1970-03-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Clermont.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of a press release on the outcome of negotiations on imports of cotton yam from Mexico.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a copy of the Order in Council appointing His Honour Judge Ernest J. C. Stewart a commissioner under Part II of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the circumstances in which three persons who entered Canada from the United States departed from Canada.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

['Mr. Speaker, a note dated February 21, 1970, was delivered to the government of Canada from the United States Embassy in Ottawa,', 'March 4, 1970\nQuestions\nrequesting such assistance as the government of Canada may be able to offer in securing information relevant to an investigation being conducted by the United States Department of Labour into certain aspects of the election of international officers of the United Mine Workers of America, held on December 9, 1969. Specifically, the note requested assistance in having information contained in the records of District 26, United Mine Workers of America at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and each of its subaltemate locals, made available for examination.\n[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)\nA letter dated January 9, 1970, signed by the international officers of the United Mine Workers of America, Mr. W. A. Boyle, President, Mr. G. Titler, Vice-President, and Mr. J. Owens, Secretary-Treasurer, was sent to all the district and local unions instructing them to co-operate with the representative of the United States Department of Labour in order that an investigation be undertaken to determine whether or not the election conducted on December 9, 1969, was a "fair and honest election."\nThe government of Canada is informing the United States Embassy in Ottawa that it will be prepared to assist by co-ordinating the collection of the required information and records if provided on a voluntary basis.\nThe Canadian Department of Labour will communicate with the President of District 26 of the United Mine Workers of America and inform him of the government of Canada\'s willingness to facilitate the collection of information and records relevant to the United States Department of Labour investigation. It will also arrange for coordination of the collection of such information and records as are made available, and will see that such material is sent to the Department of External Affairs for transmission to the United States government.\nThe government of Canada has advised the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of the course of action it is prepared to take and will act in consultation with these two governments as required.\nThe jurisdiction of the Landrum-GrifEon Act, under which the United States Department of Labour investigation is being carried out, in no way extends to Canadian unions or locals, regardless of whether or not they are international unions. Notwithstanding this however, the government of Canada is prepared to assist in the manner outlined above,\n\nin view of the allegations of wrong-doing against the officers of District 26 which, unless refuted, could be damaging to their reputations.']
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask for
the unanimous consent of the House to put the following motion:
That the program proposed by the government and announced last Friday by the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan of payments to western farmers for taking farm land out of production be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and the said committee be requested to give this matter immediate and prior attention and report to the House.
Since last Friday and the announcement of this program, a great many protests have been received, including 37 telegrams which I received today. The protests include one from the Little Bow Association of Municipalities which covers all of southern Alberta. The emergency debate held last Monday indicates that the government has not thought the matter through clearly, as the ministers who participated were unable to deal with the many practical and urgent questions raised.
As tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada need to be informed of these details it is, therefore, imperative that the committee have the opportunity to make an immediate inquiry and to examine the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister without Portfolio and their officials.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members know that this motion cannot be put at this time without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity and therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Liberals objected.



Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, a note dated February 21, 1970, was delivered to the government of Canada from the United States Embassy in Ottawa,

March 4, 1970
Questions
requesting such assistance as the government of Canada may be able to offer in securing information relevant to an investigation being conducted by the United States Department of Labour into certain aspects of the election of international officers of the United Mine Workers of America, held on December 9, 1969. Specifically, the note requested assistance in having information contained in the records of District 26, United Mine Workers of America at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and each of its subaltemate locals, made available for examination.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
A letter dated January 9, 1970, signed by the international officers of the United Mine Workers of America, Mr. W. A. Boyle, President, Mr. G. Titler, Vice-President, and Mr. J. Owens, Secretary-Treasurer, was sent to all the district and local unions instructing them to co-operate with the representative of the United States Department of Labour in order that an investigation be undertaken to determine whether or not the election conducted on December 9, 1969, was a "fair and honest election."
The government of Canada is informing the United States Embassy in Ottawa that it will be prepared to assist by co-ordinating the collection of the required information and records if provided on a voluntary basis.
The Canadian Department of Labour will communicate with the President of District 26 of the United Mine Workers of America and inform him of the government of Canada's willingness to facilitate the collection of information and records relevant to the United States Department of Labour investigation. It will also arrange for coordination of the collection of such information and records as are made available, and will see that such material is sent to the Department of External Affairs for transmission to the United States government.
The government of Canada has advised the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick of the course of action it is prepared to take and will act in consultation with these two governments as required.
The jurisdiction of the Landrum-GrifEon Act, under which the United States Department of Labour investigation is being carried out, in no way extends to Canadian unions or locals, regardless of whether or not they are international unions. Notwithstanding this however, the government of Canada is prepared to assist in the manner outlined above,

in view of the allegations of wrong-doing against the officers of District 26 which, unless refuted, could be damaging to their reputations.



FISHERIES


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition containing
33,000	names, mostly residents of Vancouver Island, concerning Canadian offshore fishing limits. It is the submission of these petitioners and myself that the present Canadian exclusive fishing zone is inadequate for the conservation of this resource.
Therefore your petitioners do humbly pray that the fishing zone of Canada be made something quite apart from the territorial sea or internal waters, and that it comprise those areas of the sea from the low-water mark of the shoreline to the seaward edge of the continental shelf, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
This prayer of petition contains the name of myself in accordance with article 67(5), and four other members of this House, the hon. member for Victoria, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River, and the hon. member for New Westminster, as required under article 67(6).



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Mather: For the fiscal year 1969-70, what are the estimated expenditures for advertising purposes for each government department or agency?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: (a) Departments: Agriculture, $38,000; Communications, $12,000; Energy, Mines and Resources, $281,000; External Affairs, $45,000; Finance, $1,485,000; Indian Affairs and Northern Development, $23,000; Industry, Trade and Commerce, $4,326,000; Labour, $273,000; Manpower and Immigration, $868,290; National Defence, $1,118,500; National Health and Welfare, $320,000; National Revenue, $342,000; Post Office, $442,000; Public Works, $155,000;
March 4, 1970

Questions
Regional Economic Expansion, $100,000; Secretary of State, $83,000; Solicitor General (Canadian Penitentiary Service), $16,000; Supply and Services, $74,100; Transport, $51,820; Veterans Affairs, $5,000.
(b) Agencies: Canadian Dairy Commission, $135,000; Farm Credit Corporation, $16,150; Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, (Calendar year 1969), $271,000; Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, $62,000; Atomic Energy Control Board, $800; Eldorado Nuclear Limited, $22,000; National Energy Board, $1,000; International Joint Commission, $3,500; Canadian International Development Agency, $18,200; Dominion Bureau of Statistics, $102,000; National Capital Commission, $12,683; Defence Construction (1951) Limited, $15,000; National Research Council of Canada, and Canadian Patents and Development Limited, $10,000; Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $74,550; Unemployment Insurance Commission, $282,640; National Library, $1,700; Public Archives, $1,700; National Film Board, $41,100; Canadlan-Radio-Tele-vision Commission, $65,000; Public Service Commission, $410,000; National Museums of Canada, $35,000; Crown Assets Disposal Corp., $7,000; Polymer Corporation Limited, $207,000; Royal Canadian Mint, $8,000; Freshwater Fish Marketing Corp., $20,000; National Harbours Board, $43,000; The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, $75,900; Canadian Transport Commission, $8,000.


ASSISTANTS TO MEMBERS OF PRIME MINISTER'S STAFF
Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many members of the Prime Minister's office staff are entitled to assistants and what are their (a) names (b) position (c) date of appointment (d) salary per annum?
2.	How many of these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?
3.	How many members of the Privy Council Office are entitled to assistants and what are their (a) names (b) position (c) date of appointment (d) salary per annum?
4.	How many of these appointments were filled by the Public Service Commission?
5.	How many members in the previous Prime Minister's office staff were entitled to assistants, their position and their salary per annum?
6.	How many members in the previous Prime Minister's Privy Council Office were entitled to assistants, their position and their salary per annum?
7.	How many assistants to the Prime Minister's office staff and the Privy Council's office staff will be dismissed under the government austerity program?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	One. R. G. Robertson, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet; appointed July 1, 1963; salary $37,000-$40,000.
4.	None.
5.	None.
6.	One Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet; salary $31,000.
7.	None.


GLASSCO COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Coates: How many of the recommendations of the Glassco Royal Comisison have been approved and implemented since June 25, 1968, and in each instance, what is the object of each such recommendation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of Treasury Board):: Since June 25, 1968 the following recommendations of the Royal Commission on Government Organization have been approved and have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented by the government. Where a proposal has been accepted in a modified form the new wording is indicated below the original.
Volume 1-Report No. 2 Financial Management
Page
106 Responsibility be placed on departments for certifying to the Comptroller of the Treasury that expenditures will be lawful charges and that funds are available. 106 The responsibility of the Comptroller of the Treasury be limited to ensuring that the departmental officers providing this certificate are properly authorized.
Volume 3-Report No. 13 Public Information Services 114 A small committee of senior information officers drawn from the departments and agencies be formed, under the chairmanship of the Queen's Publisher, to review and advise on co-ordination of public information policy and activity throughout the public service.
Volume 3-Report No. 15 Health Services
203 The hospital care of Service personnel in Canada be gradually transferred to civilian hospitals and no building of new Service hospitals or replacement or enlargement of existing institutions be undertaken.
Modified wording:

March 4, 1970
Questions
Page
The hospital care of Canadian Forces personnel in Canada should be provided by civilian hospitals except where an analysis of the costs and benefits, including provision of medical support for operational field units and military medical training indicates that such services should be provided by the Canadian Forces Medical Services.
224 The 'roster doctor' plan for carrying out examinations be universally applied, and the staff of Canadian physicians overseas be recalled.
Modified wording:
The 'roster doctor' plan for carrying out examinations be applied where feasible, and the staff of Canadian physicians overseas reduced to a minimum.
Volume 4-Report No. 23 Scientific Research and Development Page
273 All federal astronomical research be consolidated in the Dominion Observatories Branch, which should become a national institute of astronomy within the National Research Council.


VICTORIAVILLE POST OFFICE
Mr. Fortin: How much has the Canadian Government spent annually on the present Vletoriavllle Post Office since its opening (a) on administration (b) on rental (c) on maintenance (d) on repair (e) for other purposes?


Yves Forest: (a)	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69$	$	$	$	$	$	$Administration	4,370	5,677	5,148	5,728	7,428	6,782	9,753(Public Works) Administration (Post Office) (b) Rental	Salary records prior to 1966 are not available	186,649	212,264	271,092(c) Maintenance	2,401	3,093	3,078	3,299	3,124	2,932	3,235(d) Repairs	743	225	2,800	335	213	1,314	2,112(e) Other Purposes 21	114	52	27	35	885	223


POLLUTION AND NOISE CONTROL DEVICES
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider the advisability of requiring all motor vehicles to have (a) pollution control devices (b) noise control devices?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows:	(a) and (b) The Motor
Vehicle Safety Act now before the House as Bill C-137, would give the Government authority to mandate safety standards for new motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into Canada. Those safety standards could, by the definition in the Bill, include regulations governing the design, construction or functioning of motor vehicles for the purpose of protecting persons against impairment of health. The Government included this provision for the explicit purpose of establishing authority by which devices or design modifications could be prescribed to limit exhaust emissions and noise from motor vehicles.

Bill C-137 also provides authority under which the Minister of National Health and Welfare could mandate standards on motor vehicle exhaust emission and noise. It is expected that exhaust emission standards developed in collaboration with the Department of National Health and Welfare, will be included in the initial regulations when the legislation is passed. Formulation of noise standards, however, may require further investigation.


APPOINTMENT OF INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Was there any consultation between the Government of Canada and native people organizations across Canada regarding the appointment of Mr. Lloyd Barber as Indian Claims Commissioner?
2.	Were native people organizations requested to submit names as their preference for the position of Indian Claims Commissioner?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. No.
March 4, 1970

2.	Immediately alter the Policy Statement was made, a group of Indian leaders was requested to submit nominations of people to be considered as Claims Commissioner. These leaders were representing their provincial organizations, and were in Ottawa at the request of their national President. Only one name was submitted by these leaders, and the person suggested did not possess the necessary qualifications.


OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION ACT
Mr. Harding: 1.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1969, how many charges were laid against individuals or companies by persons in the department responsible for the enforcement of the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and Regulations regarding violations of the Act and Regulations dealing with pollution of waters?
2.	How many of the above charges resulted in (a) convictions (b) dismissal of the charges (c) withdrawal of the charges?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. The Oil and Gas
Production and Conservation Act did not become law until June 27, 1969. No charges have been laid under the Act.
No charges with respect to pollution of waters have been laid under the Canada Oil and Gas Drilling and Production Regulations made pursuant to the Public Lands Grants Act and the Territorial Lands Act in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968 or 1969.
2.	N/A.


&quot;CANADA NORTH OF 60&quot;
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What was the cost of preparation and production of the pamphlet "Canada North of 60" recently published by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	(a) What was the purpose of issuing the said pamphlet (b) how many copies were produced (c) to which companies was initial distribution made?
3.	Under whose authority and for what reason was the decision made to feature a strip mining operation on the cover of the pamphlet?
4.	Under what government program was the guarantee of the long-term lease and building of a high school and student hostel, mentioned at page 27 of the pamphlet, effected and, what is the projected total cost of this assistance?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. $20,411.65.
2. (a) To encourage investment in Canada's North; (b) 6,015; (c) to enterprises such 21701-65
Questions
as mining companies, investment companies, banks, insurance companies, oil companies, and related associations. Also to all foreign governments with financial interests in Canada. To all of Canada's trade commissioners and counsellors abroad.
3.	The cover indicates an open-mine operation, not a strip mine. The picture was chosen to impress recipients of the brochure that considerable operations were already under way in the North.
4.	The guarantee of the long-term lease refers to the fully integrated town centre, program approved by Treasury Board in 1968. The vocational high school and student hostel location in Frobisher Bay is a separate program. The projected cost will be $3,400,000 for the high school and student hostel.


GRANTING OF OIL PERMITS OR LICENCES TO IOS LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
Question 1,023-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
1 Did the mutual fund organization IOS Ltd. or any company affiliated to it acquire any permits or licences relating to oil or oil exploration in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories or anywhere in tlie Canadian Arctic and, if so (a) how many such permits or licences were acquired by the said company or companies (b) what acreage was covered (c) how much money, in total, was paid for the said permits or licences?
2.	Does the government have any knowledge as to whether the said company or companies sold or otherwise disposed of any of the said permits or leases and, if so, what is (a) the name and address of each person who now holds any such permit or lease (b) the number of such permit or lease (c) the acreage covered thereby by each person?
3.	Does the government have any knowledge of the amount of money received by IOS Ltd. or any company affiliated with it for the sale of the said permits or leases and, if so, how much was received?
Russell Clayton Honey: 1. Neither IOS Ltd., nor any of its affiliates known to the Government have acquired any permits or licences relating to oil or oil exploration in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories or in the Arctic off-shore; however, it is our understanding that affiliates of FOF Proprietary Funds Ltd., a mutual fund which we understand to be a subsidiary of IOS Ltd., have acquired a beneficial interest under permit acreage held by King Resources Company, a permittee in the Arctic. However, transfer of a permit cannot be effected without the specific authorization of the Federal Government. The business arrangements between these affiliates

March 4, 1970
Questions
and King Resources Company are of a private nature and have not been disclosed to the Government.
2.	See the answer to (1) above.
3.	See the answer to (2) above.


CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many times has corporal punishment been used each year for the past ten years in federal institutions?
2.	How many prisoners have had such corporal punishment more than once?


George James McIlraith: 1.	Corporal punishment has been administered in federal penal institutions, (a) as a Court Order, and (b) as a sentence awarded by an Institutional Board of Discipline as follows:
Year	(a)	(b)1960	17	121961	6	671962	11	181963	9	961964	22	261965	3	71966	3	321967	5	191968	5	11969	5	Nil2.	17.


MONTREAL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF CO-ORDINATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was there a public service competition for the position of Director of the Bureau of Co-ordination of the new Montreal International Airport at St. Scholastique, and (a) if not, for what reasons (b) if so, what are the names and the qualifications of the applicants for this position?
2.	Who was appointed to this position of Director of the Bureau of Co-ordination?
3.	What is the allotted salary range for this individual?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No. (a) The appointment was made under Section 8 of the Public Service Employment Regulations which provides that the responsible staffing officer may appoint a person outside the public service where he is satisfied that no person is available in the public service who is as well qualified for the position as the prospective candidate from outside the public service, (b) Not applicable.
IMr. Honey.]
2.	Mr. Pierre J. Levasseur, B.A., B. Comm., M. Comm., MBA.
3.	$19,084 to $21,637.


INDIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How does the percentage of Indian students beginning secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population beginning secondary schools?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students finishing and graduating from secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population finishing and graduating from secondary schools?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. In 1967-68, the latest year for which Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports are available, 7.5 per cent of the total Canadian school population was enrolled in Grade IX. During the same period, 4.6 per cent of the Indian school population was enrolled in Grade IX.
2. As Indian students at the secondary school level are enrolled in provincial schools, the Department does not maintain detailed records on promotion and non promotion of secondary school students. However in 196768 1.0 per cent of Indian pupils were enrolled in grades 12 and 13 as compared to 4.3 per cent other pupils.


INDIAN AFFAIRS BRANCH-EMPLOYMENT PLACEMENT OFFICERS
Mr. Orlikow: How many Employment Placement Officers does the Indian Affairs Branch employ in each province and how many of these are of Indian descent?


Russell Clayton Honey: The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development employs Employment and Relocation Officers in the following Regions:	Mari times, 3;
Quebec, 7; Ontario, 11; Manitoba, 1; Saskatchewan, 8; Alberta, 12; British Columbia, 13.
Two Employment and Relocation Officers of Indian status are employed in Saskatchewan and two are also employed in Alberta.


RICHMOND, QUEBEC-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO SCHOOLS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1. Since 1965, has the government undertaken to make financial contributions to the building of schools in the constituency of Richmond and, if so, what type of schools have benefited from such grants?
March 4, 1970

2.	How many schools have been built to date and where are they located?
3.	How many such projects were approved or are under study, and (a) what are the proposed locations (b) what is the approximate amount that the federal government will invest in each of these said projects?
Questions


Yves Forest: 1. Yes, for schools providing occupational training facilities.
2.	Four, Asbestos (2), Richmond, Disraeli.
3.	Four approved as shown below-none under study.
Location
School
Asbestos
Asbestos
Richmond
Disraeli
Trade School
Secondary School for Girls Regional High School Comprehensive High School
Approved Federal Contribution $1,125,000 469,582 1,656,372 1,375,218


RICHMOND, QUEBEC CONSTITUENCY-POST OFFICES
Mr. Beaudoin: What are the annual costs of (a) administration (b) rental (c) maintenance (d) renovation (e) miscellaneous for post offices in (i) Asbestos (ii) Dis-
	(a)	(b)
	$	
(i)	6,288.	Nil(ii)	2,160.	Nil(iii)	6,260.	Nil(iv)	1,580.	Nil
In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: (a) 1968-69 (to January 31, 1970): (i) $82,925, (ii) $21,493, (iii) $36,250, (iv) $24,089.


HULL, QUEBEC-SALARY INCREASES FOR POSTAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): Has the salary increase for postal employees in Hull (retroactive to May, 1969) been paid and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) was it paid in December, 1969 or January, 1970?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: The Post Office Department is not aware of a general increase retroactive May 1969 or thereabouts paid to postal employees in Hull, (a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable.


DRUGS-MOVEMENT OF MARIJUANA ACROSS INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
Mr. McCleave: 1. What international treaties and agreements has Canada entered into with regard to the movement across international boundaries of marijuana?
raeli (iii) Richmond (iv) Bromptonville, in the constituency of Richmond?


Yves Forest: In so far
as the Department of Public Works is concerned: For the	fiscal year	1968-69:(c)	(d)	(e)$	2,986.	Nil	Nil1,317.	Nil	Nil2,925.	29,440.	Nil743.	21,189.	Nil
2. Has Canada embarked on discussions with any international authority, or with any country or countries, to alter obligations, and, if so, with whom and for what purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.
2. No.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider eliminating the criterion of specific vocational goal as a prerequisite to taking an educational improvement course and require it only after the applicant has satisfactorily completed this course and prior to embarking on an occupational training course?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Adult Occupational Training Act provides for occupational training which will increase an adult's earning capacity or his opportunities for employment. There is no specific provision for educational upgrading as such. However, the Act has been interpreted to allow educational upgrading which is a preparation for occupational training or which leads to employment.

March 4, 1970
Questions


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF TIME
Mr. Robinson: Will the federal government consider extending the time available at basic training for Skills Development Centres so that those with less than grade VII education can receive educational assistance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The acceptance of workers into the Canada Manpower Training Program is not based on rigid educational entry requirements. Workers are now receiving training regardless of their basic education. In 1968-69, for example, approximately 21,500 manpower trainees had Grade VI education or less before beginning training. However, the duration of continuous training available to any one trainee is at present limited to 104 weeks of which 52 weeks may be educational upgrading.


ADULT TRAINING COURSES
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many adults in each province took courses under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the years 1967, 1968, 1969?
2. How many adults in each province took courses under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Act in each month in the years 1967, 1968, 1969?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	1967-68*	1968-69*Newfoundland	
4,119	12,014P.E.I	
1,474	2,791Nova Scotia	
4,729	17,716New Brunswick	
4,756	8,111Quebec	
68,748	98,652Ontario	
69,049	101,216Manitoba	
5,979	15,918Saskatchewan	
4,761	10,363Alberta	
11,168	21,890N.W.T	
-	209British Columbia	
8,625	12,314Yukon	
132	6
'Estimated
April	May	June	July	Aug.	Sept.	Oct.	Nov.	Dec.Newfoundland	. 237	97	13	19	75	2,736	707	363	103P.E.I	. 47	31	56	30	1	410	76	438	301Nova Scotia	. 556	472	255	228	98	3,364	426	541	415New Brunswick	. 258	95	39	674	5	3,064	1,261	402	101Quebec	. 1,557	1,063	807	502	534	8,438	14,749	17,013	4,977Ontario	. 5,400	2,826	3,204	2,427	2,626	6,689	5,358	4,034	3,178Manitoba	. 436	317	179	88	137	1,547	328	1,036	269Saskatchewan	. 416	197	39	31	71	1,133	658	170	32Alberta	. 1,001	1,026	571	89	125	2,506	1,448	673	353N.W.T	. 5	-	1	-	46	2	4	12	12British Columbia	. 1,544	731	427	382	365	4,449	3,535	1,473	388Yukon	. 20	41	23	38	33	82	153	11	112.	1967-68*	1968-69Newfoundland	
3,813	NilP.E.I	
666	NilNova Scotia	
5,267	NilNew Brunswick	
3,197	NilQuebec	
39,776	NilOntario	
34,671	NilManitoba	
5,089	NilSaskatchewan	
3,631	NilAlberta	
7,744	NilN.W.T	
58	NilBritish Columbia	
6,084	NilYukon	
97	Nil
'Estimated
Statistical information on a monthly basis is not available for periods prior to the commencement of the 1969-70 fiscal year.


SPECIAL ENGLISH COURSES
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many new Canadians in each province took courses in Special English under the provisions of the Manpower Training Act in each month in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?
2.	How many new Canadians in each province took courses in Special English under the provisions of the Technical-Vocational Training Act in each month in the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: March 4, 1970	COMMONS
1.	1967-68* *	1968-69*
Newfoundland				
P.E.I	-	-Nova Scotia	
468	773New Brunswick	
471	527Quebec	
6,500	6,800Ontario	
7,695	8,000Manitoba	
592	650DEBATES	4363
Questions
1967-68*	1968-69*
Saskatchewan	
471	570Alberta	
1,106	1,280N.W.T	-	-British Columbia	
867	1,280Yukon	-
'Estimated
April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dee.
Newfoundland	 -	-	-	[DOT]-*	-	-	-	-	-
p g |	_ _ _ _ ___ ____ ____ ____ ____
Novascotia::::::::::::::::::::::::::::	43572	28	673New Brunswick	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-[DOT]	-	-Quebec	
488	174	116	234	238	270	130	331	331Ontario	
654	638	504	631	519	707	633	517	571Manitoba	
115	77	45	16	15	45	-	45	-Saskatchewan	
24	-	-	-	-	14	-	4	8Alberta	
23	30	-	-	-	16	34	30	60N.W.T	
_________British Columbia	
60	62	53	45	92	122	116	77	58Yukon	
-	-	-	-*	-	-	11	7	-
Includes language courses in both English and French.
2. None.
Statistical information on a monthly basis is not avail" able for periods prior to the commencement of the 1969-70 fiscal year.


GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME-REQUEST FOR STUDIES
Mr. Nyslrom: 1.	Is the government giving consideration to the Implementation of a guaranteed annual income plan?
2.	What Minister or Ministers are responsible for studying this question?
3.	Have they produced any studies on the cost of implementing such a program?
4.	What are the government's estimates of the cost of a guaranteed annual income program?
5.	Is the government prepared to make public its cost-estimates analysis and other background material on the subject and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. The government is giving consideration to various methods of improving federal systems of income protection now available to Canadians. Some of the methods under consideration utilize principles found in guaranteed annual income plans.
2. The prime responsibility for the current review rests with the Minister of National
Health and Welfare who is being assisted by a committee of the cabinet.
3.	Within the limits of available statistical data, estimates are being made of the cost of the various alternatives.
4.	Since the government has reached no conclusions with respect to any particular program, no such estimates are available.
5.	The government has indicated its intention of placing a white paper on social policy before parliament as soon as possible. The indicated costs of any program proposed in the white paper will be an important dimension of such proposals.


*E. B. EDDY PLANT, HULL-REQUEST FOR STUDIES ON RELOCATION
Mr. Mather: Is the Government of Canada now undertaking any studies or reviews regarding the relocation of the E. B. Eddy Plant in Hull and, if so (a) which department or agency is involved in these plans (b) on what date is it anticipated that the results of these studies will be known?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is, no.

March 4, 1970
Orders for Returns


'UNEMPLOYMENT-MEDIAN DURATION FOR 1967, 1968, 1969
Mr. Fairweaiher: 


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is given under the form of a table and is therefore difficult to read. I would ask the leave of the House to make it appear in Hansard today and to consider it as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The abovementioned question reads as follows:]


Mr. Fairweather: What is the median duration of unemployment in each of the regions of Canada for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Median duration of unemployment (Months)
Region	1967	1968	1969Atlantic	1.9	2.0	2.0Quebec	1.8	2.0	2.3Ontario	1.2	1.7	1.5Prairie	1.1	1.5	1.5Pacific	1.6	1.9	1.6Canada	1.6	1.8	1.9
Source: DBS, The Labour Force Survey. [English]



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Since April 1969, how many new employees, by class, salary group, country of origin, mother tongue and ethnic group, have been taken on strength by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
2.	How many DBS employees have Canadian citizenship?
3.	Since April 1969, what amount was spent for travel purposes by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and (a) how many persons were involved (b) what was the purpose of their trips and their destination?
Return tabled.


IMMIGRATION 1950-1969
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many immigrants have come to Canada during each year 1950 to 1969 inclusive and from what countries did they come?
2.	How many immigrants came to Canada in each year 1950 to 1969 inclusive within the following age brackets (a) up to 10 years (b) 11-20 (c) 21-30 (d) 31-40 (e) 41-50 (f) 51-60 (g) 61 and over?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS-TEACHING STAFF
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many teachers are employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	What are the minimum qualifications (academic) required for teachers hired by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
3.	(a) How many teachers working for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have more than the minimum academic qualifications required (b) how many have a Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Education degree?
4.	What is the salary range for teachers working for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-minimum, maximum, yearly increments, etc.?
5.	Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development giving consideration to the payment of a bonus or an allowance similar to the $1,000 bonus now being paid by the Ontario Department of Education to teachers in isolated northern schools?
Return tabled.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I call attention to the fact that I placed a starred question on the order paper on February 17 dealing with navigational matters and information available to the captain of the Arrow the ship that went aground off the coast of Nova Scotia. This question has been on the order paper for more than two weeks and I think it should be answered quickly.


Yves Forest: I will look into the matter.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I placed a question on the Order Paper on November 20 last which I would have asked orally but I did not want to infringe the rule and take the time of the House. It has to do with the winter ferry service between Cape Tormentine and Borden, Prince Edward Island. I wonder whether the question could be answered before the winter is over?


Yves Forest: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.
March 4, 1970


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, on October 23 I placed some questions on the Order Paper with respect to expenditures on foreign aid during the fiscal year 1968-69. That was quite a few months ago. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could see to it that the questions are answered without much more delay?


Mr. Broadbenl:: Mr. Speaker, on October 23, almost five months ago, I placed questions Nos. 162 to 171 on the order paper. It would seem to me that answers are long overdue. I wonder if this delay could be looked into as well?


Yves Forest: To answer the hon. member, I would point out that the answers to his questions involve some 800 companies and that the tracing of the ultimate ownership of these companies is a long process. However, the answers should be forthcoming shortly.


Mr. Burton:: On December 9 I placed a question on the order paper concerning consultations between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada on the subject of potash. The question was relatively simple to deal with and I had hoped it would be possible to supply the information before now.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 340 and 355 are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notices of motions Nos. 340 and 355 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DELIVERY OF MATERIAL REQUIRED BY GREAT BRITAIN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 340-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do Issue for a copy of the December, 1969 Order-in-Council authorizing the Minister of National Defence to deliver to Canadian Commercial Corporation material required by the Government of Great Britain.
Motion agreed to.
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 355-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any report or other document which describes the weighted measures of rates of economic growth (employment, income and population) and of potential for secondary industry which were used by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as criteria in designating the entire Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island under the Regional Development Incentives Act.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 24 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual conditions as regards confidential documents and to the approval of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 24 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
LAND EXPROPRIATION BILL Motion No. 24-Mr. Gilberi:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence received by the Government of Canada commenting on the proposed Land Expropriation Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 80, 163, 164, 201, 228, 229, 349, 357, 360, 371, 373 and 386?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

ANTI-POLLUTION REGULATIONS Motion No. 80-Mr. Barneii:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Canadian shippers regarding proposals for anti-pollution regulations for commercial vessels.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the motion is acceptable, subject to

March 4, 1970
Motions for Papers
the reservation that it refers to oil pollution and sewage pollution correspondence dating from January 1, 1967.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 80 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 163-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the two consultant studies on the feasibility of the Post Office as a Crown corporation as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,349 on October 22, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Communications that the information requested by the hon. member may be obtained in the report "Blueprint for Change" which was tabled in the House on December 11, 1969. As a consequence, I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, on the assumption that the information is correct, I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
POST OFFICE-PRODUCTIVITY STUDY Motion No. 164-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant study on productivity in the Post Office by Price, Waterhouse Associates reported to the government on April 18, 1969 as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,349.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Communications that the information requested by the hon. member may be obtained in the report "Blueprint for Change" which was tabled in the House on December 11, 1969. As a consequence, I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REMISSION ORDER, MOTOR VEHICLES CUSTOMS DUTIES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 201-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, agreements and arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Canadian automobile manufacturers regarding custom duties related to Order-in-Council P.C. 1969-172: "Financial Administration Act; Customs Act Motor Vehicles General Remission Order".
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, there are no agreements or arrangements relating to this motion. Some correspondence on this subject was tabled on April 26, 1965 and on September 16, 1968, as well as a letter which was made available to the Public Accounts Standing Committee on June 17, 1969. Other correspondence is proprietary in nature and its disclosure is not in the best interests of government industrial relations. In view of this, the minister would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: I agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Motion No. 228-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Public Industrial Relations Limited, a public relations study, undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the reply of the Department of Labour to question No. 1,323, placed on the Order Paper during the last session by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, may have been misleading. In that reply we referred to a "public relations study" done by Public and Industrial Relations Limited. We apologize for any misunderstanding created by the rather broad interpretation taken in response to the question.
Public and Industrial Relations Limited were in fact engaged under contract to supplement the resources of our information branch in order to cope with a heavy work load placed on the branch during the 50th anniversary of the ILO, and particularly the organization of the National Tripartite Conference on Labour Relations.
March 4, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot make a statement. He should explain as briefly as possible why the document cannot be produced.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: In the circumstances we would respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I agree. Perhaps the hon. member would complete his explanation later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Motion No. 229-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Canadian Facts Company Limited, on a public opinion survey undertaken for the Department of Labour in the fiscal year 1968-69, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, the public opinion survey made for the Department of Labour by Canadian Facts Company Limited was prepared for internal, confidential use. Under the circumstances we would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: In view of the information provided by this survey, I would call for a vote.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH U.S. AND U.K. GOVERNMENTS RESPECTING FARM MACHINERY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 349-Mr. Gleave:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the subject of farm machinery as referred to by the Minister of Agriculture and reported in Hansard of January 19, 1970 at page 2530.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the limited amount of correspondence that has passed between the government of Canada and the governments, respectively, of the United Kingdom and the United States on this subject is part of exchanges of views on this matter which are continuing and
Motions for Papers
which, to achieve the desired results, must by their nature remain confidential. As it would not be in the public interest to table the documents, I would accordingly ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gleave:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this be transferred-oh, I will withdraw, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



REPORTS ON CONFERENCE OF INDIAN CHIEFS AT KAMLOOPS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 357-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all reports prepared by any employee of the Government of Canada or any agency, department or branch thereof and specifically, a Mr. Glynn and a Mr. Smith, who attended the Conference of Chiefs held in Kamloops, B.C. from November 17 to 22, 1969.
Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member is requesting was prepared by departmental offiicals on a confidential basis for the information of senior officers of the department and is privileged. I regret that I cannot accede to the hon. member's request and I would ask that he withdraw the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask that it be transferred for debate.


Russell Clayton Honey: I do.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been requested that it be transferred for debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order which relates to the specific request of the hon. member that the motion be transferred for debate. My point of order also relates to Standing Order 48(1) which provides that Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers should be placed under a certain heading, and then states as follows;
All such notices, when called, shall be forthwith disposed of; but if on any such motion a debate be desired by the members opposing it or by a Minister of the Crown, the motion will be transferred by the Clerk to the Order of "Notices of Motions (Papers) ".
The key point here is found in the words "forthwith disposed of", coupled with the fact that I do not desire any debate and did not request that the motion be transferred for debate. The Parliamentary Secretary-whether he is a minister or not may not be too

March 4, 1970
Motions for Papers
important-requested that it be transferred for debate. I submit that his request is not legitimate because the purpose of the request is not to transfer the motion for debate. There is no intention on the part of the government to debate this motion. I point out that the abuse by the government of this provision in the rules has gone on for some time. The subterfuge of transferring such a motion for debate is simply used for the purpose of preventing any debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, not counting the motions transferred for debate today at the request of the government, there are 55 Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers on the Order Paper which have been set down for debate, if and when the opportunity ever arises. If you look at the situation even casually you will find, with 55 Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers standing now on the Order Paper for debate, that it is impossible for the particular motion now before us ever to come up for debate.
I submit that you should rule that the request by the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister to transfer this motion for debate is not a legitimate request but simply a subterfuge for the purpose of refusing to provide the information or even any explanation to the country and particularly to the native Indian people involved in the All-Chiefs Conference to which this motion relates, which was attended by two spies of the government for the purpose of developing some secret document which is to be denied to the native Indian people.


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think I have a question of privilege because the hon. member stated there were two spies there. The two officials of my department who were there were invited by the Indians. It was an open meeting with the press there, and I will not stand for that allegation by the hon. member for Skeena.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Frank Howard: Why didn't you tell them to get out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this is a legitimate question of privilege. It is a point of debate between the hon. member

and the minister and possibly other hon. members. But the point of order raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is of some interest. Of course the Chair has to read the Standing Order as it is, and I cannot read the minds of hon. members or of ministers who ask, pursuant to Standing Order 48, that a motion be transferred for debate. The Standing Order is quite clear:
-if on any such motion a debate be desired by the member proposing it or by a Minister of the Crown, the motion will be transferred by the Clerk to the order of "Notices of Motions (Papers)".
When this motion, as in the case of a few other motions this afternoon, was called, a minister of the Crown asked that it be transferred for debate. The hon. member claims this request is not made for the purpose of having a debate. If, as I said, the hon. member wants the Chair to interpret what is in the minds of those who seek to have these motions transferred for debate, I cannot do that. I can only interpret the Standing Order, which is very clear. I have to rule that the motion has effectively been transferred for debate.



STANBURY-FIELDS REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 360-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Stanbury-Fields report.
He said: I will try again.
Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, this report has been requested on several occasions by hon. members. The minister has stated that the report was prepared on a confidential basis. It remains in that category. In these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Frank Howard: I cannot possibly agree to that. This is another denial of information to the Indian people. My friend over here who rose on a question of privilege a while ago-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A minister of the Crown has asked that the motion be transferred.
March 4, 1970	COMMONS



CONVERSION OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INTO CROWN CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 371-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do Issue for copies of all studies, reviews, etc., that have been undertaken by the Government of Canada regarding the consideration being given to converting the Public Works Department into a Crown corporation.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all studies on this subject are of a confidential nature and intended for internal use only. Therefore I ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Rather than say "transferred for debate" I will just say "transferred".


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX STRUCTURE COMMITTEE REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 373-Mr. Saltsman:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Report of the Federal-Provincial Tax Structure Committee presented to the Federal-Provincial Conference on February 16-17, 1970.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the requested report was tabled by the Prime Minister on February 18, 1970, as Sessional Paper No. 5/5. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Saltsman:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF B.C. UNDERWATER PARK

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 386-Mr. Barnett:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study regarding the establishment of an underwater park in the Gulf of Georgia, B.C. as mentioned by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Hansard of February 13, 1970 at page 3569.
Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I have
spoken to the hon. member and have informed him that the English Hansard of February 13 erroneously quoted the minister
DEBATES	4369
Inquiries of the Ministry as stating that a feasibility study has been started by the department. In fact, what the minister said, and this was clearly stated in the French Hansard of that date, is that the department was studying the matter. No feasibility study has been made. Under the circumstances, I understand that the hon. member is willing to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to withdraw the motion and when my spies tell me the feasibility study has been undertaken I will bring it up again.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


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


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, last week I reminded the Minister of Finance that on December 17 I requested an order for copies of all letters, submissions, commentaries, memoranda, briefs, petitions, protests, grievances, papers and other documents received by the government of Canada in respect of the White Paper on Proposals for Tax Reform. I should have thought this would be an easy motion to comply with, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Finance what progress has been made to date?


Mr. Benson:: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into this and a reply will be given to my hon. friend. I wonder whether he is willing to pay for the cost of copying these thousands of documents.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether his department or any other emanation of the government has had discussions with the United States authorities about the existing tax agreement between the two countries with a view to determining what changes would be required by the United States authorities in that agreement if the proposals incorporated in the white paper should become law?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there has not been discussion with regard to the proposals because the proposals have not become law and we
4370	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry cannot tell what parts will become law. However, the United States authorities have been provided with copies of the proposals put forward by the government in the white paper.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, the minister is saying in effect that he has no idea how the agreement would have to be changed in those circumstances.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has established any effective mechanism for furthering decisions that will be made with regard to both foreign investment in Canada in shares or the sale of control of Canadian corporations by Canadian companies? Has the minister established any effective mechanism to follow these developments apart from the more sensational notifications which may be published in the press?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister indicated to the House yesterday, the matter of foreign ownership is being studied by the government and will be considered by the cabinet in the relatively near future. When the government has reached a decision, such decision in the general area will be made public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But, Mr. Speaker, would the minister now answer the question I asked him? Perhaps he did not understand it. Sometimes we all fail to understand things. I asked the minister whether he had established any mechanism to follow the decisions that are being made with regard to either the deferment of investment in Canada by outsiders or the sale of control of Canadian corporations by Canadians? Has the minister established any mechanism so that he and the country will know what is going on and so that the government will have information on which to base decisions?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs indicated the information with regard to takeovers which he had in his department. That information is available to the government. I have no spies out, if this is what my hon. friend means, watching what goes on every day in every company in the country in

DEBATES	March 4. 1970
order to try to find out their intentions from day to day.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, surely it is not a question of sending out spies. Would the minister consider the question of establishing some machinery so that the country will know what is going on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition is repeating the question asked before.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question. In view of the action taken in the case of the uranium company, will the government give consideration to taking similar action in respect of independent Canadian owned oil or gas exploration or production companies where negotiations are presently going on for sale to United States companies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe I
answered this question by saying the government was looking at the matter of foreign ownership and control in Canada and that we would be announcing our policy in due course.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government moving toward adopting the policy advocated by Mr. Walter Gordon when he was Minister of Finance with regard to foreign ownership and control of Canadian corporations?


Edgar John Benson: I think the government's
actions speak for themselves. What I could say is that the Hon. Walter Gordon would give better advice than would my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Proposed takeover of denison mines by U.S. INTERESTS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who according to press reports was to meet with Mr. Roman at noon today and who so far as I know may still be meeting with him, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he can assure the House that the meetings with the head of Hudson's Bay and the head of Roman's outfit have not changed the government's position and that the government will remain firm about not allowing the takeover of Denison Mines?
March 4, 1970	COMMONS


Edgar John Benson: This is what we heard this morning, but these were meetings in order that the government could get specific information from the companies, and no more.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he is in a position to give the House an assurance that the government will not change the position announced by the Prime Minister the other night?


Edgar John Benson: The government's policy was announced by the Prime Minister the other evening and we have not changed it.


David Lewis: I have a further supplementary question. May I ask the minister whether the government is giving consideration to letting Eldorado buy out Mr. Roman's interest in Denison Mines and thus make sure that not only will this large uranium reserve remain in Canadian hands but that it will be under public ownership?


Edgar John Benson: Not at the moment.


John Gilbert: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is he considering a foreign takeover tax to stop foreign takeovers in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend knows, it would not be successful.


John Gilbert: It has never been tried.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the government's position regarding the prevention of the sale of Denison Mines to a foreign company, will the government in the future require that any future development of uranium mines in Canada have a majority Canadian ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: Of course this question has to be considered by the government in light of the policy announced by the Prime Minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the last question and the minister's answer, will he be applying this principle only to uranium companies or does he intend to apply it to the petroleum industry and all other industries in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend must remember that the uranium industry is one that has been declared for the general benefit of Canada and is specifically under federal control.
DEBATES	4371
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Following that answer, is the minister suggesting that the other industries I mentioned are not for the benefit of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Edgar John Benson: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Of course all industries are for the benefit of Canada, but this particular industry was declared so by this Parliament.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Is
the government planning to issue a comprehensive statement regarding foreign ownership in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: I have already answered that question.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary question also is for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether the answers which he gave to the previous questions indicate a trend and a desire on the part of this government to take over foreign controlled companies?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not in order.



TAXATION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the increasing opposition of the Canadian people to the white paper on taxation, could the minister inform the House whether he intends to withdraw it?


Mr. Speaker:: I take the liberty to suggest to the hon. member that questions almost along the same line have been asked a few days ago. However, perhaps the minister can answer the hon. member's question.


Edgar John Benson: hold parliamentary committees in great respect, and the proposals are before a parliamentary committee. I hope members of my
March 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry hon. friend's party as well as members of the official opposition will play their full part in the work of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the Leader of the Opposition for a supplementary question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue later.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance, if he is listening. He is not listening to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Temiscamingue has the floor. He should be allowed to ask his question.


David Réal Caouette: I merely ask that the Minister of Finance be kind enough to listen to my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
He is asking members of my party as well as opposition members to take an active part in the work of the committee. Is he in a position to state that he has the full co-operation of government members for this purpose?


Edgar John Benson: I can give this assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



WHITE PAPER ON REFORM-SUPPLEMENTARY DOCUMENTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will play his full part with regard to the consideration of this measure by filing the supplementary documents which he promised he would file before the end of January?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edgar John Benson: The committee has been very busy dealing with other matters, but-


Mr. Horner:: Resign and get it over with.


Edgar John Benson: -I approved the document yesterday and it is being mailed to the chairmen of both committees.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I would
like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On January 28 I asked him whether, in view of the increasing number of older people who are being discharged from hospitals to nursing homes for further care and who find themselves without funds and not covered by a hospitalization service for which they paid for many years, the minister has discussed this problem with his provincial counterparts or has some plan to cover the cost of such care for these people?


John Carr Munro: Would the hon. gentleman make it clear if he is talking about financial assistance to the institutions or to the people involved?


Philip Bernard Rynard: To the nursing homes to which these people have to go.


John Carr Munro: There is no sharing formula under hospitalization or the Canada Assistance Plan to provide assistance in these particular cases.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister discussed this with his appropriate counterparts to see whether these people can be covered by hospitalization? They paid for it for many years and now find themselves without any funds to go into a musing home.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The just society.


John Carr Munro: I am quite prepared to have this item put up for discussion at the next federal-provincial ministers conference.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Will this matter be included within the scope of discussions about the new social security framework which is being discussed?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The member means frame-up.


John Carr Munro: I would think that the proposals, whatever they may be, which will be covered in any new policy will have their effect in a particular instance such as this, but I cannot be more specific than that at present.
March 4, 1970



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate now, not only to the House but to the people in the Cape Breton area, what procedure should be followed in order to make application for compensation as a result of damage from the Arrow?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: We are making plans in this regard at the moment. Some discussions have already been held with the fishermen in the area. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and I had a meeting this morning and we are trying to devise a plan first of all to discover the extent of the existing damage and consequently what steps might be taken if fisheries are adversely affected.



SOUTH COAST OF NEWFOUNDLAND-LIABILITY FOR OIL SPILL

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingafe):: Can the minister say whether the department has determined the liability for oil pollution on the south coast of Newfoundland, and if so will the department be taking any action accordingly?
Hon.	Donald	C.	Jamieson	(Minister	of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, this oil spill is also the subject of an investigation. I think it is generally conceded it was the result of a spill from an oil barge. Whether that could be legally conceded is another question. We are now looking into it through the usual methods and through the Canada Shipping Act.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO GROUNDING OF &quot;ARROW&quot;

[Stage Direction]
Hon.	Donald	C.	Jamieson	(Minister	of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I be permitted to say that we will be holding a public inquiry into the grounding of the Arrow. Perhaps I had not made that clear.

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or perhaps more of a related question to the Minister of Transport Is the minister prepared to table in the House the regulations that will be
21701-66t
Inquiries of the Ministry presented to the Humble Oil Company conditional on our providing that company or their vessel with icebreakers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is hardly supplementary but the question having been asked perhaps it should be answered.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I answered it yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I said that I saw nothing wrong with the principle and I would be quite prepared to do it to the extent of my authority.


Mr. Baldwin:: Will it be after the vessel's return?



CHEDABUCTO BAY-EXTENT OF LIABILITY

Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of reports that the clean-up in Cheda-bucto Bay is costing around $50,000 a day, does the federal government believe that its liability is limited only to the amount which would be paid by the pool of ship operators?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether that question is in order. The hon. member is asking the government to express a legal opinion in specifically these terms. I doubt whether that would be acceptable procedure. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants on a supplementary.



NATURE OF INQUIRY INTO GROUNDING OF &quot;ARROW&quot;-PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport involves the public inquiry into the grounding of the Arrow. Can the minister say whether the inquiry will be conducted by somebody completely divorced from his own department and the oil industry and, second, how generous are the terms for the inquiry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it will be conducted by a judge; I have not the name of the gentleman as yet but he will probably be a maritime judge. I agree with the hon. member that that guarantees fairness in the matter. Of course it will be a public inquiry and I have arranged that the terms of reference shall include the Canada Shipping Act, which has to do with the actual grounding of the vessel, and I am also arranging to have his appointment covered under the Inquiries Act so that he can extend the scope of it to cover all subsequent events.
4374	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to object to the suggestion of the minister that judges who are not maritime judges are not fair.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of fairness, it is a question of native intelligence.
I have a supplementary question for the minister. In deference to the fishermen and other people involved, could the minister give some indication as to the timing? Could the minister indicate whether he or his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, would be in a position to inform the people of this area, say by the end of March or the end of April, as to what course is to be followed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at the earliest possible moment. There are three items involved. One is the matter of equipment and gear and that type of thing which may have been damaged by oil. It is a fairly simple thing to determine what actually has been damaged. The second is the matter of the ground fisheries and the potential effects, and the third is the lobster fishery. The timing in each case is somewhat different but there are consultations going on with representatives of the fishermen. I understand a group has been appointed there to carry on these discussions, and I shall be glad to keep the House advised.



SECOND VOYAGE OF &quot;MANHATTAN&quot;- REINFORCEMENT OF HULL

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of statements made yesterday by officials of Humble Oil Company that there would be no major changes in the construction of the hull of the Manhattan and in view of the significant damage to the Manhattan's hull on her first trip through the Northwest Passage, can the minister indicate to the House whether he is requesting major reinforcement changes in the hull of the Manhattan!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard or been advised of any statement by Humble Oil. I would much prefer to deal with their statement and those that come to me formally than any offhand reports of this nature.


Randolph Harding: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister consider a moratorium on the second trip of the Manhattan until such major construction changes are made in its hull in order to avoid

DEBATES	March 4, 1970
another possible major oil pollution catastrophe?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, having said in the first instance that I wanted to look at the formal comments from Humble Oil, obviously that flowed into the second question of the hon. gentleman.


An hon. Member:: You are a servant of the oil company.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. I thought it was going to be a calm house today, Mr. Speaker, so I have a calm and cool question for the Minister of Transport. He says he wants to hear officially from the Humble Oil Company. Has the minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs formally requested from the Humble Oil Company a report on the ship and the route and any damage that occurred to the ship when it went through the Northwest Passage the first time? If so, what was the reply?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think we have some information on this, Mr. Speaker, but rather than give anything less than a calm and cool retort to my hon. friend I will take the question as notice and advise him later.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would he tell the House whether the government has received a request from the Protestant School Board of greater Montreal asking the government to introduce amendments to the British North America Act to protect English and French education in Canada?
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not received it as Secretary of State for External Affairs but I shall inquire of the Prime Minister's office.



TAXATION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it the government's intention to proceed with its plan to tax unrealized capital gains, as this is both unfair and unworkable and is making the minister
March 4, 1970	COMMONS
and the government the laughingstock of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that the question is not acceptable in its present terms. The hon. member for Greenwood.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of Rhodesia declaring itself a republic, is the minister going to take the opportunity to make a statement on whether Canada will be relaxing, maintaining or increasing the economic sanctions against Rhodesia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I may have occasion to make a more complete statement later, but I can say that we have no intention of relaxing any of the sanctions that have been applied against this country or any intentions of recognizing it.
fTranslation]


NIAMEY-COMPOSITION OF CANADIAN DELEGATION TO EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
As the Niamey conference will take place soon, is the minister in a position to tell if there has been any agreement with the Quebec government so that the latter may be represented there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are having discussions with the Quebec government now which have not been quite completed. We are quite anxious, of course, that all provinces having a significant French-speaking group should be present at the Niamey conference. There is no disagreement amongst any of us on that point. We are insisting, however, that at the conference, which is an international conference between sovereign countries, Canada should be the delegate with the support of the other provincial delegations who have an interest in the subject matter.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
DEBATES	4375
Inquiries of the Ministry
Due to the importance of this conference for Quebec, which is the homeland of French Canadians, can the minister tell us if the federal government has offered to Quebec the co-chairmanship of that delegation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are offering to recognize the very special place that Quebec has as the principal French-speaking province.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Is the minister in a position to tell us whether the Canadian delegation to this Conference of French-speaking countries will be headed by a French-speaking federal member of Parliament and not by someone from some provincial organization?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is some confusion here and perhaps I can dispel a little of it. So far as what might be termed the constitutional conference is concerned, the representative of Canada when the constitution of the new agency is being formed will, of course, be a Canadian minister. I expect he will be one of our more distinguished French speaking ministers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That could include the
minister.


An hon. Member:: Where do you draw the line?


Mitchell William Sharp: For any subsequent conferences held under the aegis of this new constitution there could be, of course, differing arrangements. Indeed, as we have indicated in white papers which have been tabled in this House, the Canadian government would be very happy if a Quebec minister were the leader of a Canadian delegation.
[Later:'}


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that discussions were going on with Quebec. As the conference will be held around the middle of the month, when will the minister be able to tell the House whether
March 4, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry a complete agreement has been reached with Quebec?


Mitchell William Sharp: I hope very soon, Mr. Speaker. May I be permitted to answer the other question that was asked. Although I know that calls for an expression of opinion, it is more than that. The Canadian government has affirmed the position that only the government of Canada speaks for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: It speaks very badly.


RIGHT OF PROVINCES TO SIGN CULTURAL AGREEMENTS WITH FRENCH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does he recognize the right of the provincial government to sign cultural agreements with French-speaking countries, or does the federal government recognize-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is inviting the minister to express an opinion and therefore I do not believe the question is in order.


AIRPORTS
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he inform the House what locations have been considered or are being considered for the airport that is to be an auxiliary to Malton? Has the location been decided? If not, when will the minister be in a position to make an announcement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in the House some weeks ago, no final decision has been made. Approximately four or five sites have been examined, and since this work will take three or four months to complete there will not be a decision until early autumn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Battle River.


Mr. Downey:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question, but since the appropriate minister is not here today I will defer it until tomorrow, if I may.




Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs about our troops stationed in Cyprus as part of the United Nations peacekeeping force. I understand our troops are not to be stationed there permanently but only until a political solution is found. Is the minister launching any initiative directly or through the United Nations with a view to effecting a settlement in Cyprus so that we can contemplate returning our troops home?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions from time to time with the two sides in this dispute. We are as anxious as the Leader of the Opposition to return the Canadian troops to this country. However, the Secretary General of the United Nations and others have urged on us the importance of keeping our troops there to assist, not only in the maintenance of peace on that island, but also in bringing about a peaceful outcome of the dispute.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports that Liberal Members of Parliament are pressing the government for an immediate increase in the basic amount of the old age security pension, may I ask whether the government is giving consideration to this welcome request? Will the government act on it dining the present session?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Red Deer.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the President of the Treasury Board? Inasmuch as the estimates for the coming year show that there will be 8,000 more employees in the Civil Service, how does the minister reconcile that fact with the statement of the
March 4, 1970

Prime Minister and other government members that the number of employees on the Civil Service payroll will be reduced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question is argumentative and not acceptable in that form.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Gaelan J. Serre (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
As a result of the many representations made to the National Film Board for a reconsideration of its decision to impose user charges for its films, could the Secretary of State tell the House whether or not the Board has decided to change its policy in this connection?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I may be called upon to comment on this matter in greater detail, but I do not have any objection, since the decision has been taken, to replying to the hon. member. In accordance with the government policy not to increase any charges or duties on non-commercial services, pursuant to the policy announced recently by the Prime Minister, the new charges on film rentals set by the National Film Board, effective January 1, 1970, are cancelled forthwith.


HARBOURS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he received a request from the Newfoundland government for financial assistance for docking facilities in Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What action has the government taken on this application from the Newfoundland government?


Jean Marchand: Well, Mr. Speaker, the decision has not yet been taken. It will be taken shortly.
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members seek to ask supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps they might ask their questions tomorrow. The question period expired a few moments ago. Orders of the Day.
And the Clerk having read the order:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very reluctant to raise this point of order, but I note the time every day rather carefully when the question period begins. The question period, according to my observation, started today at 2.37 and should not end until 3.17.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken and hon. members who have questions may ask them. I received a note saying the question period should end at 3.16, and misread it as 3.06. I apologize to hon. members. We have a few minutes left.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The ministers have left the chamber-I beg your pardon, they are coming back.


An hon. Member:: Call Orders of the Day.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Shefford on a point of order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the oral question period no Creditiste member has had a chance to put a question. I would therefore ask you to give us a little consideration.


REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF NON-MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA AND LEDAIN COMMISSION REPORT
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is consideration being given to referring the question of the non-medical use of marijuana and the report of the LeDain commission to an appropriate committee of the House?
March 4. 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the government has not decided on the disposition of the report. Actually, since we have not yet received it, no decision has been necessary. At any rate, this subject should be given consideration.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received the first report of the LeDain commission?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EDUCATION-CONDITIONS OF GRANT TO QUEBEC FOR TECHNICAL SCHOOLS
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question. Has the federal government received an official reply from the government of the province of Quebec with regard to the conditions set by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in connection with the grants of approximately $12 million offered Quebec for technical schools?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire.




Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, after the questions asked by the hon. members for Charlevoix and Sainte-Marie I should like to ask a supplementary question concerning the agreements reached by the provinces with foreign countries.
Would the minister be prepared to give the House the assurance that except for Quebec there has never been any agreement between any province and foreign countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is evidence to be found where a treaty or an international agreement has been signed between any province of Canada and any foreign country.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for clarification purposes.
Does he feel that provinces have the right to conclude cultural arrangements with other countries without the agreement of Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister answered a similar question a moment ago after I suggested that the question was not acceptable. It seems to me the hon. member is again inviting the minister to express an opinion. In this sense, the question should not be put.


Georges-J. Valade: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to clarify the situation by asking the minister if he feels that only the federal government may sign cultural agreements, or if provincial governments may, without approval from the federal government, sign agreements of this nature?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be well established in the British North America Act that foreign relations are the complete responsibility of the federal government in all fields.


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does the minister no longer recognize the protocol agreements made in 1964 with then Premier Jean Lesage whereby Quebec was allowed to conclude agreements with foreign countries in the field of culture and education?


Mr. Speaker:: We are now at the debate stage. The question cannot be allowed.


POLLUTION
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: My question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's recent remarks concerning air pollution, is he prepared to give a firm commitment to the House to introduce his proposed clean air act before the House recesses for the summer?
March 4, 1970


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker, not before the summer recess.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question. Does the minister not agree that because his department is only now setting up an air pollution control division which will not start functioning for some time, it will be months, if not years-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is clearly argumentative and because of this is not in order.


John Gilbert: Has the
minister stopped smoking cigarettes as a first step to preventing air pollution?


John Carr Munro: It depends on what day you are talking about.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On February 23, as recorded in Hansard, the minister said he would give consideration to encouraging development of industry in areas where Metis and native Indian people are living. On February 26 the minister referred specifically to developments in Saskatchewan. In view of the expedition of the Parliament Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, can the minister now tell us if there are developments under way in northwestern Saskatchewan?


Jean Marchand: Not to my knowledge specifically, Mr. Speaker. We are still working on a program for the Metis and native Indian people.




Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister advised the House that the government has no intention of recognizing the new Republic of Rhodesia. Has the government any intention of recognizing the Republic of East Germany?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.
National Parks Act SOCIAL SECURITY


INQUIRY AS TO TABLING OF WHITE PAPER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that earlier today the minister referred to the white paper the government is preparing on social policy, can the minister give the House any indication when that paper will be available?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is hoped it will be ready prior to the end of this
session.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West) (page 4030).
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the minister is gracing us with his presence this afternoon. I hope he will remain in the chamber for the balance of this debate and answer some of the questions which have been asked. When we adjourned last night, I asked a question concerning the status of Imperial Oil and the development of the townsite at Lake Louise. If the rumours are true, this is further proof of this government's complete disregard for small and middle sized businesses and the fact that they are only for the big boys. The CPR has been in the park for years. They have never been disturbed. Are their hotels on a 42 year lease? If not, why not? I do not believe anyone should be put on such a restrictive basis as a 42 year lease. But if one group is, all should be. Everyone should be treated equally in what the government is pleased to refer to as the just society.
The basic trouble with the administration of our western national parks is that it recognizes only one facet of a two part problem.

March 4. 1970
National Parks Act
The minister and his officials can see only wilderness parks, and completely overlook the recreational aspect of such areas. They are not mutually exclusive. We can enjoy both wilderness and recreation within the same general region. Recreational needs and recreational development are confined to a relatively small section of any region such as national park. There is room to spare for thousands of miles of wilderness around such areas. The fact is the two should be complementary and would be complementary if only the Ottawa officials would stop meddling with things they obviously know little or nothing about.
The beauty of existing national parks is that we can have both types of areas. I would suggest that this fact be recognized by creating, not a cumbersome and deadening overburden such as a Crown corporation, but national wilderness parks, clearly defined by legislation. These would be complemented by simultaneous creation of national recreation areas. I believe, however, that the administration of the two should be absolutely separate. The national recreation areas could be transferred to another federal department, perhaps National Health and Welfare, or turned back to the provinces.
The national wilderness parks would be protected by specific legislation from any commercial, industrial, developmental, or extractive enterprise except, as necessary, the cutting of timber in the strict interests of conservation. The national recreation areas would be similarly restricted as to industrial or extractive activity but would be open to regulated commercial enterprise and development. That is what tourists want and expect in a recreation area-and tourism is the very best type of foreign exchange earner. There is no danger of foreign takeovers with tourists.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that I find it difficult to credit the minister with such boorish behaviour and disregard for Parliament as giving the debate on his own legislation such cavalier treatment. It amounts to a callous disregard for the individual Canadians most closely affected by this legislation. This appears to be a current trend in Liberal administration.
Only recently we witnessed another glaring example of the slighting of Parliament when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) chose to announce in detail certain important organizational changes in his department to the press and to the public rather than to Parliament. He was followed by his leader, who reserved his gems of wisdom

for the CBC. As far as I am concerned, this bill should not be allowed to proceed beyond the present stage, at least until the minister recognizes his responsibility and comes into this chamber prepared to answer the questions which have been raised by hon. members on both sides.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, we are now witnessing another controversy as a result of the government's attempt to force a Crown corporation upon the leaseholders in our western national parks.
The government has been trying to get rid of long-standing residents in the parks for a long time. Now, they are attempting to complete the process. Acting unilaterally, they raised rents to astronomic heights and abrogated long-standing leases Which residents could normally expect to be continued. There has been a continued refusal to allow these residents any say as to their future. The minister suggested that the residents of Banff and Jasper could move out if they did not like conditions there. Perhaps I would sound facetious if I suggested that in the course of the minister's forthcoming journey to Siberia he will be looking for a place in which these residents could settle. This would be in line with his comment that if they didn't like conditions where they were living they should move out.
After all, to the bureaucrats who administer the parks, people are a nuisance. Once the administration of leaseholds is handed over to a Crown corporation, the government will not be obliged to answer to these citizens and to their representatives in Parliament. There will be no way in which any citizen living in a national park will be able to make his voice heard. This is in line with the policy of the present government, a government without heart or soul. This approach to administration by a professorial government is in line with an experiment in sociology. The government looks on the Canadian people as subjects for a sociological experiment. We have heard a great deal about participatory democracy. We have heard of the just society. All we are getting is an experiment in how citizens will react to a given set of stimuli. The minister has rarely appeared in the House to defend his own bill, perhaps because he realizes that it cannot be defended. The government should come out from behind the smokescreen. It should abandon this idea of a Crown corporation. It should make itself responsible for its actions, and administer its park policy
March 4, 1970

in the open, not behind a smokescreen of a Crown corporation.
Now, I should like to turn to a park closer to home. In Riding Mountain National Park we have an administration which doesn't seem to care what happens to the park. The administration there seems intent on discouraging visitors, intent on forcing out the cottagers and intent on forcing out the local campers. All this directly concerns the developed townsite of Clear Lake or Wasa-gaming. This townsite was developed many years ago. It is well built up, and has provided ideal summer recreation of the residents of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Now the administration seems intent on placing Riding Mountain National Park out of bounds to the citizens of Manitoba. No doubt it will soon be putting a fence around the park to prevent access by visitors.
The roads in the park are a disgrace. No. 10 Highway which runs from the United States border to northern Manitoba is virtually impassable at certain times of the year. Year after year, the park administration promises that it will be widened. Nothing is done, though, except for patching in the worst places. Motorists avoid the road whenever possible. It is a bar to progress in western Manitoba. The deer in the park are a cause of constant depredation as far as surrounding farms are concerned. During winters of deep snow, the deer leave the park, as they must, and invade the surrounding farmland. In a year like the present, when there is considerable grain in swath, the damage done can be formidable.
What is the response to calls made to the department? The deer are no responsibility of theirs, they say. This is in line with the thinking of this government-that people are a nuisance. No compensation is given to those whose crops are destroyed, a perfect example of confiscation without recompense, and especially harsh because the burden falls on relatively few individuals.
I should like to read at this point a letter written on behalf of the rural municipality of Bolton to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart) constituency which borders on my own.
Dear Sir;
Recently the Council of the rural municipality of Bolton has received many complaints from residents along the Riding Mountain National Park about elk and deer causing damage to unharvested crops in this area. The residents have requested that compensation be paid for the damage. This situation is becoming worse every year with the increasing population of elk and deer in the Riding Mountain 21701-671
National Parks Act
National Park. The extended hunting seasons along this park have not helped to eliminate this problem.
Since the Council has no jurisdiction over the way the provincial and federal governments operate within their park areas, the Council suggests that possibly this compensation should be paid through an arrangement made between both governments or that the park areas be fenced in such a way as not to let the wildlife out.
We have requested support from other municipalities surrounding the Riding Mountain Park.
Yours truly,
R. D. Halwas, Secretary-Treasurer.
So you see, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem as far as the farm people living around the park are concerned. Action must be taken to see that the animals of which we are so proud are controlled. Incidentally, in the field of game management, the park officials have shown little or no imagination.
There is a further problem in the Riding Mountain National Park which needs airing at this time. Because the park is situated in the middle of a built up agricultural area, it has become a considerable bar to development there. It is not that the people want to have the park destroyed, but they are concerned because park officials have consistently refused to allow a road to be built from the town of Grandview in the north to the town of Rossburn on the south side of the park. The only other road to traverse the park, which is about 70 miles long, is No. 10 Highway on the eastern side, so those who live in the western area need to go many miles to get around the park. The need for another road through the park from north to south has been increased by the building of a cheese factory on the south side of the park. Producers in the north are at a disadvantage because of the great distance milk trucks must travel. Eventually, a second road must traverse the park in the Grandview area. The chambers of commerce in the district have for many months attempted to arrange a meeting with park officials, but to no avail. Opinion as to the quality of the administration of the Riding Mountain National Park has sunk to a new low among citizens surrounding the park. It will take a long time before this administration can regain any credibility among the people of this area.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I cannot see that the passage of this bill will do anything but set up a faceless Crown corporation behind which the government can hide and can still control all that goes on. This crown corporation will further remove

March 4, 1970
National Parks Act
the federal government at Ottawa from the people that it governs in the national parks. It will further strengthen the impression of the people of western Canada that the national parks are ruled by Ottawa bureaucrats.
In general, I am against the use of Crown corporations. Certainly, in situations such as this there should not be a Crown corporation established. Its establishment can only increase the feeling of mistrust and alienation, something westerners bitterly resent, against Ottawa and this Montreal-oriented government.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I am against this legislation. I have but a few points to make. First of all, like some members of my own party I, too, feel that the minister has been very conscientious.
There seems to be a misapprehension about our parks in this country, and I think the fact that there is a department within a department of government may have something to do with this. I ask the House to consider one salient point: Who created the western parks? Or, if you want to put it this way, who created the national parks, though we are talking here specifically about the western parks. The people of the west themselves created these parks. There was some local pressure, but these people appreciated the potential of the area and demanded that the Canadian government establish national parks. In those days the people had to ride horseback or go by buggy to the parks, and this trip took one or two days. This they did in order to emphasize to the federal government that these were areas that should be preserved.
In the interest of brevity, I will make but two further points. One relates to the facts and figures released by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics relating to all western mountain parks. Visitors to the western parks from Ottawa, Toronto or the Maritimes, contrary to popular belief, will not see a neon jungle of motel signs. However, when they get there they do want a comfortable bed and a place for their children that is properly supervised, with swimming pools, competent lifeguards and that sort of thing. This accommodation is to be had as you drive your car through the parks. When you can drive no further you can hire a saddle horse and take trail rides. Then, if you are energetic enough you can hire a jeep or go walking. But these parks are so large that, even though you have made all this effort, you have probably seen only 5 per

cent of the area of the western mountain parks.
I give that example merely to indicate that our parks are by no means fully developed. Some people contend that they should be left as wilderness. I should like to ask whether we are going to leave 95 per cent of our parks as complete wilderness which our visitors from Ottawa, Toronto or the Maritimes cannot enjoy to the full.
In defence of the minister-I say this sincerely-may I give one example of the sort of advice he gets. I should like to refer to an affidavit prepared by a firm of assessors, we are told one of the best in the country. In this affidavit they say:
-we have personally inspected the property, that to the best of our knowledge and belief the information given here is correct and that this appraisal is made in accordance with the standards of practice and professional ethics of the Appraisal Institute of Canada.
I suggest this is the sort of advice that has led to this proposal to establish a crown corporation. I have already said I object most strongly to this legislation. I should like to refer to a letter written by one of the persons in Waterton National Park in connection with this appraisal of property in the park:
General description states seven single units 12/24 which is correct but also states five double units 20/40 feet which is not correct as they are 24/24 feet each unit. Also there are four new units 12/24 feet instead of the two new double units as stated.
Having read the affidavit signed by the appraisers, I am wondering just what kind of advice the minister, and through the minister, the government, are getting. This is why I take exception to the legislation before the House.
I might also point out that the price paid by Mr. Goble for this property was $71,250, not the price stated. It would not have been difficult for the appraiser to ascertain this if he visited the property personally and looked at it. The appraiser signed an affidavit which was accepted by the government and which is incorrect. This is evident from the letter written by the lessee to which I have referred. We are here in the House to consider these things. The Canadian public should now realize, perhaps belatedly, that regardless of whether this legislation is passed, only 5 per cent of these parklands is involved. This seems to be a good argument for further development of the parks.
March 4, 1970

[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I speak as a western member and as a friend and neighbour of those people who actually created these parks. They had no one to support them in the beginning. It was only after their work and effort that the Canadian government saw fit to create these parks. Mr. Frank Goble goes on to point out that the price paid for the property as per the agreement, was not $78,000 as stated. This puts the whole matter in a different light.
Let me say again that the government has received improper advice. The advice in respect of income is purely fictitious as the 1969 books have not been audited. The company year end is April 30, 1970, so we can all understand this fact. This appraisal was apparently made in somebody's office and not on the premises. Strong objection has been taken to this assessment of the property. I think this is a reasonable and fair approach to the matter.
Let me also refer to a signed affidavit which indicates that the minister's information is based on false evidence. There is a suggestion that the assessment was made in respect of a motel, a restaurant and a sauna. Apparently the sauna is for the benefit of patrons. That may be a commercial advantage, and I do not want to argue about it at all, but there is not a restaurant on this property. The minister has obviously received advice that there is a restaurant and the assessment was based on the existence of one. The assessment has been raised from $78 to something like $1,200. As a result, the taxes are eating into the profits. The information given to the minister was that there was a restaurant there. There is no income from a restaurant because there is no restaurant. This is a purely fictitious suggestion. If we are asked to vote in favour of this legislation, we are being asked to vote on the basis of erroneous advice given to the government and the minister.
There is another suggestion that there is year round occupancy. To refute this suggestion, all one has to do is look at the contract. There is not year round occupancy, but only for approximately seven months. There is also an affidavit in this respect. With all due deference to the minister and the government, this legislation has been brought forward on the basis of poor advice and erroneous information. This is difficult for me to accept and it is of concern to the people of Canada. Quite frankly and sincerely, I suggest we should have another look at the legislation
National Parks Act
before we go along with it. Once we accept this legislation we accept the evaluation of the government and the minister which is based on false information.
I implore the government, and anyone else concerned, to reconsider the suggestion that we should accept this type of legislation based on advice from a department within a department which is so obviously wrong.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-152 concerning national parks, because the matter particularly affects the riding of Shefford and most of all, because there is a well-known zoo in Granby.
Of course, I know that the Granby Zoo is not a national park. However, in view of its importance and the publicity it has brought to Quebec and Canada, I wish to comment on national parks and the Granby Zoo.
In dealing with national parks, I must remember that the Granby Zoo in the past had to rely on all countries of the world, especially Africa, to obtain certain animals. In my opinion, national parks are especially suitable for the breeding of wild animals, in order to make them available eventually to Canadian zoos.
I know that the Granby Zoo was originally a makeshift undertaking, and after ten years, it has become the second largest in Canada and the one with the greatest number of wild animals. However, it had to pay huge amounts to obtain them. Normally, our national parks should, once again, be the suitable place for the breeding and rearing of wild animals, in order to make them available to Canadian zoos and especially those in Quebec.
The Granby Zoo authorities have told me that they wish to get two musk-oxen worth about $17,000 each. Now, such animals have to be imported from Africa and they have to be put under medical care in some American zoos, sometimes for a year or two, before being accepted in Canada, in this case Granby. I believe that there would be some financial advantage in breeding wild animals in our national parks in order to provide for the needs of zoos in Canada, which would enhance the tourist industry, because a great many people like to visit our national parks and our zoos. After all, close to 40,000 to 60,000 people come each year to Granby, for instance, during the summer to visit the zoor

March 4/ 1970
National Parks Act
thus stimulating the interest of youngsters in our wildlife.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The administrators of our national parks spend vast sums of money to publicize the Canadian wildlife, while our zoos have to start with makeshift means. In fact, there were individuals in Granby who invested $50,000, more than fifteen years ago, with no hope of any reimbursement, and who gave of their time and their efforts to make of the Granby Zoo the finest in the province of Quebec.
A former mayor, Mr. Pierre-Horace Boivin, for instance, bought beavers to distribute them across the world in exchange for parrots which, in turn, he exchanged for wild beasts. At first, he also paid for their transportation out of his own money. Others have done the same, so that we now have in Granby something equal to if not better than a national park.
The National Parks Act should, I believe, be more generous towards zoos like ours, which are a tourist attraction for the whole province and for the rest of Canada. Today they enable our young people to come in thousands each year to learn about our wildlife, which is one of our national resources. In view of what the Granby zoo has done for the Canadian people, we have to admit that its directors are entitled to more than mere thanks. The federal government should give more assistance not only to the Granby zoo but also to other zoos in Canada, whose directors have to travel throughout the world to stock their establishment and thus promote the tourist industry.
We are proud of the Granby zoo and hon. members have had the opportunity in the past to hear us talk about it.
The Granby Zoo made a net profit of $309,000 in 1968 and attracted several million tourists.
Mr. Speaker, I believe national parks could serve such a purpose. That is why I wanted to make these few comments because so far we have had no help either from the Quebec government or from the federal government in promoting our zoo, to assist in the capture of wild animals and in their reproduction. We have had to pay everything, at the cost of sacrifices. All this cost us a great deal of money, and yet Canada benefits by the zoo, as well as the province of Quebec.
I hope the minister responsible for national parks will consider this problem and, perhaps,

provide some assistance to the Granby Zoo and others who might be facing similar difficulties.
As far as wild animals are concerned, we have to rely on American zoos or on African charitable organizations or others, even if we must wait a long time for help, so that the Canadian people can be proud of showing to their descendants the marvels of wildlife, which contribute to the enrichment for everyone.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to just about all the speeches by opposition members on this bill. Having heard the speeches, one would think this bill would institute the worst form of tyranny in the world on the people who live in these parks. One would imagine that the government intends to abandon the right of all the people who live in these areas, especially in the towns of Banff and Jasper, to a corporation which will grind them under its heels. I cannot imagine any government in Canada or any person in Canada allowing this. For the life of me, I certainly cannot connect this idea to the bill. Over the period of the seven and a half years I have been here-and I daresay over the period of almost 50 or 100 years that other members have been here-we have heard time and time again in connection with parks and government-owned land that someone had an advantage because of political patronage, that someone had not properly assessed the property and, as we heard this afternoon, that the administrator had not relayed the correct information to the government.
Indeed, the time has come now when we should have some sort of rational system of administering leases in respect of these lands and the land itself. What better way could there be than by having a Crown corporation, of which we have many examples, functioning with the ability and right to hire qualified people, to give advice and conduct the operation? Then, no one could possibly complain of any political patronage or of anything underhanded being done. I might give the example of the Toronto Harbour Commission. I have had some dealings with this commission. It administers valuable harbour lands. It is well known in Toronto that the Harbour Commission is one of the toughest boards to deal with that one could find. It is competitive. No one has ever accused it of political shennanigans or patronage over a number of years. It is
March 4. 1970

recognized by the real estate people in Toronto to be one of the best commissions functioning in the field of land rental and land development. No one has a complaint. This commission has been praised from time to time as being a well administer..d body, a perfect example and one of the best in North America. This is not a Crown corporation. Rather it is a board formed on the corporate scale which I think does an excellent job. The purpose of this bill is to establish such a body.
With a corporation such as would be established by this bill, I cannot see that there should be any confusion in respect of the rights of individual citizens. It is true that the bill deals with more than just the administration of leases. It also deals with the development of land and other things. It cannot be expected by anyone that the Crown should give up any right in respect of the development of a park to a group of people who live in these places without some sort of a national control. But the main thrust of this corporation is to deal with leases in a businesslike way.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I agree that there is another problem involving the right of the residents of Banff and Jasper to administer their own affairs. But nothing ties this right to land ownership. Indeed, great parts of New York, Toronto, Montreal and many other places are owned by people other than those who reside there, yet the latter administer their own affairs and do whatever they think is for the good of the community. The same right exists in this case. If the provincial legislation requires this tie, let it be so, but let us not tie that right to ownership of land. This bill has only one purpose, that is to form a body of which we can be proud and which will be just, fair and businesslike. I have not heard one argument to indicate why this plan should not work, nor has another scheme been advanced which would solve the complaints that we have been hearing from the other side for years. What other scheme can they propose that will achieve this?
Then, there is the argument that the minister is shedding his responsibility. The corporation has to answer to someone. There will be just as many complaints or questions from the other side in connection with this corporation, and I dare say we will have the same number of complaints from residents of the parks. All these will sift through here and the minister will have to be responsible for them.
National Parks Act
To say that the minister is abandoning his responsibility is nonsense. There is only one purpose for this bill; that is to establish a system by which land in the national parks will be administered, leased and negotiated on a businesslike basis under the control of the Crown.


Louis-Roland Comeau: I do not wish to delay the passage of this bill too long. I have listened with interest to the debate and to the comment about the lack of alternative suggestions from our side. The fact is that there is no alternative. The only thing that can be done is to make the minister and his department responsible for administering the parks. It is as simple as that. The minister and the department should answer complaints in the House.
We know that when one tries to obtain information regarding, for example, the CBC or any other Crown corporation, the ministers responsible for them always say they will pass the inquiry along and see what the Crown corporations have to say. But the minister responsible does not exercise his power by making whatever changes are necessary in these corporations. I have never seen that happen in the two years I have been here, though I know that my experience is rather limited. For example, I have never seen a decision taken by the CBC on a matter that affected the CBC reversed by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier).
That is why I object to the principle of Crown corporations I object to the requirement in the bill before us that the land should be turned over to a Crown corporation by the residents or even by the provincial governments. I am sure the people will object to it and will think twice about putting their land into non-political hands, if I may use this term rather loosely to refer to people who have no real interest in the matter and who are not really concerned about the problems of the people on these lands.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that one of the purposes of this bill is to protect three parks, two of which are located in my constituency, that is Fort Beausejour, Fort Anne and Kejimkujik parks. I am most happy that two of these parks, Fort Beausejour and Fort Anne, will not be affected-at least, this is the way I interpret this legislation-by the creation of such a corporation.
If I well understand the relevant clauses of the bill, these two parks will come under the

March 4, 1970
National Parks Act
National Historic Parks Act, which will remove them from the authority of this legislation.
I congratulate the minister for having announced the extension of Kejimkujik park, and more precisely, the development of a second park within its borders. I repeat that in my estimation the department will meet with a refusal from the provincial government as regards the designation of lands to be put at the disposal of a Crown corporation.
This is why I object to the bill being passed. I am against the idea of establishing a Crown corporation to deal with those problems. I recognize I have nothing to say against it to the minister. I have never blamed him for anything with respect to the Kejimkujik, Fort Beausejour or Fort Anne parks. Maybe this is because the Kejimkujik park was set up last summer only. But his extension some day will nevertheless give rise to some problems. I should like to be able to ask questions in the House and ask the minister whether or not he is responsible for the problems related to those parks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I should like to point out to the hon. member that under the procedure related to the debate on the motion for second reading of a bill, it is forbidden to ask questions to a minister unless there is unanimous consent from the House, and that the proper time for doing so is during committee sittings. If the hon. member will attend these sittings, he can then ask questions; the minister will be there-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I think that the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) was not asking a question to the minister.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Quite right-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He was mentioning the fact that we did not want to answer questions but we are not allowed to do so under the Standing Orders.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Quite right, Mr. Speaker, I was not asking a question.
Nevertheless I might want to ask questions related to those parks. In that case I should like to direct them to the minister in the House.
I am only talking about the bill. If it is passed, I would not like the minister to be

able to say that it is not his responsibility to settle the problems, but that it is the business of a Crown corporation. So I am opposed in principle to the setting up of such a corporation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What I mean is that members and their constituents should have some control over these parks. The aim of Bill C-152 can be reached under the present system. If the department finds that its responsibilities in the field of Indian Affairs and northern development are too heavy and that, for this reason, it cannot give enough attention to the problems of national parks and wants to pass this responsibility to another department, I think that some ministers without portfolio would be glad to take over. If this problem is important enough to be given to a Crown corporation, it is surely serious enough for another minister to deal with it.
I have already spoken about these parks and I can say, once again, that I have no complaint about the past administration. But I do not agree to these responsibilities being given to another agency. As representatives of the people, hon. members should know both what is going on among the voters and within the federal and provincial governments rather than having this responsibility entrusted to an agency that does not represent the public in any way.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am only going to spend a very few minutes on Bill C-152. I have heard a number of interesting speeches this afternoon on the bill and I want to deal with some of the matters raised.
It was interesting to listen to the member for York East (Mr. Otto) who, in his reference to the objections of the opposition to this bill, said these appeared to him to be based on fears of the worst kind of tyranny. I suggest to the hon. member that had he listened to all of the speeches on this measure it would not have taken him as long to get the message.
I am concerned about a number of factors related to this measure. First of all, the creation of a Crown corporation, I think, would result in a situation where grievances would no longer be aired through Parliament. As a member of this House for many years, Mr. Speaker, you know how difficult it is at times to get through that bureaucratic mass in order to get an answer to a very simple question. It is difficult enough when the minister
March 4, 1970

is able to come before the House of Commons with his departmental estimates to get some well-deserved answers to questions. I think the minister's statement, as reported in the press a few months ago, "If you don't like it, you can move out", was the kind of statement that deserves a seat in the other place.
Yesterday, and indeed the last time this debate took place, many references were made to the 42-year leases. I remember when this issue was raised in this House ten or 11 years ago and was discussed at length on a number of occasions. Members, particularly those from western Canada, raised a number of objections to the legislation at that time and appeared to be stymied by the wishes of the bureaucracy. I did not support the 42-year lease proposal at that time and I still maintain that leases should be granted in perpetuity if architectural standards are to be insisted upon. Indeed, architectural standards are being set by the department. If they are prepared to interfere in the administration of the parks to that extent, then surely the man who is putting up the money should be able to enjoy a long term lease. Surely, there is nothing to fear from leases in perpetuity. Legislative provision could be made whereby these leases, no matter of what length, could be broken on breach of a regulation, if such breach were of a serious nature. There is very little to be concerned about there.
I heard considerable argument about the 1959 Order in Council, No. 1108. One would admit, and I suppose it is true, that increases in rentals at that time were considered and were indeed authorized. But the fact of the matter is that it was the responsibility of this government to either act upon that Order in Council or repeal it. They had the alternatives; it was their prerogative and they chose to act on it. They avoided the real issue by simply saying it was the Conservatives who brought in the measure in 1959, which was an absolute falsehood. The responsibility lies with this government, and they are the ones who are imposing the penalty on the parks at this time.
In view of the publicity aroused by Bill C-152, I suggest it might be wise for the government to consider municipal status for the townsites of Banff and Jasper, as well as towns in some of the other major parks in this country. The federal government could retain, if they wished, the responsibility for maintenance of the wilderness areas. I am not too sure in my own mind but that justice could best be served by having the minister
National Parks Act
sell the parks back to the provinces for a fee of $1.
I am concerned about the setting up of a Crown corporation because, as the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said, what is there to worry about? At this stage of the game, not very much. However, the people presently working in the department are concerned because once this department becomes a Crown corporation the responsibility for its administration is in the hands of the president and his staff. As members of Parliament, we can ask questions on the operation of that department but we do not get any more satisfactory answers than we do from the Department of Public Works or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Who appoints the people who are going to administer the Crown corporation and how are they to be appointed? Will the minister appoint a sacred few to manage the corporation or is this going to be another freak of Liberal architecture? Once created, is the Crown corporation going to release all of the civil servants presently connected with that department and hire a new group of people to rim it, and hire them only if they conform?
I am concerned with what the future leasing procedures might be and how they would be followed. The hon. member for York East elaborated somewhat on that but he did not outline the procedures. I should like to know whether the procedure will be a continuation of public tendering for sites. Are these leases going to be granted by an appointed officer of the corporation itself or by an officer of the government? I think the minister should answer some of these questions before the bill is passed.
Again, I ask the minister what is so fair about arbitrary rental increases without prior notice or consultation? I am sure the minister, just as I and many other members of this House, has received letters, telephone calls, telegrams and what not, to an extent that causes us great concern. The well established businesses can afford to pay the tariff imposed by the government at this point, but a good many new ventures in all the parks have limited finances and face the prospect of bankruptcy. I do not think even the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) would support that kind of arbitrary governmental action.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
May I ask the minister why the staffs in the parks were reduced? The explanation no doubt

March 4, 1970
National Parks Act
is austerity. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if this legislation passes, additional staff members, no doubt with special qualifications that adhere to the principle of the languages bill, will be hired. They no doubt will have exceptional qualifications and conform to certain requirements. On January 21, I asked the minister two questions about parks. They had to do with the number of people laid off in the parks over a certain period of time. I refer to Questions No. 928 and 929 in my name on the Order Paper. They have not been answered, and I am wondering why. Does the minister think that once the department becomes a Crown corporation they will no longer have to be answered, or does the government think bilingualism is more important than people?
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked the minister yesterday whether the committee might not hold hearings in the national parks to get to the bottom of what is obviously a grievous and serious problem. The minister may wish to ignore the plight of the people in the parks, but I do not see what is so objectionable in asking the committee to conduct hearings in the parks and hear evidence first hand. Or, does the minister feel that it is better to be a coward than a humiliated hero?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate is understandable because I am concerned about the philosophy behind the amendment. I say that because at least one park in Nova Scotia could fit into a small corner of one of the parks we are mainly considering under this bill. I question the right of any government, on the strength of a whim, to change unilaterally the principle under which the Government of Canada assumes title to land in existing parks. The minister ought to explain to the House and committee whether he consulted the appropriate ministers responsible for this type of governmental operation in the provinces involved. If he consulted them, what was the result of his discussions? What did the provincial ministers say, first of all, about their desire to see park land turned over to the federal government; also, what did they say about decisions the provinces might make with respect to park land which would be turned over to third parties?
The comments made about the Crown corporation are valid. The widespread powers such corporations exercise ought to be scrutinized and considered at some length by those

who represent the people. We may not want to know in 1970 what goes on every day in thousands of square miles of park in the Rocky Mountains, but we should have the right of scrutiny. Clearly, the government is not overly-concerned about the importance Canadians attach to the ownership of their land and the direct control over it. Land, Mr. Speaker, is still a very, very important part of our lives. As a Nova Scotian, I do not want to see thousands of square miles of my province turned over to this government, because it would turn it over to a third party, the Crown corporation. As a result, the minister would be relieved of the direct responsibility. He would be minister in title only, because the corporation would report once a year. I hope the minister will consider my submission when the bill comes before the committee.
By establishing yet another Crown corporation, this government seems to indicate, on the surface at least, that it wishes to govern less and to interfere less; yet the far reaching implications of its policy will mean that the Canadian people will be governed by a substructure of government which will interfere with them. The people of Canada, I submit, do not like this hidden interference, and under the surface involvement, on the part of Crown corporations. These remarks are not meant to apply to the day-to-day operations of the nationally run airlines, railways or similar bodies. Nor am I talking about our national broadcasting system. I am talking about our national heritage and about the right of Canadians, their children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and descendants in a thousand year's time to enjoy a property in a park. The people's elected representatives must protect those parks, and not third parties like Crown corporations. The parks are our national heritage. Those who administer parks are not administering something which is technical. Therefore, I submit that amateurs and laymen can administer them on a day-to-day basis.
I am concerned about portions of clause 3, and I am concerned about the expropriation clauses of the bill. I know they will be exhaustively studied in committee. I hope the minister will explain the wording in the bill to the effect that the Crown corporation may, with the consent of the minister, expropriate what it wants. I see the minister keeps flitting in and out of the House, as he has done throughout the discussion of the bill. Perhaps he is not really interested in it. In any event, I should like to know what those words mean.
March 4, 1970



Do they mean that there must be a reference to the minister, and thereby to the body politic, with respect to every measure of expropriation, takeover, release, exchange or what have you, or is that wording inserted in the bill to give the Crown corporation a cushion to fall back on, if it is needed.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I would like to know what the procedure is going to be. How will expropriation be carried out? How will land be added to the parks already in existence. I am concerned about the addition in this bill of section 15. This section reads:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation, set aside as a national park of Canada, lands in the area of Kejimkujik Lake in the province of Nova Scotia that the government of Canada and the government of the province agree are suitable for a national park, if clear title to the lands is transferred to Her Majesty in right of Canada; and upon the issue of the proclamation, the National Parks Act applies to the National Park of Canada so set aside as it applies to a park as therein defined.
I cannot understand what that means. It suggests to me that once we examine the extension to the Kejimkujik park, that is going to be the end of parks in Nova Scotia. Is that what it means? If it does not mean that, why does the bill refer specifically to this park? Why does it stop with that specific clause? 1 would like this question to be answered. Indeed, the minister has a moral obligation to answer.
There are detailed plans available. If the federal parks branch would get off their rear-ends and send the plans to the province of Nova Scotia, we could then get on with the establishment of a third national park in that province. However, they have not yet seen fit to do that. This branch seems to think it is better to say that the province of Nova Scotia is dragging its feet. I suggest it is not that way at all, but rather the other way around. I ask the minister to clarify whether section 15 in any way limits further participation in the province in terms of a third, fourth or enlargement of the two present national parks.
I wish to reiterate the importance of the minister explaining to the people of Canada, the philosophy or principles upon which the government feels they can, without effective public dialogue and consultation, arbitrarily move to usurp, annul or void the principle on which all the present parks were established. I suggest there is not a provincial minister, provincial authority, any provincial government, past or present, that believed these
National Parks Act
lands would ever be transferred to a third authority. Indeed, their responsibility to the people they represented forced them to clearly stipulate conditions which dictated the retention of this land in the hands of a minister in right of the Crown. Any departure from that might not only be unconstitutional, but illegal.
I think the matter is deserving of much more detailed thought and consideration. This is nothing more than another shotgun approach to the despicable, continuous conflict in the present parks policy. People do not know where they stand from one day to the next. This has been the situation for a number of months. I suggest the minister and his officials should very carefully review their responsibilities to the people of Canada. 1 think our national heritage is being abused. Canadians do not want this to happen. It may be that it is being done unwittingly. I suggest the danger is there and it is a very real danger.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, there are already two national parks in Nova Scotia and an additional one is to be created. Nova Scotia is quite a bit smaller than the province of Saskatchewan, yet we have only one national park. I suggest there should be more national parks in Saskatchewan.
I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words about the need and desirability of developing a Prairie grasslands national park. The Prairies and Canada, especially western Canada, are practically synonymous, but native Prairie land with its distinctive flora and fauna is fast disappearing. There is still some of this shortgrass area, with its distinctive flora and fauna, in southern Saskatchewan. It is presently supporting a very sparse cattle population. Many ranchers are progressively converting the natural Prairie grass into cultivated grasses and forage crops of various kinds which have been developed to increase the grazing capacity of this range land. I am sorry to say that some of this original Prairie land is being brought under cultivation to produce wheat.
There has been some investigation into the feasibility of establishing a national park in this area. The hold-up seems to be that most of this land is owned or leased by ranchers who are very reluctant to give up their land and way of life. It seems that a tract of land could be declared a park area, development could proceed and cattle could be allowed to continue to pasture there. I urge the park

March 4, 1970
National Parks Act
authorities to seriously consider a dual purpose type of park. I know the minister is sympathetic to this proposal and I urge him to press on with it. It will soon be too late, and it will certainly be too bad if we as a nation allow the unique Prairie grass land to disappear beyond recall.
There are several good prospective sites for such a park in my constituency and in the constituency west of mine, Swift Current-Maple Creek. These sites lie along the United States border. They would attract many tourists from our great neighbour to the south. These sites are not too far from our Trans-Canada highway and would be quite accessible for the people of Saskatchewan and travellers from all parts of Canada. As a national park, this area would contribute significantly to our Canadian economy and would provide for posterity living evidence of the beginning of our western farm economy.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my voice to those who have been asking to have the provincial parks that presently exist on both sides of the Alberta-Saskatche-wan border in the Cyprus Hills area taken over by the national parks system. This is a very striking and unusual area, completely surrounded by prairie but completely different, and most interesting and restful.
I thank the minister for his evident concern in the welfare and development of our parks system. I intend to support this bill.


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) supports the idea of a second national park in Saskatchewan. He is another convert to the cause which I espoused some 12 years ago in this House. At that time I was a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I brought the matter to the attention of the then minister. He indicated it was a worthy suggestion, but it would be a matter of priority in relation to the income allocation at that time. A new government was taking over. The minister at that time agreed, although such a park could not be established at once it should be given serious consideration.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I continually emphasized the benefits that would be derived in Saskatchewan from a second national park. On April 22, 1965 the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), announced in this House

that it was government policy to bring about this development. That was five years ago. I am wondering what has happened. I suggest to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) that here again is an opportunity to impress on his colleagues the benefits to be derived from such a suggestion as I have made. He would get my support 100 per cent.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without rising to register my strongest objection to the whole concept of Bill C-152. To me, as to many of my hon. friends, the principle of this legislation is extremely repugnant. In fact, it is so undemocratic that I am amazed to see a so-called responsible government, one which from time to time repeats its slogan of a just society, having the temerity to espouse it. Everything in the bill indicates a callous disregard for the democratic principles on which our country and constitution have been founded. The suggestion that we should turn over the administration of our 19 national parks to a Crown corporation is incomprehensible to me. It is another example, among many, of the government ignoring the rights of the common man. Here it is proposing to turn over to the establishment control of the third largest source of income that this country enjoys. From now on, if this bill is passed, we shall have another sacred cow on our hands, and, Lord knows, we have too many of them already.
Many references have been made during this debate to our western national parks and to the serious position in which leaseholders there find themselves. I want to sound a warning to all who are interested in the national parks in other provinces of this great country. If what I believe about this iniquitous piece of legislation is true, the bill before us will affect all the national parks and all those who live within their boundaries.
Instead of the government bringing in Bill C-152 to set up a Crown corporation they ought, in my opinion, to be introducing legislation to establish a federal department of tourism, responsible to the Parliament of Canada, which would take under its wing not only complete responsibility for the national parks, but responsibility for the great industry of tourism and for all matters pertaining to the tourist potential of this beautiful land of ours.
We now have some 30 ministries represented in this House of Commons, and when we consider these portfolios we find there is a great difference between the responsibilities borne by the various ministers and the
March 4, 1970

income generated under their jurisdiction. To put this in a measure of perspective, the wood, pulp and paper industry is the largest source of income for Canada and is the responsibility, in Parliament, of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The agriculture industry is our second largest source of income and comes within the purview of a full-time minister. Though the fact may be unknown to many, the tourist industry in Canada today represents the third largest source of income to this country. Last year it accounted for more than $1 billion. Surely, it is worthwhile appointing a full-time minister to help control and develop this great asset instead of turning over so important a sphere to a bureaucratic Crown corporation entirely removed from the responsibilities and obligations of representatives elected to the Canadian Parliament.
A while ago the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) was castigating members on this side of the House for failing to put forward constructive alternatives to what is contained in the bill before us. The proposal I have just made is one which the government should have had under review, because it has been brought to their attention on a number of occasions. In my opinion it is worthy of serious consideration.
I am irrevocably opposed to the whole context and content of Bill C-152.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Before the Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Honey) speaks on the amendment, there are a few observations I should like to make as this long debate draws to a conclusion. I do not wish to prolong it, because most of the points which the opposition wished to make have already been put forward. The length of the debate and the large number of participants indicate, I believe, the general feeling of many members of this House that the bill presented to us is not a good bill and that it should be carefully reconsidered by the government and presented again, with many changes, if it has not been decided to wipe it out entirely.
I am very glad to see that the minister has found it possible to be with us in the House, at least during the later stages of the debate. This removes at least one of the procedural objections we have taken on this side of the House. In addition, I am pleased to learn that since this debate began the rent increases in the national parks of Banff and Jasper have been deferred for a year. If nothing else, it seems at least possible that some of the observations made during this debate have gotten
National Parks Act
home to the minister and his officials. I think that is good. Perhaps it shows the value of debate in this House.
I was also glad to hear the minister indicate the other day in reply to a question that the residents of Banff and Jasper will have an opportunity to appear before the committee when this bill reaches the committee. I think this is good. Perhaps we shall all be able to obtain further insight into the problems involved.
These are some of the good things which possibly have resulted from the lengthy discussion in this House. There is one question I should like to put to the minister or to the Parliament Secretary before the debate is finally wound up in this chamber. He may prefer to answer it on another occasion, but I think it would be better if it were answered at this point. It is this: does the government at the present time place any restriction on the qualifications of persons to whom Crown land may be sold? I bring this point up because certain clauses of the bill would reduce in size the areas of the national parks, and most members of the House, I think, would like an assurance that the land which is to become surplus will at least be made available to Canadians as a first choice and not turned over to people from other countries.
There is another point I should like to bring up briefly. It concerns the question of the extension of parks. This has been dealt with by a number of my hon. friends and I do not propose to be repetitious. For a number of years since I have been a member of this House I have placed private bills and resolutions on the Order Paper suggesting that the Government of Canada take over an area in Ontario known as Long Point, as a national park. This is a long, sandy island in Lake Erie. I have suggested this very sincerely on many occasions over the last 16 years. I must say that if this bill goes through I most certainly would not continue to recommend any such action. I would rather hope that the Province of Ontario will eventually take over this area as a park and administer it. If the administration of our parks, policy-making and everything else, is to be taken over by a Crown corporation I certainly would not want to see this happening in my own province.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You have not read the bill. That is not what we are proposing.

March 4. 1970
National Parks Act


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I must tell the minister that many of us have read the bill very carefully. We may have different views and interpretations, but we will get to those in committee. I hope the minister will be able to clarify the matter, but the interpretation of many members in the opposition is that the bill clearly proposes that a Crown corporation should formulate policy for the parks. This is our principal objection to the bill, as the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) pointed out. As I say, if in committee, the minister can prove this is not so, so much the better.
There is one suggestion that I have to make to the minister at this time. There have been discussions in another context in this House about Arctic sovereignty and the government's rather vague and contradictory stance in this connection. Lately, we have at least had a little firming up of that stance, and I think it would be a good idea if the minister were to contemplate the inclusion of a provision in the bill to take over some of the Arctic areas as a national park.
I know some people will immediately ask, who wants to go up there. I would point out that technological changes come about rapidly, and therefore it might be a good idea to set aside quite a bit of the Arctic as a park for future use. When the Ontario government in the 1880's established Algonquin park, many jokes were made about it. People at that time asked who on earth would go up there, since there was a lot of wilderness in Ontario at that time. Nevertheless, people did have the foresight to set this area aside as a park, and today we are glad that they did.
Although it may not appear likely at the moment that there would be too much tourist traffic in the Arctic, I would point out that more and more people are going up north to fish for Arctic char, or to hunt bears. According to the magazine B.C. Outdoors there are only 5,000 polar bears left in the world. Now, I do not know whether that is true or false, but it would be a good idea to protect the ecology of the Arctic. Further, 50 years from now there may be all sorts of ways and means to accommodate visitors to the area. A park would also establish a more direct de facto control of the area and would help reassert our sovereignty, something I am sure every member of the House would wish to see.
The members of this party are very much opposed to the bill as it now stands, and for reasons that have been repeated many times.

May I conclude my remarks by saying that we are opposed to the legislation because it removes from the control of Parliament this essential aspect of public affairs.
It has been pointed out, both today and other days, that national parks cannot be regarded in the same light, say, as the CNR. The parks are part of our national heritage, and in many cases the provinces turned over the land to the federal government on that understanding. We feel that the administration of our parks, which belong to all Canadians and are a great source of tourist funds, should be controlled by this House, not by a Crown corporation.
The action that the government is now taking is one more facet of the general pattern that the government, and the immediately preceding government under the former Prime Minister, has established to erode the powers of Parliament. The government started with the Canadian Transport Commission. Now, we have this. In addition, it is being suggested that the Post Office should be taken out of the control of Parliament, and also public works. The government is continuing its course down this slippery slope.
The establishment of this crown corporation will mean that the residents of the parks will have no representation. Despite what the minister said a few moments ago from across the floor, we feel that the de facto running of the parks should not be done by a Crown corporation. As one of my colleagues pointed out a few moments ago, once a Crown corporation assumes responsibility for something, it is pretty hard to control it.
In theory, of course, Crown corporations such as the CBC or the civil service commission-it is called a commission but is really a crown corporation-are responsible to Parliament. In actual fact, they are not responsible to anybody. They do exactly what they like and have their own little system of patronage. They are really a little family affair, as those of us who have been here for some time know. If the government were to make some basic move to make Crown corporations and commissions in fact answerable to Parliament then we might not have this strong objection.
This bill contains no provision for making the Crown corporation responsible for reporting to anybody. In spite of what the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said-perhaps he should have read the bill a little more carefully-there is no such provision in the bill. One clause does require the corporation to report on the operation of the parks'
March 4. 1970

development fund to the minister. Another clause requires the minister to report to the Governor in Council on the operation of the fund. But there is no clause requiring that any report on the fund be made to this House. Neither is there a requirement that a general report on the over-all operation of the corporation be made to anybody, including the minister.
This may be an oversight in drafting. I hope that it is, and that the minister will make some proposals in this regard at the committee stage. As I say, it is bad enough that Crown corporations run their own affairs; but when we get to the stage where even theoretically they do not have to report to anybody, then we have reached a pretty pass. Unless the minister makes appropriate modifications to the bill or explains the situation, I am afraid that I and my colleagues will have to continue to oppose this bill.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said a moment ago, this has been a long debate. I think this is the sixth day of the second reading stage. On five of those days, we took a very substantial part of the day; last night we had only about half an hour's debate. I do not know how helpful this debate has been, and I am sure that the remarks of hon. members in this chamber have not always been relevant to the bill. The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) made that point this afternoon.
In my remarks I should like to make reference to the contentions put forward by members of the opposition and clear up some of them. There are two or three main ones, and with respect I think they are more misconceptions. Either hon. members have not carefully read the bill, or they have not understood what they read.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for Oxford and other members referred to the multitude of statements which might very loosely be interpreted as suggesting that the Crown corporation will have full responsibility for the administration of the parks. Of course that is utter nonsense. The legislation does not say that in any respect. Hon. members across the way, including my friend the hon. member for Oxford, who is the critic for the official opposition, and hon. members like the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert),
National Parks Act
who is generally reputed to be an authority on this subject of parks because he is from an area in proximity to western parks, complained in the first instance about the broad and strong powers that we intend to give to this corporation through this legislation. In the next breath, these members suggest that this would be an autocratic and overriding corporation which would have no respect for the people in the parks or park authority. In yet the next breath the hon. member for Edmonton West said, and I made the specific note of his words, this would be such a body that it would become a stooge for the minister and the government.
I had some difficulty in accepting with any degree of seriousness this group of criticisms which I put down, under the heading of the corporation, full responsibility for administration of parks. Other members repeated this sort of argument. As I said, that is utter nonsense. That is not the case at all if you read the bill, and this is obvious and apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, as well as to other hon. members of the House.
Let me refer to Clause 15(1) of this bill which reads:
The objects of the corporation are to develop, manage and maintain, on a basis that is economically sound and consistent with the purposes for which the National Parks are dedicated, property in the Parks the direction of the administration, management and control of which is entrusted to.
That confines all this under the heading of objects, powers and responsibilities of the corporation to the administration of property in the Parks.
The second contention and, I think, misconception, I should like to deal with-there have been many speakers opposite who have referred to this-is what I might group generally under the heading of the creation of a corporation which will remove control from the hands of the minister. Many hon. members have made this statement. I made note of the words of the hon. member for Oxford because he is the critic of the official opposition on this matter. In his first speech he said that the corporation could do what it liked with leases, and that this would virtually take the control of national parks out of the hands of the government.
Latterly, in the speech he just concluded, my hon. friend said that the Crown corporation will make de facto policy in respect of national parks.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Right.

March 4, 1970
National Parks Act


Russell Clayton Honey: My hon. friend says "right". Perhaps we should look at the record, because that is not what the proposed legislation says. I think if my hon. friend, who is learned in the law, would read the bill or listen to me, he would agree that there is nothing in the powers vested in the corporation which will remove the control of parks policy. This measure goes to some length to ensure that the corporation is at all times under the direct control of the minister and/or the Governor in Council. Let me refer to Clause 18(1) which reads:
The corporation shall comply with any direction from time to time given to it in writing by the Governor in Council or the Minister respecting the carrying out of its objects or the exercise of its powers.
If hon. members had read that Clause, I think they could have only come to one conclusion, that the corporation at all times must comply with the directions and authority of the minister or the Governor in Council. Subclause (2) of Clause 18 says:
The Treasury Board may from time to time for any year establish the percentage of the gross revenues of the corporation for that year that may be extended by the corporation in that year for administration purposes.
That is pretty effective control on the operations of the corporation.
This is a debate on second reading and I do not wish to take the time of the House to refer to various clauses of the bill which make it absolutely and abundantly clear that the corporation is under the control and the direction of the minister and the Governor in Council.


An hon. Member:: So is the CBC.


Russell Clayton Honey: These clauses are in the measure and hon. members can read them.


J. Michael Forrestall: You better take the word "direction" out of Clause 3, then.


Russell Clayton Honey: I want to deal very briefly with some of the matters raised by hon. members. I will not go into detail because my minister will be before the committee when this matter is being studied there, and will have an opportunity to go into these details. There are three or four matters of rather broad substance with which I should perhaps deal now.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked during his first speech on second reading for an assurance in respect of the financing of the corporation. Let me refer

the hon. member to Clause 23 of the bill which provides for loans, including loans for working capital, and the aggregate of such loans, which shall not exceed $20 million. There are other similar provisions in the measure but I shall not refer to them as I do not wish to take up the time of the House on details at this stage of the proceedings.
The hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), recommended to the minister the establishment of parks in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. He was supported in this suggestion by other hon. members. I think it would be of interest if I said to the House, as most members know, that the minister has publicly stated and actively pursued a policy regarding the very substantial enlargement of the number of national parks in Canada. The minister is proposing new national parks which will be subject to consultation with the territorial governments, and these will include parks in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon.
While I am on this theme, let me say that the minister is indeed hopeful that by the turn of the century, well within 30 years, we may have 60 or 80 new national parks in Canada. We are talking about a very ambitious program which will give an opportunity to future generations of Canadians, referred to so many times during this debate, to enjoy wilderness areas which are part of their heritage. Under this government and this minister, the number of parks will be very substantially increased in years ahead.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) took some time to persuade the House that he had been a good minister when he was administering this particular department. That may or may not be correct. In any event, it is not relevant to this particular debate. That seemed to be the theme of his remarks, but he got himself bogged down somewhat in this matter of perpetual leases. In this regard, I have put on the record for hon. members to read, certain Orders in Council which are in existence.
I think it would be helpful in view of the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris if I put on the record some of the documentation in respect of this policy of perpetual leases. In his remarks as recorded at page 3450 of Hansard the hon. member for Brandon-Souris made reference to the fact
March 4, 1970

that in 1963 the principle of perpetuity was cancelled by the then Liberal government, and that this was the point at which the controversy began. I think it would be helpful to have this suggestion clarified if that has not already been done by the Orders in Council because the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in the remarks I have quoted, made the very direct allegation that it was a Liberal government which in 1963 cancelled the perpetual leases. I wish now to read from the evidence given before the Standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources on March 14, 1967 as recorded at page 1036 of the Minutes of Proceedings and evidence of that committee. At that time the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is now the Minister of Public Works, gave evidence before the committee. This evidence was not contradicted and never has been contradicted. I should like to read this paragraph:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The previous Ministry in 1958 decided that these so-called perpetual leases could not be reconciled with the public interest for a variety of reasons which I will not go into now, and since 1958 no new lease or renewal has been made with the so-called perpetual renewal clause. From 1958 until I assumed this portfolio, 252 so-called perpetual leases had already been recovered; that is exchanged for a lease with a fixed term and no perpetual renewal feature.
There was some discussion during the debate by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) about the particular nature of the 252 leases. I thought it would be helpful to hon. members to have this information on the record at this time.
Then, as reported at page 3448 of Hansard, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris talked about substantial increases in rents in national parks. I do not know how relevant it was to the debate, but in any event we wandered a bit. He referred to increases of 4000 per cent in some leases. The fact is that on commercial property-and I want to make a distinction between commercial and residential properties-there have in fact been very significant increases since the new rental policy was commenced. I should like to give two examples as an indication of what is happening. I think these examples will probably indicate to hon. members that the rental policy did in fact require some review and revision.
National Parks Act
The first example is that of a service station in the Banff National Park. It is in the townsite and covers three lots. Recently it was valued by a competent professional land valuator at $46,200. That is the market value. Prior to the rental review the lessee of that property had been paying $50.40 a year for a property with a market value of $46,200. The rental has been increased to $2,072. The second example is that of a motel in the Banff townsite covering four lots. Recently it was valued by a professional, competent valuator at $90,000. Prior to the rental review the lessee of that property had been paying $80 a year in rent for a property valued at $90,000. The rental was increased to $5,400 a year. This would seem to be pretty cogent evidence that, first, a rental review was necessary and, second, that the sort of review that has been carried out under this minister and his immediate predecessor has been fair and reasonable.
The hon. members for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and Trois Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) dealt with the matter of national parks in the province of Quebec. I wish to mention in this context, as the minister has mentioned, that negotiations are now under way with the Quebec government, and indeed are proceeding well, with regard to the establishment of a new national park in the Gaspe and a new national park in the Mauricie area. These negotiations are continuing. Under the leadership of our minister there is no reason to believe they will not be successful. I want to give this assurance to the hon. members from Quebec who had a concern about this.
The hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) made representations and expressed concern about a second national park in Prince Edward Island. Negotiations indeed are under way in this regard. Next week I will be representing my minister in Charlottetown in further discussions in respect of the establishment of a second national park in that province.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain dealt very effectively, as did the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), with the question of some greater degree of autonomy in the townsites in the national parks. Other members mentioned this. It seems to me this has been a very important aspect of the debate. Attention has been drawn to the concern of the residents of those townsites by the

March 4, 1970
National Parks Act
hon. member for Calgary South, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain and others. I think hon. members on all sides of the House would agree there is some cause for concern and that we should in fact be looking at-and I can assure hon. members that the minister and his officials are in fact doing this-ways and means by which a greater degree of autonomy can be given to the residents of these areas in their local affairs.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) was concerned about a national park in Newfoundland. I can tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that these negotiations are well under way. It is hoped that before much longer an agreement can be arranged between the federal government and the provincial government with regard to the establishment of the Bonne Bay National Park in Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Douglas) dealt with a second national park for Saskatchewan and urged the minister to consider this. This is a subject of consultation with the Saskatchewan government, and the discussions are proceeding. Hopefully, with representations such as we have had from the hon. member for Assiniboia, these discussions might before too long be brought to a conclusion. I, too, will look forward to the day when Saskatchewan, which happens to be my native province, will have a good grassland national park that will be a real credit to Canada and to that province.
To refer for a moment to the purpose of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I should like to re-emphasize that the purpose is to create an agency with a specialized and fully qualified staff to give prompt, efficient service to leaseholders and businessmen within the parks. The intent is that there be a nucleus of trained staff with the resources required to carry on the increasingly complex business transactions involved in providing services to the growing stream of parks visitors in a prompt, efficient manner. In the case of development needed to meet present or future demands which may not be of interest to the private sector, the corporation may borrow funds required for capital investment on the open market. The corporation is thus freed from dependence on the annual departmental appropriation, and its capital needs can be amortized over the lifetime of the project. These provisions, and many others which I hope will come to light

in the committee examination, have the purpose of providing prompt, businesslike dispatch of business and a speedier determination in respect of decisions.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Hopefully this can be done, particularly with the large western parks, at the local level. Then, leaseholders, property owners and businessmen in those parks will be able to deal with officials of the leasehold corporations in Calgary, Edmonton or in some place in proximity to the parks. They will thus be able to sit across the desk and hammer out their problems with these people rather than have to deal with the minister and his officials in Ottawa, as has been the case in the past. I have dealt with what seems to be the particular task of this government, that is the consideration of reasonable methods to provide a greater degree of autonomy for the residents of the parks.
I want to close by referring to the fact that by creating a specialized agency to deal with the leasehold properties in the parks we are establishing a corporation, subject to the direction and control of the minister and of the Governor in Council, to deal with leasehold interests in national parks and nothing else. By doing this, we are freeing the officials of the department from that responsibility because with the large tracts of land and the high land values it is becoming an increasingly specialized sort of business which requires the attention of professionals. By setting that aspect of the responsibilities of the department aside, these officials will be free to go ahead and do what is necessary in the administration of the policy as a whole such as conservation, wildlife, the amenities for visitors to the parks, and so on. These are the sorts of things that the officials will be able to do more readily, and will have more time to do, once they are free of such specialized matters as the operation of the leasehold properties in the parks.
So, I want to thank all hon. members who have participated in the debate for their useful contributions. As I have indicated, some may not have been so relevant, but at least some ideas have been thrown out that could be helpful when they are sifted out. So, I thank them for their participation. I know that in the committee, where the minister will appear, there will be an opportunity for a detailed examination of the queries of hon. members with which there was no time to deal in the House.
March 4, 1970


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: The Parliamentary Secretary made a very high minded speech about the virtue of our national parks, but he was tempted to deal again with the matter of leases. Once again, he tried to leave the impression that an action of a previous government is now being terminated. He referred to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) on two or three occasions but he did not deal with the pertinent part of his comments which were put on the record of Hansard for Wednesday, January 21, at Page 2627. The hon. member said the following in dealing with the letter, and the implications thereof, in a question of privilege:
The letter... merely outlines the orderly plan that was adopted in 1962 for the development of national parks in western Canada based on the principles of wise management and multi-use that emerged out of the Resources for Tomorrow conference in 1961. It carefully preserves the right of perpetuity in the original leases.
That statement went unchallenged at the time. I hope the committee will look into that statement and will challenge the implication it contains and which were left by the Parliamentary Secretary and the minister.
I think we should have a vote now. I am curious how the Alberta government members will vote on this measure. I do not think we need to deal any further with it, but as one who had some responsibility for the national parks for 15 years I believe that the government is making a grave mistake in moving into the day-to-day activities of our national parks through a leasehold corporation. I think they will regret the day they started this whole idea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed
please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Division


Sylvester Perry Ryan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear my name called, and yet I stood.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently the point of order is very well taken. Can I simply confirm the hon. member wishes to vote with the yeas and will be so registered?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
And the result of the Vote having been announced:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are we ready to proceed with the division?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (6.00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
It being seven minutes after six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.



END OF VOL. IV