles Taylor, one of the great minds behind the doctrine of the New Democratic party and one of the foremost personalities in the political group to which my hon. friend belongs.
The hon. member for Hamilton South represents an N.D.P. riding. By the way, in France, representatives are called by their name and not by the name of their riding, a tradition which we might perhaps adopt in this house. The hon. member for Hamilton South has made a suggestion which is basically incompatible with the political philosophy he professes to believe in and which is advocated by his colleagues. In Quebec, in front of 1,500 people, professor Taylor said that his political party was not opposed to the abolition of the monarchy in Canada.
I am convinced that even the member for Waterloo South is of this opinion, and I suggest he somewhat lacked courage in proposing that terminology.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I speak in this fashion I am not acting as a spokesman for the party to which I belong; I am expressing a personal opinion and, in fact, I am expressing it courageously, because I know that I may be stirring antagonism, if not hostility, against me.
I should have liked the hon. member to have shown the same courage and said what he really thinks, because I know that the policy of the New Democratic party has not yet reached the stage where they advocate the establishment or the continuation of a constitutional monarchy in Canada. I know that full well, and I trust the member will some day have the courage to say so officially just as the Quebec Liberal Federation did two weeks ago.
I admit that this may hurt the feelings of the premier of Newfoundland who, on the other hand, has the guts to state positively his traditionalism and who does not do so in an evasive way, in short who says things the way they should be said according to his convictions. We ought to respect the convictions of the premier of Newfoundland. However, when we have our own convictions, we must, at least, have the guts to state them emphatically.
Mr. Speaker, I make an appeal. The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) said earlier: Let us avoid archaism. Well, there is, in Canada, a young generation which does not quite admit a certain traditionalism becoming more and more outdated. I wish that some
February 9, 1968

day the feelings and convictions of the young generation will be taken into consideration- and when I refer to the young generation I mean the English-speaking as well as Frenchspeaking young people-and let us get out of the rut of the old traditionalism in which some old conservatives would like us to keep forever.
Oaths of Allegiance Act Let us keep up with the times, let us be proud of our Canada and let us Canadianize our institutions. In that way we shall uproot any separatism in Canada.
IEnglish]


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
27053-416J
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 12, 1968