1969-06-19

Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions through the usual channels and I think there may be a general disposition in the house this morning to deal with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-197, item 79 on the order paper, before calling item No. 90, Bill C-207.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I think the simultaneous translation system is not working.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If there is general disposition to deal with those two stages of Bill C-197 without debate I would appreciate Your Honour's calling them first.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there is general disposition. I understand that the bill in question involves a further amendment to the Criminal Code in respect of off-track betting. When the matter is brought forward the representative from this party,, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), will simply indicate the reason we are agreeing to this rather unusual procedure at this time. Apart from that, we have no objection to what is being proposed by the minister.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That will be satisfactory to us, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) was our representative on the committee and, as everyone knows, he voted for the bill. If he had not done so, the bill would not be back here.
fTranslation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, we can hardly comment on the minister's statement, since we did not hear a word of it. The simultaneous translation system must be
in working order if we are to take part in the debate.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I can repeat the whole thing in French. The purpose of the bill before us is to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with off-track betting.
I consulted this morning the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) and he agreed on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste to such procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: That Bill C-197, to amend the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Monday, June 16, 1969 be concurred in.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I be permitted to ask for the unanimous consent of the house to allow the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to now explain why-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
can be done on third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, it can be done on third reading.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, we will wait until third
reading.


Mr. Speaker:: This is a little early to start our proceedings.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-197, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a

June 19, 1969
Criminal Code
little early, especially when you consider we are sitting late-ten hours a day.
[DOT] (10:10 a.m.)
The committee which studied this bill was composed of members from all parties. The bill was thoroughly examined. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, there was a vote on the bill. Without going into great detail I should like to point out why we agree with the bill. In respect of this matter some background was created by a decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario and other courts regarding off-track betting, which has caused what might be called a vacuum in the Criminal Code.
In fairness to the minister and the officials of his department, I would point out that the Attorneys General of the ten provinces asked that parliament approve an amendment which would plug this hole in the Criminal Code. There was in committee discussion as to whether the provinces should not be left in the position where they could draft rules and regulations controlling off-track betting, because on-track betting is allowed. The argument against this suggestion derived from letters many of the Attorneys General had received, some of which were read into the record of the committee proceedings. It was argued that if we adopted the suggestion we would make it easier for syndicated crime to move into Canada. There is some question whether that is correct and whether just as much crime moves into Canada because we drive bookmakers underground. We were told in committee that something like $2 billion is spent illegally in Ontario on horse race betting. We were also told that probably just as much syndicated crime will move into Canada if this hole is plugged.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) took his responsibility in this matter very seriously. He undertook to study the matter further and review and discuss it with the Attorneys General of the provinces with the idea of reaching agreement on the question. If agreement is reached, the law may again be changed and off-track and other kinds of betting legalized; but it would be legalized with the proper rules and regulations drafted in order to control the movement of criminals into this field.
I have personal experience in this matter, gained through my legal practice. I have dealt with cases concerning bookmaking. Off-track betting is carried out in every part of Canada. We are like ostriches, sticking our heads in the sand, because even if we plug this hole in
IMr. Woolliams.]
the Criminal Code I do not think it will reduce by one dollar the amount of money spent on off-track betting. This has been my personal experience. The Canadian people are divided into three sections in this respect; there are those who are against off-track betting and live up to their principles in this regard, there are those who are against it but still bet off-track, and there are those who believe we should have lotteries and horse race betting on and off track. I say with tongue in cheek that we are a little hypocritical when referring to our standards in this regard.
I conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Justice has on behalf of the government undertaken to review the situation and discuss it further with the provinces with a view to coming forward with practical, realistic legislation. Because of this we agree that the bill should receive third reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is the best speech you have ever made.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



ATLANTIC REGIONAL FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-207, to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic region-Mr. Jamieson- Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
James Hugh Faulkner: When the house rose on Tuesday, June 17, clause 2 was under consideration. Clause 1 was allowed to stand. Shall clause 2 carry?


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Chairman, I was unfortunately attending a committee-it may even have been the transport committee finalizing the report on this bill-and did not participate in the discussion under clause 1. As I understand it, we stood clause 1. I ask whether I have an opportunity to speak in a general way on clause 1 without getting into the specifics of clause 2. I ask the question because, as I say, I was not in the house when this matter was last discussed and
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
should like to deal with a few matters concerning clause 1 in a general way before we get down to specifics.


James Hugh Faulkner: The theory is that the discussion should be restricted to clause 2 and the general discussion would be at the end, on clause 1. If the committee would like to reverse that procedure, I am in its hands; but that is the way I propose to approach the matter.


Mr. Jamieson:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. member's very real interest in this matter, I would welcome an opportunity to hear his general views, if the committee were so disposed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Hugh Faulkner: Then we will have a general discussion on clause 2.
On clause 2-Definitions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister and the committee for their indulgence. I would like to compliment the minister upon his initiative in bringing forward Bill C-207. He has noted that the bill has special reference to the constituency I represent and to the larger constituency of the Atlantic area. As the minister and people in the Atlantic area know, matters have been sort of left in the air as far as special assistance and/or a freeze on freight rates are concerned. The late lamented Bill C-182 introduced earlier this session provoked more by way of adverse reaction than it did by way of the resolving of problems.
With regard to the general principle of Bill C-207, I am in favour of extending assistance to the truckers. Assistance provided under the Maritime Freight Rates Act applies only to the railways. This bill at least recognizes that other modes of transportation, and trucking in particular, should also receive assistance. This principle conforms with the reports of commissions which have studied the problem. I refer to the study of transportation problems in the Atlantic region, the economic units study and the Atlantic premiers task force. These bodies submitted their views on the question of Atlantic transportation to the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Trinity.
I do not want there to be any misunderstanding in this regard. We on this side of the house are not against assistance being given to the trucking industry. The railways have
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act in effect been favoured, and the truckers discriminated against, with subsidies from the federal government. I am disappointed however that Bill C-207 does not go far enough. I have read the minister's remarks of last Tuesday morning. That was another morning sitting. He said this is an interim measure and a more comprehensive plan would be developed and laid before parliament at a later date. On that understanding some of my disappointment is abated and diluted.
[DOT] (10:20 a.m.)
Hon. members who are not from the Atlantic area perhaps do not understand the particular problems there or the implications of the Maritime Freight Rates Act as it affects movement of freight both in and outside the Atlantic area. Quite frankly, there are many people in the Atlantic area involved in transportation who sometimes have difficulty, as do members of parliament, in understanding the full implications of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which was enacted by parliament in 1927 and which, to the people in the east, is a confirmation of the undertakings that were given to the Atlantic area before they joined Confederation. We do not all have whiskers in the Atlantic area and we do not always talk about history, although we have many historic sites. I did not mention this historical fact for the purpose of simply narrating it but because, as the minister and as members from the Atlantic area are well aware, some members of this house have the mistaken impression that this is just another protest by the Atlantic area.
Although I admit that the federal government has not helped the Atlantic area with one or another handout, I wish to state categorically, in speaking about the general principle of the bill, that it does not follow the trend which was started by the Duncan commission away back in the 1920's and which is evident in the preamble of the Maritime Freight Rates Act of 1927, enacted some 60 years after Confederation. The Maritime Freight Rates Act was the real confirmation of the undertakings which induced the original four provinces to form this nation which now stretches from coast to coast.
It is in that context that we are speaking about Bill C-207. The Maritime Freight Rates Act gave assistance to the movement of rail traffic in what is known as the select territory. Generally speaking, the select territory is in the Atlantic area, but in effect it is territory south of the St. Lawrence and east of
10372	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act Levis. Within that select territory rail traffic now receives a subsidy of what is in effect 20 per cent, and rail traffic that is westbound out of the select territory receives financial assistance from the federal government amounting to 30 per cent. The assistance is given on the premise and according to the principle that in a nation which stretches from coast to coast and which covers such vast and wide distances financial help must be given to carry goods from the Atlantic area into the marketplaces not only in central Canada but into the marketplaces of all of Canada.
It was on that basis that it was recognized in 1927 that something must be done. Confederation never would have come about the way it did had some undertakings not been given to the Atlantic area, which at that time had a profitable trade north and south to the New England states, partly because of sailing ships, which were the dominant mode of traffic at that time, but also because of a geographical position which lends itself to transportation north and south. Perhaps the same might be said about British Columbia where the freight traffic and business interests are more naturally directed north and south than east and west.
It was on this basis that the Maritime Freight Rates Act came about. We in the east feel that it is just as much our charter of human rights as those in the west feel about the Crowsnest Pass. The same would apply to the minister's own province where term 31 or 32 of the Act of Union brought Newfoundland into confederation in 1949. I know that at the time the minister was not swayed by the interests of Canada and by term 31 or 32 because he had some other views about Canada, views which were shared by a multitude of good people in Newfoundland. The fact is that two terms were written into the Act of Union-which unfortunately did not apply as firmly in the case of Nova Scotia in 1867-which guarantee transportation assistance to Newfoundland, because of the problems faced by that province being an island out in the Atlantic and even farther away than Nova Scotia from the markets in Canada.
So in the east we have the term 31 or 32 of the Act of Union, in the west we have the Crowsnest Pass, and in the Atlantic area, or the select territory, we have the Maritime Freight Rates Act. To me these are fundamental documents in any discussion of transportation problems in Canada.

Following that brief preliminary historical perspective, I want to get down to the specifics of Bill C-207 which in my view does not go far enough and at the same time opens up a door the result of which would be to nullify the principle of the charter of transportation in Atlantic Canada. This bill does not go far enough in doing no more than recognizing the National Transportation Act which, as the minister well knows, was passed by parliament in the last session under the then minister of transport who is now chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, another able man and an adopted Newfoundlander, namely Mr. Pickersgill.
I was a member of the house and a member of the Transport Committee when the transport bill was debated. One of the fundamental principles of the bill, which is now an act, was that no mode of transport, be it rail or trucks, was to be subsidized by the federal government at the expense of another mode or, to put it another way, that transportation was going to have to pay its own way. I have described it in a very general way.
What happened then? Some changes in freight traffic took place in the Atlantic area. It was not too clear whether the Maritime Freight Rates Act covered some of the changes made in the rail traffic. The truckers quite rightly asked: Since it was specified in the National Transportation Act that no subsidy would be given to any mode of transport at the expense of another, why does parliament continue to recognize the Maritime Freight Rates Act which still gives a direct subsidy to rail traffic? This question was eventually considered by the government and the minister of transport of that day, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) gave some thought to the implications. Eventually Bill C-82 was brought in to give temporary assistance in the east, but the truckers continued to be left out of the picture.
Under Bill C-207, as I read it, assistance will continue to be given to rail traffic, but the only assistance that will be given to the truckers is for movement by trucks out of the select territory. In other words, initially under this act truckers will not receive any help in their operations within the Atlantic area, as will rail traffic, but only for traffic movements that are westbound, in effect beyond and west of Levis. It is only in this way that the trucking industry will be able to pick up the benefit of the 30 per cent subsidy from the federal treasury.
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
I do not want to belabour the point, Mr. Chairman, because I was assured that this was an interim measure. Many truckers today feel that the measure has not gone far enough but that at least it recognizes the principle that trucking should receive financial assistance if rail traffic receives it.
[DOT] (10:30 a.m.)
Under the Maritime Freight Rates Act assistance was provided to the railways. This was one of the conditions of Confederation. The truckers naturally say the bill has not gone far enough. They have not been given the measure of assistance which the railways have received in respect of movement in the Atlantic area, but their hope is that once the principle is recognized in respect of westbound traffic the government may remove the discrimination which now exists. Traffic within the region is called intra-movement.
I do not think the bill goes far enough, because we all hope to develop a thriving trucking industry in the Atlantic area, and, frankly, on the basis of legislation of this type I cannot see any marked development as being likely. We do not have a large market in the region and our principal population centres are relatively small in size. Of necessity we use broken lots when freight is moved. The truckers can obviously carry a good deal in their new truck and trailer transports. I suggest that a system whereby full cars are sent by rail from Montreal, Toronto and other places to a central distribution point, from which they could be delivered by truck to individual consignees, would do a great deal to develop a better transportation system in the area. Yet movement of this type receives no benefit under the bill.
If it had been made clear, preferably somewhere in this legislation, that this was only an interim measure and that a comprehensive measure would be introduced in the fall I might not have said nine-tenths of the things I have said today. There is another aspect which causes me concern; one might regard it as the other side of the coin. The bill does not recognize the position of the truckers vis-avis the railway. There is still discrimination in favour of the railroad; there is not much doubt about that. The minister's answer will be, of course, that we are dealing now with an interim measure. When I look through the bill I see that clause five, when read in connection with clause six, will hopefully provide some assistance to the truckers. It seems to me that clause five deals with the power which becomes necessary if this is to be an
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act interim measure. Clause 5(1) says that regardless of what is contained in the Maritime Freight Rates Act the Governor in Council may vary or remove the reduction in tariffs for the preferred movements of traffic prescribed; and so on. Reading clause five and six together I conclude that any savings would be used to provide supplemental assistance to the trucking industry.
The minister made a good speech, but I have difficulty in understanding why, if this is an interim measure, the minister needs this power given him in clause 5(1), because reading clauses 5 and 6 together, as I understand the legislation, the rate freeze is to be extended to March 23, 1970, which is nine months from now. Clauses 5 and 6 as I understand them do not come into effect until the expiry of the rate freeze on March 23, 1970 or earlier if the freeze is ended by proclamation. If there is no proclamation, then clause 5 does not even come into effect. Is that not correct?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The minister suggests no. In that case I would be interested to hear his further explanation of clauses 5 and 6, because as I read them they do not come into effect until the rate freeze has expired, something which will occur, if this bill is passed, in nine months time unless the minister takes some other action by way of proclamation. I believe the purpose of clauses 5 and 6 is to make some reduction in tariffs and, out of this reduction, to give more assistance to the truckers.
Bearing in mind the amount of discrimination which still exists I suppose the trucking industry would like to see clauses 5 and 6 used to wipe out the interim subsidies to the railroads which this bill provides. What puzzles me, as the representative of a maritime riding and one who has taken an interest in the Crowsnest Pass situation-I was out there for seven years-is that there is no restriction whatsoever under 5(1) on the power of the cabinet to vary or reduce the tariffs on this preferred movement. As I read the bill it is not outside the realm of possibility that the cabinet could castrate the very core of the Maritime Freight Rates Act by eliminating tariffs altogether on this traffic movement, using as justification the argument that it was paying supplemental assistance to the truckers on a selective basis.
As hon. members are aware, the present Maritime Freight Rates Act can be changed only by legislation. I put it to the minister
10374	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19. 1999
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act that taking action on the lines I have indicated under clause 5 would be analogous to amending the Crowsnest Pass agreement; it would be like using the power given by order in council to vary or remove those rates which are of such importance to the west. It would be like giving the cabinet power to vary by order in council term 31 or term 32, if it wished to do so.
[DOT] (10:40 a.m.)
Frankly, I cannot agree to such wide power being given to a cabinet, no matter how laudable the purpose, without restriction or some time limitation. I find it even more difficult to accept the necessity for this power, in view of the statement of the minister himself who said that this bill is an interim measure.
I suggest, reading clauses 5 and 6 together, that unless there is proclamation beforehand, these provisions cannot effect the purpose outlined by the minister the other day, namely to grant selective assistance to a certain amount during the next nine months. Surely the government will have a comprehensive Atlantic transportation policy by the fall, and this is certainly within nine months.
The minister is aware of the ironic situation that the Transportation Committee faced. I am a member of that committee and the report on the trip to the Atlantic region which took place last February was given the finishing touches on the Friday that the bill was given first reading in the house. Although the bill and the committee report dealt, in part, with the same subject matter, there was not of necessity any relationship between the two. In fact, the bill was given first reading, second reading and then sent to committee of the whole before the report of the transportation committee was tabled the following Tuesday.
I do not want to become partisan or to digress at this point. We are debating a bill dealing with Atlantic transportation that is supposedly an interim measure, and as I say the bill was introduced before the committee report really came before the house. I appreciate the minister says that this interim measure had to be brought forward, and we ourselves wanted some action taken. But let me return to clause 5. I really cannot understand why the minister or his cabinet needs to strike, in effect, at the very core of the Maritime Freight Rates Act and vary or remove tariffs for preferred movements of traffic as mentioned in the bill. As I said earlier, this 
provision regarding rates was one of the conditions on which Newfoundland entered confederation, and any such variation would be analogous, in my view, to giving the government power to vary, for example, freight rates through the Crowsnest Pass or to varying term 31 or 32 by order in council. It really strikes at or castrates the very principle of the Maritime Freight Rates Act.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, reading these two clauses together, that they will not meet the purpose for which they are designed, because unless there is proclamation of the lifting of the freeze on rates they will not be able to take effect. If proclamation is given and the rates freeze is removed, then why does the government need the power to vary or remove the tariffs? Let the government bring in its new comprehensive Atlantic transportation bill. This is the major feature of this bill that I find difficult to accept.
Firstly, I say the bill does not go far enough in regard to the removal of discrimination between the railways and truckers. However it does recognize the principle of assistance to truckers, and I hope that this principle will be extended in the comprehensive policy of the government so that discrimination will no longer exist. I will not belabour that point.
My second point is that the bill may not have the result that is desired by the minister. I think the effect of clauses 5 and 6 taken together, and especially clause 5 (1), is to bring about a complete change in the principle of the Maritime Freight Rates Act by making arbitrary changes by order in council without recourse to parliament, as is presently the case.
I also appreciate that in their task force report the Atlantic premiers suggested that there be selective help. I think they went a long way to get rid of this blanket subsidy of 20 per cent for movement within the selected territory and 30 per cent for movement without the selected territory. I think many commissions have always found this to be effective as a result of across-the-board increases and such matters.
I am in favour of selective assistance, but the four Atlantic premiers were very firm about this in the brief that was requested by the hon. member for Trinity. The political affiliations of the four Atlantic premiers are well known; three support the government and one does not. But they did reach unanimous agreement, and the summary of their brief is to the effect that nothing be
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
done in regard to the tariffs for preferred movements until some federal-provincial agency is set up to assess the implications of any changes in such movements in and out of selected territories. Following that assessment the agency could then determine on a selective basis what to take from here and give there.
I think this is a real step forward and meets any objection that might be taken by those in the east because it removes the blanket subsidy principle and substitutes assistance that is granted on a selective basis.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Badanai):: Order.
I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, unless he has the unanimous consent of the committee to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to make one additional point in conclusion before I move on to deal with some of the other clauses about which I should like more details. I thank the members of the committee for granting me their indulgence in order that I may continue.
Even those who come from the east find that this is a pretty complicated and involved subject. For example, reference must be had to three or four different acts in order to get the full impact of the provisions contained in clauses 5 and 6. The leaders of the four provinces directly affected by the provisions of the bill have stated they are in favour of drastic change. They want the blanket subsidy principle rescinded because it has been found wanting in certain areas. They now want selective assistance given to the truckers and the railways, with no discrimination.
I should like to see us carry out the principle enshrined within the National Transportation Act that we passed in the last parliament. The Atlantic premiers start in, as it were, not backside to, but I think frontside front, by saying that the government should set up an agency, certainly something far more substantial than the committee referred to by the minister in his remarks on Tuesday, which to me could be a most flexible arrangement, a body not cemented in any legislation, and certainly not in this legislation.
The Atlantic premiers asked for a comprehensive transportation policy. They want a federal government agency to look after the peculiar problems of transportation in the Atlantic region and to co-ordinate its activities with representatives of the provinces.
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act Change is required. The blanket subsidy principle has created problems. However, before any change is made, let us assess the effect of such change on the business communities in the area, and, if beneficial, then grant selective assistance.
[DOT] (10:50 a.m.)
The minister says that he will not move in certain areas until the committee makes certain recommendations. I point out that the committee has nothing concrete before it. There is nothing firm about this bill; it does not lay any foundations. Since clause 5(1) is an interim measure which may not come into effect unless certain other regulations are proclaimed after a period of nine months, I question the wisdom of including it in the bill.
Surely the minister is now in a position to act on the useful and constructive committee report that was agreed to unanimously by all committee members and tabled in the house on Tuesday. That report contains the basis for transportation policy, I submit. A similar report has been in the hands of the minister or of departmental' officials for many months. I say that you do not need clause 5. The government's attempt to change articles 31 and 32 of the contract, as a result of which the maritime provinces entered into union with the rest of Canada, is analogous to the former attempt it made to change the Crows-nest Pass agreement by order in council.
Surely no one can argue that articles 31 and 32 can be varied, affected or altered by order in council. That being so I do not understand the necessity for this interim measure. If the minister wants the wide powers ostensibly contained in clause 5(1), why does he not take the burr off his backside and bring in a comprehensive transportation bill in the fall. This bill will be sent to committee and, frankly, I am worried in case we shall have committeed this concept to death. The minister has the committee's recommendations; they are comprehensive. I should like to see some guarantee that we shall see a comprehensive bill covering this question in the fall.
I will not take up any more of the time of the house, except to say that I do not think the bill goes far enough in removing the existing discrimination between rail and truck forms of transportation. I agree that some assistance will be given to truckers. My real objection to the bill is that it completely undermines the transportation charter we were given under the Maritime Freight Rates
10376	COMMONS DE3ATES	June 19, 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act Act. That transportation guarantee or undertaking is one of the primary reasons underlying the fact that eastern Canada joined the rest of the country. It is a pretty good country but it will not get much better if the rights eastern Canada has enjoyed since Confederation are to be potentially chipped away by order in council.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I know that on Tuesday when we adjourned debate it had been agreed to stand clause 1 on the understanding that we would discuss the bill clause by clause. What stage have our discussions reached, now? Are we to have a general discussion, or are we to consider clause 1 and then continue with consideration of other clauses. I wish to know where we stand and where we may move amendments.


James Hugh Faulkner: The understanding was, I think, that the general discussion would take place on clause 2. We are on clause 2 now.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief comments on this piece of interim legislation. They will be of a fairly general nature. I think it is necessary for parliament to introduce this legislation at this time but I share the reservations about it which have been expressed. It empowers the Governor in Council to curtail some of the benefits which have been enshrined in the Maritime Freight Rates Act and to vary the provisions of pieces of legislation which could only have been varied in the past by parliament itself. No doubt later in this discussion the minister will explain why he thought it necessary to do this.
I now wish to make a few general remarks about the problems of the Atlantic regions, about their economic positions generally and about the relationship existing between these problems and transportation costs. Basically it seems to me that the problem facing the Atlantic provinces is this: Ever since Confederation, because of our tariff system-and I am talking about custom tariffs and not about rail or transport tariffs-there has been a tendency to concentrate our secondary industries in central Canada. As a result we, in the Atlantic provinces, have suffered over the years from this trend towards centralization. The maritime region, including Newfoundland, now finds that almost everything it has to sell has to be exported to world markets. I am speaking about our pulp, paper, minerals, fish and so on. On the other hand we have, 
in effect, become a captive market for the centralized industries of central Canada.
If this bill were to provide the assistance that would make it possible for secondary industries having markets in all Canada to be developed in the maritimes, I would support it 100 per cent. No doubt the idea behind this legislation is to put secondary industries in the maritimes on an equal footing with those of central Canada and to give them equal opportunities in reaching Canadian markets. I am afraid I must say, and experience bears me out, that this assistance will not be enough to accomplish that purpose. This bill will not put the maritime producer or manufacturer on an equal footing with the producer or manufacturer of central Canada so far as major markets are concerned. We cannot bring this about by simply reducing freight costs by 20 per cent or 30 per cent, or whatever the figure may be. The bill will be of assistance in those cases, confined to a limited segment of the whole spectrum of production and manufacturing, where industries in the Atlantic provinces can compete with those in central Canada. Therefore, any help that does not get us over the threshold, as it were, of making our industry truly competitive in the Canadian market generally is no help at all. Of course it win have a beneficial effect on our existing industries which are in a good competitive position vis-a-vis our competitors in the rest of Canada.
The fact remains that, despite this assistance, and for reasons having nothing to do with such assistance, industries in the maritime provinces have been limited to those industries capable of maintaining a good competitive position vis-a-vis the rest of Canada. When a more comprehensive program of permanent assistance to transportation in the maritimes generally is proceeded with, I should like to see the minister giving consideration to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which deals with road construction, the prospective construction of the Prince Edward Island causeway and so on. I hope he reviews matters of this sort from time to time and studies at least the problem of the maritimes in the field of transportation. In spite of the artificialities in this country from an economic point of view so far as customs tariffs are concerned, we ought to realize that the natural markets of the Atlantic provinces are to a great extent overseas markets such as the West Indies.
June 19, 1959	COMMONS
[DOT] (11:00 a.m.)
My contention is that a given amount of assistance in freight rates or assistance to the transportation of maritime products to natural markets such as the West Indies would do more and be of greater assistance to the industries in the maritime provinces than merely freight assistance from the Atlantic region to other parts of Canada as provided for in this legislation.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, I support the concern echoed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. In my opinion it is a very shoddy way of handling house business to have this bill before the house at this time when the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is meeting at eleven o'clock. The other day the standing committee was meeting at the same time this bill was introduced. I believe all members of the standing committee are most concerned about hearing the debate on this bill. It is rather difficult to have a continuing effort on the part of all hon. members if this method of handling house business is to continue. I ask the minister through you, Mr. Chairman, to do something to provide other means of handling legislation that he will be bringing before the house because I am sure this also puts him in an embarrassing position.
My colleagues in my party stated our position the other day and I will not repeat it. The main concern of many people today is whether the benefits of any assistance given to any form of transportation will go directly to the users. Another concern has been expressed wThich I wish to repeat. In the event assistance is granted to the trucking industry, where trucking companies are owned by the railways there must be controls and safeguards in the legislation and regulations to ensure there will not be a monopoly in the setting of rates. I believe this matter has been fully gone into. It is a concern of many people in this country. If there is a monopoly and these concessions are made throughout the industry, they may overstep their rights in this regard. The minister in particular should watch this very closely.
I support the concern expressed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley with regard to section 5(1) as outlined in the news release of the Minister of Transport. I shall pose two questions for the minister's consideration. I will have to read Hansard to find out his
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act answers. In the third paragraph of the minister's news release he states:
-it had been decided instead to ask Parliament to give the Governor in Council authority to remove this assistance on various commodities or classes of traffic as recommended by a new joint federal-provincial committee which will be set up for this purpose.
On the last page of the news release it is indicated:
The new bill incorporates the substances of Bill C-182 introduced on March 19, 1969, under which it was proposed to extend for one year the existing freeze on non-competitive carload rail freight rates on Atlantic region shipments, but it provides that the freeze can be terminated before the end of the year by the Governor in Council.
I may be unjustly concerned about power being given to the Governor in Council, but I have always been of the opinion that those people most directly concerned with any legislation should have a say in any changes that may be made in that legislation. I am pleased to see there has been a recommendation to establish an Atlantic Region Transportation Board. I ask the minister to clarify why some other avenue of authority could not be utilized to determine the freight rates the minister referred to in his news release. I am sure he can make that point much clearer.
It appears that clauses 5(1) and 5(2) require to be looked at closely. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley has already referred to the portion which states that the Governor in Council may vary or remove. This merits some consideration and possibly revision. Possibly the minister will be prepared to accept amendments which may be forthcoming to clarify this picture. It poses some questions in the minds of some members of our party. The fear in this regard was quite ably expressed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. I mentioned previously that the Governor in Council has been given considerable power in these provisions. I ask the minister to clarify the concerns I have expressed when he replies.
It seems strange indeed that when the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was in the east examining the over-all problem, an announcement was made in the house that the Prince Edward Island causeway would not be proceeded with. Maritime freight rates were considered by the cabinet and the minister without being considered by the committee. There is not much use in a committee of this house travelling throughout the country unless some consideration is given to its recommendations. I say in all sincerity there is no purpose in having
10378	COMMONS DEBATES
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
June 19, 1969
committees of this house if legislation is going to be introduced before the recommendations of the committee, whatever committee it may be, are brought in and hon. members are given an opportunity to discuss them in the house.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Dumont:: Mr. Chairman, in the few brief explanations I would like to give and the questions I would like to ask the minister regarding this legislation on assistance to transportation in the Atlantic Region and concerning also the designated area of Levis, I will say to the minister that there will be the utmost confusion if my proposals are not accepted.
In fact, the bill stipulates that the road connecting Levis, in Quebec, with U.S. Route 201 in the State of Maine, is the border line, while the whole country of Levis is a designated area. I know a Levis manufacturer whose plant lies 200 feet from the traffic circle of Levis, and any carrier who would pick up goods at a distance of 200 feet on the western side of the traffic circle, even if it is in a designated area will not be entitled, according to the definition in the legislation, to a subsidy.
Consequently, I would point out to the minister, that in my opinion, the entire county of Levis, which is a designated area, should be included in the Atlantic area. I think that this step would prevent confusion, because as I said a while ago, there are some manufacturers on both sides of the Kennedy road and we would1 have a manufacturer on the western side who would not obtain a subsidy, while the one who is on the eastern side would get a subsidy for goods shipped by a trucking company.
We from the Ralliement creditiste are in favour of that bill and hope that it will soon be passed.
I got in touch earlier with representatives of trucking companies who sincerely regret, that submission, could not be filed in order to state the fair claims and the needs of the trucking industry-particularly in the designated area of Levis, in direction of the Gaspe peninsula and the Maritimes-which is in a state of stagnation at the present time.
I do hope we shall be able to bring in amendments which will help the truckers whose business in Eastern Canada is now losing ground on account of unfair competition.
Those are about the comments I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, and I do hope, especially 
in the case of the Kennedy road, that the minister will agree to include the whole county of Levis.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, first I want to place on the record my very serious personal objections to the fact that the Transport Committee is sitting in Room 307 in the West Block while the house is discussing important legislation affecting transport in the Atlantic provinces. This is outrageous. It is a situation that has not occurred in parliament for some time. To the new Minister of Transport may I say that one of his predecessors in office, Mr. Pickersgill, with all his faults would never have allowed this to happen. I do not know whether the minister himself is to blame-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and with the greatest respect I want to assure hon. members that I was completely unaware of this situation. So far as I knew this was a sort of extraordinary session of the house. I was not aware the Transport Committee was meeting at the same time. I am sure the hon. member did not mean to imply that I was.


Thomas Miller Bell: Then I apologize to the minister, Mr. Chairman. It could be that as a new junior minister he has not been able to make his influence felt in cabinet circles. I know that the house leader has responsibility in connection with committee meetings, but I hope the minister will take a strong stand with his cabinet colleagues who may wish to shove him around. I hope he does not forget to take a tough line with some of these Upper Canadians when legislation is introduced respecting the Atlantic provinces.
I do not know whether it is an advantage to be from the Atlantic provinces and hold the transport portfolio, but for better or worse the minister now has that responsibility and it is a grave one. This is the first time I have had a chance to speak on the subject of transportation in the house since the new minister took office, and of course I wish him well. It seems that everybody does. To him I hold up the example of Mr. Pickersgill, and I say this in a serious manner. He was a good parliamentarian. He has the courage to take the bull by the horns and introduce the new National Transportation Act. That act was not what we in the Atlantic provinces wanted. For a number of reasons it did not deal with our problem. The minister has outlined those reasons. But Mr. Pickersgill did have the courage to face up to the national problem, to
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
work on it, and to bring about some action. This is what has to be done.
I see in this bill another avenue tor the government to delay implementing those measures in the transportation field that have been promised for so long to the Atlantic provinces. In his speech the minister reviewed the history that is necessary to explain this legislation. His was a straightforward review.
I want to refer to one matter the minister did not go into which I think is pertinent. He did not mention the reason that we got into the problem respecting the freeze on freight rates. When the National Transportation Act was being considered many of us thought that was the proper time to provide for the extension of the freeze on maritime freight rates. This whole subject is a complicated matter. It includes the old roll-back, something I shall not even try to explain, and I hasten to add that I doubt that I could. But in any event a permanent extension was not included in that act.
At that time members of the Transport Committee were faced with the choice of writing the freight rate freeze into permanent form or covering it with a clause extending it for two years. The committee was divided. Some of us felt we should include it permanently so that it never could be taken away from us no matter what happened. Others felt that the freeze should be extended for two years, and that when the two year period had expired the pressure would be so great on the government it would have to bring in longterm legislation covering transport in the Atlantic provinces.
The two years were up in March. Nothing was done. I know it is not easy to come forward with comprehensive legislation of this nature on which there is very little agreement, even in the Atlantic provinces. But I repeat that nothing was done. We were stalled. Then Bill C-182 was introduced. I am not criticizing the new minister in this regard. I am just making the case that this is the old stalling technique in the form of temporary legislation.
From a quick glance at the bill I detect that the freeze on the rates will expire within a year from last March. We do not know whether the freeze will then be necessary as a result of this legislation and changing circumstances. But I know that the pressure we put on the government of the day to act on a comprehensive review of the situation will
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act have been lost, and it could be that the stalling and the failure to act will go on for many more years.
This concerns me greatly, and I hope the minister will explain the situation. I hope he will even tell me I am wrong. I have objections to other provisions in the bill, and here I refer to the argument about the power given to the Governor in Council. But my main objection is that once the freeze expires we will have lost the pressure that we had on the government. It was an insurmountable pressure. The government discovered it to be so in March and realized it had to take temporary action. But it could be that we will all have long grey beards before we get the permanent legislation that will mean so much to the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my reservations about the procedure that has been followed during the course of this debate. When this bill was first introduced a few days ago its introduction was coincidental with a meeting of the Transport Committee. Granted the house was on early sitting hours, but the fact remains that somebody must be at fault. If it is not the Minister of Transport then it is the government house leader or the government whip. Someone should have taken precautions to see that this legislation did not come before the house when the Transport Committee was meeting or the meeting of the committee should have been rescheduled, because we find ourselves in the ridiculous position of discussing this important bill at the same time that the Transport Committee is meeting in the West Block.
Since this is the first transport bill that the new minister is piloting through the house, perhaps he will heed the comments that were made by my hon. friend from Saint John-Lancaster and by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The minister knows that veteran members of the Transport Committee travelled through the Atlantic provinces to study the problem of transportation in that region and spent many hours attending numerous meetings of the committee. Out of respect to their work he should see to it that whenever he has a bill concerning transport before the house he takes the precautionary step of ensuring that the Transport Committee is not sitting that day.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
It is interesting, and I think the record should show, that the house has before it at the present time in the form of government
10380	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
order No. 68 the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We spent a day debating that report and it is really very straightforward and simple. It is a unanimous report, and although I do not have it before me and cannot quote precisely it did recommend that the freeze be extended for another year. That recommendation was made to meet the deadline in March when the freeze was supposed to come off. It also recommended that the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission allowing the C.N.R. to abandon passenger service in Newfoundland be left in abeyance until the committee had a chance to make its final recommendations. The final recommendations concerning our Atlantic provinces transportation study are now before the house in the form of the twelfth report.
It should be noted here that a motion has yet to be moved for concurrence in the twelfth report. The motion for concurrence in the fifth report is now before the house in the form of government order No. 68. The point has been well made that this legislation should have at least been held until the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and the recommendations of the committee concerning its reference from parliament to study the transport problems of the Atlantic provinces had been made. This is what this bill deals with in part.
Having said that I should now like to refer to the minister's remarks. He has assured the house that this is an interim measure. I am very sceptical about interim measures, as I thought the minister was, because we have heard him both inside and outside the house criticize interim measures. He has applied to them the term "band-aid legislation". Here we have another example of band-aid legislation, but this is bad band-aid legislation because this measure, even if it is an interim one, is not good legislation. It does not do what either the Transport Committee or the government wanted to do, and it does not do what the truckers and the various people who presented briefs to the committee wanted the government to do.
It seems that for some reason the government and the new minister who must take responsibility for this legislation recently decided to bring in this measure in its present form. All the government had to do, which is really quite simple, was to extend the benefits of the Maritime Freight Rates Act to the trucking industry. That is very simple and straightforward, and that is all the truckers

wanted. Perhaps the minister would be interested in what one member of the Maritime Motor Transport Association had to say in connection with this bill. He said that this legislation is net what the truckers wanted at all. He took the minister to task and said that if Transport Minister Don Jamieson brings in this legislation he will "have a battle on his hands". I should like to hear what the minister has to say about that.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I know the hon. member would not want to continue on a line that is inappropriate at the moment. I should like to read into the record a telegram I received. It states:
Maritime truckers support Bill C-207 in resolution passed last night.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is not the whole
telegram.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is the whole telegram I
have.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will read you another one.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
Mr. Thomson:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few brief remarks in connection with the bill. I thought it passing strange that the government should arrange to introduce the bill when the Transport Committee was sitting. This may be a mark of political
10382	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act finesse on the part of the new Minister of Transport. If the Minister of Agriculture had done this to members of the agriculture committee we would have raised Cain with him. I think it was rather offensive to the Transport Committee to do this.
I was a member of the agriculture committee which recently toured eastern Canada, including the maritimes. On that tour we heard from individual farmers and farmers' groups complaints about the high freight rates in the maritimes. We were told of areas in which there is no competition in transportation and where the railway charges as much as the traffic will bear. Where there is competition, freight rates are quite a bit lower than they are in areas with no competition.
I wonder how this subsidy program will apply to the poor chap who lives in the country or in a small town and has to pay a higher freight rate than to the person who lives on a main, commercial route. The minister should look into the application of the subsidy in such cases. I do not think it is fair that just because one lives off a main route we should pay one and a half times what others pay for the same service.
I agree that the transportation situation in the maritimes is difficult because freight is sometimes moved by boat, sometimes is transshipped, etc. It is extremely difficult for a farmer to import fertilizer or sell his produce on the competitive market when he is faced with this type of situation. Having made that tour of the maritimes I understand why the people of the area will be unhappy if any of the guarantees they now have are taken away from them. Their experience since confederation has not always been the best. They are a captive market in respect of some commodities and receive no privileges to compensate for this.
I hope the minister intends to remove some of the existing inequities. I know the people of the region would be unhappy if any of the guarantees they now have were removed. They will be unhappy if any of the subsidies they now received are removed in the future.
I believe that freight assistance and an adequate freight rates policy are the basis for good economic growth and development in the maritimes. If such a policy is evolved and consistently applied, I am sure the maritimes will benefit. I can understand the position of these people because of their past experience.
I, too, Mr. Chairman, will be making a few comments when we deal with the other clauses of the bill.
DEBATES	June 19, 1969


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 2
carry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I am at the disposal of the committee in this regard, but since the general discussion was on clause 2 I wonder whether at this point hon. members would like me to reply to some of the matters they have raised. It is entirely up to the committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: That would be very useful, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have listened with a good deal of interest and understanding-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the minister but I should like to ask a question. If the minister replies to questions now, will it prevent his replying to questions asked as we deal with other clauses? I hope that is not the case.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would assume not, Mr. Chairman, in view of our earlier decision that the general discussion would be on clause 2 rather than clause 1. But perhaps the Chair would be willing to rule on that matter. I think this is agreeable. I have no wish to cut members off from further discussion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We do not want the minister to exercise the right of reply on clause 2 only, because we shall be asking specific questions when dealing with other clauses. I hope he gets the exercise of standing and replying to those questions.


Albert Béchard: The Chair can rule in advance that the discussion will have to be relevant to each clause.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have listened with a good deal of interest and, I think hon. members would be willing to concede, understanding to the matters raised by hon. members. I say at the outset that I agree completely with the concept outlined by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley that aid to transportation and a rational transportation program are vital to the further development of the Atlantic provinces. It seems to me it is as important that we have this particular aspect of regional development involved in our thinking as it is that we deal with other matters which are important to national unity, such as the official languages bill which we will be dealing with later today. This measure has the same kind of significance to national unity and national development as other measures

June 19, 1969	COMMONS
which are more in the cultural field and in the general areas outlined in the official languages bill. Therefore I assure the committee that it is my intention to do everything possible to bring about an effective transportation policy for the Atlantic area, not merely because I happen to be a resident of that region and a representative of one of the four provinces in the region but because as a Canadian I recognize, as do hon. members opposite, the importance of this kind of legislation.
I think it is important, too, that we trace a little of the history of the bill before us this morning. It would have been far simpler in many respects for the government to do what hon. members in all parts of the house originally suggested, that is, merely maintain the freeze on freight rates for an additional 12 months. That was the position when I assumed the portfolio I now hold, and it was as a result of representations from members opposite and from others that it was decided-and I made the decision

that rather than take that simple course, which would have maintained and quite literally frozen the status quo for another 12 months, we would attempt, within the time frame that we had, to introduce some of the improvements which members of the Transport Committee and others had1 indicated at the hearings were advisable.
[DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
On the point about this legislation preceding the presentation of the 12th report of the Transport Committee, let me say that there was nothing occult in my powers to determine what the committee was going to produce. It was simply a matter of knowledge obtained from various members of the committee and indications from various people that these were the lines along which the committee was thinking, and rather than delay and perhaps face the prospect of not getting this legislation through at the present session I proceeded in the manner that I have.
When I decided some time ago that it was necessary to change the original bill and to proceed somewhat beyond the original proposal merely to freeze the rates for a further period of 12 months, one of the first things I did was to undertake discussions with the representatives of the four Atlantic provinces. I spoke with Premier Smith in Nova Scotia, with Premier Campbell in Prince Edward Island, with the hon. Mr. Higgins, the Minister of Economic Development in
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act New Brunswick, and with Premier Smallwood in Newfoundland. I undertook to do this because of a commitment I had made at the outset that we would consult with them, and I did not want to go to them with a proposal which was cut and dried so that the whole consultative process would be merely a meaningless gesture.
As a result of the discussions that I had with the gentlemen to whom I referred 1 came back and made significant changes in what I had originally thought might have been an acceptable proposal. I want to say today-and I believe that all of the gentlemen concerned and their advisers will be prepared to confirm this-that this bill represents in very significant measure the result of the consultations which I had with the representatives of the four Atlantic provinces and, incidentally, to a lesser degree with spokesmen for the trucking industry.
The hon. member for St. John's East said, in that manner of his which seems to indicate so far that solutions are simple and can be drawn like rabbits out of a hat, that all we had to do-and this was the reason for the humour in my response rather than any lack of concern or interest at this moment in the work of the Transport Committee-was to extend the benefits of M.F.R.A. to the trucking industry. I suggest to the hon. member, and indeed I am sure he knows, that that simple solution is precisely the kind of answer that the Atlantic provinces spokesmen themselves do not want and, indeed, it is also to some extent at least a solution that the truckers do not want. Simply to extend the Maritime Freight Rates Act benefits to the trucking industry would not provide a viable and meaningful alternative to the arrangement that we have at the present time. The premiers of the four Atlantic provinces made a number of recommendations, all of which are being considered and will be considered at the same time as we consider the further recommendations which are contained in my own statement of a few days ago and those that were made by the Transport Committee.
When I made reference to this bill as being an interim measure, 1 want to assure the house that I meant that it is only interim in the sense that it represents a portion of a much broader concept that we hope to develop with the help of the very excellent report of the Transport Committee in the coming months and on which I will be working during the summer recess. There is no suggestion, and I want to make this perfectly clear to the house, that there will be any significant
10384	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1989
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act change in any of the measures which either now prevail or which, I hope, will prevail following the passage of this legislation until and unless this more comprehensive program is brought forward and until there has been full-scale consultation with the premiers and the representatives of the Atlantic provinces.
I have made fairly general references throughout to the Atlantic provinces, but may I say to hon. members who represent constituencies in the province of Quebec, particularly that portion of the province of Quebec which comes within the select territory, that it is our intention as well-and we have already held preliminary discussions with the government of the province of Quebec on this matter-to invite the province to participate in this federal-provincial committee. It may be that they will wish to have a member on the committee, to which of course we will be more than pleased to agree. On the other hand, because their circumstances are somewhat different they may wish to have a different kind of representation. But in any event I believe that this measure will also be of significance to that portion of the province of Quebec which comes within the select territory because truckers within that region shipping outbound to other parts of Canada will now have benefits which of course they did not enjoy before.
In any event, let me reiterate the point that it is my intention and the intention of the government to ensure the maintenance of all of the significant portions of the Maritime Freight Kates Act not affected by this legislation until such time as this more comprehensive program comes forward. Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes, perhaps the minister's explanation might help in the later stages of the debate. My question has direct reference to the minister's explanation of the interim aspect of the measure and the fact that no other fundamental changes will be made, as I understood him, until the whole comprehensive program is laid before the house. I appreciate the difficulties of preparing the plan and I also appreciate the fact that there have been consultations with the premiers. When we come to clause 3 I will want to read the telegram I received from the truckers which is an extension of the telegram the minister read. The purpose of my question to the minister is to clarify a point in my mind. In view of the fact that clause 10 specifies when clauses 5 and 6 will come into force, is my understanding not correct that clause 5 
will have in effect no application for nine months?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I might deal with the whole general area since there have been a number of comments regarding it. I refer to clause 5 and to the related question of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley. If hon. members will read the statement I made in the house last Tuesday, there are two references in it which are particularly pertinent to what I want to say. On page 10227 of Hansard, about the middle of the column, I made the following comment:
In order to provide the necessary funds for those subsidies which will place truckers on a basis of equality with railways on outbound traffic, it is proposed to authorize the Governor in Council to terminate the so-called freeze at an earlier date than originally contemplated in Bill C-182, thereby removing another discrimination between railways and truckers.
In other words, what I said was that we will not maintain the freeze for the full 12 months. The reason I am reluctant at this point to state a specific date upon which the freeze may be removed is that it is my intention and the intention of the government to extend the subsidy to outbound trucking in advance of the lifting of the freeze, and it seems to me that there is a very good rationale for doing this. If, for example, we can arrange to get the necessary registration of truckers and common carriers by that date, I hope that we can provide the subsidy arrangement for outbound truck freight by July 15. If that is done, we will then see how long it takes for truck tariffs to be established before we move to take off the freeze on rail lines, and we believe that this process will have a salutary effect in terms of what the railway rates are likely to be. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation to the hon. member of why there is no specific date for the lifting of the freeze.
On the question of clause 5 and the powers granted to the Governor in Council may I say that, in my own view, this would not be perhaps the best way in which to approach this problem if we were dealing with the matter on the comprehensive basis to which we have all referred earlier. But if we were to say that it had to come into effect on a fixed date, that is, that any proposals with regard to the changing of the intra-traffic were to come into force on a fixed date, this would mean that we could take no action until the federal-provincial committee had completed a very comprehensive study, and this would mean in turn that the truckers
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
involved in intra-shipments, for example, would not be able to benefit from this arrangement for a considerable length of time.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
Let me explain the rationale behind this suggestion. It is that the federal-provincial committee would be set up immediately. It would have the capacity to make recommendations on an ongoing basis. It might be that within two weeks of its first meeting it would make a recommendation that the intra-subsidy be changed or applied on some classification of goods. Then we could proceed under clause 5 to make good that recommendation immediately. What I visualize is that this committee will not be one of a type about which hon. members have had good reason to complain in the past-one which meets and continues to meet for a year or a year and a half with the result that in the intervening period nothing can be done. This committee will be able to make individual recommendations and these would be dealt with rapidly on an ad hoc basis. To make sure we can do this it is necessary to include clause 5 in the legislation.
I should like to refer hon. members to page 10228 of Hansard of Tuesday in which I said-and this is a key point; I hope hon. members will accept my solemn declaration on it:
The government intends to set up such a joint committee without delay and undertakes not to exercise the power to be given to the Governor in Council to remove or reduce M.F.R.A. subsidies except to the extent that financially equivalent assistance is proposed by the joint committee and accepted by the government. This would be the first task of the joint committee.
Implicit in that statement is our undertaking that the amount of the present over-all subsidy will not be reduced. What we are saying here-and this is the reason for clause 6-is that the committee will meet and make recommendations to us periodically along the lines that the subsidy on X route, for example, which costs a certain number of dollars, might be used more effectively in another way.
The undertaking I give to the house now, as I did on Tuesday, is that there will be no implementation of this power without a recommendation having been made by the committee, and that any such changes will not result in a lowering of the totality of the amount paid by way of interim subsidy. This course is being followed at the suggestion of
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act and, I believe, with the support of the four Atlantic premiers.
Many hon. members have discovered that the interim subsidy administered on a blanket basis is not the most effective means of providing assistance to transport in the maritimes. It is obvious there is greater need for some commodities than for others. It is conceivable that the amounts now being spent on this blanket subsidy might well be applied in ways other than the direct subsidization of transportation. It might be spent on assistance to shippers, for example. This is something we should bear in mind. Eventually, and ideally, we should bear in mind that the subsidy should go to the shipper rather than to the transportation technique or mode, but this is a complicated matter to deal with; it is not something we can deal with at this moment.
I hope we have put into this legislation adequate safeguards to deal with the fears which hon. members have properly expressed. I shall be particularly concerned to see there is no diminution in the total intra-subsidy. I thought the hon. member for St. John's East might have given me credit for the portion of my speech wherein I stated arrangements would be made for a comparable water carrier subsidy on goods moved by boat to St. John's and Cornerbrook. This is an important element within the whole package. I regard it as a vital one. Though we talk about this as an interim measure there is a good deal included which is of a permanent and highly significant nature in connection with Atlantic transportation.
On the matter of the outbound or westbound subsidy, provision is made for the committee to examine whether or not there ought to be a measure of selectivity attached to that subsidy of 30 per cent. The idea was expressed to me in the Atlantic provinces to the effect that here again there might be a significant waste factor. By saying simply that anything that goes out of Atlantic Canada to the west should get this subsidy we may be losing opportunities for improvement.
We have no intention at this moment of altering this basis of universality but I emphasize that the committee has the right to make recommendations on the matter of whether or not there should be more selectivity or whether the rates should be changed with regard to certain commodities.
An interesting point having to do with the constructive comments of the hon. member for Malpeque is the fact that I heard a great deal in the Atlantic provinces, including his
10386	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act own province, about the possibility of providing assistance in connection with the transportation to the Atlantic provinces of various raw materials which might be the elements necessary to some kind of economic project. At present there is no such help given. If an industry requires to bring in raw materials it must do so on the same basis as does any other shipper. This is something I hope the committee will look at.
I should also like to say a few words having to do, again, with the 12th report of the standing committee. The joint federal-provincial committee is also being asked to look at the position of all modes of transportation. It seems to me there are legitimate complaints with regard to the treatment of certain kinds of shipments carried by what is called "the balloon trade". This covers commodities which have a good deal of bulk but little weight; at present they are being carried by air and by sea. There is authorization for this committee to consider all modes and determine what recommendations should be made with regard to assistance to air freight, sea freight or any other mode which might develop.
I believe I have answered in a general way the representations which have been made to me. The bill is designed to meet an immediate and urgent problem. I recognize that at the moment the truckers are under two impediments. They are under the impediment of the rates on incoming traffic and under the impediment of having to fight the railways on the M.F.R.A. basis. So the rationale of the whole program is to give the Atlantic trucking industry at least a reasonable break in terms of getting its products to market. We want to improve that situation. We have said to the Atlantic provinces: We accept your proposal that you should have a say in the question of other subsidies to be provided. I am giving the house a commitment that there will be no change in the rates under the M.F.R.A. unless the committee so recommends and unless the amount to be spent in some other manner is at least the same as the amount originally provided.
I should add that it is not enough to provide even a measure of equality for all modes of transport unless there is a good roads network. This is fundamental to the government's concept of regional development and expansion and we intend to continue to provide assistance in road building. This is not a matter which comes directly within my responsibility but I am in constant consultation

DEBATES	June 19, 1969
with my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Some work is being done this year. A very remarkable amount of work, when one totals it up, has been done over the last six, seven or eight years, including completion of the trans-Canada highway. We have spent many hundreds of millions of dollars on roads in the Atlantic area. No one knows better than I that this is still far from enough, and part of this total transportation package will have to be continued encouragement by the federal government of road construction in the Atlantic region.
[DOT] (12 noon)
I would be the first to admit that this measure is by no means the law of the Medes and the Persians, that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. But I do say to hon. members that I have at least sought in prior discussions to take into account the representations that have been made to me by hon. members opposite, by the premiers of the provinces and by the industries concerned. In order to get this measure through and to show at least some progress in this vital field we have moved in the direction we have and brought forward this legislation today. I hope the measure commends itself to the committee, because I am sure that within the next three or four months we will come to see in a very real way the benefits of it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the minister permit a question? I thank him for his explanation and answers to some of the queries raised on this side of the house. Frankly, if the bill were as plausible as the minister's explanation there would be no doubt in my mind about the intent and/or objective of the legislation.
Just for clarification I should like to pose a question that is in three parts. First of all, we are talking here only of interim subsidy payments and the shifting of those payments from the railways to the truckers on a selective basis. We are not talking about more money being paid under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, if my understanding is correct.
What I cannot understand at the moment, despite the minister's most plausible and constructive explanation, is the suggestion that the saving under the interim payment will be transferred in the form of a financially equivalent payment to an operator of some other mode of transportation or shipper or, to use the words in the bill, to a carrier, shipper or consignee. The difficulty I have with the minister's explanation, though this may be a
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
drafting problem, is that there are two undertakings. First of all, he hopes that by proclamation before July 15 the rate freeze will be cancelled, which in effect-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, that is not right. However, I should let the hon. member finish his question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In effect, the minister is going to end the rate freeze by July 15. As I understand it, this would bring to life the provisions in clauses 5 and 6. Is that correct?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is partially correct, but the freeze will not end on July 15. I said that the date for ending the freeze will depend upon the time at which we can put the subsidy program for the truckers into effect. There is no direct relationship between the two. In other words, we can maintain the freeze for a period beyond the starting date at which the truckers are paid for westbound shipments.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Then I still have difficulty reconciling those clauses with clause 10, which provides that clauses 5 and 6 will not come into effect until, in effect, the freeze expires. What is the purpose of that provision?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not a legal mind in this matter but I think it is a question of the proclamation. We can announce the proclamation of the date on which the freeze is going to end, but we can advance it considerably beyond that point. In other words, the two will come into effect at the same time. Having come into effect in terms of the announcement of the total program, we can say that the freeze will end on date x but that the subsidies will start on date y.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is the difficulty. I do not see how that can be done under this bill, no matter when the announcement. Naturally I accept the undertakings given by the minister, but there has already been one ministerial change in the short life of the present regime. There are also certain activities in Newfoundland that might attract the minister to return to the province and his undertakings, though given sincerely, are not cemented in legislation.
I still have difficulty reconciling the point I raised in connection with the operation of clauses 5 and 6 in view of the provisions of clause 10. However, I will leave this point for the moment because the minister may be able
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act further to amplify the matter when he consults his officials.
The other point bothering me is that the minister has given this undertaking in connection with a financially equivalent transfer of the saving made under the interim payment. However, as I read this bill nowhere do I find,-though I presume if it is to be found it will be found in clause 6, wording quite as unequivocal as that used by the minister a few minutes ago. The clause says that under the regulations prescribed by the Governor in Council, the Governor in Council may authorize payment of assistance out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Which clause is this?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Clause 6(1). I presume that this is the clause that would deal with the transfer of the financially equivalent payment. The clause does not provide that there "shall" be such payment. Nowhere in the bill is it provided that the payment made to the shippers or carriers "shall" be equal to the amount saved. In effect, what we are doing is taking from Peter to give to Paul. However, nowhere in the bill is it provided that you give to Paul the exact amount that you took from Peter. The bill does not provide that the financially equivalent payment shall be made.
In addition, nowhere in the bill is there any mention of the federal-provincial committee; again in this regard we have the undertaking of the minister. If he is still with us working hard in the fall, perhaps this committee will come to fruition. However, if there is another portfolio change it may be delayed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, may I try to deal with the second point first. A federal-provincial committee is being established in this matter because eventually it may well be that we wish to change the make-up and content of the committee once we discover how effectively it works on the basis of its present assignment. Therefore it was felt that rather than establish it in a statutory way it would be best to proceed as we have at the moment.
With regard to the hon. member's first question about the amount of the payment, may I refer him to clause 5(2) where he will note that there is a requirement on the transport commission. The clause provides:
Where a reduced tariff has been varied or removed pursuant to subsection (1). the Commission shall lor each calendar year or portion of a calendar year thereafter estimate the amount of compensation that would have been paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to railway companies in respect of the preferred movements of
10388	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act
traffic ... and the commission shall certify to the minister the estimated saving to the Consolidated Revenue Fund-
In other words, under this provision we will know what the saving is going to be. Since the hon. member is a lawyer I am sure he will agree that we could not write into legislation that every single dollar will be applied in that precise sense. All I can say is that I think the clauses, when read in sequence, indicate the intent of the bill, and I have tried to reinforce that with my commitment today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We are having a general discussion of the bill, though these are matters that I was going to raise when we reach clause 5. The difficulty about this formula is twofold. First of all, there is still no direction. The minister has said it is difficult to do this legislatively, but bills are either mandatory or permissive. They can provide either that things "may" be done or that they "shall" be done.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
More important than that is the question of how you are to bring about savings under clause 5(2). How are we going to meet the situation? It is fair to ask this about an interim measure. The minister must know that ever since 1927, or ever since the end of the war, the Maritime Freight Rates Act has not met the problems of the Atlantic area. Surely after all the commissions, studies and premiers' task forces we could have come up with something better than this bill. It seems to me that here you have legislation saying that what you take from Peter you will pay to Paul, It is not good enough for the government to say that by shifting these interim subsidies around it will help the shipper, consignee or carrier. Under this bill we can see a situation in which subsidies are reduced.
Let us consider the provision saying that the commission shall certify to the minister the estimated saving to the fund. That is to be found in clause 5(2). Last year maritime freight rates subsidies amounted to $14 million. Let us say that this year, by shifting the payments around and by juggling a bit, the minister can bring about a saving of $4 million. Therefore we reduce the total amount paid by $4 million and pay out altogether $10 million. Let us say that something happens next year. The minister may go back to Newfoundland or be transferred to another, more challenging portfolio or, better still, the government may be defeated.
IMr. Jamieson.]
DEBATES	June 19, 1S69


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Then the hon. member will not have to worry.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But the people of the Atlantic region will still be worried. For any number of reasons we may get into a situation in which there cannot be implemented any comprehensive transportation policy for the mari-times. At any rate, let us say that in the second year of the shift, and remember we are dealing now with a base figure of $10 million and not $14 million, there is another saving or another shifting of $2 million. That will reduce the payment in the second year to $8 million, the $2 million involved here being paid to shippers, carriers or consignees in accordance with the select territory principle. In the third year the minister might very well say, "Let's cut everything down." We could very well face a situation in which payments are reduced not to $8 million or $10 million, but to $2 million. This bill has implicit in it that danger.
I say that if we are to improve on the Maritime Freight Rates Act let us bring in some real improvements. We have had the Maritime Freight Rates Act for 60 years and, as legislators, I do not think we should agree to any open-ended type of arrangement under which the amount of assistance could be reduced, say, to $2 million. I do not say the minister would do this intentionally, but that could be the result of a juggling of the administration.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Chairman, miy hon. friend is making a good argument but in my opinion it does not have any substance. In the first instance, the outbound or westbound rate is still rigidly and emphatically included in the bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is right.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On top of that we are going to provide 30 per cent for truckers going out. So there is no likelihood that the sum paid out will go down. That sum has to go up.
What I said so far as the interim subsidy is concerned-and I explained why we cannot spell this out in legislation; it must be self-evident-was that the step we are taking here represents to me one in a logical sequence. We say the amount must be determined and specified. Where there is any change in the interim, it must be determined and specified and it becomes a matter of public record that that amount has been specified. Then, too, we have a committee and we shall say to that committee, "You can take these moneys and
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
move them from project A to project B". Therefore the committee is the second safeguard. On it will be representatives of at least the four Atlantic provinces and, possibly, from the province of Quebec.
When my hon. friend says that we might be devious and try to get away with reducing the amount to $2 million, he is not making a realistic representation. Furthermore, we have provided in clauses 5 and 6 for the balancing of those elements which are necessary for these changes. We have also made sure that they can be applied to other modes, or in other ways. So I suggest with great respect that I cannot see any substance to the purely theoretical argument that my hon. friend is advancing. I am not going to say, and this bill does not say, that the same amount may be included each year. In other words, it is quite conceivable that the committee may recommend a shift in this system.
I think it is useful to have that kind of flexibility. If an additional amount is required in the first year in order to achieve a permanent gain, there might be less money a year or two after that. But that is for the committee to decide.
I say that this is the best effort we have been able to come up with to meet the request of the provinces. All parties in this house have been accused of being arbitrary and of saying to the Atlantic provinces, "Take it or leave it." We are trying this means. Because we are breaking new ground, there are no precedents to follow. I am simply saying that this is our best effort and we will try to make it work. If it does not work I am certain I shall be hearing again from my hon. friends opposite.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in understanding and accepting the minister's constructive answers. Unfortunately there is a gap between his statements and the provisions of the bill. He said that the committee is to have certain powers and that it will initiate certain recommendations to the transport commission. The committee will say where the shift ought to be. I say to the minister that the provisions of the bill do not spell that out, and that is part of our dilemma.
May I revert to my theoretical discussion. I think the amounts paid are $8 million for outbound-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is $8 million for inbound and $6 million for outbound.
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act Mr. Nowlan: It does not take too much imagination, Mr. Chairman, to dream up a situation in which the $8 million could be reduced to $4 million or even $2 million. Were the premiers involved in agreement with the principle that we begin with the figure of $14 million? I think the minister mentioned a 30 per cent subsidy for the outbound trucker who until now has not been covered. As I read the bill, it says nothing about shifting part of the $8 million-


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, this of necessity must be an open-ended arrangement. My hon. friend wants it to be open-ended on the one side and closed on the other. You cannot have it both ways. This is the option I present to him. If we are going to say that there has to be a fixed determination of the $8 million and that it cannot be altered or changed in any way, in other words, that that figure is sacrosanct, then we must say that the amount of outbound must have a ceiling on it as well. I do not think that would be in the best interest of the Atlantic provinces. We surely have to say that whatever amount of business goes out of eastern Canada by rail or truck, that business is to have a subsidy. The amount could be $14 million. Theoretically, I suppose it could be, and I hope it does get up to, $20 million. It would mean there would be more manufacturing and industry in the Atlantic provinces and the people there would be doing better. If we really want to circumscribe this, it is possible to do so. It is possible to say the amount shall be $8 million and that it will not be changed or varied one bit. That is not the practical way of going about it.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I ask the minister to look at clause 6(2) which is germane to this discussion. It states:
The total amount of assistance-
That is the assistance on outbound traffic.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Chairman. Where does the hon. member see outbound in clause 6(2)? Clause 2 has to do with reductions in tariffs. That is where we have taken it off of rail on the intra. It has to be applied in the same amount. It cannot exceed it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was going to say that the saving under clause 5(2), the payments that you are playing with, cannot exceed what the minister says. When the minister talks about $20 million, I want to know where he gets the open end.
10390	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act Mr. Jamieson: When the hon. member began his speech he said there was a great deal of confusion in the Atlantic provinces regarding the outbound and intra. These are the semantics we are trapped in at the moment. All I can say to the hon. member is that I was in on the drafting of this bill. While I am not a legal person, I do understand its implications. I am now putting on the record what I understand it to mean.
As far as the outbound is concerned, there is no limitation on the amount that will be paid either to truckers or the railways. This 30 per cent is designated the same as for shipments out of the Atlantic provinces under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. There is no limit as far as that is concerned.
Insofar as the hon. member's question is concerned, a fixed amount is paid in any one year on intra. I am sure my hon. friend understands that. What I am saying is that the amount to be used for purposes other than an intra subsidy would not be less than the amount, insofar as the railways are concerned, if it applied only to the railways. It is the same sum of dollars, merely moving them from one to another. This does not apply insofar as the westbound 30 per cent subsidy is concerned. I hope that makes it reasonably clear.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Clause 5(1) seems to be causing all the trouble. This refers to what the minister is calling intra-traffic, traffic within the select territory. Intra-traffic refers to traffic such as that between Fredericton and Halifax. That is what I call intratraffic within the territory. Outbound shipments would be from the select territory west.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member is quite right, Mr. Chairman. Traffic moving between points within the select territory is intratraffic. Perhaps it might be more effective if we used the term westbound for any other kind of traffic, that is, traffic flowing out of the select territory.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Clause 5(1) states: the Governor in Council may vary or remove the reduction in tariffs for the preferred movements of traffic described in paragraph (a) or (c) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of that act-
That refers to intra only.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Humbert Thomas: It does not refer to shipments from the select territory west.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is right.
[Mr. Nowlan.l
DEBATES	June 19. 1969


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not hearing the minister's earlier statement and the other statements. Consequently my questions may have already been answered. If that is the case, the minister can remind me. I wish to ask four questions.
First, I gather from one of the remarks of the minister that he hopes the provinces will agree to Bill C-207 which we are now discussing. I am aware of the fact the principle recommended by the premiers in their recent recommendations regarding transportation may be embodied in the bill. My question is whether the minister has given the premiers an opportunity to react to this legislation.
Second, the committee seems to be something like the premiers had in mind but it is not mentioned specifically in the legislation. How does the minister plan to set up this committee? Possibly the minister has already answered this question. Will the committee members be paid? What kind of representation does the minister hope the various provinces will have? Will the committee members be civil servants or other people who are already receiving pay? I feel these questions should be answered for the purpose of clarification.
My other two questions are very simple. I will not get involved in academic, theoretical situations and dialectics as some hon. members did. My question refers to trucking firms that are already doing business in the Atlantic provinces. An example would be freight being moved from Truro to another part of Nova Scotia or from Port aux Basques to St. John's. I previously wrote to the minister with a similar query. Will these firms be entitled to some assistance under the act as it is slated to come into existence, or through some future legislation the minister hopes to introduce?
My third question is with regard to the present subsidies being paid on eastbound freight. An example would be freight originating in Montreal and being shipped to Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland. Will there be a continuation of these subsidies? I do not know on what basis the subsidy used to be paid to Clarke Steamships. A specific example is that last year this company received a subsidy of $75,000 for moving freight from Montreal to Botwood. The reason I ask this question is that approximately two years ago the Department of Public Works built a beautiful structure, which was stated to have cost $2 million. The $75,000 subsidy was removed. It meant that approximately
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
100 people were affected directly by pay reductions in the area. It affected people right on the waterfront. All of this trade as well as the trucking operations in a large area slowed down immensely. The $2 million structure no longer is of any value. It has become a white elephant. Was this subsidy removed in order to be included in this kind of legislation? It does not seem to make sense. A facility costing $2 million was provided and then the subsidy of $75,000 to a shipping firm was eliminated. This caused a tremendous impact on the economy and the cost of living in that area. Why was this subsidy removed? Will it in fact be replaced under this legislation or is there any provision for replacing it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will try to deal with the hon. member's questions one at a time. I have already covered the matter of consultation with the premiers and representatives of the four Atlantic provinces. To the best of my knowledge, the reaction has been favourable to this proposal. It has been a matter of record for several days and I have not heard anything adverse with regard to it. In any event, it was the subject of earlier discussions with them so that they were reasonably well aware of what we were proposing.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I envisage that the committee will have representatives from at least the four Atlantic provinces. I mentioned earlier to Quebec members that we will make proposals to that province with regard to whether or not they wish to have a member on the committee or to make representations in some other way. But in any event it will be the provinces that will name their representatives to the committee. It will be chaired either by someone from the Department of Transport or perhaps even from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In any event there will be federal representation on it to the extent that this appears to be required.
I gather that the hon. member was talking about trucking firms operating within a single province or the select territory. At present they, of course, are not receiving a subsidy. What will happen is that this committee will be empowered and is being asked to study what trucking agencies, what modes of transport, and what kinds of commodities ought to be considered for subsidy.
The hon. member, being from my own province, will know that a very significant amount of pulpwood and the like is today carried by truck. Is it a practical thing for the 29180-657J
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act large paper companies to receive a subsidy? Many of us are inclined to think that perhaps it is not. This is the kind of thing that the committee will consider. This is why we are providing this rather than a blanket subsidy which would simply become a cream-skimming operation for certain operators. This will be on a selective basis, and I am sure the committee will hear representations from truckers on whether they should be included.
I am aware of the hon. member's problem and deep concern with regard to the port of Botwood and the matter of subsidizing freight into the province of Newfoundland. In the statement I made on Tuesday I indicated that we were in fact arranging for subsidies of very considerable magnitude for shipments from Montreal to Corner Brook and St. John's, and that these are two ports to which a very considerable amount of support is being provided.
This whole issue would take considerably more time than I have at my disposal today to go into in detail. The whole issue of whether or not we maintain individual ports because of the employment problems that exist there, or whether the rationalization of a freight and transportation policy requires that we do the logical thing, is one about which I suspect there will continue to be a great deal of argument. In the case of Botwood I am told, and I have every reason to believe this, that the shipper was not particularly interested in continuing into Botwood whether there was a subsidy or not. In other words, there was no considerable enthusiasm on his part. He was losing money on the operation and the subsidy per ton was very high.
In any event, it is our judgment that with the provision of very significant improvements in docking facilities at Corner Brook, and with very large harbour development at St. John's, which the hon. member for St. John's East had a considerable amount to do with, these two ports still appear to be the most logical points through which to funnel this kind of ocean freight into Newfoundland, particularly if one is concerned primarily about the cost of living. There is a dichotomy here, and I appreciate that this is a very difficult problem to resolve, because whenever something is moved from one port to another there is a vacuum at the first port, which in the first place may have had a smaller volume of traffic.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, these water subsidies have been considerably increased
10392	COMMONS
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act this year. But it is unfortunate that this combination of the disposition of the carrier, who had very little interest in continuing the operation into Botwood, and the general centralization of distribution centres in Corner Brook and St. John's, means that the Botwood operation could not be sustained. I hope the hon. member will believe I am sincere when I say this. I take it that this would have been the case even if we had agreed to pay a subsidy comparable with that paid last year.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the minister seems to be telling me that this is a dead case, that all is over and done with in the Botwood situation. I could debate this for quite some time and also deal with the attitude of the company, but would the minister give an undertaking at least to review the circumstances surrounding the case? We are talking about the whole of central eastern Newfoundland. We are not talking about one small port, or an area served by an adjacent port. This is the port of central eastern Newfoundland, and if the operation is closed down it will have an adverse affect upon the cost of living in the area. Will the minister give that undertaking?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be very glad to do that. I want to emphasize again that this policy is to be subject to review. I did not say the case was dead, although that is a reasonable interpretation. I question very much if a shipping company would be interested on a continuing basis in that kind of service particularly when I suspect that the amount of freight offering for that region is probably going to be reduced, and the present subsidy would have to be increased to a very much higher level. I doubt that the hon. member, as effective as he is representing his constituents, could then justify the cost of that subsidy.
I also have to point out, and I do not make this as a debating point, that what you lose on the roundabouts you make up on the swings. Freight that does not go into one port must go into another port. However, I will be glad to review the matter and go to Botwood with the hon. member and talk to the people there if he so desires.


John Howard Lundrigan: I thank the minister for undertaking to review or reconsider the situation. If he were in that area during the offseason I could show him some things which he does not know.
Much of the legislation passed by this house never seems to affect the people of Canada for whom it was designed, at least 
DEBATES	June 19, 1969
not as much as it should, simply because they are not aware of it. This is a communications problem. Some weeks ago we passed legislation amending the Fisheries Act. Since then I have received 15 or 20 letters raising queries about the provisions of the legislation. The people did not know what was in the legislation. We will have precisely the same problem with this legislation. Does the minister have plans to provide circulars, pamphlets or other material to indicate to the people who will be affected by this legislation, the truckers, the people within the region and so on, the benefits they will receive under the legislation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we have to worry about the truckers not being aware of it. I think they are well advised about it. But at the same time I will be glad to consider what ways we can use to make sure there is a more general awareness of what we are trying to do.


Mr. Peddle:: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the title of this bill is, "An act to authorize assistance to transportation in the Atlantic Region," and that clause 2 carefully states that select territory means the province of Nova Scotia, the province of Prince Edward Island, the province of New Brunswick, and then very carefully excludes the Labrador part of the province of Newfoundland. I am sure the minister has no doubt in his mind that Labrador does in fact belong to Newfoundland, and of course most definitely belongs to the Atlantic provinces.
Having just come back from spending the best part of a week in Labrador I realize the extent of the feeling of neglect which the people there have. Whether it is justified or not I cannot say at this time, but when I see a piece of legislation which is designed to help transportation in the Atlantic provinces and note that Labrador is excluded from it, I must make the strongest objection to this omission.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
I know this bill is mainly for the benefit of outgoing freight, and there is not very much that goes out from Goose Bay, Labrador. I point to the minister that a pound of carrots costs 18 cents to bring into Goose Bay by Air Canada. I had hoped there might be something in the bill to recognize the problem of Labrador not only being cut off completely but having to suffer very seriously in respect of the cost of bringing goods in. My question
June 19, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	10393
to the minister is, did he overlook this and would he be receptive to an amendment? If he indicates he might accept an amendment I would ask that this clause be held over until such time as I have prepared one.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This was not an oversight. The hon. member quite properly said the emphasis in this bill is on westbound traffic and on trucking, so it would not be of any great significance. I noted the omission immediately and discovered that this was done at the time of the terms of the union. There were reasons for it at that time which may not necessarily apply today. I do not believe anything very significant would result in terms of this legislation by including Labrador. I do not believe we could accomplish this by including it in the bill.
This problem would have to be directly related to the M.F.R.A., and we may run into questions as to whether it in fact constitutes part of the union. What I want to say to my friend is that I will direct that the federal-provincial committee which deals with the intra-matters-subsidies and the like within the region-give some consideration to this matter and extend some other form of aid, if not this form, to Labrador.
I may say there is a measure of that kind now through which considerable subsidies are paid on coastal boat shipments and that kind of thing which is outside the M.F.R.A. altogether. The best way to approach this, and I am in full accord with the intent of my hon. friend's statement, is to have the committee consider the matter to see which method would be the best. In other words, I think it might be a bit of a hollow victory to include Labrador now and discover there is nothing in the bill of any consequence in so far as benefits to the Labrador people are concerned. I will make that one of the terms of reference to the committee if the hon. member so desires.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Would the minister compromise by saying "the province of Newfoundland" instead of "the island of Newfoundland"?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Such a compromise would, of course, do precisely what my hon. friend desires but which I have said is not a very useful gesture at the present time because this is expressly confined to the island of Newfoundland which is so designated in the terms of union. It does not appear to me that he would be able, and I would have to get a legal opinion on this, to alter it in that way in
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act view of the fact it is constitutionally embodied, if you like, in the terms of union. I do suggest to my hon. friend that the method I have advanced would be the more beneficial one for the people concerned, that is, we should get the committee to take a look at what can be done in respect of assistance in terms of freight, etc. for Labrador.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Could I ask then that clause 2 stand temporarily while I give the matter further thought?


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it agreed that clause 2 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 3-Assistance authorized.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that the purpose of clause 3 is to provide temporary assistance to certain truckers, but we on this side are disturbed about this clause and the bill because so many things are temporary and will have very little effect. I suppose the purpose is to increase competition between various carriers in the hope that with competition the rates will be brought down. I suggest that this is why the truckers association's initial reaction to this measure was disapproval. This will bring very limited relief to truckers in this area, and it will only apply to those truckers hauling from east to west. It will involve only two carriers in the maritimes.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, 16.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Are there 16 carriers hauling from east to west?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, at least 16.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I will accept the minister's figure, but the reaction of the truckers was that this would give only very limited relief to the industry.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can only say as I have said before that this has been thoroughly considered and will presumably help the truck carriers in the region.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Chairman, is the
minister aware that if he gives more assistance in respect of vegetables coming from the maritimes the growers in Quebec and Ontario will be unhappy?
10394	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1969
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not sure of the gist of my hon. friend's question. There is no assistance whatsoever in respect of goods moving from western Canada into the Atlantic provinces.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: My question referred to the reverse situation. Is the minister aware that if freight assistance is given in respect of products moving westward into Quebec and Ontario there will be opposition from the Ontario and Quebec vegetable growers and pressure to keep these freight subsidies from going into effect for that reason?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I suppose that is so, Mr. Chairman, but there has been a 100-year effort the other way around. There has been all manner of assistance provided in central Canada in respect of goods moving into the Atlantic provinces. Furthermore, there is really no significant difference here other than we are providing the same kind of assistance that has prevailed. We are simply making it available to trucking as well as to rail transportation. I do not think it will be significant in that way.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 4-Reduced rate for compensation.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is related to clause 4(2) which is intended to give some assistance in respect of express traffic westbound out of the select territory. I am looking for what is perhaps only clarification of this clause. Was this measure requested by the premiers in their brief or during discussions with the minister and will this benefit the railways or will it be passed on to the shippers?
I am informed that the railway people feel at the present time that although they do not get the subsidy, the E.T.A. 100 rate schedule reflects the M.F.R.A. outbound rate. In view of this I am wondering whether this assistance will be of any benefit to the shippers. If my information is correct that the outbound express traffic under the E.T.A. 100 rate schedule reflects in fact the potential effect the M.F.R.A. is going to have in reducing the rates charged by the rail company to the shipper, will this benefit in fact be passed on to the shipper? Has there been any discussion with the minister and the rail people about whether this actually going to result in a reduction in outbound rates to the shipper?
Since this is going to help the outward passage of express traffic, what is going to be the

position of the railways in regard to the intra-movement of express traffic? If we do find that there is a reduction in the cost of westbound express traffic in view of the relationship between the E.T.A. 100 rate schedule and the M.F.R.A., will the railways then turn around and increase the express rate for intra-movement? How is that situation going to be covered?
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure my hon. friend knows that you cannot take care of a thing like that in legislation. You have to take the whole freight tariff, the truck tariff, all the shipping and everything else and incorporate it in the act. I suggest the only thing we can do is make as much provision in general terms as we can and then hope, as my hon. friend said in his opening comments, that we wind up with a competitive system which will be the most meaningful way of correcting the anomalies to which the hon. member referred. I do not think I can answer him any more specifically. If he wants to spend a few hours or even days with the authorities on the question of broad tariffs-I am sure he knows how complicated they are-I could arrange it for him.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Power to vary or remove rates.
Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman,
when I spoke on this bill last Tuesday I said that I welcomed the introduction of the legislation because it was at least an attempt to correct some of the problems with which we in the Atlantic region have been plagued for the last 100 years. I also pointed out that I would accept the bill in principle strictly on the basis that it was an interim measure. I re-emphasize that today. This bill will give slight relief to certain shippers in the area, but it will do very little to correct or eliminate some of the transportation problems that have been with us for so long.
The reason we on this side of the house are suspicious of the so-called interim nature of the bill is found in the clause we are now considering. Many speakers have expressed the view that clause 5 is a bad one, that it sets a dangerous precedent. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants on Tuesday expressed it very well when he said he objected very strongly to the inclusion of clause 5 in a bill
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
of this type because we are in effect eliminating a statutory right and substituting therefor an administrative decision.
For 60 years, from the time of confederation to 1927, we in the Atlantic provinces fought to have our right to Canadian markets recognized. This right was recognized in 1927 under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. There is now not only a constitutional obligation in this respect, but commitments made over 100 years have resulted in statutory guarantees being provided. Now, with one fell swoop there is included in the bill a clause which will wipe out all those rights we fought so long to acquire.
In his statement earlier today the minister admitted this was not the best way to handle the problem. That was the understatement of the afternoon. It certainly is not the best way to handle it; in fact, I think it is one of the worst ways it could possibly be handled. The minister has the report of the four Atlantic premiers. He told us today he had listened to the premiers and this bill is basically what they want. I point out to him that the four Atlantic premiers specified a different method of handling subsidies from that outlined in the bill. I am told this is one of the reasons for the long delay in preparing the report; the premiers would not agree to the report unless this specification were included. On page 14 of their report the premiers state specifically:
To permit this transition without creating undue disruption of business or unnecessary hardship, the implementation of the revised act should be done gradually.
I think this is the crux of the whole thing:
The selection of shippers qualifying for intraregional subsidy-
They use the word "intraregional"; this is why I wanted to get these terms straight with the minister.
-under the new policy must be completed by the agency before modifications in the Maritime Freight Rates Act on intraregional traffic are implemented.
In other words, as I read it and understand from having talked to people in the mari-times, their position all along was that the first step was to set up a board, to give the board authority to consider the whole matter of reduction of tariffs, to access where these subsidies could best be used to encourage industry, and when that had been done they would make recommendations as to how the subsidy system could be operated. I suggest to the minister that this bill is putting the cart before the horse. Under the provisions of
Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act clause 5 the government is given the right to eliminate or alter subsidies at will; they can eliminate the whole structure of subsidies which has been built up since the Maritime Freight Rates Act was passed.
As far as I can see, there is no provision in the bill as to how the board shall be set up, what its composition and powers will be. There should be provision in the bill to cover these matters. Clause 5 provides that the subsidies may be removed. The minister has assured us that they will not be removed. He has assured us that a federal-provincial board will be set up, and only on their recommendation will the subsidies be altered. But as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley pointed out, the life of a Minister of Transport in this government is not very long. All we have are the minister's assurances. A succeeding Minister of Transport may say: I am sorry, but he has gone; he is no longer with us.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, what guarantee do we have that the subsidies will not be altered or removed? All we have is a statutory instrument which provides that the subsidies may be taken away from us. In my opinion clause 5 is the bad clause in this legislation and should not be there. May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer in very few words. My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. We could maintain the freeze for the rest of this year, and the truckers would get nothing. One part of the argument is that we are not going far enough or acting quickly enough to get the truckers under the scheme. We could apply the freeze immediately, and nothing would be done for the remainder of the year because we had moved in that direction. On the other hand, my hon. friend could see the wisdom of what we are trying to do and accept my undertaking of Tuesday, which I repeat, that there will be no attempt to remove or reduce M.F.R.A. subsidies except to the extent that financially equivalent assistance is proposed by the joint committee and accepted by the government. That is the alternative we have taken in view of representations made by hon. members, who now do not like this particular arrangement. I simply leave it at that, in calling it one o'clock, and say that you pays your money and you takes your choice.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman-


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It is one o'clock. Is it the wish of the committee that we continue for a few minutes?

June 19, 1969
Question of Privilege


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman, you allowed the minister to make a statement after I had called it one o'clock.


An hon. Member:: He was answering your question.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. If it is the
wish of the committee I will call it one o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock the business now before the house stands adjourned pursuant to special order made Friday, June 13, 1969. I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a question of privilege in respect of which I have given appropriate notice. In view of the fact that it concerns the Minister of Agriculture, and since he is not in the house and I am not certain of the extent to which notice was given to him, might I simply bring the matter before the house at this time, indicating that as soon as the minister enters the chamber I will bring the matter before hon. members as I properly should.


An hon. Member:: He is here, now.


Gerald William Baldwin: As I indicated before the minister arrived in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege in respect of which I have sent the usual notice to Your Honour. It is a matter which affects the Minister of Agriculture. In particular, it deals with a news report which appeared under date of June 21 in the Financial Post under the headline: "Will Ottawa aid grain growers?"
[The Chairman.]
Underneath is a further headline: "Government certainly will-if Bud Olson has his way." Above another portion of the article is a separate headline: "Here is how Olson proposal for aid would be operated." Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to go into the contents of this lengthy article. I will only say it contains reference to a number of specific proposals for dealing with the cash position and problem of western farmers.
Your Honour may tend to dismiss this question of privilege as a mere grievance because the minister saw fit to go outside the house and make a statement. While we do not condone this, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on Tuesday last a debate was launched in this house on a motion brought down by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands dealing With this very subject. The minister participated in that debate. I am not permitted to go into details, but in the course of his statement he gave no particulars, no information to this house which could be regarded in any way as resembling the type of proposal he made known to this newspaper.
Either the minister, when he entered into the debate on Tuesday, knew that this article was to appear and was aware of the information he had given, or else he gave this information to a newspaper after the debate had concluded. In either case I submit it constitutes an abuse of the privileges of this house. This question touches the practice of the present government ever since the session started. We were told last year during our debates on procedure that there would be so many days set apart for the opposition-a lesser number than were previously available-but that these would afford the opposition opportunity to set down motions and bring forward questions for discussion in this house. The practice about which I am now complaining has gone on continuously since the session started. It is part of what I suggest is a calculated effort to downgrade the functions and the role of the House of Commons and of parliament.
The practice of making statements outside the house instead of in this chamber shows a calculated contempt for the functions which parliament should fulfil. It is a practice which is constantly growing and I suggest that within a limited time this house will not be performing its functions in the way in which the people of this country expect them to be performed.
We shall shortly be met with a request from the government to agree to changes in
June 19, 1969

our rules. Let me say to the Prime Minister and to the cabinet that the conduct of which the Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister and other ministers have been guilty during the course of this session makes a mockery of their expressed desire to reform parliament; it is sanctimonious hypocrisy.
Let them not talk about reforming parliament in the light of conduct of this sort. Instead of being prepared to face charges properly made by an hon. member, the minister preferred to go outside the house and put on record specific answers to those charges, something which should have been done here in this house, and in this house only. That is why I raise a question of privilege at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard the date given by the hon. member for Peace River.


Gerald William Baldwin: June 21.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, according to my calendar it is two days from now that this newspaper will be published.
Seriously, I have not read this article. I certainly did not write the article. Whether it contains a lot of speculation or not is a matter about which I cannot give an opinion at this point. I suspect that it does contain a lot of speculation, perhaps a repetition of suggestions which have been made to the government from time to time by many farm organizations in connection with the subject matter.
I did not say anything more to the press, to the reporter from the Financial Post, or indeed to any other member of the press than I have said in this house.
I want to close by reminding the hon. member for Peace River that there is no one in this house who has more respect for this institution than I have.


Mr. Speaker:: I rise to suggest to hon. members that it is perhaps procedurally incorrect to continue with a debate when there is no motion before the house. The hon. member for Edmonton West seeks the floor, but I wonder whether in the circumstances it might not be better to go on with the business of parliament.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: As a point of information, the minister is referred to in the article in question in these words: "Olson told Financial Post", and then the article follows along.
Government Policy on Uranium Sales Mr. Olson: Mr. Speaker, it would not be the first time that this minister and other ministers have been misquoted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARIANS

Mr. Speaker:: Before we proceed with the business of the house today I wonder whether hon. members would allow me to bring to their attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a delegation of Australian parliamentarians. These distinguished colleagues are visiting Ottawa as part of a journey arranged through the auspices of the Speaker of the Canadian section of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. On behalf of my colleagues in the house I extend to them a most hearty welcome, and express the hope that their visit with us in this parliament in Ottawa will be interesting, pleasant and fruitful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill S-39, an act respecting Boy Scouts of Canada and to incorporate L'Association des Scouts du Canada, to which the concurrence of this house is required.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the house of the government's policy with respect to future sales of uranium to other countries.
On June 3, 1965, Prime Minister Pearson outlined to this house a policy regarding uranium exports which provided for such exports under safeguards to ensure that the uranium was used only for peaceful purposes, and which also provided for the stockpiling of uranium to enable operation of Canadian uranium mines to be continued while markets developed for this material.
Many significant changes have taken place since 1965 in the world uranium market. There is a growing world requirement in
10398	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19. 1969
Government Policy on Uranium Sales relation to available supply and a demand for long term contracts. The increasing dependence on uranium fuel for future electrical power generation is providing an incentive for many countries to become concerned with uranium activities in other countries. At the same time the recent signing by many countries of the non-proliferation treaty will, we hope and believe, curtail the spread of nuclear armaments.
These developments will have an impact on the Canadian uranium industry. Accordingly the government is now setting out its uranium policy in greater detail to ensure that full account is taken of the Canadian public interest in these new circumstances.
The basis of Canada's uranium policy is stated in the preamble to the Atomic Energy Control Act, namely that-
-it is essential in the national interest to make provision for the control and supervision of the development, application, and use of atomic energy, and to enable Canada to participate effectively in measures of international control of atomic energy which may hereafter be agreed upon.
To protect the national interest in the different circumstances which now face us we will henceforth require that all contracts covering the export of uranium or thorium be examined and approved by the appropriate federal agency before any application for an export permit is considered. The examination will cover all aspects and implications of the contract such as nuclear safeguards, the relationship between contracting parties, reserves, rate of exploitation, domestic requirements, domestic processing facilities, and selling and pricing policy. Approval will not normally be given to contracts of more than ten years duration unless provision is made for renegotiation of price.
Once an export contract is approved, export permits covering the actual shipment of uranium or thorium may be issued annually, provided the conditions of the contract have been maintained. Approval will be granted only for the supply of uranium and thorium for peaceful purposes to customers in countries with which Canada has completed a safeguards agreement or following the coming into effect of the non-proliferation treaty with customers in countries which have concluded the necessary safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Canada will permit stockpiling of Canadian uranium in foreign countries to meet the succeeding five-year requirements of each country to fuel existing or committed nuclear reactors. Additional stockpiling in Canada

will not be precluded but actual export shipment will be limited to a moving five-year requirement of the foreign country. The shipment of small quantities of materials for atomic energy research projects will continue to be permitted without safeguards arrangements.
We will continue to require that all persons engaged in uranium or thorium mining in Canada be incorporated under federal or provincial legislation, that they operate under licence from the Atomic Energy Control Board and that they provide information as required under the regulations of the board.
The government believes that the administration of Canada's uranium policy in this manner, with regulations such as the foregoing, will enable the Canadian primary and secondary uranium industry to grow and take advantage of its opportunities in the world uranium market.
In the implementation and administration of these national policies, the federal government will maintain close contact with provincial governments on matters of common concern with respect to the uranium industry.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the advance copy of the statement the minister gave us, in order that we could make a considered reply. Unfortunately the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), who would normally speak on behalf of the official opposition party, is not here to reply to the minister.
Arrangements to control the spread of nuclear weapons have been strengthened since many countries have signed the nonproliferation treaty, Prance and the People's Republic of China being notable exceptions. Perhaps one benefit to flow from bringing continental China into the community of nations-that could be done through means of diplomatic recognition or by bringing that country into the United Nations-would be the acceptance by that country of the implications of the non-proliferation treaty which would lead to a more effective control of nuclear power in the world.
It is noteworthy that since former Prime Minister Pearson made the announcement in the house on June 5, 1965, about the sale of uranium and thorium the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna under the aegis of the United Nations has grown in importance and usefulness. The key policy considerations are "control" and "peaceful purposes". The spread of dangerous, toxic sub-
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
stances is a matter of international concern. Recently the United States army tried to dump poisonous substances into the sea. Fortunately for the world the outcry from the people of the United States forced a change in policy of that country. It is all too obvious that we must continue our vigilance. Canada has made no effort to sell uranium that would not be used for peaceful purposes. There is far more involved here than money, and the government recognizes that.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to find that world demand for uranium is increasing. When there was a surplus of uranium in this country and when uranium mines were closing many of us were optimistic enough to think that because nuclear energy could be used in producing power, the demand for uranium undoubtedly would increase in the years ahead. That optimism has been fully justified. Many of us urged the government at that time to embark on a policy of stockpiling uranium. I am very glad to say that the government's decision today has been fully justified by the events.
The increasing demand for uranium, particularly for the generating of power, is creating a demand of which Canada can avail itself. We are one of the fortunate countries in the world which has large supplies of uranium. This will enable Canada to earn a good deal of overseas trade credits by virtue of the export of uranium. However, Mr. Speaker, I am certain the people of this country do not want to earn dollars at the expense of creating a nuclear monster.
The government has been very zealous over the years in making sure that no uranium was sold on the export market except for peaceful purposes. I am glad to see from the minister's statement that the government intends to continue that policy. I take it that no uranium will be sold to any country which is not a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. The People's Republic of China and the Republic of France are not yet signatories. I know there was a good deal of pressure on the government to sell uranium to France. Fortunately that pressure was resisted. I hope it will continue to be resisted not only to those two countries, but to any other countries which refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty.
There is one danger of which I hope the government will be fully aware, that is the 29180-6581
Government Policy on Uranium Sales danger of the trans-shipment of uranium. If uranium is sold to a country which is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, it should not be trans-shipped to some other country which is not going to use it for peaceful purposes. I hope the Atomic Energy Control Commission will set up the necessary machinery so that they can be fully aware at all times that the uranium which is sold to any nation is used in that nation, and is not exported to some other nation for the purpose of manufacturing nuclear weapons.
I hope as a result of the minister's policy that we will see a continued expansion of our uranium exports. I hope at the same time the policy of safeguarding the use of Canadian uranium against warlike purposes is carefully and zealously continued.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to be made aware of the agreements the government has reached in connection with the export of uranium, but we have certain reservations to make as far as ten-year contracts are concerned.
We hope the sales will be made only to countries who will use uranium for peaceful purposes. We also hope that the government made sure that uranium will not be transferred to third parties which might use it for purposes other than peaceful ones.
We believe this statement will be welcome by the Canadian mining companies and by the workers who make their living from uranium mining in this country.
Again, I say we are very happy about this statement and we approve of it.



NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION ACT


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-208, to amend the National Transportation Act (Selection of examiners).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the National Transportation Act appoints as examiners people responsible for investigating on behalf of the Commission matters concerning the operations of extra-provincial public carriers by motor vehicle.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This bill is designed to amend the act so that the Commission will give preference, in the selection of examiners, to the qualified personnel already available to provincial commissions, to avoid duplication of examiners and to take advantage of the experience already acquired at the provincial level. All members of a provincial commission could be designated for this purpose.


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


Mr.   Fernand-E. Leblanc@Laurier: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, to amend the National Transportation Act (Restricted Application).


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


John Napier Turner: the first reading of Bill No. S-21 (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since, at the very last minute, the authorities of the St. Jean Baptiste Society in Montreal have, by special delivery, sent to twelve members of parliament representing constituencies on the Island of Montreal, an invitation to attend the celebrations that will mark St. Jean Baptiste Day on June 24 next, and since care was taken not to invite the Prime Minister because, according to the experts of the St. Jean Baptiste Society, he does not even reside in the Montreal area, does the Prime Minister intend to send as delegate to 
June 19, 1969
such celebrations a minister from the Montreal area, for instance, the Secretary of State, to represent the federal government?
I am informed that in the Montreal area-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked his question.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the minister concerned has just advised me that he has not yet received that invitation, but even on the assumption that it is about to reach him I understand that other hon. members who have duly received it have turned it down, for they thought it came rather late.
Even if I wanted to send somebody to represent me, provided I am invited to do so, I do not think I would find any volunteer.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Has the Prime Minister inquired from the Department of External Affairs how many foreign countries will be represented at the celebrations organized by the St. Jean Baptiste Society of Montreal? Have those ambassadors received, according to custom and practice, the approval of the Department of External Affairs of Canada to attend them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must say in this connection that I have not asked the department to inquire, and I do not think that it should.
Yesterday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Charlevoix, which I must admit took me by surprise, I said that I did not know that the ambassadors had been invited. I have learned since that the invitation had reached them before it became actually known that the organizers of those celebrations intended to exclude the federal government and the Prime Minister of the country.
Therefore, I think that in most cases- probably in every case-their good faith was abused.
I want to say publicly that I did not intend to blame them if they had accepted in good faith the invitation extended to them by the mayor of Montreal and the Society. But now that the facts are known and that it was obviously intended to systematically exclude the federal government and the Prime Minister of this country, they will have no doubt to make their own decision. Once more, I would like to explain to the house that in the event the good faith of those people was abused, I had no intention whatsoever of blaming them.

June 19, 1969


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Has the Prime Minister received this morning the visit of Mr. Marc Carriere, chairman of French Canada celebrations committee? If so, is he in a position to disclose the nature of their meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Carriere is in Ottawa for purposes that he knows better than I do. It is true that I saw him, but only for a few minutes this morning and he took this opportunity to explain why he had not invited me. This is all that happened between us.



PRIME MINISTER UNABLE TO ATTEND CELEBRATIONS AT ST. GEORGES DE BEAUCE

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Has the Prime Minister made a decision regarding the invitation extended by the town of St. Georges de Beauce to attend the St. Jean Baptiste day celebrations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is much concern about me these days. I must say that before coming here I asked that the authorities of St. Georges de Beauce be officially informed that I regretted being unable to attend their festivities, that I sincerely thanked the people and the organizers of the celebration for their invitation, and that I hoped other more favourable occasions would allow me to visit the people of that region, for whom I feel an ever-growing admiration.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the federal government seems to be kept out of the various celebrations scheduled by the St. Jean Baptiste Society, does the Prime Minister feel it might be proper for the federal government to organize its own celebrations on St. Jean Baptiste Day?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we might consider the idea; all parties work at it together, and I think we would have many spectators and participants for our celebrations.



STUDENT AID


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the University of Toronto and York University have been compelled to reject the applications of more than
18,000	students who applied to enter those universities this fall? In view of the fact that the report of the university presidents indicates that many thousands of high school graduates will not be able to gain admission to university this fall, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving any consideration as to how to deal with this problem, and particularly whether the government intends to increase federal grants for post-secondary education in order to provide accommodation for university students?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the N.D.P. knows, education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and one in which the federal government has no constitutional competence. On the matter of shared grants with the provinces, the hon. member knows that we are now in the process of achieving ways under the constitution whereby the federal government with the consent of the provinces can participate in the type of shared grants to which he refers. Let me just remind the house that since the new arrangement made by the then minister of finance in 1966, the federal government has transferred several hundreds of millions of dollars to the provinces in the account of education.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact the Ontario provincial Minister of Education has advised these young people who cannot get into university to work for a year, and in view of the fact that the unemployment figure at the end of May reached nearly 5 per cent of the labour force, and the anticipated 250,000 students will be unable to get work this summer, has the minister any plans he intends to divulge to the house, either now or on motions, to provide employment for these young people, who will not be able to get into university this fall and who will be looking for work this summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the hon. member's question to the alternative

June 19. 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry minister, I would suggest to the minister that if he is going to make a statement of this nature it should be made on motions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I then ask the minister whether he will make a statement on motions tomorrow, or certainly before the house recesses, in respect of this important matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigraiion):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter. My hon. friend will have noticed that the month to month increase in the labour force was considerable and that a very high proportion of that increase-about 81 per cent-consisted of persons under the age of 25 years. These number some 152,000. In the same period the employment growth month to month was 150,000. So in the past month there has been a very distinct-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can see why the chair is always reluctant to allow replies to this type of question, which only lead to debate. We have heard a lengthy question and a lengthy statement. My suggestion is that this kind of statement ought to be made on motions rather than by way of an answer to a question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps I may ask the minister this question: In view of the fact that the unemployment figure has risen by another 20,000 in the last month, does the minister intend to make a statement to the house before we recess as to what plans he has to provide employment for these students during the coming summer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had listened to my answer he would have noticed that in the past month the Canadian economy has shown remarkable strength in absorbing a very large number of young people coming into the labour market. If that trend continues for the next few months, and there is no certainty that it will, then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has repeated the question, the minister has repeated the answer, and I now repeat the ruling.



SHIPBUILDING


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Can he tell us whether he has received from the Quebec Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce an official request for co-operation with regard to the sale of the Canadian Vickers of Montreal to the Quebec Societe generate de finaneement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Last Saturday in Montreal, when I met the Quebec Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he mentioned his intention to get in touch with me shortly regarding this matter.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Has the minister wished for the closing down of the Canadian Vickers at the earliest possible date, in order to get rid of that cancer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot inquire about the wishes of the minister.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: May I ask
the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he saw a delegation of the C.S.N., the union at Canadian Vickers, today and whether he was able to assure them that the federal government would assist in obtaining or giving contracts to Canadian Vickers pending the completion of the study in respect of a maritime fleet in which the government is now engaged?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I saw such a delegation. I had previously obtained information with respect to the number of ships the Canadian government was going to have built in the coming months. There was no indication that ship construction would be available in the short term ahead of us. The government also has a policy, dating back to 1965, on the necessity of bidding on such occasions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Like the Bonaventure.
June 19, 1969


Jean-Luc Pepin: I indicated to the group that I was not in a position to commit the government to any arrangement at the present time to keep Vickers open for ship construction.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the minister whether his attention was drawn by the delegation to the matter of the reconversion of some ships, and whether Canadian Vickers would not be a proper place to have that work done. It would keep the people employed for at least a year or so until the study is finished.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since the minister met the representatives of the C.N.T.U. and that a task force will probably be set up to conduct a study, is he in a position to guarantee some work to the Canadian Vickers, at least until the report of the task force is received?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, during the discussions with the labour organization in question, there were quite a number of "ifs". If the federal government has ships to be built, if the federal government is ready to award contracts without tender, if the Canadian Vickers is ready to build those ships, if another group is ready to replace the Canadian Vickers, if... There were about seven or eight, Mr. Speaker, and things remained at that.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Will he make available to the shipbuilding industry a grant similar to that which he has made available to the automobile industry?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Immediately following the presentation of the budget I asked the minister whether his department intended to introduce machinery which would require importers to pass on to consumers, in their entirety, the tariff reductions announced in the budget. He answered
Inquiries of the Ministry that he expected to make a statement shortly. Several weeks have passed, and I wonder whether he is now in a position to say if such machinery will be introduced in the very near future.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped the hon. member would have read the speech I made in this house on Monday.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did read every word of the minister's speech and there was not in it one word dealing with the matter I have asked about this afternoon. I again ask if he will indicate whether the studies in connection with this matter indicate that this can be done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have asked the minister a question and he has given me the smart alecky answer that if I had read his speech I would have got the answer to my question. I have read every word of his speech and there is not in it one word about the matter I asked about this afternoon.


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


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: We will wait for a little order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I have lots of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. The hon. member would like to put his question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: I will, Mr. Speaker, as soon as I have a chance to do so. My question of privilege is that this minister is deliberately misleading the house. In his speech he did not say one word that has anything to do with the question I asked him this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have two rulings to make. The first is that this is not a question of privilege. The second is that the hon. member cannot tell another member that he is deliberately misleading the house. I am
L. '	'	.

June 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry sure the hon. member did not intend to use those words and would like to give an explanation which would be satisfactory to the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


George Harris Hees: I will be very glad to comply with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw the word "deliberately". I simply say the minister is misleading the house. I ask him when he will take his job seriously, instead of sneering at the problems he was appointed to deal with, like the bumptious smart aleck that he shows himself to be every time he rises to speak in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether we could return to the question period. We have only 40 minutes, as hon. members know, and if we spend half this time on points of order or questions of privilege it is somewhat unfair to other hon. members. I hope the minister is not rising on a question of privilege also.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I was, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member was. I hope he is not now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



PRESS REPORT INDICATING ATTEMPT TO EQUALIZE CASH FLOW-REQUEST FOR QUOTA STATEMENT

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he gave an interview to Mr. Hyman Solomon a while ago. Such an interview is reported as having taken place. Apparently this is a case of another Solomon come to judgment. Did the minister advise Mr. Solomon that there would be a fall-away this year in total farm cash income for all sales of wheat, oats and barley of $450 million. Also, did he use these words which appear in quotation marks in the newspaper article:
What we will be trying to do is equalize as far as is possible the cash flow of farmers who are stuck with the kind of grain the market simply doesn't want at the moment with those who are lucky enough to have what the market wants.
Is this the plan of the government, or was it a midsummer night's dream on the part of the minister when he told Mr. Solomon this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question is in proper form; in

fact, I have serious doubt about it. However, in view of the fact that the matter has already been raised by way of a question of privilege, the minister might be allowed to reply to the question.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, and to the second part the answer is also yes. But I would like to add that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has announced a number of times in this house in response to questions, as well as the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, that they were going to equalize the quota.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has been frank in that answer. I ask him, is the government going to bring in a measure before we adjourn, in order to equalize the situation in which farmers on the prairies find themselves because they have not the wheat that is required for export? Can they get relief now, or must they wait until fall?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The action of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to cash advances and other things has already gone a long way toward achieving that objective.


John George Diefenbaker: Did not the minister know when he made the statement to Mr. Solomon that further action was going to be taken, or was it a midsummer night's dream?


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that by very rough division approximately one-third of the delivery points are on a quota of three bushels to the acre, one-third are on four bushels to the acre and one-third on five bushels, will the minister make a statement to the house prior to our adjourning for the summer recess setting out how the five-bushel quota objective of the Canadian Wheat Board is to be achieved? We would like to know what the plans and programs of the government are.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I can give is, by the best use of transportation facilities. I have said on a number of occasions that I have been told by the chief commissioner of the Wheat Board that he would do his very best in this regard, and hopefully it could be done. He said that
June 19, 1969

quota equalization would be at the five-bushel level. This is the best information I have.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the statement he made to the Financial Post and the earlier statements he made this afternoon in the house. Would he indicate to what number of bushels per acre the cash program which he will initiate will relate?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That has already been answered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that no answer at all has been given by the Minister of Agriculture, may I direct a supplementary question to him and ask him how the farmers will repay this cash flow, and will they be required to repay it at all?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as well acquainted as I am, and that is fairly well, with how the cash advances are recovered.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have a supplementary
question-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There have been a number of supplementary questions. I suggest to hon. members that we might return to this important matter in a few minutes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is an important matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize how important it is, but perhaps hon. members might go on to another subject. Since the hon. member indicates that he has a very short supplementary question, he may put it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is just a quick, short supplementary question arising out of the reply given by the Minister of Agriculture. May I take it, then, that this cash flow program which he is about to initiate is nothing more than a cash advance to the farmers which will have to be repaid by them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that this is a short question. It is certainly a short statement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a question, Mr. Speaker. This is really what it is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



EXTERNAL AID


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister a question on the war in Nigeria.
As the International Red Cross has put into service a maritime route to Nigeria's capital, is it the intention of the Canadian government to ask the Nigerian government to extend such a route so as to assist Biafrans, through the Red Cross?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to rely upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer that question, which I will pass on to him.


Bernard Dumont: It is merely a question of geography, Mr. Speaker.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the second Acting Minister of Transport, which I hope he will take as notice so that the Minister of Transport may make a reply tomorrow. The question is: During April and May did the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commission permit extensions in the number of hours flown by pilots in Canada, and specifically, did any pilot obtain permission to fly up to 150 hours per month in order to enable air lines to put on extra flights to compensate for the Air Canada strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In my view the hon. member's question is of the type which normally should be placed on the order paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on the point of order that Your Honour has raised. Ordinarily this matter would be placed on the order paper or brought up in committee when the estimates are being discussed, but may I point out to Your Honour that in view of the alleged termination of the present session of the house there is no opportunity to bring this matter up, since next Tuesday is a day for the Prime Minister's celebration about which he was talking. I have been informed that the extension of the number of hours flown is a great hazard to people flying in aircraft.

June 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: If I were to accept the hon. member's point of order I would have to conclude that all questions can be asked. There must still be some rule applicable to questions asked at this time. I suggest to the hon. member that surely there is a possibility of obtaining the information which he seeks in other ways than by asking a question at this time.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am sorry to belabour the point, Your Honour, but in this case the lives and safety of passengers on Canadian commercial air lines are in jeopardy, and I feel this is a proper question to be raised at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-AIberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I should like to ask him whether he has signed yet an agreement with the government of British Columbia for the establishment of the first national park on the western coast of Canada.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet signed this agreement but I think we will be able to sign it in a few weeks.
fEnglish]



THE LATE EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS


John Angus MacLean: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him what arrangements have been made for Canada to be officially represented at the funeral of the former Governor General, Lord Alexander.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, final arrangements have not yet been made. We are not yet quite certain of the date of the funeral and of the arrangements which are being made in the United Kingdom.


John Angus MacLean: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the [Mr. Nesbitt.)
government to be represented at the funeral by one of its ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course the government will be represented, but by whom is a matter which has not yet been decided.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. During the harvesting of the vegetable, fruit and tobacco crops in 1968 our labour force was supplemented by people from the West Indies, and this proved to be a very satisfactory arrangement for our producers. In view of this does the government intend to follow the same procedure for the 1969 season?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, the same
arrangements are in effect.



COMBINES


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and ask him whether he has received a wire from the president of the regional council in Vancouver of the International Woodworkers of America complaining about the fact that the major lumber companies are deliberately curtailing production in an effort to put up prices. May I ask the minister whether he is initiating any investigation into these allegations?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have received such a wire. Quite frankly, I find it a little difficult to believe that when the British Columbia lumber production comprises a very small part of the international lumber production, and there has been a quite unexpected decrease in home construction in the United States, any curtailment would in fact affect the price level.
However, in view of the wire that I have received, the officials of the combines branch will look into the matter and, of course, if Mr. Moore has any evidence of conspiracy or collusion that would be helpful to my officials I would appreciate it if he would send it to
June 19, 1969

us. I am sure that we all hope that in view of the programs of the minister responsible for housing we will have a steady supply of lumber and building materials in Canada. I know also that there have been a number of wildcat strikes in British Columbia, and it seems to me that it would be helpful if we had fewer of those.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



LOGS-MAINTENANCE OF BAN ON EXPORTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he will look into the claim by the lumber companies that there is a shortage of logs, and would he undertake to see that the ban on the export of logs is being fully maintained in so far as British Columbia is concerned?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think that is properly a question within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of my colleague from British Columbia, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I will refer the question to them.



HOUSING


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question.
Since the former Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has stated that the recommendations of the Hellyer task force on housing concerning officials of his department were not accepted and that he recommended that the latter be reinstated or transferred following the appointment of the new minister, does the Prime Minister intend to study the possibility of finding new jobs for these senior civil servants when he appoints a minister?



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easl Richmond):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Owing to the financial difficulties of the National Arts Centre, would the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement in
Inquiries of the Ministry respect of the government's intentions regarding the subsidization of the operating costs of what the Secretary of State, the minister of culture, refers to as "that thing"?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. It is based on the welcome report that work is finally under way to improve the facilities of the main post office in Montreal. Can he advise when action will be taken to renovate another major confluence of the nation's mail, the main post office of Toronto, which has been neglected for the past six years?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications and Postmaster General):: This work is already in progress, Mr. Speaker.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. With the majority of the people of Canada now being covered by medicare, what steps is the government taking to ensure drug costs for those on incomes at the subsistence level and those who are sick and chronically ill?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has asked a question very wide in scope and one the answer to which I suggest would require the type of statement normally made on motions.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Might I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister will make such a statement tomorrow?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I do not believe I shall make a statement tomorrow. As far as drug costs are concerned, I would indicate to the hon. member that this matter is properly the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As for those on low income-


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question. Is this not analogous to giving a farmer a bright new gun to go out and shoot predators, but no bullets to go with it?

June 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry MEDICARE-APPLICABILITY OF PLAN TO NATIVE PEOPLES


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the light of the complaint made by spokesmen for the Alberta native people, is it the intention of the government to honour the so-called Medical Chest Treaty which guarantees that the medical treatment of some Alberta Indians will be paid for by the federal government, and will such an arrangement be brought into effect in connection with the medicare plan as it relates to native people in Alberta?


John Carr Munro: I shall be visiting tomorrow the Indian community to which the hon. member refers and I shall be encouraging these people to participate in the Alberta medicare scheme.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received representations from the native people in Alberta and, if he has replied, will he tell the house the nature of his reply?


John Carr Munro: I have not to my knowledge received any official communication from them, though I am aware, from the news media, of the position they have taken.



CIGARETTES-NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fine example the minister has set in discontinuing smoking himself, and the fight-back spirit he has shown toward the cigarette companies, and in view of the fine example of C.T.V. and the C.B.C. in refusing to accept cigarette advertising, would the minister use his good offices to persuade the newspapers across Canada not to accept cigarette advertising?



EFFECTS OF CONSUMPTION BY HUMANS OF CAT AND DOG FOODS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that some of our old age pensioners are now reported to be eating canned cat and dog food to avoid starvation, will the minister tell us whether his department is conducting any tests or experiments to ascertain whether this practice is detrimental to health? I ask this question because it IMr. Rynard.l
appears to me that if the government continues to tackle the problem of inflation as it has been doing up to now, many of us will be forced into trying the same thing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
BAILt-REQUEST for reform legislation Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):
I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given him notice. Bearing in mind the interest generated in our bail system arising out of the Montreal case, can the hon. gentleman report when bail reform legislation will be presented to this house?
John Napier Turner: The Department of Justice is actively reviewing the whole question of bail and detention before trial, and is awaiting with great interest a report on this subject.



WHEAT-CONTROLLER TO ENSURE PROPER BOX CAR DISTRIBUTION

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is any consideration being given to the appointment of a transport controller to ensure there will be an adequate and equitable distribution of box cars in western Canada for the balance of this crop year, which ends on July 31 next?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not by me, Mr. Speaker; but maybe other people in my department, or other departments interested, are doing so, and I shall inquire.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: supplementary question directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that that cash loan was only a small creek and that it has now dried up?



THE MINISTRY


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the meeting that took place yesterday between the Prime Minister and the former Quebec Minister of Education, Mr. Paul-Gerin Lajoie,-I am sure you will
June 19. 1969

excuse my curiosity-I should like to ask whether it is true that Mr. Gerin-Lajoie has been offered an administrative position in the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member's curiosity can be satisfied this way.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell the house whether the federal government plans to set up other national parks, especially in the province of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest this question is very general in nature; it should be put on the order paper.



FORESTRY


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: A question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. What action is the minister contemplating, in view of the serious forest fire situation in the Yukon?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the situation prevailing in the Yukon is very serious indeed and that there are now 500 employees fighting the 60 forest fires raging there. Fortunately, there is no loss of life to deplore and the seats of the fires are now under control, which will prevent the destruction of other villages and next, protect the best forests we have in the Yukon.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-WATER BOMBING AIRCRAFT FOR FIRE CONTROL

['That is a matter for the house leader, and for discussion through the usual channels.']
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, or to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the fact that we are facing the most critical forest fire situation in British Columbia in years, and in view of the report yesterday that all fire districts are critically short of aircraft, though a number of fires are burning out of control, I would ask
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister whether his department has been approached by the British Columbia government or its forest service department with a request for assistance in providing urgently needed water bombing aircraft. If so, how many aircraft have been sent to British Columbia, and are there any additional aircraft available for service in that province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The department will be answerable for questions tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.



George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, and ask him this: When will the Secretary of State for External Affairs stop hanging around Scandinavia, hoping that some Chinese communist will kindly notice that he is there and speak to him, so that he may get back to Canada to do the job he was elected to do?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when it will be the intention of the government to proceed with what is now government order 91, the motion to set up a special joint committee on consumer affairs, price stability and incomes?


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is a matter for the house leader, and for discussion through the usual channels.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: May I be
permitted to ask the Minister of Agriculture, as the acting government house leader, if he can tell us the business for the rest of this week and next week, and from then on?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not believe there have been any changes in the program which the leader of the house, the President of the Privy Council, announced.

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs



GOVERNMENT ORDERS	Again follows a quotation from the report

[Stage Direction]
of the Indian Affairs branch dated 1964.


Gerald William Baldwin: That consideration be given to the third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development relating to the consideration of estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which was presented to the house on Friday, May 30, 1969.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion this house has had under the new rules to launch an inquiry into a report of a committee that has dealt with the estimates of one of the departments of government. I intend to direct my remarks primarily and almost exclusively to the problems of our native peoples in Canada, the Indians and Eskimos, people who have so many problems of which this house must be seized and with which it must deal.
As a foundation for my remarks may I refer the house to a very excellent work entitled "A Survey of the Contemporary Indians of Canada, Part I", which is under the editorship of Mr. H. B. Hawthorn, a very knowledgeable person in this matter. On page 400 appear three paragraphs that I should like to place on Hansard. They are very short and I put them on the record because I think that the people of Canada, the members of this house and the government must base their approach to this subject on these paragraphs. The first paragraph reads as follows:
In 1847-
I repeat that, Mr. Speaker-in 1847.
-Commissioners Rawson, Davidson and Hepburn, in a report on the affairs of the Indians in Canada, submitted to the Legislative Assembly, came to the conclusion-
Then the author quotes from the report, -"that the true and only practicable policy of the government, with reference to their interests, both of the Indians and the community at large, is to endeavour, gradually to raise the tribes within the British Territory to the level of their white neighbours; to prepare them to undertake the offices and duties of citizens; and, by degrees, to abolish the necessity for its farther interference in their affairs."
And the next paragraph:
More than a century later, in July, 1964, the Indian Affairs Branch declared that-
[Mr. Olson.1
-"the basic objective of the federal government in Indian administration is to assist the Indians to participate fully in the social and economic life of Canada."
That is almost a direct repetition of what was said more than 100 years earlier. The author ends with this very simple paragraph:
Something has gone wrong.
It is very difficult for us to chronicle and to set out in considerable detail all the wrongs which have been done. I hope to limit myself to one in particular and I hope that the minister, who I am glad to see in the chamber, will pay some attention at this time to my remarks.
I think we should bear in mind that in their approach to this problem the original government, the British authorities, made the same approach in Canada that was made in their other territories. I state this fact in view of some to the difficulties we are experiencing today. An attempt was made in documentary form to give some recognition to the aboriginal rights of the first people of Canada to their property holdings and to their customs and traditions.
For the information of those who are interested in this matter, not only from the historical viewpoint but from the viewpoint of people who know that a great wrong has been done and that it is the duty of the people of this country to attempt to right that wrong, I should like to draw attention to a judgment of Mr. Justice Sissons, who was for many years not only a member of this house but a territorial judge in the Northwest Territories and whose known concern for the Indians and Eskimos of the territory led him in the course of his judicial functions to lay down a number of principles of which I think the people of this country should take note. In one case involving two Eskimos in the Northwest Territories Mr. Justice Sissons declared that the native habits, customs and traditions of the people would prevail in regard to recognizing the legality, first, of a marriage and, in a subsequent case, of an adoption. In the course of his judgment, Mr. Justice Sissons traced step by step and century by century the reasons for his judgment. He referred to the fact that Charles II introduced an edict instructing his people in Canada, including the Hudson's Bay Company, that due recognition must be paid to the rights of the native people of Canada. In 1763, following the war which concluded at that
June 19, 1969

time, a Royal Proclamation reinforced this by saying precisely the same thing.
In the event-and I am now dealing with the Indian people I know in western Canada-toward the end of the last century instructions were given by the then government to a number of commissioners to travel from the Lakehead west and into the north in an attempt to settle and quiet the claims the Indian people might have to their lands, the lands that they occupied, the lands that had been theirs till the white man came. As a result 14 treaties were executed by these commissioners. I ask hon. members, who should have and must have a vested interest in seeing that wrongs which have been done are righted, to examine not only those treaties but also the reports of the commissioners which accompanied them.
I am going to deal very briefly with treaty No. 8 and its adhesions, which cover the country I come from, almost 100,000 square miles stretching from the north to Great Slave lake, down to a latitude equal to that of Edmonton, and covering much of the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.
The commissioner wrote a letter dated September 22, 1899, which accompanied this treaty, and he referred to the problems that he and the other commissioners had in securing the consent to the treaty of the Indian people. He intimated that it was essential not only to set out in writing the agreements that constituted the treaty but that certain other concessions had to be made. He indicated that oral statements were made accompanying the treaty which must be taken into account. Included in his report was the statement that the Indian people were greatly concerned about the provision of what they knew as a medicine chest and the services of a medical man. The commissioner indicated that, in order to persuade the Indian chiefs and those who executed the treaty to sign the treaty, he had to give a verbal statement indicating that provision of this kind would be made. He went on to deal in the same way with matters of education, with traditional hunting, trapping and fishing rights, with provision in regard to agriculture. These, I think, were the major factors that were in the minds of the Indian people at that time.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It may be of interest to hon. members to know that the Indian people do not have the same concept of land ownership as do white people. In Indian customs and traditions there
Indian Affairs
was a communal ownership of land. The land was held for all the tribe to hunt, fish and trap on. When agreements were executed, treaties signed and concessions made with the government it is well known, and this is corroborated by people who have knowledge of these things, that the Indians did not consider they were divesting themselves of all rights they had to the land. Instead they thought they were giving to the white man rights similar to those Indians had exercised in the past. Of course the white man has the idea that one owns land and by so doing excludes all others from owning it, and when any conflict arose between Indians and white men there was no question as to whose views would prevail. Even when treaties were entered into under which the government of Canada acquired title to all that vast empire lying between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains and stretching up into the southern part of the Northwest Territories, the Indian people did not believe they were divesting themselves of this land. They said to the white man, "Come in, enjoy it and share the land with us."
What has been the result of these treaties? As a result of decisions of the highest courts of this land and of the Privy Council, practically every concession the Indians thought they had wrung from the commissioners under these treaties has been nullified. The treaties are broken. I see the parliamentary secretary is here. I expect he recalls the Sikyea case. As a result of the decision in that case traditional rights to hunt which an Indian in the Northwest Territories thought he had were invalidated and nullified. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the Migratory Birds Convention Act completely swept aside the full effect of the treaties. At the present time litigation is pending in Saskatchewan-it may have been completed but I do not think so-in which the native people of the province are attempting to secure a declaratory judgment to the effect that they are entitled to certain help with regard to medicines and hospitalization as a result of the undertaking, given when the treaty was signed, that a medicine chest would be provided to them. So it goes. The courts of this country have held in case after case, year after year, that the treaties which were signed are nothing but scraps of paper. No wonder that today throughout Canada there is unrest, anxiety, hostility, enmity, and a growing trend toward activism. Our native peoples are on the march. Time is of the essence and it is not on our side in this issue.

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
I regret that during the six years the party opposite has formed the government of Canada nothing has been done. I am confident that if appropriate steps had been taken five or six years ago much of the unrest and hostility being generated today would not be with us. I know the minister will say that a number of discussions and conferences have been held. I suggest that the minister and those of his colleagues who were present at these conferences could not help noticing the feelings of hostility and animosity which our native peoples are displaying at this time. This ball game is different from the one of 10 or 20 years ago. Today there are in this country young Indian people who are intelligent, eloquent and armed with facts that cannot be denied. They know they have a just case and they cannot be fobbed off with the kinds of promises that were made in the past. I fear that we are in for a very serious and difficult time, especially if one bears in mind that the rate of increase of Indian and other native peoples of this country is double that of any other group in Canada. What was a small cloud in the sky 20 years ago may shortly become a black storm which is liable to overwhelm us and do great damage to race relations in Canada.
Speaking as a lawyer and as one who has been in public life and a member of this house for over 11 years, I say there is no doubt that if this entire matter were to be considered on a contractual basis the Indian and Eskimo peoples could beyond any shadow of doubt allege and prove breach of contract. Any reasonable jury seized of the facts could come to no other conclusion. When you bring action for breach of contract and win, there are several remedies. The distinguished lawyers in this house know that one remedy is specific performance. In these circumstances that is out of the question. Conditions have changed and will continue to change. That remedy is not open to these people. Another remedy is to restore to our native peoples the property which was originally taken from them. I do not think that is a reasonable proposition either and I am sure the Indians would not take the country back with the financial mess the present government has introduced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: people called upon to testify were too heavily influenced by the closeness of their relation with the department. They were people who, for one reason or another, had to come to terms with the department and were thus less objective and less critical than other spokesmen might have been. There was the lingering suspicion in any event that the minister and his officials were listening to what they wanted to hear and were disregarding the rest. Over the years I have found that is a fault most ministers seem to acquire very easily. That was proven by the final consultation meeting held here this spring. That meeting gathered together some of the most able and articulate people in the country, representatives of the native people drawn from the ranks of the native people. This group was as talented and as effective as any group which has ever appeared in Ottawa to argue their case, and I have sat on a number of Indian Affairs Committees both of this house and in conjunction with the other place.
It was clear that this group of representatives of the native people considered the consultations so far to be inadequate. They considered the consultations were a show and were avoiding many of the real problems. They wanted treaty and aboriginal rights considered before the Indian Act itself was considered. This group asked the right to conduct their own consultations, free of the influence of the department and free of the implications of colonial status which are bound to exist when the department clearly does not trust the Indians' capacity to examine their own problems and recommend their own solutions.
This all comes down to a question of trust in the Indian people. Will they be allowed to make their own analysis and their own decisions, or will they continue to be subject to the prejudice and the vested interests of the department? That was the issue which faced the minister when he met the last consultative conference here in Ottawa. He evaded the issue then, as he has consistently evaded questions in the house. I qualify that by saying the minister did make a statement in the house not too long ago that he would be making a definitive statement before the summer recess. I rely upon that undertaking and we will examine that statement with interest. I hope it will go at least part of the distance the Indian people wish the government to go.
The minister's remarks at that conference left the Indians to understand that he would seriously consider their request for the finan-
Indian Affairs
cial assistance required to let the Indian people conduct their own inquiry into their condition and make their own recommendations about the priorities and the solutions required. That meeting established a national committee on Indian Rights with representatives from British Columbia, the prairie region, Ontario, Quebec, the maritime region and the Territories. It was the function of that committee to lay the groundwork for a large-scale inquiry by Indians into Indian conditions. Delegates to the last consultative conference left the meeting believing the government was prepared to support this inquiry.
Members of the National Indian Committee met in Ottawa on June 3 and 4. The minister's office knew they were coming but the minister was not available to meet with them on either of the two days they were here. It may well be the minister will reply to that statement. If he is in a position to establish that I am wrong, I will be prepared to accept it. I must rely on the information I have received.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I must reply to that remark, Mr. Speaker. The delegation did not ask to see me until the second day. However, I was out of the city on that day. When they were asked if they wanted to see me they said it would not be necessary to meet me at their first meeting, but they changed their minds after they met.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister will
admit that this is not a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I accept the minister's statement. However, I do not think it destroys what I have said. The minister's office knew that the members of the committee were coming to Ottawa, but the minister was not there to meet them on either of the two days they were here. The minister has given what he considers to be an adequate reply to my statement. It is a matter of the extent to which it is accepted. I am not denying the accuracy of the minister's statement. It is a question of the weight to be given to it.
Questioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the house, the minister offered all kinds of excuses. He said that the committee had met at length with officials of his department. The point is that the Indian representatives did not want to meet officials. The Indian people, with some justification,

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
feel they have met enough officials. They wanted to meet the minister. They were elected representatives, a highly responsible and competent group. The minister owed them the courtesy of doing everything in his power to be able to meet with them.
Let us be frank about it. There is the suspicion the minister intends to introduce his white paper or statement about the Indian Act without consulting with this group or other recognized spokesmen of the Indian people. If I am wrong in that, I will be delighted to hear the minister say so when he rises to participate in this debate. If the minister is allowed to get away with that, he will then be able to argue that his hands are tied, his priorities are set by his statement in the house, and he will then be unable to deal with the real problems as the Indian people see them. If he does that it will be a tragic betrayal of the confidence the Indian people had begun to develop and bad been encouraged to develop in the motives of this government. It will indicate that the government continues to distrust the Indian people. It will be exactly the same kind of runaround the native people of Canada have been receiving for years from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
There is no reason for the minister to take this course. There is every reason for him not to take it. If he makes his statement without consulting fully with this committee and other representatives, he cannot claim to have a consensus among the Indian people. He cannot expect the Indian people to co-operate with him. He cannot shed or defeat the resentment of the Indian people against the department and the reputation of the department for continued colonial behaviour.
This government generally has a habit and a reputation of secrecy and silence. In no department is silence more serious nor frankness more required than in the Department of Indian Affairs. Yet this minister has been more guilty than most of evading direct questions in the house and of avoiding meaningful meetings and discussions with representatives of the people he is supposed to serve.
I would like nothing better, Mr. Speaker, than to be proved wrong in the statements I have made.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, one thing about which there can be no debate is that the Indians of Canada very deeply distrust all governments of Canada. In the last couple of weeks the Indians of [Mr. Baldwin.!
Ontario have been demonstrating, protesting and demanding the resignation of the minister responsible for Indian affairs for the province of Ontario. The Indians of Manitoba recently picketed the health services centre provided for them at The Pas. The Indians have been vigorously protesting the plan of the provincial government, financed jointly by the province of Manitoba and the federal government, for the development of power resources on the Nelson River. This will mean the forced movement of some 600 or more Indian people from South Indian Lake who have demonstrated they have no confidence in the provincial government of Manitoba.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The Indians of Canada have demonstrated they have no confidence in the federal government. They have no confidence in the Department of Indian Affairs that supposedly looks after their interests. They have made repeated demands for an adequate opportunity to express their points of view with regard to the Indian Act and everything else which affects them.
Despite repeated statements by the minister that he would be making a definitive statement this session on the governments' position it now seems that he will be making that statement so late in the session that members of parliament and representatives of the Indian people will not have an opportunity to discuss adequately before parliament adjourns the white paper that he will present. The other day I was told that the minister will be making his main statement on June 24. If the session finished next week there will be no time to discuss it. He has repeatedly intimated that the white paper will deal essentially with the government's views in regard to revision of the Indian Act. He shakes his head. We could demonstrate this quite easily by what he has said, and much more easily by what he has not said.
For I do not know how many years, but certainly long before the minister was appointed, the government has been promising to introduce legislation setting up an Indian Claims Commission. Where is that commission? Where is that legislation? Maybe we will hear something about that in the white paper, but certainly there will be no such legislation this year.
As I understand the Indians' position they really do not want to discuss the Indian Act or the provisions of an amending bill until the government deals with more fundamental
June 19, 1969

issues which they think are important, namely, the systematic ignoring, the systematic flouting and the systematic and unilateral revision of the treaties made with them by former governments, by the British government before Canada became a self-governing country, treaties which the Indians feel were binding not only upon themselves but on the government of Canada, whether the British government, the provincial legislatures before Confederation, or the federal government since Confederation.
As early as the royal proclamation of 1763 the basic right of Indians to hunt and fish was recognized by the government responsible for the administration of this country. In the Jay Treaty the right of Indians to cross the border from the United States into Canada and from Canada into the United States, and to bring with them their household effects without being obligated to pay customs duties on them, was recognized.
But what has happened? Through a series of court decisions made by white men's courts, where Indians were not represented by counsel who understood the law, their traditional rights guaranteed under treaty have been constantly whittled away. Under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, agreed to by Canada and the United States, the right of Indians to hunt out of season has been restricted. I suggest this is completely wrong. It is immoral that the rights of a group of people, guaranteed by treaties, should be reduced by the unilateral action of a government which supposedly represents those people.
I am not an expert in this field but I have heard conservationists argue that it is necessary to control hunting by all people, including Indians. Indians have told me that they do not kill anything close to the number of animals shot by white hunters for sport and recreation. If it was necessary to restrict the rights of Indians in this field it ought to have been discussed with them, and compensation should have been provided for them. We have nothing like that.
Now we have the recent actions of the Department of National Revenue. In recent years Indians crossing the border at Cornwall have been required to pay customs duties on household furnishings brought with them, a practice that was not followed for virtually all of the first 100 years of Canada's existence. Again that was done without consultation with the Indians of Canada. It is no wonder they are unhappy. It is no wonder
Indian Affairs
they do not trust Canadian governments any more.
A recent British Columbia Supreme Court decision holds that the Fisheries Act has restricted the right of Indians to fish. This is a right they have always had. It is not difficult to argue that Indians no longer depend primarily on hunting and fishing to earn a living. But there is an important principle involved. It is that rights given to the Indian people of this country in treaties negotiated by the government of Canada, or by the government of Great Britain before we became an independent country, should not be abrogated, restricted or reduced without consultation with and agreement of the Indians involved.
It is not my duty today, nor do I have the time, to record the systematic way in which the Indians of Canada, the original inhabitants, were pushed from pillar to post until eventually they were pushed on to reservations in the least productive and useful areas of the country, to which they have been re-tricted ever since.
In view of what has been done to them, in view of the conditions which have developed, the shabby way in which they have been treated and are being treated, in view of the fact that the earning power of Indians is probably not more than a quarter of the national average, in view of the abysmal health standards of Indians, in view of the fact that less than 100 Indians in 1969 have had enough education that they may attend Canadian universities, the Indian people are saying that what they want is for the federal government to set up an Indian Claims Commission which will look at what has happened to them, assess what we have done to the Indians, and assess the damages which Indians have had to bear as a result of the treatment they have received from the white people of Canada.
e (3:50 p.m.)
Governments have been promising the Indians for years that an Indian Claims Commission would be established. Where is that commission? When have we heard even a formal or official statement on the part of the minister that such a claims commission, on which I would hope there would be a majority of Indian members or at least a substantial percentage, would be established? Indian representatives on such a commission would understand the problems of the Indians and could articulate the desires of these people so

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
that we could begin for the first time to compensate the Indians for the tremendous injustices which have been inflicted upon them in this country by past Canadian governments and the people of Canada for more than 100 years.
The Indians of Canada feel very strongly about what they consider to be the complete ignoring of the rights they were guaranteed through treaties negotiated freely on the part of the white people but not so freely or knowledgeably on the part of the Indians. Because of this feeling they believe they must have a claims commission which will consider the problems of the Indians and assess the kind of compensation to which they are entitled. In this way these native Canadians could begin to function as first-class citizens.
In spite of the claims of the minister and the Department of Indian Affairs that these Indian people have never before been so widely and thoroughly consulted, the leaders and representatives of the Indians have made it clear that they are completely dissatisfied with the consultations and the steps that have been taken. Let me put on record a resolution which was passed at the national conference of the Indian Act held in Ottawa in the last few days of April, 1969. That national conference brought together about 100 of the top leaders of Indian communities from British Columbia to the east coast. This is what this resolution says:
The new Indian Act will be our magna carta.
This appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 30, 1969. The article went on to state:
Its impact will be more closely felt by Indians than by government. It can be our passport to equality and opportunity. Or, it could be just another compromise solution to a long-term problem.
Later the article refers to the resolution and states:
The new Indian Act must reflect the real interest of the treaties. It must stipulate the government's commitment to its obligations. The Indian people, through their legitimate organizations, should be given the opportunity to consult meaningfully with Indians across Canada, to develop their own Indian Act for (the government's) consideration and not vice versa.
That resolution is very clear. It is written in the kind of language which even this minister ought to understand. The representatives of the Indian people who met at that national conference are not satisfied with the consultations which have been held. I do not want to be unfair, and I do not think the 
representatives of the Indian people are hostile to the minister personally, but they certainly are not satisfied to leave the drafting of the new Indian Act to the top officials of the Indian Affairs Department. In their opinion, and I agree, they have consistently betrayed and ignored the interests of the Indian people.
These people believe it is the view of the top bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs that the Indian people are not now ready to participate in the real decisions which have to be made if their conditions are to be improved. These people believe that the top bureaucrats of the department feel that the Indians are not ready today and will never be ready to participate in these decisions. Certainly they do not believe they will be ready in my time or in the time of the present minister who is a few years younger than I.
These native Canadians are completely and unanimously resolved that they will no longer leave their fate and welfare to this bureaucracy which has so consistently and so often betrayed their interests and their desires. They are calling on the government to change its whole approach to the problems of the Indian. To spell out this change they have asked first of all for a reassessment of consultation with the Indian people and what the rights given to the Indians under the treaties really mean in the 1970's rather than what they meant in the 1600's when the treaties were signed.
They insist that the government bring in legislation to establish an Indian Claims Commission with Indian representation and give the Indians an opportunity to appear before it with adequately trained technical staff including lawyers, sociologists, anthropologists and historians. They could then present to this commission the rightful claims of the Indians in respect of which they demand compensation for more than 100 years of wrongs. They feel these claims result from mistreatment by the white people of Canada.
Lastly, the Indians of Canada insist that the minister, not on his own or with the department, rewrite the Indian Act in a way which will not suit the Department of Indian Affairs only but, more importantly, the Indians themselves. They insist that the Indian Act be revised not simply through consultation, which simply means the officials will listen to the Indians and then go back to their offices and draft the legislation. They want to be given the opportunity to rewrite the act
June 19, 1969

themselves with staff capable of doing the job they require. They know what their problems are and they know better than white people what must be done if their condition is to be improved.
The Indians would agree that they do not have all the answers, and I am sure they would be the first to admit they will probably make mistakes. The minister surely must agree that they could not possibly do worse on their own than we white people have done for them for the last 100 years. Let me urge the minister and the government to make an effort to meet the demands and reasonable requests of the Indian people of Canada.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the subject now under discussion is very important as we are dealing with the largest area of the Canadian territory, even though it is sparsely populated.
However, this part of the country is inhabited by people who were the first Canadians and who are perhaps increasing the most rapidly in number in spite of a relatively high mortality rate and a much lower rate of longevity than that of other Canadians as a whole.
I would like to quote a few statistics on this subject.
Thus, in 1965, for Canadians as a whole, the average age at death was 62, while it was about 20 for Eskimos and about 36 for Indians. Furthermore, infantile mortality in 1966, for Indians and Eskimos in the Northwest Territories, was 108.8 deaths per 1,000 living births for the Eskimos and 46.2 for the Indians, as compared with 23.1 per 1000 for the whole of Canada.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of a rather limited development, from both health and sanitation standpoints, in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and in Northern Quebec and considering also the rather high mortality rate of these people, who had sharply declined in number at the beginning of the colony, their condition has greatly improved since the first half of this century and it is now developing at a very rapid pace.
Therefore, we must pay a great deal of attention to these territories and to the people who are widely scattered in this part of the country which is not easily accessible to the officials responsible for education, health, housing, employment and so on.
The Progressive Conservative party is asking today, in the course of this debate on
Indian Affairs
supply, to consider especially the third report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This report deals with matters relating to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
Employment, education, housing, sovereignty in the Arctic, community centres, crafts, hydro-electric power in the North, in Dawson City-which may be considered as a tourist spot-those are so many matters dealt with by the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the present session.
I am a member of that committee, and on two occasions I had the opportunity to visit several centres in the Northwest and the Yukon Territories and my attention was drawn to certain points specifically referred to in the report.
For instance, in the field of employment, I was particularly struck by the lack of interest shown by employers, who take part in the development of the natural resources in those territories, towards Indians and Eskimos, in order to arouse their interest, to hire them, to promote their self-fulfilment and give them jobs in mining exploration work, for instance, or even in strip mining operations.
There is also in the Northern Territories some logging operations in which Indian and Eskimo manpower could be interested. I think the government should take some specific steps to have those corporations hire as many people living in that area as possible. Even if they have to be displaced at times to be closer to their jobs, I think this would be worthwhile. In respect of welfare assistance to Indians, a report recently published by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shows that 39.1 per cent of treaty Indians are living on welfare assistance. In other words, 9,883 employable heads of families need help.
I therefore feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is an important matter, which requires consideration and the seeking out of solutions. To my way of thinking, the solution lies in inciting companies to hire Indians and Eskimos.
As for education, to which our committee has also given consideration, we have been told that educational methods are constantly improving, more specifically in the field of basic education, but that there is also a growing tendency to provide these people with vocational training.
The government seems to show more willingness to supply such vocational training, which can best benefit Indians and Eskimos

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
who will end up in the employment of industries operating in those regions.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
As for employment, pressures should be brought to bear in order to urge mining and other companies to hire local manpower as much as possible so as to improve their standard of living.
We must also concern ourselves with the housing problem in those areas. I think that the government had made substantial progress in that respect. Homes have been and are being built for Indian and Esquimo families, in order to provide them with more comfort in those cold lands. But I wonder if we have adequately taught the Indians to maintain their homes. I believe that we have failed to show them how to maintain their houses. I have noticed over there that houses which are as strongly built as our own houses in the South were considerably worn out within a few years' time, to the extent that they practically became unfit for living. If Indians were shown how to take care of their houses, we would not have to rebuild those units every five or eight years.
During those trips and studies in committee, we have also looked into the problem of sovereignty in the Arctic. In the last few weeks, we were able to realize the importance of Canada's sovereignty in those regions. It has already been questioned to a certain extent regarding some parts of the Arctic which, in my view, belong to Canada.
In the past, we have shown too great a lack of interest in those territories to claim everything that is there, not only on the islands, but also in the surrounding waters. We will have much to do in the next few months and years, in order to take hold of those territories and to develop them as much as possible to become their true owners. In so doing, the Canadian people would only fare better, since a country, perhaps friendly, has shown some interest in owning in those territories.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is what I wanted to say this afternoon in connection with the problems facing the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
As a member from Quebec, I represent a constituency which covers quite a large area of the province and is inhabited by an important number of Indians and Eskimos. Indeed, according to the figures provided to me in December 1968, the Abitibi constituency comprises 2,363 Eskimos and 4,919 Indians.
[Mr. Laprise.I
Mr. Speaker, needless to say I am much interested in the welfare of those Indians and Eskimos not only in my constituency but also in the province of Quebec and in Canada.
The problem in the province of Quebec is a little different from that in the Northwest Territories, in the Yukon or in any other province where there are Indians. In Quebec, in most communities where Indians are living, they do not own the land. So it becomes difficult for the federal government to apply the same policy as everywhere else in Canada.
I should like to invite the minister to bring pressure to bear, if necessary, and to take all possible measures that could lead to an understanding with the Quebec government, so that the Indians living in our regions might know exactly what to expect as concerns the policy of both governments. More and more people seem concerned and dissatisfied with the existing procedure.
I could see with my own eys, on the occasion of the meeting held in early October 1968, at which a great number of Indians were represented mostly, by their band chiefs, with what anxiety they face the future. In several fields, they do not know whether they must depend on the federal government or the provincial government.
That was an opportunity for me to find out how ridiculous we can be when it comes to applying legislation. For instance, at Rupert House, on the east coast of James Bay, there is a federal school system, there is also a provincial school system and there are mission schools. That complicates matters to a very high degree, but it is also very expensive and yet the results are not very good. Matters should, I believe, be straightened out and it should be determined who has jurisdiction in this or that area, in order to improve living conditions in those regions.
I would like to speak in particular about the areas in my riding where there are large numbers of Indians.
At Rupert House, for instance-the figures I have on hand are for last year-almost all the residents of the village were unemployed. One can easily understand that for those people life is terribly hard. They must rely entirely, in summer especially, on welfare benefits, and that is no solution for them nor for the white people who live in the southern portion of the region.
The fact they continuously depend on the government weakens the will power of these people, it hampers their initiative when it
June 19, 1969

does not destroy it completely, condemning them to living sparely in undeserved poverty.
I think there would be much to do in those villages. I am told that at Rupert House, there are only half a dozen decent dwellings. There are 35 huts with families of 8 or 12 crammed inside. In the field of housing there is certainly much to do.
As suggested by some of the people living there, we could, for example, develop the forest for building material. There is even a sawmill that could be used to cut and saw and process wood for building purposes. That mill is idle. Local wood could be used to build houses; this in turn would provide employment for the local population.
A lot of other things could be developed. In the field of electricity, for instance. Rupert House has no electric power, no running water and, indeed, hardly any health facilities. I am speaking of Rupert House but the same conditions prevail more or less in every village along the coast of James Bay or of Hudson Bay. There, again, we could promote public health and develop public services, and train the local manpower in order to ensure the operation and maintenance of those services.
There is also another subject which, like the minister, I consider quite important, that is the municipal administration. I understand that soon the minister will make a statement which we have been expecting for a long time

with regard to the new government policy on the administration of Indian affairs. As far as the municipal administration is concerned, I think that we should grant the Indians a good deal more leeway to deal with the affairs of their own community.
For example, in almost every settlement-
[English] o (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Thomas Miller Bell: Continue.


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Is it the unanimous wish of the house that the hon. member should be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérard Laprise: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I shall try to be as brief as possible.
As I was saying, as far as those Indian villages are concerned, almost everyone of
Indian Affairs
them has a Council chief. However, the chief and members of the council have practically no authority. They have no budget or almost none to administer so that the social problems which exist in those villages and communities, such as alcoholism or violence which as a rule is the result of the latter, are quite serious. The Indian chief and his council have practically no authority, no influence on their people, to fight that evil which prevails in every Indian or Esquimo group.
Therefore, if the government finally decides to grant the Indians increased authority similar to that which is found in our areas, so that they could administer their own affairs- they would certainly be in a position to improve their social conditions.
Therefore, this is a point to which I draw the minister's attention and for which I care very much because I think that if this could come about as soon as possible, there would be sensible improvements in those areas. There is no doubt that many things can be done to improve those areas.
Canada is particularly generous as far as helping underdeveloped countries is concerned. In our country, huge areas are underdeveloped and are only waiting for the funds needed to ensure their development.
Mr. Speaker, we could first encourage mining exploration since in the distant northern areas there are not many farming or lumbering possibilities. The subsoil of these northern regions is extremely rich in all kinds of minerals. We should encourage mining exploration and developments there, in order to bring in more people first, and to give employment to the Indians and the Eskimos.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to do in that field and we should do it as soon as possible.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Scarborough East):: As I listened to the debate opened by hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker, I frequently thought I could hear myself speaking. I thought this particularly when emphasis was laid so clearly on attacking the past performances of all governments during the past several decades. I recognized the attack on the developing bureaucracy. I recognized the emphasis on a past which is indeed infested with grievances, as well as the emphasis placed by many speakers on the crucial importance of Indian affairs.
In this respect I was reminded of the private member's bill I introduced into this

interested. The Indian choice is to be a contemporary person in Canada today while remaining an Indian. Indeed, it can be said of Indians today, I think, that they recognize that continuity as Indians and the preservation of an identity can be achieved only by entering into the mainstream of life as a contemporary person.
This, as I have said before, is a momentous turn in the lives of all of us in Canada. It is a significant and historic decision that is being made in Indian communities and means that they themselves must be centrally engaged in all of the decisions that implement that particular goal.
One product of consultation will, I believe, be that full and equal citizenship implies a planned and phased reduction, if I may use that term, of the special legal and administrative arrangements that today perpetuate separateness and which in themselves become discriminatory. It means consulting Indians on every phase of the process of eliminating over a time the Indian Act and the special department whose functions, I believe, can better be performed by other federal government departments. It also means consulting Indians and the provinces to ensure that the Indians become citizens of the provinces and receive a full range of services as well as accept the obligations of other provincial residents. It means a general decentralization of administration so that Indian communities will control, for example, as much of their own lands, economic development, education and other functions as do other Canadians through their own local government and the agencies of the provinces.
Self-determination brings with it new obligations as well as the benefits of freedom. Only through consultation and understanding will the Indian people be able to share in decisions as to the extent and pace of change that they wish to bring about. Full and equal citizenship means that Indian associations must also be brought into the discussions, because they can perform an essential role in terms of projecting the consensus of Indian communities. As I have mentioned before, hon. members will note the great progress the Indians have made in consultations with the provinces, particularly in the west, and how the issue has now been joined in the province of Ontario.
This will mean that the government will have to supply funds to the Indian organizations to enable them to do their job. They will need the assistance of expert personnel and
Indian Affairs
resource trained people so they can study and fully understand the implications of going down one path or another to meet their goal of full and equal citizenship. It will not be an easy path to follow, and all of us will be confronted with many dilemmas.
Success will depend not on our enunciating a new policy but on the people themselves adopting such policy as their own. They cannot do this unless their own organizations are in the position of fully discussing with their own communities the meaning of change. We cannot hope to get a full response to new policy orientations unless we cope successfully with the complex issues and attitudes surrounding the question of treaties, claims and grievances.
The Indian treaties, apart from engaging the honour of the country, have for the Indians an enormous symbolic value, even though today the mainstream of federal policy and programs flows not from the requirements of the treaties but from the Indian Act and other sources. The deep importance that the Indians attach to the treaties naturally leads to a suspicion that major policy or program changes or shifts in the federal government mix of services may threaten the position of the treaties. Therefore it is essential that the new policy announcements and changes, which we now await, provide in themselves for intensive and close study by Indian communities and organizations of the treaty provisions and past grievances, and also of their relevance to the needs of the future. This has not been done hitherto. Both the past and the future should be viewed in a single context or as a single package. Settlement of past grievances, which is absolutely necessary to progress, should be part of the plans and programs of the future.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I believe, as a result of attending consultation meetings across Canada, that the Indians are ready to re-examine the past, not as a barren exercise but in order to balance the experiences and grievances of the past with the needs and possibilities of a fulfilled future. Continuing consultation is the only way in which the views and objectives of the Indian peoples as a whole can be made known and it is the only way in which the government can bring about a realignment of objectives. If we are to give our native peoples full equality as citizens and if special status and discriminatory aspects with regard to Indians are to be phased out, these people
10422

June 19. 1969
Indian Affairs
must be assured that they are embarked on a course which will bring success. They can only have that assurance if they themselves are involved in every phase and stage of that process as it develops.
I have tried to emphasize the need for consultation and flexibility, as have all hon. members, in dealing with this question. Without going into details may I again stress that there is an absolute necessity for us to introduce social and economic programs of major magnitude to underwrite new government policies. It is not enough for us to remove from our law discriminatory provisions, to unwind, so to speak, the Indian Act, and to transfer certain functions from federal to provincial power. Even if all this is done after there has been consultation it will not be enough to remove the legal and administrative restraints blocking the way to equality. Equality in this area will not emerge if we do not recognize that some people are starting from farther back than others in their march toward equality.
We shall have to develop special programs of an economic and social nature and those programs will have to have for our Indians a substantive meaning. Our actions must proclaim, too, that we mean what we say about the continuation of the Indian identity. We will have to orient some of our programs of assistance to make sure that what is valuable in Indian culture and in contemporary forms of Indian expression survives. We have not done this in the past. Indians will need assistance to keep alive their contemporary spirit and the contemporary form of their traditions. They want to keep alive their expressive and performing arts. I place that very high on the order of priorities. Only if we give our Indians that assurance and only if we assure them that the course we are embarked on will meet with success in the social and economic sphere will equality emerge. Only in that way can the Indian identity continue to exist.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity this afternoon to speak for a few minutes about the welfare of the Indian people of Canada. This year, 1969, when Canadians have often heard the phrases, "the just society" and "the age of participatory democracy", our country has been facing a problem that requires immediate attention, namely, the problem of the emergent Indian and Eskimo. The non-Indian world must be alerted to what it has not done in the past and to what must be done in future.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development it has been my privilege to travel from place to place in our great country and become better acquainted with the problems of our native peoples. Many meetings have been held during the past few months at the standing committee level. Also there have been many meetings in which the minister, his officials and representatives of Indian groups participated. What have been the results, Mr. Speaker?
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) spoke this afternoon and expressed grave concern about the government's tardiness. They complained that no positive conclusions have been arrived at with respect to proposed government policy on amendments to the Indian Act and with respect to the Indian Claims Commission which our first Canadians have long been waiting for. I must emphasize it is high time that the government moved more quickly and brought about action that will place our Indian and Eskimo peoples-my remarks, have mainly to do with our Indians although I am also concerned about Eskimos-on an equal footing with the white people. Personally, I am pleased to see that the Indians are taking initiatives to help their cause. They have organized the National Indian Brotherhood and the Indians recently held a conference in Ottawa in April which some 100 Indian leaders attended. In other words, the voice of the Indian wilderness has begun to ring from coast to coast. The Indians are beginning to give notice to Canadian society as a whole that they are emerging at last as a significant political force.
In my hand I have a pamphlet written by Mr. Boyce Richardson, a writer for the Montreal Star, who has put in phraseology more skilful than that at my command certain aspects of the Indian problem. I wish to read part of page 7 of the pamphlet. The heading at the top of the page is, "Race Has Shown Marked Success In Surviving Incredible Battering". The article following says in part:
The Indians of Canada, like those of the Americas, have made a remarkably tenacious effort of survival. They survived, first of all, a systematic effort by the white man to destroy them, an effort which culminated in the series of treaties under which the Indians ceded almost the whole of Canada in return for a promise to set aside certain Crown lands "for the use and benefit of Indians."
Since then, for 100 years, the Indians have survived the white man's assumption that they
June 19, 1969

were a vanishing race who would disappear in the fullness of time.
They are not a vanishing race, but a rapidly multiplying one. The present population of 250,000 is increasing at 5 per cent a year, a rate that would double the population in 14 years. This rate of increase is likely to become even faster, for today 60 per cent of the Indian population is under 21, and already considerable pressure of population is developing on the 6 million acres of Indian reserve lands.
I visited a number of reservations in my constituency and saw that the Indians who have accepted the white man's medicine- family allowances and social welfare benefits^-are multiplying at such a rate that soon there will be no room on the reservations for all the Indians who wish to live there. I presume the same can be said for many other areas of this country. Indian leaders themselves say that we should absorb at an accelerating rate our native Indians into the mainstream of Canadian society and make sure they have the same status as the white man. In the long run that is the only way out of our difficulties.
It is true that many Indians are suspicious of the white man because of the many promises the white man has broken. All the same our leading Indians realize that there are great advantages in allowing their children to be educated. In some academic fields our Indians could take the lead. Other Indians hope to take advantage of our vocational training facilities and learn trades which will help them to find jobs in society. Once they have jobs they will soon have sufficient status.
In future I hope it will not be necessary for us to have an Indian Act. Several Indian leaders have said to me, "You know, you discriminate against us by having an Indian Act. Why do you not have a French act or a Ukrainian act, or other acts covering other ethnic groups in the country?" I can understand the logic behind such remarks. We are segregating the Indians by having an Indian Act. They do not wish to be segregated from the rest of society. They do not want a special status. The Indian is a proud man, Mr. Speaker. He merely wants a chance. Let us see that he gets it. In the meantime the government is responsible for rectifying some of the ills our Indian people are suffering from.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I now wish to quote from the article by Mr. Richardson which is headed, "Finds treaties, act provide no guarantee as expected".
Indians in small communities around Lake Nipigon, north of Lake Superior, have begun to 29180-6591
Indian Affairs
discover by painful experience that the treaties and the Indian Act do not provide them with the guarantees that they thought they did-the same conclusion that Manitoba Indians have reached through legal study.
Most of the Indians in this area have moved off the reserves to new land, but they still regard their original reserves as "theirs"-a very doubtful conclusion.
I now quote from the paragraph under the heading, "Community problem":
He is, however, a man of immense experience in life who has worked at everything from bell boy to tugboat captain in the little towns and around the lakes of this extraordinary north country, and in his role as a community worker (though not from inside the official establishment) he has already won himself a remarkable position among these people.
Perhaps I can best illustrate the problems faced by Indians today, and the ambiguities produced by history and by official policy by describing some of these communities:
This writer goes on in his article to illustrate how the Indians are making a valiant effort to adapt in every way possible to the ways of the white man. I could go on at great length referring to this article because it is very knowledgeable. It explains the cultural life of the Indian as being full of drama and character.
The previous speaker referred to the possibility of providing Indians with better facilities to develop their artifacts, and place them at the disposal of other members of our society to enhance their economy.
I wish to refer to a situation in my own constituency of which I am sure the minister is aware. However, I feel it is an instance where the Indians themselves in that particular part of Canada would like to see some action. It would encourage them and also be an example to other Indians that our governments are moving to help to put them in a better economic position. I refer to the project known as Lost Hope Park. This has been developed through the co-operation of ARDA and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) under whose supervision ARDA now is.
This proposal has been studied and has now actually been approved. There was an agreement with the government of Saskatchewan, but it is now being held up at the Treasury Board level. I have received several inquiries lately regarding this project. In fact, I have placed questions on the order paper in this regard. I hope the minister will look into this particular proposal because it has the full agreement of both provincial and federal authorities and is now only a matter of

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
economics. The Indians in the Broadview area of Saskatchewan have developed a lot of initiative through this project which will enhance their own economic welfare. I am sure it would be of great encouragement to every Indian if the government could move in at the earliest possible date to see that this project reaches its culmination.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate, as in the previous day's debate, there have been some thoughtful and constructive things said from all sides of this house in relation to our Indian people. Pee okoke sun nika mamook wawa kope huloima iktus, nika mamook wawa kope hiyu siaaah kah cole chahko illahee.
In connection with the north, I will deal specifically with one section of the committee's report, namely that dealing with Arctic sovereignty. The committee heard evidence indicating that Canadian sovereignty over the islands of the Arctic archipelago to the continental shelf in the Canadian Arctic is well established. However, the extent of sovereignty over waters within the archipelago is less certainly defined. The committee's recommendation is that prompt and positive action by the government is required to define the extent of Canadian sovereignty.
In these few minutes that I have I wish to suggest what that prompt and positive action should be. Essentially, we should primarily draw base lines headland to headland to include the entire archipelago and declare all the waters within those base lines to be Canadian waters. We cannot stop at this point because it would not be common sense to exclude the shipping of the world from passing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans if this proves feasible. There should be an accompanying statement to our issuance of the maps showing the base line co-ordinates. In this statement Canada should proclaim that she recognizes the rights of ships of all nations to safe and innocent passage, not innocent passage alone, but safe and innocent passage for reasons I hope to make clear later in my remarks.
In my opinion, Canadians and Canadian governments have never had enough interest in their northern territories. They never had enough appreciation of them. For most of the years that the Territories have been part of this nation we have just occasionally reminded ourselves that there is something up there in the attic that is nice to have but we know very little about it. As Vilhjalmur Stefansson

once said, if you can find any Canadian university graduate to offer you ten ideas on the north, at least nine of them would be wrong.
To be fair, there has been an immense improvement in the attitude of Canadian governments in the past 15 years. There was some awakening of interest during the years of the St. Laurent government, a considerable increase during the years of the Diefenbaker government and an interest through increased participation continued during the Pearson government. It is continuing to accelerate with this government. This is revealed in the annual budget figures in many ways. I will not deal with it, but I think it is felt here and it is also felt when you go into the north. We are taking more interest.
In some matters we are simply not taking enough interest. That is my feeling in the matter of our claim to the waters of the Arctic archipelago. We are not moving sufficiently fast or in a sufficiently positive way.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I would like to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the history of territorial claims, but not with the history of our land claims because they are not in dispute. Canada essentially followed the system adopted originally by the Czarist government of Russia and since followed by some other nations, the sector theory. We took the limits of the nation's borders east and west and we extended lines in a more or less pie-shaped form up to the North Pole. The Russians took the view and still take it-they are an extraordinarily zenophobic nation, and I am not suggesting we should follow them in this-that everything within the sector lines is Russian territory. I, myself think, and from my reading believe, that most experts in international law find it difficult to conceive of a nation claiming ownership of packs of ice and even open water hundreds of miles from the nearest land.
The Canadian view was slightly different. The architect of it was Senator Poirier, and he pressed for it about the turn of the century. The Senate eventually caused the government of Canada to make a declaration. The Canadian position was that we laid claim to all the lands which might be discovered within the sector enclosed by the lines. At that time we did not think very much of territorial waters. It was not an issue, but it is becoming an important one.
Although we have belatedly taken action, and after five years of delay the government
June 19, 1969

is at least moving to draw the baselines and enclose the inland waters of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, we are still neglecting the Arctic-yet we do consider them our waters. I quote here from a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the house on May 15, found at page 8720 of Hansard, where he was quoting with approval the statement of a former Canadian minister of northern affairs:
The area to the north of Canada, including the islands and the waters between the islands and areas beyond, are looked upon as our own, and there is no doubt in the minds of this government, nor do I think was there in the minds of former governments of Canada, that this is national terrain.
If it is national terrain, and I am speaking now of the inland waters, how precisely are we going to define it, unless we draw baselines and issue maps to the other nations which say clearly, "These are the limits of Canada's inland waters, and outward from these limits we claim three miles as territorial waters plus an additional nine as an exclusive fishing zone?" Of course this may be disputed, but Canada's claim to the archipelago and its waters does not rest upon one point alone. It does not rest merely upon effective occupation, although we have had that and it is undisputed.
There is also ground for the Canadian claim in that the islands are a natural geographical extension of the continental land mass which is Canda's. Without going into the detail of the theory there are precedents for waters within archipelagos to be claimed as a nation's internal waters. There is now a precedent for drawing baselines headland to headland, from island to island, and even from rock to rock, as has been done in Norway. Norway has established beyond dispute baselines of 40 miles. Well, if 40 why not a base line of 80 miles, or 120, or 150 or more? In the Arctic there are one or two places in which the baseline might have to reach an extent of 100 miles to pass from point to point, but we do have considerable legal support for drawing such extended baselines.
I have mentioned before that we have more of a claim than mere effective occupation of the Arctic. There are other claims which strengthen us, and there is one I have not yet mentioned. We have a specific historic claim to those waters because in 1906, when Canada was having one of its rare spasms of interest in the north, we sent the Canadian ship Arctic under Captain Bernier into those waters specifically to establish our claim to them. He came upon a foreign whaling fleet in there-
Indian Affairs
Norwegian and American. He obliged them in those waters to observe Canadian regulations as to the taking of whales, and to pay licence fees. Further, he collected customs duties from those whalers on what was at that time probably considered open seas by the nations of most of the earth. Nothing could have been done more clearly and effectively to establish Canada's claim to those waters.
The equivocation came about in 1969, and not in 1903, because until we draw those baselines and display them, what does our claim to these waters really mean? This summer the American ship Manhattan is going to attempt to force her way through the Northwest Passage from east to west. When she enters Lancaster Sound at what point will her captain say, "I am in Canadian waters"? Will he say it at all? Will it be three miles seaward from a baseline drawn between Cape Liverpool on Bylot Island and Cape Cockburn on Philpots Island? It won't be if we don't say so. And if not there, where then? At what point in the passage of Lancaster Sound will the Manhattan be in Canadian waters, or at what point in Viscount Melville Sound or McClure Strait if she gets through to McClure? I say this because the pack ice from the Beaufort Sea will probably block that way, in which case the Manhattan will likely go down the Prince of Wales Strait. There will be no dispute at that point because at its narrowest it is only six miles across and we can claim three miles from each side.
But without baselines around the outer perimeter of the archipelago our claim to these waters is formless, and other nations can legitimately ask us, "where exactly do you make your claim?" Probably some nations might even undertake to tell us where they think our claim should be, and I do not think they will be generous if they make the choice. All this concern about the waters of the north and our sovereignty there has been sharpened because Prudhoe Bay, the great oil discovery, is transforming much of Alaska. With good fortune we are going to make a similar discovery in the Panarctic operation.
The Manhattan project finally has focussed our attention clearly and precisely on this question which we must answer. I would like to review that project briefly, although most hon. members by this time have probably read of it. The Manhattan is a supertanker of 115 thousand tons. She is being reinforced and fitted with a modified form of the Canadian Alex Bow ice-breaker plough. She

June 19, 1969
Indian A fairs
is owned by Humble Oil Company. The intention is to see if she can move through the Northwest Passage to Prudhoe Bay. If she can then it is expected that Prudhoe Bay oil can take the short way into the eastern United States or into Europe, because the shape of our planet is such that the Arctic actually is quite close to Europe. It surprises some people to learn, for instance, that when leaving Vancouver and driving as close as you can drive to Coppermine you go 1,000 miles inland and about 2,000 miles north, yet Coppermine is as close to Yokohama as is the city of Vancouver.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Perhaps there is no point in speculating on the chances of the Manhattan making this passage, but I have heard them estimated at about 50-50. She has a tremendous forward thrust, about 45,000 horsepower. Her reverse power is considerably less, something below
10,000	horsepower. If she does become wedged in the ice it will be necessary for the John A. Macdonald and the United States icebreaker West Wind to break her free. The experiment would then probably be a failure. Let us hope it is not, because if regular shipping could move through the northern ice this would be a great thing for all of us; not just the United States but Canada as well.
There is one interesting point in this regard, and that is whether the United States government asked our permission to put this paramilitary vessel, the coast guard cutter, through the Northwest Passage. When the minister appeared before the northern development committee some time ago he was asked this question, and he said: Yes, in effect they had. Under the Canadian-United States defence agreement it is common practice, or acceptable practice, for the United States government to inform us in the event of planes or ships entering Canadian air space or waters, and that this in effect constitutes permission. I hope the minister is correct and that the United States has adopted that interpretation, but I am by no means convinced that it has adopted that interpretation.
Those who saw a recent story in the New York Times in which the president of Humble Oil was discussing this great project-it was lengthy and interesting-would not have found anything to indicate that Canada was involved in any way. It is hard to believe that Canada is even aware these ships are passing alongside Canadian islands. His statement as to these waters is that there is an opportunity for a great international waterway to be

opened up by his ship. Personally, I feel it is a great pity that Canada is not putting the Manhattan through instead of the United States. Of course, it would be expensive, but so is our experiment with Panarctic. We have to risk some money to make money up there. I think it would have been worth it.
In 1913 when Steffanson was fully financed by the United States geographic society to explore the Canadian arctic and Sir Robert Borden was informed, he would not tolerate it. He put Canadian money into the expedition and it became a Canadian expedition with United States participation. In any event, the Steffanson explorations were Canadian.
I think Canadians are hoping that this crossing of the Northwest Passage will be successful. We should hope that a great waterway does open up there so that our ships and the ships of other nations can use it. You may ask why, then, should I be concerned as to sovereignty over these waters if we are to welcome the ships of other nations and offer innocent passage. There are no great fish resources there. There are some but they do not appear to be extensive in the Arctic. Why should we concern ourselves? Let's just draw the three mile plus the twelve mile straight lines along the shores of individual islands, and if the lines do not meet leave them as international waters. One might ask that, but there is more than one reason we should be concerned. I am going to outline one or two.
If we establish sovereignty, it will increase our responsibilities in the Arctic. If regular traffic develops through the Northwest Passage this country would be responsible for installing navigational aids and these, like everything else done in the Arctic, could be very expensive. I am pleased to learn that our Department of Transport is making a study of the cost of installing a Decca system in the Northwest Passage. Again, I feel the government is moving a little more slowly than it might. Our position would be better if that Decca system were put in on those islands by ourselves. We could put up a semipermanent system along the side of the passage. We could then have charged the Manhattan a nominal fee for moving through on our Decca system. This country will be responsible for installing such a navigational system.
This is the more dangerous aspect of the situation. We may find ourselves tempted to say to the United States: These are your ships
June 19, 1969



and this is your oil you are moving out. You put the system in, you make the expenditure and then this will be your system. Now, we come into the dangerous part which involves territorial rights to the land. Let me quote briefly from two authorities who appeared before the northern development committee, one Dr. Carr and Dean Maxwell Cohen. Am I running short of time, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Paul St. Pierre: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman. I should like to quote what Dr. Carr said on this point. He recently wrote an article on the economic aspects of the Yukon. When I asked him what future threat to our sovereignty might exist, he said he saw no threat to sovereignty over the land mass of Canada for the moment. He then said:
I think we just simply have to keep moving in the direction of insuring our sovereignty. I did not mention that the factors that tend to assist the encroachment on our sovereignty are improvements in transportation, air transport, under sea transport and various new developments in technology.
He went on to say:
In those vast spaces, it would not be difficult for other countries to set up studies or research units here and there and eventually obtain squatter's rights and move on. The point I do make is that we must be more energetic and do more in terms of services for the north now than we used to when it was so difficult to reach the north.
Dean Cohen of McGill University said very much the same thing to the committee. He put it in these words:
It is possible to argue that as technology improves exploitation must equally improve on the part of Canada to reinforce the idea that we effectively occupy the area and if we did nothing in the Arctic except visit when in fact technology provides now for real chances for exploitation, we might be weakening title if the sector and other theories did not support us.
We must consider the possibility that the United States might wish to put a navigational aid system in the Northwest Passage and that we might be sorely tempted to let them do that, to our own detriment.
In closing I wish to refer to another point. The Manhattan is comparatively small as a supertanker. She carries 112,000 tons. The latest ship to be built for Gulf Oil by the
Indian Affairs
Japanese has a 300,000 ton capacity. The Manhattan is larger than the Queen Mary and if stood on end would be taller than the Empire State building. The latest ship built for Gulf is far larger than that again. I would ask hon. members to think of the Torrey Cannon disaster in the English Channel when this small tanker spewed out her oil and poisoned the beaches in England and France. She was a small tanker.
I would ask hon. members also to consider that the chief danger in a passage through the north is being trapped in the ice and crushed. What would happen if a supertanker the size of the one recently built for Gulf Oil were caught in the Arctic ice, crushed, and lost
300,000	tons of oil? It would mean that 75 million gallons of crude oil would be spilled out in the waters with temperatures from 33 degrees, to 34 degrees. I ask you to consider the size of the problem that would face us, the terrible expense and the almost incredible damage that would be done to the ecology of the Arctic. This is the reason we should have control of these waters and the power to determine what ships come into them. We should be able to determine that these ships are safely built and that disasters of this sort do not happen. We cannot have control unless we have sovereignty.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) - Agriculture - Quebec - Request for assistance to prevent bankruptcy among Quebec farmers; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Canadian National Railways-Pensions of retired employees; the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alken-brack)-Canadian National Railways-Lennox County-Protection of rights of farmers in expropriation proceedings.
Indian Affairs

June 19, 1969



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baldwin.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I shall be rather brief. I should like to begin my remarks by dealing briefly with the department of Indian affairs. I think it can be generally concluded that there exists today a great deal of mistrust between officials of the department of Indian affairs and the Indian people. The Indian people have witnessed a huge bureaucracy build-up within the department. As I pointed out a few days ago in my speech on the budget, in personnel alone an increase in excess of 50 per cent has taken place in the department in the last three years.
Much of the dissension which exists today between the Indian people, the government and those concerned with the administration of Indian affairs is due to poor liaison, lack of understanding and lack of a true, sincere and sympathetic approach in earnestly working, through co-operation, to overcome the numerous difficulties which exist among our Indian people. The concept of paternalism which has been the philosophy of the department of Indian affairs has to be scrapped. In its place I believe we must adopt a philosophy of sincerity and sound national conscience in order to overcome the social and economic inequalities which exists between the Indian and the white communities. The situation that exists today can only be termed as harmful in many ways when one looks at the complete picture of our Canadian society.
I believe the role of the department of Indian affairs must include the reparation of some of the government's shortcomings in the treatment of Indians. It must also include the neutralization of the ethnic tension which exists between the white and the Indian peoples. In addition to the normal rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship, I believe it is reasonable to assume that the Indian community possesses certain additional rights because they are, after all, charter members [The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
of the Canadian community. I believe the Indian affairs branch has a special responsibility to see that these additional rights in so far as citizenship is concerned are respected, and that the government and the Canadian people are educated to accept these standards. Rather than dictating to the Indian people what the department of Indian affairs thinks is right or wrong, the officials of the department should be concentrating upon the development of education, upgrading living standards and providing employment opportunities. This would demonstrate a true feeling of trust and understanding. At the present time the Indian affairs branch is a massive stumbling block which prevents the Indian people from achieving their hopes and aspirations. The Indian community is discriminated against through a rigid interpretation of policy. We should be placing the emphasis on development through a humanistic approach.
We cannot legislate rigorously. There are no cut-and-dried policies created through legislation which can provide a humanistic approach to achieving the aspirations and ideals of our Indian peoples. I submit-I am glad the minister is in the house this afternoon-that one step which would improve the relationship and understanding which exists between our Indians and the Indian affairs branch would be to immediately commence the recruitment of Indian personnel to man many of the offices in the department. As far as I am concerned, no one has a better understanding of the problems of Indians on or off the reserve than the Indian himself. I believe that no one in our society is more aware of the poverty, social injustice and economic degradation of our Indian people than the Indian himself. Therefore, I urge the minister to consider this matter in order that Indians may have better opportunities, greater responsibility and a more realistic stake in their destiny.
I should like to deal briefly with treaties and their interpretation, particularly in so far as they concern health and welfare services. Although the treaties between Her Majesty Queen Victoria and the Indians of British North America were instituted and negotiated by men of good will in what they collectively considered to be the best interests of the Indian people, there is no doubt in my mind that the treaties are now woefully outdated, impractical and in many cases meaningless. For example, many sections of these treaties are obsolete, such as one plow for every ten families; a yoke of oxen for every band, and a suit of clothes for the chief every third
June 19, 1969

year. Clauses respecting hunting and fishing rights, health and welfare services and education are grossly outdated and have lagged far behind the national progress of this country.
It is generally concluded, through the interpretation of these treaties, that health services were to be provided by the federal government as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow. But what have we today? With the advent of medicare we have much confusion, apprehension and dissension. We have an atmosphere of mistrust and an environment in which the Indian Association has urged all treaty Indians to boycott enrolment in the Alberta medicare program. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to quote from the Edmonton Journal of January 13 in order that the evidence in this regard may be on the record. The article is entitled "Indians urged to boycott medicare in premiums row" and reads in part as follows:
The Indian association of Alberta is urging treaty Indians to boycott Albert's medicare plan until the question of premium payments is resolved.
The association maintains that medicare premiums must be paid by the federal government as part of their treaty rights respecting guarantees of health care.
Harold Cardinal, spokesman for the association, said the federal health and welfare department has indicated it will pay premiums for treaty Indians only on the basis of need.
The Indians Affairs Department, meanwhile, claims national health and welfare must pay any premiums necessary to ensure coverage on Indian reserves.
"It's not an issue with us," Mr. Cardinal said. Indians feel the federal government must pay the premiums for them, and they don't care which department does it, he added.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
He said, however, Indians wish to ensure that their treaty rights will be protected. They also want assurance that their medicare premiums are not turned over to the provincial government, if the federal government carries out its policy of turning medicare back to the provinces after five years.
"We want assurance that the federal government will pay all our health costs in future, as they have in the past," Mr. Cardinal said. This is part of the historic treaty rights, he added.
Farther on, the article reads:
There has been "confusion" at the regional level between the two departments, over the question of premiums, Mr. Cardinal said. He said he hopes the two ministers will clarify the matter.
In the meantime, treaty Indians are being advised to refuse to register for medicare, he added.
Today I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) a question
Indian Affairs
regarding this specific subject and he advised me that he will be attending the Indian Association conference in northern Alberta tomorrow or on the weekend. I presume that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) will attend also. The Minister of National Health and Welfare suggested that he will urge the Indians to enroll. I should like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Indian people in my province want some clarification of this matter, and rightly so. Certainly, they want some assurance from the federal government and some guarantee that payment will be made for the health services as prescribed under the respective treaties. After all, health is of prime concern to the Indian people. They were assured that their health services would never be curtailed. Now, they are being asked to produce an indigent or hospitalization card.
I think that some clarification is due to them to indicate how we are going to classify those who are indigent and those who are not.
My contention is that those who are living on the reserve are entitled to be granted health services under the terms of the treaty. In my own province of Alberta the government has built a so-called medicine chest. However, on many occasions it has been reported to me that many of these people are denied these services and facilities. One individual from the Saddle Lake reserve suggested that they are asked to be sick on certain days. "If I am sick on the reserve on Thursday, I may have to wait until next Wednesday to get into the hospital", he said. I believe that this is a breach of promise and I hope that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will clarify this matter. I hope that it will be clarified well before the end of June because, as hon. members may or may not be aware, the medicare program is due to go into effect in Alberta on July 1. The deadline for enrollment is the end of June.
I should now like to touch briefly on some aspects of the economic development and of the conditions on reserves as well as the plans and programs the government intends to implement to overcome the deplorable conditions which exist there. I think that the Indians, and the public in general, cannot understand why the government has continued to disburse funds on welfare and mere subsistence allowances. I believe this money would be much better spent on developing work projects and developing industry on or

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
near the reserves which would make possible the employment of Indians and thus make them self-sustaining. This is certainly one of the areas in which I believe the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion could play a very useful role. I think that officials of the department should take a long hard look at the possibility of encouraging and promoting industry on or near the reserves. After all, this is one of the major problems with respect to the employment of Indians on reserves. Indians, just like any other human beings, want to spend their evenings and weekends with their families on the reserve. Therefore, I believe there is a great deal of merit in developing industry in or near the reserves.
The housing, the sanitation and the water supply in the majority of reserves is deplorable. There is great poverty. For example, in my own riding of Vegreville, in which the Saddle Lake reserve is to be found, the same conditions exist. I have had much correspondence with the minister with regard to housing. He was good enough to despatch two of his officials to the reserve and we made a survey. Our survey revealed the fact that we need 100 houses on the reserve to meet the demand in the next five years. That comes to an average of 20 homes a year. The average number of homes that have been built in the last five years has been seven or eight per year. We are certainly never going to catch up unless we upgrade our program. When we look at the deplorable situation, the low standard of living and the poor housing on the reserves I believe we are fair in saying that the government and the Indian affairs branch have failed. Why have they failed? Because they have not given the Indians the opportunity to achieve their own destiny through active involvement, through participation, and through the acceptance of responsibility in discharging many of the numerous administrative, social and economic activities which exist on the reserve.
We hear it said in some quarters that the Indians have no pride. Well, they do not have too much to be proud of, particularly in view of the paternalistic approach of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I say we should give them opportunities and responsibilities and they will soon experience a deep sense of pride.
I should like to refer again to my own constituency of Vegreville and the Saddle Lake reserve. Recently, the band council embarked on a very ambitious project of

clearing something in the order of 15,000 acres of prime arable land. This project has provided employment, administrative experience and responsibility and has instilled a sense of pride in the Indians. It has had a terrific impact on Indians as is shown by the decrease in welfare. In addition, a prefab housing plant was established and is continuing to operate. It constructs homes for use on the reserve, and it also has had very good effects. It has developed an incentive in Indians to increase their skills, to take post secondary courses and, for example, to attend the school of agriculture in the neighbouring town of Vermilion. Some have also taken up carpentry. All this has instilled a sense of pride and responsibility.
These programs have been administered through the local band council and they have instilled a sense of responsibility. People are proud to have a say in their future and in their destiny. I hope that the minister will continue to encourage these types of programs because they will bring nothing but good to the Indian people and to Canadians in general.
I should like to conclude my remarks by reminding the minister that since he is in the process of writing a policy or a position paper on the new Indian Act, I hope he recognizes that Indians also are a changing people and that future policies must be flexible and adaptable to change. I urge that he incorporate and utilize the talents of our Indians to solve the numerous problems which we have created together and which have accumulated over the years. The Indians of this country are not interested in hearing any more words or seeing more complicated legislation and red tape. They want a reaffirmation of their rights and some positive action to overcome the complexities of their disparities so that they too may have the opportunity to participate in the benefits which other Canadians have had.
o (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that in suggesting that one of the days be used to examine the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development the opposition has shown, I suppose I might say for once, a great deal of good judgment. I am happy, as I know every member of the house is, that the opposition should have chosen this subject for discussion
June 19, 1969

today. I think the spirit which has been shown by all members indicates the concern and the honest confusion which exists in the minds of so many of us in this house, and of so many Canadians, with regard to the future of the Indian people.
We hear constant references to the Indian and Eskimo people and the circumstances which have existed in the past. We continually hear advice as to what should be done in the future. As a Canadian who is not of Indian background I feel somewhat reluctant to become involved in this debate. I believe the Indian people of Canada are beginning to show that they, too, have ideas about what their destiny should be.
What has been happening in the past two years or so, community development programs, education programs, housing programs, schemes for economic development and, what is more, the consultation which is going on between the government and the Indian people, are an indication that the Indian people are ready to take upon themselves much of the responsibility which in the past was exercised by government. The minister has promised that shortly there will be a statement on the government's position with respect to questions affecting the Indian people. I do not wish to get involved in giving advice to the minister. I will merely say that I trust the statement to be made will not become a political football. I hope it will be left to the Indian people to determine whether or not it is satisfactory. I hope it will be left to the Indian people to produce alternatives if what the government has said is not what they want. I, for one, believe the role of parliament should be limited to satisfying ourselves that whatever the Indian people want is carried out.
In the Northwest Territories, as in other parts of Canada, we have seen significant changes in the Indian way of life, in Indian attitudes, and in the attitudes of the Eskimo people. I should like to tell members of this house about a society which was formed by the Indian people in the community of Fort Smith. Historically, the Indian and Metis people of Fort Smith had a difficult time breaking into the government establishment. There was a problem of communication, a problem of economics and education. About three years ago a group of local people decided that they would form an organization to help themselves. This group, known as the Theb-ache society, assumed, in effect, responsibility for the economic development of their own 29180-6605
Indian Affairs
community. The manager of the society was a former heavy equipment operator for the Department of Northern Affairs. His work force consisted of people from all parts of the community. Race really did not make much difference. The group was able to fulfil contracts offered by the municipal government, the territorial government and the federal government. In the first three years hundreds of thousands of dollars of income were made available to residents of Fort Smith as a result of the initiative and action taken by the Thebache society.
Groups such as this could become cornerstones for the kind of creative activity, the kind of leadership which we hope will come from within a community, and I hope the government will take cognizance of this situation. I am sure any hon. member who has had experience of work of this sort can report the same kind of achievements. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to me as parliamentary secretary-I think he was intimating I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, Mr. Speaker, as you intimated when you recognized me, I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I want to make this clear in anticipation of what I shall have to say in the next seven or eight minutes. On two occasions in the last few years, the committee has visited the north, once in the summer and once in the winter. I think this has been a good learning experience for members from the south who would not normally have an opportunity to see this wonderful part of Canada.
I know that in the last parliament some of the strongest supporters of the idea of northern development were members of the committee from all parts of the house. Members had an opportunity of meeting the commissioners of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon Territory. They had meetings with members of both councils, including the appointed members of the Northwest Territories council. They became familiar, as far as the Northwest Territories were concerned, with the Carrothers report.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
By way of background, in 1965 the then minister of northern affairs, recognizing the restlessness of the people in the Northwest Territories in regard to the administration of their own affairs, appointed as Commissioner,

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
Dean Carrothers, to examine the future of the political, social and economic development of the north. This commission reported to the minister in October 1966.
Basically, the recommendations of the Carrothers commission were that the then administration, which was centrally located in Ottawa under federal auspices, be transferred to the territorial government and moved to the north; that the powers of the council be expanded; that the terms of reference of the elected members of the council be widened; and that government be brought close to the people. Much has happened since that period. The capital, Yellowknife, has been developed. The territorial government, the newest government in Canada, is on the ground and has taken over much responsibility of a provincial nature. But that is where it ends.
When the announcement was made of the location of the capital in February 1967, the indication was that the Federal government's position on further political development would be made known shortly. Two and a half years later we are still waiting for an announcement. The Northwest Territories council is in session in Yellowknife, and the members of that council are critical of the lack of a statement. They have said to the minister that they must hear from him; that the minister must come to the north and tell them what their political future is to be.
I believe the minister would like to be in the position to do this. He may have decided what should take place in the north; whether or not we should be divided; whether or not the size of the council should be increased; whether or not we should continue to have appointed members; whether or not the councillors should have the right to set their own indemnities. But I am more than a little concerned that up to this time we have heard nothing.
I tell the minister in all sincerity that this statement must come and has to come before the conclusion of the present council session. I say that to the minister because I believe that his relationship with the elected members of the Northwest Territories council, the appointed members and the average citizen in the north, depends on whether or not this statement is forthcoming.
I regret that I have to say this to the minister in this manner, but I believe the role of the federal government in the north during

the next number of years is greatly dependent on the kind of mutual trust and understanding that is developed between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, his commissioner in the Northwest Territories, the Northwest Territories council and the people. In my travels in the last three or four months I have become aware that the people of the north are restless. They are looking to the minister for a statement, a statement that will show the kind of leadership that can be given in the transfer of responsibility.
I have said on more than one occasion that at this stage of our development in the north we are not talking of provincial status or quasi-provincial status. We are saying that we want the right to run our own affairs and to make the kind of decisions that affect a person's everyday life. I hope the minister is able to convince his colleagues in the cabinet that he is under severe pressure, or, if I may use the expression, that he is under the gun to produce. And produce he must. He must produce by Friday of next week.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Or else.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: It all helps, yes. This may sound like an ultimatum but it is not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


Robert John (Bud) Orange: What I want to impress on the minister and on some of his colleagues in the cabinet is that we have waited long enough, that his relationship with the people in the north is dependent upon when he can come through with this most important document.
Before I conclude there is one other matter I should raise in relation to the sort of thing this particular minister has done, though those who preceded him took the first steps. I refer to consultation with the people affected, not only the Indian people but all people in the north. I hope this is the sort of relationship that will develop with regard to our national parks. In calling it six o'clock may I say that in this day and age I think consultation is so important that we must have it in all phases of our activity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
June 19, 1969


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I heard many comments worth listening to on this subject affecting Indians and northern affairs. I found especially interesting the speech of the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) who touched on a subject matter somewhat different from that dealt with by other hon. members. In one sense he was promoting new ideas and I hope the minister paid close attention to him. We can do something worth while in the area to which the hon. member referred.
I wish to deal with a theme with which most hon. members dealt with this afternoon, the theme of the native peoples of Canada. I am concerned about the future of these people. I wish I had had the chance of hearing the minister's speech before making my own comments since what he has to say could easily alter what I have to say. The other day I asked him what the government's policy is in this area. I understand he will give us his answer before the end of next week. I want to make some remarks in order to make sure he does not forget that we expect him to make a statement.
A short time ago when consultation meetings were going on in Ottawa I had the good fortune to treat one Peter Dubois to lunch. He is an Indian from my province of Saskatchewan. He told me that when the Indians controlled North America they had a good educational system which was flexible and served their needs. They also had a code of morals and ethics, and an economic system. The only area in which they failed was immigration policy. He said they had a poor immigration policy. It was second class. Indians can at least joke about themselves when they look back on their history, their problems, and the mistakes they made. But they are concerned about the future.
We took their land and left them to live on reservations. We left them the poorest of poor land which they could not make a living on even if they were exceptionally able farmers. In exchange we offered them our way of life, our habits, our language, our sense of justice, etc., whether they wanted to accept these things or not. We pay civil servants high salaries to administer Indian affairs. We give aid to Indians. We call it social aid but it is charity and handouts, call it what you will.
Indian Affairs
You know, some Indians look on the department of Indian affairs as a make work project for white men. White men are making work for high priced civil servants who are not too happy sometimes about the names Indians call them.
There are five Indian reservations in my constituency. Having visited them I have become acquainted with many people. I have hired some Indians to work on my farm and discovered that Indians, too, are people. I want to discuss some of the complaints and observations the Indians have made as individuals. I would also like to deal with how the department of Indian affairs affects them by what they do or do not do. An Indian on a reserve who is idle receives a form of social aid which will help him to survive. If he tries to get ahead by farming or owning a small business, it is like pulling hen's teeth to get assistance from the department. Have any hon. members ever applied for social aid through the department of Indian affairs? It is a very awkward and slow procedure. If you want assistance in order to farm or have your own business, you might receive it this time next year, if you are lucky. Some feel it is so awkward they do not even bother applying for it.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
Another complaint Indians have made to me is that Indian agents who understand them are quickly moved from the post they hold. I think this is a valid complaint they are making. These people who understand the problems of the Indians are asked to move by the department of Indian affairs. I received a complaint from a magistrate. He said the Indian cannot get drunk on the reserve and cannot afford to hire a hotel room, so where is he to get drunk but on the street. When this happens the reaction is: there's a drunken Indian; get a policeman and throw him in jail. What is the magistrate to fine this man if conditions for him are not the same as they are for the white man? If we are going to give the Indian justice, he should be treated as an equal of the white man.
The leader of the Creditiste Party has suggested a French speaking person in Quebec or Ottawa should be entitled to have his trial conducted in French. I ask the members of the Creditiste Party, if an Indian gets drunk or commits a misdemeanor in Quebec in what language is his trial conducted? It is conducted in French. In my part of the country his trial is conducted in English, not in Cree,

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
Huron or Montengnais. These were the original people on our continent.
I think the minister of Indian Affairs should have a heart to heart talk with his colleagues the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) as some of the work of the Department of Justice in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon is still being farmed out. There is no Crown prosecutor in that area and that is the reason the work is being farmed out. One is never sure who the Crown prosecutor will be. It reminds me of something said by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) who earned his living as a humorist writing a column for a Vancouver newspaper. He discontinued writing the column because he found it very awkward to be in this house and still write a humorous column for a Vancouver newspaper. I am a farmer from Saskatchewan and I find it awkward to run my farm from Ottawa. I believe it is equally difficult to administer justice in the Yukon Territory from Ottawa.
I wonder if the eloquent, patrician, well paid, well educated civil servants in Ottawa really understand what the problems are out there? They should go and live with the people to understand the background of these people and the conditions they have to tolerate? In that way they may have a better idea of what justice is all about. I strongly urge the minister to look into this matter.
There is one other area which is quite disturbing to me, that is the problem of unemployment in the north. This was mentioned by some hon. members this afternoon. Although it is a problem all over Canada, it is the responsibility of the federal government to a larger degree in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I suggest the Indians affairs branch should have personnel officers to help Indians or Eskimos when they move to a new job and change their way of living. We frequently hear of Indians or Eskimos who get a job, stay for a short time and then leave because of emotional problems or some other factor. I suggest these personnel officers could counsel these people, as it is very awkward when they cut themselves off from one way of life and then find they are unable to do well in another.
Another matter I would like to mention is something I have been told by young people. These are people who are attending university or are graduates. They are clever people and they have done well. However, I am surprised at the bitterness among them and their lack of trust in not only the Indian affairs branch but of all white people. As a member

of parliament, I was also included in that sense of distrust as they really do not trust anyone. They feel that many years of promises have not brought them what they wish. It may be that the general public have not accepted or recognized these young people. Possibly they still treat them as second class citizens; I don't know. This is an area in which we should improve our relations with these young people.
I would now like to deal for a moment with the matter of Arctic sovereignty. One of the reasons Arctic sovereignty has come to the fore lately relates to the possibility of oil in that area, both on the land and under the sea, and the value of that oil. I am hopeful oil will be found in that area, as there is sediment there of the type found in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In all likelihood there will be more oil found in that area than in these two provinces combined. What concerns me in this respect is the problem of future markets.
As a wheat farmer, I have encountered a great deal of disturbance in our area because of the lack of markets. At the present time in Alberta oil is being produced at only 45 per cent of capacity. We are now developing more oil wells in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and in the high Arctic. I am quite disturbed about our national oil policy. I strongly urge the minister to announce a policy which will give some direction to our oil people because they are very concerned about this matter. The name of the game in oil is markets. If you cannot sell oil, which is expensive to produce, what good is it? We should look at it as a national resource and see that the market is developed in an orderly fashion.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: It is a pleasure for me to voice my personal opinion in this very interesting debate on policies governing the Indian affairs of Canada.
While listening to some of the speeches made by our friends in the opposition, I have heard some very interesting statements and I have tried to listen to them with as much attention as possible.
Among other things, it has been said that the Indians should be treated the same as the white population, that their rights should be recognized and especially that ancient treaties should be honoured.
Some hon. members of the opposition have attributed to the minister some hostility
June 19, 1969

towards the Indians. It was even said that the Indians would be opposed to any legislation that would be enacted by the government until they are assured that those ancient treaties would be honoured as they should.
The minister has also been accused of not doing his duty. It has even been said that the Indians in Canada no longer have any confidence not only in the government of Canada but also in the provincial governments, and that they were deliberately being relegated to the most isolated, barren areas in Canada.
The last speaker, who is a good friend of mine, the hon. member for Battleford-Kind-ersley, (Mr. Thomson) quoted a phrase, with which I understood he agreed, saying that the Indians had a good education system and highly advanced ethics when, centuries ago, they were masters in this land.
I have great respect for the Indians. I have known several of them for whom I had much esteem, having worked with them, made trips in the North with them when I was practising my profession.
But, although I respect them highly, I also respect the ancestors of the white people. And, when I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley, it struck me as very similar to saying that when our paleolithic ancestors were hunting, gathering food to survive, they had an education system superior to ours and that we should, we, Europeans and North-Americans, go back to the paleolithic education system.
I think that in Canada, our respect and our love for the Indians are increasing. Is there an employment problem among the Indians? Of course, but this problem is becoming more and more world wide because of the development of our society, because of automation and of technological progress.
As for Canadian sovereignty over the Arctic regions, it is a very important aspect of Canadian politics which should not be forgotten. Therefore, it is good for hon. members to remind occasionally, as often as possible, the minister and the government that it is more and more necessary, at least to claim possession periodically of these far northern areas which certainly belong to us and which will later yield resources that will help our economic development.
This third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development is indeed most interesting and I think that every hon. member, regardless of his political party, should first congratulate the
Indian Affairs
members of this committee for the remarkable study and observation work they did during their last trip in northern Canada. It is indeed a good thing to see that, at the beginning of their report, the members of the committee mention that in the course of their northern trip they noticed a vigorous and healthy economic growth in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
We stress the problem of employment, as I said a while ago, because it is always an urgent problem.
There are many problems to solve, not only in the employment field but in all other fields dealt with in this report. Are we going to say that this government has not taken these last years very positive action, apart from helping the native people of Canada to solve their employment problems? The same could be said of education, housing, arctic sovereignty, friendship centers for the Indians who come to live in our cities, handicraft problems among the Indians, electric power in the north, which is in my opinion a pretty difficult problem to solve, on account of the enormous distances and sparse population in those vast territories.
There remains the tourist aspect of certain areas to be dealt with. As concerns Dawson City, when I was a member of the committee on northern affairs a few years ago, I saw that the area of Dawson City-that already old city that was so active at the time of the gold rush-is one of the most interesting as far as the tourist industry is concerned and there is still much to do there.
But having looked into the present government program and the estimates for the current fiscal year, can we say that the government and the minister do not want to do anything for the Indians? On the contrary, I think that in that field, the government is striving harder than ever.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
If we consider, for example, item L-40 in the estimates for this fiscal year, it is aimed at increasing to $4,300,000 the amount authorized for loans to Indians and Eskimos for the construction and the purchase of houses, up from $2,300,000, while in 1967-68, it was only $1 million.
For the entire program to which are allocated items 1 and 5, the estimates for this year amount to $175,159,000, while last year they totalled $135,446,000, an increase of $20,574,000. And if we examine that program and

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
those estimates, we will see that it is the same for all the other items.
Allow me to refer to a publication of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which gives facts and figures about Indian affairs, and which was published a few years ago. It is obvious the figures are not recent, but we can see that already, at that time, the policy of the present government in the field of Indian affairs was constantly improving, as was the situation of the Indians and the economic organization of the territories where they live.
Whether the figures relate to Indian handicraft, education, housing (construction and repairs), we always note the same progress.
When comparing the general expenditures for 1965 and 1966, in the fields of education, welfare, economic development and administration, including the special fund of British Columbia, they amounted to about $81 million for the fiscal year 1965-66 and $104 million for the following year, an increase of over $24 million.
With regard to engineering and to capital expenditures, including the construction of roads and bridges as well as other works relating to water distribution systems in 196162, for instance, the total votes allotted in this connection amounted to $1,420,000. In 1966-67 they were $3,845,000, nearly four times more.
Regarding education, the total expenditures in 1961-62 were $6,944,000, and in 1966-67, $11,418,000, that is nearly twice as much.
As for economic development, the amount spent in 1961-62 was $446,000 and in 1966-67, $2,085,000.
As far as the housing program is concerned, government expenditures for 1961-62 amounted to $2,254,000, and for 1966-67 to $8,226,000.
I think we might say, in the light of those figures, that things could be better for the Indians and their economic development, but we are doing a great deal at the present time as we did in the past. And now the Canadian government is doing its utmost to increase even more the well-being not only of the Indian people, but of every Canadian citizen.
May I be permitted, before concluding my remarks, to inform the house of some needs that are felt by a few Indian bands in my own region, along the Lower St. Lawrence river and in Gaspe.
In Gaspe, there still exist two reserves of Micmac Indians who lived in the area already

under the French regime and account for approximately 15 per cent of the population.
In passing, I wish to say that on the Maria reserve, for instance, a new school for the neighbouring Indians has just been built and that 80 per cent of the costs, if not the full costs, have been paid by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to remind the minister that in Gaspe, on those two reserves, many houses are in poor shape. In fact, many houses have neither running water nor bathrooms or, as we say, no sanitation nor water supply.
One important question is the order of the day of the Micmac reserve of Saint-Louis-de-France, at Maria, in Gaspe. There now exists a trading problem with regard to handicraft. For a long time, if not for always, the Indians on that reserve have specialized in the weaving of baskets. Occasionally, as is the custom, they trade those for mocassins, slippers and other handicraft products with the Indians of the Lorette reserve. As far as the reserve in Maria is concerned, it could have quite an interesting market with the United States, New York particularly, at the present time. Because they have to pay high customs duties, the Indians are loath to develop such a business which would be very profitable to them. On the other hand, the chief of the reserve, Mr. Leonard Jerome, came to Ottawa recently to meet with officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He pointed out that matter to his member of parliament, the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Bechard). He also mentioned that products imported from Japan were advertised as being made by Indians of his reserve and that it was quite detrimental to their business.
On the other hand, Indians of both reserves and citizens as well who visit those reserves complain about the sorry condition of the highways. They would be most interested in seeing the government give special attention to their repairs and improvement.
For many reasons, I think, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might be interested in establishing on the reserve at Restigouche a museum which would have the advantage not only of stirring up the interest of Indians and visitors, but also of developing the economy of that area.
A few years ago, the Capuchin Fathers of the parish of Restigouche, who minister to the Indians of the area, discovered the ship of
June 19, 19B9

the Marquis de Malause, a French naval officer, whose ship is reported to have sunk in the Restigouche river, in the vicinity of the reserve, during the last wars between the French and the British.
They located the wrecked ship, and they are now proceeding with further excavations.
Mr. Speaker, we feel that if the department could take some interest in this particular warship and other details related to its foundering, it might improve the status of the Restigouche Indian band, boost their economy, attract tourists and have other advantages, not only for the reserve, but for all the people of the area.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my appreciation of the minister's drive, and congratulate him on the initiative and decision he has shown whenever problems, greater or lesser, occur in the field within his responsibility. To illustrate this, I would like to recall briefly one field where he recently put up a brave and successful fight.
His efforts, among other things, without mentioning the touristic and, in particular, the economic angles, will have the effect of providing employment for some people in the Gaspe Peninsula, not only to the Indians to which I referred a moment ago, but also to the white people, to other citizens of the area.
I want to point out the positive and spirited manner the minister has displayed during the debate on the setting up of the Forillon Park.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member's time has expired.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate having the opportunity of saying a few words on this subject quite so soon, but I welcome the time now that I have it. We have under discussion a motion concerning the third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Like other hon. members, I was interested in the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), who dealt with one specific item of the report in which the committee recommended that prompt and positive action by the government is required to define Canadian sovereignty.
I think it can be fairly said that the hon. member's speech dealt with that recommendation of the committee in rather concrete
Indian Affairs
terms which I found very interesting. Generally speaking, I felt his proposal was one that I would be able to support. For the most part, however, the discussion this afternoon tended to centre more on matters which are not referred to in the report of the committee. The committee report pays particular attention to the situation of the native peoples of Canada. Its report contains headings which deal with jobs, education, housing, friendship centres and handicrafts.
No one in this house would deny that these matters are important and are very real questions with which the committee should properly wrestle. However, Mr. Speaker, I feel I should enter this discussion at the point at which it was introduced this afternoon by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). That hon. member introduced into our discussion an area that is not touched upon at all by the report of the committee. In my judgment this represents a serious omission on the part of the committee, which otherwise presented a well-rounded report for a committee of this kind. I am not saying this by way of criticism of the committee, because I realize there are limitations upon the matters a committee may include in its report. I mention this matter because, despite the importance of parliament being concerned with such matters as jobs, education and housing for the Indian and Eskimo peoples, the more fundamental question of the relationship of the rest of us to these people is at the core of what we should be discussing today.
All the well-meaning efforts that may have been made in the fields of housing, employment opportunities, retraining, and so on, will have missed the point unless we in this parliament are prepared to come to grips with what in my opinion is the fundamental and basic manner in which we should deal with this group in the Canadian society. Reference has been made to the fact that a statement of new policy is shortly to be forthcoming from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). The hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Stanbury) touched upon this subject in a speech which I thought was able and constructive. He referred to the fact that this comprehensive statement of new policy will shortly be made after an intensive, nine months review.
I confess that I do not await the statement with quite the same degree of optimism as that displayed by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, because on a number of occasions when it has been said we were on the

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
verge of a comprehensive statement of new policy we have heard from various ministers, statements which have not lived up to expectations. The minister who now occupies this rather important and arduous post will, I hope, succeed in his portfolio and have time to get his teeth into the questions that need to be dealt with. It is unfortunate, whatever may be the reasons behind it, that for quite a long time we have not had a minister in this portfolio who remained long enough to come to grips with the problems that must be solved.
I remind the minister that since the Liberal government assumed office we have had in this portfolio, if my list is complete, Mr. Fa-vreau, Mr. Tremblay, Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Laing in rather quick succession. In the period before that we had Mr. Fulton, Mrs. Fair-clough, and for a brief period Mr. Bell. I mention this as one of the reasons for the long procrastination in really coming to grips with the essential problem of the recognition of the rights of these people, as referred to by my colleague the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson).
The hon. member for York-Scarborough referred to these people having full and equal citizenship in the mainstream of Canadian life without loss of their identity. If I heard him correctly, he referred to the fact that it was not enough simply to unwind the department of Indian affairs or the Indian Act. I agree with that sentiment. I have said before in this house that in my opinion the core of this problem lies in unwinding the effects of colonialism, which covers a much broader area than that covered by the Indian Act or the department of Indian affairs.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I was intrigued by the remarks of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley to the effect that Indians had a good economic and educational system but a very poor immigration policy. He said this with that quiet sort of humour that the Indian people display with regard to their position and relationship with the rest of us. The hon. member's remarks reminded me of a discussion I had with the people of an Indian community in my constituency. We got into a rather similar area of discussion which came to the point of my suggesting that because we call these people Indians we tend to lump them all together as it were, whereas at the time Europeans began to arrive on this continent there was no more relationship or kinship between people from the St. Lawrence Valley and those from

British Columbia, than there is today between the people of Finland, for example, and Malaysia.
I suggested to the people with whom I was talking that if Columbus had thought he had discovered China instead of India, they would all be Chinese. This remark seemed to catch their fancy and we had one of those beautiful, quiet sessions of laughing about it. I suggest to the minister that if this had happened he would now be the minister of Chinese affairs, even though this would not involve him in some of the matters in which we understand his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is involved.
One of the aspects of this whole situation with which the house has been called upon to deal from time to time centres on the reference to the idea of an Indian claims act. The whole question is in many respects one which should take precedence over any revision of the Indian Act or decision to abolish the Indian Act. My own experience after hearing various ministers introduce bills throughout the years on the subject of Indian claims makes me more sceptical than the hon. member for York-Scarborough as to the nature of the shining light of policy which may be expected to come from the present minister. I recall a bill being introduced with considerable fanfare on this subject in 1963. First reading was given on December 14. In due course the bill reached a stage where consideration was to be given to its terms in consultation with the Indian people. Well, Mr. Speaker, a bill supposedly based upon the results of this consultation was introduced on June 21, 1965-and it was identical in all important respects with the one which had been introduced in 1963. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) refers to the need to deal with Indian claims, but I suggest that if we are going to seek once again to deal with these claims in terms of either of the bills introduced in 1963 or 1965 we might as well forget about the whole idea.
Something much more fundamental is needed. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said we were dealing, now with a different ball game, and this is the thought which has been going through my mind. The sweep of events in the last few years has so outdated any action contemplated so far by this parliament that we really need to begin all over again, though I realize this is scarcely possible. I should like to remind hon. members of a plan for dealing
June 19, 1969

Indian Affairs
with Indian claims which was put forward by my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Howard) and myself at the time the bills to which I have referred were under consideration. We advanced the idea that the claims commission should, as it were, belong to the Indians- that it should work for the Indians by presenting their claims; that it should not leave in Indian hands the work of marshalling the necessary evidence, and so on. Such a commission would constitute a real step forward in the context of the realities of the situation today.
Some hon. members may recall that when dealing with the two former bills my hon. friend for Skeena and I attempted to present a substantive amendment on second reading, one which reversed the concept of the commission set out in the bill. Instead of the commission being an agent of the Crown it would be a court of Indian claims, one which would, as far as possible, lie beyond the control of the Canadian state; one which would as far as possible be an international tribunal.
I remember arguing that such a court should be headed by someone other than a Canadian, by some judge with an international reputation, in order that the commission might operate in the spirit of the United Nations charter and might constitute a recognition that our encroachment upon the land and sovereignty of the Indian people is something for which we were prepared to compensate. It was my contention then that the flow of events was passing parliament by. Since then, the things that many of the Indians have been doing tend to make courses we have advocated in the past less relevant to the situation.
I am prepared to say now that the concept of the commission for which the hon. member for Skeena and I argued in 1963 and 1965 is less relevant today than it was then. If we could get away from a judicial atmosphere altogether it would be more in keeping with the spirit which the Indians themselves are showing today. If the minister were prepared to come forward with a policy statement making it clear that the government intended to establish a commission which would represent the Indians as their agent when dealing with the government and with the Parliament of Canada, then I would hope that in a spirit of mutual goodwill the concept of an international court of claims might become superfluous, and that we could reach, as it were, a man to man settlement with the Indian people which would settle this issue once and for all.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I am glad that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in opening the discussion today, took an approach which I feel is essentially in agreement with the one that 1 am advancing. I also felt that there was the same basic attitude and approach to this question in the speech made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough, and I am glad of it because I think that there is a genuine desire on the part of members in all parts of this house, in the words of one of the speakers this afternoon, not to allow this issue to become a political football. I think that there are many members in the house who sense that we are dealing with something that is at the very core of our future self-respect as a nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue on?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I was about to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say that I think the last time there was any real sort of breakthrough in dealing with the whole matter of our relationship in this parliament and our relationship as a Canadian people to the Indian question was in the work that was done by the parliamentary committee in 1960-61. Some of the more practical aspects of the recommendations of that committee have been dealt with, at least in part, and some of the transformation that has taken place since that time stems from the work that was done by that committee. I really feel that since then, apart from some more or less satisfactory programs in such fields as education and housing, there has not been any breakthrough in the thinking or attitudes as reflected in the policy statements of the government or in the decisions of this parliament.
I hope that we are on the verge of a breakthrough in this area at this time. As I told the minister frankly, although I am a bit sceptical I am also genuinely hopeful that as and when he makes his statement, to which various people have referred, it will be the kind of statement that can be applauded by members in all parts of this chamber.


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I also thank my colleagues for their moral support. I rather wished that my maiden speech had allowed me the opportunity to extol the many

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
attributes of the constituency I represent, Prince George-Peace River, but because of the importance of this debate I am sure my constituents will support my contention that an issue concerning people deserves priority, a view which many hon. members share.
Problems and the direction of their resolve by official and unofficial bodies is so complex and divergent that there is a danger of Indians, Eskimos and whites alike losing sight of the over-all objective. Constructive dissent is necessary and desirable, otherwise consultation meetings would not have been initiated by the government. We have listened on two occasions in this house to criticism that consultations were a farce, were engineered, were controlled and were expensive exercises in futility. I consider such comments as destructive and political.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Borrie: Consultation meetings have allowed members of this house, indeed all Canadians, to hear the grievances of those persons most concerned with the administration of the Indian Act, that is the Indians themselves.
It is not possible for all meetings to be successful in the eyes of all participants or observers. We have all attended conferences or meetings of one kind or another when we felt elated that much had been accomplished. We have also experienced that let down feeling when we wondered what prompted our attendance. To expect elation from each consultation gathering would be naive of both the participant and the observer.
The meetings were not controlled. It has been suggested that the discussion booklet "Choosing a Path'' prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development directed the dialogue to a predestined goal. The brochure was prepared as a guide and a tentative agenda. Surely, it is common sense to pattern a procedure.
At the Prince George meeting it is recorded that Mr. H. Pierre of the Stuart-Trembleur band asked whether the meeting must follow the booklet or whether reference could be made to anything in the act. Mr. Boys, regional director of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, said that the delegates were free to refer to the act or the booklet or to present their own ideas. Unfortunately I was unable to attend the five days of discussion, but again going by the record and from my personal observation I 
know that the subjects discussed strayed considerably from the prepared guide.
Non-Indian concern for the rights of Indians has been a long time in the making. Our society's inherent virtuous manner will not allow us to accept our responsibility without looking for an excuse or for someone to shoulder our guilt.
Criticism is levelled at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Accusations could be tolerated if we were not required to examine the record too closely. Certainly, some errors are evident, but in dealing with the subject objectively, compassion and common sense is frequently exercised in tempering the stringent regulations of the Indian Act. Considering some of the human resources, both white and Indian, with which the department has had to work, it is surprising that there are any signs of progress at all.
White society established an act that was originally designed to protect Indians. Some bands required and desired protection, but others did not. Unfortunately, all were treated alike. The same situation appears to be the case today. In presentations at consultation meetings some bands indicated that they want to go the entire way to autonomy, while others suggested partial authority and the balance did not want change.
In consideration of the desires of Indians, I suggest that the act should be flexible so as to accommodate specific regional administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Borrie: The act must be amended to provide for the natural right of self-government to return to Indian communities their pride in self-reliance.
Many Indians and whites in coming up against the legislative regulations of the act have been badly bruised by their own people and by the rules. They have contributed toward awakening our conscience and should be remembered for their individual stand. However, the courage of those who remain within the ambit of the act to work for the change and development of their people is much to be admired. Laws cannot be changed by immovable confrontation. Conflict of ideas, tenacity of conviction and proof make for reasoned revision. It may take longer to proceed in an orderly fashion, but in the end the results are more firmly entrenched.
I have some problem in approaching the matter of education properly because I am unfamiliar with the content of the proposed
June 19, 1969

white paper. I feel, however, that hon. members should be made aware of the concern of Indian parents and students. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is in the process of phasing out residential schools and entering into educational agreements with provincial governments. Concern is quite high for the type of facilities to be made available in the province of British Columbia. As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, integrated independent schools in British Columbia receive no financial assistance from the provincial government; they are self-supporting. Indian parents are of the opinion that the basic policy of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is, and I quote, "to purchase the services of provincial and territorial school systems for all elementary and secondary school Indian and Eskimo students as soon as possible", means that their children must attend the public school system, or if they attend an independent school that they will be required to pay all fees themselves.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
During the hearings of the committee, we received assurance from the deputy minister that Indians would continue to receive financial support for children attending independent schools. I suggest that the question of Indian education be examined closely. I would not like to see a basic policy or an act of this house be misinterpreted by administrators.
As the house will note from the report of the Indian affairs committee, members of the committee are cognizant of the role education will play in bringing about more equitable treatment for Indians. To assist all members in their assessment of present and future policies, I would like to draw their attention to the testimony of Mr. Walter Currie, president of the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada and assistant superintendent of supervision, department of education, Toronto. His testimony appears in the minutes of proceedings No. 28 on pages 963 to 1001. I suggest all members read it carefully.
During the last debate on Indian affairs, the minister stated that provincial governments must accept responsibility for Indians as they do for non-Indians. I adhere to that principle also. Acceptance should not mean that they move from one special status to another special confining status. There must be complete equality. Non-Indian communities have a responsibility to share in the loosening of restrictions on Indians. We cannot
Indian Affairs
place the entire problem at the feet of Indian agencies. Legislation may provide equality, but people must make that legislation live.
Legislation should be the tool for directing the many programs to aid Indian-Eskimo development. It should not be a crutch for the native or non-native communities. The Indian Act does not prevent the employment of natives at current wage or salary rates; they are locked out by prejudice and by lack of understanding. Businessmen may employ Indians and Eskimos without the approval of the minister or regulations under an act.
Will an amended act provide jobs? I doubt it, Mr. Speaker. Is it also easier for charitable persons to devote a few years of their lives to bringing medical care, education, employment opportunities and to the general raising of living standards in far off countries than it is for them to direct their energies to helping our own native peoples? I am aware of the motivation and I do not wish to detract from it, but when we evaluate the shortcomings of the Indian Act we must not let it cloud the evaluation of our own social and business conscience.
In considering the third report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we may justly assume that members of the committee have had their work cut out from the very beginning. I am sure we anticipate a large volume of work to arise from the forthcoming white paper, but the greatest task all hen. members have before them is to advise the non-Indian community that an amended act is not a crutch. We must all strive to ensure that Indians and Eskimos gain and maintain their rights to full citizenship as citizens, not as instruments of regulation.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of discussion this afternoon about the Indians and their problems. Nothing was said against them. I have indeed nothing against their problems and I sympathize with them. There is an Indian reserve in my constituency. I would add that, while travelling across Canada, I did notice that those people are experiencing problems. Many things have been said on this subject and I do not want to go over them.
I will deal with a new problem now under review which concerns the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, namely national parks.

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs
I will deal with this new problem because my Conservative colleagues and myself frankly do not understand exactly the government policy on this subject.

The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development spoke optimistically of a program to establish 40 to 50 new national parks by 1985. The new minister, in a burst of enthusiasm, has expanded this figure to 60 by 1985. In this we wish him well. But we must also add a-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member. However, with the consent of the house, the hon. member might be allowed to speak on national parks. After careful consideration of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I do not think national parks are referred to, and unless the hon. member is granted unanimous consent by the house to speak on this subject, he will not be authorized to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis-Roland Comeau: With respect, Mr. Speaker, as I read the motion it says "relating to the consideration of estimates of the department". It is for that reason I want to talk about parks, because the report includes all the votes of this department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word on the same point of order? In doing so, I should like to support the position taken by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). Although we have been discussing Indian affairs all day, the motion relates to the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Therefore, anything covered in the estimates of that department is surely germane to the discussion of the motion that is now before the house.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Go ahead. There is unanimous consent anyway.


Louis-Roland Comeau: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in his proposal to establish 60 new parks by 1985, we wish him well. But we must also add a realistic footnote to this problem and

remind the minister that since 1885 only 20 national parks have been established, of which only two have been added in the past five years. Furthermore, the present park system creates the anomalous situation whereby 94 per cent of the national parks' area is in western Canada, where only 26 per cent of Canada's population lives. I am not saying this critically; rather I wish to point out the necessity for parks.
As we all know, an agreement was reached a few weeks ago giving Quebec its first national park. Ontario's six million people are served by only three small national parks. All of this indicates that we are desperately short of national parks. Couple with this shortage our tremendous rate of urbanization and increased leisure time, and the whole situation takes on almost crisis proportions.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)

There is no doubt that national parks are necessary and I need not overemphasize the point. The people need them more and more.
Working hours are being increasingly reduced. In brief, people want to enjoy themselves. They want to observe nature, they want to relax a bit. Bar-B-Q is now a household word.
One only needs look around in the stores to realize that picnic equipment is in great demand.

We realize that the creation of a new park is a cumbersome and difficult economic and constitutional process. Negotiations between the federal and provincial governments are difficult because usually the province must first acquire the land that is to be dedicated and then turn it over to the federal government without encumberance in perpetuity. The provincial government then obviously relinquishes all claims to the property, including any claims to mineral rights. That is the present position as we understand it unless, of course, there have been proceedings that this house has not been told about or that the minister has kept secret.
Provincial governments in the past have been very jealous of their rights and hesitant about surrendering land under these absolute conditions, their reluctance stemming from the fact that they may one day decide that the development of mineral finds with timber stands is more lucrative than any esoteric benefit to be derived from an outdoor recreational facility and the concomitant revenue
June 19, 1969

generated by increased tourist traffic. The demand for compensation on the part of provinces for their lands is often an insurmountable problem. There is here, of course, an important question of jurisdiction. Canadians who frequently take advantage of the existing parks are beginning to see the results of these federal-provincial stalemates as overcrowding begins to spoil the beauty of these areas. Lack of facilities makes the park areas unattractive.
By 1985 five times as many people as today will be trying to use these existing facilities. Will the facilities be sufficient to accommodate them? We sincerely hope that the government will not continue in its present delaying fashion to wait for an overwhelming outcry of public opinion before being spurred into action because by that time it may be too late.
I have alluded to the urgency of this problem. There is one further aspect to which I wish to direct my attention and the attention of the minister. That is the question of the over-all policy considerations with which the minister guides his negotiations. These considerations are relevant to our discussion this evening because of the recent agreement that was concluded with the government of Quebc.

I want to say, in all sincerity, that we are proud of the announcement concerning the establishment of a national park in Gaspe but we are concerned about the policy of the department or the government with regard to this new project.

We welcome the announcement of the creation of the first national park in Quebec. Nevertheless, because of the manner in which the park was established we must raise certain questions. We do so in the spirit of ensuring that our system of national parks will not be weakened by a too flexible approach to the negotiations. Canadians must be sure they know what is happening. We must ask, then, what the present policy of the government is with respect to national parks. Has the Quebec agreement signalled a change in policy? If it has, what is this new policy? If it has not, what is the government proposing to do about other provinces which are not willing to turn over the necessary land without encumbrance in perpetuity?


Mr. Gibson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon member is now launched
Indian Affairs
on an interesting but irrelevant discussion about our parks. I submit he has completely forgotten Indians and is therefore clearly out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Just a while ago there was unanimous agreement which gave the hon. member the right to talk about national parks. The hon. member is reviewing a report, and that is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Go home. Go to bed.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am about to conclude my remarks. At this time I should like to reiterate our great concern about the government's sluggish reaction to this critical problem. The difficulties in creating a national park anywhere in Canada today will be increased many times over if the current inaction continues. The future preservation and development program of our wilderness areas is simply too vital for the future of Canada for it to be subjected to a vacillating and leisurely policy.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will be able to tell us, once and for all, whether the most recent decision represents a change in policy. I know that the minister wants to say a few words tonight. It is now 9:30 and in closing I would just say that when making decisions we should not irritate the other provinces.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few moments of the time of the house in order to take part in this debate which has been, generally speaking, very enlightening. It has touched on Indian affairs and northern development. Most hon. members who spoke made a worth-while contribution. Only a few adopted a partisan attitude. After the first speaker in the debate, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), had completed his remarks the house settled down to an orderly discussion of Indian affairs and did not attempt to play political football with the Indian people. Generally speaking, if one ignores the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River, this has been a sound debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

June 19, 1969
Indian Affairs


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The problems of the Indian people in Canada are most serious. Immediately after being appointed Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development one year ago I tried to find solutions to these problems. I looked at the problems and got in touch with the Indian people of Canada. Last July we launched a series of consultations and for the first time in Canada's history Indian people in Canada were able to really participate in the elaboration of a new Indian policy. The results of the consultations were by no means perfect. The format of the meetings has not been perfect. At any rate, the meetings gave the Indians a chance to express their views. We discussed all aspects of the Indian situation in Canada and, after 17 meetings across the country, we had the last meeting in Ottawa about a month ago. There the representatives of all Indians of Canada put forward their views to the public and to the government of Canada.
The time has not come, Mr. Speaker, for the government to respond. As I said in the house not long ago, that response will be ready soon. We shall have a new policy on Indian affairs and I will announce it in the house before the end of this session.


James Aloysius McGrath: When?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that next week I will be in a position to make that statement.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why not make it tonight?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because we must be courteous to our Indian people and because, being more courteous probably than the hon. member would be if he were in government, I wish to distribute the relevant documents to) the leaders of the Indian communities so that they have them in their hands at about the same time as hon. members here have the contents of the documents. Also there must be an opportunity to have the text of the document printed, and it will take a few days before it is ready. We decided after a year of consultation that it is time to offer to the people of Canada, including the Indians, a new policy. We have heard from the Indian people that they are proud and are willing to take their future into their own hands. They want to make more decisions.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
There has been a certain pattern existing in Canada for over 100 years. We feel we have to make many changes. Personally, I feel quite frustrated most of the time because of certain

situations. For example, when Indians wish to borrow a few thousand dollars from C.M.H.C. they are obliged to get the signature of the Superintendent of Indians of Canada, who happens to be myself, before they are able to get the money they need. This is the sort of thing that requires change. We have to permit the Indians of Canada to make more decisions at the local level. The policy of Indian affairs to be tabled next week will reflect this attitude of the government.
Today, we heard about the problem of Indian treaties. I have said many times that we intend to respect all aspects of these treaties. However, there are some problems. We must find the mechanism to permit the Indians to know what their rights are. A significant aspect of our last consultation was the establishment by the Indians of Canada of their own committee to study their treaty rights. I think this step will have a great influence on the new policy that has been established and will be made known next week.
I do not wish to take too much time of hon. members by commenting on the Indian policy because this will be made known next week. We think this policy is the best approach to permit the Indians of Canada to be economically and socially equal to all citizens of Canada and at the same time be in a position to keep their own traditions of culture which they have had in Canada since before the white people came to this country.
I will not refer to all the points raised by hon. members in the house today because many of these have already been dealt with in committee. Hon. members asked questions regarding education, housing and other matters. Most of these questions were answered by my officials or by myself when we appeared before the committee.
I want to thank all hon. members who have participated in this debate. I wish to assure them we will not overlook any of the proposals they have put forward today. We intend to make a complete and objective review of the Indian policy. This is one of the most difficult social problems that we have in Canada. These problems should not be approached on too much of a political basis, but in the spirit of proving to the first citizens of our country that we are willing to offer them a new deal in a Canadian society.
I would now like to deal with a point raised by an hon. member regarding employment. I wish to inform the house that we have offered summer employment in my
June 19, 1969

department to all university students of Indian origin. The department has hired 87 of these students. We made certain we had a position to offer to every student of Indian origin who cared to apply. I feel this is a very good response from the Indian population.
Many other matters were discussed by members of the committee. I wish to refer to the speech of my good friend, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) regarding the territorial waters of Canada.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin has explained the situation very well.
Of course, the problem is quite serious, but I want to reassert here that there is no question at this time about the sovereignty of the government, of the people of Canada over the North, the Arctic Islands and the northern continental shelf.
The only unsolved problem is the territorial waters problem, which is most complex and cannot be solved easily and unilaterally. There are territorial waters problem in all parts of the world today, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has pointed out so ably in his statement of May 15, 1969, we must be careful and act in such a way as to ensure the maximum protection to Canadians, without for all that infringing upon international jurisdictions.
I wish however to thank the hon. member for his very positive contribution which will certainly help the government assess the situation. He showed that he has thoroughly looked into the subject and that he was very concerned with the problem. I must assure him that the government too is very concerned with the matter, all the more as now, because of the fantastic development in the North in the past few years, in connection with the potential development of oil and mining resources, it is extremely important that Canada resort to every available means to retain for itself and its citizens control over resources and the access to resources.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)

With your approval, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) touched on the problem of national parks. The government has committed itself to an effort to establish more national parks in this country. The hon. member said that in the last five years we had established only
National Parks
two national parks. If I may be permitted I wish to point out to him that in the period from 1957 to 1962 when his party formed the government not a single new national park was set aside for the benefit of all Canadians.
Personally, I am happy to see that the people of Canada are beginning to realize it is important to set aside land for national parks for use by future generations. I accepted the hon. member's contribution to the debate and the spirit of conservation in which he made it. I point out we must be conscious of the fact that in 15, 20 or 25 years from now there will be a great lack of land available in North America for recreational purposes.
As I say, the government is willing to establish more national parks but we need the collaboration of the provincial governments to do so. We have established two national parks since the government took office, and I am glad to mention that in a few weeks from now we will have a new national park on the west coast of Vancouver Island. I would publicly like to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) who, as the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was the main initiator of the movement that will bring to Canada probably what will be the best coastal park in North America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister permit me to ask him a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: In keeping with the mood of the house and the minister's own very generous mood, could he tell us what is the position at the moment with regard to the second national park on the west coast of Newfoundland, a project that has run into some difficulty with the government of Newfoundland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was coming to that point because I want to show the hon. member that we are concerned and that we are proposing to have more national parks in the future. One of them will be the second national park in the Bonne Bay area of Newfoundland. I have spoken about the new national park on the west coast. We are negotiating with other provinces about more national parks.
I was happy with the talk I had the other day with the Premier of Saskatchewan, who is now ready to permit the government to go ahead with the establishment of another national park in that province. I hope that in

June 19, 1969
National Parks
the weeks and months ahead we will find agreement on other national parks in Saskatchewan. We are working to establish another national park in Manitoba, and lately we took steps to establish the first national park in Quebec. May I say I am very surprised that the opposition questioned that move. Through ARDA we have achieved a plan to have Quebec's first national park established. We were flexible in our approach. We were not too flexible. In the past we made special arrangements with other provinces. We were obliged to make a special arrangement in B.C. because of a particular problem. I do not think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) would disagree with what I am saying.
We had a special problem in Quebec but through the ARDA agreement we have succeeded in establishing a national park there. We have stated in this house that this was a particular case and that we do not intend to proceed in the same manner in the future. I think the people of Canada are happy that for the first time we will have a national park in Quebec. You know, Mr. Speaker, it will be a great contribution to the development of the tourist industry in that part of the country. It will be one of the most fantastic parks in Canada, and will be very good for the province of Quebec.
At present we are having some discussions with the government of New Brunswick to establish another national park in that province. We are proceeding quite rapidly, but I do not know when I will be in a position to make a definite announcement. However, I found the government of New Brunswick very easy to deal with.


John Gilbert: What about Ontario?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have three small national parks in Ontario and we are having some discussions with the province right now. We are not progressing as fast as I would like in Ontario, and I think the members from Ontario should raise hell if they want more national parks in that province. I need some backing in order to achieve that. I hope the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) will help me achieve that goal.

Mr. Speaker, I should simply like hon. members to realize that, at the present time, visotors to national parks are increasing at the rate of 15 per cent every year. In the United States, where there are 250 million inhabitants with more and more leisure time,

they just cannot handle all those who wish to visit the national parks. As a matter of fact, there is such a big demand that people have to wait for hours and days to visit the parks.
In view of the fact that it is still possible for us to put aside those big green spaces for future generations, it is my opinion that we should act now, for, in 25 or 50 years from now, it will be too late.

I forgot to mention that we are negotiating to establish three more national parks, two in the Northwest Territories and one in the Yukon. The people in those areas are generally receptive to the idea, and in the gallery tonight there is the mayor of Fort Smith, who is a great advocate for national parks in the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. minister in his trip to the national parks but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much of the time of the house. I have explained the situation about national parks. I touched on the situation in the north, but I forgot to refer to the problem raised by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) about the statement on development in the Northwest Territories. It is not yet ready, but I hope it will soon be ready. I will not tie my hands by trying to specify any date, but lately we have made great progress in cabinet on it and I hope soon to be in a position to make a statement. However, it may take a few more days. I can assure members of the house that we will have a new policy that will permit the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon to participate more in the administration of their own affairs to determine the quality of their own lives. I hope to make that statement after tabling the white paper on Indian Affairs.
In conclusion, I wish to thank hon. mem-ers for their contributions to this debate. It was a very worthwhile one and we received good advice. The spirit of the debate was not partisan. I hope members of the house will retain that mood in the future.
June 19, 1969


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, in the brief minute left at my disposal I would like to say that we are all looking forward with great anticipation to next week when the minister is going to be forthcoming on matters about which he has been asked for many months. I would say to him that despite how hard he has tried and how much he has listened, it will take a great deal of effort on his part and a great deal of compassion to compensate even in part for the grievous, egregious errors made for many years in the administration of the affairs of our Indian and Eskimo people.
I speak as one who has no Eskimo constituents and whose Indian constituents in terms of quantity are negligible. But I was impressed by many things in the report. I thought the reference to Arctic sovereignty was one of the most pusillanimous statements I ever cast my eye upon. I noticed also the reference to unemployment among Indian and Eskimo people. I say to them, and about them, they are suffering from a malaise that is affecting the whole of Canada today, especially the young students.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
In particular I accept the minister's invitation to raise hell about national parks. He talked about Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. I would like to remind him that for many years discussions were undertaken by his predecessor with the government of the province of Prince Edward Island in reference to a national park there. I am sure that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), a man of excellent judgment, splendid taste and a real feeling for this country, will understand that there is land available in Prince Edward Island, that gem of tourist attractions; that area par excellence for tourists. I may say, with a burst of utmost unselfishness, that this is so because it is not even in my constituency. I say to the minister that it would be a fine thing if he and his department would move more rapidly in their discussions with the province of Prince Edward Island to establish a park in the eastern part of the province. I see the minister nodding in agreement.
Our province, with its somewhat restricted tax base and its narrow range of industrial capacity, has as its most expansive and most expandable industry, the tourist industry. The Dominion Government could do a great deal by developing a second national park there to provide facilities comparable to those now provided for nearly a million visitors
National Parks
who come to the national park which is located partly in my constituency and partly in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). This is why I am so unselfish. Here we could do something that would enable the people of Canada to see the beauties of this garden province.
In my gentle way I do raise a little hell with the minister, to use his rather off-expression which no Prince Edward Islander would use. I urge him to exercise a little alacrity in discussions with the province of Prince Edward Island in respect of one of the few areas in which we can expand our economic base, namely tourism. This will offer an injection of substance, support and encouragement, and I urge this upon him with all the sincerity at my command.


Mr. Ray Perraull (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amazement tonight to the attack by the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) on the parks policy of this government. The hon. member must be living in a never, never land because here is the record. Members know of the proposed parks in western Canada, in British Columbia, the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Long Beach area-one of the scenic highlights of the whole nation. In Saskatchewan we have proposed parks in the vicinity of Val Marie and on the South Saskatchewan. In Manitoba there are parks in Flin Flon and the Bloodvein River area. There is going to be a park in northern Canada, and that project is now under discussion. There is a park proposed for the Newfoundland Bonne Bay area. I could go on and on to give proof positive. We could go into the Gaspe and New Brunswick and consider the Kouchibouguac area, and I hope I am pronouncing that correctly. In Nova Scotia and a park in the East Point area.
This all is proof that the minister has demonstrated a keen appreciation of the need for a comprehensive and diversified parks system in Canada. His predecessor also made a distinguished contribution to the parks policy of this country. Some people nurture the mistaken notion that there are millions of acres of undeveloped land in Canada, and they dismiss the need to set aside on a systematic basis additional park reserves at the national level. This theory is nonsensical. I am glad to acknowledge in the house that the minister appreciates this fact. In no sense does Canada possess unlimited recreational resources. The total area per capita in Canada appears large but over 80 per cent of the land

June 19, 1369
National Parks
is poorly accessible northern tundra and nonproductive forest.
It is encouraging to note that the minister does not aspire to being a defender of the status quo in respect of park policy. Regardless of the criticism which has been directed at him-perhaps indirectly by the opposition -he is perhaps better aware than any of us that a recreation explosion lies ahead, far beyond the numerous demands for recreational facilities we have seen in recent years. The population growth, the rise in individual and social mobility, the increase in urbanization, the increase in personal income and the increase in leisure time available are going to bring increasing pressure on our resources of recreation.
For every person using Canada's recreation land in 1960, there will be four people using the same land in the year 2,000 A.D. This is not a doubling, this is a double doubling. Some 10 million people are going to visit our national parks each year, and some 50 million people will visit these parks each year by the year 2,000. This will mean a five-fold increase from now until the year 2,000.
The argument is advanced that in economic terms the value of our parks is open to question. More than ever we are going to witness a struggle between those who see in all lands, wherever they may be located, an economic resource measured purely in terms of extractive riches, and those who see in our national parks a heritage of immeasurable value which must be preserved for all generations. I find myself in agreement with the latter philosophy, and I know that the minister is in agreement as well. This encourages us.
Even in economic terms, the year 2,000 may see Canada's parks and our wilderness area as being the most valuable resource in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Faster, faster!


Raymond J. Perrault: I support, as I hope members in the opposition will support, the acquisition of two or maybe three national parks per year to complete Canada's basic parks system by 1985. We have to get busy to reach that goal. I am encouraged by the fact that the federal government is showing strong leadership in this field. Too often local and provincial governments are under high-handed pressure to commercialize provincial and local parks. If the federal government fails to provide leadership and to make sure the wilderness areas of our parks are kept free from 
commercial development, then no one is going to protect this heritage.
I congratulate the minister for the dynamic leadership he has given in this field and I know he enjoys the support of all members in this house, regardless of party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the house that pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11), the proceedings on the motion are considered to have expired.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1969, I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) a question in which 1 requested assistance to prevent bankruptcy among some Quebec farmers.
Mr. Speaker, at no time in its history has the province of Quebec experienced the application of such a weak and unsteady agricultural policy as the one it is subjected to at the present time.
In that region where I live, the Eastern Townships, farmers are leaving the land at an alarming rate. In nearly all the parishes around Lake Megantic and in parts of the Compton constituency, there are parishes where at least six farmers, on a weekly average, abandon their farms. This is a disaster unheard of before. This is certainly attributable to the agricultural policy even though much was expected from this policy which did not materialize.
The government's dairy policy is resulting in disastrous consequences for the farmers. This policy is forcing a great number of producers to abandon their farms.
The minister did not tell the farmers the whole truth when subsidies were granted and his policy is now producing terrible and irreparable damages.
For instance, subsidies for a 100,000-lb. quota of milk would be worth $990, or 99 cents per cwt. The penalty for shipping an additional 50,000 pounds would be $260, that
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
is 52 cents per cwt. This penalty of $260 should be deducted from the net subsidy granted for a 100,000 lb. quota, which would reduce the subsidy to $730. Therefore, it is really a penalty, because it contributes directly to reducing the net subsidy.
All this is frustrating, especially the policy, on account of its great rigidity toward progressive producers. In other words, it strikes more directly the farmer who wants to increase his production and to improve the use of his resources.
This is detrimental to efficiency in the dairy industry.
The situation is disastrous in the province of Quebec and I believe in the whole of Canada as well, because a policy of punishment cannot succeed. In a way, punishment is meted out to the farmers who wish to increase their production. At one time, the government was asking the farmers to extend their holdings in order to make their operations more economic, today they are punished for having done this.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Not only the small farmers who produce less than 50,000 pounds of milk leave the land but also those who produce 150,000 and 200,000, although for many reasons, they would be in a better position to survive from an economic point of view.
First of all, the cost of machinery is too high. Secondly, too many taxes plague the farmers. They have to pay too many taxes and they pay too much for their machinery. In such circumstances, they cannot do well.
Whatever things the Minister of Agriculture may do or whatever plans he may devise, they prove useless and are no solution to the problems of the farming industry.
We all know that when farmers are well off, the country is prosperous because the farm people are the greatest consumers.
Farmers are the greatest consumers in the world. They have all kinds of needs in various fields and they are responsible for keeping Candian industry going. They ensure the prosperity of the cities and give work to many people in Canada.
So, if we do not encourage agriculture, if we allow it to go slowly to the devil, the rest of the people will also go there.
Never in our history have we experienced such an indifferent, such an unwholesome policy as this one. The minister will say that the government is spending millions for this
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and that, but most of them are spent on administration. Not much goes to agriculture-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to answer the question put to the Minister of Agriculture.
I would have thought that the hon. member who asked it had some idea of the conditions of agriculture in the province of Quebec. But, in his seven-minute speech, he convinced me that he has no solution to the agricultural problem, and what he said is not true to the facts, or the figures we have.
Now, through the policy of the Department of Agriculture, all farmers are going to hell.
I feel that if they were administered by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), they would not be going to hell, they would already be there.
To prove how wrong he was in his arguments, here are some figures.
The gross revenue of the province of Quebec amounted to $621 million in 1967 and rose to $635 million in 1968. Considering the net revenue of farmers in 1967-and those are figures that the hon. member for Compton can easily get-I see that $93 million have actually been taken from the net income of Quebec farmers, and that amount went up in 1968 to $209 million, for an increase of $16 million.
If the hon. member had had to deliver his speech on milk production without his notes, I do not think he would have been able to quote any figures, since he did not seem to understand at all the quota situation.
The government has perhaps been criticized by some provinces for having granted too much assistance to the Quebec dairy industry. Some of his colleagues who made the trip with the agriculture committee, heard similar comments in almost every Canadian province, but he himself says that the assistance given is not sufficient.
I do not know whether he has consulted with his colleagues, or at least the one who knows agriculture for having himself been a farmer.
Insofar as milk is concerned, production is on the increase-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.
10450	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on page 8901 of Hansard of May 21, the record reads as follows:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister is obviously well established in his new department-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -is he in a position to report on a matter about which I questioned him the first day he took office? What progress is he making in his consultations with Canadian National Railways about increasing the pensions of its retired employees?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that I am not that well entrenched in my department yet, but I am working on it.
For my money, that was a pretty good beginning for the minister. On Friday, June 13, I questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) again as to what progress he was making, and he admitted that there had been some brief consultations and he hoped to have something to report in a matter of days. Whereupon I suggested this might be a good subject for him and me to discuss some night on the late show. So, here we are.
I am sure the minister will not mind if I say in public that we had one of those conversations in the hall a day or so ago in which he asked me whether I had any idea how many times I had asked questions about pension matters, whether about old age pensions, or veterans pensions, or pensions of retired civil servants, and I admitted to him that it could be hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of times; I had no such record. But 1 want to say to him tonight this is not what matters. What matters now is finding a man of action to get started on this issue.
I do not need to make the case again. The case has been made so often for the right of retired people to keep up with the cost of living and their right to share in increased productivity. The needs of these people are admitted by all. The problem is becoming more acute as time goes on, as people live longer, as inflation gallops a bit faster, and recognition of the fact that something must be done to increase the pensions of those who are already retired is now widespread. It applies, as I have tried to make clear, to pensions of all kinds. It certainly applies to old age pensions in general. It applies to people on private pensions and it applies to peo-[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
pie who have retired on federal pensions-to retired civil servants, retired members of the Armed Forces, retired members of the R.C.M.P. and so on to the group we are talking about tonight, retired employees of Crown corporations and of the C.N.R. in particular. I say a case has been made. The need is there. What is required now, is action. The need is to get started.
I like the appearance, the image the minister has created. Since coming to the Department of Transport he has given the impression of a man who wants to do things, who wants to solve some of the problems, to get moving.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Some day, soon, somebody will have to start the ball rolling in this matter of getting pension increases. Some institutions have done so recently-private corporations and others. I do not know which department will start first in the government-whether it will be to the benefit of the retired civil servants, the C.N.R. pensioners or others. But to show the minister I like him I am giving him the chance to make the start with the C.N.R. retired employees. Yes, the others will have to follow soon-the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), the Solicitor-General (Mr. Mcllraith), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). But I say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson): you have the chance to start this, and make a name among retired employees of the C.N.R. and retired people generally. I hope tonight you will accept the challenge.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I feel reasonably certain that the hon. member who has just spoken will not be one of those who will have to worry about a retirement pension because I suspect he will be around and active for much longer than those for whom he is showing such concern. However, if it should happen that he does formally retire, and the most impressive record of his work in this house is made public, he will be known indeed as a champion of the elderly and of those who find themselves in a difficult position today.
I only wish it were possible for me to do as he suggests and declare flatly that something will be done about this particular group but, as I am sure the hon. gentleman knows, having raised this matter on so many previous occasions, the complex nature of this question
June 19, 1969	COMMONS
is such that it is exceedingly difficult to solve by taking care of one segment at a time. Let me say most emphatically-and I hope he will accept this in the sincere manner in which it is said-that I share his concern for these people.
I feel this concern particularly when I think of the many fishermen in my own constituency who do not even have the kind of pensions which many of those about whom he is concerned are able to draw on as a basis on which to build other income. So I say to the hon. gentleman, as I suppose he would expect me to say, that it is the responsibilty and the duty of government to look after all elderly and retired people. While we have not perhaps done as much as my hon. friend would like-indeed, we have not done as much as I would like-I think the record over the past few years has been a reasonably impressive one. The position today is a far cry from even a few years ago when the total was $25 or $30 a month. Even the pensioners about whom the hon. member speaks are, for the most part, I expect, in receipt of the general old age pension, and some at least have the benefit of a portion, if not all, of the supplementary pension. So their lot is, in some respects, better than that of some of the citizens to whom I refer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
still poverty.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I cannot agree more with the hon. member that is far from adequate. But I am sure he also realizes that while this group has had a good deal of attention in terms of increases in the old age pension, we do wish to do more; and I believe that we will do more. However, as stated in the house very recently-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I bring a matter before the house tonight as a result of a question which I asked last week of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) pertaining to the expropriation of certain lands in the second concession of Richmond township in the county of Lennox and Addington, on both sides of the C.N.R. railway main line, consisting of pieces of contiguous farms owned by six resident owners along a length
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of track of more than a mile. Here, the C.N.R. is expropriating enough land on either side of their present double track right of way to construct a passing siding on their side, the one on the south side to serve the eastbound services and the one on the north side to serve the westbound services of the new proposed automatic central traffic control system which will go into effect in the near future on this important and busy railway.
The first and main point that I wish to make this evening is that the railway, with its lopsided privileges of expropriation, is not being fair to these farmers. First of all, they are offering agricultural prices for the land they require-that is, only $500 an acre-but at the same time they are using the land for industrial purposes, and industrial purposes of national importance as well. Industrial land in and around Napanee, which is in my county, is selling for as high as $1,500 to $2,000 an acre.
At first this railway was a single track line. Then, in the early 1900's it was a double track. Now, in the area where these six farms are located there will be four tracks. Up until now the former 19th century conditions have been tolerated. With the advent of this new system, with its high speed trains, unless proper facilities are provided by the railway these farms, as paying propositions and economic units, are doomed. At the present time there are 16 passenger trains per day operating on this line, plus the four new turbo trains which will soon go into service, together with freight trains both day and night. The railway has not acceded to any request of the farmers for cattle and produce passes underneath the tracks for the safe handling of dairy herds, other livestock pasturing on the opposite side of the railway, and for the safe handling of crops of grain and hay.
Not only is the railroad reducing the value of these farms but it is seriously inconveniencing their future operations. In refusing to construct underpasses for cattle and transportation of agricultural products the railway will endanger the lives of the operators and their livestock and threaten the safety of their equipment. Surface use of this right of way under the proposed conditions will be a very hazardous proposition. Only two weeks ago a farmer whose farm lies along the same railway line 35 miles east in the Joyceville-Gananoque area lost 13 head of very valuable dairy cattle when they were killed by a train as he was frantically trying to drive them across the right of way over
10452	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion two tracks; and here in Richmond township I am referring to four tracks.
This is now one of the busiest railways on the North American continent. It is reported to me by more than one of the land owners that often less than a minute elapses between the first sight of a train and its passing at the point of observation. This is particularly true when referring to eastbound trains. Although the right of way is fairly straight it has a grade with a horizon that limits westerly visibility in direct proportion to gradient and horizontal distance.
There are several other grievances in connection with this case that 1 can only briefly list and to which the farmers must have an answer. They include: (1) loss of two good wells for watering livestock; (2) the diverting of a natural water course by the C.N.R., namely, Brandon's creek where it crosses the property of Mr. Lipsey, which will be to his disadvantage and will reduce his remaining arable land; (3) the obstruction of crossings by trains in the sidings for extended periods each day.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
As the minister knows I have been in touch with him by letter. Also, I have communicated by telephone with the manager of real estate for the C.N.R. in Montreal. Representations have also been made on behalf of the farmers by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. I ask the minister, as I did in my question of June 11, will he see to it that the economic and human rights of these farmers in Lennox country, whose land is about to be expropriated for railway industrial purposes, are protected and defended.
This matter of expropriation with no assurances or commitments on the part of the railway is most vexing, exasperating and discouraging for these farmers. I recall that many years ago it was trouble between a railway and the farmers of the state of Kansas-the railway disregarded the rights of the ordinary man-that caused Jesse James to turn to a life of revenge and crime that sent him to his doom as an outlaw.
Although the farmers of Richmond township whom I represent are vexed and frustrated, they are not going to pursue the course which Jesse James chose. The farmers of Richmond township are good Canadian
citizens interested in the progress of all Canada, just as much as they are interested in their own progress. All they want in this instance is a fair deal. I appeal to the minister, to the Department of Transport and to the real estate department of the C.N.R. to reopen this case, to give consideration to these land owners and to reassess values pertaining to the land itself as well as drainage problems; the safety problem; the question of cattle and produce passes; the loss of water supply and the diminished value of farms resulting from the widening of the railway. I respectfully request that, for this to be accomplished, an experienced and qualified agronomist who is acceptable to the farmers and the railway be appointed to mediate and adjudicate this case in a manner that will be fair to all parties concerned. The decision of this arbitrator, of course, will be final. I communicated with the real estate department of the C.N.R. in Montreal by telephone this afternoon and I believe they are agreeable to having this problem mediated. Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the just society, here, hopefully, I rest the case with you.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's most eloquent representations, not only on this occasion but on previous occasions when he has drawn this matter to my attention, representations on his behalf and on behalf of all these farmers have been made to the C.N.R. It is, of course, a decision for the C.N.R. to make but I have been very happy to urge them to follow the course which the hon. member has suggested. As he was advised this afternoon, I believe, the C.N.R. has now agreed to the appointment of an independent agronomist who will examine the whole picture. His services will be engaged to carry out an in depth study of the entire farm operations of the farmers affected and the total amount of damages which farmers have suffered due to their having to cross the wider railway right of way. He will also express his opinion as to the sum of money required to be paid to each farmer. I hope as a result of this action the matter can be resolved in the interests of the farmers who, I quite agree, have a genuine problem.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, June 20, 1989