1970-06-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) presented the ninth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table on behalf of the government the interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs. The report is tabled in the form in which it was presented to the government on May 28 and represents the first year's work of the commission.
I am sure that hon. members join me in thanking the members of the commission for their efforts to date. In reading the report, everyone will realize the scope and complexity of the problems faced by the commission in this document and will wish them well in the job ahead.
In tabling the report I would like to emphasize to hon. members, many of whom have been unhappy that the report has not been made public sooner, that the government has had only a very brief opportunity to study the many recommendations and suggestions contained in the report. However, the government would like to express its views at this time with respect to one of the commission's recommendations. This recommendation, on page 521 of the report, deals with psychotropic drugs, which the commission defines as having "capacity to alter sensation, mood, consciousness, or other psychological or behavioural functions".
The recommendation reads:
At the same time the commission is of the opinion that no one should be liable to imprisonment for simple possession of a psychotropic drug for nonmedical purposes.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
Accordingly, the commission recommends as an interim measure, pending its final report, that the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act be amended to make the offence of simple possession under these acts punishable upon summary conviction by a fine not exceeding a reasonable amount. The commission suggests a maximum fine of $100.
The commission includes such drugs as heroin, methamphetamines, LSD and so on in its definition of psychotropic drugs. This government believes that current medical and sociological information does not justify all-encompassing changes and will await the completion of the commission's final report with interest.
On one point, however, Mr. Speaker, the government feels it should make its position known. In the case of marijuana it is the intention of the government to give consideration to the question of recommending to Parliament that this drug be transferred from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act in a way that simple possession of marijuana could be prosecuted by summary conviction as an offence not subject to jail terms-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: -with a system of graduated fines for first and subsequent offences.
Government reaction to the other recommendations in the report will be announced to hon. members in due course, although I would like to point out that prior to the receipt of the report the government had already proceeded with many matters which are recommendations of the commission, particularly in the areas of research and information. A listing of those now under way is tabled with the report.
8330	COMMONS
Tabling of LeDain Interim. Report
In conclusion, it is recognized that the nonmedical use of drugs is a serious problem which affects many Canadian families now and could affect the health and welfare of future generations. I hope that the tabling of the report will stimulate a constructive discussion in which all hon. members will participate.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, unquestionably the non-medical use of drugs is one of the most serious problems our society faces. Now that we have received the report we can get down to a discussion of its merits. But before doing so I must say, Sir, that having had a chance at least to scan the report, and having heard the minister's statement this morning I am at a complete loss to understand why the government felt it was necessary to keep this report secret from the House and from the public for as long as it did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have to say, Sir, that I see absolutely no excuse for the government's conduct in this regard. May I say one more thing before I come to the merits of the report. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) threw out a challenge to the opposition. He said that he hoped we would be able to reach a decision with regard to the recommendations of the report as soon as the government.
I am glad to be able to say that even though we have had the report for only two hours we have had no difficulty at all in going at least as far as the government has been able to go after having the report for a month.
The report is wide-ranging, Mr. Speaker, as one would expect. It is an interim report and I will not attempt to make any definitive comment on it. But what comes through everywhere from all pages of the report is the tremendous gap in existing knowledge as to the effects of most of the drugs that the commission has studied, although it clearly recognizes that amphetamines, LSD and certain other drugs are definitely harmful.
I have suggested for some time that I did not think any responsible politician in this country should take the position of recommending changes in the law with regard to the non-medical use of drugs until we had seen this interim report and had the opportunity to consider it. Actually, in this interim report the commissioners have recommended very few changes in the law. This stems

DEBATES	June 19. 1970
largely I think, from the lack of knowledge as to what the effects are and what are the best methods by which to proceed.
The commission does not recommend, and I wish to emphasize this to avoid any misunderstanding, the legalization of the possession of marijuana. It recommends making lighter the penalties for the possession of psychotropic drugs, as the minister said. It recommends non-imprisonment and a maximum fine of $100. The minister announced that the government is accepting this recommendation only with respect to marijuana. I agree that the government ought to accept this recommendation for the easing of penalties for the possession of marijuana. I agree that the possession of marijuana ought not to be legalized at this time and that the minister is correct in accepting the recommendation for making the penalities for possession lighter. I also suggest, since the government is taking this position, that it should immediately move to have the sentences reviewed of those who may be serving penalties now for previous convictions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government, in light of present knowledge, does not accept the recommendation of the commissioners that the penalties for the possession of other psychotropic drugs should be made lighter. I agree with the government. I agree with the minister that the recommendation of the commissioners ought not to be accepted at the present time at least, except in the case of marijuana.
I must say that I thought the comments of the minister on the report were certainly minimal. I had expected the minister to make some comment on the recommendations of the commissioners with regard to trafficking in drugs. Some of us have been concerned because the present law with regard to soft drugs does not make any distinction between those who traffic for private or personal gain and those who do not. I note that the commissioners recommend that the giving of a drug to another person without gain ought not to be regarded as trafficking. I certainly think that this recommendation should be given serious consideration, particularly with regard to marijuana.
In dealing with those convicted of drug abuses, Mr. Speaker, surely the emphasis should be aimed at rehabilitation rather than simply punishment. Therefore I would hope that the government would give consideration


to making available special institutions with proper treatment and counselling faciliies instead of simply incarcerating those convicted of drug offences.
I am disappointed that the minister has not commented at all on the recommendations of the commissioners with regard to steps that should be taken to provide appropriate facilities for rehabilitation and for the co-ordination of research and education throughout our society, particularly in our educational institutions. The federal government in co-operation with the provinces must surely provide the necessary leadership to work out a national program to impart the knowledge that is now available regarding the use and misuse of drugs, including the legal consequences and the penalties involved, but, above all, to give the people of this country honest information about the consequences and other aspects of the use of drugs. Despite the absence of comment by the minister, I would hope the federal government would proceed to develop and co-ordinate such a program with the provinces, and I would hope also that the federal government would pay a substantial part of the cost.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
Surely we must also have a system of centres established across the country to provide information, consultation and assistance to drug users on a more humane and rational basis, but the minister has not indicated that the government intends to do this. Surely further funds have to be made available for research into the nature and effects of drugs. I suggest that such a program has to be coordinated along the lines drawn up by the commission. I would recommend that a national drug foundation be established for the administration of these two recommendations, particularly with regard to research, the co-ordination of research, and the exchange of information. The commission suggested that an independent foundation might play a useful role and I believe this to be a sensible suggestion.
I would emphasize, as have the commissioners, the importance of providing for adequate representation of youth in the carrying out of any of these recommendations with regard to drugs.
I will be through in a minute, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to try Your Honour's patience too far, but this is an important matter and we have waited a long time for this document.
Tabling of LeDain Interim Report
My colleagues and I recognize the growing use of such dangerous drugs as heroin, amphetamines and LSD. These drugs are clearly destruc'ive of individuals and institutions. We believe we must proceed by every effective means to stop their use. The commission has questioned the usefulness of outlawing the possession of these drugs as a measure of law enforcement. As far as I know these views or recommendations have not been accepted by the government. Apart from anything else, of course, they outline that possession may be essential to stopping the trafficking which surely we must do everything to stop. Certainly I recommend that our present law enforcement methods and manpower and facilities be reviewed and assessed with the objective of more effec'ively and thoroughly enforcing those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with the importation, trafficking and manufacturing of such drugs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This is an interim report, sir, and these are our interim comments. The commission will be making a further report in due course. I hope that such reports will lead to a vigorous discussion of these very difficult questions and will lead to a more widespread examination of the information available. I hope that the matter will be discussed in as sensible and constructive a way as possible when considering a subject with such an emotional impact and with such serious consequences. As I have said already, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister and the government will proceed promptly to implement some of the suggestions made by the commission with regard to the importance of co-ordinated research, a co-ordinated method of providing education and information, and a co-ordinated and effective method of providing rehabilitation and treatment centres all across the country.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of the non-medical use of drugs is one that divides the people of Canada, cuts across party lines and separates the young from the old. It is no wonder that the government and Parliament have been reticent about dealing with this question. Although we have only had two hours to look at the report very quickly, I think I can speak for a large majority of the members of the New Democratic Party when I make these comments today.


Tabling of LeDain Interim Report
The Leader of the Opposition commented on the reluctance of the government to table the report and wondered about it. I do not wonder, Mr. Speaker, because implicit in almost every section of the report is a criticism of the way in which law enforcement agencies, the police, the Crown prosecutors and the courts, have tried to deal with the problem of drug use up till now..
The statement of the minister was only lukewarm. In fact, the minister only endorsed one recommendation of the commission. I will deal with some of the others later. If the minister had not accepted that recommendation, he would have rejected in total the interim report.
I believe that the commission was wise in separating the use of marijuana from other drugs. As pointed out by the commission, there is a great deal that we do not know and should know about drugs before we make any firm decision. The commission proposes that marijuana be dealt with under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act rather than under the Narcotic Control Act. We think this is a good idea. The commission proposes that detailed studies be made with regard to the other drugs such as amphetamines, LSD and heroin. This is an excellent proposal.
We agree that the present method of coping with the drug problem has failed almost completely. There has been a tremendous increase in the use of so-called soft drugs in all sectors of the population. We disagree most strongly with the silly way the police and other law enforcement agencies have been dealing with the problem. It is no secret that a large percentage of the middle-class and professional communities in Canada use marijuana but there have been no prosecutions or investigations. The police have concentrated on the young and the alienated. That kind of discrimination ought not to have started and must stop immediately.
The commission recommends the abolition of imprisonment for the use of marijuana. I point out that when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was Minister of Justice the Department of Justice issued a directive to Crown prosecutors that they should recommend to judges in cases of this kind that prison sentences be imposed. We are now being asked to change what the department recommended at that time. The Minister of Justice looks at me with surprise. The record will show that is correct.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Nothing surprises me.


David Orlikow: The commission recommends that possession, including the giving to another person, without payment, of enough marijuana for one dose, should be punishable only by summary conviction with a maximum fine of $100. That is an excellent suggestion. We also agree that those who cannot afford to pay their fines should be given time to pay. If this is not done there will be an obvious division between the rich and the poor, which is wrong.
The commission makes it very clear that they are completely opposed to the type of procedures the police have been using. I refer to entrapment and physical violence to obtain evidence. The commission recommended that this should be discontinued. I hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) will not wait any longer to put that kind of policy into effect. I go a step further and suggest that they give immediate consideration to discontinuing the use of writs of assistance. I suggest they have been grossly abused by the police in recent years in respect of narcotics.
The commission emphasizes the need for education regarding the use and effects of drugs. It points out that exhortation, propaganda, distortion and exaggeration are not what are needed. To a large extent that is what we have been getting. I am sorry the government is so lukewarm in its position. It does not appear to give much support to that proposal. The commission suggests that young people should be encouraged to participate in the program of education rather than just the professionals whom the young people frequently reject and mistrust. We support this proposal. We deplore the fact that the government seems to need more time to decide on this matter.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
The commission suggested that research and evaluation should not be a function of the law enforcement agencies. Too often it has been the law enforcement agencies which have in the past made policy with respect to drugs in this country. We think this is wrong, and we agree with the commission completely on this point. Again we deplore the fact that the government does not seem ready to support an approach of this kind.
The commission calls for flexible methods of treatment such as street clinics and regional centres. The commission suggests we ought to remove the fear which so many young people who have been using drugs have of


existing hospitals and other facilities. We think this is a down-to-earth and practical proposal and we hope the government will move quickly to implement it together with other suggestions made by the commission.


Mr. Real Caouelte (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be right in saying that, before taking a decision, the government will wait until the conclusion of the study on the effects of drugs. As stated by the minister at the end of his comments:

It Is recognized that the non-medical use of drugs is a serious problem which affects many Canadian families now and could affect the health and welfare of future generations.

Nothing could be truer, Mr. Speaker, for it is proven that those who use drugs are mostly young people, because of that education they received not from schools, high schools or universities, but from drug peddlers or members of the underworld in Montreal, Toronto and other large cities. And I think that the government would be well-advised to earmark for the information of young people on the use of drugs at least as much money as for research, in order to establish the relationship between the use of drugs and the behaviour of the addicts. Thus the decisions would not be negative, but positive.
It is imperative to persuade young people that it is up to them to make their future, and to act today in a way that they will not regret in ten of fifteen years. The government should earmark certain funds for educating young people who use drugs. This way, we would avoid situations such as those described in the report tabled this morning. According to that document, young people are put into jail for having used marijuana or LSD.
It has been recommended that imprisonment for such offences be abolished. Should the government agree to this, no time should be lost in freeing those who are already in jail for having used narcotics. However, I feel that the government should contribute to furthering the education of youths and older people who use drugs, so as to prove to them that, in the long run, they are the ones who suffer the consequences which the use of drugs may have in a civilized society.
[English}


John Carr Munro: With the permission of the House, I should like to recognize the presence
Inquiries of the Ministry in the gallery of the chairman of the commission, Dean LeDain, and thank him on behalf of all hon. members for the very sincere work which he and the other members of the commission have done in the performance of a most difficult task.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in English and in French a report by the firm of Samson, Belari, Riddell and Stead on the modernization and improvement of the public service pay system.


An hon. Member:: What about improving the pay?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the Minister of National Health and Welfare an opportunity to fill in some of the glaring gaps in his comments today. Does the government of which he is a member propose to convene a conference with the provinces in the near future with a view to establishing co-ordinated methods in the fields of research and education to deal with the non-medical use of drugs?
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to reply to the Leader of the Opposition. He may recall that at the conference of health ministers I undertook that once the report had been made public its contents would be discussed with the health ministers of the provinces. I believe that other federal ministers will be discussing it with their counterparts, also in the hope of accomplishing some of the things the hon. gentleman mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of National



B334 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry Health and Welfare. I am glad to be reassured that he intends to discuss these matters with the provinces. Can he also assure the House that the federal government is prepared to participate with the provinces in a program leading to co-ordinated action in the fields of research and education in connection with the non-medical use of drugs. In other words, is the government prepared to provide leadership and to take the initiative in setting up co-ordinated programs in these areas?
John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



NON-MEDICAL USE-CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCIAL ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND POLICE OFFICIALS ON LAW ENFORCEMENT METHODS

David Orlikow: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice following upon the announcement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he will be convening a conference with his provincial counterparts. Is the Minister of Justice and/or the Solicitor General considering the convening of a meeting with the provincial Attorneys General and provincial or municipal police officials to discuss the methods by which the police deal with the use of marijuana and other drugs?


John Napier Turner: As I have said in the House before, I have convened a meeting of provincial Attorneys General for the second week of July in Halifax to discuss a wide range of matters relating to the administration of justice, and it might well be advisable to discuss certain aspects of this report at that time.


David Orlikow: Will the Minister of Justice at that time, if not before, give consideration to the problem which has been created by this report in connection with a number of people who are serving relatively heavy sentences as a result of convictions which come within the scope of the commission's recommendations?



NON-MEDICAL USE-SENTENCES FOR FIRST OFFENCES

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Is it the intention of the minister to instruct Crown prosecutors not to press for jail sentences for first offences by users of marijuana?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, since the amendment to the law

last August permitting the Crown to proceed by way of summary proceeding in matters involving possession only of canabis, including hashish, and the restricted drugs, particularly LSD, well over 90 per cent of the cases have been prosecuted by summary conviction where the offence was a first or second offence. The general rule even with respect to the hard drugs has been that on a first offence we proceed also by way of summary conviction. Those instructions were contained in a memorandum sent to all federal prosecutors in Canada last August.
Since that amendment passed by Parliament came into force, the majority of cases involving the simple possession of canabis including hashish and the restricted drugs have resulted in the imposition of a fine. The usual fine has not exceeded $200. It is only in exceptional cases that the offender has been sentenced under the present policy to imprisonment instead of being given a fine.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Policy, or is that the law?


John Napier Turner: That has been the policy of the government following the amendment authorized by this Parliament, and that policy will continue to be
enforced.



NON-MEDICAL USE-ENFORCEMENT OF POLICY IN YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps hon. members may have misunderstood or I misheard the minister when he said that the policy of the government based on the amendment last fall was that there was a choice by the Crown in charges involving the use of hashish. I do not think that is correct; it applies only to the use of marijuana.
My question to the minister is: As Attorney General for the Yukon and as Attorney General for the Northwest Territories, is he in that capacity now going to instruct Crown counsel in both territories to follow government policy as just announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, government policy as announced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare was with regard to the government's intension to consider a possible change in the law. My duty as Attorney General of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, of course, is to enforce the law as Parliament sets the law down.
June 19, 1970	COMMONS



NON-MEDICAL, USE-TRANSFER OF OFFENCES TO FOOD AND DRUGS ACT, AMENDMENT OF PENAL PROVISIONS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask the minister whether he intends to implement two of the recommendations contained in the report, namely, firstly, that we transfer these psychotropic offences from the Narcotic Control Act to the Food and Drugs Act immediately, and second, that we amend the penal provisions of the Criminal Code?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the preliminary position of the government has already been stated this morning.



NON-MEDICAL USE-COMMITTEE STUDY OF LEDAIN COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister consider referring the interim report of the LeDain Commission to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social affairs, where Members of Parliament may study the recommendations and receive representations from the public?
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take that suggestion under consideration.



NON-MEDICAL USE-CHANGES IN LAW REGARDING TRAFFICKERS-PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF HASHISH

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Is the government planning to make any changes in regard, first, to traffickers in marijuana and, second, traffickers in hard drugs, including amphetamines? Are there to be any changes to deal with the particular problem of trafficking?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at the moment add any more precision to the preliminary position of the government already stated.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister indicate whether the government has taken a position with respect to lightening the penalties for possession of hashish to
DEBATES	8335
Inquiries of the Ministry make them similar to the penalties for possession of marijuana? If so, when can such announcement be expected in the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the position of the government with respect to that matter has been well stated by my colleague, the Minister of Justice.



FINANCE


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, if I may change the subject, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As he knows, the Bank of Montreal announced two or three weeks ago a reduction in their prime rate of interest, and no other bank has yet made such an announcement. Would the minister inform the House whether he has held any discussions with the other banks or their officers with regard to reducing their prime interest rate in order to ease the inflationary effect of high interest rates?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: No, I have not had direct contact with the banks, in this regard Mr. Speaker.


David Lewis: A supplementary question. The minister recently attended a meeting of the Canadian Bankers Association and I had hoped that this might have been one of the subjects he discussed with them. May I ask the minister whether he knows if the Governor of the Bank of Canada has held such conversations? If he does not know, would the minister assure the House that he will undertake to request that the Governor of the Bank of Canada seek the taking of action to reduce interest rates on the part of the chartered banks?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I met with the operating officers of the banks in Vancouver but there was no direct discussion of this particular question. That is what I meant when I said I had had no contact with them concerning this matter. I know that the Governor of the Bank of Canada has met with the presidents of the banks recently and I shall be speaking to him or the Deputy Governor this afternoon.


David Lewis: A further supplementary question. Will the minister assure the House that he will request the Governor of the Bank of Canada to seek from all chartered banks a reduction in interest rates?


Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Benson: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I would like to do more.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Was his difficulty in communicating with the members of the Canadian Bankers Association that, while they were happy as a matter of politeness to have him speak to them, they were not really interested in speaking to him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Villeneuve-


David Réal Caouette: For
Temiscamingue, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon.
member for Villeneuve.

I believe the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has a supplementary, and I will allow him one supplementary

- Then, I shall recognize the hon. member for Villeneuve-I mean for Temiscamingue.



REDUCTION OF FARM IMPROVEMENT LOAN AND FARM CREDIT INTEREST RATES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the reduction in the Bank of Canada interest rate recently, has the Farm Credit Corporation accordingly reduced its interest rates, and have the banks also reduced their rates under the farm improvement loans legislation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance would have to answer for the Farm Improvement Loans Act. So far as the Farm Credit Corporation is concerned, I believe we adjust the rates every six months depending on the rate that the government is paying for money during that period.



INDUSTRY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.

Since the unpegging of the Canadian dollar, owners of gold mines are in a distressing situation because they are losing $1.50 per ounce and I would like to know if the minister intends to announce soon an increase of subsidies, a measure which would enable the mines to maintain their normal operations?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I recently met with representatives of the gold mining communities and the Canadian Mining Association, who discussed with me the continuation of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and also the current problem and the accentuation of the problem as indicated by the hon. member. We have in my department a comprehensive study of the effect of the removal of the subsidy. I have instructed the officials to hasten the completion of this study in light of the current situation and the difficulty caused by the freeing of the dollar. I hope we will be able to have a government decision as a result of that study very soon.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We have not had a report for some time regarding the deliberations that were taking place between representatives of Communist China and Canada. In the Far East the general idea is that the reason these consultations have not been continuing is that virtual agreement between Communist China and Canada has been arrived at but the government of Canada does not intend to make an announcement in that connection until Parliament is on vacation. Is this correct? I bring this up on this happy day when all of us are in good spirits having regard to what happened in the land of "Heath". I ask the minister whether he will now give us a reasonably full report, not of that length which would require it to be made on motions, but will he tell us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take it that the question has been asked. I might add that it was also asked yesterday, but in view of the very special circumstances I think hon. members would want the Secretary of State for External Affairs to reply to the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before the minister replies, I ask him very simply whether he has come to a reasonable basis of agreement, in the opinion of the government, and is it similar to that which was brought about between Italy and Communist China?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of the House in welcoming the right hon. gentleman back to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: We have missed his very distinctive contribution to our discussions which is portrayed by the kind of question he has put to me today. It may be, of course, that the right hon. gentleman as a result of his recent very interesting travels knows more about the negotiations between Canada and the Peking regime than we do here, but I should like to assure him that no agreement has yet been reached between Canada and the Peking regime, nor do I believe that any agreement has been reached between the Peking regime and the Italian government. We are not holding up the announcement. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to say that they had been successfully completed.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that we know the negotiations have not been successfully concluded, what are the hopes and expectations that Mao will finally know where Canada is?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the honourable and learned Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the possible introduction of legislation in respect of the nomenclature of part of his administrative domain. Is he contemplating removing the word "Dominion" from the designation of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics? If so, can he advise how this is to be accomplished and what will be the new name and initials for the institution?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have already referred to that possibility in the committee during the discussion of my estimates. I have already indicated that a new
Inquiries of the Ministry bill respecting the Dominion Bureau of Statistics would probably be introduced in the fall, at which time we might discuss this particular aspect of it, if cabinet decides to include such a change in the bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, would the minister and his colleagues give consideration to the proposition that solving the current problems of this country might deserve higher priority than obliterating its symbolic traditions?



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-Sf. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It does not have to do with the LeDain report. Now that the new unemployment insurance program has been introduced, which is related to the over-all social policy of increases in assistance to the disadvantaged, can the minister advise the House and the country when he will be introducing his white paper on social measures to alleviate the serious needs of the disadvantaged people of Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated I expect to have the white paper on social policy before Parliament prior to the end of the session.
[Later:}


Jack Marshall: Would the minister advise the House whether, in the social measures he is going to introduce, increases in war veterans allowance will be included?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the matter of social assistance as it pertains to war veterans allowances is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I think the question should be directed to him.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Does the minister propose to bring in a measure setting up catch failure insurance for fishermen in view of the reference in the government's white paper to the


Inquiries of the Ministry phasing out of unemployment insurance for fishermen, and will he refer this matter to the fisheries committee?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was referred to in the white paper tabled by the Minister of Labour. We will certainly be discussing it with fishermen, representatives of the fishermen and the industry during the coming months.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On May 22 I asked him if he would seek from Air Canada the assurance that a large number of pilots and an even larger number of stewardesses would not be transferred from Winnipeg to other bases in this country. The minister said he would endeavour to obtain that assurance. Has he yet obtained it?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Air Canada advises there will be no significant change in the personnel stationed at Winnipeg. The problem, if there is one, arises because of the phasing out of the Viscount aircraft and the use primarily of DC-9 aircraft. In the changeover it is anticipated that virtually the same number of DC-9 pilots will be required as in the mix between Viscounts and DC-9's. So there will not be any great change there, perhaps only one or two at the most, I am advised.
In so far as the good looking stewardesses are concerned, we are going to leave them there to brighten the scene in Winnipeg indefinitely.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am afraid I cannot think of a supplementary to that.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that shoe imports which have been tolerated to date place our Canadi-
(Mr. McGrath.]
an manufacturers on the brink of bankruptcy, can the minister tell us if he intends to recommend that the customs tariff be amended with a view to correcting the situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am at the present time reading the brief submitted by the Shoe Manufacturers Association of Canada. This document contains certain questionable statistics, but in any event we will meet with the representatives of this Association on June 24. Hon. members are invited to attend the first part of the meeting. Following the meeting we will give the matter further consideration and will make our conclusions known as soon as possible.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give the assurance, inasmuch as Canadian consumers, particularly low-income consumers, will be most affected by any ban on imported footwear, that the Canadian Consumers Association will be consulted before any decision is taken?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The government always tries to protect all aspects of the Canadian interest. There is of course no mention of a ban on imports.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, whoever has the knowledge, whether the government has yet reached a decision concerning whether it will convene a conference of labour and business along with government as requested by the CLC in order to try to work out some program upon which government, labour and business can agree with regard to combating inflation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet made a decision along these lines, but I can say on behalf of the government that we welcome the willingness of the trade union organizations to meet with the government and to talk seriously about the inflationary problem. It is one that affects all of us, and no one more seriously than the members of trade unions.
June 19, 1970	COMMONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, instead of expressing gratitude and pious wishes, the government will get busy and take advantage of an opportunity that might lead to some fruitful results?



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government received the report of the Robertson inquiry into a long-term maritime policy for Canada and, if so, what will be done with the report? Will it be published or will the minister be making at least a quick review of it in Parliament before the session is over?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I received the report, which is 600 pages long, last Tuesday. The committee presented it to the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association the next day. This is a report of the committee and the committee is free to do what it wants with it. I understand that copies are now available or will be made available soon to the Parliamentary Library.


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the statement made yesterday by the chairman of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association of Canada that this industry has had its worst year since 1940, will the minister do everything he can to hurry some relief to the industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, but I think if my hon. friend reads the 600-page report he will realize very soon that one of the major facts that comes out of the report is that the committee while making important suggestions, does not disagree with the fundamental position taken by the government in respect of shipbuilding, specially with respect to subsidies.



POLLUTION


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the proposal made in the United States by President Nixon to impose a tax on leaded gasoline to help in the fight against 22478-371
DEBATES	8339
Inquiries of the Ministry pollution, is the government of Canada presently giving any consideration to a similar proposal?


Edgar John Benson: It
is an interesting way of raising additional revenue, but it is not presently being considered by the federal government.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My
question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. I should like to ask him whether, in light of the claim of the chairman of the Ontario Housing Corporation that a substantial failure in achieving the targets for public housing in the metropolitan area can be attributed to a slowdown by the federal government in approving projects, the minister will assure the House that the situation will be remedied immediately in view of the urgent need for public housing in that area?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: I dispute the premise on which the remarks of the chairman of the Ontario Housing Corporation were based because, to the best of my knowledge-and I have looked into it-there has not been any inordinate delay in approving any projects brought forward. There have been discussions on occasions about density and amenities within projects recommended by the OHC, but amicable settlements have been made in each case. I think this is a red herring which has been brought into the picture based on some public housing fund freezing about a year and a half ago. I do not know how long they can continue to hide behind that one.



POLLUTION


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the question I asked him regarding federal compensation to those affected by the ban on fishing in Lake St. Clair and his answer that the fishermen were already paid, may I now ask the minister when the government's financial commitment to the seine fishermen and camp operators in that area will be fulfilled?


Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry): We are making loans or advances to commercial fishermen whose livelihood has been cut off as a result of mercury pollution. Those loans are limited to people whose livelihood is related to commercial fishing. We have not made advances in areas where there is no ban on fishing, nor have we been making advances for sports fishery or related activities to people such as marina operators. The province of Ontario has been looking after the latter cases.



HUDSON BAY-LEVEL OF MERCURY IN BELUGA WHALES

Mr. Paul Si. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: have a supplementary question for the minister regarding mercury pollution. Can the minister advise the House whether the mercury pollution level in beluga whales in Hudson Bay has reached dangerous proportions and, if so, is the Eskimo fishery in Rankin Inlet in danger?


John (Jack) Davis: We have received the results of further tests on polluted whales canned in a whale factory in Rankin Inlet, and nearly all these tests show the level to be above our acceptable limit of .5 parts per million. However, other fish species have been relatively free of mercury, so there is no problem in respect of other species. Our information is that these whales have picked up the mercury at the mouths of rivers in James Bay and at the mouth of the Nelson River system.



TASK FORCE ON SOURCES OF MERCURY CONTAMINATION

Gordon Harvey Aiken: In view of the continuing indications of mercury pollution throughout the environment, particularly in Canada, is the minister considering setting up a special task force to inquire into the sources of mercury poisoning in so many places in Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: We do have a special task force dealing with this problem. I might say that there is a modest level or a background of mercury in all waters. It is only where there are exceptional levels of mercury that we have a problem. We think we have identified nearly all of these areas now. We are improving our background information and dealing with local problems as they arise.



ACTION RESPECTING PRODUCTION AND CONTROL OF DDT

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the government taken any action with respect to production and control of DDT and, if so what is it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot give a complete answer to that due to the limitation of time in this period, but many changes have been made related to the purposes for which licences will be issued and labels authorized in so far as the distribution of DDT is concerned. As a matter of fact, we have reduced the purposes by about 90 per cent from the period prior to making the announcement several months ago.



FINANCE


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the Moore study recommending that an increase in the foreign control of Canadian securities firms be prohibited, can he indicate what, if any, action the government intends to take on the study's recommendations?


Edgar John Benson: We have only had the Moore Committee report for a very short period of time and we are studying its recommendations carefully. I would like, however, to welcome the report and to express appreciation to the securities industry and to the chairman and members of the committee for the comprehensive study they have produced. While I do not wish to comment at this time on the specific recommendations in the report, I will observe that the underlying principles of the report as regards foreign ownership in the industry are very much in line with government policy concerning other segments of the financial community.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the answer which the minister is giving now is more in the form of a statement which should be made on motions. I will have to seek the co-operation of hon. members in connection with supplementary questions. Many hon. members have been rising diligently and patiently for the last 30 minutes and are anxious for an opportunity to put their questions. Perhaps the hon. member for Waterloo may be allowed a supplementary question.
June 19, 1970	COMMONS


Mr.   Bailsman@: Has the Minister of Finance given consideration to the present access of the Merrill Lynch Company to the Bank of Canada through the Royal Securities Corporation and the effect this might have on the confidential relationships with the bank? Is it the minister's intention to restrict this access solely to Canadian-owned firms?


Edgar John Benson: At the time the Moore Committee was carrying out a study of this matter the Department of Finance, in conjunction with the Bank of Canada, was also looking at the federal implications thereof. I hope to present to the House in due course a report indicating our views in this regard.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: wonder if the minister would be able to make some progress in the establishment of a national securities commission by obtaining greater co-operation from the provinces than has been obtained by his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who has made no progress in 18 months?



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

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


David Réal Caouette: For
Temiscamingue, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as Acting Prime Minister.
According to the news this morning, there will probably be a change of government in Great Britain. Does the government intend to send a telegram of congratulations to the sole Liberal member elected yesterday in Great Britain?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is he aware that yesterday in Montreal, because of lack of evidence, a charge was dismissed against a young man who had been in jail for 16 months without trial or even bail? Will he please assure the House that this case will be investigated? Would he also check into the allegation that
DEBATES	8341
Inquiries of the Ministry people are sitting in jail because judges are away on vacation or because there are not enough judges to deal with cases?


John Napier Turner: will certainly take this up with the Attorney General of Quebec.



AIRPORTS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I would like to ask whether he intends to allow the present practice of taxi firms keeping the travelling public waiting following the arrival of planes to continue, or will he instruct these firms to check the times of arrival of planes and have taxis available for the convenience of the public rather than at the convenience of the taxi firms?


Mr. Speaker:: I interpret the hon. member's question as a representation to the minister. The House has to assume it has been noted.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Will the minister look into alternate ways and means of assisting the aircraft division of Enamel and Heating at Amherst, which has found its work load severely curtailed because of the phase-out of the Yukon and Argus aircraft?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that the department is receiving tenders on that work at the present time, and these will be opened shortly.



PROVISION OF WORK AT FAIREY AVIATION PLANT

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. For many, many months the 400 or 500 workmen at the Fairey Aviation of Canada plant at Eastern Passage have been in employment one day and out the next, and they are now in quite a desperate plight. Will the question of the overhaul of the Argus and Tracker aircraft be cleared up by the end of June?


Inquiries of the Ministry


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot set that date but the tenders will be opened shortly, during the month of June; then they will be studied and the contract awarded.



WHEAT-ACREAGE REDUCTION PROGRAM-INCLUSION OF PITIC 62 IN QUOTA REQUIREMENTS

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would he consider reviewing what appears to be an unjust situation regarding Pitic 62, a feed grain which is being listed in the wheat quota requirements under Operation Lift, but which is only licensed as a feed grain and grown as a feed grain?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to have more information than the hon. member has given me and I appreciate the limitations in the question period. If it was stipulated as a feed grain those acres would be allocated for quota of that particular grain. I do not believe there is a market for it at the moment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No, there is not.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago I asked a question of the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the possible phasing out of its Vancouver operation by Skil Corporation of Chicago, with the loss of 125 jobs. Has the minister anything to report because at that time the acting minister replied that consultation between the department and company officials was proceeding?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is still the case. My officials are trying very hard to convince the company to keep on operating this plant in Vancouver or, possibly as second-best, to find a buyer here in Canada. The discussions are continuing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting House

Leader in the absence of the President of the Privy Council. Would he consider introducing a motion recalling Bill C-196, authorizing protein grading which is so urgently required for western Canadian wheat, from the Standing Committee on Agriculture so it can be passed before the House adjourns for the summer, since the bill is obviously being obstructed in the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is argument.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have an urgent national question, having to do with the province of New Brunswick, for the Minister of Justice. As the first anniversary of a vacancy in the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick will occur when Parliament is in recess, can we have an announcement about an appointment before that year is up?


John Napier Turner: Yes, sir.


Thomas Miller Bell: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, does the minister really think he can attend the annual New Brunswick barristers meeting in a few days time, without having made this appointment, and not suffer any bodily harm from his pals there?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs a question. Would he advise the House when the report of the standing committee will be presented to the House and if it will be before June 26?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the report is now in process of being translated. I would hope that, with the permission of the House, we would be able to revert to motions on Monday afternoon and have the report presented at that time.


Jack Marshall: As a supplementary question, I should like to clarify an answer by the Minister of National Health and Welfare which had to do with war veterans. He prom-


ised to introduce the white paper on social policy before the end of the session. Did he mean before the recess on June 26 or before the end of the actual session?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member may have been unintentionally misled when he asked when the white paper on social policy would be tabled and I said before the end of the session. I meant the end of the session, and not before the recess.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does the minister favour significant, immediate changes in the Canada-U.S. auto pact in view of his statement in Toronto that he strongly favoured multilateral trade and that specific commodity agreements were not always desirable?


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



NON-MEDICAL USE-USE BY RCMP OF UNDERCOVER AGENTS

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice related to the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on the LeDain Commission report. Will the government be taking into consideration, along with the whole of the LeDain Commission report or that part of it already received, the existing investigative practices of the RCMP in infiltrating groups of young persons and encouraging the commission of narcotic offences?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can say on behalf of the Solicitor General that he will be interested in making a comment about that at the appropriate time.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that 2,000
Inquiries of the Ministry tons of light diesel oil and aviation fuel were lost in August, 1969, in the Arctic with the sinking of the barge Johnny Norberg, I would ask the minister if any further attempts will be made to locate and salvage this cargo of dangerous pollutants?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the matter. I have not had a report or heard any comment about it in recent weeks. I will take note of the hon. member's question and see what I can do.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: On a
question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I have been standing for 163 minutes during the last four days I have been in the House, and I wonder if there will be any opportunity to be recognized by the Chair before the end of the session.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might get in touch with some of his colleagues so that it might be easier for the Chair to recognize him. But if there is unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question he may do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leroy Skoberg: I did not really mean to use that approach in order to be recognized, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister tell the House whether he sanctioned the statement by the hon. member for York West that the contract for air terminal transport had been renewed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question could wait another 160 minutes. Orders of the day.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in the
8344	COMMONS
Northern Inland Waters Bill amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-187, respecting inland water resources in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make but before I do so, on a point of order I wonder if the minister would explain why we are considering this amendment at this time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is just a technical amendment to make sure that in this inland water bill the wording is in accord with the wording of the fisheries bill. It is just a new definition, changing the word "waste" to the other word that is mentioned in the motion. It is a technical amendment put forward in the Senate and we have no objection to it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the minister a question? In view of the fact that the amendment to the Fisheries Act has not yet passed the House, either on report stage or on third reading, what on earth is going to happen to this amendment if the Fisheries Act does not go through exactly as the government expects?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If there is a change in the Fisheries Act we may have a little problem. However, the purpose is quite clear and that is to try to get the same wording in both pieces of legislation. I think that members can try to stall good collaboration between different departments, but I do not think it is wise to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must caution hon. members against this interesting exchange. I am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka if he would like to make some comments on the motion before the House.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have some comments, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has given me the background that I wanted. There is one point I want to make which is basic. This is a very minute amendment to the Northern Inland Waters Act but it illustrates what a haphazard, careless, unco-ordinated approach the government has taken to the whole question of water pollution, water management, northern affairs and all the bills that have been before the House during this session of Parliament.
This amendment illustrates the type of thing that many other members of the opposition, and indeed even some members on the government side, have been trying to impress
(Mr. Chretien.]
DEBATES	June 19, 1970
on the government, namely, the need for some co-ordination of activities in connection with water pollution and water management in this country. Let's get some person, some body, some minister or organization to coordinate everything the federal government is doing in connection with water pollution.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Certainly.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As the hon. member is aware, in the north there will be a board and the administration of the three pieces of legislation will be controlled by the same board. This will achieve the objective the hon. member has in mind.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My argument is more basic than that, Mr. Speaker. I approve of this amendment which we are now being asked to consider. I cannot object to it because of the way it has been handled. But I am pointing out that these three bills were jockeyed back and forth between three committees. One committee did not know what the other was doing, nor did one department know what another department was doing. There was jockeying between the management of water resources under the Canada Water Act, under the Northern Inland Waters Act, which we are now considering, under the Fisheries Act and the Arctic Waters Pollution Act.
We started off in a fairly good fashion because waste was defined identically in all bills. When the Fisheries bill was studied by the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, however, that committee decided that the word "waste" did not suit the Fisheries Act and so they decided to use the words "deleterious substances". The Canada Water Act, Bill C-144, was referred to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works. We worked on that bill from early February until May, and it was finally passed in the House. At the same time, the Fisheries Act was before the House and then went to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. The fisheries bill was intended to achieve the same purpose, although it was a little more definite.
I see the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) here and I have to say that he took us one step further from where the Canada Water Act had left us. Nevertheless, the Fisheries Act was amended and the word "waste" was redefined to read "deleterious
June 19, 1970	COMMONS
substances". Then, the northern inland waters bill also contained a definition of waste, but it was not changed to comply with the recommendations of the Fisheries Committee. So now, in fact, the Senate is catching up with the mistake that we all made. The Fisheries Act was in the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. At the same time, the government had the northern inland waters bill and the arctic waters pollution prevention bill before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. These bills were supposed to achieve roughly the same purpose as the Canada Water Act and the Fisheries Act amendment, that is, moving toward anti-pollution measures and better water management under the federal jurisdiction.
The Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not know exactly what was going on in the other two committees, except that some members of our party were doing their best to run between each of the three committees studying the water bill, the fisheries bill and the northern waters bill. However, they could not manage that because often the committees were all sitting at the same time. Whether this was intentional on the part of the government, I do not know Mr. Speaker. If so it was deplorable, because it did not give one committee an opportunity to consider what the others were doing. If it was unintentional it has backfired. That is why I am turning the prod a little now. If it was accidental that is even worse, because it shows a lack of management in this whole problem.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I rise to speak this afternoon because in spite of the efforts of many of us to tell the government to have one person control what was going on in all these departments and in connection with all these bills, there has been no action. We are going to have an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act later this year which will also deal with oil pollution. This undertaking has been given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). We are to have a clean air act, and that will be under the administration of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro). Both these measures have been promised to the House.
Where will this jockeying back and forth lead and who will give some thought to the need for federal co-ordination in these matters? That is what I ask in speaking on what seems to be a very minor amendment made 22478-38
DEBATES	8345
Northern Inland Waters Bill by the Senate. I shall be surprised if this is the only mistake that was made in the four bills that were put through simultaneously. Actually I see that Bill C-219, the Fisheries Act amendment, is to be further amended. The proposed amendment is not that of the minister but of a private member. I will be surprised if there are not a good many overlappings or gaps in the bills which have been simultaneously considered.
There is one more important matter I ought to raise with the minister. We are considering an amendment to the Northern Inland Waters bill which was passed by the House and sent to the Senate. The Senate looked at the bill and sent it back to us saying, "You fellows in the House of Commons overlooked something." The Senate was quite right. The problem confronting us at the moment is that this bill is being amended to comply with the Fisheries Act amendments which are still before the House. There is a great, long list of proposed amendments to be considered at the report stage with respect to that bill.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I clarify the statement I made before? Probably I did not use the right words. This amendment is made because something was overlooked and not because the wording of this bill does not comply with the amendments to the fisheries bill. This terminology is the same as that used in the old bill. It is not in the new fisheries bill. It was in the old bill, but was overlooked. The amendment is brought, not because of the wording of the new fisheries bill but because this new bill is to include some of the old bill's terminology.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I accept the minister's statement. It is my understanding that there was something wrong with the Northern Inland Waters Bill and that it had to be sent back from the Senate. The fact of the matter is that there was some discrepancy between the definitions, and that must now be corrected. Actually, I do not think we ought to be proceeding with our consideration of this bill until we have passed the amendments to the fisheries bill, because the fisheries bill amendments must still be considered at third reading. I have read this bill. On line 11, page 8 of the bill we are considering there is a specific reference to the Fisheries Act. This reference is contained in clause 10(3)(b). I submit that we are amending the Northern Inland Waters Act to comply with the Fisheries Act, despite what the minister has said,


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act and that the Fisheries Act must be considered by the House when it comes here at the report stage, and at the subsequent third reading stage.
I merely ask this: What sort of mess are we in? What would happen if someone, and it could be the government, were to move an amendment to the fisheries bill at the report stage or at the third reading stage, as could still be done, and thereby change some definitions? I understand that the definitions are not entirely satisfactory to all concerned. I think the whole thing is out of kilter. I think this bill has been brought too far too soon. This shows how little co-ordination there is in our whole anti-pollution and water management programs, something that many Canadians have been saying during the last few months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before we proceed I wonder if it could be agreed that any votes on the amendments at the report stage will be deferred until all amendments have been considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the rule.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That seems a reasonable proposition. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to proceeding 1 must say, on a pessimistic note, that I shall have difficulty in accepting several of these motions. I am prepared to hear procedural arguments on them. Specifically, I am speaking of Motions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon. I think he will probably agree with

me that the procedural difficulties are the same in each of the cases. If he prefers to argue all the motions as a group, that will be fine; if he prefers to argue on each motion as it comes before the House, that also will be fine.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, and I think for the sake of order it will be more convenient, to argue the procedural difficulties chronologically as we consider the amendments. This will prove somewhat difficult because we have the bill as originally printed before us which includes the explanatory notes, whereas the reprinted bill as amended by the committee does not include the explanatory notes.
May I deal with Motion No. 1, which reads:
That Bill C-212, An Act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by adding thereto, immediately following clause 1 thereof, the following: "2. Subsection (1) of section 9 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Before reading the substitution, I should like to place on the record the existing subsection 1 of section 9 of the Yukon Act, which reads:
There shall be a Council of the Yukon Territory, which shall be composed of seven members elected to represent such electoral districts in the Territory as are named and described by the Commissioner in Council.
The amendment reads:
"(1) There shall be a Council of the Yukon Territory, which shall be composed of fifteen members elected to represent such electoral districts in the Territory as are named and described by the Commissioner in Council and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly."-
The only change that this amendment makes, of course, is to increase the number of such members on the Council from seven to 15. I anticipate that Your Honour might believe, and members on the government benches might submit to Your Honour, that this amendment affects the expenditure of revenues from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and therefore cannot be brought by a private member. However, may I draw Your Honour's attention to the recommendation contained in the bill as originally printed, which was read the first time on May 11, 1970. Opposite page 1 of the bill, in the left hand column in the English version, I read the recommendation.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure-


That is Bill C-212.
-to amend the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act respecting the payment of indemnities and expenses to the members of the Council of the Yukon Territory and of the Northwest Territories; to broaden the powers of the Commissioners in Council respecting the administration of justice and respecting the establishment, maintenance and management of prisons;-
Here are the important words, Mr. Speaker:
-and to increase the size of the respective Councils and the number of members elected thereto:-
Had it been the intention of the recommendation to confine the increase of the council members to the Council of the Northwest Territories, those words would not have been used in the recommendation.
The amendment proposes to increase the size and elected membership of the Yukon council. Under section 15 of the Yukon Act, members of the council are paid an indemnity and travelling expenses. The amendment, therefore, will result in an appropriation of the public revenue. Accordingly, it is a money amendment. As such the expenditures proposed must come within the purpose specified in the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General as required by section 54 of the British North America Act and Standing Order 52(1).
His Excellency's recommendation in respect of Bill C-212, as I have read it from the bill, appears in Votes and Proceedings of May 11, 1970 at page 765. I have already read the text of that recommendation into the record. I repeat the last purpose set out in the first paragraph of the recommendation which reads:
-and to increase the size of the respective Councils and the number of members elected thereto;
The word "councils" in my submission refers back in the paragraph to the words, Council of the Yukon Territory and Council of the Northwest Territories. The earlier purpose also provides for the payment of indemnities and expenses to the members of councils with the result, therefore, that the purpose specified by His Excellency covered increasing the size of membership of the Yukon Council and payment of indemnities and expenses to such members, as well as increasing the size and the membership of the Northwest Territories Council and payment of indemnities and expenses to such members. Indeed, in the bill itself, it will be found that the size and membership of the Northwest Territories Council has been increased.
22478-38^
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
For whatever reason, the bill does not fulfil the specific purpose of increasing the size and membership of the Yukon Council as specified by His Excellency. The amendment for that purpose, in my submission, is quite in order. It is in order whether it is made by a Minister of the Crown or a member of the House who is not a member of the government. If that were not the case, the recommendation would have been confined and perhaps worded in a fashion similar to the words in the last sentence, and to increase the size of the Council of the Northwest Territories and the number of members elected thereto.
That is not what the recommendation of His Excellency sets forth. It sets forth that the number of members of the respective councils are to be increased in size and membership. It is on the basis of those authorities that I submit the amendment is in order and should be put.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply as follows to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The recommendation submitted to His Excellency the Governor General mentioned the possibility of increasing the number of the members of the Councils of both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, but the government when it tabled the bill in the House did not see fit to increase the number of councillors for several reasons.
Moreover, the committee that studied the bill made no recommendation to this effect. Only the hon. member wants to do so today and since the government did not propose this, clearly a member of the House cannot propose something involving considerable expenditures of public funds without government approval.
At this time, an increase of the number of councillors would involve such increased expenditures.
For this reason, I submit that the hon. member is not entitled to present such a proposal to the House, but only a minister of the Crown and no member of the cabinet has seen fit to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that these amendments would be before us today. Therefore, I was not aware that there would be another opportunity to get into a debate


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act on procedure. It is Friday and it is a good day to have this kind of debate. At any rate, having been caught unaware and not having had the opportunity to go into my files for something that I know is there, I will have to rely on my memory. But I think it is fairly accurate in this case.
About 1948, the government of that day proposed an increase in the old age pension. The resolution preceding the bill, to which was attached the recommendation of the Governor General, did not specify an amount. It merely said that the Governor General recommended this proposal for an increase. During the course of that session we, in our party, had been circulating rather extensively a petition asking for an increase in the old age pension, I think to what was then the magnanimous sum of $50 a month. When we collected the signatures for that petition, and we received considerable help to bring them down and table them in the House, there was some question as to whether the petition would be in order because it asked for an expenditure of $50 a month for every old age pensioner in Canada. To our pleasant surprise, when the Clerk of Petitions gave his report a day or so later he indicated that the petition was in order despite the fact that it asked for something that involved the expenditure of money because there was on the Order Paper a recommendation in the name of the Governor General asking for an increase in the pension without specifying the amount. Up to this point, I am absolutely sure of my memory. In fact I think I even have the right year, 1948.
I am not absolutely sure of my memory on what I am going to say next. It seems to me that we also moved an amendment to the bill when it came before us, relying on a citation in Beauchesne that says that if the precise amount was not named in the recommendation of the Governor General, it is in order for any member to move any amendment provided it comes within the terms of that recommendation.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
Whether that amendment was moved, or voted upon, I am not sure; I would have to check the record. But as to the previous statement I made, I am sure of my memory. The clerk of petitions-and he is a very authoritative person-ruled that because there was this blank cheque recommendation from the Governor General our petition was in order. I trust this bit of history is not only interesting
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
to younger members but that it is relevant to the present situation, because what the Governor General has recommended in this case is an increase in the size of the respective councils and in the number of members elected thereto. The recommendation does not say to what number the councils ought to be increased. It is a blank cheque, an unstated increase, just as was the case in the recommendation of 1948 to which I referred.
I realize that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since 1948 and that there has been a lot of jurisprudence, but I do not recall any case that would upset that one. So, on the basis of that decision and because the recommendation is so broad, it seems to me it is open to any hon. member, whether he is a member of the government or not, to move an amendment provided it stays within what is recommended, namely, the authority to increase the size of the respective councils and the number of members elected thereto. I believe that what the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) seeks to do is within the provisions of the blank cheque given and that as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned it should be allowed as being in order.


Erik Nielsen: With the indulgence of the Chair and members of the House I would draw the attention of Your Honour to an exchange which took place on the introduction of this bill-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since the hon. member has already spoken on this question he can only do so again, as he said, with the indulgence of hon. members. Is the House agreeable to allowing the hon. member to continue on this point of order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I thank hon. members. I would draw Your Honour's attention to Hansard for May 13. I raised this point of order then, as reported on page 6927 and subsequently. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) took part in the exchange, as did Mr. Speaker, who was in the Chair. As reported on page 6928, Mr. Speaker had this to say-the reference in the first line is to myself:
In this instance the hon. member objects to it (the recommendation) because there are not in the bill some matters which perhaps should have been there in order to be covered by the royal recommendation. I would not think that this makes the recommendation invalid. I hope I am not making a mistake in this regard, but I will look into the matter further and try to study the point a little more closely. I assume that this bill is not going
June 19, 1970	COMMONS
to be passed immediately but will eventually come back to the House, so there will still be time either to make a correction-
Meaning, in the recommendation itself- -or by clarifying the point after I have looked into the situation more closely.
Perhaps His Honour might be given that opportunity, since we are so close to the luncheon adjournment now.
I would also draw to Your Honour's attention a point raised by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) at that time. The revenues from which the members of the council are paid do not come from the consolidated revenue fund of the Government of Canada but rather from the Yukon consolidated revenue fund, which is a separate fund entirely, by virtue of Section 15 of the existing act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Possibly I might
accept the invitation of the hon. member for Yukon to reflect on this over the luncheon adjournment. I feel obliged, however, to point out that my procedural objection does not lie in the interesting area of argument developed so far. I do not want to prejudge any decision, but my objection really lies in the area of relevancy-does the amendment in fact go beyond the terms of the bill. It seems to me there are citations in Beauchesne and May which are unequivocal with regard to this matter. Nevertheless, I will reflect on the arguments put forward and make a ruling after the luncheon adjournment.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Prior to the luncheon adjournment the House was considering the procedural admissibility or otherwise of a motion at the report stage in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to Bill C-212. At the time the Chair had some doubt as to its admissibility and heard procedural arguments. During the luncheon hour we have had some chance to give the matter further thought.
I must say that the difficulty is partly procedural and arises partly from the fact that we are very conscious of the importance of the amendment to the hon. member for
DEBATES	8349
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act Yukon. This is obviously something of prime importance to him, a matter to which he has given a great deal of thought. I have also heard him many times in debate on the subject. This always makes it more difficult, because the Chair realizes the degree of commitment.
If it is of some consolation, I must say that I confess the procedural arguments with respect to possible objection on the ground that it might violate financial provisions were somewhat convincing. However, I must return to what I alluded to prior to the luncheon adjournment as the ground upon which I take procedural objection to the amendment, namely, that it seems to me that it goes behind bill C-212 and tries to amend the provisions in the main Act which are not covered in Bill C-212.
It has been suggested that the proposal covered by this motion is irrelevant and goes beyond the scope of Bill C-212. I would draw the attention of the House to May's seventeenth edition, page 549, which provides:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
In like manner, I might also remind the House of citation 406 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which provides, in part:
Amendments are out of order if they are (a) irrelevant to the bill, or beyond its scope-
For these reasons, and with some regret, as I have expressed, I must rule the motion inadmissible.
The House will now deal with Motion No. 2, which I might put to the House. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) moves:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act be amended by deleting the words "but the Governor in Council may, after consultation with the Council, at any time dissolve the Council and cause a new Council to be elected" in clause 2, lines 12, 13, 14 and 15, page 1 thereof, and replacing the comma after the word "longer" in line 12 with a period.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will be a little difficult for members to follow if they are consulting both the bill as originally printed and as reprinted. The amendment attempts to amend the bill as originally printed because this section was amended in committee. That amendment is reflected in the bill as reprinted. The reason for advancing Motion No. 2 is to have it in


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act preference to the section as it reads in the reprinted bill. The original print of the bill would have the council continue for four years instead of three years as is now set forth in the Act. Then, a certain phrase appears. Really, I would ask the minister to give us any logical reason he can that this archaic and colonialistic phrase should be continued. Although it may have been necessary at the turn of the century when it was originated, it is not necessary in this modem day and age. In section 7 the act sets forth clearly that the minister always has control of the administration of the government of the territories on the instructions of the Governor in Council from time to time through his commissioner.
In essence, the minister can do anything he pleases. He can in fact disregard every other section of the Act and proceed under a completely autocratic sort of system. I am not suggesting that he does this, but he has this power. He knows he has this power and, indeed, he said so to members during the committee hearing. Here we have a phrase which purports to extend the life of the council from three years to four years, but then it is clouded by a great club to be held over the head of the elected council of the Yukon because the Governor in Council has power to dissolve the council at pleasure if the activities of the elected members of the council do not meet with the approval of the cabinet or the minister. In that situation, the council can be dissolved. This seems to me to smack of King George III. I know the minister has no ambition to be King George III. There are some people in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories who may wish him to be Louis XIV.
Why should the Governor in Council hold such a club over the heads of an elected body? Surely this is unnecessary. The whole purpose of Motion No. 2, as set forth on the notice paper, is to do away with this power. Why could we not simply say that there shall be a wholly elected council in the Yukon Territory consisting of seven members. We would have liked to have 15, but that has been ruled out of order. The minister knows that the Liberal Association in the Yukon, the Yukon council, and all of us would like 15, but we are not to be given 15. However, even with a council of seven members, why should we be subjected to this overriding power of the Governor in Council because the minister in any event has the power to direct the affairs of the government of the Yukon. He does not need a residual power. If he does not

like what the elected representatives of the people are doing there, he can simply dismiss the council out of hand. This smacks of pure colonialism. It is archaic, out of date and has no useful purpose in the legislation. The purpose of the amendment is to do away with this phrase.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to be difficult, but I should like to explain to the House why we feel this amendment should not be accepted. The main reason is we are trying to have a system of democratic institutions in Canada which is similar everywhere in the country. This practice, by which the Governor in Council, the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the minister may play a role to an extent in the Yukon, is to permit the people who elected the representative to have an opportunity to have another look at the situation. Members here in Ottawa are elected to the Parliament of Canada for five years. If there should be a problem in the House of Commons, the Governor General, on the advice of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Trudeau), has the power to call a new election. A similar problem could arise in the north. There might be a conflict between the administration represented in the north by the commissioner and the elected members.
There could be a situation in which the administration and the elected members did not agree. A conflict might result in which members would refuse to vote money. All sorts of problems could arise. Normally, the matter would be referred to the electors who could elect a new council or re-elect the same members. With this provision, the administration would know that it had the power to give the voters of the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories an opportunity to express their view if there should be a crisis. I know that for years and years this power has never been exercised. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) should know I am the last person to be very autocratic.


Erik Nielsen: I don't know.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This will provide a lot of flexibility to the operation at a time when we are moving as never before in the direction of having elected members in the administration.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Would he not agree that this power has never been exercised?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I agree, and I do not intend to exercise it, but we never know. If there should be a complete disagreement we could be in an inflexible position for four years. If the minister should be a tough guy who does not give a damn about the people of the Yukon-you know, if the Tory administration ever came back, which will not be the case- there would be no chance for the people to debate.


Erik Nielsen: Amend the act.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Oh, yes, but you know the problem in respect of amending legislation. Members of the House of Commons always have a lot of good ideas with which we have to cope. Why should we create problems when we can have flexibility in the legislation? The hon. member would have us establish a system which is imported directly from the United States. What the hon. member wants to establish by his amendment is a sort of congressional system, such as exists in the United States, where the members sit for two years or four years.


Erik Nielsen: You have to be out of your tree.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No. That is the same system they have. In Canada when there is a conflict between the administration and the legislature, the people have the right to have an election to decide between the two. I believe so much in the Canadian institution that I do not wish to deprive the people of the Yukon of that right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think my hon. friend has overlooked that aspect of the problem and, for that reason, will not pursue his amendment.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it was agreed before we embarked on the debate on all these amendments that the votes on all of them would be put at the end of the day. I will not disagree if the House wishes to reverse its decision, but I think that was the agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That was the proceeding I was following. The question has to be put to determine whether a vote is required and if five hon. members rise, I will defer the vote.
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act


Erik Nielsen: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that it was agreed that all questions would be put at the end of the day, whether or not five members rose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The proceeding is a fairly common one at this stage of our proceedings. The question is put, and if a decision is required, the division is deferred.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Before the question is put, may I make a few comments since I second this very reasonable amendment. I was quite surprised at the explanation given by the minister, for whom I feel a great deal of affection and kindness. In explaining this particular amendment to the House, I cannot say that the minister deliberately misled the House but he certainly confused the House, so far as I am concerned, because the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is so simple.
I am surprised that the young, energetic and emancipated Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), and the government which prides itself on advocating participatory democracy, is propounding such a sterile, ancient and archaic provision. The House of Lords and House of Commons in England would look like good bedfellows if they ever tried to apply such a sterile type of provision to the House of Commons in Canada, which they might have done in the old days. As the hon. member for Yukon said, what this clause does is to avoid a free expression of the will of the people of the Yukon. We also have disagreements in this House from time to time, but surely if the minister is trying to bring in an emancipated form of government in the north that would be progressive and independent, then the worst way of trying to do it is through this type of provision in the act which tries to treat people in the north like children. In effect, you are saying to them: "You will be a grown up boy now. You can go to school, but mind you come back at five o'clock, and if you do not do so we will whip you".


Mr. Lachance:: You are not speaking on the point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, I am speaking on the amendment.


Georges-C. Lachance: You are not on the point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No. Mr. Speaker, could you explain to the member what I am doing? 1 am


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act speaking on the amendment. I know he has not done much homework.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would request the co-operation of the House. The hon. member is rising to speak on the motion, and every hon. member has the right to speak on this motion.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make is that if the hon. member can sit in this chamber and not even appreciate the fact that another hon. member is rising to speak on the motion, then we need more discussion so that members opposite will appreciate the purport of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon. I sincerely believe that there is not a member across the way or on this side who believes that an elected council should be dissolved ab initio, with the stroke of a pen, just because there is a disagreement between the council and the commissioners. If this is the way in which the minister wishes to build up confidence in the government of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, then I am afraid that no matter how sincere he may be he is mistaken. As I said, this provision is archaic and ancient; it reflects against the good people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories because it will impede the development of self government in the north rather than enhance it, which is what the minister says he wishes to do.
For that reason, I have no hesitation at all in asking hon. members to find out what is involved in this debate. If the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) does not appreciate when an hon. member speaks on Motion No. 2, then I hope he will take the time and make the effort to read the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yukon to see whether he agrees to an elected body being chopped off tomorrow with a stroke of a pen by the Governor in Council, which is the cabinet in Ottawa. If he says he thinks that will enhance confidence in the minister's stewardship of the activities in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, then I will not accept that because I have a higher opinion than that of the hon. member.
There is not a member of this House who would like to see the House of Commons and the House of Lords in England and the so-called Governor in Council over there-if the BNA Act were so construed, and perhaps at some time it was-completely disregard this House. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned such an act did exist in connection with the

old legislative council, the old imperial governor in council, whereby such a thing was possible. As my friend the hon. member for Yukon says, this is just a travesty carried on in history. I would have hoped that in the revision of this bill the minister might have rid us of such a sterile section because history indicates that even 100 years ago legislative councils were upended if their action did not conform to popular will. This is just what this provision is trying to do.
I hope that hon. members will give serious consideration to such a reasonable amendment. All it is asking is that we remove from the Governor in Council the supreme power to completely castrate the efforts and work of the council. The minister explained his dilemma by posing a hypothetical situation in which the council and the commissioners might be at loggerheads and the government in the north might break down. I come back to what the hon. member for Yukon suggested, that the minister can bring in his amendment to take care of that situation at that time. There is no necessity to maintain a provision which is so stupid it has not been used as yet. If we are going to make stupid laws in the House, it is no wonder that the people in this country really wonder what goes on here.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It
seems to me that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) has begun to slip back to the paternalistic attitude that has always been held by the Indian section of the branch, the paternalistic attitude toward government itself, particularly in the Northwest Territories. Here we have a situation where the movement in the Territories is toward self-government. This will come about slowly and gradually. This bill is a step in the right direction and there is some hope that eventually the council will run the affairs of the Territories completely and that they will have something in the nature of provincial status. If there is to be a council of the Territories, I cannot understand where there is any logic in retaining in Ottawa, in the bureaucracy here so many miles away from the north, the right to decide, when there is a quarrel going on in the Territories, that the people there cannot settle it themselves. If that is the attitude, then what is the point of the whole exercise? I grant you that there must be a power to dissolve a council, a legislature, or a Parliament.


[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
But that power of dissolution should be with the council itself and not with the Governor General, so that the council members themselves would have some idea of how long they will be there and what sort of planning they can undertake. The minister said that if there were a lot of quarrels among the councillors which they could not resolve, they would have to be settled from Ottawa. That will not bring organization to self-government. The councillors must be at least able to plan ahead, and in many cases they will have to plan contrary to the government in Ottawa.
The problem with Indian Affairs and Northern Development is that Ottawa has always had the power to make the final decisions, and it seems to be retaining that power. In this particular case I think the final decision should rest with the council. I could see some logic in a slight reversal of the government's proposal. I could see some logic in the council recommending to the Governor General that it be dissolved, in the same manner as happens in this House.
There is a provision in the bill that the Governor in Council may, after consultation with the council, dissolve a council at any time. Consultation is a word that can be used in a very loose way. In this case it could merely mean Ottawa saying, "We intend to dissolve the council," and the council replies, "No, we don't like that." Then the government can say, "Well, we have consulted with you, and you are out."
The council should have a reasonable length of time in which to plan. I really do not understand the minister's attitude with regard to this amendment. I thought he would come forward and say, "We want the council to have the maximum amount of self-determination. We want to give you, the council, all the power to run the show, and we will sit in the background and let you work it out." But the minister did not say that.
This power, albeit the minister says he is not likely to use it and no other minister is likely to use it, is still there. If he is not going to use it, then it should not be held as a club over members of the Territorial Council to make them fall in line with policies directed from Ottawa. I think it would be reasonable to accept the amendment and allow the council to try to work things out without a club being held over them from Ottawa. There is this threat to dissolve the council any time it
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act incurs the royal displeasure, and His Majesty, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, exercises the final power.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like about two minutes to add a footnote to the remarks made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I suppose that what I want to do is put in one paragraph that should have been in his speech but that he must have forgotten. He said that in this institution when we get at loggerheads and people decide, and he wants things to be that way in the north. I wonder if he has forgotten February, 1968, when we were at loggerheads in this House and the opposition, by a majority vote, defeated a government measure, a certain 5 per cent tax bill. According to the dictum given by the minister today the public should have had a chance to decide then, but somebody overruled that and we stayed here, and even the description of what happens in such a situation got changed in the Canada Year Book. I think that should be made part of the record.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing
Order 75(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The House will now consider Motion No. 3. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) moves:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act. the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 12 to 15 on page 1 and substituting the following:
"longer, but the Governor in Council may at any time, after consultation with the council where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the Council with whom consultation can then be effected, dissolve the Council and cause a new Council to be elected."


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House has disposed of amendment No. 2, or at least will when the vote is taken. The committee, in the reprinted bill, has an amendment before the House. By disposing of amendment No. 2, my submission is that the House has disposed of the question contained in amendment No. 3, and I submit that under the rules we cannot vote twice on the same matter. We have already disposed of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would, without consulting the two motions in detail which I probably should do before saying anything, say that would really depend on the outcome of the vote, and that has not been taken yet. The vote has been deferred. Perhaps the point of order would be more properly taken at the time when the vote on motion No. 2 will have been completed. Then, I will study the two motions with greater care. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if the minister will permit my interruption, with great respect I doubt very much whether it would be in order for the House to proceed with the debate on No. 3 unless some sort of ruling were made now. If that means taking a vote now on No. 2 perhaps that is what should be done. But I do submit that if it is ruled out of order in the future, it would be improper to debate it now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My original ruling provides the grounds upon which we have to proceed. If a vote is deferred it cannot automatically preclude debate. There is a procedure in our Standing Orders which allows for deferral. This deferral was made at the request of the hon. member. It seems to me that if all subsequent debates and all submissions were ruled out as a consequence of the House voting a certain way, it would be quite unfair.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order. With all due deference to Your Honour, I think that portion of your verbal judgment in which you said it depended on how the vote was taken, even on the deferred vote, is irrelevant. The matter will be disposed of one way or another when the vote is put. The subject matter

relates to the same clause, and looking at Motions Nos. 2 and 3 you find, that in fact, the very same lines in the bill are mentioned. I submit it is irrelevant whether the vote is going to be for or against Motion No. 2. The fact is that Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 3 deal with the same clause and in fact, in large measure, deal with the same lines in that clause. The minister may want to clarify that point when he rises to speak on the point of order.
My submission, Mr. Speaker, is that your preliminary judgment from the chair that it depended on how the vote was determined on Motion No. 2 is irrelevant. History and precedent will show the relevant point. The House will dispose of Motion No. 2 one way or another and therefore it has adjudicated on Motion No. 2. You cannot slip in by the back door, just because we are deferring by convenience, another vote on the same motion. If that were the case, on the last occasion when something like this occurred while we were in committee of the whole debating an amendment to the transportation bill which was defeated, the then minister of transport, the Honourable Mr. Pickersgill, instead of trying to bring in another motion, could have avoided this difficulty by trying to defer the vote. The authorities will show that it is the subject matter which is the relevant factor in deciding whether you are dealing with the same thing, not when you vote or how a vote disposes of the issue.
For these reasons, I take exception with respect to that portion of your preliminary judgment. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps you should reflect upon what should be decided. Perhaps the simple solution is to put the vote on Motion No. 2.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If we were to accept the point of order proposed by the hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley I think we could not move any more than one amendment. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for the Yukon was to have a fixed term and that there should not be any election within a period of four years. That was the purpose of his amendment.
I submit we can have as many amendments as we want as long as they are not amendments of the same nature. What I am proposing is to clarify the word "consultation". I said if we should call an election in the meantime we could not do it without consultation with the members of the territorial


council. I should like to submit to the Chair that these are two completely different matters, and that the point of order should not be entertained. We should discuss this amendment and the House will have the right later on to say whether they agree or disagree with my amendment. I am quite convinced, with due deference Mr. Speaker, that they will agree when I have a chance to explain.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have your troops there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be discussing what has been referred to as a preliminary judgment from the Chair. I think this is an unusual situation but I should like to support the position that Your Honour has taken in this preliminary judgment which is now being supported by the minister.
Could I ask hon. members to look at this in as simple as possible terms? In ordinary proceedings it has happened time and time again that an amendment is made to something that is before the House-somebody has something else that he wants to propose by way of amendment and he is told to wait until the first one is disposed of. But when the first amendment is disposed of, then it is possible to move another amendment, and that goes on all the time. The fact that an amendment has been moved, whether carried or defeated, does not deny the right to subsequent amendment.
What we have in the report stage is a convenience. Rather than taking all the recorded votes at one time, we defer that and take the different amendments at the same time. We have been through this a number of times. When we were at the report stage of last year's omnibus Criminal Code bill there were amendments on the abortion question both ways, indeed all ways-some wanted to enlarge the provision, some wanted to restrict it and some wanted to remove it from the code altogether. We had debate on these different amendments before finally taking the votes.
Sometimes the Chair has to rule that once a vote has been taken certain other amendments fall but until the vote has been taken I think it would be hurting the rights of members generally to say that having had discussion on one amendment, no others could take place. Suppose the minister's amendment had appeared on the order paper ahead of that of the hon. member for the Yukon-he could not have had his discussed. I ask members to think this through a little more carefully. In
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act this instance I think you were right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I
appreciate the comments of hon. members and I must state that I think my original preliminary ruling will be my final ruling as well. Perhaps I used the word preliminary ill advisedly. I obviously was rising to the point of order not having looked at the two motions very closely and that was probably an error of judgment. In any event, I will put the motion now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the amendment that I should like to propose to the House is quite simple. In its wisdom, the committee made the amendment and I have no objection to it. It said that if the Governor in Council wants to cause a new council to be elected he should consult with the council. We see that this could create a lot of problems. I want to clarify the word "consultation". If the members of council were not sitting at the time the Governor in Council decided to call an election he would have to call them in just to consult about the advisability or inadvisability of calling an election.
I want to add a few words that will permit consultation in a different form if the council is not in session. This would have the effect of permitting the minister to get in touch with each member of the council by letter or other communication and to consult with them about the advisability of calling an election.
In the last analysis, the power in the legislation remains the power of the minister, but we have decided to follow the pattern established in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, that is to consult at length with the members. This is something quite new and something with which the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories agree.
The purpose of the amendment is to permit the minister to consult with the members of council in the best way possible if council is not in session, in order to arrive at a decision. The same amendment will appear two or three times more. If I can elaborate on it, suppose, for example, there were a disaster, a big oil spill, and the minister saw fit to change the land use regulation right away. Under the terminology in the legislation at the moment, he will have to wait until the council is in session. What I am proposing is that if the council is not in session and the minister wants to proceed quickly to change the regulation, he will have the right to com-


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act municate and consult with the members of council.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I know the problems of distance in the north. If an elected representative, for example, of the Northwest Territories on Baffin Island were to be called to Yellowknife for the purpose of making a small amendment in a regulation, he would need to fly, say from Pond Inlet. Sometimes at least he would need to travel from Pond Inlet to Frobisher, from Frobisher to Montreal, from Montreal to Edmonton, and from Edmonton to Yellowknife. This procedure is a bit too rigid, and these amendments would permit us to achieve some more flexibility for the purpose of consulting with the member before we introduce any new regulation. The same type of amendment will be discussed three times more in future, and I wanted to elaborate on this point right away.
So, I think that these amendments are only logical. They are brought in to cover all the points that were not predicted by the committee when it made that proposition which the minister accepted. Before taking my seat may I say that I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) who unfortunately cannot be in the House today. I discussed this with him and he asked me to inform the House that he is in agreement with these amendments.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what the minister has just said, and I say this with all the kindness I can muster towards him, displays his abysmal ignorance of the north. This amendment has nothing to do with the Northwest Territories absolutely nothing; so that his remarks about getting in touch with members on Baffin Islands and elsewhere in the Northwest Territories and consulting them about something happening in Yellowknife are absolutely irrelevant. His own amendment is being advanced to amend that portion of the bill dealing with-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the hon. member is playing on words on this question and taking my meaning out of context. I said that the remarks I was now making were to apply to

many amendments. I agree with him that this amendment we are discussing has to do with the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I admit that this amendment has to do with the Yukon, but I made the reservation to the Chair that I was directing my remarks to the whole situation in the north. The point I made about the Northwest Territories perhaps does not apply to the Yukon. I took that example because I did not want to rise every time and repeat the same argument. I did it to save the time of the House, and only for that reason. I do not think the hon. member should be too unkind about what I said, and should understand why I said what I did.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that was about as spurious a question of privilege as I have ever heard.


An hon. Member:: You are never here.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure that the Chair will give us an equal opportunity to raise similar questions of privilege and time, in addition to our debating time, to answer the minister each time he rises on such spurious questions of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to the hon. member that it is not an uncommon practice in the House to allow a member who feels he has been misinterpreted the opportunity of rising to explain and clarify what he intended to say. That is a courtesy held out to all hon. members. Sometimes the Chair may be too indulgent. Having said that, I recognize the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the minister's kindness, may I point out that that was not a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Cheap.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member who asserts I am cheap will kindly rise and say that, I will answer him, too. The minister made himself quite clear when he said that this matter concerned difficulties experienced in getting in touch with people of Baffin Island, and so on. Respectfully, I say that it has nothing to do with Baffin Island.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I explained that.


Erik Nielsen: The amendment has to do only with the Yukon.


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act


An hon. Member:: The minister explained all that.


Erik Nielsen: I know what the minister said by way of explanation to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). I also know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and I are good friends, and if we cannot have a violent clash of ideas on these questions, there is something wrong with this chamber. I intend to have that violent and thorough clash with the minister, because this is an important matter not only for Parliament but for the people I represent and the people the minister is responsible for above the 60th parallel. There is nothing wrong with that.
The minister said that he discussed the question of the amendment to sections of the Yukon Act with the hon. member for Northwest Territories and that the hon. member agreed to those amendments. He can say something like that when dealing with amendments to the Northwest Territories Act, but we are not dealing with that Act now. We are not there; we are dealing with an amendment to the Yukon Act. Really, what the minister's officers have done here is to disguise a most odious and pernicious amendment affecting the principle of consultation that was written into this clause by the committee, I might say unanimously by all including the Liberal members on the committee.
If hon. members will consult the original version of the bill they will see that the Yukon Act, on page 1, gave the Governor in Council the absolute power to dissolve the council at any time he pleased. That meant that the power resided in the minister. This matter did not concern any quarrel between the members of the council and the commissioner, who is a public servant taking his directions from the minister, but a quarrel that might arise between the minister and the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon. It has to do with the Yukon, and not the Northwest Territories.
In its wisdom and in accordance with the precepts of participatory democracy, the committee thought that it would be a good idea if the minister, in exercising this power, could say to the elected members of the Yukon Council, seven in number, "All right boys, pack it up. Go home. You are to have another election." So, unanimously the committee said that the Governor-in-Council can only do that after he has consulted with members of the council. What does the minister's amendment
on the notice paper do? It says that he may consult with die council only if he deems such consultation to be practicable. That lets him off the hook immediately. It does not stop there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, the hon. member is incorrect.


Erik Nielsen: Not only need he not consult with the council if he does not think it practicable to do so, but he can avoid doing so if for any other reason he deems it unnecessary to consult. He need not do so because of these pernicious words, "or, otherwise." This sort of language dates back to the Norman conquerors.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The Normans have landed.


Erik Nielsen: I am told that the Normans have landed. He further confuses the issue by saying that if he wants to consult he may determine whether he will do so by writing a letter, by telephone, by sending a carrier pigeon, by sending somebody on a skidoo, or by using any other form of communication that is as slow as he may wish, at his own discretion. That is what is suggested by the amendment. It says in part, "after consultation with each of the members of the Council with whom consultation can then be effected."
I can understand the spirit of this amendment applying in the Northwest Territories, because it is difficult in an area covering 1,300,000 square miles, to get in touch with people. But there is absolutely no difficulty in the Yukon, where every community is served by telephone or radio telephone, and where most communities are served by road or air. There is no difficulty in getting members of the Yukon council together on twenty-four hours' notice. It has been done before and can be done again. So, when the minister says in his innocent fashion that he is only attempting to clarify the word "consultation", I say to him, "hogwash", sir. That is precisely what it is. What he has done with this amendment, which was passed unanimously by the committee, is so to constrict it with excessive verbiage and stifling conditions as to make it completely inoperative.
He talked about oil spills. Oil spills have nothing to do with this amendment of the minister. They might have something to do with the Territorial Lands Act amendment when we get to it. Clarify, indeed! Call individual members of council! I remember a former Prime Minister of the same political
8358	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19. 1970
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
stripe as those sitting opposite who had the principle of divide and conquer. That is precisely what the motivation seems to be here. The minister can tell all of the council members "Look, you don't want to dissolve, do you?" or "You will dissolve, won't you?"
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Surely, consultation, in what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) so proudly called participatory democracy two years ago, has only one meaning. That meaning is to sit down with the elected representatives of the people and ask their opinion. That is precisely what the reprinted bill provided. It is precisely what this Parliament should provide if they have any understanding in depth of what participatory democracy means. We are fed up with being held under the thumb of "Louis Quatorze". That is what we have here, a colonial system that seems to be perpetuated despite what appeared to be some forward looking amendments.
The committee took hold of the amendments and, crossing party lines, approved them unanimously. Then the minister, I am sure with the advice of his bureaucrats in the ivory tower who are so pathologically reluctant to release power, confused the amendment by constricting and throttling any democracy the committee tried to infuse into the amendment in the first place.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this amendment to point out that if the minister really means that he intends to consult and take advice from his territorial council, he is not setting a very good example as far as the parliamentary committee is concerned. As the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has pointed out, this is the very same situation as when the parliamentary committee made some suggestions. The minister not only consulted with them, but he received some amendments from them. After consultation, they were then in a position to recommend to the House what amendments would be suitable. In the same high-handed fashion that the minister dealt with the parliamentary committee he is now going to deal with the territorial council.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Right according to form.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: If that is consultation, consultation has no meaning. The words that have been added to this amendment do not mean anything more than the original act meant. They mean nothing more than if the previously considered amendment by the hon. member for Yukon were accepted.

As hon. members know, consultation is nothing more than a communication of intentions unless you really intend to make it something more realistic. There is no indication from the minister that in consultation he intends to do anything more than make a telephone call, write a letter or even sit and hear opinions. It still does not withdraw this club he has over the head of the territorial council, "If you do not go along with me then I will dissolve you". I do not think that is either participation in the government of the Yukon Territory or consultation in its proper form.
On various occasions consultation has been requested between the government and some other body so that there would be some advance notice of the government's intentions and objections could be raised. In the case of the council, the government has decided that consultation with the council is of no value whatever because they are the people being affected. Unless the government made a firm decision to dissolve the council, consultation would serve no purpose except for twisting the arms of the members of the council to come around to the viewpoint of the government on any given matter.
I made my point about self-government on a previous amendment. There is no point in leaving this residual power with the minister because by doing so the minister could wipe out the council and call a new election. If that power is left there, there will be no self-government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I also wish to speak to the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon. It again illustrates the dilemma the minister is confronted with by trying to invoke an archaic, absolute power to dissolve a duly elected council by the stroke of a pen without any real terms of reference or consultation with those who have been duly elected by the people of the north.
As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) pointed out, the people of the north are not reassured by the minister's interpretation of consultation, yet there was a unanimous recommendation of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that there should be this power. I disagree that the power should even be there. The committee recommended that it should only be exercised after consultation with the council. There is an inference that there must be some type of consultation by the minister or Governor in Council with the council duly convened.


I was interested in the minister's explanation of why he wanted to amend the bill that the committee, regardless of party lines, unanimously recommended to this House. The minister says these people can be called on the phone because there are difficulties in getting them together. If there is to be such an absolute power given to the Governor in Council to dissolve a duly elected assembly, surely that power should only be exercised after due diligence, care and with some discretion. It should not be done on an individual basis of getting one councillor on the radio telephone, getting another councillor on the telephone or going on the ski-doo to someone's home or igloo to talk to him individually.
If something so absolute and basic to the rights of the northern people is to be done, it should be done only with the assembly duly convened. That is obviously what the committee thought when they said that such an absolute power should only be invoked after consultation with the council. It certainly should not be done by letter or telegram. There should be no attempt to do this on an individual basis. Yet by the minister's own amendment to the bill, in spite of the unanimous recommendation of the committee, this is what will happen.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
The minister could single out individual members of the council and call on them under the midnight sun to discuss individually with them the pros and cons of dissolution, to suggest to them little plums or carrots in connection with what they should or should not do. I suggest that when an elected committee of the House, after hearing different views, recommends that such power should be invoked only after the council as a whole has been consulted, this is the only way in which it should be done. The minister has put forward an amendment which makes a mockery of consultation. If anyone doubts this, he has only to read the terms of the motion which has been placed before the House. How can there be meaningful consultation if it depends upon the minister to decide whether or not it is practicable? This is as wide as it is long; it is as broad as it is high. It opens up the whole can of worms. If there should be any restriction placed on the minister's interpretation of what is practical, he can rely on the all inclusive words which have been written into every dictatorial document since the time of King Canute-if he ever wrote one, and I am not so sure he did.
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
I refer, of course, to the words "or otherwise". There cannot be consultation when it is left entirely to the government to decide whether it is practicable or not. The very words used by the minister in attempting to justify this amendment are words which confound his argument. The vast distances of the north, the rigour of the climate and the uncertainty of transport would enable the hon. gentleman to tell the House whenever he wishes "I tried to get hold of the council but it was not practicable because the temperature was 50 degrees below zero and the wind was blowing at 100 miles an hour." So he might have had to sit in Yellowknife, or Whitehorse and amuse himself by gambling, or something. He could then write a bulletin saying "I tried to get to you, Harry; I tried to get to you, Sam, but it was too damn cold; it was not practicable; the dogs were not working that day." And, as I say, if any problem arose about practicability the minister could confound us by the words "or otherwise".
No member of the committee which produced this recommendation can accept the minister's recommendation if he believes in the value of consultation. If there should be any doubt about what I am saying, if hon. members think I have gone too far in my interpretation, if it is too extreme, if the term "flexibility" has not been clearly defined, or if the term "otherwise" can be given a different interpretation, let us come back to the last restriction contained in the minister's amendment. I refer to the provision regarding consultation with council members "with whom consultation can be effected." The minister wants this phrase included because of the distances encountered in the north, because of the extreme cold which prevails there. These are the reasons he can use for saying it is not practicable to consult members of the council. I have no hesitation in speaking against such a spurious amendment, one which makes a mockery of the word consultation. I am informed that the bill as it presently stands was approved by a committee which said there should be no limitation as to consultation. The committee said clearly, concisely, and constructively-


An hon. Member:: And unanimously.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and unanimously that the governor in council might, after consultation with the council, do certain things. What a calamity it is that a sincere minister who is trying to bring new life to self government in the north should decide to make a mockery of consultation by substituting this amendment


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act for an unanimous recommendation by a committee. By using these words "where he deems such consultation to be practicable, or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected" he builds a little snow fence or ice fence. Perhaps the council cannot get into town. Then, he will pick the members off one by one. If, as the hon. gentleman says, there are problems about transport in the north, cannot the existence of those problems be used to suggest that it was not practicable to consult with the council? The minister is caught by his own words; he is hoist with his own petard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. minister. All those in favour please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those against, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75 a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
As I indicated earlier in the sitting, I have doubts about the admissibility of amendment No. 4 and also amendment No. 5. I am prepared to hear procedural arguments in this connection should hon. members wish to advance them.


Erik Nielsen: I raised this matter, too, on March 13 as a point of order. The Speaker at that time had reservations about it. I will deal with the arguments very briefly, but when introducing this legislation on May 13, the minister had this to say, as reported at page 6924 of Hansard:
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Before I deal with the provisions of the bill in detail, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that there is a major step in the constitutional development of the Yukon Territory which does not appear in the bill.
I draw to Your Honour's attention the words:
-a major step in the constitutional development of the Yukon territory which does not appear in the bill.
The minister continued:
In order to have the members of the council of the Yukon participate more fully in the executive functions of government I will be instructing the commissioner-

That is, the minister's appointee.
-to establish an executive committee which will assist him in the exercise of his responsibilities as chief executive officer of the territory.
In other words, he is going to smuggle some civil servants into the legislative function.
This committee is to consist of two members of the Yukon council to be selected by the members of council, the two assistant commissioners, who are officers of the Yukon administration, and the commissioner himself who will be the chairman of the committee.
This means three bureaucrats and two elected representatives of the people in the Yukon.
This change in the executive structure of the government of the Yukon has great potential for the future.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: The minister is the only one who applauds. Everyone in the Yukon is shedding tears of bitter disappointment.
I will be following it closely. If the changes now being introduced prove successful, they could point the way to further constitutional progress.
Then, on May 14, when a question was raised as to this method of proceeding, the minister had this to say, as reported at page 6978 of Hansard. This is what I have been saying in this House for a good many years, not only to this minister but to ministers who preceded him in both political parties:
It is true that this is not provided in the bill-
That is, the setting up of the executive committee.
-but this is because we want more flexibility.
He wants more power.
The fact that no provision is made for this in the bill means nothing at all, since the commissioners always act on the direction of the minister.
In other words, they take his orders, presumably as assistant commissioners.
My submission is that this constitutional development-it was correctly called a constitutional development and is about the only accurate statement in the minister's remarks that I have read today-is in fact just that. The Yukon Act is a mini-BNA act. It spells out the legislative powers the council that has been set up by this Parliament acquires.
In 1960 a constitutional development occurred which was embodied in the Act, and it was intended to have an embryo effect under the act at that time. This amendment in 1960 appears in the present Act as section 12, which set up an advisory committee on


finance consisting of three members who were selected from among the seven elected members of council. The commissioner was required to consult those three members who composed the advisory committee on finance, and this consultation is made mandatory by subsection (3) of section 12.
I submit that the only way in which the minister or this Parliament can set up an executive committee to intrude upon other sections of the Yukon Act is by altering the Yukon Act itself. Section 9 of the Yukon Act sets forth that there shall be a council of the Yukon territory consisting of seven members. It sets forth certain powers the council has under section 16. Those powers are legislative powers. The commissioner in council has all of those powers that are enumerated in section 16.
What the minister is purporting to do here by ministerial power is to create a committee that is neither fish nor fowl, one dominated by civil servants and which clothes two elected members of the council with a legislative function. It may be a direct legislative function in the sense that they can pass laws; they still have to be passed by the commissioner in council pursuant to the Yukon Act.
The first intention is as the minister expressed it on the record on May 13 and May 14 last, namely that they are going to be asked to accept ministerial responsibility. That means the drafting of legislation and the introduction of legislation in the council. Here I think is where the minister and his advisers are constitutionally incorrect. Quite apart from the undesirability of the whole design and structure of what he is trying to do- which, as I have said, is to smuggle civil servants into the legislative process, rather than the other way around-I submit it is simply unconstitutional for the minister to attempt to usurp the power of the Parliament of Canada, which is the only authority that can set up any such bodies as an executive committee and an advisory committee on finance, which it set up in 1960 under section 12. The Parliament of Canada is the only authority that can clothe such committees with any kind of power whatever.
If that not be so, and if that not be the proper constitutional approach, what we have here are two elected members who are elected under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, the Yukon Act, and the minister is going to direct them as to what they are to do on the executive committee. This seems to me to be absolutely inconsistent with any constitutional position or development.
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
I do not know what Your Honour's specific doubts were in respect to the acceptability of this amendment. I assume that, simply because the bill was silent as to the setting up of the committee mentioned by the minister, Your Honour has concluded that it goes beyond the purpose of the bill. However, I think I have clearly demonstrated that, notwithstanding the fact that the bill does not include provision for the setting up of the executive committee, the intention of the minister is to give a direction to the civil service to set up a committee, which involves half of the legislative function set up by an Act of Parliament. I say that only Parliament has the right to alter the structure of council in any way, shape of form and that the minister has no power whatever to give any direction in this regard.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on the question of procedure, may I point out to the hon. member that he is not debating the procedural aspects of the question, but rather the question itself. I could enter into a debate right now-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon.
member for Yukon is rising on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take advantage of the courtesy that is normally extended to members of the House to correct the minister's interpretation of my intention. I rose to explain a procedural point, and my objection to the doubt that Your Honour has is one of procedure only. The point that I am making is that it is not within the constitutional power of the minister but only within the constitutional power of this Parliament to set up the kind of committee of which he speaks.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In any event, Mr. Speaker, on the question of procedure I think amendments Nos. 4 and 5 put forward by the hon. member are far beyond the scope of the bill. The hon. member would like to introduce something new into the bill. There will be an executive council. We have said that many times. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that we even received a telegram from the Speaker, speaking on behalf of the members of the Yukon council, congratulating the government for its


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act wisdom in providing two members tor the executive council.


Erik Nielsen: He had no authority to do that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In terms of the main issue, perhaps the intentions of the hon. member are good. On the other hand, perhaps the hon. member is wrong. I shall not make a clear case even though it would be easy to do so. In terms of procedure, I believe these two amendments are not within the scope of the bill and should not be received by the Chair.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. I assume part of the difficulty Your Honour has concerns the possibility of the expenditure of funds without a recommendation by the Governor in Council in respect of the setting up of this executive council. It seems ludicrous to me that the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory may establish a committee to assist him, and presumably pay the members of the committee as has been suggested by the minister, but that a member of this House of Commons cannot even propose such a body. If this is the line of reasoning which Your Honour has to consider, then I suggest there is something terribly wrong with it. As an example I would point out that Information Canada was operating for weeks before there was any legislative authority in respect of it. Similar organizations have been appointed, have commenced work and their members have been paid without there being any parliamentary authority.
It would seem that we are drawing the line much too closely if we say that a Member of Parliament cannot even propose the appointment of a committee or a commission. Surely this was not the intention of the rules concerning the expenditure of public funds. We know of instances where many people have been appointed, employed and paid from public funds. Surely in a situation like this a recommendation by the Governor in Council is not required in each case. I appeal here again, Mr. Speaker, against an ever-increasing series of rulings by the Chair which make it almost impossible for private members to put forward any proposals in respect of government legislation except concerning tiny things which do not mean anything. I contend that the suggestion which has been made in the form of an amendment is reasonable. When a minister states that the commissioner intends to appoint such a committee, it seems

very strange that a member of this House of Commons cannot even propose such a body.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their contributions to the procedural argument concerning motions 4 and 5. In respect of the final point raised by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), it would seem to me that if he has a valid point-and he may very well have one-the remedy lies with the Members in the House. The grievance he has lies not with rulings of the Chair but with the practice, which may be open to re-examination, of restricting amendments to bills to the scope of the royal recommendation. Having said this, however, I should like to say further that this is not the area of doubt in respect of these two motions.
The point that I made in respect of the first motion is involved here. It would seem to me that amendments 4 and 5 go behind Bill C-212 and seek to amend provisions of the main act which are not covered by Bill C-212. I suggest, therefore, that these proposals are irrelevant and beyond the scope of the bill. In this respect I would refer hon. members to the following citation which appears at page 549 of May's seventeenth edition:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
For these reasons I cannot put Motions Nos. 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to speak to Motion No. 5 before Your Honour ruled it out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to accommodate the hon. member, but in the first instance I pointed out that motions 4 and 5 were similar and I invited comments on both. If the hon. member feels strongly about the procedural difficulty-although I do not see how there is much room for argument, having made the ruling which I have-I am not anxious to be any harder than I am obliged to be under the rules.


Erik Nielsen: intended to give the elected members a majority on the committee. However, since Your Honour has disallowed both amendments I will save the time of the House, without accepting the principles the minister has espoused in his amendment, by not insisting on a procedural argument in respect of Motion No. 5.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next amendment is Motion No. 6 in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out subclause 2 of clause 5 on page 3 thereof.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain to hon. members why we have to propose this amendment. We do not want to limit the authority of the elected members of the Council of the Yukon Territory but only to maintain, as I explained earlier, in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, the constitutional development which took place in the Canadian legislatures and is mostly derived from the British parliamentary system.
Under sections 54 and 90 of the British North America Act, in our parliamentary system, it is forbidden to pass resolutions, addresses or bills proposing the allocation of public funds or taxes whithout recomman-dation from the Lieutenant-Governor in the case of legislatures or from the Governor General in the case of Parliament.
If we agreed to the amendment moved by the committee members, who have done so in good faith, in order to meet the objectives of the administration, that wanted the members of the Council of the Yukon Territory to vote themselves the amount of their indemnity in addition to the expenses involved to go to their riding or to the seat of the Council, thus exempting them from considering this appropriation of money, done without the consent of the Commissioner of the Territories, we would be going against our parliamentary tradition and against the one we intend to establish in The Yukon where, for the first time, will be established an Executive Council made up of two members elected by the Assembly and two other appointed members and of the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory as well.
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
Now, as I have said several times, it is hopefully a first step toward the establishment of an Executive Council whose members will all be appointed by the elected members of the Territorial Assembly. However, I cannot forecast when this will happen. If we were to pass this amendment, we would completely deny Parliament the basic executive power which, under a British parliamentary system, gives it the exclusive authority to introduce legislation involving the spending of public funds.
And since we want a continuity in attitude and approach to constitutional development in Canada, we think that such a precedent would be totally contrary to sections 54 and 90 of the British North America Act as regards the administration of the provinces and of the federal government, and would be contrary to the recognized constitutional practices of our parliamentary system.
However, so as to reassure the House, I would say that the salaries recommended by the members of the Territorial Councils will be approved by the administration. I have every reason to believe they will be very easy to approuve, unless of course they are exaggerated. But, according to the conversations my officials and I have had with the members of the Councils, it seems the salaries they intend to vote themselves will be altogether acceptable to the minister. Indeed, we do not intend to create any difficulties.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Obviously, what I am now saying may not be completely in line with the decision made by the committee, but hon. members will understand that we do not want to create a precedent that might be absolutely contrary to the attitude and approach taken so far about constitutional development in the Northwest and Yukon Territories. In any event, I am sure we will accept readily the recommendations of the members from the Territories when under the law, they set themselves their own salaries. Then, the administration will present a bill to the assembly for the expenditure of public funds, as is usually done according to the British tradition which prevails in the administration of parliamentary institutions in our country.


Erik Nielsen: What the minister was speaking about was the practice that was in vogue 100 or 200 years ago. It appears that for a long time to come the Yukon and Northwest
8364	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19, 1970
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
Territories will continue to be even more backward than some of the colonial countries in Africa.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? He used the word "backward." Does he mean by that, that the Parliament of Canada, Canadian legislative assemblies and Westminster have a backward system of administration?


Erik Nielsen: A good deal of improvement could be made there as well. What I meant to say to the minister-I and every member of the Yukon Council have told him this many times-was that we feel the system that this Parliament continues to impose upon the Yukon is a colonial system. For the minister to speak of this great reform toward autonomous government is a hollow mockery. I really cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary who is sitting next to the minister. He voted in support of every one of these amendments that we have considered so far, particularly the one with respect to consultation, the words of which almost came out of his mouth in the committee. We are considering the inapplicability or otherwise of section 24 in allowing the seven elected members to set their own indemnities. He voted for that amendment in committee, as did his Liberal colleagues. Now they are about-facing simply because the minister has been advised by his civil servants that it is not a very good provision and this power should not be lost because the old ivory tower will start crumbling.


Mr. Honey:: The hon. member is anticipating.


Erik Nielsen: I hope the hon. member will be here and will vote on these amendments in the same way as he did in committee. But I doubt that he will, if he wants to keep his job. The fact is that the Yukon Act which is under consideration here can be amended in any way we please. Parliament is the master, not the minister and not his departmental officials. This House of Commons and the other place are the masters of what design the Yukon Act will take. What is the matter with modernizing it a little? Why does the minister, to quote a well-worn phrase, have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the twentieth century of constitutional development?
The Yukon Act as it now stands sets up a separate consolidated revenue fund, and what the minister is asking the House to swallow

in the form of a red herring, that the members of council are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, is fiction. If he does not know it is fiction, he had better read some books on constitutional law. Perhaps he has been away from his office too long. Maybe he should get back there and familiarize himself with some of these finer constitutional points. But the fact of the matter is that the act contained provisions setting up a separate consolidated revenue fund. In that fund there are no compartments setting aside certain areas into which territorial revenues will fall and certain other compartments into which the federal grant will fall; no more so than it is in the provincial consolidated revenue funds, and from there he draws his example.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
He says he wants it to be the same as the constitutional structure in the provinces. What is so different between the constitutional structure in the provinces and that which I suggest should prevail in the Yukon Territory, where the members of the elected council should have the power to set their own indemnities without a civil servant telling them what indemnity they are to get? Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this minister is going to tell the commissioner what he should do. He has already said this, as recorded in Hansard of May 14, at page 6978:
The fact that no provision is made for this in the bill means nothing at all, since the commissioners always act on the direction of the minister.
You had better believe it, Mr. Speaker: they always act on the direction of the minister, and that is what we resent. The commissioner is the horse and the minister is the driver. The minister has reins 4,000 miles long, trying to drive that horse, and he is making a darn poor job of it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have a good telephone system.


Erik Nielsen: Exactly, there is a good system of telephonic communications, so why did you need that last pernicious amendment with respect to consultation, a requirement to consult each of the councillors if they are available, if it is practicable, if it is wise? With a good system of communication there is no need for that kind of nonsensical and unnecessary provision.
I am sure it was unintentional, but the minister distorted the constitutional picture. The analogy between the provinces and what should be taking place in the territories is that in the territories the people who are


elected to govern should govern. To draw an analogy with respect to this House-I hope hon. members will forgive me for raising the matter, in view of the editorial in today's Globe and Mail-we recently passed a bill to increase members' pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: And I hear rumours abounding that perhaps our salaries are going to be increased.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Erik Nielsen: Under the provisions of this
bill the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) would have to go cap in hand to the Deputy Minister of Finance and say, "Please, we would like a little more pension," or, "a little more salary." That is what members who are elected to the council in the Yukon are expected to do. They have to go to a civil servant-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: To me.


Erik Nielsen: To the minister, through a commissioner. In any event, it is through a civil servant first. They have to go to him, he gets in touch with the assistant deputy minister, who gets in touch with the deputy minister, who gets in touch with the minister. This business about consultation is not going to wash. The committee introduced these amendments on consultation because there has been no consultation with respect to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Surely the elected representatives of the people should not have to go cap in hand to a civil servant and say, "Look, there is some business we would like to do in Watson Lake, 300 miles away. Could we have 10 cents a mile for gasoline if we use our own cars?" Surely an elected representative should not have to say to a civil servant "I want to make a telephone call, on government business, to Beaver Creek. It will cost $1.50. Do you think you could pass that?" Why should not the representatives have the right to pass these expenses themselves? If that democratic principle is wrong, what are we doing here' in raising our own pensions and salaries?


Stanley Howard Knowles: good question.


Erik Nielsen: The minister made much in saying that this creation of an executive council is a great step forward in constitu-
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act tional development. My goodness, Mr. Speaker! Here we have three civil servants who have invited two elected representatives of the council to sit with them, with the three civil servants forming the majority. Can anyone tell me that those three civil servants will take instructions from the two elected members? Surely the democratic principle is that the majority of the elected members should govern. How are they going to govern with a minority on a committee that in effect will be told what to do by the minister?
For the information of hon. members who do not have any idea of the extent to which this pernicious principle applies, it goes this far: if the minister wants to cut out the teaching of social studies in our schools, he can do it. He will tell the commissioner to direct the committee to do this, and introduce a bill in council, or whatever method he chooses, and it will be done. The minister may structure the educational system exactly as he pleases. Should not that power lie in the hands of the local people, and not here in Ottawa? Where does that power lie in the minister's own province, and how jealously does that province guard its right with respect to that particular power? Why shouldn't we have the same kind of power in the Yukon for the elected representatives of the people? Why should we be governed in that regard by the bureaucrats?
The minister says that the amendment represents a first step in this direction. That is not the case. The first step in this direction was taken in 1960 through section 12 of the act, when an advisory committee on finance was established. It would have been a simple matter to amend this section to make that committee the executive committee and leave the civil servants out of it. So much for the power of committees, Mr. Speaker. So much for participatory democracy. In the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, party lines were crossed by the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives- even by the Parliamentary Secretary to the minister and by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They all voted for the amendments and for this particular one that the minister wants to toss out.
We are told that the committees system is working well. We are told there is much more force now in the committees system, and backbenchers are being used so much that they can make a really effective contribution to government. We are told that this is really
83SS	COMMONS DEBATES	June 19. 1970
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
participatory democracy. But as soon as committees bring forward something useful, out it goes because the government does not want it. What is more deplorable is that the same Liberal members who voted for these reforms in the committee will probably be told to vote against them in the House of Commons. Certainly the Parliamentary Secretaries will toe the line. Maybe one or two of the Liberal backbenchers will have the guts to vote the same way as they did in the committee.
The minister is afraid of giving the council this power although he still has the power of disallowance: it is in the existing act. He has two years within which to disallow any piece of legislation passed by the council, the same as the power to disallow resides here in respect of provincial legislation. Under the terms of this bill, that period is being shortened to a year. At any time within a year the minister has power to disallow any bill passed by the Yukon council. With that umbrella of power, what is he afraid of? It is no deviation from the prostitution of the principle of democratic government to say, "I have spoken with the elected members of the council of the Yukon. They seem like reasonable fellows. I do not think they will abuse their power to raise their indemnities, and whatever they say I will accept." This measure is an exaggeration. This is not local government. This is not decentralization. This is not democracy. This is Simon Pure colonialism with "cela va bien, Louis XIV."
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I my opinion the yeas have it. By virtue of the Standing Order 75(11) this division will be postponed until later, by agreement among members of the House.
The Chair may now be in a position to strike a further blow at hon. members' efforts toward participatory democracy. We have on the Notice Paper four notices, Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, all standing in the name of the hon.

member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). There is no particular urgency in the matter, but I wonder whether the hon. member would like to argue these proposed amendments individually or en bloc. We might consider No. 7 first. The hon. member will realize the difficulty of the Chair. This motion seems to want to amend the act rather than the bill; the first words of the proposed amendment indicate that rather clearly. I would be pleased to hear the hon. member on the subject.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, to save the time of the House I think we can deal with all of them, if Your Honour will permit me to simply deal very briefly with the principle of the amendment, which is rather necessary to lay the groundwork for my argument. Section 24 of the Yukon Act is in essence the same as section 54 of the BNA Act which prohibits the introduction of any money legislation into the Yukon legislative council unless by message of the commissioner, similar to the message of the Governor in Council or the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the provinces.
Motion No. 7 endeavours to permit a member of council to introduce such money legislation. If that is not accepted, alternatively, an advisory committee could do so. If that is not accepted, the majority of members of council could introduce such a bill and, alternatively, if none of those methods is accepted then the executive council-or, as the minister has termed it, the executive committee- could introduce it.
The first argument I should like to submit in support of the assertion that these amendments are in order is a ruling made a few moments ago when we were dealing with a point which I raised in connection with amendment No. 3. This was ruled in order notwithstanding the fact that it had been discussed in amendment No. 2. We have just finished dealing with an amendment moved by the minister, No. 7, which dealt with section 24 of the Yukon Act. Section 24 was introduced into the bill by an amendment of the committee duly constituted by this House. The debate which has just concluded, the vote upon which has been deferred, concerned the amendment of the minister as follows:
That Bill C-212, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out subclause 2 of clause 5 on page 3 thereof.


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act
Subclause 2 of clause 5 on page 3 reads in part as follows:
"The provisions of section 24 do not apply to this section."
So, Mr. Speaker, we are already in the middle of dealing with clause 24 of the act. Whether one calls that coming in via the backdoor or via the front door, the fact is that this House has been debating clause 24 of the act. I make it very clear from the outset that the amendments are in the alternative. If Your Honour rules any one of them in order, I have proposals with respect to the order in which they are called, because they have not been published in the Notice Paper in the order I had intended.
I have another argument with respect to the acceptability of these amendments. All these motions propose to amend section 24 of the Yukon Act. That section is not expressly amended by any provision in Bill C-212 as it was originally printed. However, my submission is that section 24 is amended, by necessary implication, through the amendment proposed in clause 5 of the bill. Section 24 of the Yukon Act is similar to section 54 of the BNA Act, which provides:
It shall not be lawful for the council to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue of the territory, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to council by message of the commissioner, in the session which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Section 23 of the Yukon Act provides that all public moneys and revenues over which the Commissioner in Council has the power of appropriation shall form a fund to be known as the Yukon consolidated revenue fund. Therefore, the public revenues referred to in section 24 are in the consolidated revenue fund. Looking at clause 5 of Bill C-212, we find that the proposed amendment therein contained relates to the consolidated revenue fund of the Yukon. The exact intent of that amendment is by way of exception to section 24 of the Yukon Act. The amendment provides for payment of indemnities and expenses, out of that fund, to members of the council and members of the advisory committee under the authority of the Commissioner in Council.
In other words, it is a statutory vote of indemnities and expenses out of the Yukon consolidated revenue fund and abolishes the requirement in section 24 of the act that such payment be conditional upon a message of the commissioner, to be followed by a vote. The
legal effect of clause 5, therefore, is to operate by way of amendment, by necessary implication, of section 24 of the act. This purpose of clause 5 is set out in the recommendation that accompanies Bill C-212. I would refer Your Honour to that recommendation once again because it is of the utmost importance. It reads:
His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure to amend the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act respecting the payment of indemnities and expenses to the members of the Yukon Territory and of the Northwest Territories-
The rest is irrelevant. Pursuant to this purpose, and under the provisions of the amendment in clause 5, it will not be necessary to abide by section 24 of the Yukon Act with respect to such indemnities and expenses. In effect, section 24 is amended as effectively as it would be in the amendment proposed by me, in the alternative, on the Notice Paper. In fact, this amendment and the amendment proposed in clause 5 both relate to the message of the commissioner and to the method of appropriation. Clause 5 would abolish the necessity for the message, in certain circumstances, and the vote for an appropriation of the moneys recommended by that message. The amendment proposed by me would vary the method of the message only. There is that argument and there is also the argument that Parliament has seized itself already of section 24 and has dealt with it, albeit by way of deferred vote. Parliament has dealt with it as effectively as though the vote had been taken.
I have one more point to make, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to quote from an authority respected in the past as being an authority on legislative forms, precedents and constitutional law. Mr. E. A. Driedger, a former Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, in 1963, in a pamphlet entitled "Legislative Forms and Precedents" dealt with the English, as compared with the Canadian practice, and the ability to bring amendments that were not confined precisely within the terminology of a bill. His argument was set out in part on page 1, as follows:
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The title, therefore, must accurately define the scope of the bill, and an amendment is out of order unless it falls within the scope as defined in the title.
The title of this bill is "An act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act


Yukon and Territorial Lands Act and the Territorial Lands Act." In my submission, that is a pretty broad title. Mr. Driedger says:
At one time the United Kingdom parliamentary rules respecting titles to bills were closely followed in Canada, but lately there has been considerable relaxation. A wide range of discussion is permitted on any bill, even though it may not be strictly relevant to the terms of the bill, and amendments are generally permitted even though they do not fall strictly within the terms of the bill.
Mr. Driedger's argument, Mr. Speaker, is the weakest argument I can bring, with all respect to him. The strongest argument I can make is that Parliament has already seized itself of section 24. My third argument, but second in order of importance, is that by necessary implication section 24 is capable of amendment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong the debate on this subject, but I wish to point out to the Chair that all the amendments moved by the hon. member go far beyond the scope of the legislation that was proposed and which is before us. The argument brought forward by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), to the effect that because we succeeded at the committee stage in bringing about a debate or in moving an amendment to section 24 of the Yukon Act does not justify in any way the attempt to do so at this stage. I have reason to believe that this proposal should not have been accepted at the committee stage. In any event, all the amendments moved by the hon. member are irrelevant. They may be of value but I cannot even discuss their merit since they go far beyond the scope of the legislation proposed by the government. Therefore, I must ask Your Honour to rule out of order the amendments proposed by my hon. friend the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In normal circumstances the hon. member for Yukon could not speak a second time. However, since this is a very interesting point, perhaps the House would allow him to make the additional point which I think he is now seeking to make, which may enlighten the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to deal with another point but merely to add

something I had forgotten to mention. I simply wish to say that page 3 of the bill as reprinted contains subclause 5 of clause 5, so that section 24 of the Yukon Act is before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his assistance. 1 have to tell him that even in light of the very cogent and interesting argument he has submitted for the guidance of the Chair, I find it difficult to overcome my original misgivings. The hon. member must realize that even if we are seized, as he proposes, with section 24 of the original act, even if, as he says, it is indirectly before the House by virtue of subclause 5 of clause 5 of the bill, and even if there is reference in the royal recommendation to section 24 of the act, all that put together does not indicate that the section itself is in the bill and can be amended.
The argument is very interesting. I am quite prepared to admit that something can be said for the argument that we have, in an indirect way, section 24 of the act before us. When I first saw these amendments I immediately went to the act because I noticed that in the original bill we touched on sections 22 and 26. We did not touch on section 24. I felt that obviously we were trying to go behind the bill and amend the act. I had not thought of the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. member. Even in light of these amendments, even though we have indirectly to concern ourselves with section 24, I do not think that under our rules it is possible to use this argument to justify the amendment of an act which is not before us.
It is well known to the hon. member for Yukon and to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who listens to this ruling with intense interest, that we cannot at this stage, in committee or at any time, introduce an amendment which goes beyond the terms of the bill itself, when it is an amending bill, and attempt to amend the original statute. It is very difficult to do this. I have very seldom seen it done satisfactorily. Let me say that perhaps the hon. member has come very close this time. He has given us good authority for doing so, and I certainly respect the authority of Mr. Driedger to whom the hon. member referred.
Against that I must put the authority of Messrs. May and Beauchesne; they, too, must be taken into account. I believe that in previous rulings this afternoon Mr. Deputy Speaker brought to the attention of the House the
June IS, 1970
citation in May's seventeenth edition, page 549, and the often quoted citation in Beau-chesne's fourth edition at page 406. Both citations, essentially, provide that we must limit amendments to the bill that is before the House and that we cannot go behind the bill in an attempt to amend the statute which is being amended. In this way the hon. member is really proposing substantive legislation; he is proposing his own bill, in a way. It may be that some day he can take on the responsibility and perhaps even be in the position of amending the bill himself. But at the moment I would not think that the rules allow him to achieve the purpose which he has in mind.
While the hon. member proposed his procedural argument he had a chance to advance argument which he might have advanced in the substantive defence of his case. I hope that perhaps in some other way the hon. member can propose to the House the legislative changes which he wants to sponsor.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is always more than one way to skin a minister. May I, on behalf of hon. members of the House, seek some guidance from the Chair?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member does not want to skin the minister.


Erik Nielsen: The minister has just heard the translation. Mr. Speaker, we must deal with the reprinted bill, and subclause 5 on page 3 will undoubtedly be voted on. We have already deferred a vote on the motion with respect to the amendment to section 24 which was not part of the original bill. Would it not, in view of Your Honour's ruling, be appropriate to rule out of order that portion of the reprinted bill and the minister's amendment thereto, in order to sort of perfect Your Honour's ruling, which of course needs no perfecting?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking too much perfection. I do not think I would have the power to do that at this stage. The motion now before the House is No. 11.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 23 to 27 on page 5 and substituting the following:
"but the Governor in Council may at any time, after consultation with the council where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, other-22478-39
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act wise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, dissolve the council and cause a new council to be elected and appointed."


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the minister will consider that his remarks have been said, I will consider mine as having been said. We have already debated this principle.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be postponed as agreed previously by special order of the House. The House will now deal with Motion No. 12.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 1 to 5 on page 7 and substituting the following:
''(2) Subsections 4 and 5 of section 12 of the said act are repealed."
He said: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Yukon would agree that we should not repeat the very interesting debate we had on the same principle a few minutes ago.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Section 19(a) of the Northwest Territories Act is the same as section 24 of the Yukon Act. We were trying to accomplish for the Northwest Territories the same democratic reform which the committee had approved for the Yukon, including, I might add, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this point with the member for the Northwest

Yukon and Territorial Lands Act Territories. He asked me to convey to the House the fact that he agreed to the amendment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The division will be postponed. The House will now deal with Motion No. 13.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That Bill C-212, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Territorial Lands Act, be amended by striking out lines 5 to 19 on page 9 and substituting the following:
"3A. Where he deems it necessary for the protection of the ecological balance or physical characteristics of any area in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, the Governor in Council may, after consultation with the council of the Yukon Territory or the council of the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, set apart and appropriate any territorial lands in that area as a land management zone.
3B. The Governor in council may, after consultation with the council of the Yukon Territory or the council of the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, where he deems such consultation to be practicable or, otherwise, after consultation with each of the members of the council with whom consultation can then be effected, make regulations respecting"
He said: This is the same situation, Mr. Speaker. We have already had an interesting debate on the principle of consultation. That was discussed under the Yukon Act. We decided that the debate would be the same with regard to the Northwest Territories Act. I do not think it would be advisable to take the time of the House to repeat the debate under the Territorial Lands Act. Perhaps the hon. member for Yukon would agree on that point, as he did a few minutes ago with regard to the Northwest Territories Act.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will not take issue with the minister with respect to his version of consultation and my version of consultation. They are about as far apart as the distance between Ottawa and Whitehorse. Something appears to be missing from the reprint which I know was passed in committee. I refer to the amendment which requires publication in the Canada Gazette and which provides an opportunity for making representations to the minister with respect to setting up land management zones. I do not see it here, although it should be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
on page 10.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the hon. member very much. I wish to make a comment with regard to page 9, clause 24 of the bill, sections 3A and 3B. The committee, again unanimously, inserted the consultation clause because of the extremely wide powers that the bill as originally printed would have given the Governor in Council.
In effect, any trapper who wanted to build a log cabin would have to obtain a permit from the civil service before he could do so. Indeed, if he were out trapping and were caught in circumstances where he had to get firewood, he would have to get a permit from the civil service to do so. I am not saying these things will happen, but the power is there. Before a prospector prospecting for mineral claims cut any line, he would have to get a permit to do so. On some occasions this would involve travelling many hundreds of miles.
Before embarking on any exploration, an exploration company would have to obtain a permit from the bureaucracy spelling out the kind of vehicle that would be used, the weight of the vehicle, the number of wheels the vehicle would have, how far and how fast it could go, how long it would remain in any part of the country, when it would go in and when it would come out. All these matters would be within the regulatory power the government is asking for in this section. That is the reason the committee in its wisdom and fairness inserted the consultation clause which would require the Governor in Council to consult the elected representatives of the people of the two territories.
The only difference between the consultation which was recommended by the committee in the reprinted bill and the consultation that is' no longer there in the minister's amendment is that we have reverted back to
June 19, 1970	COMMONS
the original section of the bill. That is a very sad and retrograde step. I am very sorry that on this one occasion the minister did not stand up to his officials and say, "No, sir. Democracy is going to work in this instance. We intend to consult these people."
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One of the minister's supporters put it very neatly. This is what he said: "I have heard of zoning parts of municipalities, but I have never heard of zoning 40 per cent of Canada." This is precisely what has been done. The minister will be sitting on his throne, directing his bureaucrats. I say this kindly. They are going to write out permits enabling some trapper to build a cabin on his trapline or to enable some outfitter or guide to take a few horses into an area to hunt, and the like. The power is unending. Perhaps Your Honour will permit me to be irrelevant in closing, and to say that this is all part of the same pattern. The government wants to become an absolute oligarchy and it is going about the process in the right way.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, listening to dissertations on home rule for the northern territories, I imagined I was in the British House of Commons. If there had been an Irish lilt in that voice I would probably have been persuaded to vote for Irish home rule-in this case, home rule for the northern territories. I will say nothing about the legal technicalities involved in the argument because I am not an authority in that field, but it seems to me the minister might consider allowing more local authority, local control and local responsibility, in some areas at least.
I would not go so far as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would wish, because I feel these people and their governments are subject to such great economic pressures; that they might not be able to stand up to the big companies. However, while I have some reservations, in general I support the idea of increased home rule for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on that aspect of the matter.
I do not want to be too bad for the people there, but we have these powers for controlling the use of the land because we are trying to make sure that in the north we do not repeat the errors we have made in the south. Everyone is aware of the delicate nature of the northern ecology. We have to make sure
22478-39J
DEBATES	8371
Yukon and Territorial Lands Act that the development which takes place in the north is rational and under control. If there are trappers or other people who suffer from the exaggerations of those who are in the bureaucracy and enjoy it too much, I think they have a recourse which is most useful. They are supposed to have a Member of Parliament here who can raise hell in the House of Commons-when he is in Ottawa, of course. I think this would be a way. It is all very well to say there is no democracy, and so on, but in the north there is still a special responsibility for the natural resources of the territories and the Yukon.
The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) mentioned a few moments ago the pressure which can be exerted by big companies, whose effects on a small population might be too great. There is, of course, the presence of elected members in this House of Commons, in addition to representation on the executive, and the special interest of the minister in the affairs of these territories and the Yukon.


An hon. Member:: When he is there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, but I have been told by the people of the Yukon that the Minister of Northern Affairs is more often in the north than any other minister before him. I enjoy being there. I think it is a wonderful place. Since people are now beginning to go into the north, one of the rewarding aspects is that so many would like to go with the minister or the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on these visits. Indeed, I think a plane should be available for the minister for that purpose.


Erik Nielsen: You should invite me more often.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I believe that with the representation now afforded in Parliament and on the council, we can make sure that the rights of the little people in the Yukon will be protected. When I was with the hon. member in the wonderful little place called Old Crow, the people there raised a local problem about an industry which had moved in without bearing in mind the local resources and the activities of the people in trapping and hunting. We corrected the situation on the spot.


Erik Nielsen: We did not need legislation to do it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is right. I used moral suasion. But perhaps when really big interests are involved it will be more difficult in the


Bills of Exchange Act future. I will go as far as I can with moral suasion, but I shall be back with good strong legislation which will protect all the people of Canada, because we shall develop the north in a proper fashion, with wisdom, to ensure that pollution and all that kind of problem will not occur in the north as it is in the south right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister permit a question? I was most interested in his last sentence. Is he aware that a predecessor of his some years back, Mr. Lesage, installed a water and sewage system in Whitehorse, without a treatment plant, and that it is now discharging raw sewage into the Yukon River? Is he taking steps to have the government make money available to construct a treatment plant to prevent this pollution which is now unlawful under the terms of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With respect, it seems to me the question goes somewhat beyond the motion which is before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the motion stands deferred. Is it the wish of hon. members to confirm by order of the House that these votes shall be deferred until some time on Monday?


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, there were informal discussions and I believe the agreement was that they should be taken on Monday at 10.30 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)



AERONAUTICS ACT REGULATIONS BILL


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson for the third reading of Bill C-218, respecting regulations made pursuant to section 4 of the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-208, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-208, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Stanley Ronald Basford: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we made our position on this bill very clear on second reading, and we also made our position clear in committee. With the usual responsible and co-operative attitude taken by the official opposition, we are prepared to let the bill pass, get on its way and afford the measure of protection to the consumers that it contains.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a co-operative afternoon. I, too, shall be very brief. We agree to the passing of this bill on third reading. I rise only to say a few words on behalf of my colleague from Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) who has had to leave, whether or not with permission under Standing Order 5. May I say he is grateful that the Standing Committee accepted the amendment that he proposed in the committee. He and his colleagues feel that this is a worthwhile piece of legislation.
However, on his behalf I should like to make the point that the legislation will be even more effective than the minister hopes if something can be done at the provincial level about disclaimer clauses and cut-off clauses. The hon. member for Broadview would like me to urge the minister, in the most persuasive way I can, to use his good offices with his counterparts in the provinces to have something done about their legislation with respect to these two aspects of the matter. With that comment, we are prepared to let this bill have third reading today, though if the minister has something to say we would welcome it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member for St. John's East


(Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who spoke on behalf of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), for their intervention this afternoon. May I also thank hon. members for agreeing to let the bill be passed now so that, hopefully, with some dispatch in the other place the bill will be the law of the land before the summer recess. I thank the hon. member for St. John's East for his participation in the debate on second reading as well as for his contribution in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I also thank the hon. member for Broadview for the amendment he introduced, which was worked out co-operatively with the drafting officials of the Department of Justice.
There is among some of the experts dispute as to whether there is in fact a loophole, but I was happy to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview. In the event that there was a loophole, we hope we have been able to effectively fill it. That is why I am happy to see the amendment made.
With regard to the last remark of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we have already been in communication with the provinces urging them to pass complementary legislation in connection with disclaimer clauses and cut-off clauses. I have received an encouraging response from some of them at least, and I will use all my persuasive efforts to get them to act. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre also has contacts with some provincial governments and provincial oppositions and I hope that he and his party members will do the same thing.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NUCLEAR LIABILITY


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-158, respecting civil liability for nuclear damage, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
John James Greene: that Bill C-158, respecting civil liability for nuclear damage, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nuclear Liability
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John James Greene: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to let this bill pass on third reading, but since there was no debate on the report stage I should like to add a few reservations to what was said in the committee. This bill dealing with nuclear liability is admittedly a measure that has never had any testing. The type of insurance offered here has never been proposed before. The committee laboured quite long and hard over the matter and heard a lot of witnesses on the question of insurance for civil liability from nuclear damage. Several things came out of the committee by way of amendments which are now included in the bill and which certainly improve the measure. There were a number of other suggestions made which the committee did not adopt, but since the bill is an interim measure it will require further consideration as time goes on. However, I think the committee did the best it could with a new type of government-backed insurance, and as amended by the committee we hope it will meet the need. I merely rise to say that I will not be surprised if the bill does require further amendment as time goes on.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words on this piece of legislation. Our committee spent a great deal of time on the bill, devoting at least 12 full meetings to it. I agree with the last speaker that we had a pretty thorough discussion. A number of the groups appearing before the committee were not too happy with the legislation as now drafted, but after hearing the general evidence and the evidence of members of the justice department the committee felt inclined to go along with the drafting that they had presented to the committee, though I still have one or two doubts about several parts of the legislation.
Sometimes a layman is faced with pretty tough decisions to make when on the one side there is a great deal of legal talent telling you that everything is okay, and on the other side there is an equal amount of talent telling you that some of the definitions are not too clear. This is what the members of the committee were up against when this legislation was before them. I am satisfied that basically the legislation is good, though we might have to make some changes to it another year, as the


Nuclear Liability
previous speaker indicated. During the interval we will have a chance to take a look at it and to talk to people who will have to write insurance under it. We will be in a better position another year to bring in any amendments that are needed. I have no hesitation in letting the bill pass at this stage.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. Some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee complained about high insurance costs. They indicated that, particularly as far as exporting atomic energy equipment was concerned, the margin was very narrow and that the high cost of insurance significantly affected that margin. They felt, for this reason, that the cost of insurance certainly should not go up but, rather, should come down.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We know that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) has had difficulty obtaining sales for Canada's atomic energy plants. We certainly do not wish to add to his difficulty in this regard. We would like to see something done so that he can offer a better product at a lower price. I think it has been indicated already that we might have to review this bill in another year to make sure that this type of legislation is in line with what it should be. Since this is a new field, underwriters of insurance do not want to commit themselves in the they would in respect of any other type of insurance.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the members of the committee for the very fine work they did on this difficult bill and for the improvement that were made as a result of their deliberations. Very often 1 think the public does not appreciate how much tough slugging and useful work in Parliament is done in the committees and how little public coverage is given to the efforts of members of committees. Certainly this bill is a very good example in respect of a completely new field and a difficult and esoteric area where improvements have been made. These improvements were made possible as a result of the very effective work of the committee. I wish to thank the members of the committee for their very great contribution in this regard.
I quite appreciate that we probably do not have all the answers. This is a new field. I think it is important that this measure be of

carried out. Of course, the greatest hope of all of us is that the tragedy it is made to cover will never occur, because if it should I suppose our legislative efforts will not be long remembered thereafter. Certainly the committee was most useful in this regard, and I wish to thank members of the committee and hon. members of this House for their co-operation in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-190, to amend the National Energy Board Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: An amendment has been proposed at the report stage by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). I must again confess to difficulty about the admissibility of the amendment. I am prepared to hear argument, but it would seem to me that the proposed amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which is on the Order Paper is a clearly defined amendment. I do not think it goes beyond the scope of the bill. It would add to and perhaps define a little more clearly the jurisdictional aspects of the commission which will be given an opportunity to check, in this particular case, the environmental, ecological and pollution risk aspects, for example in respect of the building of an oil or energy pipeline which might affect the ecology of the northern parts of Canada. For that reason I suggest the amendment would not place an untoward task before the commission. It would slightly widen, and I believe clarify, the duties which we would expect the commission to perform in assessing the value of certain of the projects. Have I permission to proceed, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of
Energy, Mines and Resources.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, on the question the admissibility of the amendment
June 19. 1970	COMMONS
may I say that the bill as presented does not encompass, of course, the whole National Energy Board Act as originally drawn. The specific amendments are referable to certain particulars, such as the increase in the size of the National Energy Board and certain considerations in respect of how in its accounting procedures the board will consider such things as depreciation, and so on, in determining rates. The bill does not really in any way encompass the aspect the hon. member has in mind concerning safety from an ecological standpoint with regard to pipelines. I submit, with respect, that the amendment goes considerably beyond the context of the bill.
I know the very great interest of the hon. member in this matter and the great contribution he has made to our thinking in respect of pollution. With regard to air, water and soil pollution I do not think any other member of this House has given more attention to the matter or has been more concerned or so well informed. Knowing of the hon. member's concern, I should like to advise him that when I brought his amendment to the attention of the officials I was assured that they would examine very carefully, before granting the right to construct a pipeline, the very considerations my hon. friend envisages in respect of his amendment.
This apparently is not clearly spelled out in the exact words referred to by the hon. member, but in the general authority of the board in granting permits one of its major concerns is that it never grant a permit unless it is sure the pipeline will be constructed in such a way, and over such terrain, that the ecology will be protected and pollution will not ensue. So while the bill is not clearly worded in the terms the hon. member has suggested, I can assure him that in practice the National Energy Board, I am advised, is very much concerned about this question in the granting of permits.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contribution to the procedural aspect of this matter. I may say that my original doubts are the same. It seems to me that the amendment proposed by the hon. member goes beyond the bill before the House, and in fact goes behind the bill to amend the act. As I have pointed out several times this afternoon, this renders the proposed motion irrelevant and beyond the scope of the bill. I would simply remind the House of May's cogent rule on this matter which appears at page 549 of
DEBATES	8375
National Energy Board Act May's seventeenth edition and reads as follows:
An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the bill, or if it is irrelevant to the subject matter or beyond the scope of the clause under consideration.
For these reasons I must rule that the motion is inadmissible.


John James Greene: that Bill C-190, to amend the National Energy Board Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


John James Greene: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, may I speak very briefly on the third reading stage of this bill. It is not my intention to hold up its passage. I appreciate the words of the minister when he indicated that he feels the spirit of the amendment I suggested is in effect being implemented by the National Energy Board in its interpretation of the general tenor of the legislation. This is somewhat reassuring. Nevertheless, I am one who feels that sometimes it is a pretty good plan to lay down exactly what we mean and what we expect the board to look into. Then they will know their duties and I think the general public will have a better idea of the duties of the board.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I draw the attention of hon. members to a rather interesting event which took place in the last couple of weeks. I am referring to the rupturing of our pipeline. I do not think it had anything to do with the ecology of the area, such as permafrost causing a sloughing and a breaking of the pipeline. But let us not kid ourselves that we will not have a host of major problems arising, particularly in Arctic areas when we build pipelines and similar facilities there. If we reach the stage where oil is transported by pipeline southward to where it can be picked up by other pipelines, where it can be readily accessible to rail lines and other types of transportation, I am convinced we will run into a host of problems which we never imagined might exist. For


National Energy Board Act example, I know that a great deal of trouble has been experienced in the northern parts of the Soviet Union in the building of pipelines. The same thing is happening in Alaska, where in the experiments and survey work which has been undertaken exceptional problems have been encountered.
I feel that putting such a provision into the act would give the Energy Board much more power in defining exactly how, where and when a pipeline or other means of energy transmission should be built. I am convinced that before too long we will have to draft other legislation and other codes to protect our northern ecology. I believe that we cannot strengthen this act enough, and that we cannot make it too clear to the companies who will build these lines and exploit our resources that we in Canada will insist on very high standards being met and that we have a real policeman set-up in the members of the Energy Board, who will insist on proper standards being met and maintained in the interests of Canada generally.
We do not oppose the bill. I just felt that this provision would tighten up the bill. I thought this was the time to make the few remarks I have made, in the hope that the minister, perhaps in another session when amendments are moved, will consider bringing in a similar provision and will tighten up some of the other clauses to make absolutely certain that we protect fully the precious ecology of our Arctic areas.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to take only a few moments because I know the anxiety of hon. members opposite to get home. The comments which I wish to make principally relate to the increase in number of members of the National Energy Board members, from five to seven, as provided in clause 2 of the bill. The increasing importance of petroleum as a primary source of energy for the world is, I think, recognized in this increase. Petroleum, natural gas and crude oil are now providing 62.6 per cent of the primary energy of the free world. In Canada, the figures are even more impressive. Oil is providing 47.6 per cent, natural gas 18.4 per cent, making a total of 66 per cent. The other two main sources are coal, at 11.1 per cent, and hydro power at 22.8 per cent.
One of the criticisms of the Energy Board as presently constituted, a criticism that has been directed at it principally from the petroleum industry, is the shortage of people on the board who have experience in that

industry. At present it is suggested that only one of the five members has a background in this industry, and his was derived in service on the Petroleum Natural Gas Conservation Board of Alberta. In other words, he too came up through the public service, as have most of the board members.
The increase in the number of members on the board from five to seven presents a very clear challenge to the people in the industry who have been criticizing the board. Here are two vacancies which, certainly on the basis of the importance of petroleum and natural gas in our energy picture in Canada, representing as they do something like 66 per cent of energy production, provide an opportunity for people in the industry to step forward and make themselves available to perform a function of public service that is necessary and desirable and will certainly add a great deal to the knowledge and expertise of the board.
How many of the people who are critical of the board from time to time are prepared to take a cut in salary to $20,520 a year will be a question that we will look forward to answering with interest if any of them choose to ask it. However, I think that in light of the criticism that the industry has levelled at the board over a period of time, very clear opportunities are now being presented to it. Also, there is a real challenge to the industry and to public-spirited people in the industry to stand up and be counted and say that they are available to serve the public.
I would note in closing, and with a degree of regret, that while I do not feel all government departments can possibly be decentralized out of the national capital region, a board such as this might very well be located in the province of Alberta. Even though the distance between the two cities is only 180 miles, the provincial government has chosen to locate the Petroleum Natural Gas Conservation Board in Calgary rather than Edmonton. It seems to me it would be appropriate, if the federal government is at all serious about the indications of decentralization that have been made over the years, for it to give serious consideration to establishing this board in Calgary.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this bill, but I wanted to place on the record a small caveat and at least a whisper of concern on behalf of the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, the
June 19, 1970	COMMONS
Northwest Territories and the Yukon, since it deals particularly with the provisions of section 69 of the act. This section deals with the conveyance or transfer of the right to minerals underneath existing pipelines and transmission lines. I raised this matter in the committee but it was not adequately answered there. I recognize it is a new field and I hope the minister will keep it in the back of his mind when he gets around to further amending the act in ensuing months. The amended act, without saying so conveys to the federal authority sole right in respect of the granting of rights to minerals underneath a pipeline, if the federal authority controls the land over which the pipeline passes. I assume that the federal authority takes the same right in law from this measure as would a private or any other interest.
When an application is made for a pipeline to remove natural gas or oil from offshore-I am speaking of the continental shelf off Canada's east coast, but this point is also applicable to the west coast and to the Arctic-the federal government will have the authority to grant such an application covering the minerals and other resources lying underneath the pipeline. To the best of my knowledge, the question of the ownership of the resources of the continental shelf has not been finally resolved. It was before the courts in a specific instance, but I submit it is a policy matter. In many respects it is a constitutional question, but in the broader realm of politics. This is the caveat I would like to place on the record: the province of Nova Scotia does not accept the claim of the federal government that it has absolute jurisdiction and, in the right of all Canadians, holds the resources that are on the continental shelf.
DEBATES	8377
National Energy Board Act
I do not believe that this question can be resolved in the courts. It must be resolved at the negotiating table. Until it is resolved, the acceptance of amendments which grant these powers should not be construed by the federal government as a right to exercise an authority which it does not yet possess respecting resources on the floor of the seas and under the continental shelf.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to suggest that since we have made very good progress this afternoon, in the usual co-operative spirit that the opposition tenders, it might be a good time to adjourn.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I would like to thank hon. members for their co-operation. We have certainly had a very good afternoon. I join in the hon. member's suggestion that we call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was about to make the same suggestion. 1 would just like to point out that the Government House Leader gave us five items of business today. He went away, and we have done six.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made Thursday, June 18, 1970, this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock a.m. on Monday next.
At 5.17 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
8379

Monday, June 22, 1970