1970-02-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 I tabled the report of the task force on information which had been asked to examine federal information services and to recommend ways in which the federal government might improve its communications with the Canadian people. I now propose to outline briefly the government's plans.
The task force made 17 major recommendations. We accept those recommendations in principle, with two exceptions. Recommendation number five proposed the establishment of a citizens advisory bureau and neighbourhood councils. The government is sympathetic toward this proposal but feels it warrants further study. Recommendation number ten suggested that a government agency undertake a role as public advocate which we feel more properly belongs to Parliament.
The task force found that the information responsibilities of the federal government have not been discharged effectively despite considerable expenditure. It was our suspicion of this which moved us to ask for this task force study in the first place. As a step toward rectifying this situation we have accepted a recommendation to set up a small new unit called Information Canada which will be established at the beginning of April as part of the Department of Supply and Services. The unit will report direct to a minister. I am asking the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for York-Scar-borough, who is already responsible for citizenship, to take responsibility for its initial planning and development in order that it might be as ready as possible for operational status at the beginning of the new fiscal year.

This organization is proposed mainly for three reasons. First, Information Canada will promote co-operation among federal information offices now operating in mutual isolation. The object will be to increase effectiveness as well as to save money by reducing duplication in the use of staff and equipment and by better joint use of the government's information resources.
A similar approach was recommended by the Glassco Royal Commission on Government Organization. We expect that co-ordination will result in more coherent information, clearer and more understandable to Canadians than it has been in the past.
The second reason for establishing information Canada is that there are many information offices in the federal government, but each now speaks for its own particular departmental concern. There is no machinery to deal with information on broad governmental concerns affecting more than one department.
The third reason is to be able to learn better the views of the Canadian people. The unit is therefore designed not merely as a vehicle for dissemination of information but to provide better systems for Canadians to make known their viewpoints to their government.
I pause at this juncture, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that the government recognizes the fact that the primary responsibility for conveying to the government the views and attitudes of Canadians has always remained and always should remain with Members of Parliament. The capabilities of the elected representatives in these respects should be strengthened and employed; in no sense is it the government's intention to diminish the proper role of the private member in representing the views of his constituents.
To achieve these three objectives we plan an organization whose new staff, exclusive of three component units being transferred from other government agencies, will total less than 150. Of this total, which will include administrative and clerical workers, most will come from the existing public service.

February 10, 1970
Information Canada
Information Canada will have about 25 information officers whose role will be to deal with information which is outside the normal concern of any single department and to assist the departments, on request, when supplementary resources are needed for particular occasions. The rest of the staff will be engaged in such tasks as answering public enquiries, co-ordinating existing departmental information work, advising on the application of modern technology to government information organizations, providing reports on public concerns, and developing efficient reference services both for pictures and the printed word.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

The organization will be divided into four branches-one for planning and research; one to produce and distribute information; one to gather and publish information on the views of the public; and an administrative branch. The Exhibition Commission, the still photo library of the National Film Board, and the publishing and selling functions of the Queen's Printer will be transferred to Information Canada to be components of the production and distribution branch.
The net cost of the new organization, excluding amounts being subtracted from existing departmental information budgets, will be in the order of $1 million in 1970-71. When we add the current budgets of units being incorporated, the total budget will be about $7J million. Information Canada will be expected to achieve economies to offset part of its own costs after it has been extab-lished and operating for some time.
In summary, Information Canada is to be a small federal information unit along the lines of the task force's proposals. Every modern government maintains an information organization, many of them more centralized or larger than the one we contemplate for Canada. But their role is generally only to produce and distribute information. Information Canada will be equally concerned with what citizens wish to say to their government. Whatever they say through opinion surveys will be public information, subject, of course, to the protection of personal privacy, all reports on public viewpoints will be made public. I believe this material will be of substantial value to all members of this House in effectively representing the Canadian people.

We welcome the recommendation that information policy be referred to a committee of Parliament. I would go further than the task force and suggest that a parliamentary committee review not only the objectives, policies and operations of Information Canada but also the information objectives of all departments. This parliamentary scrutiny would, I think, be a healthy process, especially if the committee were to consider its role as not only a surveillance but also as the more positive task of proposing means to bring government even closer to the people.
That is the government's objective in making this announcement, and it will remain our objective as we pursue the difficult but essential task of expanding the dimensions of democratic dialogue in this nation.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the Prime Minister is one of great importance. The cover design of the report of the task force which recommended the establishment of Information Canada bears an exclamation mark and a question mark. Perhaps the exclamation mark was intended to emphasize the far-reaching nature of the overhaul recommended and the question mark was intended to indicate the doubts about the recommendation that was being made.
There are several aspects of government information, of course. One of these relates to policy. The position taken by the white paper in Great Britain published in June, 1969, among others, was that the main responsibility for explaining policy to Parliament and to the public must continue to rest with the ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This task force was not given any directions. In fact, I think it was told to keep away from the role of Parliament. Yet the task force nevertheless said, among other things, that the ministers must provide more informative answers in Parliament than has been the tradition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If I may say so, Sir, we see extraordinary evasion from day to day on the part of ministers opposite. In fact, it is almost the general rule rather than the exception for ministers to answer, not questions as posed to them, but other questions they would prefer
February 10. 1970

to have been asked. So, I suggest it is nonsense for this ministry to talk about setting up elaborate information services until the Prime Minister and his ministers are prepared to discharge their fundamental responsibility of answering questions in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I know there are differing views among members as to the wisdom of bringing the electronic media into this House, but it might very well have the advantage of compelling the ministers to give straightforward answers to questions that are placed before them.
The second aspect of information, of course, is that the services available to the citizen should be made known. What services are available, where they are available and how one obtains them should be known. It would seem obviously important that the citizens of the country have this information and that it be made available to them.
The task force recommended that the government assist the information services. I would have recommended that the government go further and assist existing community services that are strapped financially. It is extraordinary to me that this is one of the two recommendations made by the task force that the government has chosen not to implement. This recommendation directly relates to the knowledge the citizen has as to what services are available to him, yet it is not implemented. In spite of the impression given by the commentary of the Prime Minister, the establishment of this agency does not represent the implementation of the recommendations of the Glassco commission, which suggested a committee of co-ordination. It is a new superstructure being built within the government with regard to information services. The task force recognized at least some of the dangers inherent in the establishment of such an organization. It recognized that this could quite easily become a sort of ministry of propaganda. I say it is surely obvious that Information Canada could very easily become "manipulation Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We must all be aware of that. The task force was sufficiently concerned with this problem that it recommended the establishment of rigid controls, but I do not find these controls when I read the report of the task force. It recommended the 21701-6
Information Canada
establishment of a parliamentary committee, but it has not been demonstrated yet in this chamber that a parliamentary committee has sufficient independent authority to really constitute a safeguard.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The task force also recommended the appointment of a sort of public ombudsman relating to information. This is the second of the two recommendations the Prime Minister has chosen not to implement. So, speaking for myself and I think for members of the House generally in this respect, we want to see coordination of information services; we want to see the services administered efficiently. But we want to see this co-ordination without the establishment of another layer of bureaucracy with the distinct possibility of the manipulation of public opinion. It would be difficult to exaggerate this danger.
Information Canada is to gather information as well as disseminate or propagate it. I think it is significant psychologically that, while the task force spoke of this agency gathering information about the needs of the public, the Prime Minister in his statement spoke about it gathering information about the views of the public. I think this might have been a Freudian slip.
While the Prime Minister speaks about preserving the role of the Member of Parliament, it is difficult to envisage any way in which the role of the individual member of Parliament, as the person to be consulted about the views of the people is likely to be cut down more drastically than by this centralized information-gathering service which will feed information directly to the ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is carrying the regional desks of the government much further. My hon. friends opposite will become mere ciphers and members on this side of the House will not be the only "nobodies" after this.
There is the question of the cost. The Prime Minister speaks about this being a small unit. Well, I suppose that is all relative-


An hon. Member:: What's a million?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -but let me emphasize that what the public really needs so far as information is concerned is not information that the government suggests be given it. What the public really needs basically is information which the government does not want to give it.

February 10, 1970
Information Canada


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: To obtain this information, the public must rely basically on the opposition and an informed and energetic press, using the term "press" in the broadest sense of the word.
This is a dangerous proposal. It should not be proceeded with now. The government should try the step of co-ordination at modest expense and indeed see what savings can be made in addition to having a better service. This step should not be taken now, particularly in view of the obvious concentration of authority in the government as opposed to this House and, if I may say so, in the Prime Minister as opposed to the members of his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I say that the members of the government must answer questions and we must have solid assurance that the committees of this House really have sufficient independence to be a safeguard. There are no adequate safeguards. There is no way at the present time that the country or this Parliament could stop Information Canada from becoming "Manipulation Canada" any time the government might choose to use it.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I found the Prime Minister's statement a very disturbing one, both because of what it said and because of what it failed to say. It failed to tell us what information the Prime Minister is speaking about. Are we talking about providing information to the people of Canada and explaining to them the government policies, which is perfectly necessary and desirable, or are we talking about, as I suspect from the statement we have just heard, an agency to control and manage the news the Canadian people will obtain from the government? I cannot help feeling that the super organization, the establishment of which has just been announced, is mainly for the purpose of managing the news emanating from the government and, if I may put it this way, that the agency will operate as a perpetual election campaign for the party in power.
The Prime Minister said that he welcomes the establishment of a parliamentary committee to review the objectives, policies and operations of Information Canada and, not only that, but to review the policies in the various departments. I say to the Prime Minister that if this is a genuine desire, then a

parliamentary committee should have been set up to discuss the objectives, policies and operations of Information Canada before that agency was formed. Before the Prime Minister made his announcement, the people who have studied this matter and have presented the plan to the government should have appeared before a committee of this House. We should have been given the opportunity to ask them questions to find out exactly what this agency is going to do. The failure of the government to bring it before a committee of the House, and the fact that it has presented us with a fait accompli, is precisely one of the things that makes me unhappy and suspicious of the purpose of this super organization.
No one denies that there is a need, as the Glassco report indicated, for co-ordinating the information services of the government. God alone knows that many of them are inefficient and much can be done to improve them. No one denies the need for getting rid of the duplication of staff and equipment that is now to be found in various departments of the government in connection with information services. But there is nothing in this statement that suggests there will be any reduction in the approximately $200 million now being spent on information services by the departments, only a suggestion that another $1 million will be added to what is now being spent on a super agency of the sort described.
The Prime Minister makes a great deal of the need to give the people of Canada information and to find out what they think. Permit me to say a word about each of those things. We have given him an opportunity to do that in this House. We took the government at its word that it really meant it when it said that it was in favour of full disclosure of government policies and government thinking. So, we have asked questions during the oral question period; we have placed questions on the Order Paper, and we have placed numerous motions for the production of various papers on the Order Paper of this House. When the government has asked for the production of a study made in order to assist the government to arrive at a policy, almost every time the government has refused to produce those study papers. I say to the Prime Minister that he has had the opportunity to prove to the members of the House and to the people of Canada that this government really means what it says when it talks about full disclosure of information to the people of this country and that he has failed to take advantage of that opportunity.
February 10, 1970

On the contrary, the government has refused to give the information to which members of this House are entitled and to which the people of Canada are entitled.
I cannot support the proposal of the Prime Minister until, in dealing with oral questions, written questions, and motions for the production of papers of various sorts, the government shows its good faith and its firm intention to inform the people of Canada. This it has not done until now.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
What does the Prime Minister say when he speaks about expanding the dimensions of democratic dialogue in this nation? This is the last phrase in his statement, the peroration, and a fine-sounding mouthful. But what in fact is he proposing? He is proposing a super agency to carry on a Gallup poll in this country. Who will compose the questions that the people of Canada will be asked? And what bias will there be in the questions that are thus composed? How do you find out what the people of Canada want and think- by giving them pre-arranged and premanaged questions to answer? Sure, you will get the answers you want, and that I suggest is precisely what the government wants this super agency to do, to get the answers it wants from the Canadian people.
The way you should find out from the ordinary people what they want, what they need, what hurts them, what they are looking for and what their aspirations are is for Members of Parliament to meet with them in their constituencies, and to listen to them, rather than by asking them pre-arranged questions and getting predetermined answers.
So, Mr. Speaker, in my view and in the view of my colleagues the proposal for Information Canada is another regrettable sham in the alleged participatory democracy about which the Prime Minister, in particular, and other members of his party talk. It is utterly regrettable that we should have before us another super agency, costing more money, doing nothing that is not already being done, except acting as an agency for controlling and managing the news that is to come out of the government. The only purpose is to befuddle, deceive and mislead the people; it is not to inform them.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, we have carefully listened to the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that the task force 21701-6i
Information Canada
made 17 important recommendations which the government accepts in principle, with two exceptions.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
The task force found that the information responsibilities of federal governments have not been discharged effectively despite considerable expenditure.
Mr. Speaker, if the government is short of information it has only itself to blame. I think that, as one can read in a paragraph of his statement, the federal members of Parliament, whatever their political affiliation, convey information to the government. However, as was mentioned earlier by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), we are getting from the Prime Minister and the other members of the Cabinet arrogant answers to our questions although they are of general interest. They do not have the courage to give reasonable replies.
That is the first finding the task force should have reached in its study. As a matter of fact, if the government refuses to give us sensible answers, what will be the use of information services? They will be used mainly to find jobs for friends of the government, party stalwarts, and for political scheming.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister also said:
A similar approach was recommended by the Glassco Royal Commission on Government Organization. We expect that co-ordination will result in more coherent information, clearer and more understandable to Canadians than it has in the past.
The machinery does exist, even though the Prime Minister stated:
There is no machinery to deal with information on broad governmental concerns affecting more than one department.
Mr. Speaker, we have an information agency that costs us a fortune, the CBC, which, instead of keeping the government aware of public opinion, or the public aware of government action, spends some $186 million yearly to support tourists who are traipsing in Viet Nam, Belgium, Biafra and Nigeria. The CBC forgets to tell us what is going on in Canada, yet so-called officials generously paid by the Canadian people travel around the world.
Mr. Speaker, the CBC radio network should devote one hour a week to report on the activities of Parliament so that the public will know what is happening in Ottawa. But no, sir! Every two or three months, we are allowed six minutes and fifty seconds on The Nation's Business in order to keep people

February 10, 1970
Farm Machinery
Informed, while three quarters of the news heard on The National deal with foreign subjects. This is how they forget to tell the Canadian people what is going on in their own country.
Mr. Speaker, we should use the media available to us. Each week, the CBC should put aside one hour's broadcasting time and divide it equally among the four federal political parties. We could then inform the people of what goes on in the House and we might even grant to the public an additional hour of broadcasting time to enlighten Parliament on public opinion. But the government is taking no steps in that direction. We are ill informed by the government's fault and Information Canada will not remedy the situation if we continue with the same methods.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said:
-the primary responsibility for conveying to the government the views and attitudes of Canadians has always remained and always should remain with members of Parliament.
If it remains with Parliament, let us start by respecting the members of Parliament who have representations and suggestions to offer the government.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that Information Canada will become a propaganda agency for the government, and this offers some danger. Organizations like the CBC should serve to inform the public and the government.
A few minutes ago, I suggested that one hour per week be put at the disposal of the political parties and not 6 minutes and 50 seconds every two months, whereas one hour is allotted to Robert Charlebois, who keeps cursing while he is on. Since all kinds of European socialists and communists are invited as guests on CBC programs, should not this federal agency serve the needs of the people who pay its operation costs?
Let us ask the CBC to respect not only the government but also the Canadian parliament, which actually represents the population. That organization could work as a link between the public, that is the people we represent, and the duties we have assumed towards them.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, to ensure that there may be no misunderstanding, I wish to clarify the timing

of the presentation of the report of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery to which I referred in my reply to the hon. member for Lisgar in Hansard of February 5, page 3236. The findings of the commissioner dealing with costs and arrangements in respect of services and repair parts will not be the subject of a separate report but will be dealt with in the commissioner's final report expected during the late summer.
In so far as combine prices are concerned, this matter was dealt with on pages 30 and 32 of the Special Report on Prices of Tractors and Combines in Canada and Other Countries, which was tabled on January 16.
There is a further study, which I inadvertently referred to as a report, being prepared for the commission on farmers' attitudes to farm machinery purchases, which will be released by the commission within the next few days. Hon. members will be aware that these studies prepared for the commission are listed on the daily check lists they receive from the Queen's Printer and can be secured from this source.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. H. W. Danforih (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the minister today in his amiable and frank fashion is not quite as innocent as it may appear to be. It is, Mr. Speaker, a sad admission on the part of the government that after years of investigation and the expenditure of millions of dollars the government has not yet reached any conclusion or formed any policies with regard to what action to take on a problem that has caused a great deal of concern both to the farmers and machinery dealers of this nation.


Mr. Baldwin:: What else is new?


Harold Warren Danforth: What this statement does, Mr. Speaker, is in effect to buy still more time for the government at a terrible cost to the farmers of this nation.


Gerald William Baldwin: And to the taxpayers.


Harold Warren Danforth: The minister stated that the final report is not expected until the late summer. This simply means that one more season will have passed and the government will have done nothing. There is no excuse for this lack of action, Mr. Speaker, especially in view of the fact that over a year ago at an agricultural congress called by this same government enough of the facts were reported by the commissioner to indicate in no uncertain
February 10, 1970

terms that the farmers of this country were indeed paying more for their machinery than farmers of other nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Warren Danforth: In the concluding paragraph of his statement the minister indicates that a further study is being prepared by the commission on farmers' attitudes to farm machinery purchases and that it will not be available for a few days.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not wait for Information Canada?


Harold Warren Danforth: Knowing the attitude of the rugged individualists who have to face the problems of farming in this nation and being quite aware of the procrastinations of this government, I am sure that the reason for the delay is the editing out of four-letter words before this report is processed through the normal channels.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Back to funny money.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the minister wanted to put on record the program of the Barber commission. As the previous speaker said, it has been a fairly long drawn-out affair. But what we are really interested in knowing now is what action the government is prepared to take in an extremely difficult situation.
Any farmer knows that it is going to be difficult to bring these problems under control. The farmers' attitude toward machinery purchases is that they are costing too much and interest rates are too high. One company, as has already been stated in the House, is laying off workers in Canada while continuing its work program in the United States.
It is fine to speak of bringing machinery in from overseas, but who will deliver it? The activities of Canadian Co-operative Implements Limited in western Canada, which has a distribution system and has been importing machines from Europe for many years, have been ignored by the commission up to now. I see the minister does not agree. However, I saw no recommendation that it should be actively used. In the Western Producer of January 29 there is a headline, "Failed to Advise Farmer to Use Co-op Implements". That is the opinion expressed in that newspaper.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
Farm Machinery


Alfred Pullen Gleave: If we are to import machines from overseas somebody has to deliver them, service them and repair them. This is basic, and I say this is the first order of business that must be dealt with by the government if it is going to meet the problem that now exists. I say to the government: If you want to correct this situation, go to CCIL, go to the farm organizations in Ontario and tell them that you are ready to help them to do the job that has to be done on behalf of the farmer. This is the order of business before the government now, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the minister for the explanations he has given us in his very short statement on the report of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery, My comments will be as brief as his statement.
As for the maintenance and cost of spare parts of farm machinery and the arrangements in respect of them, they will not be dealt with in a separate report but will be part of the final report of the Commission to be published by the end of the summer. This is an unfortunate situation, because the farmers will be victims for another production season.
I agree completely with the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) about the delay in the shipping of spare parts for machines that do not work and the necessity of renting other machines to perform farm operations on time.
I sincerely hope that the business of the committee will proceed more quickly and that steps will be taken to relieve the burden of farmers who must incur extraordinary expenditures to till their lands, in order to feed mankind.
Before concluding my remarks, I should like to point out that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) inadvertently spoke about reports when he meant studies. I hope he will not mind if I say that I hope it was inadvertently also that he answered in the negative the question I put to him yesterday. I asked him then whether he would be ready to recommend that the budget of the Canadian Dairy Commission be not reduced by $10 million for the dairy year 1970-71. I hope that next week, he will state that he answered inadvertently. We could then say: if the price of spare parts is not reduced and if
3412	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the report is not published on time, at least this amount of $10 million will be some compensation.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness of the pollution problem that has resulted from the foundering of the Liberian tanker Arrow,
I ask unanimous consent of the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to make the following motion, which is seconded by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley:
That the question of maritime oil pollution and control of tankers in Canadian waters be referred to Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Our party would be quite prepared for this motion to be passed without debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will know that this motion can be put to the House only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous
agreement so the motion cannot be put.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Mackenzie.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion because this appears to be the first opportunity that the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board, who has been away on an official trip, has had to present a report. He may require more time to prepare a report, but it is customary for a minister, after being away, to present a report.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not customary to raise such points as a point of order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask

DEBATES	February 10, 1970
the Minister of Transport whether he could indicate briefly what the position is with regard to the Arrow, particularly with regard to any progress made in disposing of the stern part of the vessel by hauling it away. I should also like to ask whether any progress has been made in freeing the forward part and whether any consideration is being given to disposing of it in the same way. If not, what progress is being made with regard to the burning of the oil?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. With regard to the stern section of the vessel, which, as I explained yesterday, is still afloat, there is now an effort under way to get it more buoyant so it will be possible to tow. As is the case now, with so much oil-I am not sure if this is a contradiction in terms-in the forward part of the stern, it is not possible to tow it. If the current assessment of it is correct, it appears possible it can stay afloat sufficiently for the oil to be pumped out of it into another vessel, so there will not be a disposal problem in the other sense of the word with regard to the stern section.
In so far as the forward section is concerned, there is no chance whatever of salvage in the sense of moving it off the rock.
A controlled experiment was conducted yesterday with burning. This was with the use of glass pellets and benzine and also using magnesium flares and divers to get the whole business alight. This has proved successful and it is now our intention to proceed with this but letting the oil out in controlled quantities for burning so that the conflagration will not at any time be so great that the smoke problem might constitute a pollution hazard of another kind. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling the House that the leakage is now under control with regard to both sections of the vessel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, sir. I wish that were the case, but it is not the case. In the case of the stern, I think it can be said it is very close to being under control. In the case of the forward section there is still seepage. While the winds were off shore this slick was of course moving off. I believe the forecasts are for a low pressure system moving up the coast. If that comes in the normal fashion it will result in probable southwesterly and southeasterly winds. These could drive some of the slick on
February 10, 1970



shore. I would not want to indicate that the matter is under control. It is not. There could be some coastal pollution as a result, but the burning will go ahead as rapidly as possible and as rapidly as weather conditions permit.


Randolph Harding: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Who assesses the damage to Canadian interests and is an assessment already under way?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in so far as the assessment is concerned it is pretty damned obvious. In terms of the value of the assessment, this will have to come after the total damage is assessable. At the present time the main job is to get rid of as much of the oil as we possibly can.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In light of this tragedy and in light of possible tragedies involving other parts of the Canadian coastline, is the department re-examining its policy regarding navigational safeguards along our coast?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is necessary to re-examine the policy. It appears to have been adequate for the conditions which prevailed up until recent times. We may have now not only to put in additional navigational aids in view of the additional hazards; we may have to introduce more stringent regulations with regard to the passage of oil either into Canadian ports or through Canadian waters. This is being reexamined. The investigation of this particular incident hopefully will give us some indication as to how we might be able to prevent such incidents in future but, as my hon. friend knows, shipwrecks do occur and it is not possible to eliminate them entirely.


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. When can we expect the new international regulations controlling situations such as this?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I answered that in the House a few days ago. We have taken initiatives in this regard, but so far there has not been an international agreement. I feel that internationally we are making more progress with regard to rights of way and the like to try to avoid collisions at sea, but on the matter of indemnity or financial responsibility I fear that some time must elapse before we get international agreement on that count.
Inquiries of the Ministry CHEDABUCTO BAY-EFFECT OF OIL ON MARINE LIFE-COMPENSATION TO FISHERMEN


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the Fisheries Research Board taking advantage of this opportunity to study the effects of this oil pollution on marine life in the Chedabucto Bay area?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: believe this is the case, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries. If damage to the fisheries resources in that area is determined by the minister's officials, what action will be taken by his department to recompense the affected fishermen for the losses that will occur?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken action with regard to phosphates in Newfoundland and mercury on the Prairies, and I am sure we can take parallel action in this case if necessary.


Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have patrol vessels of his department in the area to determine the course of the oil slick in the event it does go out to sea?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PIPELINE FOR TRANSPORT FROM ARCTIC

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the pollution dangers in oil tanker transportation, is the government taking the initiative by commencing a feasibility study of the transportation of oil from the Arctic by pipeline?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are several studies going on with respect to the possibility of transportation by pipeline from the Arctic. Certainly this is one of the more attractive features of such a method of transportation. Apart from fac+ors that are not known in regard to pipeline transportation, certainly it would appear that it would avoid the danger of offshore spillage such as occurred in the case of the Arrow.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not believe the minister has answered my question. I just want to know if the government is doing any feasibility studies.

February 10, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question. As the government is in partnership in the Panarctic syndicate, is the government prepared to go into a syndicate of a similar nature for the building of pipelines either from the Arctic or Montreal for the transportation of crude petroleum in Canada?


John James Greene: There is no decision in that regard at this time, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED EXPORTS TO BRITAIN AND WESTERN EUROPE

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of reports that the minister during his London meeting discussed volume of production and possible changes in the grading and marketing of western Canadian grains, is he in a position to advise the House as to the possibility of increased exports of grain to Britain and western Europe?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I did have very interesting discussions in Britain with some of our principal buyers. I was very pleased to receive their opinion and the opinion of the government that a place for Canadian grain in the United Kingdom is assured at high levels whether the United Kingdom remains in its present position or becomes a member of the EEC.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: A supplementary question. Will the minister be prepared at an early date to make a statement in the House on two matters which are currently being discussed in western Canada, (a) the possibility of an acreage payment and (b) possible changes in the grading system for wheat?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a good number of questions are under consideration by the government and by my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. Progress is being made on a number of fronts with regard to the grain situation in western Canada. I would not suggest that I will be making a statement at an early date on either of the subjects mentioned, although certainly other matters may well require statements in the near future.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish to ask the minister how

he can make the statement that an important place for Canadian wheat will be assured in the British market whether or not Britain changes its status. How can the minister make such a statement when he has not got the slightest idea of the terms under which Britain might enter the Common Market?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question appears to be argumentative.



WHEAT-STATEMENT RESPECTING REDUCED PRODUCTION-FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO FARMERS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Having regard to the statements reportedly made by the minister to the press in London, may I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is in a position to say that the attitude of the government toward the tremendous pile-up of wheat-over a billion bushels-means in the next few years a substantial reduction, up to ten million acres, in the amount of land now under wheat or other cereals? Did he say when he was over there that the government was giving consideration to paying farmers for getting out of production?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. What I did say there, and what I have said before in Canada, is that the very great supply of grain represents an extremely costly burden if it is in supply above what is economically desirable, and that this is a burden which it is not appropriate for the farmers to bear; accordingly, methods must be found to avoid having the farmers in the prairie region, particularly, carry this excessive burden especially in circumstances where, due to the world situation, they are not in a position to spend any money unnecessarily on meeting costs of this kind.


John George Diefenbaker: Did the minister explain while he was over there, or can he explain to the House now, how it came about that in the last one and a half or two years Canada's share of the international export market has fallen from 28 per cent to 17 per cent while other nations have increased their sales?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member's question is in the form of an argument. The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Will the minister in charge of the Wheat Board make a statement soon-
February 10, 1970


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House tor some time, and I should appreciate very much knowing what was wrong with that question respecting a matter which affects western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: While I am speaking on wheat problems I hope I am entitled at least to the respect of silence on the part of those on the government benches who know nothing about this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I have expressed the opinion that the right hon. member's question was posed in an argumentative way. That is a matter of opinion. The right hon. member may not think the question was an argument. The Chair has to make a ruling on such matters.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a fact.


Mr. Speaker:: If the right hon. gentleman suggests he was stating fact I would put it to him that a statement of fact, if it is put to the minister in an argumentative way, is not acceptable as a question from a procedural standpoint.


John George Diefenbaker: May I rephrase my question, then? Is it a fact that Canada's share of the export market in the two and a half years during which this administration has been in office has fallen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to sustain the ruling I made a few moments ago.


Albert B. Douglas: Before I ask
my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the right hon. member for Prince Albert interrupted me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Too bad.


Albert B. Douglas: Will the minister make a statement soon on motions with regard to the proposed changes in the quota system?


Otto Emil Lang: As hon. members know, a committee is presently studying this question and there is an early deadline for the submission of its report. I would expect before too long to be in a position to give consideration to the results of these studies and the general direc-
Inquiries of the Ministry tion in which government policy may be going with regard to the quota system for the next crop year.



EMERGENCY PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF FINAL WHEAT BOARD PAYMENTS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a supplementary or related question for the Minister without Portfolio. In light of his recent public statement that no final payments for grain will be forthcoming this spring from the Wheat Board pool accounts, can the minister tell us whether the government intends to make a substantial emergency payment in lieu of the lack of final Wheat Board payments in order to tide western farmers over their very serious economic plight?


Otto Emil Lang: There is nothing further to report on that issue. The question of the cash position of western farmers is, of course, very much in our minds at all times.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent-a supplementary question?


Mr. McCuicheon:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Mine is not a supplementary question; I do not want to ask about wheat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



WHEAT-REDUCTION OF ACREAGE BY OTHER COUNTRIES

Stanley James Korchinski: In view of the fact that sales to Britain have fallen from 80 million bushels to 50 million bushels, and since Canada's percentage of world trade has declined to the extent mentioned by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert, may I ask whether the minister consulted with other producing countries to ascertain whether they, too, will be reducing their acreage or whether, in addition to decreasing our acreage, we shall lose our share of the market?


Otto Emil Lang: We shall discuss this issue, as we have been discussing pricing issues, with other countries. There is no doubt at all that Canada's wheat sales did suffer from the fact that for about a year and a half we were doing everything we could to bring in the International Grains Arrangement which would have meant so much to western farmers. That, in brief, is the reason our sales to
February 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry Britain were lower last year. This was certainly clear to the people in Britain with whom I spoke last week.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the report we had to the effect that the U.S. government has increased its budget by 40 per cent under the item related to the construction- of ice-breakers and that Admiral Trimble refers to "waters contiguous to the Canadian territory" rather than to "Canadian waters", I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to take up this problem with the U.S. government and to have our sovereignty over Canadian Arctic waters respected?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that I can have much say in the U.S. government decision to allocate a certain amount for the construction of ice-breakers. As far as I am concerned, far from being disappointed, I am glad that Admiral Trimble refers to "waters in general" rather than to ours. It is quite clear that Canadian waters are ours, but if the Americans want to clear ice on the high seas they are, of course, free to do so.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that Admiral Trimble neither said "waters in general" nor "Canadian waters", but that he really said "waters contiguous to" the Canadian territory in the Arctic.



ASSERTION OF CONTROL OVER ARCTIC AREA

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. Will the government give immediate priority to presenting to this House legislation which it has promised for this session and which, allegedly, will reaffirm and reassert our complete sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic area? I ask this question for the same reasons as prompted the hon. member for Abitibi-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has a right to ask a question but not to indicate why he is asking it.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Legislation related to this subject will be coming forward in due course as indicated to the House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Perhaps the President of the Privy Council did not hear the question. Will he give immediate priority to this legislation in the light of what is going on in Congress? They are not building these icebreakers for the Caribbean.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps the hon. member did not hear the answer. Maybe someone would read it to him tomorrow.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the recent massive sale of Canadian uranium to Japan, would the minister tell us whether Canadian stockpiling of uranium is to be discontinued?


John James Greene: Any announcements in respect of the stockpiling program will be made in this House in the normal course.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Is the Prices and Incomes Commission asking those who sell products in Canada to absorb part of their increases in costs or simply not to increase their prices by more than their increases in costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At this stage the government is not asking those companies for anything for Information Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are thinking about it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will, we will.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Prices and Incomes Commission is meeting with these representatives
February 10, 1970

now and I am waiting for a report on the meeting, as the hon. member may be.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question. There was great confusion about the matter up until at least lunch time today, and this is the key to the whole conference. Does the government not think it had better make up its mind on this issue-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -so that the conference does not fall flat on its face?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INFORMATION CANADA


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Ministers' remark, I am not sure whether I should direct my question to him or to Information Canada. On this question of Information Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to establish the agency by Order in Council, by legislation, or will there be an item in the estimates with regard to this agency? May I also ask when the Prime Minister will announce who will be the head of the agency?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first question, there will be a special item in the Appropriation Act. A special item will appear in the estimates which I believe will be tabled tomorrow.
With regard to the second question, I did discuss with the minister who has been appointed to plan for the agency what is the next step in the selection of the head of Information Canada.


David Lewis: A supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note there are perhaps 10 or 12 members who are seemingly anxious to ask supplementary questions. Perhaps we should have a special question period for this subject. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for York South.


David Lewis: Who is the head of the section that has been doing the planning and presumably assisting the Prime Minister in his presentation of policy today? Who is the head of that section now?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have been a group of officials, I believe Privy Council officials, who have been working for some time to bring the policy to a head.



STATUS OF QUEEN'S PRINTER

John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Information Canada is to be established under an item in the estimates, might I ask the Prime Minister whether the designation, description or appellation of Queen's Printer and the actual office of Queen's Printer will remain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope it will remain for a while, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister says for a while. That kind of answer may sound a very happy one, but what does the Prime Minister mean by it? Does he mean that it will be removed surreptitiously in the same way the Queen's designation has been removed elsewhere?



METHOD OF DISSEMINATING NEWS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. To which minister of the cabinet should we address our questions concerning Information Canada, and will the dissemination of news be by the printed word or through the medium of television and radio?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I did say that the minister responsible would be the Minister without Portfolio from York-Scarborough.



FUNCTION OF NATIONAL FILM BOARD

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in connection not with the Queen's Printer but with the other agency mentioned by the Prime Minister in his statement, the National Film Board. Were the National Film Board and its commissioner informed as to its function in Information Canada before the Prime Minister made his statement today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for the Film Board is well aware of the decision that has been announced today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question was very clear and it was this. Was the commis-
3418	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry sioner of the Film Board informed by the government of its function in Information Canada before the Prime Minister's statement today, and is this the beginning of the end of the National Film Board?



HOUSING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of objections expressed by the Ontario government, is the minister considering abandoning his Canada-wide revised rent-to-income scale for public housing?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose this question stems from an article in the Globe and Mail this morning which was quite romantic but not necessarily based on fact.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question. May I inquire when we may expect a statement from the minister on the revised rent-to-income scale?


Robert Knight Andras: Soon, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
On several occasions while he was talking about inflation, the Prime Minister has stated that he will force British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to slow down their present prosperity, and I would like to ask him if he can tell us why he intends to slow down progress instead of pushing forward those who are now vegetating in the other provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that his question is argumentative and is therefore not acceptable.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Justice in view of his statement last evening that there is a two and a half year backlog of cases in Toronto. Since there

DEBATES	February 10, 1970'
is a backlog at the present time in the province of Alberta, and since he has been sitting on the question of appointing further judges, if he has no Liberals to appoint will he appoint a few Tories?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received any indication from United States authorities that they will be abandoning their meteorological services in the Arctic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any definitive report on this. Rather than give a casual answer, may I take the question as notice and I will try to get a more definite answer for the hon. member tomorrow.



FISHERIES


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of his statement in Montreal that the Soviet Union and Poland are depleting Canada's fishery resources, what steps has the government taken to bring this matter before an international panel of experts at the United Nations, and what steps will be taken to call immediately an international conference on this problem which is of vital economic importance to Atlantic Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter is of great concern to all nations fishing the North Atlantic and has been repeatedly brought before the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries. The matter was reviewed again in the spring. A few days ago an announcement was made about a joint arrangement with respect to one specific area of the North Atlantic-Georges Bank.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. With respect to the news release issued yesterday and mentioned by the minister in regard to the elimination of 15 nations
February 10, 1970

to protect haddock stocks, does the department plan to patrol this area to make sure that these nations are not fishing? If they are fishing for other species, does the department plan to check these vessels to guard against cheating?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are checking, but the waters we are talking about extend far out into the Atlantic and are in very large measure international waters that are covered by international law. All we can do is to reach agreements with a number of other nations.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A further supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that we will shortly be running out of time. I therefore invite their co-operation in limiting the number of supplementaries.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister's department made representations in regard to this matter to Russia, Poland and East Germany and, if so, with what result?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, representations are made through the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries.


James Aloysius McGrath: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given consideration to having bilateral talks with the Soviet Union since it is experiencing the same problem with Japan in the Pacific?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker. We are working through this international body which I think can bring pressure to bear on the Soviet Union and other countries from many quarters.



U.S. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING IMPORTS-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that President Nixon's cabinet task force has submitted its recommendations to the President regarding crude oil imports, can the minister say whether his department has studied the effect these recommendations will have on Canadian crude oil exports and, if
Inquiries of the Ministry so, is it his intention to make the Canadian government's views known to the President of the United States?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, we made our position known to the Schultz committee during the period of their deliberations. The report of the Schultz committee is before the President now but it has not been made public to date. Certainly upon its publication we will continue to make our position known and to negotiate with the United States to achieve the best possible position for Canada in the United States oil markets.


Max Saltsman: Has the United States government made the Schultz committee report available to the minister so he can study it with a view to ascertaining its effect on Canadian exports?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. It is a report from a presidential committee to the President and it has not yet been made available to us or to the public.



SALE OF REACTOR PLANT TO ROUMANIA

Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will he say whether the government has been successful in making a sale of a Canadian reactor plant to Roumania?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I understand this sale is under discussion, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Considering that the government is now carrying out some costly research projects in order to use poplar wood as feed, could the Minister of Agriculture tell the House whether he is considering the sale and the use of Canadian grain the quality of which is undisputed?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is a very general question. However, the minister may wish to answer it.
February 10, 1970



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am sorry but the latter part of the translation did not come through. Would the hon. member mind repeating that part of the question?


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture tell the House if he intends to consider further the use of Canadian grain whose quality is undisputed?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might reflect on the question for a moment and the Chair will recognize him later.



AIRPORTS


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Has the government taken any decision concerning the Quebec government's request to establish a federal-provincial committee, at the ministerial level, in order to co-ordinate the planning and the development of the new airport at Ste. Scholastique and the neighbouring areas? If so, would the minister inform the House of this decision?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no formal committee established. As I indicated a few days ago, there have been a number of discussions both at the ministerial level and among officials. This may very well lead to the establishment of such a committee, but it has not been formalized to date.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Does the minister intend to set up a similar committee at the ministerial level with respect to the development of the Toronto international airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is quite possible that we may use the same technique in the case of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, but in both cases, as I said, the matter has not reached that stage yet.
[Mr. Speaker.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can assure the House that the dispersant being used in Chedabucto Bay, which I think is called Corexit, is in fact safer to the environment there than the oil itself would be?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak from personal knowledge on this matter. I have been assured, however, by people who presumably are experts on the matter that Corexit is, so far as is known, reasonably non-toxic in terms of marine life. As to its relative value or demerit in relation to the oil, I think it is probably the case that it is not as harmful certainly as the oil.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Since there apparently is a committee appointed by the government to study the possibility of integrating all departmental marine services under the Canadian Armed Forces, will the minister assure the House that before any recommendations are implemented they will be referred for study to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that a few studies are going on but I am not aware of the existence of a committee to correlate these efforts as yet. I imagine whenever these different studies are completed they will be of major interest to the committee and I certainly would not prevent the committee from considering them. I would encourage the committee to look at them for the particular purpose of giving advice.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether a committee of three senior civil servants, under the chairmanship of Mr. Louis Audet, is studying this question of integrating the marine services of the government under one department? I direct my question to the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will inquire, Mr. Speaker.
February 10, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



FISHERIES


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether sufficient funds will be made available so the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission will be able to carry out a lamprey control program in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay during the 1970's?


John (Jack) Davis: I certainly hope so, Mr. Speaker. The funds we make available are tied to the value of United States funds made available and we do not know what that is as yet.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the federal government stop paying for hospital treatment of Indians and Eskimos suffering from tuberculosis this spring as reported in the Edmonton Journal on February 2?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Norihern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that does not come under the responsibility of my department, but I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare has duly said that such rumor was unfounded.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Will the government be introducing amendments to the Canada Grain Act if the new grain selling agency, XCAN, affects the selling of board grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Grain Act is within the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.



MONTREAL-ACTION TO END DISPUTE-PROTECTION OF TRUCKS

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. I will heed your admonition, and so that I will not have to ask a supplementary I will give him both barrels at once. What action is he taking to end the Montreal postal dispute which has already resulted in half of the city's mail deliveries being three or four days late with no weekend pick-up? In view of the violence that has already flared up in the Montreal dispute, what steps is he taking to protect postal trucks engaged in pick-up and delivery?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the employer, Lapalme Transport Incorporated, through its lawyer has sent a letter to the syndicate demanding that the employees furnish the men to man the trucks necessary to supply normal services to all Montrealers. I may say that we are quite disturbed and I intend to go down to Montreal tonight. We are concerned about the violence and also the threats by the union to disclose various public activities that have been engaged in in recent years. If there is a garbage can I hope they take the lid off. We do not intend to submit in any way to what I can only call blackmail practices on the part of the union.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his supplementary.



INCREASED EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES IN VIEW OF MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS

Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the continued tensions in the Middle East, has the government had any talks with the United States to increase Canada's oil export quotas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will make sure he answers tomorrow.
Feed Grain Prices

February 10, 1970



HOUSING


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Housing.
In view of the present conflict between the government of Quebec and the federal government concerning urban renewal grants, can the minister confirm whether the federal government had agreed to pay $94,500,000 to the government of Quebec and is now only prepared to pay $25,000,000?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there was no such commitment made in respect of the $94 million, but it is correct that in the announcement I made in December in respect of the $25 million, which is specifically identified with three projects in the province of Quebec, that offer was made. In respect of the first part of the question, I do not think that is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that there have been discussions among representatives of the parties and I believe there might be a disposition to pass government order No. 58 in the name of the Minister without Portfolio answering for the Wheat Board if it were called as the first item of business for today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: That the Standing Committee on Agriculture be empowered to examine and inquire into the problem of distress or unreasonably low prices for nonquota feed grain being marketed in the designated area as defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to report to the House observations and proposals thereon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-136, respecting the expropriation of land, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House. I merely wish to speak for one or two moments on this particular bill. It brings the law on expropriation into the twentieth century for the first time. On balance, we think the bill is a very considerable improvement on the Canadian law to date. The bill has already been fully debated on second reading, before the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and at the report stage in this House. In our view the bill would have been a good deal better had the government accepted the amendments proposed by opposition members. I believe the minister tended to accept the advice of his own advisers rather than the opinions of some of his colleagues.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. gentleman concede that a good many recommendations and amendments from all quarters of the House and of the committee were accepted.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Some amendments were
accepted, and I commend the minister for that. I thought there were some excellent amendments which were not accepted. I really rose merely to say I regretted not being in the House yesterday when these matters were discussed. I understand that my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), showed all the legal erudition and clear understanding one would have expected from him. I do not propose to repeat the arguments he made yesterday during the debate.
On balance, we think this bill is a great improvement and are ready to have it pass on third reading without further debate or discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, before we have the vote on third reading, I should like to say a few words. It is very difficult to be highly critical of Bill C-136 because it is a great step forward in respect of the expropriation laws of Canada. When
February 10, 1970

we realize that the last time a major amendment was made to this act was in 1886, the necessity for amendments becomes evident and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) should be congratulated for bringing this bill forward. During the debate on the report stage, the minister brought forth a motion in respect of clause 14(3) of the bill. Unfortunately, because of illness and another appointment, I was unable to be here. In his remarks the minister mentioned this was the first time since he had been Minister of Justice that he had failed to accept at the report stage a decision of the committee. He also suggested there might have been some rather peculiar things happening in the committee, and that we almost used a shotgun to bring forward the amendment before the committee. He said he was not casting any reflection on any member but suggested that, on sober reflection, probably members would agree with him.
It was I who brought forward the amendment to this clause in the committee. I am sure the minister and you, Mr. Speaker, would like to hear the reason I brought forward the amendment, because it is a matter of great importance. I believe my experience in expropriation matters, and that of many other members, has been much the same. When it comes to expropriation, we find that the Crown or the expropriating authority is in the superior position at times and can play a cat and mouse game with the person whose property is being expropriated. The Crown has always held the strong position of having most of the competent appraisers in the country on its side in matters of expropriation. The Crown also often has the good fortune of having some of the best counsel plead its case. This places the expropriated owner in a very difficult position in respect of bargaining effectively with the expropriating authority.
I brought forward an amendment which said, in effect, that the expropriating authority would give the expropriated owner not only a copy of the appraisal on which the compensation was based, but also a copy of all appraisals because it seemed to me the whole philosophy behind expropriation is that the person should be entitled to full and fair compensation for the expropriated property. If given all the appraisals within the control of the expropriating authority the person concerned, along with his real estate agent, appraiser or lawyer could determine whether an offer was fair and reasonable and whether he was receiving full and fair compensation. I
Expropriation
was quite surprised, after making my remarks on the amendment, that 75 per cent of the members of the committee voted for the amendment. This created quite a shock for the Minister of Justice and his officials. They immediately set about correcting the situation. As the minister said, this is the first time he has failed to accept an amendment brought forward at the committee stage by any member.
In his remarks yesterday the minister set forth some of the possible consequences of allowing the amendment to remain in the form in which it appeared at the committee stage. I was really amazed to hear him say the department might have to resort to subterfuge by obtaining only oral appraisals in respect of expropriation matters. I have heard it said that in matters of law, the Crown never wins and never loses. Surely, there is an onus on the Crown or on the expropriating authority not to allow itself to be placed in a position where it feels it is winning or losing. I believe its position at all times should be that the offer it presents to the owner whose property is being expropriated is a just and fair offer. The suggestion that the government would resort to subterfuge and obtain oral appraisals in order to outsmart the person whose property is being expropriated is not in keeping with the philosophy of government.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
He also suggested a problem might be created by having only one appraisal. I think it should be brought to the attention of the House that in Ontario, when a matter goes to arbitration, ten days before the hearing the parties must exchange the appraisals that they have obtained, either on behalf of the expropriating authority or on behalf of the owner of the expropriated land. I should like to see the able Minister of Justice suggest that if the case does go to arbitration we at least keep in line with the Ontario law by making it a rule that all sides exchange the valuations they have obtained on the expropriated property. This would be in keeping with the spirit of fairness to the owner whose land is expropriated. Here, I am not referring to the person who has a large tract of land, who can bring in the best appraisers and legal counsel to speak on his behalf, but to the ordinary person whose land is expropriated for some public purpose and who does not have legal counsel or appraisers at hand.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
I hope that the Minister of Justice, when this bill becomes law, will bring forth some rule that if a hearing is held there will be an exchange of appraisals obtained by the government and by the appraising authority. This seems to me to be more equitable and fair to all parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, February 4, 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.
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments during which I participated in the debate on this bill, I suggested that it had been on ice for a long time but I felt that as it thawed it would be revealed as a fishy proposition. As a matter of fact, all of us know that fishy products tend to be slightly odoriferous. I would like to underline what I said on the earlier occasion by saying that if you take a piece of rather stale fish and freeze it, it is still stale when it is thawed.
In any event, I think that my remarks are justified because those of us who have been involved in the situation surrounding the introduction of this bill realize full well there is much more here than meets the eye in the legislation. I think probably the most important amendment in principle to the National Parks Act for some time is to be found in clause 13 which reads as follows:
There is hereby established a corporation for the purposes set forth in this Part, to be known as the National Parks Leaseholds Corporation.
Perhaps it is worthwhile reminding the House at this stage of the circumstances in which we were first made aware of this proposal. The Standing Committee on Northern Affairs had made a tour of the Banff and Jasper parks, had heard an extensive series of briefs from people interested in park matters, and also briefs outlining the problems of

the residents of those two communities. We had returned to Ottawa and had held further meetings here. The committee was at the point of preparing its report for presentation to the House when the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development appeared before the committee on March 14, 1967 and made a statement to us in which cursory reference was made to the hearings and the evidence before the committee. I should like to quote from page 2 of the press release containing the statement by the minister. It reads:
I would like to announce now, to recommend to parliament the enactment of legislation to establish a National Parks Leasehold Corporation for the purpose of administering these leases. This corporation will be independent, subject only to its statute, and any written directions of the minister.
A little further on, it reads:
By this measure we intend that commercial leases will be administered on commercial principles and on these principles only-
Then, it continues:
We would also of course expect that operating on sound commercial principles the corporation would, firstly, secure the necessary volume of investment for the visitor facilities needed and, secondly, ensure that the return to the taxpayers as a whole from these commercial concessions was adequate, which I do not think is the case today.
I recognize that the statement made by the then minister could be the subject of a great deal of debate. But from my point of view the introduction of part III of the National Parks Act can best be summed up by stating that it represents a form of creeping commercialism into the national parks administration of Canada. I think the discussions that took place before the committee earlier revealed quite clearly that that will be the result of the passage of this legislation. I contend that this is basically contrary to the spirit of the national parks trust, and it is not something which should be supported by this House.
The argument that this corporation will be independent of the minister may, on the face of it, have its attraction to some people. I suggest to you, however, that what it means is that once we set up a commercial corporation to be operated on commercial principles, one that is independent of the minister, we are paving the way for the inroads of commercialism into the national parks of Canada on a scale that we have not seen before. I submit that this is not something to which those who believe in the value of the parks as part of the national parks trust should lend their support. What we are in effect doing by this proposal is to set aside certain enclaves
February 10, 1970

within the parks free from the control of the parks people.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In other words, we are saying to the people to whom we entrust the administration of the parks, "No longer will certain parts of the parks be under your administration. We are going to turn over certain parts of the national parks to people whose philosophy is commercialism." The result is that the parks people who are concerned with parks as parks, whether they be ecologists or naturalists, will no longer have any direct say in the activities that take place in certain parts of the parks. This is why I suggest we should oppose what I call creeping commercialism within the national parks system in Canada, and on that ground we should refuse to lend our support to this bill.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that by this bill we are creating an unnecessary and double bureaucracy. We already have a national parks administration. Now, we are proposing to set up new machinery which will function outside the parks branch. We are to have a new corporation with presidents, directors, staff and all the rest of it to do a job that I suggest can be done quite well by competent administrators in the department, whether employed in the local park areas, in the regional park areas, or in the national headquarters at Ottawa, and who would operate the parks within the spirit of the national parks trust. In effect, we will be saddling the administration of the national parks with an unnecessary bureaucracy and that, I submit, is a second ground for opposing passage of the bill.
There exists a myth in some people's minds that people who are employed directly in the public service for a salary are somehow incompetent individuals! I would not say that there have never been incompetent individuals employed in the public service, but by and large I submit that concept is a myth. I do not believe it is necessary to set up all of the political bureaucratic machinery of an independent corporation, separate from the normal operations of the department, in order to look after certain small parts of the national parks that have been leased to individuals. So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because I believe it will result in the creation of what I have referred to as a double bureaucracy.
But, Mr. Speaker, there are other ancillary reasons why we should oppose this piece of
National Parks Act
legislation, and particularly oppose its passage at this time. I submit that anyone who participated in the hearings of the committee in 1967 cannot help but agree that, in effect, the introduction of this legislation is a cover-up for the refusal of the administration to face up to certain situations in a realistic manner. Mr. Speaker, I suggest you cannot cure a cancer with a poultice, and so far as I am concerned this legislation is simply an attempt to wrap a poultice around a situation in the national parks administration. This proposal is not one that warrants the support of this House at this time.
The members of the committee who visited Banff and Jasper-I refer to Banff and Jasper in particular because I think it is primarily out of the situation in Banff and Jasper, and to a lesser degree in Waterton, that this legislation has been developed-cannot help but agree that the citizens of those two communities came before that committee in good faith. They felt this was a real opportunity for them to be heard before the highest court in the land, and that they were entitled to a fair hearing.
It has been a matter of considerable grief to me ever since that time that the committee report, which was never debated, simply amounted to a complete whitewash of the strongest objections of the citizens of Banff and Jasper with respect to certain aspects of the administration of parks policy which related to their communities. I felt ashamed that the committee, in dealing with the matter of leases, took the attitude that, rather than have a committee of Parliament recommend that the viewpoint of these citizens be dealt with in equity by Parliament, any differences of opinion on leasing matters should be left to the courts to test the validity of the citizens' cases. The reference was particularly to the question of the perpetual leases that had been issued within the parks boundaries in earlier years.
When I made reference to this subject during the discussion of Parks estimates in the House on June 9, 1967, the first opportunity that there was to discuss the question in the House, I made it quite clear I felt a mistake had been made in the issuing of these perpetual leases. I felt that parliament should come to grips with the situation. If I may, I would just quote what I had to say as recorded at page 1360 of Hansard of that date:
I want to state my view quite clearly. I do not believe that these perpetual leases should be allowed to continue forever. I am not learned in the law, but it appears to me that the way in which

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
some of these leases were drafted comes pretty close to being the equivalent of title in fee simple as we ordinarily understand it in other parts of the country outside of park boundaries.
I went on to suggest that we should in effect, approach this matter in the spirit of what would normally be considered to be an expropriation proceeding. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is rather ironic that we should be discussing this matter when the House has just given third reading to a bill dealing with procedures of federal expropriation, which one of my colleagues referred to as having brought the matter of expropriation into the 20th century. It is ironic that we should now be dealing with a proposal relating to leases in the parks, and in particular the perpetual leases, which will leave those leases forever within the ambit of the concepts of the 19th century. This, so far as I am concerned, is a third ground for opposing the passage of the bill.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The fourth reason why I think we should oppose this bill, and in particular in the context of the current situation, is somewhat related to the third. It relates particularly to Banff and Jasper and the question of perpetual leases. The fourth reason is that if this bill is passed it will perpetuate, as long it remains on the statute books, the existing colonialism in the towns of Banff and Jasper. They will become to an even greater degree than they are now, company towns. At least now, the citizens in those communities have some form of appeal directly up through the political process which we pride ourselves is a democratic one in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, once the property within the townsites of Banff and Jasper is put in the hands of this corporation, as I understand it this corporation will be the end-all and the be-all of law so far as property holding in Banff and Jasper is concerned, and that is a situation which I say is simply not good enough. I have made it clear before and I make it clear again that I do not believe private property should be held within the parks; that property, if it is going to be used by individuals, must be held under some form of lease.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this Parliament long ago we should have come to grips with the question and should have dealt with it in the manner the people of Banff and Jasper asked us to deal with it, that is, in Parliament. Having done that, we would have paved the way to take the step that I suggested in this House on June 9, 1967. On that

occasion, I suggested that we pass legislation granting to Banff and Jasper the status of towns under special federal charter so that they might have dealings in a normal way under agreement between the federal and provincial governments for the municipal services available to other communities in the province of Alberta. It is because these towns are within the parks that there would have to be special charters. I suggested then that there are anomalies within the parks, but there they are and we must recognize the fact. The people living in those communities are citizens of Canada and should have the same rights as other citizens for democratic self-employment in their own communities which they do not have now. Had Parliament taken the step at that time, there would now be some local authority with rights under the law to deal with an agency such as this, if it is to be set up as custodian of land within the boundaries of the communities.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us would make the people of Banff and Jasper forever the prisoners of this corporation. Many of the people who have grown up in the province from which I come know what is meant by the term "company town". I suggest that in the 20th century the Parliament of Canada should not be moving to create company towns anywhere in this country, but rather in the reverse direction. The proposal to add this provision under the National Parks Act will, in my view, do exactly that as far as the communities of Banff and Jasper are concerned. That, Mr. Speaker, is the fourth reason why I feel that I cannot support the bill.
As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and as far as my party is concerned, we do not want to become involved in the kind of argument that has gone on in this chamber and in committee as to which administration was responsible for what in respect of leasing policies.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know we were not.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if the present government were to agree to withdraw this bill, and to take a fair look at the point of view expressed to the standing committee of this House by the citizens of Banff and Jasper, and was prepared to recognize by the introduction of appropriate legislation that Parliament wished to undo some of the mistakes of the past in the matter of parks policy in such a way as to deal fairly and equitably with the individuals involved, we might then be well on the way toward a
February 10, 1970

common point of view on the establishment of visitors' service centres within the parks.
I have talked to people whose primary concern is in the welfare, preservation and enhancement of enjoyment of present and future generations in the parks. I find myself in sympathy with their views and the approaches they advocate. We have some very fine and knowledgeable Canadians within the present parks administration, and it is not fair to saddle them with the proposal in this bill on the flimsy excuse that Parliament is too niggardly to supply the funds to establish facilities of proper standard for the enjoyment of visitors to the parks. It is not fair to hamper them with a noose around their necks, to hamper their approach to the free and full development of the national parks of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this particular bill, there is one difference between my position as a member of Parliament and my position in private life; it seems that one is asked on many occasions to repeat things said on other occasions. This is a matter which has not been debated during this session but has been discussed for a considerable length of time. I agree with the position of the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). In brief, this bill would set up a Crown corporation to control and govern the national parks of Canada and would take them away from ministerial responsibility.
My first point is that we have Crown corporations where it is necessary to have independent corporations. We have the Bank of Canada. However, over the years we have seen some of the problems that arise. Every member of Parliament receives complaints about the efforts of Crown corporations, such as the CBC. I am not complaining about the CBC, but after all these Crown corporations are only creatures of the law and were set up by the law. When a Crown corporation is established and is set up apart from ministerial responsibility, then it becomes the responsibility of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What we are doing today is necessary because there has been so much trouble with the park administration. Basically, the ministers have not been running the park; this has been done by the men behind the ministers. I am glad to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) here-


Mr. Honey:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
National Parks Act


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, certainly.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, in his concern that there is no ministerial responsibility under the provisions of the statute setting up Crown corporations, I wonder if the hon. member would not agree that clause 18 of the bill puts the corporation under the control of the Governor in Council or the minister?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is just a red herring. And I am going to answer the hon. member right now. If he reads the Canadian Broadcasting Act he will find similar clauses, not identical, and similar responsibility.
To continue with what I was saying, Park administration is being taken from ministerial responsibility because of problems in the park. As I was saying, I want to pay a compliment to the Minister of Public Works. I am glad that he is not the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), not because he is not an able minister but because I have to attack this bill. I will say for him that even on those occasions when we have disagreed in the House or in committee on the administration of parks, he was always in the House when the matter came up. He would answer the question and take his position and that, Mr. Speaker, is something that I would like to come to grips with now.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I am very disappointed today, as were other members when this matter came before the House earlier, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has deliberately refused to come into this chamber to answer questions and pilot his own bill. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is here. There were many things in the omnibus bill about which we disagreed. We disagreed in committee. Even this morning we disagreed on some things, but the fact is that the Minister of Justice is the kind of minister who will take his responsibility and will be in the House when there is a contentious piece of legislation to be piloted through. The same can be said about the Minister of Public Works. There have been some changes for the good. I am glad to see the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) in his seat, because I think he understands the western problem of petroleum far better than his predecessors.
As a Canadian from western Canada, I find it strange that for such a long period of time the men controlling northern affairs, national

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
parks, the grain trade, the petroleum industry, in fact all the leading industries in western Canada, were from another part of Canada and did not have knowledge or experience in those fields. It is no wonder we are now the fifth ranking nation in grain rather than the first. No wonder we have so many troubles in our parks. No wonder there is anxiety about the administration in the petroleum industry of western Canada. Our present ministers are some improvement, but I want to deal with the minister who was too busy to come into the House the last time one of his bills was before us. There was very little publicity given to that fact.


Russell Clayton Honey: I do not know if my friend is referring to Hansard or to a statement made outside the chamber. If my friend says the minister said that, I have to accept it. I think my friend knows me well enough to know that I am modest, but my understanding is that the minister said he had confidence in his parliamentary secretary and would give him the responsibility of piloting this bill. Mr. Speaker-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, that is not a point of privilege. The parliamentary secretary is not rising on a point of privilege; that is plain hog-wash. I do not intend to assign my time to the parliamentary secretary, even though he is filled with sweetness. I say there is a responsibility. The Minister of Justice also has a very able parliamentary secretary, but the responsibility of the department does not rest on the shoulders of the parliamentary secretary. It rests on the shoulders of the minister, particularly a minister who goes across this nation making statements of this kind.
I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the January 16, 1970 edition of the Calgary Herald which, on many occasions, is not an unfriendly paper to the administration. It is rather a rotten thing to have to read on the front page of a paper. The headline reads, "Chretien Tells Banff 'Like it or Leave'." I quote from the article:
If residents of the townsite of Banff don't like living under federal administration, they can leave, Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, said Thursday.
Mr. Chretien said in an interview nobody is obliged to live in the park and if they don't like the situation "they can drive east or west and they won't have to live in the park."
Residents of Banff, who have to lease their land from the government, have complained that the cost of leases has risen and, in some cases, leases have not been renewed. They are also complaining about a tax increase.

Mr. Chretien said they had no right to complain because they haven't invested money in the land anyway since they haven't had to buy it.
What the minister is really saying to the people of Banff and Jasper is that he is going to put this policy through no matter what happens. This is what he is saying to Mr. Jimmie Simpson who lives at Boyle Lake near Lake Louise. The Minister of Public Works knows this man. He has been there since before the turn of the century, before we ever heard of this little shrimp, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien).


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I say shame on the minister who has the nerve to tell Canadians who have been pioneers in western Canada to get out, go east or west, do anything you like, but get out; take it or leave it. I think that is the most shocking thing the minister could say anywhere, particularly when this minister is from another part of Canada. This is what he said in that part of Canada which always extends great courtesy and understanding. It is shocking to the residents of Banff and Jasper.
The parliamentary secretary rises on a question of privilege and says, oh, he has great confidence in me. I say the parliamentary secretary is merely an instrument of the minister. I feel sorry for him, since he has to be in that position. He does not mind sitting there because it is an elevation from where he was. The fact is that he is merely an instrument of the minister. This is the most shocking thing that has ever been said in western Canada.
Senator Cameron said something very important in his letters to the department.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody asks, who he is. He was appointed to the other place by a very distinguished Liberal Prime Minister. The words of Senator Cameron are not those of a Conservative. These words are similar to those used by the New Democratic Party which also offers constructive ideas in opposition to what is going on in the House. As a Liberal senator he said, if there were an election held tomorrow west of the Great Lakes there would not be a single Liberal elected.


John Napier Turner: What do senators know about elections?
February 10, 1970


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My good friend the minister asks, what do senators know about elections? That is what Senator Cameron said.
The present member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) is a Liberal. This may be a bit of a fluke. I do not say that because he is not talented. He is friendly, able and intelligent. He became the member for Rocky Mountain as the result of a mix-up in my own party. This riding is one of those monstrosities which is almost 1,000 miles long. There was a Conservative candidate in the north end of the riding and a Conservative candidate at the opposite end. There were five candidates. If the records are checked, it will be seen that the present member received 30 per cent of the vote. He stood up to this minister, however and I compliment him. He said if the minister would use a little understanding, courtesy and consideration when dealing with the Indians, Eskimos and people of the parks, if he would listen, he would get respect and create respect for the officials of his department from the people of Banff, Jasper and the other national parks of Canada. When a Liberal member makes such a statement, he must be really frustrated. It takes a lot more nerve to make such a statement than the parliamentary secretary has. He would not do it. Thing must be pretty tough when a Liberal member of parliament has to stand in his place and say that to a minister. I suppose he said it so often in caucus that he finally felt it was time to say in the House what he had been saying privately to his own party.
When the minister will not come into the House, hon. members feel they are wasting their time and they might as well sit down. How are we to exercise our responsibility as members of Parliament when this minister will not come here to listen to suggestions or criticisms of his department or his bill?


Mr. Laing:: Why don't you get with it?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: One thing is certain, the Minister of Public Works didn't get with it. As I said, he is a very fine man, but he was just moved out. With respect to the minister, I now hear a rumour that they are going to move him further. I would be the first to endorse it, but not because I think he deserves it. He has served in public life longer than most people here.


Arthur Laing: I would move you up.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My good friends never recommended me for an appointment. Some-
National Parks Act
one says they got me out of the parks. I realized that a little hanky panky went on with a very independent man. An independent redistribution commission was established and Bow River was cut into five slices. So I ran in a new riding. I could have run in one of those. I realize this is how the Grits operate. But you would not think of doing that, and I do not suggest it, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I return to the question of leases. This corporation is to be in charge of park leases, a subject of contention in the parks for a long time, particularly since 1963. We hear a lot about our beautiful committee system. Well, a special committee went out to Banff. The people there were promised a great hearing. We went to Jasper and I think we spent a week or ten days there listening to briefs. We heard from Mr. Maberley, the president of the Liberal Association out there. He got so excited about what the goverment and the administration proposed to do that he fainted while presenting his brief to the committee in Banff. One would have thought this might have left an impression.
The fact is, the committee heard evidence. And nowhere in any of the briefs presented was there any suggestion that a bill should be introduced containing the terms and conditions we find before us today. There is not the slightest indication here that any regard has been paid to the evidence given before the committee. I am happy to see the former chairman of the committee present in the chamber; he was always courteous in his relations with this committee. There was nothing in the evidence or in the briefs to suggest we ought to set up a monstrosity such as is now proposed in order that the corporation might fulfil the minister's ambition, which is: Get out; go east or west, you western Canadians; we don't need you. That is exactly what we are being told. It makes one wonder. I wonder what would have happened had the shoe been on the other foot.
As I have said before-and I want to put this in chronological order-there was land in the national parks owned fee simple, there was land held on 99-year leases, land on 42-year leases with the right to renew, and land held on other kinds of leases. The people who own hotels and motels which serve a million and a half people or more each year, serve the tourists well. People come from all over Canada, from all over the United States and, in fact, from all over the world to see places like Banff, Lake Louise and Jasper.
The leaseholders have invested money in the parks so that they can serve the tourists.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
Under our system they are entitled to make a profit; that is why people are in business; when they cease to make a profit they go out of business. What happens when they get old, or want to sell their businesses for other reasons? They cannot transfer their property as they could normally do under any provincial administration. The government has said they cannot do this unless they agree to change their leases. This is the element of duress, and this is what will continue under the great new corporation which is proposed, a corporation which will be headed by another Liberal as sure as my name is what it is and as surely as the constituency I represent is called what it is. It will be a bunch of Liberal hanky panky and a Crown corporation which can get away with a lot of patronage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hear hon. members opposite applauding. They are looking for the call already.
What kind of leases do these people get? Here is one which they said was against public policy-it would be awful, they inferred, if we showed the people this. It was made on the 4th day of March, 1968 between Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada and the Mountaineer Motel Company, a small corporation behind which were three business people who had got together to build a motel on land expropriated at Lake Louise. What does the lease say? Remember, they have got these people hooked, now, for a loan with the Industrial Development Bank; moreover, they have put in at least $200,000 of their own cash. Finally, these people get an interpretation of the lease they have signed. It does not matter what the parliamentary secretary may have to say about this; the minister should be here. Read the lease, beginning at clause 16, where it says the lease shall terminate if the lessee fails to perform, observe or keep any of the covenants and agreements herein contained, or violates any of the provisions of the National Parks Act or regulations issued pursuant thereto. There is no provision for compensation in such an event. Who interprets the lease? It is the corporation which will interpret the lease. Who says that the lessee has made a mistake? It is not a court of law. It is the corporation or the minister. It is one of these authorities which will say: You have violated these laws, so you are out.
The tenant may reply: I do not intend to get out; I shall go to law. But it takes a long time to go to law when the Department of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development is involved. While the tenant is going to law his place is shut down, the interest payments on his mortgage continue, and he continues to be liable for taxes. So, whether he wins his lawsuit or not, he has lost his investment. And he has lost it as a result of hanky panky, because the Liberals or the corporation run by Liberals, are going to do things that way.
As I have just mentioned, a tenant can be thrown out on the grounds that he has broken a park regulation. When I was engaged in some litigation on behalf of leaseholders I had an opportunity to look at these regulations. Mr. Speaker, there is a whole volume full of them and they are so complicated that the words spoken by Browning about one of his poems apply to them very well-"When I wrote it, God and I knew what it meant; now, God alone knows what it means." These regulations are so lengthy and so confusing that there is not a lawyer in Canada who understands them. If you pick one and say "This means so and so", some official will pick up the book and find another regulation which states the opposite. Yet, if a tenant breaks any one of these unknown laws, his lease can be cancelled and he receives no compensation. To do this will be within the power of this great new corporation the government proposes to set up under this bill.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is a shame. It is a disgrace. And what makes me sad, today, is this: I know that as I stand here speaking I am wasting my time, because this measure will be piloted through the House; it will be considered in the all-powerful Liberal committee and in the end it will be dished up with very few changes. This is what a dic'atorial government intends to accomplish, and once it is done it will be extremely difficult to undo.
I have drawn attention to the kind of leases which this corporation will be handing out. Recently, the department has been advertising land in the parks and no one will take it. Do hon. members know who is coming into the picture now? Imperial Oil! Imperial Oil is an international company controlled by Standard New Jersey and the other Standard companies in the United States.
Responsible for these things is a government which began by saying it would keep foreign capital out of Canada. Today, they are handing over our national parks to big international conglomerates. Why is this happening? It is because no Canadian in his right
February 10, 1970


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I heard somebody say
"encore". I realize hon. members over there do not like to hear this. Whoever interrupted should listen to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, listen to what he is saying in caucus and in this House about this kind of dictatorship. Hon. members opposite do not care about western parks. I know they have lost our wheat markets and our petroleum markets, but what about our parks? As Senator Cameron said, you people over there will never again have representation from western Canada; at least this government will not. The situation is a disgrace, the more so since this is a part of the country which has always looked to central Canada for direction and particularly for democracy.
This situation has arisen simply because men have failed to understand. This government has said in no uncertain terms that it will have its way, that it does not care what the opposition has to say. This is the reason that Information Canada has been set up; the government wants to do away with all of Parliament's powers. Look at this place now, Mr. Speaker. It is like a lit-up cemetery, and it has been for months. Why is it that no members of the opposition come into this place? I will tell the House why they do not come in. What is the use of carrying on a debate before a government such as this which has run slip-shod over Parliament? This is how they are able to get away with 21701-7
National Parks Act
this kind of legislation. I say this legislation is wrong. The principle of the bill is wrong. This legislation will lead to Liberal patronage and certainly exhibits Liberal government irresponsibility.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Calgary North, who has just finished speaking, whether he was saying in his remarks that he did agree or that he did not agree with the policy that economic rents should be charged in the parks, as stated by a minister in the government of 1962, the present hon. member for Brandon-Souris?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to answer that question. I examined the minister and his departmental officials with respect to this matter. At no time did the Diefenbaker government ever introduce a program of this type so far as leases are concerned. Certainly, it did not do to our parks what is being done to them now. The present policy is purely a Liberal one. The government is trying to put over the same kind of Liberal smear campaign as the Prime Minister tried to put over on the right hon. member for Prince Albert the other day with regard to the Montreal fair. When hon. members opposite know they are wrong, they accuse opposition members of being to blame. Why does not the Liberal government resign office and let the Tories take over? Then, things will get done.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), who was the former federal representative for a portion of Rocky Mountain riding and had the privilege of representing Banff National Park in this House for many years. I have a number of reservations about this bill and the rapid passage of the bill through the House. It is a bill that is of greatest importance to my riding. Its impact on Banff, Jasper and Waterton will be greater than on any other community in the country.
It was disappointing for me to hear the previous speaker fail to seize upon the real and crucial problems that exist in our national parks, and particularly those in Rocky Mountain riding. In the speeches that I have heard up to this point there has been an attempt to suggest that the introduction and passage of this bill through the House is strictly a political maneouvre. I suggest this is simply an evasion of the real problem.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
In the national parks of Canada, and particularly in Banff, Jasper and to a lesser extent Waterton, a very serious situation has been created among those communities that are permanent. People living in those communities do not have the same democratic privileges and rights possessed by Canadians living outside our national parks. They have no local government. In addition, since the property is federal property, the local member of the provincial legislature has very little authority or jurisdiction with regard to them. As a result, virtually the only elected representatives to represent the people of the townsites and communities in our national parks are the local members of Parliament, whoever they may be at any given time.
This situation has resulted in a complete lack of communication between those governed and those governing. It is different from the situation that obtains in other communities where there is dialogue and communication between the elected municipal officials and the electors, between the provincial legislature members and the electors, and between the federal members of Parliament and the electors.
I believe the key issue here is that of communication, and that of the community accepting responsibility for its own welfare. This lack of communication is not something that has arisen within the last year and a half or even within the last 6, 7 or 10 years. It has been a characteristic of the communities of Banff and Jasper almost since their inception.
A number of studies and reports have been made about Banff and Jasper in order to determine by what method these communities should be administered. I want to emphasize the word "community", because all too often those of us who live outside our national parks, particularly outside Banff and Jasper, think these communities are populated by businessmen. This is far from the fact.
For example, Jasper is populated largely by employees of the Canadian National Railways. The first railway went through Jasper in 1911 or 1912, and ever since that time this community has been a divisional point for one of our trans-continental railways. So, it is easy to see that the largest single group populating Jasper consists of employees of the Canadian National Railways, not businessmen. I am sure we would find that those with investments in businesses in Banff and Jasper account for less than 10 per cent of the population in those towns.
[Mr. Sulatycky.l
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We have been very slow to recognize this and we think of these communities as comprising wealthy people from Calgary, Edmonton and other cities and towns who have summer cottages in our national parks. I quite agree that it is not proper to allow the existence of summer cottages in national parks. It is quite a different thing to have people who must reside there because of their employment or occupation in order to serve the millions of Canadians and others we encourage to visit these parks. These people must reside there in order to serve the tourists, the railways, the highways, the lines of communication and the pipelines which traverse these national parks. We must recognize that these are communities similar to communities outside the national parks. Unfortunately, our predecessors in Parliament for many years have failed to recognize this. The department which has been responsible for the administration of the townsites of Banff, Jasper and Waterton have failed to recognize this fact.
The people living in these towns have been administered from Ottawa with no say in their own affairs or in the administration of their own townsites. This gulf between the administrators and the administered continues to increase year after year. There is now a greater degree of antagonism. The administrators are antagonistic toward the residents of the park. They refer to them as businessmen and cover up the facts in this way. They are not businessmen. There is a natural human reaction on the part of these people who reside in these parks.
So that it is abundantly clear I am not singling out the present minister, the previous minister, or any minister for that matter, in respect of this breakdown in communication, let me refer to a report that is commonly called the Crawford report. It was prepared for the department of northern affairs and natural resources respecting certain aspects of these national parks and the townsites therein. It has reference to Banff, Jasper and Waterton Lakes National Parks. It was prepared by Grant Crawford of the Institute of Local Government at Queen's University, Kingston. It was published in 1960. These are some of the statements in the report. At page 9 of the report the following statement is made:
There was a frequently expressed feeling that the inhabitants should have more say in the running of the townsites.
February 10, 1970

This was the feeling expressed in 1959 and 1960, but it certainly has become more common in the last year or two, particularly in the last few months. This report was made under a previous administration. I am not attempting to blame that administration. There has been a breakdown in communications because those of us responsible in Parliament for municipal affairs and local government in these townsites failed to take an adequate interest and failed in our attempt to understand the situation. It is further stated at page 10 of this report:
It is the lack of adequate communication that calls forth such comments as the following: "The immediate problems are first of all autonomy and secondly the relationship of the town to the park superintendent*'; "the local people may believe facilities are desirable but the government will not allow them such things as the drive-in theatre. There should be more local autonomy"; "everything depends on the superintendent. Appeal is only to the minister and you never get answers to letters"-
Again this was in 1959 and 1960. The report goes on to state:
-"in Radium Hot Springs they are rebuilding sewer, water and other works but local people have no say in it and they cannot find out what is happening or even what is proposed"; "no effective means of communication between residents or concessionaires and the parks administration except through the superintendent"; "there was an appeal to the minister from the decisions of the superintendent. What was needed was someone on the spot with power to decide"; "some signs can be approved locally, others must be referred to Ottawa, and a reply may take up to three weeks"; "the machinery is cumbersome and sometimes it takes years to get a decision from Ottawa"; "the superintendent may be very sympathetic but he has not good access to higher authority. The recent visit by the minister and deputy minister was the first in four years. Policy makers have no contact with local problems. They do not spend enough time in the field"; "channels for complaints are inadequate."
This is the situation as described by Professor Crawford in 1959 and 1960. I am sure this situation existed prior to 1957. It is wrong for anyone in this House today to blame this government. Let me reiterate that I am not attempting to blame any government or administration. Those of us who have been in this House have not given enough serious and sincere consideration to the fact that there are people living in Banff and Jasper who are not businessmen. We cannot deal only with land and the question of leases; we must deal with these people as people.
Again, the Crawford report goes on to state at the bottom of page 13:
-if the administration is prepared to go more than half way, the irritation can be greatly reduced.
National Parks Act
It is significant that Professor Crawford indicated it would be necessary for the administration to go more than half way in order that the irritations may be reduced. Unfortunately, in the ten years since the preparation of this report the administration has not seen fit to go anywhere near the halfway position.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) is back in the House. In any event, the result has been a completely deplorable degeneration of communication, trust and goodwill. It is going to take an extreme degree of understanding on our part to resolve this situation so that in years to come we will not have these same problems we have today in relation to national parks before us in this Parliament.
Let me give you an example of this breakdown of goodwill. A few years ago two residents of the parks brought a representative action in the Exchequer Court of Canada seeking a declaration that the perpetual leases they held were in fact intra vires and not ultra vires as the administration had stated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As Art stated.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Again, that is not quite correct. The hon. member for Calgary North states "As Art stated". The fact is that the Order in Council declaring the perpetual leases ultra vires was made in 1958. The two new leases were not renewed until 1962 or 1963. Nevertheless, this case went to the Exchequer Court which rendered a decision favourable to Walker and Clark, the two individuals who were the plaintiffs. Then, the Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. This case was heard in late October and we are still awaiting a decision.
The story being voiced by friends and former supporters of the hon. member for Calgary North is that it is a Liberal judge who is holding up the decision, and that the court is waiting for this legislation to be passed by this House. I am sure the hon. member, who is a very eminent counsel and well known throughout Canda, would be the first one to stand and say there is no political interference and never has been with the Supreme Court of Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member and I are good friends. Nowhere on the record did I ever say that the Supreme Court of Canada was holding up anything. I never mentioned this matter. The Supreme Court of Canada is well within its jurisdiction

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
to reserve judgment and render it when it has time. These judges have much work to do. This is a tough matter. The judges should take the time they are taking. I do not know how the hon. member could get the idea that I said this delay had anything to do with politics. The Supreme Court ol Canada is far above political interference and far removed from this institution.


Arthur Laing: You have said a lot of queer things.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if my good friend-and I admit we are good friends-from Calgary North took from my remarks that I was suggesting he was making these statements. The fact is that there are people who, for political purposes, make statements and suggestions of this type which are entirely unfounded.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is better.


Allen B. Sulatycky: I am glad the statement of the hon. member is on the record for all the people of Banff and Jasper to see. This is the type of situation which exists. People would believe anything bad of the government. At the same time, the administrators would believe anything bad about the people of Banff and Jasper. They would believe they are all businessmen and gougers. These are not the facts any more than it is a fact that there is any political interference with the Supreme Court of Canada. I mention this because of the breakdown in communication and the complete lack of good will on both sides.
I believe it is time the people of the town-sites got together with the administration to work out a new solution so that the people in the communities would be provided with the same democratic rights enjoyed by others who live outside the area of the national parks. I do not believe such a result will be achieved by this bill unless there are some very significant changes to it. It is my feeling that the townsites of Banff and Jasper should be exempted for the time being from the jurisdiction of the corporation which is to be established. I believe the corporation probably is a very necessary instrument for some of the national parks of Canada. It is probably a very nice instrument for some unpopulated sections of the Banff and Jasper National Parks and for the Waterton National Park. In any event, the head office of such a corporation should be located in Calgary or else-
[Mr. Woolliams.1
where in the province of Alberta where there is the largest volume of problems in relation to national parks. There should be some assurance that persons who are conversant with the business of the national parks would, in fact, be members of the corpora ion.
I believe it would be wrong to apply the operation of this corporation in a blanket fashion to all national parks because this would be a denial of the existence of the communities and people in Banff and Jasper. Banff and Jasper would simply be treated as part of a large body of land. Account would not be taken of the fact that people and communities are in existence there.
I have other reservations about this bill and the powers the corporation would have. Its powers are too wide. The corporation would be in a position to compete with free enterprise in the national parks. Such competition should not be allowed when private enterprise is already in the field. The bill should include guarantees that the corporation would be prevented from coming into competition with private enterprise in this manner. Although there are other changes which I believe must be made, I think most of all there must be a degree of good will on the part of the people in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the people of Banff and Jasper, as well as other communities in the national parks, so that a solution may be found to enable these people to have their own administration completely outside the scope of this bill.
The bill, with the modifications I have mentioned, may be perfectly acceptable to places like Terra Nova National Park, Prince Albert National Park, Wood Buffalo Na ional Park and many others which do not include town-sites and which do not have a permanent population within them; but it is not acceptable to communities such as Banff and Jasper because it denies the existence of people there and will deny to the communities the ordinary relationship enjoyed by people outside the na'ional parks. For this reason, I believe the bill requires extreme modification. I suggest that the parliamentary secretary or the minister should take the time to go to Banff and Jasper in order to discuss this bill thoroughly with the people there before it is passed. In its present form the bill, in my opinion, will not serve the purpose of or be of value to the people of Banff and Jasper.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say it is a privilege to have a national park within the
February 10, 1970

constituency I represent and to point out to you, sir, that it is five o'clock. I will discuss other aspects of the park at eight o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment which are as follows: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson)-Post Office-policy respecting closure of low-income branches; the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson)-National	Revenue-refund of
sales tax on grain storage equipment; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale)-Air Transport-CTC decision respecting prairie service.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely Public Bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: that Bill C-23, to amend the Criminal Code (Tire Safety), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was one of a number of bills dealing with traffic safety, the subject matter of which was referred some years ago to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I feel that this bill, like the others, contributed something to the formulation of the legislation which received second reading in the House recently. I have reference to the bill in respect of safety standards for automobiles brought forward by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). Consequently, I do not consider it is necessary to take up the time of the House at this stage by further debate. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask, with the consent of the House, that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Hazardous Products Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The debate on Bill C-23 is adjourned.



HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT


James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill C-24, to amend the Hazardous Products Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I hope the applause is indicative of some approval of this bill.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It indicates approval of the hon. member.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-24. First, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that the Department of

February 10, 1970
Hazardous Products Act National Health and Welfare has done a lot of studies so far as radiation hazards from coloured television sets are concerned. The department has carried on detailed investigations on the problem of radiation from coloured television sets in the past two or three years, and the Minister of National Healh and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has issued public statements from time to lime which gave a clear picture of the investigations as they unfolded. I believe it would be highly appropriate to review this work today before considering in more detail Bill C-24 which we have before us now.
In my opinion, it would be unfortunate if the House were to assume that the appropriate departments were not giving this problem careful attention. The record, as I propose to demonstrate, shows that the Department of Na'ional Health and Welfare, and perhaps other departments as well, have studied this problem closely. This is a highly technical matter in some respects, and in my remarks ihis afternoon I would like to follow through, step by step, the history of this problem as revealed in the public statements made by the ministers of national health and welfare and in rela'ed documents.
We must surely examine these facts very carefully before proceeding to evaluate the merits of the proposal contained in Bill C-24. I say this because the problem of control of radiation from colour television sets, when looked at in depth, is far from being as simple a matter as some members might think on first reading the text of the proposed bill.
The first reference document that I have before me is a news release by the Department of National Health and Welfare dated 10 January 1968, in which the then minister of the department, the hon. Allan J. Mac-Eachen, referred to a study made by the radiation protection division of the department. Apparently, the study he referred to was stimulated by a report emanating from the United States which indicated that certain specific models of colour television receivers had been found to emit excessive amounts of ionizing radiation. The department's study confirmed that these excessive amounts did, in fact, occur in the models mentioned. The problem was limited to large screen models built with a certain chassis, and only those imported from the United States between September 1, 1966 and May 31, 1967 were affected. In these models, high radiation levels were observed adjacent to the shunt-regulator tube, one of the electronic tubes in

the chassis, not the picture tube. The levels were significantly higher than the maximum of 0.5 milliroentgens per hour recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. Incidentally, I should point out that the standard of 0.5 milliroentgens per hour referred to in the statement is apparently the same as the standard suggested in Bill C-24.
In releasing that statement over two years ago, the then minister of national health and welfare emphasized certain significant facts. First of all, the statement makes clear that in carrying out its investigations the department had had the full co-operation of the manufacturer of the faulty television sets. This company was apparently doing everything in its power to track down the particular sets involved and to replace the defective tube with one of a safer design, thus bringing the radiation level within the accepted limit. I note that at the date of the news release, this company had modified, in the manner 1 indicated a moment ago, a total of 3,267 sets. Of all the sets recorded to have come into Canada, only 14 remained uncorrected. There was apparently some difficulty in tracking the last few down, but the report indicated that the department expected that this residual number would be dealt with shortly. Since all this took place over two years ago, I can only assume that this has long since been accomplished.
The second point which was emphasized by the minister of national health and welfare in the same news statement was that his department was checking into the possibility of similar radiation hazards in television sets of other manufacture. Reference was made to correspondence with 14 Canadian manufacturers regarding the nature of the shunt-regulator tube used in their models. At the time of the release, no evidence of any problem similar to the orginal one mentioned a moment ago had been identified, although it is clear in reading the statement that the investigation was continuing.
The general conclusion at this stage of the investigation by the department was that owners of colour television receivers need have little cause for concern about exposure to ionizing radiation. Further, the caution exercised by the television industry in relation to the risks involved seemed to the department to be reasonable and sufficient. There was, however, one note of concern in the statement. While it mentioned that the industry generally was aware of the problem,
February 10, 1970

and most companies were carrying out some form of radiation testing, none appeared to be making detailed tests on shunt-regulator tubes at that time.
The second published statement I have is dated April 10, 1969 and was also a news release from the Department of National Health and Welfare. It quotes the present minister of that department. The minister made the statement in response to inquiries generated by newspaper reports concerning a U.S. survey which had been taken in New York state. This survey had indicated that potentially dangerous radiation had been emitted above the recommended level of 0.5 milliroentgens per hour.
Apparently this report came as a surprise to the department. The minister said that since 1967, when the incident to which I referred a moment ago occurred, the radiation protection division of the department had been checking radiation levels of new model television receivers as these new models were introduced. They had checked 61 different models of 17 different companies. The tests had ensured that the sets, as marketed, did not emit radiation in excess of the standard level. As I understand it, only one set of each model was actually tested, the purpose of the test being to assure that the design of the set and its components was such as to eliminate the radiation emission. It was assumed that all sets of this model would behave the same in this respect.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The statement I am still referring to, the news release of April 10, 1969, then goes on to hint at a possible explanation for the high radiation levels found in the U.S. survey report. It noted that it had been found that sometimes sets which had been modified, subsequent to sale to the customer, could be potentially dangerous. This was because modifications involving an increase in the voltage applied to certain components could give rise to an increased level of radiation. The department recommended that such increases in the high-voltage settings should not be made, and although it believed that the associated radiation fields would be hazardous only over long periods of exposure, it stated that it was extending its testing program to ensure that, while in the past the department had been concerned with the safety of sets going on to the market, it now realized that servicing modifications or repairs might be made to the sets after purchase, and that the effect of these operations had to be investigated.
Hazardous Products Act
Now, Mr. Speaker, at the end of this news release is a statement of particular significance in relation to the bill which is before us at the present time, and with your permission I will quote two or three sentences:
It is recognized that there is an increasing use of products capable of emitting potentially hazardous radiation. These include, besides t.v. sets. X-ray equipment, microwave generators and lasers. The minister added that his department is therefore seeking suitable regulatory powers to establish minimum safety standards for such equipment sold in Canada.
I believe that the sequel to that stated intention is the Radiation Emitting Devices Bill which has recently received second reading in the Senate. It would appear that, even at that time, the department was prudently preparing to establish safety regulations for colour t.v. sets if it should become necessary-although at that stage of the investigation, at any rate, there was no clear indication that they would be necessary.
Two weeks later, on April 24, 1969, the Minister of National Health and Welfare announced plans for a national sampling survey of colour t.v. sets in people's homes. This announcement also was in the form of a news release. The minister referred again to reports from the United States which indicated that some sets in use in people's homes emitted above the standard level. Set owners in Canada were invited to participate in a survey to be carried out by the Radiation Protection Division of the department. They would be supplied with a radiographic film pack which they were to attach to the outside of their sets and return it to the division after 20 hours of viewing time. The survey would be conducted according to a statistical pattern to provide sampling of a wide range of makes and models. The survey would be carried out by mail-the necessary material and instructions to do the test exposure would be sent to the participant.
This survey was in fact carried out. I understand that over 2,000 citizens wrote to the department and offered to participate in the survey. Of these, 400 were chosen by the department to carry out the radiation testing. On August 6, 1969, the minister released a report on the results of the tests on the 400 sets. The results are given in the form of a table appended to the news release. The 400 sets were analysed in four categories, with about 100 sets in each category. The categories related to the year in which the set was purchased, 1969, 1968, 1967, and 1966 or earlier. About 20 per cent of sets purchased in

February 10, 1970
Hazardous Products Act
1966	or earlier emitted radiation which, in some degree, exceeded the standard of 0.5 milliroentgen per hour recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The proportion fell to 14 per cent in
1967	models, 8 per cent in 1968 and 4 per cent in 1969. In most of the cases where emission was above the standard, it was only slightly above the accepted standard. Examination of the table of results does reveal, however, that at least three of the 400 sets emitted at rates of more than ten times the standard.
In presenting these results, the minister emphasized that the study had been of an exploratory nature only and that these results had not been followed up in detail. The department was not able to state whether or not the higher levels occurred only in certain specific models. It could not say whether the excessive emissions were due to occasional failures in quality control during manufacture, to regional variations in line voltage, to alterations made by repairmen or to a combination of such factors.
In discussing the results, the report stated that the health hazard, even where radiation emission was above the standard, was considered by the department to be exceedingly small. The standard carried such a high safety margin that, unless it were exceeded by a substantial amount, any health risk would be quite insignificant. It pointed out that the radiation emission was observed only at the point of closest approach to the electronic tubes, at the side, back or bottom of the set, not in the normal viewing position. Thus, the exposure of the viewer could be considered negligible if a normal viewing distance, preferably four feet or more, were maintained. The report then goes on to give a warning that prolonged proximity to the side or back of a set should be avoided as much as possible.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have before me a news release of the Department of National Health and Welfare dated September 4, 1969, and titled "Safety Rules for Colour TV Users." In this statement the minister gave further information relating to the studies made by his department on colour T.V. hazards. He referred to the survey that had been carried out and noted that about 10 per cent of the sets tested had been found to emit radiation somewhat in excess of the accepted manufacturing standard. Examples of such sets had been found among all popular makes, the largest number being among the models purchased before 1967. The causes
[Mr. Haidasz.l
were complex and attributed partly to component design and partly to servicing.
The minister repeated that, in the opinion of his department, these radiation-emitting sets were not a significant health hazard if given the usual degree of respect accorded many other household appliances. The radiation was observed only at the back, bottom or sides of the sets, not in the normal viewing position and this, coupled with the very large safety margin inherent in the accepted standard, made the health hazard extremely small.
e (5:20 p.m.)
The news release then proceeded to give simple rules which would ensure safety even in cases where radiation emission was somewhat in excess of the accepted manufacturing standard. One of these rules is to consult your authorized repairman rather than attempting to do your own servicing. Another is to ask the repairman, on his next servicing call, to check the voltage regulating circuits and radiation shielding as specified by the manufacturer. Another rule is to cultivate good viewing habits-to not regularly sit closer than four feet from the set or to allow children to he with legs extended beneath the set while viewing. And lastly, to place all colour television sets against a wall and not to locate chairs immediately adjacent to the side or back.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary, but I am afraid his time has expired. The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather).


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary would permit a question with the consent of the House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there is consent, with the agreement of the Parliamentary Secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, since it is apparent that the government approves the principle of my bill, as the parliamentary secretary was speaking for the government, may I ask why the government is not prepared to refer this bill to the Standing Committee where the subject can be thoroughly discussed?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I was given to understand by some of my colleagues on this side of the House that they would like to make some remarks this afternoon on Bill C-24.
February 10, 1970


Mr. Bell:: With an answer like that, he should be in the cabinet.


John James Greene: He is coming; he is nearly ready.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly on this proposed measure, Bill C-24. I should like to see it passed by the House and referred to the Standing Committee. I take this position because I am one of a number of members interested in possible colour television fires, and the number of fatalities arising from them. I first became interested in 1968 after reading statistics concerning explosions in colour Television sets in the United States. I took it upon myself to raise the matter in questions in the House, and in correspondence wiih the Department of National Health and Welfare, asking that a check be made into the situation. I also corresponded with people whom I considered to be very knowledgeable on the subject. Some months ago, the Department of National Health and Welfare decided to take a second look at the relationship between coloured television sets and fires, and fatalities caused by such fires.
While my interest in the subject is a little different from that of the mover of the bill, I think there is a common denominator. Here, we are dealing with colour television operation, fires and other hazards that may result from same, which is a new and unsolved problem. While the department is taking a second look at the fires caused by the small percentage of sets involved, I think the endor-sation of Bill C-24 and its reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs would be a practical and complementary step to take.
Without further discussion on my part, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will see fit to refer this bill to the committee.


Mr. Keilh Hymmen (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill which relates to a matter of considerable importance and one which has been of increasing concern to the general public. It has also occupied the attention of television manufacturers and the various health authorities over a considerable period of time. The fact that I have one of the large national and international manufacturers in my riding explains my particular interest.
Hazardous Products Act
Any matter which affects or could potentially affect the health of Canadian citizens is certainly worthy of discussion in this chamber. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for introducing this bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: You could do a lot better by letting it go to the committee.


Kieth Reinhardt Hymmen: We have heard from the parliamentary secretary who has indicated the acaon taken by the Department of National Health and Welfare in the investigation of possible hazards from colour television sets. Perhaps I could go a little further into the question and try to evaluate the situation in the light of the information we have, and to relate it to the proposal put forward in the bill we are considering. To do this in a systematic way, I will address myself to three basic questions that come to mind and which must be answered before we can assess the merits of the bill.
The first and most fundamental question is: Is it true that colour television sets present a health hazard? The second question is: If so, what is the real nature of the hazard? And finally: If there is a health hazard, is the procedure suggested in the bill the most appropriate way of controlling the problem? I will deal with each of these matters separately, in turn.
Now, with respect to the first question, Mr. Speaker, are colour television sets dangerous? Everyone will be aware that there have been from time to time some very frightening accounts in the public press and in the news media. In some cases there may have been an element of deliberate sensationalism involved in these accounts, but in the main they were clearly attempts by responsible members of the news media to give a simplified account of what is, in fact, a highly technical problem-namely, the effects produced by radiation on the human body. The emphasis in these accounts was on the possibility of an increase in the incidence of leukemia and cancer and an increase in the number of births of deformed children. These are, of course, the known effects of excessive exposure to x-rays. I am sure that it was with these dire effects in mind that the bill we have before us was introduced by the hon member for St. John's East.
There is no doubt that stories such as these have aroused a large measure of concern among all sectors of the public. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I was interested in reading in a popular publication the TV Guide, issue of

February 10, 1970
Hazardous Products Act 13-19 December, 1969, a feature article which purports to reveal "the facts behind the frightening headlines". Many members of this House may have read this article also. My copy came from the cash counter of a local supermarket and, being on display there, the publication undoubtedly has wide circulation. The article tries, in a sense, to debunk the idea that colour television is dangerous. The author, Mr. David Lachenbruch, has quoted statements made by many reputable scientists and public health officials in the United States. He has marshalled these statements in such a way as to support the proposition that there is almost no risk whatsoever.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
For example, Mr. Speaker, the article reports that Dr. Lauriston-Taylor, president of the National Commission on Radiological Protection-that is the United States national commission-told a congressional committee that exposure as much as two million times the half-milliroentgen standard for television sets would not even produce skin irritation if applied to a small area of the body, and that in 30 years there had not been a single case of identifiable injury to an individual by low-level x-rays of the kind emitted by defective television sets.
It also reported that Professor Hanson Blatz, the radiation control director for New York city, told a congressman that viewing a set which radiated 24 times as much as the interna, ional standard for five hours a day at 22 feet from the screen would expose the viewer to no more radiation than a resident of Denver normally gets with no television viewing at all. He concludes that the probability of detectable medical effects from x-rays emitted by faulty colour receivers is vanishingly small.
The article goes on to quote Dr. Victor P. Bond, associate director of Brookhaven National Laboratory, to the effect that even if the standard were exceeded 10 to 20 times, the doses and dose ra'es would still be very low, and that no medical effects have ever been demonstrated at such levels. It also refers to statements made by the greater New York chapter of the Health Physics Society. This society is said to have regarded the half-milliroentgen limit as having no relationship to the probability of injury to individuals; that there is no evidence to suggest that injury to individuals is likely even for chronic exposure at many times this intensity.
There are other categorical statements in the article, Mr. Speaker, that are not attribut-

ed to any named source. For example, there is the statement that a set emitting the maximum amount of radiation, that is, the half-milliroentgen or half-millirem limit, would expose the viewer to less than 5 per cent of the average amount of normal background radiation; and in a similar context, the statement that most luminous dial watches give off twice as much radiation as does a television set emitting at the maximum limit recommended by the National Commission on Radiological Protection.
These opinions, taken together, would seem to indicate that there is really no problem at all to be concerned with. I do not wish to suggest that the article gives a completely one-sided view of the question, but that is certainly the main theme that emerges. In fact, in summing up the discussion the author quotes the opinion of John C. Villforth, director of the Bureau of Radiological Health, Department of Health, Education and Welfare in the United States. His position on the subject was apparently given at an annual meeting of the American Public Health Association and would seem to be quite categorical. The quoted remark is: "There is no danger in colour T.V. I am confident. If you are at all apprehensive, seek the advice of your serviceman."
On the surface, this would appear to completely dispose of the concern that has been expressed elsewhere and which has led to the introduction of the bill we are considering. However, let us now compare this conclusion with the statements made by the Department of National Health and Welfare which were referred to earlier in this debate. The position of the department, as expressed by the minister in a news release, is that the health hazard of colour television sets is extremely small and that it can be considered negligible if viewing is conducted in normal viewing position. So far so good. However, the news release goes on to modify this assurance by adding that it is undesirable to remain in prolonged close proximity to the side or back of a set while it is operating. This then is where the real concern lies.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we were to go back to Mr. Lachenbruch's article in the TV Guide, and examine the statements somewhat more critically, we would find that there is really no discrepancy between the opinions of the eminent United States authorities it quotes and those of the Department of National Health and Welfare. It will be clear on careful reading of the statements of the United
February 10, 1970

States authorities that they were referring to normal viewing conditions, a few feet in front of the set. Our Department of National Health and Welfare says that if such distances are maintained, the risk to health is extremely small, even if the set emits at a rate somewhat in excess of the standard. So there is agreement on this point.
However, our health department goes on to warn that prolonged proximity to the back or sides of a set is undesirable in view of the fact that emission rates in excess of the standard do occur for various reasons. This is likewise the opinion of some U.S. experts quoted in the article to which I referred. For example, Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, director of the Health Physics Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory is reported to endorse the watch-at-a-distanee advice, noting particularly that "many children lie on the floor with their feet immediately under the colour television sets and with their faces almost glued to the screen for many hours of viewing". Furthermore, the U.S. Surgeon General has issued viewing rules for colour set owners that are essentially identical to the rules given by our Department of National Health and Welfare in one of its news releases, and these rules emphasize the desirability of maintaining a reasonable distance in front of the set when it is operating.
There is another point in the reassuring statements quoted by Mr. Lachenbruch that needs comment. Much is made of the fact that no identifiable injury has ever been reported and that no medical effects have been demonstrated. I am informed that these statements are literally true, but that the key words are "identifiable" and "demonstrated". Our Department of National Health and Welfare has repeatedly said that radiation effects are of a statistical nature, so that it is enormously difficult or impossible to demonstrate a direct connection between low-level radiation exposures and the occurrence of disease in a particular individual, even though connection has been demonstrated, somewhat indirectly if you like, and in two other ways: by research on animals, by extrapolation of the effects observed in human populations at high levels of exposure.
I think it is clear from what I have been saying, Mr. Speaker, that the hazard, although small, cannot be completely discounted. However, it is equally clear that the hazard exists only if there is prolonged proximity to the side or back of the set, not if it is simply viewed in the normal viewing position. One could argue that there is, thus, no 21701-8J
Hazardous Products Act hazard if the set is used in the manner intended, or reasonably anticipated, by the manufacturer; and one could well ask whether such a hazard should be subject to control by the government. Mr. Speaker, many things in the home are dangerous if not used with a certain degree of respect. A carving knife is a dangerous instrument, and there is some risk associated with almost all electrical appliances.
However, I think there is a distinct difference in the case we are considering. I will give two reasons for this: first, the fact that the hazard is from radiation makes it especially insidious. Radiation cannot be detected by any human sense and this is the reason we find it so frightening. It can be detected only by an expert armed with proper equipment. The second point I would call attention to is that television is becoming a focal point of family life. We and our children live in intimate association with our television sets for many hours each day. Therefore, even if the risk is exceedingly small, we must be sure that it has been reduced to the very lowest level that is technically feasible.
In fact, we may say that a television set that emits radiation is contributing to pollution of the environment-the home environment. Mr. Lachenbruch, in the article I referred to earlier, makes this point. He says that environmental scientists feel that nonuseful radiation should be blocked and not permitted to add to the background level. We know that already there exists a substantial radiation background from such things as radioactive fall-out, cosmic rays, luminous dials, etc. Environmental scientists want to hold this background radiation to a minimum because of its collective potential to civilization as a whole.
e (5:40 p.m.)
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that it is the environmental scientists in the Department of National Health and Welfare who have had most to do with the studies mentioned earlier in this debate. There is an environmental health directorate in the department which deals with pollution of various kinds, including radiation pollution. Like scientists all over the world, they are concerned with increases in the radiation background, especially that produced by the increased use of technical devices in our modern technological society. People in this modern day absorb considerably more radiation from various sources than did their

February 10, 1970
Hazardous Products Act forefathers. This is a worrisome development. Each new technological advance, if it involves a radiation device, contributes to the increase in the radiation pollution of the environment. Inevitably, this will lead at some point to the necessity for governmental regulation and control.
It is on these very general grounds that I could perhaps support the idea of control regulations for colour television sets, if necessary and feasible. This leads me to the final question of the three that I asked at the beginning. If we grant that some form of government regulation is necessary, is the present bill the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem? Let us look at this carefully.
What is proposed in the bill is an amendment to the Hazardous Products Act which would prevent the sale of television sets which emit radiation above the standard. A regulation of this kind may be effective in achieving the desired objective, or it may not. It would seem, according to the Lachenbruch article and the health department's news release, that most of the sets found to emit over the standard did so as a result of changes introduced during servicing operations. In both the United States and Canada sample, sets tested before sale checked out all right. It was only in sets examined after a period of use, when they had presumably received servicing to replace worn-out tubes, that excessive emission was noted.
It is true there were new sets which emitted over the standard back in 1967, but this was due to defective tubes in certain models. Since then the manufacturers have made many improvements and are checking their products more closely. The result is that there is now no indication whatsoever that any of the new sets placed on the market emit over the standard. This is not to say they will not do so later if they are improperly serviced, but my point is that the proposal in the bill would not prevent that kind of mishap in any even.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, according to Mr. Lachenbruch's article, manufacturers are making even further improvements which are designed to make servicing foolproof during the entire life of a set. They are doing this by introducing fail-safe electronic systems which are being gradually phased into production. Many manufacturers are doing away with the tubes which can cause radiation, replacing them with new types of solid-state components which cannot radiate. Others have

improved shielding around critical circuits. Even the glass in picture tubes is being reformulated to provide greater resistance to x-rays. The question arises as to whether it is desirable to introduce government regulation while such developments are in progress.
If the proposed regulation were made, how would it be enforced? New designs appear to check out all right on randomly-selected samples. The difficulty lies in the possibility of failure in quality control which would result in some sets going onto the market with emission rates higher than the general rim. It is not clear how the proposed regulation would prevent this kind of mishap or even bring it to light. Much would depend on the way the regulation was implemented. Then again, the technical specifications which would constitute the standard need consideration. I understand that in the United States, where similar regulatory action has been proposed, the proposed regulation is lengthy, complicated and highly technical.
I think the whole question needs a close examination by technical experts. A regulation that is not technically sound and based on the latest knowledge of the situation might do more harm than good and would perhaps lead to unproductive effort on the part of both the manufacturers and the regulatory authorities while doing no service to the public. As I understand it, the Department of National Health and Welfare is in close contact with the problem in all its technical aspects and has been so from the beginning. The minister can be expected to take whatever action is most advisable in full knowledge of all the circumstances.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath-


James Aloysius McGrath: I am touched, Mr. Speaker; deeply moved.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -for introducing a subject which is very appropriate for discussion in this House, especially during this hour. One of the purposes of private members' hour-


James Aloysius McGrath: -is certainly not to pass legislation!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -is to call the attention of the public to matters which in the opinion of hon. members are worthy of public debate and should be considered as a possible basis for legislative action. The hon. member has
February 10, 1970

called attention to the hazards presented by colour television sets. I understand a bill has been introduced in the other place, Bill S-14, which is broader in scope and which would probably include the question under discussion. I regret that the mover of this motion did not take the opportunity to tell us more about the reasons which impelled him to put this measure before us.
As I say, we have an opportunity in the Parliament of Canada, particularly at this hour, to call for public debate. Public debate is the basis for the formation of public opinion, the basis upon which measures might ultimately become the policy of the government. In debates such as these, ideas are put forward and tested, and the logic which hon. members contribute in the course of their deliberations is put to rigorous examination.
1 listened with great interest to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather), the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Hymmen). The hon. member for Surrey, like the hon. member who moved this motion, intervened only briefly in the debate. It is clear that this is a matter which calls for careful consideration. There have been reports in the press of potential radiation hazards, as well as of a potential fire hazard, as the hon. member for Surrey pointed out. The hon. member for Kitchener made some useful comments, calling attention to the fact that investigation into this problem did not simply mean an examination of the technical features of radiation; it is broader than that.
Colour television has come to be an essential part of Canadian family life in large areas of this country. My family acquired a colour television set last year and I was astonished at the nature of the response of members of the family to it. As Professor Scanlon of Carleton University stated, colour television leaves a different impression qualitatively. Family reaction to advertising, for example, is significantly different in a sociological sense; the impression left on young minds is deeper and more lasting. We cannot ignore the fact that we are dealing with something which is very much entrenched our way of living.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Kitchener stated, it is doubtful whether the correct way of dealing with this difficulty is to pay attention simply to the standard of the product as it leaves the factory. Effective supervision would seem
Hazardous Products Act to call not only for technical supervision of manufacturing operations but for inspection on delivery, installation and the work of service and repair, as well as periodic testing to make sure there is no deterioration of components likely to result in hazard while in use. Not least, there is need for a program of public education to train viewers in good television habits. The set should probably be placed against the wall. There should be a minimum distance between viewer and set. As has been pointed out, children are sometimes accustomed to lying around with their feet underneath the set in an area where, if there is a radiation hazard, the hazard would be at its maximum. Careful viewing habifs, careful servicing habits and a major public education program: these are the measures that have to be considered in addition merely to limiting, as proposed by the hon. member.
I am confident that we have not heard the end of this kind of proposal, which is a very serious one indeed and well worthy of debate. I am confident, too, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) is as acutely aware of the problem as any member of this House. I have before me a series of press releases dealing with colour television, the latest in December of last year. They relate to reports on the hazards of colour television sets and to investigations that have been conducted, as described by the hon. member for Parkdale, with the co-operation of some 400 families, who assisted in making a survey of viewing habits and the performance of television sets in a number of Canadian homes.
It is clear that there has been a marked improvement in the quality of sets that are now being produced by the manufacturers. Year by year the number of defective sets in the sense of those that emit radiation has been reduced. It is quite clear that there is a substantial measure of voluntary compliance by the industry, as the hon. member for Kitchener pointed out. Much still remains to be done.
Again I wish to commend the hon. member for introducing this measure. I hope that when the matter comes before the House again he will give us the benefit, in a more extended way, of his views as well as a recital of the events that motivated him to bring the measure before the House.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I should like

February 10, 1970
Hazardous Products Act to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for introducing a bill. Personally, I was hearing him for the first time speak of a question that has nothing to do wiih fisheries.
I know that he is a good speaker and that his arguments are quite striking. I am surprised to see that he did not take advantage of the twenty minutes at his disposal to explain the benefits embodied in his bill with all the vigour and conviction that he usually demonstrates.
Evidently, houses in Canada as well as in other countries are very dangerous places. There we are surrounded with objects that sometimes present quite serious hazards. A great many electrical appliances are found in the home. Everybody knows that an iron or a kettle can inflict burns that can be fatal. Electric knives carelessly used can cause very serious injuries. In fact, nearly every item in our houses, especially electrical appliances, presents some hazard.
I congratulate the member for St. John's East for urging all Canadians to be careful at home. Many accidents could be avoided and people should be advised about prevention.
I am particularly concerned about accidents which can happen to the young and cripple them.

I should like to say a few words in English, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate to my hon. friend from Newfoundland that even though I am not a master of Shakespeare's language, I can say a few words in his mother tongue.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, my mother tongue happens to be the Irish language.


Paul Langlois: Then I will join him after six o'clock, if he does not mind, for a drink of Irish whiskey.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is naturally concerned about such problems. Its concern is not only with the welfare of the consumer in the marketplace but with his physical safety. One of the important elements in the consumer program is the Hazardous Products Act. The bill was introduced-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but it is six o'clock. The sitting is suspended until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This applause is a deeply moving expression of the sympathy that hon. members feel, on an Ottawa winter night, for the problems of our national parks, one of which is in the constituency of Fundy-Royal. It is time I made a constituency speech.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Liberals are all huddled together.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They stick together. That is something you haven't learned yet.


Mr. Fairweather:: Fundy National Park lies in the corner of Albert county in New Brunswick, 50 miles west of the city of Moncton. It skirts the Bay of Fundy for a distance of about eight miles and extends inland for more than nine miles, containing an area of about 80 square miles. In the concept of the great western national parks, this is small potatoes. In fact, I understand that Fundy National Park is the second smallest in area of any of our national parks.
The park itself is typical of the bold, irregular shore line along the Bay of Fundy which features steep, perpendicular, sandstone cliffs indented by many coves and inlets which have cut deep gulleys through the landscape. The park was visited last year by about 700,000 people, which is an infinitesimal decline from the high of 1968. The surrounding country is historic in the sense that it has provided a Prime Minister of Canada, a rebellious Tory known as Richard Bedford Bennett, and a renegade Tory known as
February 10, 1970

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
preserved and kept for the nation, a nation whose population it has been predicted will increase greatly before the end of this century.
I plead for flexibility in our parks system. It is rather awkward to even suggest this, but I plead for a measure of autonomy for the permanent residents of our parks. I plead, also, for the preservation of a large part of our nation for the use of our citizens. It may be that we are rapidly reaching the point of no return in this regard. I hope we will move ahead in acquiring the necessary land. After all, we are the trustees of this land.
Goodness knows, there is ample evidence in the United States about the urgent need for a large playground. We are reaching a time when because of technological advances man will work fewer hours a week. Some people, believe it or not, will have no work at all to do. This is pretty difficult for the puritan ethic to digest, but it will be the case. Therefore, it becomes increasingly important that the government and the state provide an outlet for the energies, abilities and recreational needs of our citizens.
It is difficult to establish this point in a debate of this type, but I think the wild country, the natural country, is an important factor in maintaining a balanced and civilized humanity. I hope there will be amendments to this bill and that we will not turn our backs on what has been done in this field by a very great number of civilized Canadians in earlier times.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I would suggest that the principle enshrined in it makes it a very bad and undesirable piece of legislation. I believe the principle should be established that the minister and his department should be directly responsible to the public whom they serve.
This bill is simply a device to enable the government to avoid answering for its actions. It is a buffer between the real park proprietors and those members of the public affected by the policies they lay down. The new Crown corporation will not be a free agent; it will be a creature of the cabinet. Yet the minister concerned will always be able to wiggle out of answering legitimate questions in the House by claiming he cannot interfere in the affairs of an autonomous agency established by Parliament. It will be yet another page in the frustrating story so well illustrated by the CBC, the National Film Board and the like.
The question of national parks in Canada is preponderantly one of concern to the people of western Canada because that is where all the park land to speak of is situated. As recently as two years ago, 86 per cent of all national parkland was in the west. Yet the control of that land lies in central Canada. Policy is established here in Ottawa and administered by officials, many of whom know a national park only as an area on the map. This is a flagrant example of absentee landlordism at its worst. It is comparable to what happened in Eire in the last century.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The federal government controls this land entirely, yet it does not want the bother of looking after maintenance and collecting rents. The government has done what the worst absentee landlords have always done throughout history-named an agent to do the dirty work and stand as a buffer between its comfortable existence and the irate tenants.
I have a letter from a resident of Lake Louise who charges that the director of parks has spent only a few days in the west, but he will have considerable say in the affairs of people who are directly dependent upon the good operation of the park areas for their living. This letter was sent by Mr. Jack McDowall of Lake Louise to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).
With more than three-quarters of the national parkland in the west, and the dictatorial control of its destiny held firmly in Ottawa, is it any wonder that westerners are sceptical of the treatment they and their parkland will receive? Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that westerners are more and more coming to doubt the benefits to them and to their area of staying in a constitutional set-up where they are repeatedly ignored and their rights and interests continually slighted in deference to the interests of central and eastern Canada? This sort of legislation is just another open invitation to secession, another example of prejudice and discrimination.
The evils of this type of remote control are not too hard to find. Such administrative methods are bound to lead to mistakes and to inappropriate action. Areas have been mishandled and are still being mishandled due to this cumbersome and distant system of control. One good example is in my own province of Manitoba. Riding Mountain National Park should not be maintained in its present role of wilderness reserve. Instead,

February 10, 1970

new areas to the north, and away from the march of development, should be taken for this purpose.
Riding Mountain National Park was made over to the federal authority in the late 1920s at a time when no one had a very clear idea of what a national park should be. Now most Canadian provinces have clear-cut parkland policies, sound programs of development and maintenance and a good understanding of the recreational needs of their populations. They have tremendous know-how and experience. I believe Riding Mountain National Park could well be turned back to the province of Manitoba and a fresh area taken up for wilderness preservation.
This park is situated slap in the middle of a well-built and developed area and astride an important provincial road link. It is 70 miles deep and 30 miles wide. This huge area inhibits development of a tremendous area of central Manitoba and makes the social and business life of the region unnecessarily difficult because of the wide detours that its wilderness state makes necessary. Highway No. 10 runs through the middle, but the park part of the road is in such poor shape that travellers are forced to skirt the park and make wide detours. If this were a provincial park it could accommodate recreational facilities, reasonably good roads and appropriate commercial enterprises. Now it is a dead area in the centre of a developed region of great potential.
The present national parks policy is not suited to Riding Mountain Park as it is situated. The area is not a mountain at all but is really an escarpment, a plateau that should form a natural part of the agricultural community surrounding it. From the days of the fur traders the park has been traversed by people, but now people are prevented from going back and forth easily through the park. The problem posed by this park is only one of the many faced by westerners who must look to a distant and disinterested administration in Ottawa for answers. The Crown corporation that this bill seeks to set up will simply add another layer to the protection afforded the government by the rigid and dictatorial bureaucracy that we have had so far.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I think the present parks policy of wilderness, so far as it concerns the Riding Mountain National Park, is very ill-suited to that area. Not all parks can be treated the same if we are to have any reasonable development of our parks at the
National Parks Act
national level. For these reasons I disagree entirely with the principle of this bill.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard an important announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that the government was proposing to set up an information bureau that would be known as Information Canada. According to the Prime Minister's statement, one of the purposes of Information Canada is to hear the views of the people of Canada and their reaction to public policy.
The other afternoon when this bill was brought before the House, the members of the opposition took a firm stand, to the point of moving the adjournment of the debate because of the absence of the minister from the House. The Prime Minister was careful to point out that the new information bureau the government is proposing would serve the purpose not only of distributing information to the people of Canada and hearing their views, but of listening to the views of hon. members of this House, the elected representatives of the people.
It is quite obvious that the minister, who is conspicuous by his absence tonight, is not going to pay the slightest heed to anything that is said in this chamber. By the same token, it seems obvious that the statement of the Prime Minister this afternoon about Information Canada is so much hypocrisy, because it is fundamental to the democratic process and to the parliamentary process that a minister's first responsibility is to listen to the tenor, the tone and the content of debate in this House and that government decisions be influenced accordingly. There is not much we can do about it now, I suppose. It will be taken care of by the electorate of Canada in due course. However, I think it is the duty of members who will take part in this debate to protest as strongly as they can this ministerial arrogance, which I submit is tantamount to the old adage, "Don't confuse me with the facts: my mind is already made up."


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Is the hon. member aware that our debates are recorded?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is a typical remark by a Liberal-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A fellow that was booed in Toronto.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -backbencher who would like to reduce-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The great white paper boy!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -the parliamentary process to an exchange of notes, to the written word rather than to the spoken word. He does not even understand that the basic meaning of the word "Parliament" stems from the French "to talk."


Mr. Ricard:: They have even to give notice of their intention to speak in caucus.
s (8:30 p.m.)


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, I understand that the freedom of speech on the part of the backbenchers of the government party has been restricted to the extent that they have to give notice in order to be heard in their caucus. It is an unhappy and tragic day for the health and welfare of this high court of public opinion. This is where the action should be. This is where the voice of the people should be heard-through the elected representatives, and not read in the newspapers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is not only with respect to the parks problem that the actions of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) are causing concern. He is in difficulty with our first Canadians, the Indian citizens, because he will not listen to what they want to say with respect to decisions concerning their own destiny. He will not accept the basic principle of democracy, namely, the right of self-determination. The same situation prevails with respect to Eskimos in northern Quebec who have let it be known that they are being denied their traditional rights and protection of the department and are forced to cross to the Northwest Territories, particularly to Cape Dorset.
The minister is in difficulty over the question of sovereignty in northern Canada, and with respect to greater autonomy in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories because he will not listen to the vox populi and to the people who are most concerned with policy matters in his department.
This evening I want to deal with one or two matters that have been raised already in the course of the debate which were deliberate attempts to distort the record with respect to the past policy on national parks. This process of distortion was begun by the minister

when he tabled a letter a few weeks ago in the House which he claimed indicated that the arrogant, autocratic and bureaucratic policy set down in the bill that is now before the House-and which is represented by the attitude of the minister-was begun at the time I had responsibility for the administration of the parks of Canada. At that time I raised the issue as a question of privilege and claimed the right to table documents that would complete the record and clear up the minister's insinuation.
I was not permitted by members on the government side of the House to table these documents. Tonight I will take the opportunity to read into the record a statement from the people most concerned, with respect to their attitude toward the arbitrary action of this government. This letter is dated January 21 and comes from the Banff Advisory Council. It is addressed to myself and reads as follows:
Press reports indicate Mr. Chretien has brought you and your administration into the fray. We are most happy that he has.
Attached is a copy of your letter dated January 5, 1962, which clearly indicated you were prepared to use the provincial assessment.
This is with respect io the current controversy in the western parks which results from the reassessment of leasehold rentals in the western parks up to the level, in some instances, of 4,000 per cent. Talk about inflationary tendencies and trends!


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? He is reading into the record a letter and has referred to an increase of 4,000 per cent. Can he substantiate the allegation about the 4,000 per cent?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall not be deterred from the purpose I have in mind, which is to read the contents of this letter into the record in order to straighten out the distortions that were deliberately placed on the record by the minister responsible.


Thomas Miller Bell: Where is the minister now?


Mr. Basford:: Who wrote the letter?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The minister will not come into the House.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To quote the words of the minister the other day, the parliamentary secretary is obviously responsible and capable. Perhaps, as somebody said, he is more capable than the minister himself, and I am
February 10, 1970



sure he can verify himself the fact I brought out. The letter continues as follows:
We still find the "standards and principles of the province of Alberta" acceptable.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Who wrote the letter?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That was the formula we had laid down for any reassessment of leasehold rentals. I hear the minister of corporations and high prices asking me who wrote the letter. The letter was written by the president of the Banff Advisory Council, which represents the voice of the people in the Banff National Park. I want to point out the problem that is created by this bill.


Mr.   Koney@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order,
please. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr.   Koney@: I may have misunderstood the hon. member, but I gathered from the last exchange we had-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Is this a question of privilege?


Russell Clayton Honey: I will state it, if hon. members will not get so excited.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, surely you will not allow the hon. member to interrupt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. We already have a question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that, but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: May we
have order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but why should we disrupt the order
of speeches?


Mr.   Koney@: My question of privilege is with respect to a statement made by the hon. member regarding an increase in rental of 4,000 per cent. I asked him whether he would give the House details of the allegation. I understood the hon. member would do so when he had finished reading the letter. I am asking him now whether he is prepared to do so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Stop buzzing like a bee.
National Parks Act


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Talk about Information
Canada! I think the name of the new agency should be Misinformation Canada. The red herrings that the hon. parliamentary secretary is drawing at this time are indicative of that.


Russell Clayton Honey: Answer the question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Where is the minister?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This problem affects particularly the national parks of western Canada and is further discrimination on the part of the government against a region of Canada which is already in a very serious state of alienation because of the arbitrary action of the present Liberal administration. One of the reasons for this feeling of alienation and isolation is that the government refuses to listen to the responsible representations of the people who live in the western provinces. Whenever the responsible voice of the westerner is heard with regard to the national parks, the minister and other spokesmen for the goverment immediately apply the red herring tactic by suggesting that it is only the avaricious, commercial interests who wish to preserve the traditional rights of the western national parks.
Let me point out, so there will be no mistake in this matter, that western Canada has the real need for the preservation, conservation and wise management of our natural resources has been recognized. There are no national parks in the province of Quebec. There are only minor national parks in the province of Ontario. Why? Because those provinces are not willing to make available the land that would be required for national parks purposes. There has been a tentative suggestion that the government of Quebec would make land available in the Gaspe, but on the basis of special privileges such as a 99-year lease rather than surrendering it to the Federal Crown in perpetuity.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Let there be no mistake about this matter. Western Canada is accused of being avaricious and predatory with respect to its natural resources. I would give the lie to that statement by indicating that it is only in western Canada that huge areas of land have been made available in the interests of the preservation of these resources for the present and future generations of Canadians, as the National Parks Act specifies.
There are also parks in the maritime provinces, but there is no leasehold problem there.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
In the early days when parks were first established in the west, population was comparatively small but distances were great. Town-sites were already established, particularly in Banff and Jasper, which made it necessary for the government, in coming to terms with the provincial authorities on the development of national parks, to provide for leaseholds in perpetuity.
I want to deal with the question of perpetual leaseholds because it is the essence of the complaint that has been bothering the residents, particularly of the mountain parks, during the past few years. When the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sula-tycky)-who should know better because he is the spokesman for the residents of these parks, their only voice in this House, even though the minister will not come in and listen to him-attempts to imply that the policy of cancellation of leaseholds in perpetuity in western national parks was as a result of the prior administration, he is serving as an apologist for the government.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Is he serving the interests of the people he represents and doing his duty as their spokesman in this House of Commons? I have here an official statement from the National Parks Branch which reviews the whole leasehold situation from the latter 1950s when a moratorium was declared on further leaseholds, further alienation of land for national parks, until a total review of all western parks could be made and a master plan developed which would ensure that those parks would meet the high standards required under the National Parks Act. In 1963 the principle of perpetuity was cancelled by the then Liberal government, and this is the point where the controversy began. I have here, in the statement from the parks branch, clause 7 which states: "Under the present minister", referring to the minister who came into office in 1963-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You mean the new Senator.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Clause 7 states as follows:
(a)	On assignments leases are changed to 42-year non-renewable leases instead of leaving the leases basically unchanged until they come up for a normal renewal date.
(b)	Normal renewals of perpetual renewal leases are for a term of 42 years only instead of the 42-plus 21-leases initiated by the previous administration.
(c)	For non-commercial residential properties, new leases for previously unalienated land, leases issued on assignments and leases issued as normal

renewals contain a clause providing for payment to lessees of compensation for improvements at fair market value.
That is a statement from the parks branch. I would be very happy to supply the hon. member for Rocky Mountain with a copy of it for his edification. I hope he did not intend to deliberately distort the record, because if so he is doing a serious disservice to the people of the west.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Certainly.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Is it not a fact that between 1958 and 1963, 252 perpetual leases were not, in fact, renewed?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, if that was the case, it was contrary to government policy and was done outside the minister's knowledge. As a matter of fact, when complaints concerning problems of this kind came to my attention I made an extensive tour of the national parks to meet with the Advisory Councils of Banff, Jasper and the other parks to ensure that there would be no injustice in this regard. I did not tell the people that if they did not like it they could get out of the national parks. We listened to their representations and, as the letter indicates, the people were quite happy.


Allen B. Sulatycky: But the hon. member does not deny that 252 leases were not renewed between 1958 and 1963?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky), who I thought was an able representative-


Mr. Orange:: He is.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: He has joined the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) in that when it is a case of the government versus the people-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Answer the question, Walter.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -they come down on the side of the government-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Answer the question. There were 252 leases under your signature.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I shall send a copy of this official departmental statement to the member for Northwest Territories who, confidentially in conversation with me, tells me that he
February 10, 1970

disagrees with the arbitrary, bureaucratic approach of the National Parks Branch in this regard.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sure the conversations I have had with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) have not resulted in discussions regarding the effeciiveness or otherwise of members of the public service or the policy of this government. We may have talked about the policies of the government, confidentially, which he agreed with in those days.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: So much for Information Canada. God help the people of Canada with this sort of nonsense going on amongst their elected representatives.
Mr. Speaker, there is certainly need for the implementation of a comprehensive plan for our national parks which meets the problems well known by everyone concerned with these matters; that is, the increase in leisure time, population explosion, mobility created by roads and cars, and the impact of tourism.
In 1963 the former administration announced a policy which was designed to adapt the parks to the changing circumstances and needs of the people. At the same time it was necessary to operate on the basis of the proposals that came out of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, that is, wise management and multiple use. Essential to the plan was the setting up within the department of a planning division which, as I have already intimated, was to review development in each of the western parks-this is essen ially a western problem-and to come up with a master plan that would see the adequate development of the parks to the end of the century.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Basic to the plan was a zoning policy which would consist of three zones. The townsite or service centre would deal with the problems of Banff and Jasper, permanent townsites, and also with some of the other western parts where there are substantial service centres that operate during the summer months. There would be a buffer zone which would provide camping facilities for the people who wished to get into the recreative environment of the national parks. Finally, there would be a wilderness zone which would remain in a completely undeveloped, wilderness state. This would ensure the preservation of these
National Parks Act
unique land areas, flora and fauna, for all future generations.
A vital part of the plan was that it would be in touch with regional needs because Canada is a big country with different regional requirements. There is provision for the decentralization of administration. An office was established in Calgary for the purpose of coming to a closer realization of the particular needs of the western national parks. So that there might be autonomy in the town-sites, town managers were appointed in order to relieve the superintendents of the park areas from the responsibility of administering the problems of the townsites.
There were also plans afoot for new national parks, because the number of national parks, in the face of the growing demand, must be doubled immediately if we are to meet the needs of our people for recreational facilities. Terra Nova, Newfoundland, and a new national park in Nova Scotia were established. Negotiations were under way for parks in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and for the preservation of that unique land in southwestern Saskatchewan, the cypress hills prairie lands, the home of the prairie dog, as extolled in the old song, where the deer and the antelope play.
There has been no real progress along these lines in the last seven years except for repeated announcement that new national parks will be developed. A federal-provincial parks conference was established so there would be continuous communication between the federal and provincial authorities. It is primarily a provincial problem, involving alienation of provincial land. The provinces of On' ario and Quebec are reluctant to permit the alienation of their land to the Crown. Little wonder, for we have a minister who refuses to accept his responsibility for listening to the advice and helpful information that hon. members concerned with these problems can offer.
More important still, again arising out of the Resources for Tomorrow Conference of 1961, a private group was established concerned with our national and provincial parks. We now have a Provincial and Federal Parks Association which has been making an excellent contribution to the on-going discussion concerning the preservation of our park resources.
To indicate that there was some public approval of the plan, an editorial in the Albertan of January 25, 1963, following the announcement of the program that I have

February 10. 1970
National Parks Act
outlined briefly tonight was headed, "Bravo, Mr. Dinsdale!". The editorial wholly endorsed the plan which was laid down at that time. There was a similar editorial in the Calgary Herald. Both these editorials arose from the fact that the announcement was made in the province of Alberta which perhaps has the largest land area devoted to national parks.
The situation has deteriorated sadly since that time. The government has arbitrarily cancelled perpetual leases. A parliamentary committee went to the mountain parks three or four years ago and for three days listened to the voice of the people there. I thought they made a convincing case, but the government decided otherwise and came up with this leasehold Crown corporation as a solution to a problem that was becoming embarrassing to the government. Incidentally, this is not a new act. It was first proposed in 1967, as I recall, before the last election. Because it was politically embarrassing, the government decided not to proceed with it. As a result of the administrative decree which had arbitrarily removed fundamental rights of the people-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. He will be allowed to continue only with unanimous consent of the House.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Could I ask the hon.
member another question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Is the hon. member for Brandon-Souris aware of the recommendation of the Glassco Commission, that the commissioners of the national parks be part of an autonomous commission? This proposal stemmed from that. This was in 1962, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am aware of the voice of the people of the Rocky Mountain constituency which is opposed to what the government is now suggesting. Surely, the voice of the people of Canada should take priority over the task forces, the commissions, royal commissions, Information Canada and all the other administrative bodies which have no authority or responsibility to the people of Canada. Surely, the voice of the people is much more important than these faceless bodies.

Because of the arbitrary administrative decree which removed a fundamental right of the people of the parks which had been granted by the Crown, the people took the matter to the Exchequer Court. The Exchequer Court upheld the rights of the people. Now the minister, great democrat that he is, has taken this question to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to have the opinion reversed. The latest controversy revolves around the exhorbitant increase in leasehold rentals to which I have already made reference. My friend the parliamentary secretary disputes the figures. Unfortunately, I do not have time to go into a detailed analysis; but as was pointed out in the letter which I read, the residents of the park are quite happy with the provincial assessment rates as the basis. They are the ones affected by the exhorbitant figures to which I have already referred.
The protests of the people of the national parks is a western protest. Surely, the government is not so insensitive to the problem of national unity in this country that it refuses to regard this as a special regional problem in the west. An article in the January 16, 1970, edition of the Calgary Herald is headed, "Chretien tells Banff 'Like it or Leave'." There is real, responsible democracy for you!
My time is rapidly coming to an end. I want to indicate that there is a need for change and reform with respect to the administration of the western national parks. I think the other provinces should come into the national parks system. We need a rapid increase in the number of national parks available. We need recreational parks. There was a program all set to roll which would have provided financial assistance to the provinces to expand their recreational parks network.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
In addition, in the light of the unhappy experience in our western national parks, we need to reinforce the zoning principles laid down in 1963 so that there could be a special category of parks which might well be called national wilderness parks. The zoning principle was designed to prevent any further deterioration of the wilderness in the western parks. Westerners, above all others, realize the importance of preserving this aspect of our national resources. The boundaries of wilderness parks and the zoning in national parks have to be established by legislation because, obviously, the government cannot be
February 10, 1970

trusted to adhere to policies which it has itself enunciated in the past.
The townsites require special administration, which again ought to be dealt with by special legislation. Banff and Jasper were towns before they were included in national parks. Surely, it is the essence of bureaucracy gone mad to try to ignore the fact that Canadians live within the national parks in townsites, on a permanent basis. They, too, are entitled to the same rights as all Canadians. They are not avaricious. They are not seeking personal aggrandizement. Indeed, they are in the forefront of those who insist that the national parks be preserved and developed in accordance with the highest possible standards.
In addition to the zoning, which has been accepted by the residents in the national parks, I think we should become seriously concerned about the establishment of national seashore sanctuaries. This demand is given even greater urgency by what is happening off the coast of Nova Scotia today. We should also be preserving the primitive wilderness along the course of some of our great national rivers. These are the things we should be concerned about, instead of becoming bureaucratically involved in further removing the fundamental rights of Canadians who live in the national parks of Canada, people who have developed those parks and made a unique contribution to the quality of Canadian life everywhere in so doing. Some of them have made this their life's work. Now, because of this arbitrary legislation, they are likely to see it swept away, not even by elected parliamentary representatives but by faceless figures operating under the protection of a Crown corporation.
I know this attempt to get a response from the government is like shouting into the wind, because when it comes to western members the government has demonstrated time and time again that it has not the slightest intention of listening to the elected representatives of the people. I plead with the government, in the interest of peace, order and good government in this country, to listen. It is not good enough for the minister responsible for developing this important aspect of public policy to absent himself from the House because he does not want to listen to the elected representatives.
I began by pointing out that Information Canada amounts to so much nonsense and possesses all the ominous overtones of an effort by a government arrogant long before
National Parks Act
its time to develop a propaganda machine which will confuse the issue to such an extent that the people will scarcely know what their rights and privileges are.


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


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was interrupted on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, and the clock indicates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can complete my remarks in a few sentences. I was about to conclude by pleading with the government to listen to the voice of western Canada. It is a responsible voice. Western Canada has made huge areas of its territory available for the preservation of regions of special beauty, as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) has indicated. The parks are among the few areas near the prairies which offer an opportunity for recreational benefit and refreshment to the people. The people of Canada who work in the parks, and who are directly interested in them, are just as concerned about their development in accordance with the highest standards as are the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Let us not stir up trouble and division in this country by passing arbitrary administrative legislation, which is the only description I can give to Bill C-152.


Russell Clayton Honey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member's time has expired. Furthermore, if the parliamentary secretary speaks at this time, he will close the debate.


Russell Clayton Honey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish merely to ask the hon. member a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: I gather the hon. member is opposed to the policy of charging economic rents in the national parks. If so, is his party also opposed to that policy?

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I think I gave the parliamentary secretary too much credit. His minister said he was an excellent man, that he was capable-


Russell Clayton Honey: Perhaps the hon. member would answer my question.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The hon. member asks if I am opposed to equitable assessment.


Russell Clayton Honey: No; to economic rents.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Let us make them equitable, too.


Russell Clayton Honey: The word used was "economic". The question was whether the hon. member wants economic rents to be charged. If he wishes to answer another question, that is fine, but the question I put to him was whether he opposes the policy of charging an economic rent in the national parks, and if so, does his party also oppose that policy?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: This question was answered seven or eight years ago when we held detailed consultations with the people most concerned in the national parks. As the letter I read from the president of the Banff Advisory Council indicates, they are quite happy with the economic rental formula which was laid down by the former administration. I quote again, because obviously the hon. member did not hear the sentence: "We still find the standards and principles of the province of Alberta acceptable." I would regard that as referring to an economic rent.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be short. Many people in my constituency are concerned about the form of the developments taking place in our national parks, particularly in the national park at Waskesiu in Prince Albert National Park. They are concerned, as I suppose all Canadians are, about overcrowding, the influx of cars and the increased use of facilities that is going to be the fate of our national parks, particularly the one that we have in northern Saskatchewan.
Changes are already under way. The park has been developed over the years and the people there lived in very modest residences such as shacks, summer cottages, and so on. Recent policy seeks to change this situation. The change will be either gradual or rapid, but nevertheless it will be a change. This particular park, at least up to the present time, has been what I would call a community

park in the sense that people in northern Saskatchewan, and even further south, have used it as a community. There has not been in the past a great influx of tourists from other areas.
What I and the people of Saskatchewan are concerned about is that a corporation is to be given the job of running the park. We would like to know whether the park is still going to serve the community as a community park. What is going to be the cost of accommodation for those who live in the accommodation centres that are to be set up? Will the ordinary people of Saskatchewan be able to afford to use the park as they have until now? Will those who visit the park for a short stay, either with or without camping equipment, be able to obtain the kind of accommodation they need, at reasonable rates? Indeed, will they have access to the park at all? Will the local people, or the expected influx of tourists benefit from the facilities offered by the park?
We are also concerned about the importance of preserving our natural heritage and the beauty of the wilderness there. Not too long ago some young people in Saskatchewan who had recently visited the park wrote me to ask why the cabin of that great naturalist, Grey Owl, which they had assumed was an historic monument, had fallen into decay. I wrote to the department involved and asked what was to be the future of this very important historic monument and I was informed that there were certain plans under way to preserve it.
This is the sort of thing that gives people in northern Saskatchewan cause for concern. They want a place of beauty, a place of natural wilderness, accessible by ordinary means of transportation and which can be enjoyed by ordinary people. I hope that before this debate is over the minister will be able to convince the House that a corporation such as that envisaged will be able to maintain this kind of environment for the people of Saskatchewan. I hope there will be clear guidelines to ensure that the interests and needs of the people of Saskatchewan are looked after. I hope the House will be given the assurance that those who now have accommodation in the park will continue to have that kind of accommodation.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want at this time to make a few remarks on the general subject of the importance of parks in our national life. For a long time, of course, during the early period of our
February 10, 1970



development as a nation-this can be said equally of the United States-people looked upon themselves as striving against an overwhelming wilderness which seemingly they might never overcome. However, people of foresight such as President Roosevelt-I refer to Teddy Roosevelt-recognized that wherever man went, he left the land in ruin; that there was a great necessity for setting land apart as a legacy for future generations. In this way they would be in a position to enjoy nature at its best.
In addition, areas of wilderness should be preserved in their virgin state for historic purposes, using the wider sense of the word, so that Canadians both of this and future generations realize what our early settlers and forefathers had to struggle against in opening up this great North American continent. The foresight exhibited by outstanding men such as Teddy Roosevelt has been an invaluable asset to the United States. He was instrumental in setting aside vast stretches of virgin country as the legacy of future generations. The same thing was done in Canada to a considerable extent and we owe a great deal to those men and governments who had the foresight to take this step.
However, this bill, which is an important one, contains provisions with which I disagree. The bill exhibits a trend that is evident in many federal government activities- removing government further and further from the governed. The government is setting up corporations and other faceless organizations to act as a buffer between government, which is elected to be the people's servant, and the people it is supposed to serve. It is my contention that the more directly the government is responsible to the people, the better it functions, because it is then held directly responsible to the people for its activities.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I note that this bill-and I will not go into this matter at great length now because it can be examined more carefully in committee- changes the description of a number of our national parks. From a quick perusal of the appendices to the bill it would seem that at least four of our parks are to be reduced in size. This reduction may not be significant. The four parks to which I refer are Water ton Lakes, Kootenay, Prince Albert and Prince Edward Island. These may be very minor changes in the boundaries, but this is something we have to find out. In any event, in my judgment this trend is in the wrong direction.
National Parks Act
I notice that the Terra Nova National Park in Newfoundland is to be extended in area under the terms of this bill.
There are many reasons for national parks. The most obvious one, which is perhaps readily recognized by urban people, is for vacation purposes. National parks are places for recreation; that is one of their benefits. Facilities should be provided in suitable terrain set aside for various types of recreation. There are other questions involved. National parks, in my judgment, should be established to preserve in each part of our country typical areas in as near a natural, virgin state as possible in order that people will know what the land was like as God made it.
Some areas of our country have special attractions. In the park that is partly in my own constituency, the Prince Edward Island National Park, there exists one of the finest beaches in Canada. There are excellent beaches in the maritime provinces; in Prince Edward Island, parts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. More of these beaches should be set aside in the form of parks for public use. In this way everyone, rich or poor, would have access to them and would be able to enjoy their benefits.
Even in Prince Edward Island our beaches are not our only asset. I recommend that a second park be provided in Prince Edward Island. This matter has been under discussion for a long time between the two levels of government. We should set aside additional fine beach areas on the island for national park use. There is also a necessity for setting aside, before it is too late, areas in Prince Edward Island that are as near their virgin state as any to be found, for the preservation of the wildlife which still exists. This would allow the remaining species of wildlife in Prince Edward Island to continue. Perhaps they would not become extinct, as has been the case in respect of too many small animals and birds.
It is too late now to preserve a habitat for many of the small animals that were native to our province. It is not too late to preserve an area which would be a suitable habitat for migratory birds. In Prince Edward Island we have a vast number of migratory birds for which a habitat should be provided in order to preserve their existence. In this way people could enjoy the very relaxing recreation referred to by most people as birdwatching but which I prefer to call communion with nature.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
One of the most beneficial experiences that society can have, and which is becoming more and more urbanized, more and more polluted with pollutants and noise, is that of isolation or to be able to go where one can obtain peace, quiet and solitude. I am old-fashioned enough to believe that solitude not only heals the body but heals the mind. It is essential that people experience it periodically if they are to have recreation in the true sense of the word.
Therefore, I recommend strongly that the government consider carefully the provision of not less but more area for national parks, even if these areas cannot be developed at the present time. Land costs will increase and the longer this program is delayed, the harder it will be to accomplish. There will be developments of various kinds, and the environment will be destroyed. It will then be too late to take advantage of these areas. I would urge the minister, if he were here, to consider the necessity of taking action now to protect the future of Canadians yet unborn.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-152, titled "an Act to amend the National Parks Act". I read the bill with interest and taken as a whole, I find it deserves our close attention since it deals with an important subject, that is the expansion and operation of resort areas, the preservation of our wildlife and the development of our natural resources.
I would like to consider the problem mostly from the point of view of Quebec. The previous speaker noted that Quebec may not be a province like the others, that it does not benefit from national parks and that, in comparison with other provinces, its natural resources remain undeveloped.
In that regard, I wish to recall the problem about the famous Forillon Park in the Gaspe Peninsula.
The federal government has been taking steps recently to set up a national park in that area. On the other hand, the Quebec government is also taking steps, having studies made with a view to having a park in the same area which, however, is not intended to be "national". Although it is quite willing to accept the funds required from the federal government.
That is what could be called a constitutional quarrel between the Quebec government

and the federal government. In the meantime, Quebec has yet to have a national park.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time we put an end to our constitutional quarrels, specially when dealing with the development of part of our country, with the development of its natural resources, as in the case of a national park in the Gaspe peninsula which is an underdeveloped area where tourism alone guarantees a certain income, admittedly quite modest, to its people.
On the one hand, the Quebec government tells the people that the government in Ottawa is to blame, that it refuses to negotiate; neither does Ottawa want to negotiate with a view to reaching a reasonable compromise. On the other hand, the federal minister says: We cannot accede fully to the request of the provincial government, because of such and such a section in the constitution, because it could lead to this or that inconvenience, because of such and such a precedent.
Obviously, as a result Quebec has no federal parks. Now, over $335 million were spent in other provinces for national parks, while not a single penny has been spent in Quebec.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It seems to me that if the provincial government is not reasonable in this particular matter, the federal government for his part, lies low and does not react in any way to the problems and injustices thereby created.
It is high time to wake up and to say, once and for all, that in Quebec as well as in the other provinces, our natural resources must be developed and made profitable, so as to give reasonable impetus to our tourist industry.
It is high time that we should stop playing politics, and passing the buck. Indeed, we have wealth, such as forests, animal life and lakes, but all those things are wasted because no one is concerned about developing them.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. members who spoke before me on the subject were partly right but I do not agree with them when they put the blame for it mainly on the provincial government for his attitude. It is all too easy for the federal government to say that the provincial government is the only one at fault. However, if one gives a close look at the matter, one realizes, that the problem lies on both sides of the fence.
Whenever an interesting bill like Bill C-152 comes up for consideration before the House, there are of course points on which we do not
February 10, 1970

all agree but I dare say that no Canadian will oppose the idea of developing our resources.
I would like to put forward a suggestion and ask the representatives of the federal government responsible for the setting up of the first federal park in Quebec to make some concessions while paying due respect to the wishes of the Quebec government, which they failed to do when the creation of the Forillon park was discussed.
The federal government, allegedly because it is the central government, would like the provinces always to bow down to its wishes. This is a bad attitude and Canadians are still suffering from it.
Last year, I put a question on the order paper. The answer which I received was obviously ridiculous. I asked: Can the minister tell us if discussions have been held between the federal government and the provincial government of Quebec, or if it is intended to hold any? In short, the question read as follows:
Does the government intend to establish other federal parks in the province of Quebec?
The answer was as follows, and I quote:
No.
My first question was as follows:
Does the government intend to establish other federal parks in the province of Quebec a) if not. for what reason? b) if so, where?
Answer:


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.	a) The federal government would welcome-
-it is again a good pious wish-
-any request from the province of Quebec for the establishment of other national parks in the province;
b) Any area in the province considered of national significance and worthy of preservation for future generations.
That is precisely the crux of the problem. It is obvious that the province of Quebec has vast territories that are worthy of being preserved and developed for future generations, which would represent untold wealth.
The federal government replies: we are waiting for a request from the provincial government. Whenever we ask the same question, to the Quebec government, we get this reply: We do not dare ask Ottawa for anything because they will answer no. If we make a request to Ottawa, they will say it has to be a national park and will refuse to respect provincial rights in this regard. And so there is no national park in Quebec.
National Parks Act
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the other question, as I am sure you will be interested. I quote:
2.	Since the adoption of the act respecting federal parks, how much money has been spent on federal parks and of that amount, how much has gone to the province of Quebec?
The answer was the following:
2.	Since the establishment of the first national park (Banff) in 1885, $355,289,424 was spent on national parks in Canada. (This comprises operation and maintenance, capital investments and money spent on trunk highways.) Since there were no national parks in Quebec, no money was spent in that province for national parks.
So that was the result. An amount of $335,289,424 was spent in other provinces because the federal government thought it was worthwhile to develop those parks. Since the federal government is playing politics at the expense of the Quebecers and since the Quebec government does the same, the result is that there is no national park in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, $355 million were spent in other provinces and Quebec got nothing for the simple reason that both levels of government are taking pleasure in passing the buck and playing politics at the expense of Quebecers.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
As there is a Liberal government in Ottawa and a Conservative one in Quebec, words give rise to conflicts. One day, the people in Gaspe are told that, thanks to the federal government, they will have a national park. The next day, the provincial minister states that the province cannot participate fully in the federal government's project because this section of the Constitution or that right are not respected or again because this or that wish of the province is not taken into account
Then new discussions are begun, following which the ministers answer members' questions arrogantly, stating: We are now considering the possibility of creating a national park.
That is what led me to ask the third question, and I quote:
Is the government negotiating with the government of the province of Quebec with a view to establishing other federal parks in that province?
And what was the answer?
3.	No.
That is where things stand as of now. Neither the federal government nor the provincial government are serious enough to take any steps likely to help the development of the tourist industry in Quebec.

February 10, 1970
National Parks Act
The weakness of Bill C-152 is that it does not provide lor an alternative that would force the powers that be to get down to work seriously and to find, once and for all, ways and means of developing the country's natural wealth, and in particular Quebec's riches. Clause 1 of the bill provides for the setting up of a Corporation, but is followed by meaningless generalities giving no assurance that the act will actually benefit all Canadians, and not only some of them.
This act will not affect Quebec at all, while continuing availability to other provinces of the corresponding funds. Therefore, when the minister submits the same bill next year, to change at best a few words, if he is asked whether negotiations are underway, tending to make the same advantages available to Quebec as to the other provinces, he will reply that if anything is wrong it is Quebec's fault.
It is time we faced our responsibilities and recognized that Quebec has vast unexplored resources, shamelessly wasted because of the apathy of our governments whose only concern is gaining votes.
The people of Quebec should at last open their eyes and withdraw their confidence from politicians, those of Quebec as well as those of Ottawa, who have been elected to wage a war of words rather than develop natural resources for the use of Canadians.
I hope that some day, in Ottawa as well as in Quebec City, we shall have as heads of government men who will be responsible, worthy of the name statesmen, and who will undertake to develop our natural resources for the use of the population.
Only then will we be able to say that proposed legislation such as Bill C-152 will really serve Canadians and promote the development of natural resources. Otherwise, we are merely talking and wasting time. It is unfortunate that nobody, it seems to me, is interested in solving the problem. It is preferred to bury one's head in the sand, raise it up again, make three statements and launch a red carpet war, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so ably said. I hope that what he said will eventually be understood: Enough of that nonsense. I hope he understands it himself and tells his ministers to negotiate, not so much as Liberals but as Canadians, to develop our country's wealth.
This is my wish. I am asking the minister to try and improve the contents of the bill and to give some guarantee to Parliament

that natural resources will be developed from coast to coast and not only in one region of the country.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-152 states that it is an act to amend the National Parks Act. This in itself, I would assume, provides a wide subject for those who wish to speak on it. However, on reading the bill I noticed that there are really only two main points: one is to set up a Crown corporation to administer the national parks, and the other is to designate the boundaries of the national parks which are already established in Canada.
I say at the outset that I take strong exception to the government's plan to set up a Crown corporation to administer our national parks. I think, as do many speakers who preceded me, that this plan will be merely another way of passing the goverment's responsibility to a group of people in a Crown corporation. It will be a way in which the government will endeavour to absolve itself of all responsibility for the operation of national parks.
On looking closely at Bill C-152 we find that should the minister, in his wisdom, feel the Crown corporation is not administering the parks to his liking, he can step in and veto any decision which it makes. I am not sure whether this is an admission by the government that a Crown1 corporation can do a better job of administering our parks. This may be quite true. However, I think it goes much deeper than that, because I believe the government ought not to have the best of two worlds.
I said that I was not in favour of the government setting up a Crown corporation to administer national parks. But in one or two respects this may not be a bad idea, because on looking over the policies of some of our Crown corporations I find that they provide a few benefits over and above those which the government is prepared to provide for the people using our national parks.
I mention in particular the Clear Lake National Park in Manitoba, where a very important and widely publicized golf tournament is held every year. It is called the Grey Owl golf tournament and it opens the season for the national park. This tournament brings great economic benefit to the park at that time of the year. It is held each year during the first week end of June, or thereabouts, and 300 or more entries are received, plus
February 10, 1970

countless hundreds of people who come to enjoy the tournament and to take in the weekend at the park when it is in progress.
On occasion, the sponsors of this golf tournament have approached me to see whether the minister would take into consideration the great contribution that it is mailing at the opening of the season at Clear Lake National Park, and whether certain regulations in relation to the fees normally charged could be altered so that either a subsidy could be granted or at least a special fee set. I understand that this is done in some parts of Canada, but on several occasions when I have approached the minister he has told me this would be impossible.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
To get back to what I said previously, in some respects it may be better for a Crown corporation to take over the administration of the parks, although I would not agree to a full takeover. I would point out that Air Canada, which is a Crown corporation, and Canadian National Railways offer beneficial rates to large parties; they have group fares. But this government will give no consideration to a tournament the size of the Grey Owl golf tournament held in Clear Lake National Park. Green fees last year were raised to $4 and the tournament officials were told, "If you have 300 golfers, you will pay $1,200 for them to play one round apiece." This means $2,400 for the two rounds which they play. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a Crown corporation would do a better job than the government is doing. However, I reiterate that I am not in favour of the government turning over all its responsibilities to a Crown corporation.
We all know the many concerns of the people residing in the national parks and of those operating businesses in the parks. In December, 1966, as a result of many protests from residents of the western parks arising from cancellation of long-standing, historic leasing rights by order in council, the Standing Committee on Northern Affairs and National Resources visited Banff and Jasper on a fact-finding mission. During hearings lasting three days the committee found that the citizens affected agreed with the necessity for a change in leasing policy to meet the growing recreational needs of today, while at the same time conforming to the conservation principles of wise management and multiple use of our renewable resources which emerged from the Resources for Tomorrow Conference of 1961.
National Parks Act
The protests arose because the changes were made by administrative decree rather than by act of Parliament, and also because cancellation of perpetual leases provided no compensation in respect of commercial properties. The main protest at that time was supported by a comprehensive brief presen: ed by Mr. G. H. Steer, Q.C., of Edmonton, which argued the illegality of government ac ion by order in council rather than by act of Parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, the committee report tabled in the House completely ignored those representations.
It is no wonder that the leaseholders in many of our parks are at their wits end to know what compensation they can get and what hearing they will receive from a government that arbitrarily passes laws of this nature by order in council. It makes one wonder just what the position of these leaseholders would be if the administration of parks were turned over to a Crown corporation. We all know what has happened in recent times with respect to individuals dealing wiih Crown corporations. I ci e the example of the city of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba generally and the great difficulty they had when Air Canada decided to move its facilities from Winnipeg to Mon'real. The people concerned in Winnipeg are still looking for answers, mainly because they feel they could not pin the government down since it was a decision by a Crown corporation. The findings of the committee at that lime were another example of the growing tendency of the government to implement policies by administra'ive decree rather than by parliamentary action.
Mr. Speaker, my time is drawing to a close. We in Manitoba have repeatedly requested through the provincial government that the federal government establish a second national park in our province. If one asks representatives of the provincial government, they say that they cannot get an answer from Ottawa. I have approached representatives of the federal government, and they say that Manitoba must make the first move. This creates a very difficult situation for people in all parts of Manitoba.
We in the northern part of the province hoped that the second national park in Manitoba would be situated in an area north of or closely adjacent to the 55th parallel. However, we have been told that studies were made of that area which showed it was not suitable for a national park, and that other areas were being examined. The people living
February 10, 1970
3460	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in the other areas that are being examined are anxiously waiting for a decision from the federal government, to be made in conjunction with a decision by the provincial government. I know, from talking to these people, that they would be very disturbed to learn that within the next year or two they will get a new national park but it will be under the jurisdiction of a Crown corporation, with the result that if they have any complaints and take them to the government they will receive the stock answer, "We as a government can do nothing about these complaints because the administration of parks is being handled by a Crown corporation."
We want a second national park. The people of Manitoba and of other provinces are very interested in national parks. From talking to people in my area, and particularly to those who are living in or have business relationships in Clear Lake National Park, I know that since this bill has been introduced they have become very concerned about what the government is trying to do in setting up a Crown corporation to administer the national parks.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Speaker, as my remarks will take a few minutes, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, could we be told by someone the change in business for tomorrow?


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has asked me to announce that he intends to call the order for second reading of the investment companies bill as the first item of business tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my grievance tonight involves the Post Office Department and the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans). I am indeed sorry that the minister has not seen fit to be in the House because I believe he should hear what I have to say. I am disturbed at developments in the Post 

Office Department because I find that little, if any, consideration is being given to any appeal that may come from members of this House, or to representations that come from the people of Canada whom the minister is supposed to serve.
The only product that the Post Office Department has to sell is service, and if it is not intent on rendering that service to the people of Canada it is grossly failing in its responsibilities and obligations to the people of Canada. I believe that practically every member of the House knows and has evidence, in the form of protests, in his files that the Post Office Department is not functioning as well as it used to function. I have been a member of this House for eight years, and I believe that last year I received more complaints about the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Post Office than I did in all the previous seven years.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I am not going to deal with the situation in general tonight, although I was a bit disturbed the other day to receive an urgent letter containing an appeal about the situation in Nigeria which took nine days to come to Ottawa from the city of Toronto. My concern, Mr. Speaker, is with the blanket policy of the Minister of Communications to close all low-income post offices in the country. On May 22, 1969, the Minister of Communications wrote to me stating:
-changing conditions throughout the country, revenue post offices in many of our smaller communities are no longer required. As a consequence, early in 1967 we initiated a program to close these post offices.
In relation to a complaint that I made on June 20, 1969, the Minister of Communications stated in a letter:
In light of our current program to close all small revenue post offices we could not arbitrarily make an exception in this case.
That is the case I was appealing, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the government, through the Minister of Communications, has initiated a policy intended to close all low-income post offices whether or not they are essential to the communities they serve.
The argument the minister uses repeatedly in letters to me when I tried to have him clarify the situation can best be illustrated by saying that he is trying to fit the visitor to the bed. If his legs are too long, he cuts them off; if they are too short, he attempts to stretch them to fit the bed. To be specific, I shall
February 10, 1970

mention a few instances to illustrate that the policy the Minister of Communications has initiated is in many cases completely unjust.
I am not referring to all low-income post offices. I can name at least seven low-income post offices in my constituency that have no justification for continuing. They have very few boxholders and serve very few people, so it is logical that rural route service would be better. But this is not the case in every instance. I want to mention four specific examples. One is the Dickson post office, where there are approximately 30 boxholders in the village and 17 boxholders in the rural area. The cost of this post office is $1,800 a year. The Minister of Communications said it was $2,000 a year, but that is wrong; it is $1,800 a year. The revenue is small, but I maintain that because of the traditional service going back more than 60 years that this post office has rendered, there is no justification for closing it now.
A petition has been signed by every citizen served by this post office, protesting the closing. I am concerned that when I consulted the Minister of Communications, and later investigated the situation on the spot, I learned that in November an official of the post office in Calgary visited the community; he assured the postmaster at Dickson that he had no intention of closing it but was merely investigating the rural route service in the area. However, four weeks later, on December 17, an order was issued to close the post office.
Many of the arguments stated by the Minister of Communications in letters to me are just not logical nor do they actually state the facts. While this is a very small post office, and there is another only a couple of miles away, it will cost far more than $1,800 to provide the service that the people in the village and the area south of the village must have if the post office was closed and rural route delivery substituted. There is no economic gain or saving by closing that post office, and 100 per cent of the people involved want it kept open because it meets their particular needs.
Why is an approach not made to the people to determine whether they want the post office to close or stay open? Why does the government not deal with the matter in a forthright manner and consider the costs of offering a substitute service through the extension of rural route No. 1 from Innisfail? As far as I can determine, this will be much more than the cost of maintaining the post office. No consideration has been given to
DEBATES	3461
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion public opinion, to the economic effects or to the local problems of this post office.
I refer another post office to the attention of the Minister of Communications, the country post office of Bergen. It is true that this post office involves an expenditure of only $1,000 by the Post Office Department, but it serves 50 householders. The Postmaster General says it serves 44. I beg to differ with him, because it serves 50 householders, not 44. A petition has been forwarded to him asking that this post office be retained. Of the 50 householders, 40 agreed this is the type of service they want. To provide rural route delivery to the people who are involved in this remote foothills community will cost much more than the $1,000 which is now involved in maintaining the Bergen post office.
The third post office I wish to bring to the attention of the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications is that of Westward Ho. The cost of this post office is $1,800 a year. The income last year, as far as stamps and money orders were concerned, was less than $700. It serves 63 householders. The department says 56, but I count 67.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Robert Norman Thompson: Might I finish with one sentence, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Regretfully, this is not the practice we have adopted.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson). I am sorry the hon. member started by saying that the minister was not giving care because he was not present in the House. I can assure the member for Red Deer that the minister is in Montreal on post office business this evening. Surely, the hon. member for Red Deer is aware that if he has a problem with post offices in villages in his riding, Montreal also-has a problem with its post offices; and that is why the minister is in Montreal tonight.
I will be glad to bring the hon. member's remarks to the minister's attention on his return. In his absence the minister asked me to provide the member with the following information. I am sure, from the remarks of the hon. member, that he will not be satisfied with this information, but it is what I have been asked to give him.
February 10, 1970
3462	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
There are 10,000 post offices in Canada. By comparison, the United States has only 30,000 post offices, although on a population ra ion that country should have something like 100,000. In Oiher words, the Canadian public is extremely well served with respect to the number and availability of post offices.
The present status of the program to review small post offices is as follows. The number of post offices closed to date, 1,240; number examined and retained, 1,208; number still to be reviewed, 1,450. This program will be completed on September 30, 1970.



NATIONAL REVENUE-REFUND OF SALES TAX ON GRAIN STORAGE EQUIPMENT

Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) would be answering my question this evening because I find it easier to get angry with him over the problems we have in western Canada; he should know how to solve our problems; the parliamentary secretary may not. I will try to be logical in my argument in the hope that it might have some influence on the parliamentary secretary.
I received a complaint from a farmer who had built grain storage facilities in Saskatchewan. He has discovered that he cannot get a tax rebate on this building because it is not the right style. I quote from his letter as follows:
-the building we erected was built primarily for grain storage and now holds over 25,000 bushels of wheat. The way the grain situation is now, this could be in there for another 10 years with what other wheat we have on hand and the quotas we are getting, even without seeding another wheat crop.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to note the following:
The provincial government recognized this as a grain storage building and we cannot understand the federal government's view of this.
I quote from another letter received from this person:
We believe that very few people in this economic situation would build a building costing this much to store machinery and let grain sit outside in piles and spoil. When this much more storage space is needed we feel it much wiser to build one large building than 12 to 14 small bins. We already have 17 other granaries varying in size and a 28' x 40' barn lowered and converted into a grain storage bin, all filled to capacity. To add another dozen small bins would be ridiculous.


e (10:10 p.m.)
From the point of view of economics as applied to this farm, it makes more sense to erect one large building for the storage of grain than to buy several grain storage bins. From the answer given me by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote), or an official of the department, it is not enough, apparently, that a bin should hold grain. It has to look like a grain bin and it should not be capable of use for any purpose but the storage of grain.
I wonder whether the government is serious when it professes to be willing to help farmers who are in trouble because they cannot sell their grain. The Saskatchewan government has recognized that bins of this type are adequate for storage. There is a method by which an individual can apply to his municipality for a permit enabling him to make application for a return of tax. In this case the farmer got a $200 refund, the amount of the 5 per cent sales tax collected by the Saskatchewan government. Thus, one level of government recognizes the principle and I wonder why another level of government declines to do so.
It seems to me the Saskatchewan government acknowledges the seriousness of the situation on the prairies, while the federal government is only playing around. The federal government may not agree with this opinion, but this is what it amounts to. The government should take another look at these cases. Only one farmer has appealed to me, but after talking to other hon. members I know that other farmers are in the same difficulty.
The argument that the grain bins may be used for another purpose is a ridiculous one. No one with any knowledge of the economic situation on the prairies at the present time would believe that a farmer would put up special bins just for the sake of getting a tax rebate. Interest rates alone would rule this out. I maintain that when a farmer puts up a grain storage bin, whether it looks like a granary or not it should be accepted as such provided it holds grain. The Saskatchewan government recognized this principle when it returned the 5 per cent sales tax, and I can see no reason why the federal government should not carry out the intent of its promise to western agriculture in connection with this rebate.
I have one final comment. I am a farmer and if I were erecting another bin on my farm I would probably choose a quonset type
February 10, 1970	COMMONS
of construction because it would make the best sense. If I were to follow the government's logic I would be dissuaded from doing so. The situation to which I have drawn attention occurs frequently on the prairies. These farmers have a case in equity, and it should be considered.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) was surprised to find that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) was not replying to this question. However, since this question concerns the 11 per cent sales tax it is a matter for the Minister of National Revenue. The complaint was that the farmer in question did not get a refund of the 11 per cent sales tax. However, the law provides that the farmer can get this 11 per cent back from his supplier, so maybe there is something wrong in that connection.
This is the answer which the minister has given: The Excise Tax Act imposes the sales tax on the manufacturer, and the department is bound by law to refund this tax to the manufacturer who paid it where the goods are sold under tax exempt conditions. As a result, when a manufacturer of grain storage bins sells them under tax exempt conditions to farmers, exemption should be allowed; but if the tax is charged, the department must refund it to the manufacturer and the farmer should seek reimbursement from the manufacturer. It is normally the practice of manufacturers who have received refunds of sales tax to pass the credit along to their customers. If a farmer applies to the department for a refund of the 11 per cent sales tax on a grain storage bin, he is advised to request a credit of the amount of sales tax paid by the manufacturer on the grain storage bin, from his supplier.
It seems to me that it is the procedure used by the Saskatchewan government that has changed; the law still provides that the farmer can get a refund of sales tax from the supplier. If the hon. member has any specific cases of the government having received the refund from the manufacturer, perhaps he would bring them to the attention of the minister.



AIR TRANSPORT-CTC DECISION RESPECTING PRAIRIE SERVICES

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this is a sad occasion for responsible parliamentary democracy in this House. I noticed that one parliamentary secretary gave 21701-9
DEBATES	3463
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion prepared replies to the questions that have already been raised tonight. Obviously these replies do not take account of anything that the hon. members might have said in their remarks. This is the second occasion tonight on which 1 have had to refer to the fact that ministers are derelict in their duty. It is doubly tragic because most of the problems raised concern western Canada, which is passing through an extremely difficult time of economic distress.
The matter I wish to raise tonight I raised over a week ago. It concerns the decision of the Air Transport Commission to downgrade the quality of air service into western Manitoba. In reply to me, as reported at page 3012 of Hansard, the minister said:
I do not wish to anticipate, but it is my understanding that no service will be discontinued and that the modifications and adjustments contemplated will result in a more viable service being provided to all points now being served. I think a form of rationalization has been undertaken. Once the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission is released, if my hon. friend is still of the opinion that the matter ought to be pursued further I will do whatever is in my competence to do.
Following the announcement that service was being suspended and that the regional air policy, as it affects western Manitoba, was being downgraded from class 1 to class 2 service, I asked a question in the House. In reply to my further question the minister said, as reported at page 3131 of Hansard:
-if it is a matter which could be the subject of appeal to me presumably somebody will appeal it and I will look at it in that form.
The city of Brandon has appealed the decision of the Air Transport Commission. It is unfair, unjust and inequitable so far as this part of western Canada is concerned. I should like a reply from the minister in regard to a very difficult economic situation that flows from the decision of the commission. The airport, which is actually in the constituency of Marquette and serves an important area of industrial development, has been operating under a government subsidy required for first-class service. It is important to know, in the interests of economic development, whether the subsidy will continue with second-class service. The problem arises from the fact that the landing fees, for example, for second-class service will no longer provide the level of support that has hitherto been provided. It is urgent that the people concerned have some understanding in this regard.
February 10, 1970

Proceedings an Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Second, a new passenger terminal is now being constructed at this airport with the concurrence of the Department of Transport, which is participating to the extent of $89,000. This is a commitment in writing and it is imperative that we know just where the commitment stands at the moment. Unfortunately, the effective date is February 16, next Monday. I trust that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who has in his replies shown a great deal of sympathy and understanding for this problem in terms of ensuring equity and fair treatment for all parts of Canada, will give the matter his urgent consideration.
I trust the parliamentary secretary will communicate to him what I have endeavoured to say tonight with respect to subsidizing Air Canada. Air Canada is indirectly subsidizing many communities by providing service. I should also point out that the huge, government expenditures which are to be made in central Canada, running into hundreds of millions of dollars, to keep pace with the rapidly expanding air age are perhaps necessary. I very sincerely point out, also, that western Canada must keep pace with this rapidly expanding air age, and I suggest to the government that this area is entitled to a fair share of government support.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-[DOT]


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
are a busy man tonight.


Gérard Loiselle: Yes, I am a pinch-hitter. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris was complaining at the beginning that he was surprised to see that the parliamentary secretary had prepared replies. Did he expect an unprepared answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), which would indicate a reopening of the post offices which are closed? I believe I gave a good answer to the question regarding sales tax. I feel that the answers prepared for me are of assistance.
What I am now going to tell the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is what the minister would have told him. He knows that the
minister is interested in the western area and will consider the economic situation of that part of the country. I shall not review the CTC decision because the hon. member knows there are procedures provided by law for this. However, I wish to tell him that I am informed that Midwest, a subsidiary of Transair, is continuing to provide service to Brandon using Viscount and Hawker-Siddeley 748 aircraft on a frequency and as a part of a route pattern that was established several years ago.
The CTC has authorized Midwest to provide another sort of service, one that might be identified as being specially designed to accommodate the needs of the community. It is anticipated that the new service will be instituted in a matter of weeks, upon the publication of new flight schedules. In the meantime, I am told that Midwest is doing its best to collaborate with representatives of the people of Brandon in making arrangements for the commencement of the new service.
Having regard to the new argument the hon. member has put forward tonight, I assure him the minister will take note of it. If we have more information than I have given tonight, it will be the minister's pleasure to provide the House with this information.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I understand that under Standing Order 40(4) I am entitled to ask a question, after the 30-minute period, about future House business. In future when we are considering these late-show questions, if it would not be asking too much of the government perhaps it would have in the House the parliamentary secretaries involved with the questions to be debated. I have no quarrel with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport; it is not his problem. Surely these people can get up off their fannies and get here at night to answer these questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gérard Loiselle: The hon. member should know that the Minister of Communications has no parliamentary secretary, and neither has the Minister of National Revenue.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, February 11, 1970