1970-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, on January 21 I
announced the appointment of a three-man committee to study and make recommendations with respect to the delivery quota system for western Canadian grain. That committee has now reported.
The report of the committee includes recommendations for important changes in the quota system including the abolition of unit quotas and the removal of forage and other crops not subject to the quota delivery system from the acreage base used in determining delivery rights. This report will be made available to all interested persons and organizations and in the coming few weeks I am looking forward to receiving their comments and recommendations.
This report deals with a delivery quota system designed to regulate deliveries in future years. I expect in the near future to be able to indicate any special provisions with respect to deliveries in 1970-71 which may be required to deal with the current unusual surplus position in wheat.
I now wish to table pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2), in both official languages, copies of the report entitled "Report on Delivery Quota System for Western Canadian Grain".


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes before I entered the House I was handed a copy, as it is proper to do, of the statement the minister has presented to the House. First of all, I should like to raise an objection to the composition of the committee that the minister appointed, and I think my objection is a valid one from the producers' point of view.
Although the committee was composed of representatives of the grain growing community, one each from the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers and the Canadian Wheat Board, they represent the organizations that are charged with the responsibility of handling grain. They are not people who are involved in the actual production of grain and they may view the problems from an entirely different angle than the producers. My first objection is that too many regulations which committees have to study are prepared by civil servants who plan them so as to make life easy for themselves. In addition, too many lawyers are involved in the drafting of legislation to come before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: They have one thing in mind, namely, how do you defend this kind of case in court? The people who are going to become involved in litigation are not considered.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
In light of this objection, I suggest that a further study be made of this entire question so that the producers themselves will be able to put forward their recommendations. I have received a series of letters on this entire question. Some of these people are members of Wheat Pool committees at the country level and they ask whether their suggestions have been forwarded or channelled through the minister to the right people. I cannot sincerely answer yes or no to this type of inquiry. I hope the minister will allow the Standing Committee on Agriculture to study this matter before any conclusion is arrived at in respect of the entire feed grain question which the committee is considering at this time.
What we are talking about is a quota system. Such a system, regardless of whether it involves wheat or another commodity, implies restrictions, and restrictions involve sacrifices. What we are really talking about here is the kind of sacrifices the farmers are prepared to accept. It is the farmers who will have to accept them, not the Wheat Board or the grain handling people. They will get their money when the grain is in storage.
I emphasize the need for an inquiry at the producer level. A system could be worked out whereby a quota which has not been fully

February 24, 1970
Grain Delivery Quota
used could be used up in the following year. Perhaps this might help avoid the practice of some people delivering on other people's permit books. It might prevent abuses in respect of quotas. Many suggestions could be made by these people who know the situation. I am not suggesting this is my idea, but this is the type of suggestion that comes to me from farmers.
I conclude by saying that these inquiries would be absolutely unnecessary and there would be no frustration if the government would only get off its you know what and sell some wheat.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this committee, whose report has been placed before us, undertook a job that needs to be done. We do need to review the application of the quota system to farmers. The criticism that there was no representative of the producers on this committee is justified.
The committee recommendations are lengthy and I do not see much point in discussing them one by one at this time. After a brief examination of the report I find that the emphasis is on market opportunities. Perhaps this is as it should be, but I do not see any emphasis in the report on assurances to the farmers that they will share a relatively equal part of the market. This is an important principle inherent in the Wheat Board marketing system, and unless it is kept in view and emphasized the system will not function well.
Not too long ago, on January 27, I asked the minister whether he would submit the report of this committee of three men to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. He replied at that time that he would give consideration to that request. That consideration should now be given. The standing committee is now considering the pricing of grain within the Wheat Board designated area of western Canada. When speaking to that committee this morning the minister said that inevitably this question led to a consideration of quotas. Therefore I can see no reason that the minister should not refer this report to that committee for consideration. He mentioned that it was being referred to different organizations. Well and good; so it should be. However, the Standing Committee on Agriculture should have the report referred to it for study along with the subject it is now considering because the subject it is now considering cannot be considered in isolation from the administration of quotas.

One unfortunate thing in the report is the recommendation that we do away with the unit quota as part of the quota system. This would be a very severe blow to the smaller producer in western Canada.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) for his statement when he presented the report of the House committee.
I hope that this report will make it easier to implement the necessary changes for improving the lot of western farmers.
At any rate, we shall read the report, study it thoroughly and make appropriate comments in due course.



WATER RESOURCES


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in view of certain reports that have appeared recently, and the public concern they have aroused, I should like to make the facts clear with regard to, first, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ice survey on the Great Lakes; second, the Canada-Ontario co-ordinated studies of northern Ontario water resources; and third, the Great Replenishment and Northern Development-Grand-Canal project.
The ice survey completed last November by the United States Army Corps of Engineers is in no way connected with any plan to divert waters, but was designed to provide information for research on the effects of ice formation and ice decay on navigation in the Great Lakes. The United States Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the planning, development, maintenance and operation of river and harbour works and associated navigation channels on the inland and coastal waters of the United States. Ice and snow conditions on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River system affect these works and channels.

In informal working level discussions, the United States Army Corps of Engineers about three years ago sought assistance from scientific officers of the Meteorological Branch of the Department of Transport in carrying out this unilateral survey. It was believed the information to be obtained would be valuable
February 24, 1970

to Canada; and the final report on the project is to be available to Canadians. Although assistance was not ultimately provided, it was suggested that Canadian observers might be hired to gather data. The Corps of Engineers then requested Ontario Provincial Police assistance in obtaining the names of Canadians living around the Lakes to act as observers.

Twenty-eight Canadians were contracted as observers in 1967-68, and 21 in 1968-69, at $15 per month each. Two observers were provided by the Department of Lands and Forests, Ontario. The Corps of Engineers ended its data collection program on the Canadian portion of the lakes in November, 1969, and it now has no Canadian observers under contract.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The only work done by the Canadian observers was to report physical data on ice and weather conditions in the Canadian part of the Great Lakes basin. The observers were asked to obtain measurements of ice thickness, snow depth, slush depth and water levels below ice cover, and to provide the dates of changes in ice conditions, including first ice formation, complete freeze-over, beginning of thaw, end of thaw, and ice completely gone. They were also asked to note significant weather extremes such as snowfall, temperature, wind velocity and direction.
This ice survey is not connected in any way with the co-ordinated studies of northern Ontario water resources being done by the governments of Canada and Ontario.
On August 5, 1965, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Ontario announced that studies of Ontario's northern water resources and related economic development would be undertaken by each government, and that these studies would be co-ordinated by the committee representing the two governments. This committee is known as the coordinating committee on northern Ontario water resources studies. Responsibility for the various elements of the studies is divided between the two governments. Responsibility for hydrologic and engineering studies required to attain these objectives has been divided between the division of water resources of the Ontario Water Resources Commission and the inland waters branch of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Economic studies are the responsibility of the economic planning branch of the 21701-43
Water Resources Studies Ontario Department of Treasury and Economics and the policy and planning branch of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Other federal and provincial agencies are actively participating in this work, which has as its prime purpose the appraisal of these water resources for all foreseeable uses.
There has been and there is no participation in these studies by representatives of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, nor by any other United States agency. No aspect of these studies contemplates the possibility of diversion or sale of water to the United States.
Full reports covering all of the northern Ontario water resources studies undertaken on this co-ordinated basis will be issued when complete, provided such issue is agreed to by the governments of Canada and of Ontario.
I emphasize and reiterate that no possibility of sale or diversion of water to the United States is contemplated by these studies.

The Grand Canal project is in no way related to either the ice survey or the co-ordinated studies which I have mentioned. It is a very general scheme promoted by a private company. It envisions the diversion of water from several rivers flowing into James and Hudson Bays to Lake Huron via the Ottawa and Mattawa Rivers, Lake Nipissing and the French River.

The federal government is in no way involved in or related to such a scheme, and it cannot accept the responsibility for promotion of proposals by private firms. One of the associates of the private company promoting the Grand Canal project appeared before the Standing Committee on Mines, Forests and Waters on April 11, 1960 and presented a proposal now known as the Grand Canal project. On June 28, 1960, the committee reported that it had heard with interest from witnesses of the proposed Harricanaw River -Grand Canal-development project, but it felt there had been insufficient basic engineering evidence to come to any conclusion on this matter.
On May 19, 1961 the then Prime Minister referred to the above-noted committee report and said:
I would say to the hon. gentleman that various proposals for the diversion of water from the Hudson Bay and James Bay watershed have been con-

February 24, 1970
Water Resources Studies sidered in the past and are regarded as impracticable from an economic point of view on the basis of the engineering data available at this time.

On March 11, 1965, the same associate of this company again appeared before the Standing Committee on Mines, Forests and Waters to present an amended proposal for the diversion of water from the James Bay watershed to the Ottawa River basin or to the Great Lakes Basin. This proposal is essentially the same as that outlined previously; to my knowledge there has been no change in the general outline of the Grand Canal project.

Press reports have stated that these private entrepreneurs have indicated that the Grand Canal project is being considered by the governments of Ontario and Quebec. Spokesmen for the governments of Ontario and Quebec have indicated that this is not the case.
These press reports also have stated that such a project has been under study for months, both in Canada and in the United States. No consideration or study is being given by the government of Canada to the said Grand Canal scheme or any similar project. To the best of my knowledge neither is any provincial government giving consideration to such a project.
Press reports on the said subject have indicated that water could be sold to the United States under such a project without federal approval. I reaffirm in the strongest possible terms that no water could be sold to the United States without the approval of the government of Canada. No contemplation of such approval is under consideration by the government.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, we are glad that the minister has finally made what seems to be a clear and definitive statement on the northern waters projects. One thing on which Canadians are not prepared to compromise is the casual disposal of our energy resources, and particularly our water resources which represent the future of this country.
I was fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to be a member of the standing committee which considered the Grand Canal scheme both in 1961 and in 1965. It was examined in a very cursory way on both occasions, and on both occasions it was decided that there was insuf-

ficient evidence and insufficient engineering data upon which to make any conclusion whatsoever.
I believe that what has concerned Canadians more than anything else in the past few months has been the enthusiasm of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources after his return from his visit with Secretary Hickel of the United States. Canadians were concerned about the minister's apparent enthusiasm at that time for a resource exchange package. Members of this House were concerned that this resource exchange package would involve and include water resources as well as many of the other resources in which we are interested. The minister has made it clear today that certainly this is not the case as far as he is concerned, and I do not care whether he is backing away from his original statement or merely reaffirming what he said in the first place. It was not clear at that time. It has certainly been made clear today.
I know hon. members are determined that Canadian water resources must not be included in any energy package without a great deal more thought and consideration than have been put into such projects until the present moment. However, Mr. Speaker, we still worry about the continential approach that the government has taken toward our resources. We are still concerned about what appears to be the casual acceptance of proposals from the Yankee traders that we should exchange certain resources for certain others. We are concerned about the lack of a firm stand in connection with our northern sovereignty and our northern resources. We have been concerned about the lack of firm statements on many of the resource problems that have been coming up over the past few months.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I can only conclude by saying that, taking the minister's statement today at its face value, one of our concerns has been clarified to the extent that the minister has been able to do so. He has made it clear that the work going on in northern Ontario and northern Quebec has nothing whatever to do with the Grand Canal scheme or with water diversion or would result in the sale or diversion of water to the United States. With this one statement we are satisfied. We hope the minister and the government will keep on making statements to assure the House that they are really sincere about protecting Canada's national heritage.
February 24, 1970


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made a useful contribution in clearing up some points that have been concerning the general public. He has explained the study by the United States Army Corps of Engineers with respect to the formation and decay of ice in the northern lakes. The only comment I would make on that is I think it is a pity it was not done as a joint project rather than having the United States Army Corps of Engineers work on the Canadian side of the border.
He has also clarified the situation with respect to the survey of northern waters which is a joint project of the government of Canada and the Ontario government. We look forward to a full report at an early date.
So far as the Grand Canal project is concerned, apparently it is in an elementary discussion stage. I should like to say to the minister, however, that we in this party would be very much disconcerted if this project, in materializing, should be handled by a private company. A project as important as this ought to be undertaken by the government concerned. Otherwise the day is going to come when we will have to bail it out with government assistance, or we will find that control of the company has wandered across the line and a very important feature of Canadian economic life has been taken out of our hands.
The main reason that the minister made the statement is that he realizes the concern of the Canadian people with respect to our water resources, and justly so. Canadians are beginning to realize that water is one of our most important assets. Not only has domestic consumption of water increased but industrial consumption is increasing at a geometric rate. Increasingly, water will be required for irrigation projects in many parts of Canada. The time is coming, perhaps even within the lifetime of some members in this chamber, when water will be more important than some of the energy fuels we are seeking at the present time. Therefore Canadians are concerned lest we lose control of this valuable asset.
The situation has not been helped at all by the report of the Shultz cabinet committee in the United States or the statement of President Nixon last week or the setting up of the new United States committee under Mr. George Lincoln, all of which seem to indicate that a very refined form of blackmail is under way. In effect, the Canadian government is being told, "If you want to sell Canadian oil"-which we do-"in the United States the 21701-43J
Water Resources Studies quid pro quo will be that we get control of large quantities of natural gas and other natural resources committed to our use, that we get free access to the Northwest Passage, that we get the right to build a pipeline in the Mackenzie Delta." Most people feel that in the phrase of the president, "other natural resources", there is going to be an increasing demand for some of Canada's water supplies.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not at all reassured by the minister's statement. Near the end of his comments he said:
I reaffirm In the strongest possible terms that no water could be sold to the United States without the approval of the government of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there should be any selling of water to the United States without the consent and agreement of this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not think that a government in office for only a specific time has any right to give away one of our most valuable natural assets. I hope the government will be prepared to assure the House that, before any agreement is entered into which will give away water or any natural resource, the consent of this Parliament as a whole will be sought by the gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the statement just made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, all the more so as the main part of this statement relates to the Grand Canal Project which will cross the whole length of the district that I represent.
The minister has told us that foreigners have come to our country to study the formation and the movement of the ice on our lakes and streams. I deplore the fact that such surveys were not entrusted to our own experts. In my view, we do not lack university graduates who are able to do this kind of work. At any rate, I deplore the fact that such research work has been entrusted to foreigners.
With regard to the project that was initiated over 10 years ago by Mr. Tom Kierans, a Sudbury engineer, to divert the waters of the James Bay Basin to the Great Lakes, the minister has just stated that no study in that connection has been more thorough than that of Mr. Kierans. Maybe those studies were not
4010	COMMONS
Pollution of Chedabucto Bay yet complete enough to permit the government to take a decision or to accept this engineer's recommendations. I regret, however, that the government has not asked expert engineers to consider the economic possibilities of such a project.
In short, the minister has just said that the provinces have not the required authority to undertake such projects. It may be so, but it is also true that the federal government cannot take any unilateral decision regarding the diversion of waters falling under provincial jurisdiction.
We know what happened about the Columbia River project in British Columbia, and I am convinced that if the federal government at any time attempted to initiate such a project alone in the province of Quebec, the authorities would object. The consent of both levels of government is required in order to initiate such a project.
They claim it is not necessary at this time, but I wish to point out to the minister and to the government that there is much talk at present about water pollution. In the North, we have huge quantities of unused water. This is a natural resource that renews itself continually. Now, it merges with the sea. I suggest this might be a way of settling, at least partially, the problem of water pollution.
We are told that only three per cent of the earth's water is drinking water, of which two per cent is ice. I believe this natural resource could be made to help the Canadian people, and the government should, with the co-operation of Quebec and Ontario, undertake as soon as possible the necessary studies in this field.



POLLUTION


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I announced the appointment of a special project group, headed by Dr. P. D. McTaggart-Cowan, to deal with the problems created by the grounding of the oil tanker Arrow in Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia. Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is, of course, a very distinguished Canadian scientist who is executive director of the Canadian Science Council. Other members of the special group are: Dr. H. Sheffer, Vice-Chairman of the Defence Research
[Mr. Laprise.l
DEBATES	February 24. 1970
Board and Captain M. Martin of Maritime Command of the armed services.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Dr. McTaggart-Cowan and his associates were also asked to investigate and make recommendations concerning the oil slick reported last week off the south coast of Newfoundland. I am advised by them that this particular spill is not of major proportions. It was serious, of course, because of its effect on sea birds in the vicinity. At last report, however, very little oil had reached the Newfoundland coast, the bulk of it, according to on-the-spot reports, having been broken up and dispersed by high seas and offshore winds. Should oil appear on the Newfoundland coast in any significant quantity, clean-up crews will be sent to the affected area immediately.
The project group has now made a thorough study of the Chedabucto Bay area. It has also enlisted the support of various other agencies throughout Canada and the United States including, for example, authorities on fisheries and ecology and others with specialized knowledge of oil removal techniques. Imperial Oil, who were the charterers, have of course co-operated from the beginning and their continued co-operation is important.
So far as is known, this is the first serious oil spill to occur in waters as cold as those to be found, at this time of year, off the Canadian east coast. Therefore there is virtually no past experience on which the project group can draw; indeed, as has been stated repeatedly by all authorities in the field, successful techniques have not yet been developed anywhere in the world for coping quickly, effectively and safely with this type of situation.


Mr. Forresiall:: Believe me, that is very true.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The basic problem is, of course, one of containment and disposal in ways that will prove least harmful to the environment. Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, his associates and advisers have given me a first report on their investigation and proposed solutions and I will attempt to pass this information along in as clear a manner as possible to hon. members.
First, as to general conditions in the area. The heavy type oil that has leaked from the grounded vessel has, for the most part, reached the largely rocky shoreline of Chedabucto Bay. Because of its consistency virtually all the oil has remained on the surface.
February 24, 1970	COMMONS
This means, in the view of the scientists, that no significant damage has yet been done to fish and other forms of underwater life. Some of the oil appears to have been driven seaward. Traces have been found 25 miles off shore and to a water depth of 50 meters. These traces are not sufficient in size to be harmful. The major concentrations, therefore, are along the shores of the bay, with accumulations in some areas much greater than in others. There is also, of course, the oil remaining in the two sections of the broken hull still on the rock.
Many sections of the shoreline are entirely clean, but the nature of the oil is such that some of it is moved about by wind and tide. This explains why various estimates of the amount of shoreline affected differ from day to day.
The project group has confirmed the earlier assessment I gave the House that the biggest single threat continues to be the amount of oil still in the wreck. This could be close to twice as much as has leaked out already. Therefore the group will continue the total effort to remove this oil as quickly as possible. At the same time, however, work will proceed on cleaning up the shoreline, with particular emphasis on the protection of the fish plants located in the area.
Thanks to the very great efforts of all who have been on this difficult project from the beginning, the placement of booms and other devices has kept the harbours where the plants are located virtually free of contamination. This work will continue and be intensified. Incidentally, all fish brought to these plants are caught on the Grand Banks or other offshore fishing grounds well removed from the affected area.
The project group has devised a number of different approaches to the clean-up problem. This is because existing conditions, which permit the use of certain techniques, may be changed by weather conditions or other factors. For example, a further assessment of the condition of the hull is now being carried out by navy divers. Best evidence to date is that the forward part of the broken ship is reasonably stable but that there is some movement in response to wind and tide action. The rear section, which is thought to contain a larger quantity of oil, is on a ledge, is not stable and could slide off into a nearby trench about 150 feet deep.
If the two halves remain as at present, salvage may be possible. Then the two sections could be towed away either into a shel-
DEBATES	4011
Pollution of Chedabucto Bay tered area, where cargo removal would be easier, or well out to sea and sunk. If salvage is impossible, and this is the more likely prospect, special equipment will be used to pump the oil from the hull. This equipment has had to be manufactured for the purpose and is now being tested. When the oil is extracted it may be possible to pump it into barges, but an alternative solution would be its release in controlled quantities followed by containment and disposal. This could be accomplished either through burning or the absorption of the oil into other substances, such as sawdust, peat moss or other highly absorbent materials. Sawdust, incidentally, absorbs about five times its weight in oil, peat moss up to ten times its weight. These two materials will also be used in cleaning up the shoreline.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why did you not burn the oil?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The first task here is to move the spilled oil now along the shore up beyond the high-water mark. For this purpose bulldozers are being used and, since there is no road access to much of the area, this equipment, in many cases, must be brought in by barges from the seaward side. Of course, a good deal of manpower must also be used in the exercise. In this connection the Armed Services have provided excellent co-operation to date, and their help will be invaluable in this aspect in the weeks to come.
As regards destruction or removal of the oil pollution, the use of peat moss, sawdust, straw and other materials is preferable to the use of chemicals which can have a long-term detrimental effect, as the Torrey Canyon incident showed. We have also been testing new chemicals which have been developed since the Torrey Canyon.
As I have stated previously, the biggest ongoing danger is that the hull may deteriorate further thus releasing more oil. If this were to happen then, even though the beaches had been cleaned, the task would have to be undertaken again. This is why the problem with the wreck is being dealt with on an urgent basis. No great quantity of oil is now leaking from the two hull sections, but undoubtedly some is escaping as the stern section in particular moves about.
The task has been, and will continue to be, long and difficult. As has been stated publicly by many people, those who have been working at the scene deserve great credit for their all-out effort under very trying and danger-
February 24, 1970

Pollution of Chedabucto Bay ous circumstances. I have asked Dr. McTag-gart-Cowan and his associates to have the pollution cleaned up by the start of the major fishing season in the area about May first.


J. Michael Forrestall: They have a fat chance.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: They have undertaken to do so to the very best of their ability.


J. Michael Forrestall: A fat chance they have.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, what kind of comments is the hon. member making?


J. Michael Forrestall: Why did you people not burn the oil. Why did the minister not deal with that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has the floor now.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why did he not deal with it, Mr. Speaker? Why did he not deal with the question of burning the oil? Tell us why.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of
Transport.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


J. Michael Forrestall: Why did you not burn the oil? It was crude oil, not rude oil.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the minister should not be allowed to finish his statement.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, let him finish.


An hon. Member:: This behaviour is quite normal for the opposition.


Mr. Nowlan:: You wouldn't know anything about that, Joe.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, apparently it is impossible for me to complete my remarks to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Let's pour oil on troubled waters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We do not appear to be making much progress. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to complete his


statement and then some hon. members on behalf of opposition parties will have an opportunity to comment on the statement.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, I have asked Dr. McTaggart-Cowan and his associates to have the pollution cleaned up by the start of the major fishing season in the area about May first. They have undertaken to do so to the very best of their ability. In their effort they will have the full support of all government and many private Canadian and international agencies.
Dr. McTaggart-Cowan is meeting today with the Premier of Nova Scotia so that he may be fully informed and that the interests and concerns of the province are taken fully into account. They have also been co-operating throughout and their efforts will also contribute to the solution.
I indicated previously that an independent inquiry into the accident will be held without delay. In addition, the project group will maintain detailed records of all their activities and prepare a full report and recommendations which will, I am sure, prove helpful to us and to the international community in the future.


J. Michael Forrestall: Shameful, shameful!


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Forrestall, Forrestall!


An hon. Member:: Let's hear from him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You people over there had better be quiet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I thought for a minute hon. members were calling for the white paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister referred to the coldness of the water off that part of Nova Scotia at this time of year. I think he realizes that however cold that water may be, the water he is in is pretty hot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 24, 1970


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition should be given the opportunity to make his statement in reply to the minister's statement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The usual method of the Minister of Transport is to try to pour oil on troubled waters. Obviously that will not work in this case. I agree, naturally, that the people who work on the spot deserve a great deal of credit. But I am concerned about one note which seemed to come through in the minister's statement. There seemed to be an attitude pretty close to complacency with regard to the extent of the damage which has already occurred. One would almost believe from his statement that very little serious damage has been done to date. This is not the case, of course, and as far as the fishery is concerned the statement of the minister that little damage has been done is of doubtful value.
The question of damages is something which the minister and the government as a whole should consider. In addition to the matters touched upon by the minister, the difficult position of those who are suffering damages ought to be considered. What recourse will they have? We are concerned here about many relatively modest Nova Scotians who are not in the same position as large corporations when it comes to seeking legal advice. The government has an obligation to be helpful in connection with the assessment of damages and seeing that these people obtain recourse.
The minister said there was to be an independent inquiry. I do not know exactly what he meant by that; I wish he would spell it out more precisely. It is of the utmost importance that a public inquiry be held-not just an inquiry within the department or under the Canada Shipping Act but a fully independent and fully public inquiry.
It seems clear that neither the government nor the Department of Transport were ready to deal with this tragedy. I agree, of course, that it is not possible to prevent every occurrence of this sort, but it has become evident that the government and the department had no regulations in effect designed to lessen the chance of such an occurrence. It is also evident that the department had no plan ready to be put into operation. Members on this side of the House called out to ask the minister why the vessel was not destroyed when there was a chance to destroy it.
Pollution of Chedabucto Bay


Donald Campbell Jamieson: They asked: "Why didn't you burn it?"


Robert Lorne Stanfield: All right, "Why didn't you burn it?" I simply enlarged the question by using the term "destroy". This question has not been answered and it ought to be answered in the course of a public inquiry.
This was a great tragedy, but far worse will occur in future unless the government learns a lesson, unless we all learn a lesson, from what has taken place. The minister is well aware that in the very area with which we are concerned now the depth of water is such that the port lends itself to the use of the largest oil tankers which have been conceived. The tanker which went aground is very small in comparison with the tankers which may be using these waters before very long. It is essential that the department take effective measures designed to prevent occurrences of this kind, and place themselves in readiness to take prompt action.
All this, of course, has an obvious bearing on the north. It has an obvious bearing on the Arctic waters. It has an obvious bearing on the conditions under which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources grants leases for drilling in the north. It also has an important bearing on the use of our territorial waters and the waters off our east and west coast.


An hon. Member:: Heavy water!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The heavy water is not as heavy as the oil around the minister. Of course it is obvious there ought to be the fullest possible international co-operation. I can see it would be desirable to develop an international research team in connection with this kind of thing as well as an international team to devise the best methods of cleaning up after such occurrences. But the point to be emphasized is that the responsibility in the territorial waters is the responsibility of the government of Canada; it is not an international responsibility, although one would, of course, seek all the international help one could get.
So we want an assurance from the minister that there is to be a public inquiry by an independent body. We can hope that such an inquiry will not only throw further light on what happened here but will help us to prevent this kind of thing happening again. In addition, it might place the government in a better position to deal with such an occurrence if, unfortunately, it were to happen.
February 24, 1970

Pollution of Chedabucto Bay


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement made by the minister, and I welcome the indication that action is contemplated to deal with oil pollution in circumstances such as the sinking of the Arrow. I will say that since the occurrence took place the minister has been extremely active in trying to set up programs and plans for cleaning up the pollution.
I am sure he has found, however, as the rest of us in this House have found, that we just do not have the legislation on the statute books of this country to enable us to deal adequately with problems of the kind which arose a number of days ago off the coast of Nova Scotia. I should like to make a few recommendations later in the hope that we may be able to prevent a repetition of the Arrow disaster.
The Arrow incident has emphasized the need for a complete review of our legislation and regulations designed to deal with the ever-increasing threat of oil pollution. Our whole approach needs to be revised. I am certain every member of the House would agree with me that we do not wish to see a repetition of the Arrow incident. One thing has been made very clear. There is a lack of planning to deal with such contingencies as the sinking of the Arrow despite the assurance which I received on January 14 in a reply from one of the ministers that contingency plans to take care of oil spillages had been prepared. I believe hon. members will agree with me when I say that even if such plans had been set up, they were, in the event, totally inadequate to deal with this situation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Having regard to the lack of adequate planning and research in connection with the whole subject of oil pollution, I should like to say a few words about the possibility of a further tragedy occurring in Canadian waters. I have in mind the proposed second voyage of the Manhattan through Canadian Arctic waters. In my opinion, this trip should not take place. A moratorium should be put into effect until there is sufficient knowledge, information and plans to deal with any possible oil pollution. It has been amply demonstrated that we do not have any contingency plans at the present time to deal with oil spills despite the assurance, as I said earlier, that was given in the House over a month ago. I feel that until a full and adequate set of

contingency plans has been developed that can be put into effect anywhere in our territorial waters, we should not allow the Manhattan to make a second trip through our Arctic archipelago.
We have set up a task force under Dr. McTaggart-Cowan to delve into oil pollution problems resulting from the sinking of the Arrow. Reports by the task force will help to solve any future oil spillage problems. In my opinion, such reports should be made public, and legislation and regulations based on the findings of the task force should be drafted and made law before we even consider a second trip through the Arctic by the Manhattan.
Last year the House passed an amendment to the Canada Shipping Act, Bill S-23. The bill initially included in section 49 5D an amendment which provided unlimited liability in the event of a maritime disaster involving oil pollution. This section was deleted by the Senate committee on the pretext that the Brussels International Conference on Maritime Oil Pollution would be held in the fall of 1969 and would discuss such matters as liability.
I understand that the Minister of Transport is not opposed to the unlimited liability clause, and I urge him to make certain that legislation dealing with unlimited liability be brought in at this session of Parliament. We have been informed through interviews that the minister has had with the press that Canada already has legislation drafted that will make vessel owners and operators entirely liable for damages resulting from accidental oil spills in Canada's territorial waters. I say to the government: Let us have this legislation without delay. The Arrow disaster should have taught us a lesson. Instead, it caught the government with its oil pollution regulations down.
There are two or three additional points I should like to make before I sit down. I feel that the whole field of oil pollution must be investigated by the various departments responsible. There are three or four clearly defined areas about which the members of this House should do something during this session. The first area is water transport. There has been a vast increase in oil shipments in Canadian coastal waters, in fact all over the world, and in this regard I think we should discuss navigation and the types of ships that should be allowed to carry oil cargoes. As far as the Arctic is concerned, ships should be specially designed for Arctic
February 24, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	4015
Inquiries of the Ministry
conditions. Liability and types of transport tion of Georges Bank, which is an area off the are questions that have to be looked into.	coast of Nova Scotia. Has the government of
My second point concerns oil drilling.	Canada replied to that note?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member indicated a moment ago that he had a few points left. I think he should take into account the terms of the Standing Order. As Speaker of the House I have tried to interpret as liberally-if I may use the word-as possible the Standing Order in question, which requires that statements by members representing parties in opposition should be brief. I realize that if the ministerial statement itself is lengthy there is a temptation for opposition spokesmen to make lengthy comments, but certainly an effort should be made by hon. members to limit these comments as much as possible.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I had only two or three points to make and I could have got through them in 30 or 40 seconds had Your Honour not risen.
In summarizing these points, I was attempting to point out to the House that I presumed Dr. McTaggart-Cowan and his research assistants would be making recommendations along the lines I have suggested to the government, namely, with regard to oil drilling and safety regulations. I further suggest that oil drilling should be barred completely from areas such as Georgia Strait, if that is the wish of the government and members of this House, and provision should thus be made.
My last point is that research into the conditions that obtain in the extremely cold waters of the Arctic must go ahead promptly. Research must be stepped up in this regard. Until we have such information we will not be in a position to lay down adequate and sensible regulations. I urge the government to proceed without delay.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government made a formal reply to the diplomatic note from the United States government dated November 5, 1969 in which the United States government disputed the presumption of Canadian ownership over the northeast sec-21701-44


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure in what form a reply was made, but I do know that there was an exchange, either verbally or written, between the United States government and the Canadian government on this subject. Both governments have agreed to pursue negotiations as to the establishment of a dividing line delineating the shelf on the United States side and on our side.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. Would either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs make a statement to the House at an early date outlining the position of the government of Canada with regard to this dispute? That is to say, what is the attitude of the government of Canada with regard to Canadian sovereignty over these submarine lands? Could the Prime Minister give the House information outlining the precise position that is being taken by the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be necessary to make a statement. The position of the Canadian government is quite clear and we have acted upon it. Our position is that the Geneva convention, to which both countries adhere, provides that the median line applies in cases such as this. In effect, this is the line that the Canadian government has been following. Any permits that have been issued under the authority of Canada have related to the area inside and up to the median line. This is our position and this is the position we took in discussions with the United States.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question. Does the government of the United States dispute this principle or does it dispute that the median line is in fact where the government of Canada believes it to be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if dispute is not perhaps too strong a word in this case, but the United States certainly disagree with the median line principle as applying in this case. I do not want to state their case for them, but it is that this is a case where special circumstances might apply; that there are special circumstances having to do with the shape of the continental shelf so that some other special rules should apply.
4016	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry We are merely adhering to the general rule as provided by the Geneva convention, and that is our very strong position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to return to a subject matter which was opened up at the beginning of the question period and ask the Prime Minister what the next step will be in resolving the dispute between Canada and the United States. Has any procedure been suggested?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe I said that the two governments were negotiating and that they were going to have meetings forthwith to try to come to terms on this dispute.



ARCTIC WATERS-POLICY OF GOVERNMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding the matter of Canadian sovereignty over the waters between the islands of the Arctic archipelago. In view of the fact that the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs outside the House was much more specific than his statement inside the House, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the minister was making a statement of government policy in his comments which were reported in the press and carried over television to the effect that these are our waters, there has never been any question about that, and we have always regarded them as our waters?


An hon. Member:: That is the one to answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the one, not the one about oil? Yes, Mr. Speaker, when he is talking about "these waters" he is talking about government policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a few days ago a prominent public figure in the United States said that, in the opinion of United States authorities, Canadian sovereignty only extended three miles from the shores of these islands, has the Canadian government made the policy, which the Prime Minister has just endorsed, abundantly clear to the government of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as we said at the beginning of the session, many of these positions will be stated when we get to the

DEBATES	February 24, 1970
debate on control of pollution in the Arctic. In the meantime, of course, there are contacts between the United States government and the Canadian government. I have not heard that any high official of the United States-


Stanley James Korchinski: Why wait for spring? Do it now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is that?


Stanley James Korchinski: Why wait for spring? Do it now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROJECTED SECOND VOYAGE BY &quot;MANHATTAN&quot; THROUGH NORTHWEST PASSAGE

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, has the government, in the exercise of its newly found courage, advised the Humble Oil Company that the Manhattan will not be allowed to go through the Northwest Passage until the Canadian government is assured by inspection or otherwise that the voyage can be made safely and securely?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said in the House a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, only if the Canadian government is convinced that this will be the case and that the voyage can be made safely and securely will it be allowed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the government advised the oil company to this effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in discussions with Humble Oil. We have taken this position. I am saying it publicly in the House now. I do not know to what extent all of it was put in writing or verbally, but this is certainly the Canadian government's position and it should suffice the hon. member to hear me say so.


Gerald William Baldwin: I had to persuade you to say it now.


Mr. W. B. Nesbiii (Oxford):: Just a brief supplementary, Your Honour, to the right hon. Prime Minister. Since there seems to be no disagreement in this House about Canada's sovereignty over the Arctic, would the Prime Minister then recommend to his colleague the House Leader that we proceed with item No. 62 on the Order Paper, concurrence in the first report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
February 24, 1970	COMMONS


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's answer which was most revealing, when did the discussions and/or the correspondence begin with the Humble Oil Company?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As far as I know, the first knowledge we had of the new request by Humble Oil came in the past few days; perhaps a week or so ago.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the Prime Minister could say, when he referred to "these waters" in response to the question by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, he meant by "these waters" the entire waters of the Northwest Passage?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was given a quotation from the minister referring to "these waters". I take it he was referring to Canadian waters.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this position of northern sovereignty has been clarified in the last few days, I wonder whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs has had any communication with the Russians as to how they declare their sovereignty over their northern waters?


An hon. Member:: Take it up with the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think in all iairness to other hon. members, for the moment we might go on to another question.



AIR CANADA

[Stage Direction]
ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE TO TROIS-RIVliRES AND BAGOTVILLE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Can he confirm if it is true that Air Canada has been authorized to discontinue its services at Trois-Rivieres and Bagotville? If so, when will this take effect?


Mr. Speaker:: 
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions held with regard to rationalization of some Air Canada routes, but no decision has been made either upon the ones to which the hon. member refers or any others.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of his statement in respect of reorganization of his department, can we expect legislation dealing with the setting up of Crown corporations for major airports in Canada, the National Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the decision is to move by way of establishing Crown corporations, of course, yes; but as I indicated, that has not been a firm decision as yet.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the concept and/or philosophy of pay-as-you-go in respect of these extensions of the Department of Transport, does this mean to the Canadian taxpayer there will be a curtailment of service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not know about that, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member obviously is aware of the concept of fly now, pay later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am the first one to receive, with all the generosity of my Irish heart, any thought from the Minister of Transport of fly now and pay later, but as a Nova Scotian, let alone a Canadian, I am prepared to say that this House cannot prevent the current-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am prepared to say that fly now, pay later is fine in philosophy, but the trouble with this government's philosphy, and I am one of those on this side of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order. The hon. member has indicated he has a supplementary question. Perhaps he might ask it.
February 24, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question is very simple and succinct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I would not want the simplicity to be lost in the barrage of thought and/or noise from the other side, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister of Transport thinks that I am going to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would make it easier for all of us by asking the question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport would have made it easier for me if he had responded to the last question without his extension, but because the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, there are only so many minutes during the question period. If we spend all our time on the same matter and the same question, perhaps other hon. members will be deprived of an opportunity to participate. I will allow the hon. member's supplementary, but I hope he will ask it as soon as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of your admonition concerning a time limit on the question period, and in view of the fact that the minister's reply was not responsive to the question, I would not want to impose upon hon. members of this House by attempting to respond to the minister within the time limit. Therefore, I withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for his co-operation. I would hesitate very much to grant a further supplementary on the same subject at this time. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-I am not going to sit down, Mr. Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not going to sit down, Mr. Speaker, until you tell me to sit down. The reason I did not ask a question was I thought I could help the business of the House in respect of other questions, but I have another thing to say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I fully realized the position taken by the hon. member. I just thought that, in co-operation with the Chair,


perhaps we should move on to another subject. I would appreciate that very much and am still asking for co-operation to give the House an opportunity to go on to another subject.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, you have my full co-operation. Since I cannot get my question in in an informal way I will ask it directly. First of all, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Arrow, now sunk in Chedabucto Bay, still contains many millions of gallons of oil that will pollute the shores, I would hope the Minister of Transport would no longer pollute the atmosphere of this chamber with his corn when the shores of Nova Scotia are getting the oil.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member might be given an opportunity to ask his question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the assurance the minister gave on January 14 that he would use his good offices to speed up the committee consideration of the question of increasing the pensions of retired CNR employees, can he now tell me whether he has done so and with what result?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes I have, Mr. Speaker. I have consulted with the chairman of the Committee on Transport and Communications. It is my understanding he has consulted with the representatives of the various parties. We can be ready whenever the chairman and the committee, which is the master of its own affairs, decide to go on to this item.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the favourite minister this afternoon, the Minister of Transport. Could he tell us whether it is the intention of the government of Canada to
February 24, 1970
initiate discussions with other countries on a bilateral basis, aside from the conference with Cuba, dealing with problems arising out of the hijacking and cowardly and murderous destruction of civil aircraft, beyond the Tokyo convention?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Canada is a part of all discussions going on on an international basis through IATA and the like, but as I indicated yesterday there are also bilateral discussions with Cuba on the same subject. We will participate in any discussion with any country designed to bring an end to this problem.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question was whether Canada is taking an initiative in going beyond the terms of the Tokyo convention because this dealt with hijacking. I refer to the wanton and murderous destruction of aircraft.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The organization through which this normally would be dealt is ICAO. I can assure the House that in the new round of representations which will take place in a matter of days, I believe, we will take a strong stand because our position is that there should be the maximum effort in this regard. How that is to be carried out, of course, as the hon. member knows is exceedingly difficult.



POLLUTION


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The other day I inquired about a particular report concerning some water studies and the like near Prince Rupert. Is the minister in a position to state whether or not this report and the result of the studies can be made public?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. The report of the investigation can be made public.



POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As I have received no answer to my question of last week, 1 will ask it again. Has he been informed of the requests forwarded to President Nixon by the independent association of oil producers of America in order to obtain a reduction of United States imports of Canadian oil?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that the U.S. section of the Independent Petroleum Association of the United States has made a report complaining of the amount of Canadian oil that is finding its way into the United States market. That has been brought to my attention.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I was pleased to hear the minister's statement concerning the water studies being conducted in northern Ontario, but I should like to know from him if these studies also include sociological and ecological considerations, in addition to the hydrological and engineering aspects.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Prime Minister and the premier of Ontario issued at that time I think, indicated that the studies would encompass present and future requirements of such waters. The studies to date are largely hydrographical and engineering, but my colleague the cabinet minister without portfolio from Thunder Bay has already drawn my attention to the fact that he believes they should be enlarged to include ecological and sociological considerations. I will be very glad to take the matter up with my Ontario confreres.



INCOME TAX


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingfon-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the tremendous contribution made by volunteer firemen all across Canada in protecting lives and property, and in view of the fact that they have been caught up in the inflationary spiral and are finding the costs of replacing or cleaning damaged wearing apparel an increasing burden, will

4020	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister in his forthcoming budget take steps to have the income tax exemption for these very worthy people raised from $300 to $600?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member's question has reference to the budget itself. In this way, the question is not in order at this time.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON INTEGRATED POLICY

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of the United States task force report and the recent statement by the President of the United States. Can the minister inform the House whether there are now continuing, active negotiations between the governments of the two countries with a view to establishing a continental integrated energy policy for the two countries?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone has spoken of an integrated continental policy. The President in his message last Friday indicated he thought there should be broad negotiation on a variety of energy questions. The specific discussion concerning the long-term arrangements which can be made have not yet commenced as the President's speech was only made on Friday. But we have been having continuous discussions with our American counterparts with regard to the short term question of the quantum of oil exports from Canada into the U.S. oil markets.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether the U.S. participants in these negotiations have placed before their Canadian counterparts, and whether the U.S. Secretary of the Interior has placed before the minister, as a condition for further negotiations on the question of the import of Canadian oil to the United States, that discussions with regard to some kind of policy respecting other forms of energy should take place as well?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. Neither my counterpart in the U.S., the secretary of the interior or any other responsible person in the United States administration has, to my knowledge, put any conditions to either continuing or expanded export of Canadian oil, nor any conditions as to the fullest discus-
[Mr. Howe.)
DEBATES	February 24, 1970
sions on energy matters between our two countries. I do not believe there are any conditions. It is a matter of attempting to achieve agreement in the interest of Canada which will be to the mutual advantage of both countries.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to accept the rather intriguing suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, which I believe was made in Montreal this weekend, to abandon the inflation fight by diverting the budgeted surplus to inflationary consumer spending.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is your nonsense.


Gerald William Baldwin: Eleven o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is the kind of question which should be allowed at this time.


An hon. Member:: It is highly argumentative.



PRESENT STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio who reports to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the minister's recent trip to Washington D.C. and his discussions with the United States Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Clifford Hardin, can the minister indicate whether in his talks with Mr. Hardin the present status of the International Grains Agreement came under review, and, if so, what is the present situation regarding this international commodity agreement?


Otto Emil Lang: In our conversations we talked about a good number of things, including the present and future situation with regard to the pricing of grain. The present status, of course, is that prices generally are below the minimums established in the agreement. Furthermore, we are approaching the period when discussions must begin about the continuation period after the end of the current agreement.


Richard Russell Southam: Can the minister indicate whether our U.S. counterparts in this international commodity agreement are approaching
February 24, 1970	COMMONS
the stage at which they will agree to stabilize the present floor prices under the wheat agreement?


Otto Emil Lang: I have indicated before that since the time in March when we found it necessary to move our prices below the minimum, a good degree of stability has been restored to the pricing of wheat. I have nothing further to add to the statement I made on that subject before.


Gerald William Baldwin: Could the minister say whether the National Farmers Union have any reason for the deep pessimism they have expressed about the statement which the minister intends to make in the House shortly with regard to the situation in western Canada?


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



POLLUTION


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast-Chilcolin):: have a question for the Minister of Transport which arises out of his statement to the House earlier today on the Chedabucto Bay spill. In view of the fact that a clean up of the spill in the Arctic will present immeasurably greater problems, can the minister tell the House when we may expect a response to the standing committee's recommendations that there should be scientific studies made of hydrocarbon action in Arctic waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Some work in this connection is under way now, but in addition I have asked Dr. McTaggart Cowan and his group to keep full records of what they are doing in this water, the temperature of which is about 35 degrees. It is my hope that perhaps we could carry these studies beyond the initial ones made and perhaps do the kind of studies in the Arctic to which the hon. member referred.



OIL-INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: May I ask the minister whether it is his intention to put his proposed legislation dealing with oil pollution on high seas and liability in relation thereto before Parliament before the second voyage of the Manhattan through Canadian waters?
DEBATES	4021
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It may be impossible. I am not sure of the actual dates when this voyage is proposed, but if it is not possible to have the actual legislation before the House at that time I can assure hon. members that no ice breaker assistance or any other assistance will be provided unless the ship meets with the qualifications that would, in fact, be in effect if the legislation were implemented.



ARCTIC WATERS-REFUSAL OF OFFSHORE DRILLING RIGHTS PENDING DEVELOPMENT OF SAFEGUARDS

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the known quantities of oil on the North American continent would seem to be adequate for the foreseeable future, would the government give consideration to refusing any offshore oil drilling rights among our Arctic islands to protect the ecology of that area until such time as efficient drilling safeguards have been developed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this problem comes under the jurisdiction of my department. In fact, we have for a long time delivered leases for drilling of oil fields in the Arctic archipelago, and we have created a tripartite committee made up of industrialists, conservation officials and officials of my department, in order to ascertain that any drilling in the North will be done in such a way as to preserve the animal life whose existence is very precarious in that region of Canada.



BANNING OF PHOSPHATES IN DETERGENTS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that, thanks to Professor Philip Jones, we now have available for manufacture Formula N, a completely non-phosphate detergent, has the minister now made up his mind to lose no further time in banning phosphate detergents from the market?


An hon. Member:: Let's go, Mr. Greene.


John James Greene: I think I have stated in the clearest possible terms that phosphates above a certain acceptable percentage will be banned on August 1. I met the presidents of
February 24, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry some of the phosphate companies and assured them that the date of August 1 was firm. May I also point out to the hon. lady that while there may be some discovery made by Professor Jones, supplies must still be available for the many ladies and others who do washing in Canada before the perfect solution is found. May I also tell her that NTA, a substitute which has been used in Sweden particularly, is available, but only in small quantities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's reply is argumentative.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I should like to ask the minister whether representations from the Electric Reduction Company, the sole source of phosphate detergents made in Canada, are holding up the immediate banning of phosphate detergents?


John James Greene: No, the only hold-up is that there is no immediate substitute which will be ready tomorrow morning. Surely, we have to give the industry some time to prepare something else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not use pure soap?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Last week I asked him whether any consideration had been given to the deferral of the entry into force of the service pensions scheme to apply at the age of 65. He indicated he would look into the matter, particularly as to whether memoranda have been circulated between his department and other departments, notably the Department of National Revenue.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, changes are planned in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, as was announced by the President of the Treasury Board in December. As indicated obviously, this concerned only retired personnel. Being more precise now, this would anticipate legislation which is due to be presented to the House in a few days.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister, by his statement, has compounded the unrest that exists in the forces at the present


time. Would he indicate whether the pension scheme would only apply to personnel at age 65 at present and in the future?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: In that respect, Mr. Speaker, the answer is an unequivocal no. We have already some provision, I believe in one category, whereby a member has an option to elect to have his pension at 60 but not at 65. We are talking about the retired members who are going to have their pensions improved by legislation in this House.



SAINT JOHN, N.B.-LACK OF INFANTRY IN MILITIA

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister with respect to the Canadian Forces Militia. Has the minister received representations from the Militia Advisory Committee in New Brunswick with respect to a lack of infantry presence in the militia, in fighting Saint John, for the first time in their history? If so, what was his reply and, if not, I will bring the question up at ten o'clock tonight?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether there was a lack of militia but I do know we were commended for the effort the government forces made in this particular situation. I will check through my correspondence to see whether some representations were made.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. It is a question I posed on two occasions to his Parliamentary Secretary. Would the minister indicate whether international agreement has been reached among all the nations traditionally fishing the east coast areas for haddock to implement a system of sustained yield quotas in their yearly catches?


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Have all the countries, including East Germany, agreed to this restriction?


John (Jack) Davis: The answer again is yes.
February 24, 1970



AIR CANADA


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. He will be relieved to know it deals with a different type of oil than that with which he has been plagued recently. It is based on some complaints that I have received, and that I am sure he has received as well. Will he investigate and report to the House why, in view of the determined governmental efforts to curb Canadian surplus butter production, it is found necessary to serve New Zealand butter on some Air Canada flights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the question as asked is not in order, and I am sure the hon. member will realize that. He is making a representation and I am sure it will be looked into by the minister.



ACTION TO IMPLEMENT DONATION OF WHEAT BY FARMERS TO FEED METIS

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that Saskatchewan farmers are reported to be voluntarily grinding wheat into flour by very primitive methods for the Metis in northern Saskatchewan, is the minister prepared to ask the Wheat Board to make the necessary provisions so that farmers can mill wheat into flour through ordinary channels to aid these families who are in need of food?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated previously that we would of course be willing to look at the regulations if that were the only means available. The means being used, of course as far as the federal law is concerned, are in fact innocent means. I am sure that the hon. member is aware of the conflict between his suggestion and differential pricing such as the two-price system for wheat. It may be doubtful if a two-price system can work if such exceptions are made.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice and which is prompted by the anxiety among my constituents regarding the contemplated transfer of the functions and personnel of part of the marine agency in Charlottetown to another agency. Can he assure the people of Charlottetown and his own fine employees that no such retrograde step is contemplated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the question should be placed on the Order Paper.



AIR CANADA


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question also for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether there are any changes contemplated in the air traffic through Sydney in respect of Air Canada and EPA?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: As a supplementary question, I wonder if the minister would make the fact that there are no changes contemplated known to Air Canada employees in the Mari-times so that they can be fully aware of this situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, any decisions have to be made in the first instance by Air Canada, but I am advised by them that they are not contemplating any major changes in their route structure. I will ask them if they will make this public.



ISSUING OF DIRECTIVE TO FLIGHT CREWS RESPECTING HIJACKING

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the Minister of Transport tell the House whether a directive has been issued to Air Canada flight crews in respect of the highjacking emergency, while the government is negotiating for international cooperation in working out arrangements on the matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not know of any such directive, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries.
February 24, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



VOLUNTARY RESIGNATION OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL WITHOUT PENALTY

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, and I am certain he is most anxious to reply as I gave him notice of the question last Friday. Will the minister inform the House whether a decision has been reached, or is being considered, on a change in the regulations with respect to allowing members of the Armed Forces to resign voluntarily without penalties? If so, will a statement be made under motions or through the medium of a press release?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that we have not studied any changes in the regulations in that respect.



POLLUTION


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the great seriousness of air pollution, as indicated by a Toronto doctor who says that over 50 per cent of the diseases suffered by people are directly traceable to air pollution, and that we have only two years to do something about it, would the minister make a statement under motions on air pollution so that the people of Canada will have some assurance that measures are being taken to meet this very serious problem?


John James Greene: I shall be very glad to consider that, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Now that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) has announced a two-year holiday without pay for farmers, has his department planned a crash program for these people who will necessarily come on the labour market, or are they to get a sabbatical from his department also?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that question as notice.



LEGISLATION RESPECTING NATIONAL ANTHEM

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a few questions but may I direct a question to the Government House Leader. Further to the questions I asked him some weeks ago, can he indicate to the House when we might anticipate legislation dealing with the royal and national anthems?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that we have had no additional information since I spoke to the hon. member last, which indicates that we will not be in a position to deal with this question during the current session.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the government house leader. Because of the interest in this legislation, could the house leader indicate to the House first of all who is dealing with this matter, whether or not it is the government or an individual, and whether or not there are direct representations being made to the Harris and Weir families in connection with the rights to the lyrics?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, discussions are being carried on at several levels including I understand, by a representative of the government with the representatives of the families.



ANNOUNCEMENT OF ITEMS FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I mention the business for tomorrow. The first item will be No. 17 on the Order Paper, Bill C-133, to be followed by No. 18 on the Order Paper, Bill C-134, and the third item will be No. 56 on the Order Paper, Bill C-175.



POLLUTION


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a brief question to the Minister of Transport. Last week I aked him a question concerning the amount of fuel oil needed to take the tanker Manhattan through the
February 24, 1970	COMMONS
Northwest Passage, and the minister indicated he would get his slide rule working over the weekend. Can he tell us how well it worked, and how much fuel oil will be required?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the questions we have asked because there is a difference between the amount of fuel oil the vessel can carry and the amount it will use in making such a trip. We have asked how long the ship is likely to take on the voyage and how much oil it is likely to carry, and as soon as I have received the information I will pass it on to my hon. friend.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the extension of the Safeguard ABM system south of the border by the Americans and the threat of nuclear explosions overhead as a result, with a great likelihood of millions of Canadians being blinded by glare or affected by radiation, why are the fall-out shelters in Toronto neither properly prepared nor marked? I believe the same is true all across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is asked in the form of a representation to the minister. I think he has to assume it will be taken into consideration.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Ten o'clock.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State or for the Acting Secretary of State. Can the hon. gentleman indicate whether there are plans by the department to eliminate a number of CBC radio and television stations in Canada in some of the remote areas, and whether these plans will be finalized tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this is the type of question which could be placed on the Order Paper.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question and ask if the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that the
DEBATES	4025
Inquiries of the Ministry plans afoot to eliminate a number of the CBC stations in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will be set aside?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring these representations to the attention of my colleague, the Secretary of State.



WHEAT-CONSULTATION WITH SASKATCHEWAN PREMIER ON BARTER PROPOSAL

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the assertion by the Premier of Saskatchewan that his government is not receiving complete co-operation from the federal government and the Canadian Wheat Board, has the minister or the Wheat Board consulted with the Premier of Saskatchewan regarding his proposal to barter at least 25 million bushels of wheat this year?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have made it perfectly clear to the Premier of Saskatchewan why the transactions he is talking about are not wtise and not in the interests of the Canadian farmers.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the Canadian Wheat Board and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce overlooked sales opportunities that would be indicated by the Saskatchewan premier's statement?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is rising on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which involves the roster system introduced in this House some time ago by the Prime Minister. In effect, the predetermined absence from the House of ministers could easily be considered a violation of the rights of members to all the necessary facilites for asking questions in this House. In other words, if there is an emergency which any member wishes to clear up, the predetermined absence through the roster system of any minister could very easily mean that the whole picture would change while a member is trying to get the situation clarified or stop an event from taking place.

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
Therefore, I would ask for a ruling in respect of the roster system and the predetermined absence of ministers. I call attention to the fact that when the House proceeded with the business today, 19 cabinet ministers were not available for questioning.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to note that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) does favour us today with his presence, this for the first time since we have been considering the bill which he sponsored. I hope that he will remain with us this afternoon to listen to the representations which are going to be made about the bill.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the last two days on which this bill was discussed, the minister was not present in this House and his Parliamentary Secretary carried responsibility for the bill. There is no doubt the minister was warned that he would be criticized with regard to this bill. He was in the building at the time; he was not absent from Ottawa. I think because of the very nature of the problem and because it involves-


Mr. Honey:: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is rising on a question of privilege. He has the floor.


Russell Clayton Honey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who is speaking knows, if he was here when this matter was last debated or if he read the proceedings in Hansard, that

I am charged with the conduct of this bill by the minister and by the government. That was explained to the right hon. gentleman who used to lead the members of his party, during the debate last week. I think you know, Mr. Speaker, that this responsibility has been entrusted to me by the minister and by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Parliamentary Secretary may protest all he wants, but that does not deter me one iota from indicating that, notwithstanding the fact the minister may have entrusted him with the piloting of the bill-I make no reflection on the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary to pilot the bill through-the presence of the minister was required for this particular bill. Nothing the hon. member can say will turn me from that particular point nor will it deter any particular person affected by this bill that is, residents of the province of Alberta. The hon. member who is the Parliamentary Secretary may sit in his comfortable pew here in central Canada not knowing the first blessed thing about the problems of the national parks, and he can insist until Doomsday on his right to pilot the bill through. He can do that but it still does not alter the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the minister was not here.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Personally I think the minister is an extremely amiable and friendly person-able too, and I am not trying to be patronizing when I say that. But he inherited a situation with regard to national parks, particularly the three residential parks in the province of Alberta, that has left him with a traumatic job. That is the simple fact right there; he inherited one bloody mess.


John James Greene: Strong talk.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was and
if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) had been in any way involved in this he would be suffering from shell shock, too, had he carried out the policies of the administration with which he was connected. The hon. member for Saint-Mau-rice (Mr. Chretien) has inherited some of the problems initiated by his colleague the former minister, now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), and some of his officials who, frankly, have been a disaster to this country and to the national parks in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
February 24, 1970


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They have been out of touch with the situation, Mr. Speaker. They believe that running a national park is something like running Pelee National Park in Ontario, and the future park in the province of Quebec, just a few square miles of very attractive scenery where people may drive in and say "Ooo-h and Aaa-h" during the course of an afternoon, and leave. That is a national park in their estimation.
I should like to point out most forcibly to private members on the government side that I was a member of a committee a few years ago that went out to Banff and Jasper to look into the leasing situation. Frankly, I was appalled at the abysmal ignorance of the hon. members from the government party with regard to national parks. This was something that had to be experienced to be understood. Out they trotted to Banff and Jasper-they have never heard of Elk Island. They saw the buffalo and were duly impressed, then came back and solemnly approved a policy of the government with regard to leaseholds. Not one serious brief or one serious representation was presented to the committee that approved the policy. Many constructive suggestions were made with regard to zoning in the parks and the lead in this was taken by the chamber of commerce of the city of Calgary which came up with an eminently sound suggestion.
There were other bodies that felt similarly. We had representations from some bodies, and I will not name them, which figured that a national park of the size of Banff or Jasper should have erected around it a ten foot fence, with here and there a gate and with a 20 foot padlock, the key of which shall be taken and buried and lost forever. According to these people, the only creatures who may benefit from our great national parks shall be the bears, the goats, the moose, the elk and other fauna. But those bodies fail to recognize, and this is the point which must be hammered home to hon. members, that the two transcontinental communications systems, which are as important to western Canada as any means of transportation is to eastern Canada, go through the national parks. Banff and Jasper were built astride the ways of communications. Banff, in fact, was built up at about the same time the CPR went through. Jasper National Park was designated before the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern went through, that is true; but there they are and no amount of bureaucratic nonsense will erase these national parks being astride these two main ways of communication.
National Parks Act
Not only must we remember that but also that the Government of Canada, immediately after the war when the Trans-Canada Highway system was set up, accepted the proposal of the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta to build a Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park and some of the adjoining parks to the west. How on earth are you to eliminate those communications systems? Will you do it simply by erasing those highways and by erasing the railroads which go through there? You are not going to erase the passes, because these are the only means of getting through the mountains. Yet we hear such nonsense from people down here, and not only from those in government. I have seen it in editorials in metropolitan dailies. The people who have written the editorials would not know a national park if they saw one and have no idea of the rights of the people involved.
Banff National Park occupies an area of 2,564 square miles; Jasper, 4,200 square miles and Waterton, within Canada, now occupies some 195 square miles according to the bill descriptions. The last park has been cut back. The three parks occupy a total of 7,000 square miles. I invite hon. members to look at a map of Alberta and British Columbia and note the location of these parks on the eastern slope of the Rockies. The northern boundary of Jasper is to the north of Edmonton, and the parks go all the way down to the United States border. Then, they tell us, "Oh, but you people in Alberta have no right to any special privileges in those parks." And pray why not, when the greatest proportion of the population of the province resides in an area immediately east and adjacent to those national parks? Are we to have our best ski and other areas in the mountains set aside beyond us, and our best scenery? Let us remember these parks go to the provincial boundaries.
I have heard it suggested in eastern Canada that, "Your provincial government should set aside provincial parks for you to carry on your skiing." What? Should we do this with all the finest slopes, all the good areas and the scenery in the national parks? Such assertions are only a measure of some people's abysmal ignorance of the situation. I will admit that the province has permitted the establishment of a number of small provincial parks; but that is in addition to the 7,000 square miles of national parkland. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the 7,000 square miles of national park in the province of

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
Alberta is greater by far than the total area of all remaining national parks in Canada with the exception of Wood Buffalo National Park which, by itself, is more than double the combined areas of Banff, Jasper and Water-ton National Parks.
We are told in Alberta that we should be thankful we live next to the national parks, but we must not use them as recreational areas; oh, no. "Let the peasants be content with being next to the castle of the lord." That seems to be the attitude of some people who advocate the severely restricted use of the parks. In this day and age there is a requirement for the adequate development of those parks but that, as I have said before, does not mean that I support or in any way advocate making Banff or Jasper into so-called Coney Islands-not at all.
The parks contain enormous areas and, as a matter of fact, most of the people who advocate the total conservation of the parks have never been to them and do not even know the wilderness areas of those parks. Nevertheless, there are areas in which there must be development such as the townsites. People were living in the national parks long before any of the officials came there to work for the responsible department. Now, we are getting, step by step, bureaucratic action which is designed to cut back the rights of these people, rights that were obtained by agreement with the Government of Canada. There was a bona fide agreement on the part of both sides, Mr. Speaker. But now, because there are people in government who feel that other philosophies ought to prevail, the rights of these individuals are to be brusquely set aside.
It may be said that there was a change of policy with regard to leases back in 1960. Perhaps I ought to say that this was a bureaucratically inspired move. But further I want to say this: although from 1960 onward it was indicated clearly, as it was, that future leases and new leases would be entered into on certain conditions, that is no ground whatsoever for asserting and using improper pressures, and there are all sorts of examples of improper pressures being used upon holders of other types of leases, to make those persons surrender their rights under their original leases in order to obtain permits or renewals.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have had all sorts of people write to me. Holders of commercial leases or owners of

motels who wished to make improvements- yes, to make improvements-have written to me. They have told me these improvements were needed to meet the demands of increased traffic, to upgrade facilities as requested by the park authorities. But in order to do this a permit was required, because one almost requires a permit to go to the bathroom in the park; that is how closely monitored are the lives of the residents of Banff and Jasper. In order to bring about these improvements a development permit is required. And a development permit is not issued, under the new terms, unless there is a surrender of the original lease. In other words, an economic blackjack has been used on some of the leaseholders in the parks. That is reprehensible. Those people had an interest in businesses which they had been conducting for years. The park authorities had an interest in seeing that they should continue. And we, as citizens, had an interest in seeing that the parks lived up to their reputations.
The other day a resident of Jasper said there was not one park official who was aware of the conditions under which residents lived in those parks. This man was not there to make a living out of a commercial enterprise. He was there for a different, though essential purpose. He said none of those park officials had been obliged to spend a summer there and answer the door two or three times every night to people asking whether accommodation was available, or whether they could park trailers and cars in the yard. These are the conditions under which residents of the parks live.
In Jasper they have a very small, ancient hospital. A multi-million dollar ski development has taken place at Marmot Basin and is to be enlarged. The Yellowhead Highway is going through. But do you think any encouragement is given to the sisters who operate this hospital? Are they encouraged to upgrade it? A new hospital is required. Pilate-like, the park authorities stand aside and say this is the responsibility of the Province of Alberta. But when it comes to other things, the Province of Alberta has no authority within the townsite of Jasper. They cannot erect a senior citizen's home because there is no local authority. In fact, I suppose one could not build a hospital, now, because there is no local authority. We are dealing, here, with people. No man in Ottawa is able to wipe out or blot out or put aside any resident of the park or of the park townsite. Yet, in effect, these citizens find themselves under a sort of
February 24, 1970

restriction which affects their lives and their development. Oh, there is a town manager. He conducts a sub-post office as far as the department is concerned. He has no authority over anything.
This situation in the parks is a very serious one. We are told it may come to the point at which people will be rationed in Jasper and Banff-that some form of advance reservation will be necessary. In other words, some bureaucrat will decide that X thousand people a week will be the total number who may enter a national park. Will they put up a gate with a counter on the Trans-Canada Highway? Will they put up a gate with a counter on the CPR line? Who is going to play God? Who, pray, will be the God who decides that sufficient people have entered a park during a particular week? More bureaucratic nonsense. I don't know. It seems to me other government departments can carry out and devise sensible policies but for some reason or another, this one cannot. It must be some spirit or some other thing which has caused what I believe would be otherwise reasonable, pleasant and educated men to lose all sense of proportion with regard to these three parks.
These three parks are not like the others in this country. I can understand that in the new park in Nova Scotia, or the park in Newfoundland a different approach might be necessary. The beach parks in Prince Edward Island are somewhat different, as is Wood Buffalo National Park. The non-residential parks, the small ones in British Columbia would be different. But these three parks in Alberta are a breed apart from the others. Yet we have before us today a form of legislation, which is typical, to deal with all of them in the same fashion. I call it a measure to set up a bureaucratic insulation board, another layer putting the people further away from the point of ultimate decision.
One has only to study the bill to see this. For example, section 5A(1) says:
The minister may entrust the direction of the administration, management and control of property within a park to the corporation or may enter into agreements with a corporation on terms and conditions that he considers reasonable-
I interject. It is the minister who will consider them reasonable or otherwise.
*-on terms and conditions that he considers reasonable for the direction of the administration, management and control of property within a park and described in the agreements.
It is the same in section 5A(4).
The corporation may, at any time by agreement, and shall, upon receipt of a written direc-
National Parks Act
tion by the Govemor-in-Council, return to the minister the direction of the administration, management and control of any property ... which was entrusted to it-
For the term "Governor-in-Council" one can read the word "minister". In other words, this is a stooge body.
Then, we come to clause 18(1) on page
seven.
The corporation shall comply with any direction from time to time given to it in writing by the Govemor-in-Council or the minister respecting the carrying out of its objects or the exercise of its powers.
What sort of body is this to call a Crown corporation? In other words, it can take direction at all times; it will do everything the minister tells it to do. The minister will stipulate the conditions of the agreements. Why does the minister not face up to the situation in the parks instead of setting a corporation between him and the people? This will be another element of frustration for the townspeople in the parks.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Not only the people of Alberta but other people using the parks will be frustrated. After all, these three parks attract more people than all the others. They are the stars in the diadem of national parks? The government tourist bureau advertises in Reader's Digest and Time magazine: "Come to Banff", "Come to Jasper". This is expensive, highly coloured and beautiful advertising. Yet the parks are being handled in this way.
We do not know who will be on the board of directors of this corporation. I suppose officials of the department will be members; others may be outsiders, but God knows who. No indication is given who they will be, whether they will have any real knowledge of the parks are not. Whether there will be an element of patronage in this regard I know not, but since all of the directors will be under the direction of the minister what is new? The parks are presently under the direction of the minister. Local parks superintendents have their hands tied. Most of them exercise no more discretion than the mere mailing of a letter; perhaps some of them have a few local duties.
Why does this bill not transfer to the corporation all of the lands in the national parks system? No mention is made of the Wood Buffalo National Park. I should like to know whether we are going to have a continuation of the bureaucratic machine that has existed in Ottawa in the past, along with a parallel

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
development in the corporation. The bill empowers the withdrawal of land or the inclusion of lands subject to the administration of the corporation.
I am not going into the history of recent frustrations and difficulties regarding leases and increases in rent, valuations I have seen which, frankly, were meaningless. This land was never priced at $40,000 or $60,000 per lot, which is the only way you can interpret the 6 per cent of the valuation and the annual rent that is demanded.
The parks administration have contributed not one cent to improvements. Somewhere along the line I received a letter from the minister explaining the rationale of the rental policy, and rents are not to be taken into account. I do not know who wrote this letter for the minister, but whoever it was did not have any idea of the rents for residential lots or properties in Jasper which were being demanded at the time.
One of the worst situations that could develop was when plebiscites were recently held both in Jasper and Banff. They were meaningless from the legal point of view, but what a vote of non-confidence they represented. These plebiscites were an attempt to find some way out of the parks system on the part of the townsite. There was a heavy turnout and the verdict was clearly against the administration. Cannot they read the signs? Are they blind to events? As I say, this corporation is given tremendous power. Notwithstanding the action that is now before the Supreme Court and the verdict thereon, I am wondering what will be the effect on the transference of leases, assignments of interest, powers of expropriation, and that sort of thing.
I am not able to determine from the bill whether the description of the parks of Banff and Jasper has in any way modified the boundaries. Since nothing is said about changing boundaries, in good faith I will assume that the boundaries have not been changed. There is an indication that the boundaries of Waterton National Park are to be changed and the park reduced in area. As I say, I am surprised that nothing is said in the bill about Wood Buffalo National Park. Why is it that this huge area of land both in the province of Alberta and in the Northwest Territories is not to be taken over by the corporation?
I have spoken at this length because I think that this bill is not going to accomplish any worth-while purpose with regard to lease-

holders in the park, be they commercial or residential. Therefore, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson):
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "this House holding the opinion that the bill is repugnant in principle to the members of this House as well as to the residents of Canada, including those of the townsites of Banff and Jasper National Parks, the persons most nearly affected by the bill's purpose and intent, and that therefore the government should reconsider the principle of the bill, this bill be read a second time on a day six months hereafter."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like to make one or two points, but basically I should like to take the amendment under advisement and discuss it with Mr. Speaker. I am a little troubled by its form. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) has already spoken, and therefore I do not think it is proper that he should second the motion. Perhaps with the consent of the mover I might add the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) as seconder.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the hon. member for Red Deer had likely spoken to an amendment that was previously before the House. I quite appreciate that if he has spoken on the main motion he is not in a position to second my amendment, and if that is the case I would agree to the hon. member for Hillsborough seconding it.
Since Your Honour has raised a point of order, may I say that my amendment is a reasoned amendment. It is, in effect, a six months' hoist, and this is permissible. I do not think that the preamble to the amendment will in any way affect its validity, or the main purpose of the amendment, namely that the bill be read six months from this date.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will certainly hear arguments on that point, but I must say at first blush I do have some misgivings about the preamble. Before making a ruling I will certainly hear arguments and discuss it with Mr. Speaker.


Russell Clayton Honey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Before Your Honour discusses the proposed motion with Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you might hear argument on this point which you might convey to Mr. Speaker? Would that be in order?
February 24. 1970


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest that possibly what I might do is discuss it with Mr. Speaker, and at that point we will certainly hear arguments on the procedural question.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate must be akin to the pleasure experienced by a physician who has successfully diagnosed a cancer. Unlike the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I do not substantially restrict my participation in debate to matters I feel affect the prerogatives of this institution. However, that is fundamentally the reason I am going to speak today.
What I am going to speak of are not imagined slurs or fantastic infringements on the prerogatives of Parliament. Rather, I am going to talk about a gross dereliction of its responsibilities, an almost total abandonment of its functions, by a group whose effective performance is essentially to the operation of Parliament, the official opposition.
The historians or political scientists who, a few decades from now, peruse the Hansards of February 4, February 10, February 17, 1970 and today, may very well count themselves fortunate to have discovered in the debate on second reading of this Bill C-152 a capsule example of how a once great Canadian institution, the Progressive Conservative national caucus, loused things up again and thereby hastened its own demise as a meaningful entity in the political life of this nation.
I want to be fair and give credit where credit is due. Some of the hon. members of the official opposition from Alberta who have participated in this debate, specifically those from Pembina (Mr. Bigg), Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), and Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), and I should mention the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), have displayed an understanding for our principal national parks and an understanding of the very real problems of the people living in them. I would be hard pressed to disagree with most of the arguments advanced by those hon. members regarding the treatment of residents of Jasper and Banff Parks, although I might be constrained to dispute that the Waterton situation is comparable because the number of permanent residents at Waterton is simply too few to sustain viable municipal institutions.
Equally, I would be hard pressed to dispute the validity of the arguments advanced by my colleague, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky). His energy and enthusiasm and, I might say, his evident
National Parks Act
disregard for the sensibilities of occupants of the treasury benches, when it comes to fighting for what he thinks right for his constituents, can be taken by the residents of those parks as a sure sign that a greater measure of justice will be achieved for them in the near future.
The hon. member for Edmonton West observed that when the committee visited the parks there were no government members knowledgeable in respect of the parks on that committee. That is an omission that the voters of Alberta have since rectified, and most particularly the voters of the Rocky Mountain constituency within which the particular parks lie.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: By 30 per cent.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I will come to that later.
It is often said that Canada's acceptance by the developing world is due largely to the fact that we have never been a colonial nation and that we have no colonial pretensions, if for no other reason than that we have not the might to entertain colonial pretensions. To say that we have never been a colonial nation is not to say we have no colonial past-we do. But we were on the receiving end of colonialism and it is a concept as repugnant to most Canadians as it is to most Africans and Asians. It is a concept that is particularly repugnant to those Canadians-relatively a mere handful perhaps, but nevertheless each one is entitled to the full rights of Canadian citizenship as you and I-who still experience it. It is a concept also particularly repugnant to those Canadians-and these are more than a relative handful-whose experience brings them into more or less regular contact with the colonials.
Banff and Jasper, communities of some 3,500 and 2,800 respectively, are essentially being run as colonies, with vital decisions regarding the elementary aspects of the most primitive municipal government being made in Ottawa, or sometimes in the regional office of the Department of Northern Development in Calgary by officials appointed by Ottawa, or sometimes even by officials of the same department on the site, but appointed in Ottawa. Wherever made, the one thing certain is that the residents have no assurance that their legitimate aspirations and interests have been taken into account. Without that assurance there is an unfortunate but, I think, natural tendency to assume that they have not been taken into account and that the

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
communities are being manipulated entirely by and for the appointed administrators and the ideas they see best applying to them.
The impression has evidently been widely held that these communities are largely populated by vultures preying on the innocent tourist, whose park residence has constituted if not a licence to steal, then at least a licence to coin money. The government and the administrators have known that this has not been true. The information advanced during this debate by the hon. members for Rocky Mountain and Red Deer refutes that impression utterly. I will not repeat it, but I hope that it will be remembered by every member of this House as he considers this and future parks legislation.
It may be suggested that the rights of these people are adequately protected by this chamber and that the valiant efforts of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain will suffice. I should like to read into the record a brief extract from the Durham report. I will read from page 287 of Volume II of the 1912 Oxford edition, edited by Sir C. P. Lucas. This is from the text of the report and he was speaking here of the provinces of Canada from 1837 to 1839. The report reads:
The establishment of a good system of municipal institutions throughout these Provinces is a matter of vital importance. A general legislature, which manages the private business of every parish, in addition to the common business of the country, wields a power which no single body, however popular in its constitution, ought to have; a power which must be destructive of any constitutional balance.
A little later on he says:
The establishment of municipal institutions for the whole country should be made a part of every colonial constitution; and the prerogative of the Crown should be constantly interposed to check any enroachment on the functions of the local bodies, until the people should become alive, as most assuredly they almost immediately would be, to the necessity of protecting their local privileges.
I suggest it is high time that the residents of these park towns were given the same rights of municipal government the rest of us enjoy.
Regrettably, with the handful of exceptions I have already mentioned, members of the official opposition participating in this debate have chosen to ignore the central issue and to misrepresent the effect of the main provisions of the legislation. They have emphasized an irrelevant matter in an effort to create a phony issue. Again, there are a couple of Other exceptions. Their contributions consist-

ed of innocuous little homilies for home consumption and they neglected to face up to the substance of the bill.
I followed the debate on this bill with considerable interest and some dismay at some of the gross irrelevancies that have marred it from the time the second member spoke. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), leading for the official opposition in his capacity as its shadow minister of Indian affairs and northern development, chose to give little attention to the substance of the bill, but rather devoted the bulk of his wit, wisdom and talent to a totally unsuccessful attempt to create yet another non-issue out of the fact that the minister had chosen to delegate the responsibility for piloting this bill through second reading to his capable Parliamentary Secretary.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was inspired to participate in the debate by saying that the selection of the Parliamentary Secretary for this important task was yet another example, to quote him from page 3691 of Hansard, of "egregious contempt that is being shown to Parliament by the present administration". Well, "egregious" is not one of my six bit words, but obfuscation is, and that is what the hon. member for Oxford's efforts, compounded by those of the right hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and the hon. member for Edmonton West, earlier today, amounted to-obfuscation.
It is somewhat pathetic to observe the frontbenchers opposite grasp at every procedural straw in a nostalgic effort to recreate the good old days of the pipeline debate.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
This is 1970 not 1956, Mr. Speaker. Without commenting on the merits of the issues that came out of the pipeline debate, the public bought them and the public is usually right. However, the public paid quite a price-six years of the worst government Canada has ever enjoyed-and the public is not about to be fooled into buying a phony non-issue, no matter how well or badly it is dramatized here.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Were you in favour of the bill?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Hon. members opposite and members of the press are fond of noting occasions when a backbencher here takes issue with some aspect or other of a government
February 24, 1970

measure. But, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary system is founded on the concept of adversaries, on the concept of a government proposing and an opposition opposing in a meaningful, relevant way. When the official opposition is derelict in its duty, lowers its criticisms to obscure irrelevancies and fails utterly in its function, someone has to take up the slack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh boy!


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I admit that it is sometimes difficult to find legitimate fault with the legislation presented in this House by the government, but we on this side occasionally are able to do so. It is a sorry thing for the parliamentary system in Canada that the official opposition is not. Spokesmen for the official opposition, starting with their shadow minister, the hon. member for Oxford and working on down through a succession of lesser luminaries have succeeded with suspiciously monotonous regularity to miss the main point of the bill. They see its main purpose as this-and I shall quote the hon. member for Oxford as recorded at page 3225 of Hansard:
In a nutshell, it sets up a corporation to carry out the administration and to make policy for the national parks.
It does no such thing.


Paul Yewchuk: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would see to it that a man with a shovel comes into this chamber when this speech is over.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I trust the comments of the hon. member will be up to the standard of his Interjection. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), whose achievements on behalf of the residents of Banff National Park are reported to be legion, added a new dimension to the debate when he noted that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky)-as recorded at page 3429 of Hansard-had been elected with 30 per cent of the vote. That observation was neither accurate nor, so far as I can see, relevant. But when the hon. member takes the opportunity to check the records, as he invited us to do, he might then wish to talk with some of his colleagues. I would suggest he start with the hon. members for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), to ascertain whether they would
National Parks Act
agree that such an observation is relevant for any purpose in this House.
The hon. member for Calgary North also chose to miss the main point of the bill. At page 3427 of Hansard he said:
In brief, this bill would set up a Crown corporation to control and govern the national parks of Canada and would take them away from ministerial responsibility.
It does no such thing. It was the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who introduced into the debate the old adage, "Don't confuse me with facts: my mind is already made up." Regrettably, his colleagues epitomize that attitude. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) perpetuated the error at page 3458 of Hansard when he said:
I say at the outset that I take strong exception to the government's plan to set up a Crown corporation to administer our national parks.
It does no such thing. What the bill proposes is that the corporation administer property in the parks and administer in particular leasehold real estate. This, in itself, may very well be sufficient ground for some pretty solid criticism or it may be a good idea. The committee will examine that. Let us at least stick to the facts. The bill does no such thing as the hon. members for Oxford, Calgary North and Churchill say it does. They say the purpose is to avoid accountability by the government. In asserting this allegation they choose to ignore the effect of clause 18. It is too bad the Broadcasting Act does not contain a provision such as clause 18 of this bill. Since the hon. member for Oxford does not appear to know what clause 18 says, and since he will have difficulty finding any patronage in it, I shall read it to him:
18 (1) The Corporation shall comply with any direction from time to time given to it in writing by the Governor in Council or the Minister respecting the carrying out of its objects or the exercise of its powers.
(2) The Treasury Board may from time to time for any year establish the percentage of the gross revenues of the Corporation for that year that may be expended by the Corporation in that year for administration purposes.
It is difficult to see, with the power given by clause 18, how the Governor in Council or the minister could avoid accountability. They are to be given a power and they will be accountable not only for its use but for failure to use it. The hon. member for Edmonton West left me as confused as his colleagues. In one breath he calls the proposed corporation a stooge and in yet another refers to its tremendous powers. Is it the action of a responsible opposition to misrepresent the main

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
provision of the legislation? Is it the action of a responsible opposition to misrepresent what seems to be the only contentious provision of this legislation? Is it a pure coincidence that this misrepresentation as well as the distortion of what has become an accepted parliamentary practice in an effort to create a phony issue all emanated from the same general geographic area of this House? Is it coincidental that it was the spent volcanoes in the front bench opposite-as my hon. friend from Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) referred to them-who have indulged in these discreditable tactics?
Our parliamentary system needs an opposition; it needs a working opposition; it needs an effective opposition; it needs a credible opposition. Canada has a right to look to the official opposition for that. It is looking to the official opposition and it is finding it absolutely lacking. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I appeal to the hon. leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Some place over there the talent must be waiting quietly to be discovered. It is obvious it does not rest on his front benches. Parliament needs, and Canada needs, an effective opposition. He has a duty to provide it. For the sake of Parliament, and the sake of Canada, I say that he should put a muzzle on his front bench and give the boys on the back benches a chance. After today's question period one cannot be too sanguine about his chances of success, but some time between now and the next general election the country has to find out whether there is any talent left in the Conservative party.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, after the last speaker's brief-I am not sure what the second adjective should be and perhaps I will omit it- remarks I must say I am happy to be following him rather than preceding him. What I am about to do I hope is what he was really urging my colleagues on the right to do, namely, provide some kind of constructive proposal.
It seems to me that one of the main purposes at least of our national parks should be to ensure for the present generation of Canadians, and the generations in the future, the possibility of experiencing in a meaningful and enjoyable way our natural resources and of experiencing them in an essentially natural setting. That would be a setting which would involve the minimal inclusion of what may or may not appropriately be called civilization.
To a considerable extent, both at the national level and I think at the provincial level in respect of a number of our provinces, this has been achieved in respect of our summer parks. Now, in each province, Canadians have the opportunity to enjoy camping, hiking, canoeing and a number of other pleasurable activities. Before I make the suggestion I have in mind I should like to draw to the attention of the House what perhaps is self-evident and widely known already; that is, the fact that all these pleasures can be enjoyed at minimal cost to individuals and their families.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I think in a democratic society it is a point worth emphasizing that, regardless of whether one is rich or poor, our national parks are available equally to all people for their enjoyment. However, I repeat, that those are summertime activities. This is glaringly not the case when we consider the winter season. Perhaps of all athletic activities enjoyed by young and old in the winter, skiing obviously must be singled out as the most important one. But I ask you, who in this country can afford to ski?
Let us take some reasonably accurate estimates of costs for a family of four spending a day skiing in Ontario. I understand that the figures I will suggest are fairly representative of what it would cost anywhere in this country. First of all one has to pay for tows. For adults, this means $7 for mother and $7 for father. For children, in the case where there is a reduced rate, this would likely mean $3.50 each. In addition to the tow cost, the family could be expected to spend a minimum of $5 altogether for lunch. Then, for the average family going skiing there would be an expense of $5 for gasoline. The total comes to $31 for one day spent skiing. I ask you, how many Canadians in this country, above all others perhaps with few exceptions in this world in which skiing should be almost a natural right, can really afford to go skiing? I suggest that very few can afford it.
This suggestion is borne out by statistics that I read about a year ago, but unfortunately do not have available to me now. The statistics that I read at that time indicated that the average skiing individual in Ontario had an income of between $12,000 and $15,000 per year. I do not need to point out where that puts him in terms of the distribution of income in this country. It puts him at the top section of the scale.

February 24, 1970

This means that in this country thousands of people who perhaps would otherwise be skiing are not because the cost is prohibitive. My suggestion therefore is that the federal government can do something at a very reasonable cost to change this situation. It should do for the wintertime activities in our national parks what, for example, the provincial government of Ontario has done for summertime activities in its parks. It should begin to make capital investments-and I stress they would be relatively slight in amounts-necessary to instal skiing tows and to do the rudimentary kind of work that would be necessary in the appropriate terrain to make ski runs. It should then open these parks to skiers in the winter months at the most nominal charge of perhaps $2 for a family for a season. I suggest that would make this very enjoyable and very healthy outdoor activity available not only to the rich but to Canadians with average and below average incomes.
I stress that this action by the federal government would involve very little in the way of capital expenditure. At least some ministers of the government have spoken about the desirability of doing something about sports in this country, so I believe the government would be interested in this kind of action. It seems to me to be a desirable kind of sport activity because skiing is not a spectator sport but involves participation in the activity itself rather than the passive observation of others playing games of different sorts.
Therefore, I would like the minister, or his Parliamentary Secretary perhaps, to respond to my suggestion at the close of the debate and, if the government is opposed to the idea, to tell us why that is the case. I urge that the most serious consideration be given to my proposal because it is one that would involve the expenditure of small amounts of money and would provide very significant human benefits.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
House of Commons Act hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)- Agriculture-Investigation of removal of serial plates from imported tractors; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-Sports- Grant to the Quebec Amateur Hockey Association; the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell)-National Defence- Saint John, New Brunswick-Lack of infantry in militia.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and the hon. members who have sponsored the first three bills on the Order Paper have asked to allow them to stand. I believe the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) would be ready to proceed with Bill C-32, an act to amend the House of Commons Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Frank Howard: that Bill C-32, to amend the House of Commons Act (Internal Economy Autonomy) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have been given some indication that there is a good prospect that this bill will still be under debate at six o'clock. In consequence, any hopes that I had for the generosity of the House toward private members business has just been dashed to the ground. This is a subject matter that involves the office of Speaker, and that is one subject which we should all approach with great respect and temerity because we do not want to be involved in discussions or debates in the House that raise in question the function of Mr. Speaker or the carrying out of Mr. Speaker's duties. I approach the introduction of this bill with admiration and respect for the office of the Speaker.

February 24, 1970
House of Commons Act
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
At the same time, within that ambit, I would point out that really Mr. Speaker is not a free agent in so far as the expenditures of moneys, the estimates of the House of Commons and its operations are concerned. In so far as being a member of the Commissioners of Internal Economy is concerned, Mr. Speaker is one member, along with four others, who happen to be by law members of the Privy Council; in other words, in practice members of the cabinet.
We are concerned here I think with a question of the sovereignty of the House, the mastery of the House over its own affairs, the degree to which the House of Commons should be able to involve itself in the preparation and development of its own activities. For some time now, we have been moving in a direction with which I agree and with which I am sure most hon. members agree. We have been moving into an era of greater activity, greater theoretical-if nothing else- force behind the activity of a private member, a greater influence, a greater arena for concern by private members.
A couple of examples of this are indicated by the development and growth of the committee system, albeit it has many shortcomings, many areas still to be developed. But nonetheless, the House of Commons has moved more into a greater use of committees, the examination by committees of a larger and larger number of subjects. I would think and hope we should move further in the direction of the effective and valuable use of the committees. And because there is a greater involvement by committees, and because it is a growing and developing thing-I hope there will be more effective and valuable use of committees-this carries with it a greater participation by private members because committees by and large are made up of private members, and in some cases added to by Parliamentary Secretaries.
We have also had a move recently whereby the parties, initially parties in opposition, have had made available to them grants out of the Treasury in aid of research activities so that those parties, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others have put it, could perform their functions more effectively in Parliament. Not too many days ago, we had an announcement made by the Prime Minister that this concept of funds for research activities would be extended to include private members on the government side, again

another indication of the growth of the potential effectiveness of the House of Commons and of the private members in it, as distinct from and in contrast to the authoritarianism of cabinet and of government itself.
It is true that even with all this, under our system the Prime Minister and the cabinet still control Parliament. They still, under the party system, through the caucus structure, are able to have their way when the chips are down and the crunch is on. But that is a matter for speculation at another time. At the moment, I want to deal with the developing force in the House of Commons itself for its own sovereignty and its own activities.
The House of Commons Act under section 17-and I won't bother to read it all-points out that the Clerk of the House in so far as certain activities are concerned, and the Sergeant-at-Arms so far as certain other activities are concerned, annually prepare estimates of the expenditures necessary for the various component parts of their jurisdictions. These estimates relating to salaries, moving allowances, and the messengers, door keepers, clerks, servants of the House and the like-in other words the financial matters for the operations of the House of Commons-are prepared initially by the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms and are submitted to the Speaker. If one just simply looked at that process one could very easily come to the conclusion that, primarily, the Speaker is in full control of things because he is the one co-ordinating the preparation of the estimates.
But section 18 of the House of Commons Act-and I think this is worth reading, Mr. Speaker-points out that in fact the Speaker, in this regard, who is the spokesman of the House and is our representative, is not in full control of the estimates which he may prepare in the light of the desirous activities of the House itself and of extensions. Section 18 reads:
All sums of money voted by Parliament upon such estimates-
That is the estimates the Speaker prepares. -or payable to members of the House of Commons under the Senate and House of Commons Act, are subject to the order of the commissioners, or any three of them, of whom the Speaker shall be one.
We all understand this, but in order to set it out in Hansard so that anyone reading it may appreciate what is involved, we have to look at section 16 to find out who these commissioners are and what they are. Section 16 gives the prerogative or right-privilege is
February 24, 1970



perhaps a more appropriate word-to the Governor in Council to appoint:
-four members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who are also members of the House of Commons, who, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, snail be commissioners for the purposes of this section and sections 17 and 18.
This is the group which we generally refer to as the Commissioners of Internal Economy, and the words "internal economy" are the heading to these particular sections in the House of Commons Act. The current commissioners comprise the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) who, as you must admit, has a powerful influence in financial expenditures, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), who has a powerful influence in the political arm of the government, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). So, effectively, the Commissioners of Internal Economy, because the cabinet members outweigh Mr. Speaker on a four-to-one basis, ensure that the expenditures of the House of Commons for all of its activities are subject to control, authority, direction and interference-I do not say they are interfered with or that they are controlled-of the cabinet.
The bill before us seeks to repeal sections 16 and 18, which I have just read, of the House of Commons Act, and would then leave in statute law, if such repeal is agreed to, no statutory arrangement or provision for the selection of whoever the Commissioners of Internal Economy shall be. One may argue that this leaves a blank spot, but really the conception that I have, following that repeal, is that because this is a matter affecting the House of Commons, not affecting Parliament, we should not involve either the Senate or the assent of the Crown. It should be a matter that the House of Commons should deal with internally, through the Standing Orders. And because I did not want to follow up a companion reference in .this bill to the Standing Orders-because that would involve asking the Senate to agree in theory to what the Standing Orders of this House should be-I have left it blank and subject to further development in argument.
These are things that I think should be covered in the Standing Orders of the House, because the Standing Orders are the rules of the House with respect to the House and its own activities. This matter was developed and examined some eight or ten years ago, or thereabouts, in the United Kingdom where a
House of Commons Act similar system existed. We can see that under the Standing Orders naturally, Mr. Speaker, our first member and spokesman for the House, would continue to be the prime effective member of the commissioners of internal economy and that he would be chairman Without defining or predetermining it, the other members of the committee would be drawn from the other parties in the House.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I think there is certainly no priority of view about the value of this institution as between one member and another. We are all equally concerned about the institution of Parliament, about the operation of the House of Commons and the valuable contribution it can make to Canada and the Canadian fabric. The reasoning behind this approach is that we should take cognizance of the development in the field of research, the concern for the effect and influence of the private member and the development of the committee procedure, by removing what is an obsolete and archaic part of our statute law so that we could, under our Standing Orders, draw other than cabinet ministers into the Commission of Internal Economy. Then, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to develop a structure to meet the needs of the people today and to serve them better than is the case at the present time.
If I may I should like to read briefly from an article written by Professor J. R. Mallory, of McGill University and published in The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science in 1957. Though it is dated by 12 or 13 years, it is valid because of the situation of the Commission of Internal Economy. Their method of selection has not changed in that period of time. In the last paragraph, Professor Mallory says:
The Internal Economy Commission as presently constituted is a throwback to an older and very different House of Commons. It reflects a House in which an organized opposition had yet to appear, and in which the cleavages between the front bench and the private member were less marked. Party government and ministerial responsibility are the essential characteristics of the government of Canada, and they are bound to set the pattern of organization even for the internal affairs of the House of Commons itself. But the House of Commons is more than a mere framework for part} government. The House, by tradition and by inclination, has an identity of its own which transcends the claims of party and of constituency in some matters. While the House will bow to ministerial direction and cabinet dominance in the government of the country, the private member finds that the domestic economy of the House is a much

February 24, 1970
House of Commons Act
more intimate matter. The Internal Economy Commission represented an attempt to dress up the constitutional responsibility of ministers for all expenditure within a framework which left the Commons, in theory at least, masters of the interior arrangements of their own chamber. With the growing "aggrandizement of the executive" there are perhaps strong reasons for broadening the composition of the commission to represent the House as a whole.
That is the substance of what I am trying to get at.
We are involved when we think in terms of the private member, Mr. Speaker. In stacking a single individual private member with whatever expertise he has available against the cabinet and the government of the country, we find that a cabinet minister has a staff of five or six people to handle the administrative and political matters of his office. He also has thousands of people in the public service who conceive it their function to support the policy enunciated by the government and the minister. This latter has become so by ministerial edict and governmental comment from time to time. We have that on the one side, supplemented now on the other by the amount of money for research purposes. I consider we would be far better able, Mr. Speaker, to move into the area by trying to arrange for each member of the House to have a financial structure available to him so that he could have a research assistant or executive assistant to help him prepare himself to counter the forces and the development of government itself.
We would be able to reach that stage of putting the private member in a better position if he were able to participate through the members of the House with you, Mr. Speaker, in the preparation of the estimates of expenditure relating to research, to staff and the other amenities necessary to enable a member to fully represent those who elected him. We should move away from the position where all of these concerns and hopes are matters in which the House of Commons should not be involved. We should move toward making the House of Commons a viable unit in our community and away from the Treasury Board which dominates in numbers, if nothing else, the Commissioners of Internal Economy.
For Parliament or the House of Commons to be free, it must be free to develop its potential to the full. It is inhibited now by the Treasury Board and the government dominating the Commissioners of Internal Economy. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) quipped the other day that it

was a great Canadian who took the state out of the bedroom. I think it is time we took the Treasury Board out of the Speaker's office and put the House of Commons in a position to better serve the people.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in the bill the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has put to the House he suggests that we do away with the Commissioners of Internal Economy. The unfortunate thing is that he did not put forward any proposals in the bill to replace the Commissioners of Internal Economy or how the matters presently dealt with by them should be dealt with in the future.
In his remarks, he said that the reason he did not put these things in the bill was that he did not believe such matters should be regulated by statute, that they should be in Standing Orders. In concluding his remarks, he said that perhaps the Standing Orders should provide for a committee that would represent all parties and do what the Commissioners of Internal Economy now do.
I see several difficulties with this, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the proposals put forward by the hon. member would change very much. In his bill he did not suggest an amendment to article 17, subsection (5) of the House of Commons Act which reads:
Such several estimates of the clerk, sergeant-at-arms and Speaker shall be transmitted by the Speaker to the minister of finance for his approval, and shall be laid severally before the House of Commons with the other estimates for the year.
To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the requirement of article 17, subsection (5) remains. That is, that the Speaker would have to transmit these estimates to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) for approval. It is true that he has proposed the elimination of article 18 which would take away the right of the Commissioners of Internal Economy to veto these estimates. But they still must go to the Minister of Finance. Even a more serious roadblock is section 54 of the British North America Act. The hon. member did not deal with this. The section reads?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
February 24, 1970

Of course, we know that this entails problems for private members. Private members cannot propose bills which will involve the spending of public moneys. The estimates are prepared by the government and submitted to the House, and the House examines them.
Some of the things the hon. member suggests are now being done under the new rules. Under our new rules, after the estimates of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament are submitted to this House with the approval of the Minister of Finance and the Commissioners of Internal Economy, they go to a parliamentary committee. I notice, according to the order passed last week, that all these estimates have been submitted to the new committee that was established during the life of this Parliament, the Committee on Procedure and Organization. These estimates, the estimates of the Speaker as they are usually called, are now referred to the Committee on Procedure and Organization to be examined in detail. The committee has the right to reduce those estimates and to eliminate some of them. I may not be on sound ground, here, but perhaps it can increase some. That committee will report back to the House. It may say that the estimates with respect to the House of Commons should be changed. Of course, the minister and the House can try to put back into those estimates what was taken out in the committee but included in the first place. The point is that the estimates of this House are now dealt with by an all-party committee and can be changed.
If the hon. member for Skeena is proposing that the estimates ought to be formulated and proposed by a parliamentary committee, then we run into the constitutional difficulty contained in section 54 of the act I referred to. I do not know how the hon. member could circumvent that. Perhaps his bill ought to suggest that that section of the BNA Act be amended, and perhaps that would be a good thing. Perhaps hon. members of this House ought to have the right to propose bills entailing the spending of the public's money. As one can see, however, if we were to adopt that principle we might be adopting something that has broad implications for our constitution. If private members either individually or together can introduce bills entailing the spending of public moneys, there must be some method of co-ordinating their proposals with those of the Treasury Board because the Minister of Finance must have some way of raising the appropriate taxes to pay for those measures private members introduce.
House of Commons Act
A proposal like that put forward by the hon. member has other important implications. Right now the Commissioners of Internal Economy deal with all expenses connected with this House, such as the salaries of Members of Parliament, the salaries of secretaries and the staff of the House of Commons, as well as with the matter of stationery supplies, our office space and so on. If we were to change the system of paying the staff of this House, the important question that arises immediately is this: should the people working for this House have the right to association and collective bargaining as all other civil servants now have?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear. Absolutely.


William Warren Allmand: This is a most important question which must be considered. Some say that our Commissioners of Internal Economy ought to be abolished. Some say that because other civil servants have the right to association and collective bargaining, the members of our committee branch, our page boys, our Hansard staff and all others working here should have the same right.
I think this is something the House will have to consider more seriously and something the committee as proposed by the hon. member would have to deal with. Of course, the committee he proposes would replace the Commissioners of Internal Economy and would become probably the bargaining agent for the prospective employee associations of this House in determining salaries and all other fringe benefits relating to employment here. This is very important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will
the hon. member permit a question? I wonder if the hon. member recalls that a few years ago a committee of this House recommended and brought in a report to the effect that the employees of Parliament Hill ought to be given the same collective bargaining rights that are accorded to other civil servants.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank
goodness that was disregarded.


William Warren Allmand: I was not aware of that, Mr. Speaker, but I would support that report. Whether we do away with our Commissioners of Internal Economy or not, I think the employees of this House should have the same rights as other civil servants. However, I can see difficulties. The big difficulty in the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Skeena is that it would contravene part of

February 24, 1970
House of Commons Act our constitution. Private members of this House either individually or collectively would, according to that proposal, decide on how to spend money without apparently consulting the treasury and the Minister of Finance who must raise taxes to pay for the proposal.
Another side issue that arises relates to the salaries of Members of Parliament, their expense accounts, their administrative support and the facilities they use. Here, may I say that I do not think the present system whereby salaries of Members of Parliament are specifically set out in the Senate and House of Commons Act is good. I think some method ought to be incorporated in the statute whereby salaries like these can be reviewed automatically, perhaps every time there is a new Parliament, and adjusted as other salaries are. Personally, I think the system under which I and other Members of Parliament must decide on the salaries of Members of Parliament is-


Mr. Otto:: Obnoxious.


William Warren Allmand: -obnoxious.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But you
still will have to do it, one way or another.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member for Edmonton West may have other ideas. Personally, I feel the statute should be changed, or some alternative procedure ought to be included in the statute to deal with this. The hon. member for Skeena proposes that a parliamentary committee ought to deal with these things. Well, right now we have the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization which deals with the estimates of the House and will deal in a week or so with salaries of members of the House and all those who work in this place.
I think I also ought to say this, while on the subject of salaries and expense accounts of Members of Parliament. I am personally opposed to a straight figure being allocated for an expense allowance, no matter whether it is $6,000, $4,000 or $8,000. I think that is the wrong way of doing things. We should be required to produce vouchers for expenses related to our work, and if we have actually spent the money on purposes necessary to our position we should be reimbursed up to a certain amount. But I do not think it is right that we should receive a fixed amount by way of expenses whether we have spent it or not, whether we need it or not.

[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I am not suggesting that the initiative taken by the hon. member for Skeena is anything but good, although I do not approve of the method he has used. I think we should exercise greater control in this House over our own affairs. Perhaps the Committee on Procedure and Organization which is to deal with the estimates of the House of Commons this year will find itself in a position to submit proposals in connection with some of these matters. Possibly the committee could report to the House on a much more comprehensive way of dealing with all these considerations- the conditions of employees of the House, expenses and salaries, administrative support for Members of Parliament, office staffs and all that kind of thing.
I do not see how we can get around section 54 of the British North America Act. Indeed, I am not sure it would be good to dispense with this particular section as long as we have a parliamentary system. But I do feel Parliament should be given a much greater say. It should be made clear, though, that the present system was established by the House of Commons and by Parliament.
The hon. member for Skeena said we were not masters of our own house because the work was being done by the Commissioners of Internal Economy. Nevertheless the time that these functions should be performed by Commissioners of Internal Economy; it was this decision which gave them certain authority under the statute. Since Parliament gave them this authority, Parliament can also withdraw it or change it. The fact that the hon. member has put forward a bill on the subject, a bill which has a chance of being adopted, is proof that we are our own masters. Nevertheless, we are subject to the constitution and to the constitutional conventions of the parliamentary system.
In conclusion, may I say that while I do_ not approve of the bill as presented, I do believe hon. members of the House should have more influence over the spending of money in connection with the work of the House. Now that we have a new set-up under which all estimates are referred to committees, it is possible that the Committee on Procedure and Organization which is to consider the estimates of the House of Commons will find it possible to participate in handling the economy of this House. It may be that the committee will find a way to assume a more important role vis-a-vis the Commissioners of Internal Economy and come forward with
February 24, 1970

suggestions relating to the spending of money in such fields as I have indicated.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I approach this bill with mixed feelings. I can understand what the hon. member is driving at, but I think he has somehow gone adrift in part of it. On the question of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, having occupied the position which Your Honour now occupies and having worked with a number of cabinet members as commissioners, I found it an easy working relationship. However, there must be other ways of approaching this job and I have always felt that the Commissioners of Internal Economy, when it comes to the House of Commons, were there as advisers to Mr. Speaker.
If anybody formally questioned the views or desires of Mr. Speaker, that commissioner would put dissent in writing. This situation never arose, but I can assure hon. members that had it been the case, any commissioner who wished to dissent from the views of Mr. Speaker in connection with the administration of the House would have put his dissent in writing.
I found that there was an anomaly. I share this feeling with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). It arises inasmuch as the financial affairs of the House of Commons, by reason of the composition of the commission, were under the direct control of the Minister of Finance. It is now the President of the Treasury Board. When I was Speaker, the Minister of Finance was also President of the Treasury Board; he held both offices. I agree that the House of Commons, if it is to have some working relationship with the government, cannot be given carte-blanche to write its own bill of expenses. In other words, a committee of members ought not to be able to decide that instead of spending, say, $1,200,000 it would spend an extra couple of million dollars in a particular year.
The position here is far different from that in the United States in connection with the Senate building and the Congress building which are not subject to the same rules; expenditures are under the direct control of the members and the administration has no authority over them. There should be a better meeting ground between the officers charged with the administration of this House and the treasury. Let us look at the present legislation, which states in section 16(1)
The Governor in Council shall appoint four members of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada who 21701-451
House of Commons Act are also Members of the House of Commons, who, with the Speaker of the House of Commons, shall be commissioners-
I think the interpretation of that statute has been too narrow. At this time there are a number of members of the Queen's Privy Council who could serve on that commission and who would serve on it, I think. In my opinion it would be an improvement over the present position-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
could not be worse.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -and
would give better representation to the House if instead of having a cabinet subcommittee as is the case now-I felt this difficulty myself when I was Speaker-it were possible to have contact with hon. members on the opposition side of the House. After all, it was necessary for Mr. Speaker to contact members of the opposition in connection with many of the proposals he made. He felt it was proper to consult representatives of the various parties before he talked with the commissioners. This is why I took the attitude that the commissioners were there to advise Mr. Speaker and to approve of decisions. As I said, formal dissent would have to be expressed in writing. The commissioners were not equal in the decision-making process because the matters dealt with concerned the general administration of the House and because Mr. Speaker had, through the usual channels, consulted members of all parties.
I therefore think it would be better if among the commissioners advising Mr. Speaker-I will always use the term "advising Mr. Speaker"-were representatives of the opposition in the House. If it is felt they should be members of the Privy Council because they would have dealt with matters of this kind before, and that members of the Privy Council are likely to be residing close to Ottawa and to be available to Mr. Speaker when decisions have to be taken rapidly, as is sometimes the case, then so be it. At the present time, strangely enough, the four members of the Privy Council are supposed to give a geographic representation of the House. However, if we look at the geography this is not the case, because you could cover the geographical representation of the Commissioners of Internal Economy with a man's handkerchief.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) comes from Toronto, the Minister

February 24, 1970
House of Commons Act of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is a resident of Ottawa but comes from St. Maurice, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) comes from Montreal, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) comes from Ottawa. I am having particular difficulty convincing these commissioners of the validity of certain claims I make respecting travelling privileges extending to members who live in western Canada. Frankly, I am convinced that the ministers on this committee, living as they do either here or in central Canada, do not have not a clue about the particular circumstances that apply to members who live far from Ottawa.
There is also the question of telephone calls that are made outside one's constituency and not on the dial system. I do not know whether it is Treasury Board niggardliness or because they want to draw the line somewhere; but if one dares to make a telephone call outside one's constituency and not through a dial exchange, just try and collect. For some reason Treasury Board and the commissioners only recognize telephone calls to one's constituency. This is all very nice for the commissioners who have no problems with their wide-area dialing, but I wish they had to deal with the situation to which I have referred.
There is also the question of travel from airports. Take a member who has to travel through four or five other constituencies in a city, say for 20 miles, from the airport. If the airport bears the same name as that hon. member's constituency, no allowance is made. In Edmonton, the taxi fare from the airport to my constituency is $9. The constituency in which the airport is located does not bear the same name as the airport; yet a member who does not have to travel as far as I do between the airport and his home is entitled to be reimbursed his expenses. I wish the commissioners would come down to earth and consider some of these problems. Another difficulty lies in holding meetings of the commissioners. I do not think there is anything harder to do on Parliament Hill than to bring the four ministers from their cabinet posts to a meeting with Mr. Speaker.
As I have said, I have considerable sympathy for changing the composition of the committee. We could change the designation of the committee without even changing the act. The government should recognize that this committee is responsible to the House. Since it is not a government committee, it should not consist only of cabinet members. That recognition, I suggest, would make a big improvement.

I cannot go along with the hon. member's desire to repeal section 18 of the Senate and House of Commons Act. If that were so, then frankly no money would be paid to and on behalf of this House. After all, it is Parliament that authorizes the payment of money, not the House of Commons. Under no circumstances can the House of Commons authorize the payment of one penny. Therefore, I think the complete suppression of section 18 would operate to block payment of any moneys to the House of Commons.
A number of other matters were also discussed. I do not think that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization can examine the status of members' salaries. The salaries are set by statute and this is a statutory item which is beyond-other than the subject of comment-any control by members of that committee.
I will leave the question of negotiated settlements, the organization of employees of this House in a way similar to that of other branches of the public service, and so on and so forth, until another time. There are many, many hooks there, as far as I can see; for example, if Mr. Speaker, decided on a Wednesday afternoon that there would be an extra sitting on the Wednesday night, and immediately the equivalent of the shop stewards started to negotiate whether this constituted extra overtime, was beyond the limits of overtime,, and so on. There are other ways than that to achieve justice. This House and its deliberations should not be bound by the narrow limits of a negotiated agreement of that kind. Going from the sublime to the ridiculous, I suppose if we wanted to we members could organize ourselves into a union and occasionally go on strike.


Frank Howard: We might stay out.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are proposals in this bill that might be referred to committee. I observe the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) in the chamber, and I know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), like myself, is a member of the committee. I might do what Mr. Speaker does, if I may say so with great respect. At times it seems, with respect, if Mr. Speaker, finds a particular problem confronting him, he has a little slot on his chair-next to where Your Honour's hand is now-and it is marked "Committee on Procedure and Organization". This is a slot through which are dropped "hot potatoes".
February 24, 1970

This is a matter that could be looked into. I do not think it is one that can be covered under the rules. It is really a question of interpretation by the government. If the government wants to improve the situation a great deal, let it interpret section 18 in the way it could readily be interpreted, in which case many of the problems would be eliminated.


Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak only briefly in this debate; perhaps, in view of what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, in self-defence. I am putting forward as an important consideration the fact that the Committee on Organization and Procedure is likely to have other matters referred to it. I make that comment only facetiously.
The question raised by the bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is an important one. There are many rules, practices and procedures in this House that are old: many of them could, with propriety, be described as archaic. I am not of the opinion that "archaic" could apply absolutely to the function performed by the Commissioners of Internal Economy, but I am of the opinion that the role that the commissioners perform is one that appears largely to have been dictated by parliamentary history.
Since we made great progress in this chamber during the last session of Parliament in regard to reforming rules, streamlining procedures and giving the ordinary members of Parliament a greater opportunity to participate in the affairs of the House, I do not think there is any reason why we should not look at the comments that have been made concerning a particular aspect of our procedure.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I am impressed by the statements made by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and the hon. member for Edmonton West. Their statements indicate that there are really quite serious legal and operational problems involved in the proposal which has been made by the hon. member for Skeena. Indeed, if I understood the argument of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace correctly, the bill which has been proposed by the hon. member for Skeena would only partially cover the situation and perhaps leave us in a position where we would be worse off than we are at the present time. However, as always in our country, whenever change is proposed and progress is advocated there appears to be an obscure clause in our constitution which has to be taken into account.
House of Commons Act
I think we should be prepared at the appropriate time to give consideration to this proposal because of the responsibilities we have to ourselves as members of this House and also to the very large group of people who work for the House of Commons. I believe that greater participation by ordinary members of the House in the affairs of the House might produce benefits for us all.
I refer to Votes and Proceedings for April 22, 1969, when the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, of which I am the chairman, presented its first report. This report recommended among other things the provision of more space, personnel and facilities for the proper operation of the committees branch. It is a matter of common knowledge that the facilities and space available to the committees branch is far from adequate for its present function, with the result that the staff perform under very unsatisfactory conditions. Yet at this stage, ten months later, no action has been taken on this report.
We can think of many things that might be done to improve the physical position of members of the House. I do not intend to open or embark upon a discussion of them during these few remarks. I believe we should have regard to the position of the staff of the House, which is very large-approximating 2,000, if I am not mistaken. Perhaps I am exaggerating; it might be more like 1,500.
The purpose of the bill proposed by the hon. member for Skeena is to separate the House and its staff rather more from the ordinary structures of government. I think one of the problems of the staff of the House of Commons is that in many cases it is not treated in the same way as other public servants. I refer to difficulties and delays in obtaining salary increases and also the fact that House of Commons employees are not permitted to organize as are other members of the public service. I think that any consideration of the financial control of the House would have to take into account the problems of the staff and their relationship to other elements of the public service.
In my opinion the hon. member for Skeena has made a notable contribution in raising this matter for our consideration. I also express the hope that the Committee on Procedure and Organization, which appears likely to be faced with a full schedule of problems not much later in the life of this session, will not have to consider it this year.

February 24, 1970
House of Commons Act
In conclusion, I should like to correct one when being examined by members? The comment made by the hon. member for situation would be very much better than it is Notre-Dame-de-Grace. It has not been the now. I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but may I practice thus far for the Committee on Proce- call it six o'clock? dure and Organization to consider the esti-	_
mates of the House of Commons. This task, l t ranslationj	^
up to now, has been undertaken by the Com- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard): The mittee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I oiler no hour assigned to the consideration of private opinion as to whether it might be desirable to members' business has now expired. It being make a change, but it would appear to be a six o'clock, I do now leave the chair, matter that the leaders of the House might At six 0>clock the House took recess. wish to consider.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether he would not like to make a slight correction to something he said. I have no objection to his being named chairman of the committee again this year; but he is not yet the chairman, is he?


Duncan Gordon Blair: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The point raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is one which gives me reassurance. I am happy to be able to concur with him that I have not yet been given this awesome responsibility.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time left, but let the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) be not downcast. Without reservation, I think the idea expressed in the bill is the best I have heard since motherhood was first upheld; but it has not nearly the same chance of fulfilment.
The hon. member presumes that all this control members would have on the House, including salaries, research facilities and office space, is wanted by the government. That is an interesting presumption. Can you imagine anything worse for the government than to have a bunch of contented, efficient fat-cat backbenchers around? It is bad enough as it is, with some of them having the tendency to speak in an independent way now and then. If all members were self-sufficient and had all these facilities paid for-not having to worry about their bank managers calling on them all the time, their wives pressing for more money and all the demands in respect of housing, children, and so on-they would not be so vulnerable to pressures used from time to time by the administration.
Let us suppose that the House was in control of its own affairs and members had a budget sufficient for their keeping well informed: can you imagine what the administration and the deputy ministers would say


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the proceedings were interrupted at five o'clock to proceed to private members' business, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie) had the floor. Prior to that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had proposed an amendment to the bill now before us under Government Orders. The Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, expressed reservations or misgivings about the procedural acceptability of the amendment.
I should tell hon. members I have had an opportunity since then to look into the matter but would prefer, before giving my own views on it, to hear arguments either for or against the procedural aspect of the amendment. If the hon. member for Edmonton West at this point does not think he would want to submit argument, I would be prepared to give a decision.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in support of the form of the amendment I put forward, I submit it is undoubtedly a
February 24, 1970

reasoned amendment. It perhaps departs from the form of a usual six months' hoist amendment. But there is no doubt, I submit to Your Honour, that in the initial portion of the amendment there is a reasoned opposition to the principle of the bill. Then the form merely indicates that on account of this the bill, as the amendment states, "be read a second time on a day six months hereafter".
Perhaps the wording is slightly infelicitous, but it is clearly stated and is not contrary to the repugnance expressed at the beginning of the amendment. It merely indicates the bill is repugnant and I suppose it could have gone on to say that it not now be read a second time. If that is considered to be the requirement, I think this defect can be readily cured by inserting the words, "that the bill be not read a second time but be read six months hence." That is the purport of it.
I must confess this bill is not my responsibility. I was prepared to speak and was asked to present this amendment. I have done so. If there is this minor technical difficulty, I think the amendment could be improved. With those remarks I shall leave the matter in Your Honour's hands.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a very short time in giving Your Honour a couple of citations. I might mention initially that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has headed his amendment, "Reasoned amendment at second reading". It seems to me, on reading it, that what the hon. member is attempting to do is apply the standard six months' hoist and dress it up with a great deal of verbiage in the preamble.


An hon. Member:: Garbage.


Russell Clayton Honey: My hon. friend says "garbage", I said "verbiage". In any event, there is a great deal of preamble. I should like to refer Your Honour to May's seventeenth edition, page 258. I shall read that authority:
An amendment, which amounts to no more than a direct negation of the principle of the bill, is open to objection.
The amendment of the hon. member for Edmonton West states clearly that "the bill is repugnant in principle to the members of this House". If, as the hon. member has argued, this amendment were a reasoned one, it would not appear to be acceptable on that point. On the other hand, it does not appear that the amendment is a reasoned amendment at all, because it has the appearance of giving
National Parks Act
the bill a six months' hoist and would have the effect of killing the bill.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
It may be that my hon. friend who moved the amendment wanted it to have this effect but did not want to say so in so many words. The only other citation is citation 202 (7) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which deals with the six months' hoist amendment and reads as follows:
An established form of amendment, such as the "six months" formula used to obtain the rejection of a bill is not capable of amendment.
That being the case, it would seem that the bill that is before us could be amended in many respects. The preamble could be amended, for instance. Of course, the wording of the amendment is not the standard wording which is accepted in this House and by the authorities as a regular six months' hoist amendment. Your Honour will notice that the amendment reads, "this bill be read a second time on a day six months hereafter." That is not the precise wording that is required by the authorities.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. member for Edmonton West who have given some guidance to the Chair. I think they touched on the essential points which have to be considered by the Chair. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to citation 202 (7) of Beauchesne's fourth edition which reads as follows:
An established form of amendment, such as the "six months" formula used to obtain the rejection of a bill is not capable of amendment.
What I think should be retained of this citation is not necessarily that the formula is not capable of amendment, but rather the words used by the learned author "an established form of amendment". Obviously, he refers to the fact that this is a form which is long established and traditional in British parliamentary practice. This is further indicated in amendment No. 92 at page 396 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, entitled "The Six Months 'Hoist'", which reads:
The question being proposed "That Bill No.... intituled . . .be now read a second (or third) time;" Mr.... moves in amendment, seconded by Mr....
"That the word 'now' be left, out, and the words 'this day six months' added at the end of the question."
I am not too scandalized because the hon. member for Edmonton West used a slightly different form; that instead of the word

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
"hence", he used the word "hereafter". It might be splitting hairs to point out the difference. But the difficulty which I see, if there is something wrong with the amendment, is that it is too good in the sense that it has two good amendments. It has a perfectly acceptable, reasoned amendment which is the first part of the amendment proposed by the hon. member and, I suggest, a perfectly acceptable six months' hoist which is the last part of the amendment proposed.
If the hon. member amended his amendment in such a way as to choose one or the other part, either the reasoned amendment which would invite hon. members to vote against the principle of the bill in which the hon. member, as part of his suggested motion, submits reasons why we should be opposed to the principle of the bill, that would be one possible proposition to be voted upon by the House. The second one would be the six months' hoist which would, again, make it possible for the House to express its views in connection with the bill. There may be a surfeit of perfection in the hon. member's amendment in the sense that it contains two good amendments and I would like him to choose one or the other, either the reasoned amendment or the six months' hoist.
I have consulted the learned gentlemen at the table who assure me, after long reflection between six o'clock and eight o'clock, that they cannot recall a precedent where a six months' hoist had been tacked on to a reasoned amendment, or vice versa. I hesitate to make a change at this time on this long established practice and I hope the hon. member will indicate to the House in what way he would like the amendment to be proposed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances my colleagues suggest to me, and I agree-the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the seconder, accepts the suggestion-that we drop the wording with regard to the six months' hoist and leave the reasoned amendment.
With the general consent of the House, I ask that my amendment be terminated at the word "intent"; that instead of a comma there be a period; and that the balance of the wording be stricken from the proposed amendment. This would leave a reasoned amendment which would read as follows:
"this House holding the opinion that the bill is repugnant in principle to the members of this House as well as to the residents of Canada, in-

eluding those of the townsites of Banff and Jasper National Parks, the persons most nearly affected by the bill's purpose and intent."


Mr. Speaker:: My suggestion would be that the hon. member continue the amendment to the words "of the bill", leaving out the words referring to the six months' hoist, and this amendment would be the one which in due course would be put to the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The amendment would continue to read:
"and that therefore the government should reconsider the principle of the bill."
The words that follow would be stricken from the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the unanimous agreement of the House to amend the proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for 13 years, but this is the first time I have been associated with something that had a surfeit of perfection or was too good. I am afraid that my usual ruddy complexion will be further suffused because of the vicarious righteousness which I believe I have the right to feel.
I have had much enjoyment and satisfaction from hearing the speeches today of hon. members on this very important measure. Naturally, I was much impressed by the powerful argumentation of my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
I listened with appreciation to the reasonable and reasoned address of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), and I drew a certain form of enjoyment from listening to the address of the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). I have not heard too many partisan speeches in recent weeks, and it was refreshing to hear such unadulterated partisanship. I think it is often difficult to make forensic bricks without intellectual straw, but I think he deserves credit for his try.
I have no way of knowing, of course, what he has in mind, whether he plans to contest a political post in the provincial realm in Alberta which I understand is vacant but I hope he does not have that aim, because if he has any notion of leaving this arena for a provincial one I imagine there would be tremendous pressure against this from the sup-
February 24, 1970

porters of the Liberal party in the Prairies who would be reluctant to open any federal seat there.
I will not dilate, as did many members of the House, on the general question of the establishment of Crown corporations. I do not have a rigid view on this question in an academic way. I think that in this country we have varied experience. Some Crown corporations have been extremely successful in administering a portion of the public service and others have not been so successful. It would not be helpful for me to dilate on the general question.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I would think, however, Mr. Speaker, that the insulation of this particular area of administration from public opinion is a strange move and a surprising one, because it strikes me that much of the trouble-especially, but not exclusively, in reference to western parks-is the lack of sensitivity to the needs, the interests and the wishes of the Canadian people for whom, after all, the parks were created and maintained. I always think that the preamble to the National Parks Act is something we should recall and remember:
The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment ... and such parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
I know, and I think all hon. members know, that this must never be lost sight of. But we have to recognize that the national parks service is facing great problems. A recent article in the Canadian Geographic indicates these problems, perhaps in an oversimplification, as cars, crowds and crime in some of the parks, if not in most of them. Much more attention must be given to programming, developing and choosing the best form of utilization in the parks because they have tremendous variety and diversity. Some are natural, in the early concept of that expression and in the narrow sense of the word: they were designed to retain the beauties of nature in and for a society which, alas, has too often been wasteful of our rich natural heritage. Other parks are recreational centres.
I am particularly concerned about the Prince Edward Island National Park which year after year is up at the very summit among those with the largest number of visitors. My colleague from Edmonton West spoke about a diadem that seemed to have three gems in it, and they were all western 21701-46
National Parks Act
parks. But the second largest gem, if you look upon attendance from the point of view of measuring gems, would be the P.E.I. National Park. Only one park has more visitors year after year than the Prince Edward Island park, and it is one of the delightful western parks. But as my hon. friend pointed out this afternoon, that western park straddles a highway and visitors travelling to and from B.C. have to pass through it. If we had some way of analysing these figures more precisely, I believe our national park would in fact be the most popular in Canada. I shall try to get the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) to produce some sort of computer that would project this result in an uncontrovertible fashion.


An hon. Member:: Be careful there.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My colleague thinks this might be the path of danger. Our park is extremely popular. Hundreds of thousands of people return to it to enjoy its beautiful beaches, red cliffs and clear water along some of the finest natural shore line scenery in North America. I wish the minister were in the chamber to pass this on to his officials, because this park has a good reputation as to the care and maintenance which is carried out in it from day to day in a very busy summer season.
It would appear from the schedule of this bill that there is an intention to reduce the size of the national park in Prince Edward Island, which attracts over one million visitors in the season. This is a thoroughly wrongheaded, short-sighted and utterly regrettable situation. Before this bill reaches its final destination I hope that someone will tell us why a park already small, narrow along the coast line, with a growing visitor rate, should be diminished rather than enlarged. It is clear that more land, not less land, is needed. The eastern portion of the park, the one not yet developed and the one I assume is going to be cast back to private hands, is a place of great beauty and tremendous natural attractions. I know it very well. It should be developed rather than refunded, if I may use that expression.
While I have had some complimentary things to say about the park, Mr. Speaker, one great blunder has been made which should cause anyone connected with the department to feel somewhat ashamed. Some time ago a great project was on to connect, to link together this narrow park on the north shore of our province by the construction of a

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
gulf-shore highway. But what happened? After exhaustive studies and models being erected at the National Research Council, on-the-spot surveys by engineers and scientists, it was found that the small Rustico harbour, an integral part of the park, could not be bridged. So the connecting highway was built, except it did not cross the bay that is in the park. Therefore, it does not connect, so that people who move from the beautiful and historic Anne of Green Gables sector at Cavendish to the eastern portion at Dalvay Beach now face a 12-mile detour.
So while we And in Prince Edward Island that we are not able to get a crossing from our island to the mainland, we also discover it is apparently impossible to bridge the mouth of a very small fishing harbour. How difficult this is to explain to the public, even though those in opposition should try wherever possible to justify the administrative processes whereby the country is administered. It is hard to explain why the feasibility studies on the bridge were not done before the expensive, so-called connecting highway was laid. How difficult it is to explain to the people of Canada, the people of P.E.I., that while the U.S. can get a man on the moon, and the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. can place equipment on or around Mars and Venus with great precision, all the forces of the government of Canada cannot cross Rustico harbour. In ten years they have not been able to get across that harbour, and this I find difficult to explain.
I also believe that in the face of the growing popularity of P.E.I. as a tourist centre- and it is one of the most expansive and expandable industries that we have-we need, not a diminution of our present park but its extension; and we need that which has been given to other provinces, a second park. Nova Scotia, our friend and neighbour, has a new park and there is reference in the bill to its development. But years have elapsed since the second P.E.I. park entered the discussion stage. Now let us have it in the production stage. In a burst of objective detachment I suggest that that park be built in a constituency other than mine. I say that because the whole of the north shore of my constituency is already an integral and beautiful part of our national park; therefore, I would think that my colleague from Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) would have some suggestions to make as to other very beautiful areas on the coast.
One of the serious things which is happening in this country is that far too much

waterfront in coastal areas, around lakes and along rivers, is falling into private hands and quite often into the hands of people who are not Canadians. The "No trespassing" sign is going up and up and up, and more and more Canadians are unable to get to the beauty and restful opportunities of the seashore.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I read some startling figures not long ago about the very small portions of the eastern seaboard of the United States, from Maine to Florida, which were available for public use. The article stated how foolish that was and what a terrible deprivation it was to the American people. Anyone who has endured the rigours of Revere Beach knows how overcrowded is the east coast of the United States. How wise the Australians were in virtually prohibiting the acquisition of beaches by private persons!
Before it is too late I would suggest that whatever is done in administrative niceties, we should move very fast to preserve more of the water line, more of the beach areas for the people of Canada as part of their rightful heritage. Before it is too late, let us acquire the right for all the people to get to the glorious sea coast.
In all these things I think we must maximize the possibilities. We are moving rather slowly, but we are moving forward with some development of regional expansion programs. The national park on Prince Edward Island has a very fine, important and delightful development and that is the increase in the deep sea fishing excursions right in the heart of the park. There is Cove Head harbour, where many people look for a delightful opportunity to haul home some of the groundfish which upon reaching the shore they can cook and enjoy in some of the lovely campsites. Yet this harbour, under the plan fathered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, has been downgraded to secondary status.
It is a strange thing, but it is always difficult to try to convince people that a government is acting intelligently when with its right hand it says, "Down" and with its left it says, "Up". To diminish the opportunities by downgrading this harbour, and at the same time suggesting a program of expansion when extra funds from other departments are put forward, is incomprehensible and wrong.
Before any effort is made to shuffle responsibility, I hope those who have the authority now will look at these parks and
February 24, 1970

the problems and try realistically to adjust the facilities to maximize the opportunities, so that the parks will fill the need and contribute to the tourist industry while providing meaningful recreation. I hope that the facilities presently available will be maintained for the people of Canada as a whole and for the people of Prince Edward Island.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few remarks to this debate. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) spoke earlier today-one of his few contributions in the House of Commons. Most of his speech consisted of a vitriolic attack on the official opposition. I am concerned about this, because his attitude characterizes and epitomizes the attitude of this government not only toward the official opposition but toward Parliament itself.
I wish to speak frankly about his comments in relation to the bill, though I have difficulty in seeing the relationship between the bill and his comments. His speech sounded as though it was written by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) because it was as constructive as are the minister's speeches. I used to think that the hon. member had at heart the best interests of the Canadians who live inside and outside the parks, but his performance this afternoon was unconvincing and irrelevant; his remarks were contradictory and self-defeating; he vacillated between one point of view and another and at times they were bordering on the incoherent.


An hon. Member:: That is an expert
opinion.


Paul Yewchuk: He complained that the opposition was not constructive and made no contribution to Parliament. After he spoke, Parliament was no wiser about where he stood on Bill C-152, nor did the quality of debate improve. As a matter of fact, we know less about where he stands than we did before he spoke. The hon. member, as did some of his colleagues, complained of the poor opposition offered by our party. I should like to say that if the government continues on the course it has started, it will have its chance to do better-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. member's remarks are of an introductory nature and that he will finally bring them to bear on the bill before us. I would invite the 21701-46*
National Parks Act
hon. member to note that before the House at the present time is Bill C-152, an act to amend the National Parks Act.


Paul Yewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought these remarks were relevant since they were in response to a speech which was allowed to continue along that line. My remarks are of an introductory nature and I assure Your Honour that I will soon be on the substance of the bill. However, I wanted to make one or two comments on the hon. member's speech. I realize it was not very interesting, but I will get to the bill in a moment or so.
The whole attitude of the hon. member was a bit upsetting to me, and that is why I wanted to make these comments. He complained about our front benchers not contributing much to the debate and not making good speeches. At least they were here when he was speaking, but on his side only the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) was present. Even the minister responsible for the bill was not in the House, nor has he been here throughout the debate.
In spite of what the hon. member for Calgary South said, I am convinced that my party, the official opposition, is following the right course in opposing the principle of this bill. First, I point out to the country and the House that we are disturbed at the proliferation of Crown corporations instigated by this government, and second, with the callous disregard that this government has for the people of Canada.
I wonder whether there was any consultation with the provinces before this bill was drawn up, in order to ascertain their views on the establishment of this Crown corporation as well as the others that are coming up? Does this government really think it has sought a national consensus on the principle of Crown corporations having so much power and administering such a large segment of our life? This is what we are trying to achieve, Mr. Speaker; but the debate has not lasted long enough for public opinion to develop adequately. It is totally irresponsible of this government to try to ram the bill through the House before public opinion is given a chance to develop.
A very vital question is involved in this debate, that is, what kind of administration do Canadians want? Traditionally, we have thought of ourselves as living in a democracy, a democratic society with the government responsible to Parliament. Since this government came into power a year and a half ago

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
it has exhibited a definite tendency toward the development of unwieldy monsters-these Crown corporations gobbling up public funds yet not responsible to the public nor accounting for how the funds are spent.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In this country there has been a tradition of elected representatives setting the policies and looking after expenditures. As a matter of fact, this principle is what brought most new Canadians to Canada-the principle of responsible government. It forms the very core of our society, and we do not want to give it up. We know the tendency is to give these corporations too much independence. Their decisions are not the decisions of those who represent the people, and as I see it, this is just another step towards dictatorship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: I do not want to talk about the CBC in a derogatory way because I know many fine people in the CBC. Often we hear criticisms of this corporation and often, when hon. members direct questions to the minister reponsible for the corporation, they are met with a shrug of the shoulders and the explanation that the minister is not responsible for the CBC because it is an independent body and makes its own decisions. I ask, is this what we want for our parks as well?


An hon. Member:: No.


Paul Yewchuk: Of course, there may be another explanation for the government's action. Knowing that the policies he is pursuing are unacceptable to the people, the minister does not want to accept responsibility for them. He wants to be able to say, "I was not the one who made this policy; it was the Crown corporation, over which I have no control." Is this what the government wants? Perhaps it is. There is another possibility: perhaps it wants to create another huge pyramid for patronage, another place in which to employ loyal party workers, defeated candidates and that sort of person. I do not think we should pursue the principle of creating too many Crown corporations. It seems that the government wants to create a great many Crown corporations. We have heard about the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport and the Post Office Department being made Crown corporations. Perhaps the Department of Northern Development is next in line for being turned into a Crown corporation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Eventually, we shall not have much of Parliament left.


Paul Yewchuk: It seems as if the entire government is to be run by Crown corporations. Then they will set up one Crown corporation to run all these others, with the Prime Minister being chairman or president. That is why I say this policy is a step towards dictatorship. I point out that Crown corporations do not represent the people, and the policies they draw up are not those of the representatives of the people. That is wrong in principle. As I said before, the minister may be trying to shed responsibility for policies not acceptable to the Canadian people and this is one of the things he has in mind. He will obtain a certain amount of immunity from public criticism in respect of unacceptable policies. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of setting up this Crown corporation is also not acceptable. I think it is bad for democrary and I object to it on that basis.
My second objection to the bill is that it totally ignores the largest park of the country, Wood Buffalo National Park, situated in northern Alberta and partly in the Northwest Territories. There has been a lot of talk about the provincial and federal governments changing the boundaries of this park, but for some reason the government has chosen to ignore the park completely in this bill. The park is populated primarily by native people, Metis and Indians who are mostly unemployed, living in conditions of severe poverty and without any immediate prospects of better economic circumstances. The provincial government has told the people that if it administered the area it would be quite willing to develop it, build a road to the park, bring on industrial development and try to provide jobs. The provincial government is notable to do these things while the federal government controls the entire territory.
Not long ago I spoke to the Premier of Alberta who said he wanted to talk to the minister responsible for that park. He is willing to talk and has certain proposals, yet for some reason the two ministers have not met to discuss the matter. I spoke to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) about this, and he also indicated he wished to talk with the Premier. So far, however, he has not taken the initiative to meet him and talk to him.
It gives me great pleasure now to mention the former Conservative government, the only government that looked to the north, thought about northern development and established
February 24, 1970

the Roads to Resources Program. The program held out great hope to the people of northern Canada. That government started a program of constructing roads up to the northern territories, but as soon as the Liberals came back to power they scrapped the program and the people up there are despairing again. They were looking forward to a program which would develop roads and resources and improve their economic circumstances.
Now there is no hope of that. I think the blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the minister. He does not care about the poor people of the north; he does not care that northern Metis wear ragged clothes, that husbands have no jobs and wives no facilities because their husbands lack jobs. It is high time for him to reassess what he is doing to those people, although possibly he may realize what he is doing. The people of the north are entitled to a living as well as anyone else, Mr. Speaker.
May I, in conclusion, reiterate my first objection. When we set up Crown corporations we take away the authority of Parliament and place it in the hands of civil servants. This is wrong in principle and I think the public ought to be aware of what is going on. For the past couple of years the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his associates have been shouting, "participatory democracy-" How can the people participate in the decisions of Crown corporations?
Not only is the government unresponsive to ideas of responsible government, but by downgrading Parliament for the past year and a half it seems to have forgotten that Canadians want representative government. Government supporters seems curiously reluctant to grasp this simple fact. Bill C-152 asks Parliament to relinquish some authority, to take it out of the minister's hands and vest it in a Crown corporation. Perhaps the minister thinks it a good idea, but I assure him the people do not want it. The sooner the government realizes this, the better off it will be. We accept the government's mandate from the people, but the people wanted the party now in power to run the country and not to run it into the ground.
If the government continues the trend toward less democracy in its structure, there is no question that its days are numbered. Maybe it already knows this and that is why it is setting up a pyramid of patronage. I remind the government that if it is defeated in the next election, there will be no highly-
National Parks Act
paid positions for defeated candidates or party workers on this or other Crown corporations, therefore, it might as well not propose this kind of bill which, as I see it, is unacceptable.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
just as well park one's car or trailer outside a motel and use the facilities of the motel, because it would cost just as much to stay in the park.
Although I do not have much experience of the western parks, I have had the opportunity to visit Gatineau Park on a number of occasions. I have travelled up to Lac Philippe on a number of occasions and I must say I am impressed with that park. I think the people of Quebec who say they want to take everything over would look enviously at the Gatineau Parkway and at the job the federal government has done in that area. Anyone who wishes to take a tent or a trailer and go into that area will find it possible to spend an economical and enjoyable holiday. This is how it should be. Banff National Park demonstrates the beauty of the area to the best advantage and so does Gatineau Park, which compares favourably with any area which could have been chosen.
I am pleased with the way in which the parks are run. With one or two exceptions, the officials who operate them have always been courteous and efficient. There is one exception I should like to mention, and I am reminded of it when I go to Gatineau. As the years have gone by and as the park has expanded, new gates have been added. Since the Prime Minister's residence has been established in the area, there are a few gates which were not there originally. To go where I wish to go sometimes requires a certain amount of politics, some manoeuvring and occasionally a little brow-beating. But in the end we get there anyway.
If a change is made, the only change I can foresee is in the direction of making the parks pay for themselves. There are a good many facilities provided in all the parks I have visited and the cost of these facilities is obviously not covered completely by the fees paid by people who visit them. I have always enjoyed going to parks. I remember one time when I was campaigning in the Hanover area. This was a very peculiar area: it is true there were hotels there, but they closed at nine o'clock, possibly because they had no beer or liquor facilities and there really did not seem to be much point in their remaining open.


An hon. Member:: What was the point of staying there?


William Arnold Peters: I remember spending a few months politicking in the area. We were never sure when a meeting would end. When I drove through that community I always

found the hotel doors locked; nobody seemed to be interested in letting a room. But there was a beautiful little park where one could rent a cabin with a bed in it and hot and cold running water. I enjoyed those facilities every time I visited the area, provided it was during the summer months.
Most of the park facilities provide reasonable comfort and one ought not to expect that the price should have a direct relationship to the cost of maintaining these services. If a Crown corporation is set up, there is no doubt in my mind that an attempt will be made to make these services pay for themselves and cover the cost of any additional services provided. It is obvious that the public is demanding more and more accommodation year by year, so the cost will go up.
I recall something which always burned me up. I suppose this happens to other people whenever they start thinking of politicians. I remember a member of the provincial legislature in Timmins, where I lived for a number of years: later he became the minister of lands and forests. There was a very beautiful area outside Timmins containing about 20 little lakes. You could drive through that area. It had been logged years ago. In some lakes you could fish; in others you could swim. Others were attractive lakes where you could have picnics. It was all very rustic, and all very cheap. After this man became minister, what did he do? He put a fence around this area and charged everybody who came in $2.
Many of the people who had been brought up near this area felt they owned it. It was Crown land, and they had used it for years. I objected strongly to paying $2. But worse was to come. The fee was increased to $5. I suppose that this year it will be $10.00-to do exactly the same thing as we were able to do before for nothing. Sometimes the beauty of a park is the low cost you pay for it and the advantage you get from a scenic outing that really does not cost you anything.
It occurs to me that among the provinces the federal parks branch has overlooked is the province of Ontario. We have two or three very small national parks there. I suppose you could put one of them into the grounds of Parliament Hill. When I say they are small, they are really small. This is surely not what the national parks legislation really had in mind. The intention, I am sure, was to set up parks which would demonstrate the best or the most scenic areas of the provinces. The seeming neglect of Ontario probably
February 24, 1970

arises from the fact that it, like Quebec, has done well in establishing provincial parks. This makes it more difficult for the federal government to play its full role in some provinces.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I suggest that as far as Quebec and Ontario are concerned, we would solve the problem right away by establishing in that part of northern Ontario from which I come a national park. This would be an area that would take in part of Lake Timiskaming, an interprovincial body of water that has a great history. The country there is fairly rough but very scenic. The park would also embrace an area closely situated to the little clay belt which also has great scenic beauty. This area is closely connected with the silver mines which were the birth of mining in Canada. As a tourist you can go underground and look at some of the operations of the mining community.
This area is also closely associated with the province of Quebec and has a great history going back 300 to 400 years. As you drive through that part of northern Quebec you can see the old seigniorial farms that have a narrow frontage on the water but run back into the countryside for two or three miles, similar to farms in other parts of Quebec which were settled a long time ago. There is also a history of early fur traders, the Hudson's Bay base being established there 300 to 350 years ago. There are many sites of battles which took place between the Northwest traders and the Hudson's Bay traders, as well as various Indian tribes who were fighting for either the Hudson's Bay Company or the Northwest fur company. There are other historical aspects that could be featured in a national park established by the federal government.
Another park that I should like to see the federal government establish would centre around the only salt water port that Ontario can boast today, the port of Moosonee. I should like to see it made a park for two reasons: first, it represents the Indian culture in Ontario, indeed in a large part of Canada- particularly the swampy Cree culture as we know it. It will very likely be the focal point of Indian settlements as Indians are encouraged to come out of the more isolated areas and into Indian communities. My second reason is a selfish one. The Ontario Northland Railway owns most of the land around Moosonee, and as far as most of the
National Parks Act
inhabitants of the area are concerned, it is a very difficult landlord. The inhabitants would do a lot better if a small municipality, established by the National Parks Commission, were to take over some of the facilities in the area.
The Ontario Northland Railway runs an excursion to Moosonee every week. The trains are made up of 10 to 12 cars; on occasion two or three excursions a week are run, and they are jammed. In fact, this is the way to run a railroad. There are bars on the train, though if you want to you can carry your own alcoholic beverage. You can bring your own lunch, or there are five or six snack bars on the train. There are two bands every Sunday, and everything is wide open. One of my colleagues has been instrumental in persuading the police to get rid of their sidearms, and the trip to Moosonee is very enjoyable.
I think the federal government should do something about making this area into a park. It is a nesting place for the Canada goose in its mid-flyway from Canada. As I say, the area is the centre of culture for most of the Indian tribes in northern Ontario. The facilities of the area are such that civil servants who moved into the park area would feel at home. Educational facilities are excellent; hospital facilities are good. Roads to the area will be provided in the near future. It seems to me that the area of the park could be extended along the coast of both shores of James Bay to take in part of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario. I think the people of Canada would find this area truly representative of Indian culture.
There is a chance in Parliament today to establish some parks in the north, though I do not know how long this opportunity will last. There is great interest in the idea on the part of most Canadians in the north. I am amused to hear people in Toronto say that we should open up the north, that we should do something for the north, because most of these people have never been very far north. An official of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests recently told me that his superior had gone north. I asked whether he would be back that afternoon and the official told me his superior had gone way up north. I was wondering what the Department of Lands and Forests was doing around Hudson Bay and James Bay and I asked where he had gone. I was told he had gone up to Algonquin Park and might not be back for two or three

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
days. I am never quite sure what these officials mean by the far north and I think it is time we showed Canadians what the north really is.
Geographically speaking, you do not have to go too far north of Toronto to be in what I call the north. You can find around Hudson Bay and James Bay climatic conditions that are not too remote from those of the Northwest Territories.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The government likes showing the Americans what the north is like.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, but not Canadians. I think such a park should take in the upper Ottawa River, Lake Timiskaming and particularly the narrowest part where there is only half a mile between the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec, an area where much of Canada's history was written. In addition, there is little doubt on the part of most Canadians that a great deal could be done to develop interest in the north if the federal government were to establish a park embracing areas such as Moosonee, James Bay, the mouth of the Moose, the Harricanaw, the Albany and several other rivers that flow into James Bay. Such a park would let the people of Ontario, almost half of Canada's population, know that the centre of Canada also has a deep sea port.
Many people who visit James Bay are surprised to see the blood-red water in the spring, and to realize that across the bay lies the sea, and further out the ocean, yet they are only 500 miles from the city of Toronto. For many travellers it would only be a day's trip, and they would be able to take full advantage of the unique facilities offered in the area. This, surely, is reason enough for establishing a national park there.
I do not think a Crown corporation in the field of national parks is required. I think most Canadians would agree with me that we are all willing to make a contibution to the establishment of national parks across Canada in order to portray the attractions of a given area to all Canadians. We do not want to make money out of this; we want merely to provide a service. Those of us who do not use the park facilities should nevertheless make a contribution; the parks should not be dependent upon the pay-as-you-go system.
I understand we may establish a Crown corporation to take over the Post Office. It may well be said that this will not make the service any worse than it is now, and that may be true. Many people are complaining

about the Post Office today. Many of us who would like to have the problem solved even if it means establishing a Crown corporation. I do not think that is true in relation to national parks; I believe that most of the squawk comes from a very few people who want to start drilling or bush-cutting operations in our parks. We are facing this problem in Ontario; it is not all one-sided.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
It is true that Ontario will have no parks by the time we get around to deciding that the government of Ontario must have responsibility for parks and for bush-cutting in them. While I agree that cutting must take place, it should not be done for economic advantage but for maintenance of the forest in the area in order that the land may be enjoyed in perpetuity by the people of Canada.
This also applies to our national parks. It may be all right for us to have a small mine in Banff or Jasper National Park, but it seems to me it is of much more interest to our people to know that 100 years from now others will be able to look at Canada as it was when development had not taken place. Surely that is why we are keeping the parks-to provide others with the opportunity of looking at something they would not have the opportunity of seeing in any other way. I think a park is a living history and the living geography of the nation. Our people are to be congratulated for their foresight in establishing these parks.
The problems resulting from people being allowed to live in Jasper and Banff National Parks must be solved. The only simple way they can be solved is by incorporating these areas into municipalities with limited expansion. They should be allowed to associate with the provincial government in order to get into the normal stream of municipal development. The people living in these national parks have an obligation to their area. They must provide the facilities needed. So far as I am concerned, they have done this: they have provided facilities and have done their job.
We should at least make them free to enjoy municipal government. They should have this as a right. It should be established that they can participate with the Alberta government but their expansion should be contained by the National Parks Department. In order to accomplish this, we do not need to establish a Crown corporation. I am not opposed to Crown corporations, but normally a Crown
February 24, 1970

corporation must be a successfully economic operation. There are a few exceptions, notably the CNR. In respect of every other Crown corporation we look at the balance sheet to see whether it is making money. If it is not making money, it must provide a service of the kind that makes it acceptable to everyone.
This is not the role of our national parks. For this reason we should not agree to the establishment of a Crown corporation. We should congratulate the people who have been operating our parks over the years and wish them God-speed in continuing their operations in a similar manner but on an expanded basis.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, if I take the liberty to participate in this debate, it is surely not because we already have national parks in the province of Quebec, but rather because this project has been under study for nearly a year now and I think fit to expression an opinion in the matter.
I have been listening to speeches on national parks for a while and it seems that the provinces which are already provided with such parks experience certain difficulties. Far from me the idea of criticizing the way in which these parks are administered, but on the other hand it seems that the creation of a Crown corporation would not settle the problem.
In any case, I feel that it would be desirable for Quebec to have one or two national parks.
Development of national parks in Quebec would tend to promote tourism, which should be encouraged in Quebec as well as in the other provinces. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to express the hope that an agreement between the federal government and the government of Quebec be arrived at as soon as possible in order that our province, like the others be given national parks.
Some hon. members are in favour of identical budgets for all the provinces. There are many ways for other provinces to recover funds invested in their national parks, but Quebec receives no subsidies for that purpose.
Of course, Quebec would have many reasons not to participate in this project. At any rate its present government appears willing to co-operate and to take advantage of the funds made available to those provinces for the development of national parks.
National Parks Act
It was also stated that such parks should have some historical connotations. That is a very good suggestion.
May I say a few words on the conflict that now exists between Ottawa and Quebec with regard to the development of Forillon park. Let us hope that the St. Maurice valley will also have its national park.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), like the Quebec government, is keenly interested in the establishment of national parks in that province.
I believe it is my duty to make a few comments on these difficulties, for I am convinced that the federal and provincial governments will show good will and good faith in the development of Forillon park.
I think that each provincial government must take great care of its territory, provided the interests of the people are safeguarded.
Discussions have been going on for a year about developing Forillon park. Lately we have heard that, on the one hand, the federal government accuses Quebec of delaying this project and, on the other hand, that the authorities in Quebec blame the federal government for not understanding their position.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
In any event, there should be an effort to understand the arguments of both sides. 1 once said how interested the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development seemed to be in this project. I am also convinced of the concern and the sincerity of the provincial government.
Those explanations having been given, it appears that the Quebec government cannot presently agree to the terms set by the federal government since already a study on the possibility of finding natural resources is under way and a society is said to hold the prospection rights.
Anyhow, the Quebec government seems to be well disposed. Indeed, I feel that if it were given the possibility of developing at any time that land, it would be willing to conclude an agreement with the federal government.
However, the minister alleges that it is impossible to let the provinces, once the contract has been signed, undertake prospection on the land. I am under the impression that he is then referring to a legislation which went into effect many years ago, in short at

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
a time where the prospection and development of natural resources were not as well known and as widespread as they are now.
I am therefore asking the government to review that bill which does not allow a province, once an agreement has been concluded with the federal government, to prospect and develop an area designated as a national park.
If we only showed a certain amount of good will and realism, taking into account the technical facilities we have, the province of Quebec and the federal government could without much delay arrive at an agreement whereby an area of Quebec would be endowed with a national park. The population is right in endorsing the Forillon park project, but we should refrain-and I point this out for the information of the House and to maintain good relationships-from thinking that Quebec objects to that agreement for trivial reasons. This is far from the truth, because, as a matter of fact, all Quebec members are as much interested in that project as I am myself and as is the whole population of Quebec.
The parks at Pointe Forillon and in the St. Maurice valley should be developed in the shortest delay possible for the greater good of the Quebec population.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few comments to inform the House on the present situation, and to say that we hope that the province of Quebec will also benefit in the near future from the possibility of welcoming a greater number of tourists from other Canadian provinces and abroad. Knowing the benefits derived from national parks in our province, we will be inclined to go and visit the national parks already existing in the other provinces of Canada.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I listened with satisfaction to the speeches of some opposition members. I will mention only two because not all of them impressed me to the same extent.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for instance has a most extraordinary sense of humour and a subtlety of expression which should be a lesson to all members.
With regard to Bill C-152, it is mainly on account of the remarks made by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that I rise now, since he mentioned the St. Maurice valley project. I should like also to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for 
Joliette for the impartial way with which he usually deals with subjects in which he is interested. His remarks are non-partisan and truly constructive in view of the fact that his main concern seems to be, as in the case of some other members, to further the implementation of the projects rather than to hinder the action of the government. To play petty politics is an easy thing to do. I thank the hon. member for Joliette for advocating a friendly agreement between the Quebec and Ottawa governments so that the province of Quebec can also have its national parks.
I would even be inclined, as he did, to ask the federal government for some concessions which could also be granted to other national parks in other provinces-and I would not see any objection to that-provided of course that certain standards be maintained and that any Canadian citizen who visits our national parks in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario or Quebec, feels at home everywhere instead of finding himself all of a sudden in some foreign country, where national parks would not be operated in the same way as in his own province.
Bill C-152, to authorize the establishment of a Crown corporation, may have some merit. It may have the merit of preventing the squabbles due to too much partisanship, in Ottawa as well as in Quebec and in all other provinces.
If we were to establish a Crown corporation, independent from politics, provided with powers the exercise of which would be under the supervision of the federal government, perhaps we could come to an arrangement likely to promote the tourist industry in Canada.
There is no doubt that in Quebec national or provincial parks are urgently needed. I echo the comments of the member for Joliette who dealt with the particular situation that exists in the area I represent.
Indeed, the oldest steel industry in Canada is found in my riding. At least, so folklore would have it. The old ironworks of St. Maurice operated around 1756. Not only was gunnery produced but also equipment which could be found nowhere else in Canada. It is therefore a rather extraordinary historical site.
I know very well that in the last few years various committees, including the Chambers of Commerce of my area, have made extraordinary efforts in an attempt to make the best of that tourist attraction which would be located in the middle of or near the national
February 24, 1970

park that is planned in the St. Maurice valley.
To my mind, those efforts came to nought because of tourist red tape. At one point, the government of Canada was willing to make a substantial contribution which, unless I am mistaken, amounted to something like $200,000. The project would have cost around $600,000 or $700,000. The Quebec government seemed ready, at first, to make its contribution. The most generous contribution, however, would have come from the steel industries of North America. The major ones had accepted the principle of setting up in the St. Maurice valley a tourist centre with a historical museum to commemorate the beginnings of the steel industry in North America.
At this point, something went wrong. To begin with, the federal government demanded the ownership of every historic relic likely to be found on the spot. In fact, there were enough of them to load several railway cars. The finds went back to 1700, 1750, 1800 and later.
The federal government was willing to leave them indefinitely in the custody of the Quebec government provided it kept legal ownership to them. The provincial governments,-one after the other and I am not trying to be partisan-all turned down the offer of the federal government saying they would take the utmost care of Whatever was part of our land, as stated by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I am just wondering if we are not indulging in red tape while depriving ourselves of important and valuable assets such as historic centres could be for our national parks.
Things drag on and on, jeopardizing our tourist industry. There are no national parks in the province of Quebec because we have not yet gone beyond the stage of fruitless legal discussions. The first thing to do is to encourage the thousands of available tourists to visit this depressed area designated by the federal government. We are now overlooking one of our most profitable industries, the tourist industry.
I do not want to be partial. I take this opportunity to congratulate the previous speakers who avoided doing so. I join with the member for Joliette so that the Quebec and Ottawa governments understand that it is perhaps advisable, sometimes, to give in a little and not to be as uncompromising as some jurists who draft legislation.
National Parks Act
I do not ask for any special treatment for my province. I would like what is granted to Quebec to be given also to all other provinces.
I have come to wonder if it would not be possible to reach the following arrangement: the federal government would contribute to the establishment of the national parks, but would administer them jointly with the province concerned.
One could also devise a formula, as the one, for instance, that allowed for the creation of housing corporations in the provinces.
The tourist industry will benefit directly from the establishment of national parks. It is an industry which is immediately profitable and which will help raise the economy of the most underprivileged areas. There is also another problem that derives from the first one. I mean the pollution of air and water and its implications for the wildlife.
The day will come when the virgin forests Will cease to exist, when we will find only devastated forests and polluted lakes. It is high time, I think, that the two levels of Government co-operate. They must at least establish plots of green in Canada so that our sons and our grandsons may know that great nature which the Creator made for the good of mankind. The establishment of national parks will constitute, I think, a valid solution to the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am astonished that some people should oppose the establishment of a Crown corporation as suggested in Bill C-152. I do not see Parliament, even if it were the best of legislators, having the necessary ability for that type of administration and I feel that we would benefit from entrusting it to experts.
One or two of my hon. friends from the opposition said that the corporation would be another place where patronage could nest. But why should we veil our faces as if we were Pharisees. Even if it were true, they themselves did exactly the same when in office, and that is precisely what they will do again, if they are returned to power. Such an argument is not at all serious, because I do not see any harm in a government being in power.
I do not say that this government will indulge in patronage, for it is sufficiently objective, at times, to make appointments which are not necessarily based on party considerations. I could mention names, were it not for the fact that it is against the Standing Orders, and say that since the last elections,

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
the government has appointed people who were not supporters of this government, which proved that partisanship was not the mainspring of all our activities here.
I suggest that this argument was not serious. On the contrary, I believe that experts, people of integrity, having the confidence of all Canadians, should be given the task of promoting the establishment of those national parks, for the good of the country and of the tourist industry as well as for the safeguard of our wildlike. Thus we will be able to give to all our fellow-citizens, who are dying in the noise and who have to bear with air and water pollution,, the opportunity to find occasionally retreats where they could forget their troubles and even political partisanship.
This is why I support Bill C-152 provided that it could be amended if need be.
In conclusion, I shall say that this bill is good and that I am ready to support it without any political partisanship. I thank once more our colleagues from the official opposition and especially the hon. member for Joliette who has said a good word in favour of the establishment of national parks at Pointe Forillon and in the St. Maurice valley in the province of Quebec and who is willing to approve the fatest and most generous agreement possible between the two governments.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my comments on Bill C-152 will be very brief. My purpose in speaking is merely to indicate to the government that rather than form Crown corporations they should try to establish interdepartmental and intergovernmental co-operation to create national parks in line with the development of regions which need employment opportunities, as indicated almost daily by various ministers.
First I should like to remind the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to whom I listened recently on opposition day devoted to the debate on regional development, that both of them admitted it was very difficult to find employment opportunities where they are so badly needed in the Atlantic provinces. I admire them both for admitting they are not capable of doing it. But when they turn on members of this House, as they did in particular on the Newfoundland members, ask us to be patient and criticize us for not being able to come up with any constructive ideas to create the

employment opportunities which are so badly needed, my answer to them emphasizes the readily available resource in Newfoundland, which is the national park resource with the greatest potential of all in Canada.
I will not quarrel with those of my colleagues who used the same standard in describing their own backyard parks in other parts of Canada. I will not even quarrel with one hon. member who spoke the other day about the creation of an underwater park. Before I answer both ministers I want to state emphatically and clearly that in my opinion the minister directly responsible for national parks has done everything I expected of him with regard to the park in which I am interested, that is, the Bonne Bay park in western Newfoundland.
The minister's sincerity is indicated in the fact that his department evidently put forward a strong enough case for the creation of a national park in Newfoundland when just over $2 million was allocated for future development in the estimates tabled a couple of weeks ago. This indicates very clearly that the department operates competently in regard to the establishment of a national park in Newfoundland.
I admire the work that has been done by the national parks branch, by all the ministers concerned, and even by the Parliamentary Secretary who is here tonight. If I may repeat the words of some members of the department, the Bonne Bay area is so exciting that it could become the most beautiful park in the whole of North America. They said they are ready to go ahead if the province of Newfoundland will turn over the necessary land which is designed to bound the vast park area. This is what I mean by intergovernmental co-operation.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion wants some ideas to create employment opportunities. Here is an idea, right under his nose, which will create 100 jobs as soon as the snow clears and I daresay, as a conservative guess, an additional 500 jobs directly or indirectly with the ancillary development of roads and commercial service industry which will automatically be developed with the park.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) asks us to be patient. How patient can one be, Mr. Speaker? We wasted five years waiting patiently for a FRED program at a cost of $400,000, which was presented to this department and scrapped because, as the minister
February 24, 1970

said in this House, it was not acceptable. The people of Newfoundland, all half million of them, all the individuals whom the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion asked to become involved in planning and who now do not even know what is going on, agree that the creation of the Bonne Bay park will develop the east coast-even the whole of Newfoundland-and will bring millions of dollars annually into the economy.
I say to the Minister of Transport: Show us your sincerity in the province you represent. Pound some sense into the heads of your colleagues in the provincial government so that the land may be turned over and we can develop the natural beauty which exists for the enjoyment, not only of Canadians but all North Americans who will flock to our province, bring in the needed dollars and create the employment opportunities which you are looking for. Here are 600 jobs, I say to you, Mr. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. You wanted some concrete ideas: What is wrong with that one?
I have many more ideas for the minister when the appropriate subjects arise in the House, or if he wants to get some advice. I have also many ideas for the Minister of Transport. But I say to them: Don't camouflage the facts with balderdash in this House of Commons. Let us see some of the involvement you have been talking about for the last two years. Let us see some sincerity, I say to the Minister of Transport: Get the people concerned to produce the correspondence that I asked for over a year ago, which they refused to table in this House, with regard to the national park. The minister must know why this was done. Let him show some sincerity and tell us the reasons for withholding the natural development opportunity that is denied our people. What is the tale of woe of the silica mine potential in the area, which the province uses as an excuse for the delay? The silica mine potential and its delay indicates to me and all the experts that the development is being handicapped by one main faction-those who are against the principle of park development.
I challenge these ministers, who are so ready to camouflaging the truth, to show a little sincerity for a change, for the good of the people for whom they are supposed to be working. But don't give me the baloney about the opposition not coming up with ideas. If I may use the words of your experts in the department, they are:
National Parks Act
The keystone to progress in setting up an adequate national parks system lies in close liaison between the federal and provincial government. . .. The National Parks Act lays down that the two levels of government must first reach an agreement on the choice of land to be made into a park. Then it is up to the province to reserve this land and assign it to the federal government. Ottawa will then take the responsibility for development costs.
This is stated by your own National Parks Branch. There is an idea, I say to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
I will say just a word about this business of Crown corporations and its relationship to sincerity and pledges by the government. What kind of empty words are these, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Northern Affairs stated in October, 1968, that the federal government would maintain a concept for Canada's national parks and would reject all proposals that threatened to undermine this concept. National parks are a national domain set aside by the Parliament of Canada for all the people. The Minister of Indian Affairs said:
The natural beauty of Canada is a fundamental part of this country's national heritage.
The first Commissioner of National Parks, J. B. Harkin, said that national parks meant a new declaration of rights for people to share in the use and enjoyment of the noblest regions of the country. He also said that it was the duty of a nation to guard its treasures of art and natural beauty for generations to come. The preamble to the National Parks Act of 1930 says-this was mentioned tonight by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) but I think it is worth repeating:
The parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada, for their benefit, education and enjoyment .. . and such parks will be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of generations to come.
These words evidently mean nothing to the government. If it is ready to hand over its responsibilities to a corporation, it indicates nothing more than a breach of faith with the people. Members of the government are only admitting they are not capable of governing the country and are passing the responsibility on to a corporation. Let the government show a little common sense instead of running away from problems. Let it live up to its responsibilities.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on rising once again to take part in this debate I do so with some hesitation because

February 24, 1970
National Parks Act
of the government's unwillingness to listen to the concern expressed by people interested in the national parks, or even to the concern expressed by members of the Liberal Party from the province of Alberta, not to mention that expressed by opposition members, particularly those who have national parks in their constituencies or close to them. I am very pleased to see both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in their seats. A short time ago there was no minister in the House. The suggestion may be made that this was not so, but I am sure evidence can be produced to support the statement I am making.
The bill which we are considering proposes to set up a leaseholding corporation which will manage, maintain and develop the national parks of Canada. I would like to ask this question of the Parliamentary Secretary, who has dutifully remained in the House throughout the debate on the bill: How will the corporation get started on developing the national parks of Canada? How much money will Parliament grant, award or give it to get started? How much money will we have to appropriate for starting this corporation? Let me put it another way. Does it need any money at all?
We should be told these facts before we agree to the establishment of the corporation. We should be told how much money is involved. If no money is involved, we should be told whether the 42-year leases will return money so quickly that the corporation will be self-sustaining. This is the essential question we must consider in connection with the proliferation of Crown corporations such as we have seen in recent months.
Can we expect the Crown corporation to grow so quickly that immediately on its conception, immediately on its birth it can take hold and pay its own way; that it can manage, maintain and develop-I emphasize the word "develop"-the national parks of Canada? I am saying this with full recognition that the bill proposes the establishment of a number of new parks. Even before the bill was introduced we knew1 there would be new parks established, one in Quebec, possibly one in Newfoundland, and so on across the country. Certainly there should be one in Ontario, and more development of the ones presently in Alberta. Surely we should be told how the corporation is going to get off the ground. Is it going to get off the ground from the taxation on the 42-year leases, or

from the appropriation of moneys by the government toward the development of these parks?
Does the government really believe-it has not indicated whether it does-that the national parks must be developed at an accelerated rate in order to keep pace with the tourist industry in this country? I say that with all the emphasis possible because, as I mentioned in an earlier speech in this House-and I am sure other hon. members have also mentioned it-the tourist industry in the province of Alberta is ranking the second or third industry in that province; it is a major industry. We cannot afford to neglect it. This fact is true of all of Canada.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As we see our balance of payments and our trade deficit, we realize the strength and value of the contribution of the tourist industry to the economy of Canada. We cannot lightly disregard the servicing industry required to support the tourist industry alone. It must be flexible and willing to move with every whim and wham of the tourist industry. Surely members of this House realize that a tourist is one who comes to our country from another, or comes to one part of Canada from another and says, "I am prepared to spend money to see this area but I want services". He is prepared to spend money when he leaves home, and wants to enjoy the services and pleasures of this great country.
Can a Crown corporation, granted no appropriations from this government, be flexible enough to meet the wishes and demands of the tourist industry? I am doubtful if it can, Mr. Speaker. I see the Parliamentary Secretary nodding in agreement with my last statement, so he too is doubtful. Before this debate closes-I would like to think it will close tonight but if not, it will have to carry on tomorrow-I would like him to say that this Crown corporation will not be asked to start from nothing or from the taxation of the people now living in the parks; that it will be given the money to meet the demands of the tourist industry. Then we might better judge the intent and the willingness of the Crown corporation to manage, maintain and develop the national parks.
We have seen no evidence on the government side which would suggest that it is prepared to encourage the Crown corporation to properly manage and meet the demands of
February 24, 1970

the tourist industry, to develop the services that the tourist industry requires. With regard to one national park in Alberta, Buffalo National Park up north, the tourist industry does not demand too many services, and if you want to you can hunt bear and buffalo, do some fishing or even see raw nature in all its greatness. That does not cost too much for service industry. But if you want to go into the Rocky Mountains west of Calgary, or into the Banff and Jasper areas, one can readily envisage the tremendous desires and needs of the tourist industry.
A tourist does not come to Canada, or even come from eastern Canada to Banff, Watertown or Jasper and say, "I would like to have these services". He has spent "x" amount of dollars to move to that area for two or three weeks, and he demands services. What evidence have we, before we pass this bill, that the Crown corporation is prepared to meet the demands of the tourist industry?
It may well be said by the Parliamentary Secretary that this question can be dealt with in committee. But I have a suspicious mind with regard to this legislation, and I come by it honestly because I have seen strife and problems in the national parks, concern and agitation by the citizens with regard to their leases and their ability to give service to the tourist industry.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the citizens of Banff, Jasper and Waterton are to have an opportunity to appear before the committee to present their version of their responsibility and their concept of what the Crown corporation should be doing in providing services. I ask the question in all seriousness because too often this government has ridden slipshod over the wishes of the citizens and the concern of the taxpayers. A question that must enter many minds is: How can you have taxation without representation? Lest anybody believe there is no taxation in the national parks, I should like to read a letter on that subject. In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to begin reading this letter because it deals with the question at length, suggests that land assessment has increased 500 per cent and that the increase in taxes would be 1,875 per cent.
Surely we cannot lightly pass this piece of legislation, saying that we will give the jurisdiction and control of this vast area to a Crown corporation, without paying attention to the citizens being taxed. Surely if there is one principle we believe in, it is representa-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tive government, responsible government. We believe in representation with taxation, but this bill does not provide that.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) and the Parliamentary Secretary cooperated so that I could bring this matter on this evening even though I asked the question only today. The question was: Has the minister received the brief that has been forwarded to many persons with respect to the lack of an infantry presence, an infantry component, in Saint John, New Brunswick? This brief was prepared by an advisory board of militia officers from New Brunswick who, I believe, have some official position. While I recognize that it might not be possible to get a great deal of information by tonight, I should like to take this opportunity to outline what I had in mind when I asked the question.
It was only last Christmas that defence cuts were made in the militia across the country. They were expected in many quarters. We had made up our minds in New Brunswick that after the various military reorganizations which were taking place there would be no further cuts. It was with great shock, therefore, that we received the worst news possible, that the infrantry component, as military experts call it, would be completely taken out of Saint John, the largest population centre in the province and one with a very great military history.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I understand there is a possibility that companies of the existing infantry battalion in New Brunswick may be moved around. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take this matter under serious advisement, because it is expected that the cuts will not become fully effective until March 31 next. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has already considered the
4062	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion defence budget and has made suggestions about militia training. I am not an expert in that matter and do not want to talk about it;
I am merely speaking as one who has taken part in debates on this question in this House.
There have been several reorganizations. Three or four of them have been of major proportions. Yet I frankly wonder what is in the minds of our military planners when they shuffle the various military units and companies around my province. Before coming here I took out my defence file, which is not very thick. Having thumbed through all the statements that Bill Lee made about unification of our forces, I came to a clipping which was issued in 1954 and said that one of our infantry regiments was to be moved from Fredericton to Saint John. I refer to the Carleton and York Regiment, one of our old, historic units. Now, 16 years later, we are told that the only company left in Saint John is to move back to Fredericton. Incidentally, they have no rifle company in Fredericton.
There are good reasons for retaining "B" Company in Saint John. It is not a weak company; it is the largest unit of the Saint John garrison which includes a considerable amount of artillery. The artillery unit is the third oldest in the commonwealth, according to the billing that is used. It is a strong company and includes young officers, experienced warrant officers and sergeants. Since the barracks have already been built, there should be no extra cost in connection with them. Having given this background, I hope the minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will give serious thought to the matter.
Saint John is a proud city and we have a great history of military tradition. When the Indians were running around eating pemmi-can, we were making fighting history in Saint John. We sent the 62nd Foot Regiment to the Northwest rebellion, and units to the South African war. As everybody knows, New Brunswick had the best record for enlistment
DEBATES	February 24. 1970
in World War II. This claim has stood unchallenged over the years. Some people say unkindly, that our people enlisted because of the unemployment in the province brought on by various provincial, Liberal governments. I doubt that. I think we have a proud record of achievement and heeded the call of duty when there was need.
We are taking this matter very seriously. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary at least will put his heart and soul into this project to save our unit. This would give him a chance to forget his navy background, come in with the fighting boys and do something to encourage the people of this proud regiment.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what my hon. friend meant when he told me to forget about my naval background and show an interest in one of the fighting services. There were many occasions when the so-called fighting arm of the services, the army, was glad to have the navy around to put it on the beaches and take it off again. I say those words in jest, of course. I appreciate the hon. member's remarks and understand his interest, which I share, in the historic achievements of the regiment that comes from his district.
In reply to the question the hon. member addressed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux), I can only assure him that if representations have been received from the Military Advisory Committee of New Brunswick, they are now being considered and the hon. member will be advised later as to the outcome of this matter. If not, inasmuch as he has sent me a copy of those representations, I will personally see that they are placed in the hands of the minister. I am sure they will be considered quickly and that he will be advised of the outcome.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.07 p.m.

Wednesday, February 25, 1970