1970-02-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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

[Stage Direction]
First report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Fortin:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has kindly informed me of his intention to rise on a question of privilege. He has done so in accordance with the Standing Orders, thus enabling me to study during the few minutes at my disposal, the very interesting point that he has raised.
Basically, the hon. member for Lotbiniere suggests that a committee has looked into a matter subject to a condition that he had stipulated himself. He now suggests that the condition was not fulfilled and, in consequence, he asks the Chair not to accept the report that has just been submitted to the House.


The hon. member will understand that it is quite difficult for the Chair to study all the reports laid before the House in order to determine whether the stipulations laid down for their consideration have been complied with. I doubt very much that this is a question of privilege. I rather think that the hon. member has aired in the House a grievance which, in my opinion, is serious.
I recall very well the circumstances under which the motion to which the hon. member for Lotbiniere has referred was made and I also remember that he had given his approval, subject to that stipulation.
He now says that it has not been complied with. I doubt very much that even in such serious circumstances it is possible for me to reject the report just brought before the House.
May I suggest to the hon. member that the point he now raises could be put forward when the motion for concurrence of the report is moved in due course.
I deem it necessary to draw the attention of the member for Lotbiniere to citation 318(2) in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, which reads as follows:
It is the opinion of the committee, as a committee, not that of the individual members, which is required by the House, and, failing unanimity, the conclusions agreed to by the majority are the conclusions of the committee.
And further on:
If a member disagrees to certain paragraphs in the report, or to the entire report, he can record his disapproval by dividing the committee against those paragraphs to which he objects, or against the entire report, as the circumstances of the case require; and can put on record his observations and conclusions, as opposed to those of the majority, by proposing an alternative draft report or moving an amendment to the question for reading the draft report a second time.
Paragraph (3) of the same citation reads as follows, and I quote:
A member will not be permitted in presenting a report to make any remarks on the subject-matter; he can only properly do so on a motion in reference to the report.
In other words, the objection raised by the hon. member deals with the substance, and in my opinion, should be considered when the motion for concurrence in the report comes before the House.
The hon. member has raised an interesting point which I shall consider with sympathy during the next few days. But, I may possibly err in ruling at this time, that there


is no question of privilege. The point is very serious, and I have come to the conclusion having taken all circumstances into account, that it is a grievance rather than a question of privilege. This grievance could be presented by the hon. member when the House is considering the motion for concurrence in the committee's report.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to your kind remarks with great interest.
However, I wish to point out to you that this is precisely the point. If the House agrees today that the committee's report be presented, this will mean that we-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to assure the hon. member for Lotbiniere that I understand perfectly the point he is raising as well as its importance. But having considered all the aspects of the question-and I had this opportunity for a few moments before the opening of the sitting-I had to arrive at this conclusion. I said so to the hon. member.
I may not have considered all the aspects of the question. In the next days, I intend to look further into the matter. But, for the moment at least, I must arrive at the conclusion that the question of privilege cannot be raised. It could possibly be when the motion for concurrence in the report is introduced but, there again, I cannot assure the hon. member that his question of privilege will then be deemed in order. In the light of the circumstances, it would be preferable to abide by the ruling I have just made.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I brought a motion before the House and I should like to know whether it has been ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must realize that the motion can only be introduced if the Chair recognizes that the question of privilege is well taken. If the Chair feels that there is no question of privilege, the motion cannot be introduced.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I am now tabling in the two official languages a statement on the changes to be made in the role and structure of the federal transport portfolio.

Transport Departmental Changes


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is the first opportunity I have had of bringing up the point. The Minister of Transport has just tabled a statement on the changing role and direction of the Department of Transport. As I understand it, he issued a press release on the subject this morning and went on television and told the nation about these changes. If we in this House are to be responsible to our constituents, then we must make sure that the cabinet, the executive branch of government, is responsible to the elected representatives of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The House ought to be made aware of the devious manner in which the government is destroying the worth of Parliament. For the minister to make a statement outside the House about a vital matter before informing the elected representatives of the people is, I submit, wrong in principle. I wish to bring to the attention of the House and the country the fact that the government, by acting in this way, is slowly eroding and destroying the very principles upon which our parliamentary democracy is founded.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot has been raised on previous occasions by other hon. members.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not often enough.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says "not often enough". I am not sure that I agree with that statement. In any event, the point has been raised in a very serious way from time to time by other hon. members. It is a matter of interest whether there is a point of order or a legitimate question of privilege as to whether hon. members of the House have the right to receive information from ministers prior to statements being made outside the House. That is the very point raised by the hon. member.
I recognize that the point is well taken. The point has often been raised in the past, not only in the last two or three years that I have been associated with the Speakership but on many occasions in previous years, that statements have been made outside the House which perhaps ought to have been made in the House. I am not expressing an opinion. There is a long series of decisions in the jurisprudence dealing with the matter raised


Transport Departmental Changes by the hon. member for Crowfoot. A very similar point was raised by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie the other day.
On the basis of the jurisprudence and previous decisions, the Chair has had to come to the conclusion that the matter should not be put to the House as a question of privilege. This being so and particularly since there is no motion and in view, as I said, of the precedents in the matter, I would not think that this matter should give rise to a debate.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The Minister of Transport seems anxious to reply. I doubt whether that should be allowed. If the minister is allowed to reply, at that point we will have a debate on a question of privilege and I do not think we should proceed on that basis. In this instance I have to make the same ruling as has been made in the past by previous Speakers and by myself on a few previous occasions. I think we should go on to another subject.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I rise on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister can rise on a new question of privilege.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, merely for the record and not in any debating form or anything of that nature, I simply want to record the fact out of respect for this House and out of respect for the principle which the hon. member for Crowfoot raised, I did in fact last night invite the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications and any other interested members to a full briefing on this matter before, indeed, it was released.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we are getting involved in a debate. The hon. minister has sought to reply to the hon. member on his own question of privilege. I have to rule for the minister the same way I ruled for the hon. member. I told the hon. member there could be no debate on his question since there was no question of privilege. The minister sought the floor on his own question of privilege. I have to rule that there is no question of privilege and there should be no debate on that question either. This may go on for a long time. The hon. member is rising on a third question of privilege?


An hon. Member:: A second for him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is a new question of privilege and I am raising it at the very earli-
est opportunity, which I understand is when a question of privilege should be raised. The question of privilege I raise at this opportune time is that the minister did call a special committee meeting but my office was not informed of the time. A committee meeting called in such an informal manner should not and cannot supplant the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It was only called for those people who were lucky enough to hear of the calling and were available for the meeting. It was in camera. It had nothing to do with the procedures in this House. As I understand Beauchesne, citation 100, paragraph (7), which deals with this whole subject matter, it can only be judged by the House itself. I believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member does not interpret Beauchesne as it ought to be interpreted. I say this in fairness to the hon. member. My interpretation, and I believe it is the traditional interpretation, is that a decision has to be taken by the House when the Chair has ruled there is a prima facie case of privilege. This is a decision which in all instances the Chair unfortunately has the duty and responsibility to render. My thought when the hon. member raised the point originally was that because of precedents it could not be raised as a question of privilege. I was hoping the minister would not raise the subsequent question of privilege; however, he did.
The hon. member is rising on another question of privilege. I have to rule again that this is a matter for debate with reference to a longstanding grievance which individual members may very well have against the executive. Unfortunately for the hon. member and for other hon. members who feel the same way as he does, that such statements should be made in the House rather than outside the House, the weight of jurisprudence is there to say that the matter cannot be debated. The Chair is in the position of having to rule that it is not a question of privilege, although it may be a very legitimate grievance.
I seek the assistance of hon. members to go on with the business of the chamber. I realize this is an important question. Maybe I should look into the matter further, but I believe from time to time I have looked into it quite closely. For the moment I ask the assistance of hon. members to allow the House to go on with another subject.


Mr. Hees:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if the ruling which you have made in your wisdom is allowed to stand now, any future government is given the right to treat matters of great importance to Parliament and to the country in this way, and I feel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is not raising a new question of privilege. If I am to remain Speaker of this House I cannot allow hon. members simply to disregard decisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I see around me 262 members who would be better Speakers than I am, but for the moment I stand in this place and hold from hon. members the responsibility to be the Speaker of this House. I have made a decision. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has always been one of those who have supported the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I seek his assistance.


George Harris Hees: I have always supported your decisions, Mr. Speaker, and I accept this one. I was about to appeal to Your Honour's sense of fairness and ask you not to make your final decision now but to delay it for a few hours for consideration, as has been done in the past. Whenever you make your decision, 1 and my hon. friends will accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member will recognize, this is a point which has been raised very often. If it were a new point, perhaps the Chair would not be justified in making an immediate judgment. But it is a point which has been raised on numerous occasions-not only this year, not only last year, but on many occasions-and the decision has always been the same. While there may be a grievance there is not a question of privilege, and I feel bound by the decisions of my worthy predecessors and by the earlier rulings I myself have made.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my usual non-controversial way to make a statement which I think has been agreed upon in connection with the business of the House for the balance of the present week.
The first item today will be as announced previously, the resumed debate on second reading of the bill to amend the National
Motion to Adjourn
Parks Act, to be followed by the resumed debate on second reading of the oil and gas conservation amendment. For tomorrow we would call the report stage of the bill to amend the Company of Young Canadians Act and Thursday would be an opposition day under the auspices of the Ralliement des Creditistes-the Social Credit Rally. On Friday we would take up the third reading of the Company of Young Canadians bill if it has not been passed on the previous day, to be followed by the report stage of the In'er-national Development Research Centre bill.



CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of the annual review of the Canadian International Development Agency for 1969.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 POST OFFICE MONTREAL POSTAL DISPUTE

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a non-controversial motion to the House. I ask leave, seconded by my hon. friend from Sainte-Marie, to move the adjournment of ihe House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the postal slowdown in the city of Montreal which has crippled mail service, a concern which is within the adminis'rative responsibility of the government of Canada and which has presently reached crisis proportions.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
May I simply state that I am moving this motion for what I think are obvious reasons. Great concern has been expressed in many quarters at the minister's mishandling of the dispute which began on February 2 and is already imposing costly burdens on mail users in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for interrupting his statement. I know we are operating under relatively new Standing Orders, but the


Motion to Adjourn
Standing Order in question indicates that the only statement that can be made by an hon. member making a motion under Standing Order 26 is the statement that he has proposed for consideration by the Chair. I suggest that the hon. member has given the essence of his argumentation, and I think a ruling should be given on the basis of the statement presented to the Chair under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and all hon. members that this is a rather difficult decision to make. I fully understand the complexity of the problem that is now before us. It is never easy in any circumstance for the Chair to decide whether the business of the House should be adjourned for the purpose of considering a specific matter of urgent and national importance.
This is a matter of urgent importance and national interest. In the circumstances I am wondering whether we should adjourn the House to consider the matter. In many of these decisions the Chair has to make a judgment decision by taking into account the facts as they are known to Mr. Speaker. I sometimes wonder whether this means that I should consult with hon. members who are familiar with the situation, or whether I should be satisfied with reading the newspapers and lis ening to radio or television broadcasts and then making my judgment on the facts as they are known to me. I am afraid that this is all that can be done.
Without having held consultations of any kind, my understanding from my reading of the news is that consultations or meetings are to be held today. Obviously these consultations will be of some importance and their results will be relevant to the urgency of this matter. My own view would be that I would be well advised not to make an affirmative ruling at this moment, though this is without prejudice to the right of the Leader of the Opposition to make his motion tomorrow or at a later date depending on the outcome of discussions which may be taking place at this time.
On the basis of this rather unprofessional information I would think hon. members would agree with me that it would not be wise for the Chair to put the motion at this time. It might be premature on my part to put the motion today. However, at the same time I fully reserve the right of the Leader of the Opposition to propose the motion to the House either tomorrow or later.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr, Speaker:: The member for Charlevoix is rising on a point of order.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the House would agree to revert to motions, but since it has been said a moment ago that the Postmaster General had a very important meeting this morning with the C.N.T.U. officials in connection with this important mail problem in Montreal and its national implications, I wonder whether the House would agree to the minister making a statement about the meeting held this morning. If there is unanimous consent, I think the minister might inform the hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree to revert to motions so as to enable the minister to make a statement on the subject mentioned by the member for Charlevoix?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be an agreement. Let us therefore revert to motions.

I recognize the minister so he can make a statement at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I met the leaders of the C.N.T.U. this morning. The position of the federal government was discussed at length, and I handed the union leaders a letter describing this position in definite terms. It would be advisable, with the unanimous consent of the House, that I table copies of this letter in the two official languages. I feel this would clarify the situation and keep all members posted.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is suggesting that the House give unanimous consent to allowing the minister to table a certain document. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: No, on
Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is the unanimous wish of the House, the letter referred to by the minister could be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of letter, see appendix.]


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's tabling of documents will not make the present situation very clear to the House. A statement by him might give members the opportunity to make comments. In my opinion, the minister should be allowed to make a statement. Evidently, without having read the documents he has just tabled, there can be no comments on the meeting and his discussions of this morning with the C.N.T.U. representatives.


Mr. Speaker:: This puts the Chair in a difficult position. The minister was invited to
make a stai.ement.


Mr. Fairwealher:: He did not make one.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, the minister spoke to the subject. According to the Standing Orders, one spokesman on behalf of each of the parties in opposition has the same privilege. It may be that some hon. members felt the statement might have been more complete, but a statement was made. Hon. members have the right if they wish, as representatives of their parties, to speak and reply to the statement made by the minister.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, a long time ago, according to ancient history, the Israelites found it difficult to make bricks without straw. Similarly, I am tempted to accept the challenge of making a statement on the minister's non-statement.
There has been filed some sort of letter. I am very much afraid that in my absence the minister, who has been in hot water a good deal, has really got himself in the steam this time. I am very sorry that things have reached such an impasse in Montreal, where a very serious stoppage of mail has developed and where there have been outbreaks of violence. While I cannot for a moment condone some of the reports of violent activity, neither
Montreal Postal Strike can I exonerate the minister from developing, through his abrasiveness and his typical incapacity for dealing with people who work for and in his department, the kind of regrettable relationship that has brought about this mail stoppage, one that is affecting not only Montreal and its environs but everyone in the country. In these days of austerity, with so many services being cut back as far as the Canadian public is concerned, if we cannot expect at least reasonable delivery of mail under reasonable conditions, then we have reached a very unhappy situation.
There is much more that could be said, but I am far more anxious for the mails to go through and for the minister, by happenstance, by circumstance, by luck or by some sign of the Zodiac, to come to a successful conclusion of this problem than I am to make political capital out of what is a regrettable situation. I hope there is something more in the letter than there frequently is in the communications of the Minister of Communications.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's non-statement was so short that I did not catch everything he said. However, without for a moment condoning the acts of violence which are taking place in Montreal and without knowing the full details of the particular difficulty in which the minister is now, we have had sufficient experience with the minister and with his complete refusal to try to deal with the employees of the Post Office Department with any kind of equity and common sense that I am not surprised he is in trouble.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I can remember that on an earlier occasion the minister was asked to bring in some people who understand what labour relations are in the 1960's and 1970's instead of 100 years ago. The minister brushed aside such suggestions only to have an arbitrator tell him that what he had been doing in respect of a specific case was completely wrong. I know there are other difficulties in the Post Office Department which will come to a head shortly. I can only join with the hon. member for Hillsborough in asking the minister to look into the matter again, meet with the people himself and encourage his officials who have been so incompetent in dealing with labour relations in the past to try to reach a solution which will be equitable not only to the department but to the employees who have worked for the department for some considerable time.
3676	COMMONS DEBATES	February 17, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), when he tabled letters is, in our view, the most remarkable he has since he became minister.
While I was listening to him the other day on a CBC program, the minister merely replied to the sensible questions put to him by the interviewer: those are illegal strikes. Four strikes have started among postal employees in Montreal, and all are illegal. Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect I would like to stress. When a minister or any other employer is himself involved in a conflict, his duty is not to assess the legality of the conflict but to see to it that it is solved and that the Canadian people are given flawless service.
Postal services are essential, but the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications, through his legal or illegal support of patronage, has created a situation where the people of Canada's metropolis are now severely inconvenienced.
What is more, I read in today's Le Devoir and I quote:
A Montreal radio station has announced that Mr. Kierans had threatened to make Toronto the main transfer point for mail, but Ee Devoir has been unable to confirm this news.
Of course, neither the newspaper nor any member of the opposition succeeded in having the news confirmed because right from the start, the minister was firmly glued to his seat and let the conflict get worse.
Mr. Speaker, we hope a jury set up for this purpose will solve the conflict and will force the minister to take his responsibilities in order to ensure a perfect service and to eliminate political patronage in this sector.
Postal services are expensive enough, since the implementation of the minister's new policy, to warrant the population an impeccable service.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without 
Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Would the minister, who evidently has now advised many western wheat farmers not to plant wheat on their land this year, say whether this announcement or statement of government policy is to be followed by any government measure which will make it practical for the farmers in question to survive through the year without farming their lands?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of the cash and income position of the farmers on the prairies is under review. The point, of course, which the Leader of the Opposition seems to have missed is that the farmers to whom I was particularly speaking have sufficient grain on hand already to meet the quota they are likely to have for this year and next year. So their gross income is fixed by the fact that they have this grain on hand. By the non-production of their land they will have less costs for the period and therefore this will improve their net income position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I assure the minister I did not miss the point but perhaps I did not quite grasp the point of how a farmer can farm without farming. I would ask the minister to explain to the House and the country, having given this advice to the farmers-and I suggest the minister has an obligation to do this immediately-what measures he has to advance on behalf of the government to enable the farmers to accept his advice and survive with any acceptable standard of living?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope at an early date that we will be able to make further statements concerning government policy in respect of the use of agricultural land in this area. I said I hoped this can come at an early date because we are conscious of the fact that it is important for the farmer, who has his seeding plans to think about, to have such information as soon as possible.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary question is based on a hope on my part that I may receive an answer. Is the minister in a position to say whether the government is prepared to adopt any program of providing some payments for farm storage in respect of wheat stored on the farms of farmers who the minister expects to live off the wheat they grew last year and the year before?


Otto Emil Lang: The issue of payments to farmers for grain stored on the farm is rather a distinct and different issue. We do have that matter under consideration along with many others. I have made it quite clear that I consider it to be an obvious point that the agricultural industry should arrive at some sensible conclusion about the desirable amount of inventory for the agricultural industry as a whole to hold. Having reached that decision, we must decide how and in what way the inventory should be held in order to minimize the cost of holding it and thereby maximize the return to the farmer.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the income of the western farmer is not only fixed but is rapidly approaching zero, can the Minister without Portfolio tell the House what real objectives the government has in terms of selling wheat and providing adequate income so that the farmers do not all go broke?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is reiterating in substance a question just asked by the Leader of the Opposition.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether his declaration of defeatism and despair with regard to the western farmer represents the result of his deep thought and consideration of this problem when in London?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think
the question as asked is in order.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. After the fresh-air treatment we have had from the minister I wonder whether he would clarify the situation in respect of the farmers having grain on hand to meet their 1970-71 delivery quotas by indicating what these deliveries might be? Will there be a six-bushel quota, a four-bushel quota or the unit they have this year?


Otto Emil Lang: It is my hope and expectation that we will be making fairly firm statements about the expectations for this year and next year in connection with delivery opportunities. I should point out to hon. members that in fact the sales effort by the Canadian Wheat Board has met with tremendous success during the current year. As a result there will be another 260 million bushels going into export during the rest of the crop year.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I have a supplementary question for
Inquiries of the Ministry the minister. In view of the fact that the only time a federal minister asked the western farmers to take land out of production, the government of that time paid the farmers a stated amount per acre as an incentive and as compensation for the fact that their land would not be producing any paying crop, may I ask the minister now whether it is the government's intention to pay the farmers an acreage payment for every acre they take out of production at his request?


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to make it perfectly clear that what has been going on so far are discussions between myself and a number of farmers about the logical position in which they are, and no statement of government policy on this has been made as yet. The question of what will be contained in a statement of government policy will have to await a statement of that policy.


John George Diefenbaker: How about a logical government policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will try to allow all hon. members who wish to ask supplementary questions to do so during the 40-minute question period, but perhaps we should try to limit ourselves as much as possible and allow individual members one or two supplementary questions each, which will just about take up the 40 minutes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister one further supplementary question. Are we to understand from the minister's statement now that he was not enunciating government policy but merely telling the farmers how to farm, and that the government has no intention whatsoever of compensating the farmers for following his advice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the minister is quoted as saying, in the context of his remarks that farmers leave their wheat land idle, "that there were 24 million acres planted to wheat last year that cannot be usefully switched to another crop", will the minister advise the House whether it is his opinion and that of his officials that all other grain commodities that might be grown on this land are now in sufficient or surplus
3678	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry supply and that no other commodities or other kinds of grain need to be grown?


Otto Emil Lang: The best opinion available, as indicated in such things as the Outlook Conference, was that the acreage available for grains and crops other than wheat last year was about the right amount of acreage for those crops again this year. That does not mean that each crop should have the same acreage. Indeed it is indicated that there should be some increases in some crops and small decreases in others. It means that there is in fact only a small margin of room for additional production in the total non-wheat area, and this leads to the problem of what to do with land if it is moving out of wheat production. The obvious thing that must be avoided is that it go in great quantity into the non-wheat crops and produce serious oversupply in those areas.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. In his reply to the Leader of the Opposition he said that some farmers had enough wheat to supply the market for the next two years. Is he implying by that remark that the farmer can live and meet his expenses for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member's supplementary is argumentative.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. In view of the most recent statements of the minister, is he now recommending to the government that a deficiency payment should be made to farmers in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, government policy will be announced as soon as it is decided.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. I wonder, when the minister announces to the House government policy that will be followed to assist and advise the western farmers in their dilemma, whether he will assure the House that he will not simply advise them to diversify into livestock feeding operations and thereby create another problem for the farmers in the east?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that was very much what was in my mind when I talked to farmers about acreage diversion problems, that to simply take their acreage out of wheat

DEBATES	February 17, 1970
and put it into other crops would be relatively dangerous because the other crops would then be in over-supply.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister misunderstood my question to a certain extent, in spite of my explanation, and farmers will not find it satisfactory to have a minister like that in charge of their business-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, he should try to ask it at this time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I will, Mr. Speaker, thank you. What 1 particularly asked was that the minister not simply inform western farmers that they should go into the feeding of livestock and thereby put the eastern farmer out of business.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the minister undertake to make a statement on motions in the near future clarifying the government's position on the matters upon which he has been questioned today? Will he also undertake to follow up on reports of further opportunities for grain sales and wheat sales to eastern Europe, including the country of Roumania in particular?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that the Wheat Board and the government follow up any report and any possibility for grain sales. I would expect that before too long I would be in a position to make a statement on government policy in this area.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Wheat Board. Would the minister kindly inform the House when his leave of absence from the University of Saskatchewan expires?


Mr. Baldwin:: Are there any judicial openings in Saskatchewan?



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON REVISION OF QUOTA SYSTEM

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: My supplementary question to the minister is: Has the minister now received the recommendations of the special committee which is revising the
February 17. 1970	COMMONS
Wheat Board quota system and, if so, will he make a statement to the House on motions on this urgent and important subject?


Otto Emil Lang: We do not have the final report from the group of men advising us on the quota system, but I hope to have it at an early date and then to make a statement on the proposed quota system or any changes in it.



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS TO INCREASE SALES ON LONDON MARKET

George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Would he take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what action the government plans to take in view of the information given to the minister and the members of the Wheat Board who were with him in London a few days ago that the reason Canada has been losing sales on the London market is that the Canadian export program has not been adjusted to meet the changing demands of that market during the past several years?


Otto Emil Lang: That statement is an over-simplification of a very complicated subject. The loss of sales to the United Kingdom was due in good part to the fact that during a major portion of the year in question we were holding our minimum prices at the IGA level when many of our competitors were not, and I do not propose to make a statement on motions on that subject.


George Harris Hees: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In other words, in this government's view the customer is always wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are there any vacant judgeships in Saskatchewan?



PROTEIN CONTENT OF CANADIAN WHEAT

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Frontenac wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Frontenac.
DEBATES	3679
Inquiries of the Ministry


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Have studies been carried out or are there some under way to ensure that Canadian wheat for exports will have a higher protein content?


Otto Emil Lang: This question is under consideration at the present time, and I expect that we will be in a position to make statements on it in due course.



DEFINITION OF DURUM WHEAT-FINAL PAYMENT

Mr. Rod Thomson (Baltleford-Kindersley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister without Portfolio now have a statement to make regarding the definition of Durum wheat and whether a final payment will be made on this grain?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any statement to make.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the importance of the report of the task force on agriculture to the farmers' spring plans and the fact that the minister has had it in his hands for the past several weeks, can he inform the House and the farmers of Canada when this report will be tabled?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as soon as it is printed.



POSSIBLE MORATORIUM ON PAYMENTS ON FARMERS' LOANS

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which is related to this whole topic. In light of the very stringent economic situation at present existing in the agricultural industry and more particularly in western Canada, can the minister say whether any decision has been made with respect to declaring a moratorium on the


Inquiries of the Ministry repayment of interest and principal on current farm improvement loans, Farm Credit Corporation loans and machinery syndicate loans?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have answered a question similar to this one several times in the House. I can repeat the answer by saying that any person who has a Farm Credit Corporation loan and wishes to make an application to the corporation and can substantiate that he is unable to make the payments may have those payments deferred. But the hon. member should be aware of that because I have stated it about 14 times in the House.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is related to the one I put to the Minister of Agriculture a moment ago. In view of his arrogant reply to me that he had answered this question 14 times before, did he give those answers outside the House because he sure as heck didn't give them in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to direct a supplementary question to both ministers but in light of the fact that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board has had to answer a number of questions, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
The question is related to the one put by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain with regard to the repayment of interest on loans. In view of the Barber Commission report and the number of foreclosures on farm machinery by machine and finance companies and in view of the minister's talks with the machine companies with regard to the findings of the Barber Commission on the sale of farm machinery, would he request in the future-I know he has not done so in the past-that these machinery companies place a moratorium on foreclosures and on the reclaiming of their farm machinery until the farmers are in a position to sell grain and to pay for the machinery, which they mostly want to do?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It is not quite right to say that I did not discuss this matter with some of the manufacturers-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You said so yourself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -although it was not a subject matter that was contained in the Barber Commission report. But I did draw to the attention of the presidents of some of the companies that there was some concern about this matter, and they have advised me that they have renewed and deferred a large number of the notes that they are holding for farm machinery in Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister disclose to the House and to the country the number of loans that were being foreclosed and the percentage of loans on which the machine companies have agreed to place a moratorium or to delay foreclosures?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure I can get that information in the way asked by the hon. member, but certainly I could ask them whether they could provide us with some of that information.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Has his department made any decision concerning the national park in the St. Maurice valley?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, no final decision has been made; however, I am supposed to meet with the provincial authorities tomorrow concerning that problem as well as that of the Forillon national park.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce if there has been federal government assistance involved continue its DHC-7 STOL aircraft program and, if so, what is the nature of this assistance and its extent?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, up to in the decision of de Havilland Canada to
February 17. 1970	COMMONS
now the government has given $1.4 million for this program but another $3.1 million will be added to that, making a $4.5 million total.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for which I am sure he is waiting. I see him opening his music book. Can he reply to the question I asked yesterday and Friday with regard to the allegations about irregularities with regard to the Assumption Band resolutions at Hay Lakes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did receive a telegram Friday from the chief concerned. I immediately ordered an investigation, and some officials of the Financial Branch of my department will go on the spot without delay in order to ascertain whether there have been irregularities.
The first report I received states that every expenditure has been approved by the band council. However, an official of my department will investigate more fully on the spot either today or tomorrow, or later this week.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that some of the allegations, which are substantiated by affidavit, are that the chief and the band council signed resolutions in blank which were subsequently filled out by departmental officials, will the minister co-operate and facilitate the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development into these very serious charges, having in mind the position of unrest in which many Indians now find themselves in in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am expecting a report from the officials of my department on that matter. As for my hon. friend's suggestion, I shall be pleased to study it, and I shall advise the House accordingly.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister and ask him if the Auditor General and his staff have been called to investigate this discrepancy?
DEBATES	3681
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with that aspect of the administration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Some weeks ago I asked him about the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to approve the application of Greyhound Bus Lines of Chicago to acquire Canadian Coachways. The minister promised to look into the matter and to consider my request that the Canadian government intervene to prevent this takeover. Is the minister prepared to make any report to the House on what decision he has reached?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there is a rather lengthy reply on this matter which I apologize I ought to have given to the hon. member earlier. If it is agreeable to him I will give it to him in writing now. If there are subsequent questions on it he can ask me at that time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister if, in looking over the transcript, he has read the briefs of some of the other bus companies which point out that the granting of this application to Greyhound will mean they will have a virtual monopoly, and will control 70 per cent of the bus mileage in western Canada, and if in the light of that the minister does not think this takeover should be prevented in order to maintain some competition?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's supplementary is an argument.



POLLUTION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and I hope you will bear with me briefly while I lay the groundwork for it. When the oil tanker Arrow grounded on Cerberus rock on Tuesday last, the salvage master at Halifax ordered the tug
3682	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Foundation Valiant to the site, and had the tug Foundation Vigilant available. In order to make an attempt to salvage the ship, Lloyd's open form had to be signed by the captain of the oil tanker. Did the captain of the tanker agree to sign this form so that an attempt could be made to salvage the Arrow by putting a line on board the ship?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot answer this question of my own knowledge. I will look into it immediately and advise the hon. member as quickly as possible.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: While the minister is looking into that aspect of the question, will he also indicate or ascertain if possible why permission to lighten the Arrow was refused by the captain of the tanker when the tanker Imperial Acadia arrived on the scene at midnight, Tuesday?



WRECKING OF TANKER &quot;ARROW&quot;-NATURE OF INQUIRY

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Transport since he was not in the House the other night when I took part in the late show. Will the inquiry ordered into this disaster be conducted by somebody completely divorced from the Department of Transport and from the oil shipping industry?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, we are looking into what is the most appropriate method. I agree with the hon. member that it should be an independent inquiry, and whatever is the best method to achieve this, that we will use. May I also apologize to the hon. member for not being here for the late show. It was due to an error in the late show notification procedures, as I think he knows.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister did not make a statement in the House today on the reorganization of his department, will he consider making a statement in the House at the earliest moment, say tomorrow or this week, on all aspects of this Arrow tragedy, including whether the reorganization of the department will help the Department of Transport respond to such unfortunate accidents in a way that will prevent damage to our coasts?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be glad to make a statement later wh^n the situation is clear, Mr. Speaker.

DEBATES	February 17. 1970


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could include in his statement the relationship, if any, that there has been between the National Research Council and the Defence Research Council on the whole question of how oil pollutes water and how to get rid of it.



WRECKING OF TANKER &quot;ARROW&quot;-DAMAGE SUFFERED BY FISHERMEN

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask whether he and his department are pursuing any course to assess the damage suffered by the fishermen as a result of oil escaping from the Arrow, and whether the minister is considering any recourse against those responsible for the damage with a view to the government and the fishermen being recouped for the damage likely to be suffered?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. John Daziel, of the fisheries department is acting as coordinator of a technical group on ecological control in the area looking into the damage to marine life. We are also actively looking at the possibility of recovering costs which may be suffered by the fishermen in the area.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lan-caster):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if there was in fact a contingency plan to deal with the adverse effect of oil pollution?


John (Jack) Davis: I am informed, Mr. Speaker, that contingency plans have been under discussion and in the process of development for about 12 months, under the chairmanship of the Department of Transport.


Thomas Miller Bell: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I take it from the minister that there were not, in fact, contingency plans as intimated by his Parliamentary Secretary on January 14?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand there were contingency plans under development and meetings were being held as recently as three weeks ago to finalize these plans.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
February 17, 1970	COMMONS
the Minister of Transport. On Wednesday of last week I asked him if he would look into the matter of the Fort Garry Hotel in Winnipeg bringing in outside personnel to maintain operations in the face of a legal and legitimate strike. Has the minister been able to do so and has he been able to do anything to put a stop to this practice?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to do anything to put a stop to the practice. I have brought the reports to the attention of the CNR which operates the hotel and this seems to me as much as I would be able to do under the circumstances.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister discussed this matter with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, who has a labour code which calls for fair labour practices?



POST OFFICE


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
When will the minister be in a position to advise the House that he has found a way to settle the present postal dispute in Montreal and what steps does his Department intend to take to settle this dispute?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker I would advise the hon. member to read carefully the letter I just tabled. He will then be better informed and learn about the measures I intend to implement.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the House if his department intends to transfer the postal distribution centre from Montreal to Toronto as a step conducive to the settlement of this dispute?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I never said that and nobody can ascribe such an intention to me. I merely said that temporarily, the mail sent from one part of the country to another would not be routed through Montreal.


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
DEBATES	3683
Inquiries of the Ministry
I would like to know whether the minister, after his meeting this morning with union representatives, was given the assurance that the agitation will cease in Montreal and that regular mail deliveries will be resumed. If not, can the minister tell us what contingency action he intends to take, such as the steps he mentioned yesterday were to be taken today in order to bring about normal mail delivery in Montreal?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I told the two CNTU representatives this morning that I certainly intend to apply the legislation as adopted by the House.
The law requires that I call for tenders and that is what I did. We have adjudicated contracts to five new contractors. The agreements are signed and we are bound by them. Therefore, we only have to decide what we can do for those who will not be hired by the new contractors.
There are some steps we can take with the assistance and support of my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen). At this stage, may I say that Mr. Grenier, assistant deputy minister of Manpower and Immigration was present at this morning's meeting. At the end of the meeting, all were aware of our position and I told them I was at their disposal whenever they wanted.


Martial Asselin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Did the union accept the minister's position and will they advise the workers to resume mail delivery in Montreal?
If they rejected it, does the minister intend to take strict measures to ensure the mail delivery?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the CNTU have asked the minister to guarantee the statute of their union. I simply told them: Your statute is spelled out in the contract which binds you to your employers. You have already lost one, that is Rod Service Limited, and you are in the process of losing another. That is your business.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the minister in the midst of his flight of oratory, but I think this is more a debate than a series of questions and answers.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
When the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications says that the present strike in Montreal which paralyses the postal
3684	COMMONS DEBATES	February 17. 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry service is unlawful, does he say that on the advice of a legal counsel from the Department of Labour or from his own department?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, even the union representatives admit that their present activity is unlawful.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieile):: I want to put a supplementary question to the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications.
As it was said that new contractors were responsible for mail delivery, will the government find itself under the obligation to buy the trucks of G. Lapalme Inc.?


Eric William Kierans: In view of the fact that, last year, we granted a contract for one year only, it is necessary to assure now the contractor that if the contract is terminated at the end of the year, as we did, he cannot, of course, claim for tax purposes the full depreciation on the trucks. We shall accept, then, to buy his trucks if he is willing to sell them.
This strike is not only unlawful but I can add that at the present time the people of Montreal are blackmailed by the union members.

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough)-: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question based upon the minister's conciliatory letter. Has the minister ascertained from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that the unemployment situation in Montreal is such that he can obtain 350 drivers immediately?


Eric William Kierans: Yes. Mr. Speaker, you suggested a little earlier that I was brief in my statement. Perhaps you will permit me to welcome the hon. member for Hillsborough back to active service in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, as an exchange of courtesies I should like to ask the Postmaster General if he would tell us, in relation to the contracts signed with other subcontractors, does the department require re-employment of those persons already employed by Lapalme Inc.?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Sainte-Marie for his courtesy. I would say that this is not something that we do at any time. We simply ask for submissions and tenders and award the contracts in accordance with the law to the

lowest tenderers, while taking into account such conditions as capability, financial stability and so on. This is what we have done. Their arrangement with that particular union, whether it be the Teamsters, CNTU or any other union, is their affair. I could not myself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker- tTranslation]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we ought perhaps to go on to another subject, because there are only two minutes left before the end of the oral question period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources .Perhaps he could take it as notice. Has the city of Seattle applied to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for an exemption under the International River Improvements Act to allow the Seattle Power and Light Company to flood Canadian territory by raising the height of the dam on the Skagit River?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that is a proper question for the Order Paper.



CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House if his department is preparing appropriate regulations with respect to navigation and pollution in the area known as the Northwest Passage. Also, is he providing for appropriate navigational aids in the areas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder how urgent this question is. It seems to me that this question and the one asked previously might be the types of questions which normally ought to be placed on the Order Paper.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: With respect, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will perhaps recall that a


number of questions have been asked in the last few days with respect to the immediately projected voyage of the Manhattan through this area. It is a large ship. Perhaps Your Honour might permit the question in the circumstances.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have forgotten part of the question. In any event, so far as navigational aids and the like are concerned, many such aids are in place and have been in place for some time. We are constantly attempting to upgrade them,, regardless of the kind of activity going on in the area and regardless of whether the Manhattan is to undertake a second voyage or not. On the matter of pollution, hon. members will recall that, as indicated in the House, legislation in that regard is coming forward.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Manhattan is to undertake the projected voyage through the area, will the ship require a special permit from the Department of Transport to go through these waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have said repeatedly that this is a hypothetical question. There has been no request for the Manhattan to go through.



FISHERIES


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry about the draft agreement between Canada and the United States regarding reciprocity of fishing privileges in the fishing zones of each country. If the minister is agreeable, we could immediately and without debate refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for examination before ratification.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is a draft agreement which is subject to ratification. It would have to be ratified both by the Canadian and United States governments. It is not really appropriate, therefore, to make it available for this House at this stage.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, surely a just society can conceive ways of doing things differently. I submit the minister ought to give our people an opportunity to see what it is that has been negotiated.
National Parks Act


Robert Lorne Stanfield: This government will not do that.


Gerald William Baldwin: Not this fishy government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a supplementary answer to a previous question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired. Is the minister seeking permission to continue the question period beyond the allotted time for the purpose of answering a question asked earlier this afternoon?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDUSTRY


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a supplementary answer with respect to the de Havilland DH-7 STOL aircraft. The figures given were for this year only. In the communique issued yesterday, I said that this matter would be reviewed at the end of the year.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 10, 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. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-152 purports to amend the national parks policy of Canada and, among other things, to set up another Crown corporation to take this rather difficult business out of the realm of politics. If I thought that the purpose of the bill was to reform the national parks policy of Canada and take such an important subject out of the realm of politics by setting up another Crown corporation, I should support it. But on neither of these counts am I satisfied; nor do I think Canada's best interests would be protected by passage of this bill.
I shall confine most of my remarks to the way this problem affects the people of Alberta and, of course, the people of Canada. I


National Parks Act
have some intimate knowledge of the subject because I had the honour to represent the electoral district of Athabasca for some ten years. Wood Buffalo Park, an area of some 14,000 square miles, is mostly in that constituency. That park is larger than ten of the countries of Europe.
When the government tries to sell its parks policy it trots out arguments about the love of nature, the preservation of beauty and the conservation of our animal life. When I tried to use some common sense in connection with the subject as it pertained to Wood Buffalo Park, I saw many crocodile tears shed over the whooping crane. Some 50 whooping cranes are now left, and I do not think that we need put aside 14,000 square miles of territory to protect the whooping crane. Anyone who argues that way is being preposterous. The whooping cranes all nest in a very limited area and need only a few square miles of land to be protec ed forever.
The examination of our national parks policy should not be undertaken lightly. We must consider not only the 20 million odd Canadians who may enjoy utilizing out-ofdoor recreational activities but the many hundreds of thousands of visitors from foreign lands who come to our parks. The parks form an important keystone in the tourist industry of Canada which is providing numerous jobs for Canadians. I hope that the idea of people working hard and honestly for their living is not becoming an anachronism, particularly when the people are entrepreneurs.
I, for one, think that no government owned and opera ed corporation can supply the type of service required by those who enjoy fresh air or contemplating the beauty of our mountains and parks as well as those private individuals who are dedicated to supplying those facilities which will preserve the natural beauty of which we are so justly proud. I am against the present trend evidenced in Bill C-152 being foisted on the tourist industry of Canada which apparently has been almost completely ignored in our search for a national answer to this important problem. Perhaps we ought to consider for a moment just how the problem has come about. Why should individuals in Canada claim they have any right to live or operate businesses in our national parks? The answer is fairly simple. At the time the national parks were set up there were no service towns in a great many of these areas.
I wish to deal with the town of Jasper. The people who lived in Jasper were asked to

co-operate, invest, build their homes and to invite their friends to come there. The Canadian National Railways moved their railway town, Lucerne, which at that time was several miles away, and set up the town of Jasper. They moved their divisional point there and in order to spur growth the Lake Edith subdivision was created. This is a few miles from the town of Jasper. The problem which affects the Lake Edith subdivision is typical of the problem which we face when we drive people out of the parks.
These people were given renewable leases for 42 year periods. One of the stipulations was that they were to comply with certain rigid standards. From my own experience gained from visiting these subdivisions and the town of Jasper, these people not only adhered to these standards to the letter, but went further than that. They built beautiful homes which are a credit to Canada. Rather than taking away from the natural beauty of Jasper Park, in many cases they added beauty comparable to that in the beautiful recreation areas in Switzerland and other parts of Europe. The chalets, hotels and business places they built are a great credit. I see no reason why in the future these people, who have done so well in the past, should not be allowed to retain their family, business and community interest in the towns scattered throughout our parks. These were their own creation. Without them the popularity of our whole tourist industry may not have gained the international reputation which it enjoys today.
Over the years a true community spirit has developed in Jasper. The people are proud of their well kept homes and yards. They are proud of the achievements of their sons and daughters in sports which have been engendered by the use of the parks up to the present time. They are proud of their social, military and business activities. The people of Jasper are proud of a job well done in providing services to the travelling public and to the transportation industry, without which the use of our parks would have been impossible. I refer of course to the railroad companies and their employees who live in these communities. They are proud of their friendships which they have developed with travellers from all parts of the world. They are proud of the recognition they receive amongst the tourist resorts of the world. The people of Jasper and Banff are proud of the fact that they have continually lived in these towns and have developed well managed businesses, homes and communities which have been


maintained and improved until the natural beauty of their surroundings has been enhanced rather than downgraded by the fact that they live there.
Canada's great playgrounds and great heritage of wildlife and splendour are in good hands. An a tempt is now being made to change the lives of these people and these communities with a mere stroke of the pen. Their leases are being cancelled by legal means or foul. An appeal against the unilateral and arbitrary cancellation of leases has b en won by residents of the parks in the Exchequer Court of Canada, but the parks departmen has appealed the ruling. As this matter is sub judice, I do not hope to influence the matter one way or another. However, I detect a certain undue haste to have Bill C-152 passed before the decision of the court is given.
Leases are not to be renewed. Land rentals are to be increased up to 4,000 per cent. Why? The regulations are being made more stringent. Decisions of the department are being delayed longer and longer in a snarl of red tape. A campaign of harassment against the residen's is evident, and the people feel strongly about it as is indicated by their correspondence with their members of Parliament. They are continually complaining, but apparently their complaints fall on deaf ears. If the minister is aware of these complaints, he has not made any utterances which have allayed their fears.
Although it is difficult to pin down, these Park residents are being accused, and I have heard these accusations, of taking advantage of the position in which they have been. They have been accused of exploitation of the public. These accusations have been hurled against them without cause. It is the desire of some empire builders to take away from the people of Canada one more area and to enshrine it in bureaucracy. This is all being done with high sounding phrases which indicate the whole matter is above politics. I do not think there should be anything in Canada above politics. I think politics must be the highest calling in this country.
It is an insult to this institution and those of us who sit here who are properly adjusted, well-meaning men to suggest there is any necessity whatsoever to take matters out of politics. Politics should be at the level which I am talking about today. Parliament is and must remain the supreme court of the land. To say this is a democracy and then set up a few bureaucrats behind closed doors to run 21701-23
National Parks Act
our affairs, thus taking them out of politics is sheer nonsense. I am not a cynical man, but I am practical. This is the last thing that should be done if the individual rights of Canadians are to remain where they should be, out in the open.
It has been said that we need an ombudsman. I like to think that we have 264 ombudsmen. This House is the place in which power should reside in Canada. I am not saying that the whole situation of national parks does not need to be looked at and looked at well, but it must be done with full consultation. It should certainly be done with the advice and consent of those people who have already established, not only in Canada but throughout the world, a reputation for being nature loving, a reputation for wishing to preserve beauty and a reputation for being willing to give their time, their talents and their money to see that the people who use the parks are encouraged to get out and enjoy them.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Nobody in his right mind would suggest we leave these parks with a high wall around them to prevent people from using them. And, of course, if people are to enjoy them we must resort to 20th century methods of getting them there rapidly and economically. We must also make sure that the ordinary people can enjoy the parks when they get there. These parks were set aside by our ancestors in their wisdom so that people could visit and enjoy them. It is not only those who can afford to stay in expensive hotels in Jasper on expense accounts who should benefit from them. The size of the parks is such that it is possible to zone them and still give the people an opportunity to get there and enjoy their beauty. It is not necessary to maintain them simply as a playground for the rich or as a means by which overambitious civil servants can build another empire.
Parks in other areas of Canada may present different problems. I do not think we have sufficient parks. Again, we fall back on the old excuse of the constitution. The provinces should be consulted on this matter; they are represented in this city at this very time. Consultation should be undertaken with them to find out whether they are willing to set aside further land for public use. If the federal government expects to acquire more land for this purpose it will have to get the people involved-the little people of Canada. Proper


National Parks Act
consideration and consultation is necessary or else the provinces will sit on their high horse and say: We alone are the protectors of civil liberties. Sometimes it looks as though this is true; it is a pity if it is.
I rarely criticize in this House unless I have a practical solution of some kind to offer. I do not advocate a simple hands-off policy. I do not say we had all the answers long ago and that nothing should be done to change the situation. Indeed, I believe it is time to follow a definite policy in connection with the zoning of our parks. Such a policy is necessary if we are to avoid confusion, injustice and political interference. I believe we must set aside the townsites in some way by agreement with the provinces-turn them back to the full jurisdiction of the provinces. It may well be provision should be made for a corridor through the parks for the sake of better transportation; the railroads did it before the parks were even opened up. We might well have to take the original act and revise it. In this regard, Bill C-152 is perhaps long overdue. But I do not want to see the parks get into the hands of greedy and ambitious people who trot out the whooping crane or the disappearing bison as excuses for denying the people of Canada proper access, or who, on the other hand limit the proper conservation of our wild life and natural beauty on the grounds that there might otherwise be certain injustices.
As to leases, I say that when it comes to paying compensation, or changing the terms of leases, let there be no star chamber tactics. The people of Jasper Park have told me they are quite willing to give up their leases any time it can be shown to them in fair discussion that their particular properties are needed for higher good. And by this, being the well-adjusted citizens they are, they mean that their property would be used by more people to greater advantage while still preserving the wild life and beauty to which I am sure we are all dedicated. This is an attitude on their part which I think has been overlooked. I have no hesitation in saying that these are the people to whom we should look for advice. They are not cold statisticians. Over the last 40 to 50 years they have shown the people of Canada and the world the type of hospitality which has given Alberta and western Canada a name which is a byword in the tourist industry.
As I say, there may be regional differences in what is required, but the general policy applied should be uniform. The Prince Albert

National Park, created some years later than those in Alberta, has avoided some of the difficulties I have been discussing. Nevertheless, I understand there is a move on foot at the present time to expropriate owners there as well. I should like to know, and they would like to know-since these services must be provided by somebody-why it is that one person owning a motel should be expropriated to allow another person, arbitrarily chosen behind closed doors, to take over a perfectly legitimate way of earning a living. Why should land and property be removed without cause and given to somebody else?
Another point I wish to make is this: we should develop a national policy with regard to the parks and with regard, also, to the treatment of individuals. Why should leases be granted in one province for 99 years, in another for 42 years and in a third for 21 years? Why cannot the period be the same? I do not think we are likely to get away from this type of disparity by simply handing the whole question over to a Crown corporation which may or may not be in full possession of the facts. And if the corporation does happen to be in full possession of the facts, what guarantee is there that it will be in a better position to ensure equality of treatment across Canada than, say, a committee of this House?
Many other hon. members wish to speak in this debate. We want to hear from all the different areas in Canada. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if this national parks policy is discussed openly, if we talk to the people of Banff, Jasper, Glacier Park and Wood Buffalo Park with the same frankness as they are willing to show, there need be no worries about constitutional difficulties or political infighting. These people are concerned primarily to earn an honest living by giving a service to the people of Canada. If anything can be learned from the record of the past, we can be sure that the future of our national parks will remain in good hands.


Mr. Rene  Maite@Champlain: Mr. Speaker, this new bill on national parks could at long last facilitate the creation of this type of parks within the boundaries of Quebec.
The difficulties encouraged in drawing up the plans for the Forillon Park in the Gaspe Peninsula would have been lessened had this legislation already been adopted, and provided the minister does not intend secretly to modify the ultimate objective of those parks, I cannot but approve Bill C-152.


Indeed, the agreements reached between Quebec and Ottawa should not give rise to new sterile conflicts. Quebec is and must remain absolute master within its territory. Any beating around the bush designed to decrease the authority of the provinces within their respective territories would only be due to the ill will of the federal government for, in the final analysis, whether the money comes from Ottawa, the provinces or Quebec in particular, it always comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers. It is therefore unjust and inadmissible that a sector of the population should suffer from the consequences of constitutional disputes. For too long now Quebecers have suffered losses of money, prestige and progress because of the stupid stubbornness of the successive provincial governments whose verbal quarrels have engendered all the evils from which Quebec now suffers.
I should not like to blame exclusively the provincial governments. The whole ambiguous situation is caused by the federal government. The centralizing thrusts of the government, and more particularly of the Liberal governments, gave rise to all those difficulties. The offending paternalism of the federal government towards the provinces does not help matters either. The insatiable appetite of the federal Liberal government is only equalled by its cheekiness in offering or refusing the money required for the development of the provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Such a childish game must stop. If the bill before us now sets clear relations between the parties concerned, upon the signing of the lease, strained relations such as the ones prevailing now with regard to Forillon park will be avoided.
We must avoid facing the same problems while preparing the plans of the future national park of the St. Maurice valley. For more than a year now, I have concerned myself greatly with that project, I have even made interventions in the House to that effect. Up to now, there was relative satisfaction as to the progress of that project. However, it seems that quarrels will break out as to the site of this national park.
An unbiased and very active committee, known as the committee of the future Meki-nac national park, was set up.
I have received representations from almost everywhere and there is general agreement as to the site proposed by that committee. The
21701-23i
National Parks Act
St. Maurice valley wants its national park for it would be an economic incentive for the area.
We congratulate the Shawinigan committee especially, for their wonderful publicity. Moreover, the committee of the future Meki-nac national park has become known through its studies, its briefs and its plans which they submitted to all concerned. The most important of those studies led to the selection of a remarkable site, which will be in the interest of the higher and the lower St. Maurice valley. The fact that forest workers had to be protected was taken into account. The economic survival of the eastern shore of the St. Maurice depends directly upon the forest. It is thus logical to propose a site where no important forest development is foreseen for the next 50 years. We can thus protect an important and essential industry of the area.
When choosing a site, it is necessary not to take into account the selfish interests of some individuals. The federal government will have to consider objectively all the projects that will be presented. The St. Maurice Valley will reject every biased argument, for instance, avoid choosing the eastern shore of the St. Maurice on the ground that it is part of the constituency of a Creditiste or the western shore because it is part of the constituency of the minister in charge of national parks, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) or because the Quebec Minister of Labour owns a cottage there. No. Let us be serious and realistic.
A national park must serve the people. The cost, the profit-earning capacity, public opinion are factors that are too important to be considered lightly and, consequently, the minister will have to take them into account.
In my humble opinion, the project that has been presented by the committee of St. Tite and of Ste. Thecle with regard to the choice of a site must be studied carefully and accepted. And especially, the minister must be very careful not to flounder in the meanders of the party in office in Quebec.
If one had to deal with one government only, there would probably be no difficulty. But since two levels of government are involved and bearing in mind that Quebec will soon call an election, any patronage or any undue influence that might prevail in such an important choice as that of the site for a national park should be viewed with suspicion.
Before talks go any further, I would like the responsible minister to be duly warned of


National Parks Act
the situation; he should not be deluded with political considerations, but should only be concerned with practical purposes. Quebec should accept the establishment of national parks on its territory. It has already recognized that principle.
I have always felt, however, it was unfortunate that for many years Quebec should have suffered a loss of money because of a misunderstanding with the central government. It would have been better I think to give the Quebec government the means to establish its own provincial parks while waiting for other agreements to be reached. Knowing how the Quebec government proceeds as a rule, it is better to take all that we can now although we might have, however, to preserve the major principle of the territorial sovereignty of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that the main purpose of this bill, as can be seen when we read between the lines, is to settle the conflict with regard to the stand taken by the responsible department and the Quebec government in that respect. If a change were made to the existing legislation and if the leases already signed were to be recognized by Quebec, this would preserve its territorial sovereignty. Thus, there would be no reluctance to promote the establishment of national parks in Quebec territory, particularly in an area such as the St. Maurice valley, where there is not a sufficient variety of industries. The establishment of such a park could greatly promote the economy of the area.
Before closing, I will then repeat that I am in favour of the principle of this bill. I hope that the minister will not get over concerned with minor issues when the time comes to select a site for a national park in the St. Maurice valley.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, since the rules of the House were amended we approach a bill on second reading a little differently than we did a year or so ago. Now, we approach a bill like C-152 to amend the National Parks Act with the knowledge that we are sending the bill to a committee where it will be examined clause by clause. We know that the members of the committee from both sides of the House will have an opportunity to call in experts to ensure they send back to the House a bill that has been amended and which can perhaps be improved at the report stage. So, it is in this

spirit I approach the few remarks I wish to make in respect of this bill today; that is, with the idea of introducing perhaps a new suggestion into our consideration of national parks in Canada.
Only a few days ago the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) made the suggestion that the Strait of Georgia, the waters enclosed by the west coast of Canada and Vancouver Island, be made Canada's first national water park and that the waters of the Strait of Georgia, the land under the strait, the fish which swim in that strait and the marine life be protected under our National Parks Act. The people on the west coast have been very troubled about the possibility that the Strait of Georgia would be drilled for oil and that this enclosed body of water might become subject to the type of tragedy which has recently taken place in the Maritimes. The same type of tragedy has taken place off the coast of California where ruptures in the seabed at the site of offshore drilling have caused oil spills which have endangered marine life and destroyed valuable beach lands along the California coast. With this in mind, the minister made the bold suggestion that we might look further afield in respect of the establishment of parks in Canada and that these waters which now are vested in the federal government might indeed be transferred for purposes of a national park. In this manner, we could protect this great marine area.
This is a time when we are very concerned about the pollution of our environment, with the ecology of the lands around us and with the ability of the land to support life as well as the ability of the waters to support marine life. It is with this in mind that perhaps we should be approaching the matter of our national parks, I believe, with the idea of advancing a step further to a national marine park of the nature I have described and which has already been described by the Minister of Fisheries. So, I simply wish to add to the discussion this afternoon by leaving with those who will be examining the bill in the committee this idea; that they look at Bill C-152 in an effort to make sure that it is broad enough to embrace a concept of this kind. When they call the expert witnesses from the department, I hope they will obtain sufficient information about such an idea to make sure we are not, in this bill, restricting the right of the government of Canada to create marine parks for the enjoyment of Canadians. I leave that idea with the House


on second reading and with those who will consider this bill clause by clause in the committee shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, until the conclusion of the question period I had no idea of rising, even though I had some strong objections to the contents of this bill. What caused me to decide to speak is the fact that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), as soon as his bill was called, could have won any competition in Olympic racing as he ran out of the House so that he would not be here to listen to the discussion of matter of paramount importance in relation to the preservation of our parks.


Mr. Honey:: On a question of privilege-


John George Diefenbaker: This kind of interruption-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary is rising on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: What is the privilege?


Russell Clayton Honey: I will tell my right hon. friend the question of privilege. The minister and the government have given me the responsibility in this House of Commons-


John George Diefenbaker: That is no excuse.


Russell Clayton Honey: Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to finish. Whether he agrees or not, the responsibility has been given to me. The right hon. gentleman is a champion of the rights of Parliament and is always critical of those who would move to a congressional system. This is an opportunity in Parliament for private members to participate. As the right hon. gentleman knows, I have the authority of the minister and the government to pilot this bill through. The minister is watching the proceedings very carefully and reads Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John George Diefenbaker: Farthest from my
thoughts is it that he will not make a "honey" of a job of it, but the fact remains that ministers should be here. That is what they are for. We have more ministers in the present government-30 in number-than any government has ever had, and fewer ministers stay in the House. First, a selective system was started, and now they have a system whereby ministers take leave of their responsibilities with chronic abandon.
National Parks Act
I am in entire agreement that the parliamentary system should be preserved but, sir, what we are witnessing is a total disregard of Parliament. Minister after minister leaves the House, refuses to answer questions, determines for himself the rights of Parliament. If this had only happened once, one could have excused it.
On February 4 the following matter was raised by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). Incidentally, I want to point out that the minister was advised that I was going to speak about his conduct as I never speak about anyone in a critical manner unless that person realizes that I am going to speak about him. This is what the hon. member said: Possibly there is an excuse for the minister's absence this afternoon. We are told that all day tomorrow as well, the minister will be gallivanting, or perhaps attending to important business, out west visiting Indian reservations. There is just no excuse for this. It is the minister's duty to be in the House when measures as important as this are presented. No one would object or complain about his absence. What we are complaining about is the fact that when this major piece of legislation is presented he is not here.
I seldom speak except on matters that I feel affect the prerogatives of this institution. I have never in 30 years seen Parliament treated with the egregious contempt that is being shown to Parliament by the present administration. There is a complete disregard of this institution. Indeed only the other day the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that these are the kinds of things that bring about the republican system of government. What we are facing is the degradation of this chamber. Debate no longer continues as it did over the years, nor does exchange of opinions and differences, with the minister listening to the suggestions made and then acting, if he decides that they are worthy of consideration, to make possible amendments.
I dislike comparing Parliament today to what some have compared it, but under the present Prime Minister Parliament has been compared to a cemetery operated by its own occupants. That is a direct allegation that this institution is being bypassed.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) made a suggestion for the creation of a marine park which is worthy of consideration. He did it in a most exemplary way, but toward the end of his remarks he said he hoped that when this bill found its way into committee the committee would be able to listen to witnesses and make recommendations. Sir, the committee system which


National Parks Act
was introduced about a year and a half ago in its present form has been virtually emasculated by executive control.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: One hon. member present in the House at the moment himself pointed out that a direction was given to the Liberal members of a committee to do that which the government wanted done. We can think of another recommendation which came in from one committee having to do with northern waters and northern sovereignty, and when the government expressed its dislike for it, it died.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but I am having great difficulty in reconciling his present line of argument with the subject matter of the bill before the House. It seems to me that one of the difficult tasks which a Speaker has is to try to enforce in some measure the rule of relevancy. The rule is straightforward, that on second reading we should be dealing with the principle of the bill. The hon. member is much better aware of the rules than I am, and I appeal for his co-operation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am building my argument, Mr. Speaker. I am going to point out clearly and definitely that what is being done here, in essence, is to establish a corporation for the purposes set forth in this act to be known as the National Parks Leaseholds Corporation. It is simply a transparent subterfuge to substitute a soulless corporation for those human elements that are necessary in connection with these parks.
I was saying that Parliament is being treated with contempt. If I may ask, with the greatest of deference, since when has it become irrelevant to point out that Parliament is being degraded as a result of the action of the minister, similar as it is to actions taken by other ministers? Surely, may I say with all the deference in the world, we have not yet reached the point in this Parliament that we dare not say of them over there that they are destroying this institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I have mentioned the minister. Let us find out some of the things that he said. I was very much interested in the attitude that he took toward the people of Banff who made representations to him and pointed out the injustice of what was being

done. What did he tell them in answer? He told them, in effect, to go to a warmer climate than is to be found in Banff. He told them that he would pay no attention to them. He made it perfectly clear that no matter what their objections were they were going to accept the dose that he and his bureaucrats had concocted and that, regardless of their views or opinions, these measures would be put into effect. He said: "You can either accept or get out". Is it parliamentary practice for a minister of the Crown, a servant of the people to say to the people of Banff: "If you do not like it, get out"? Surely, this can never be described as democracy in action.
What did the minister do at Jasper? What he said in effect was: "If you do not like it, move out". The summary of what he said is as follows:
Chretien also told us, point blank, that it we aren't prepared to toe the line and evidently accept willy nilly the dictates of the department, of which he is the political head, we can "get out"-
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder could the right hon. gentleman indicate from what he is reading?


John George Diefenbaker: I beg your pardon.


Russell Clayton Honey: Would the right hon. gentleman indicate from what he is reading?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am reading from a complaint from one of those people who has been tragically treated in the town of Jasper.


Russell Clayton Honey: Identify him.


John George Diefenbaker: If the parliamentary
secretary has not seen the letters from Banff and from Jasper, then I doubt whether he has all the qualifications necessary to pilot a bill through the House of Commons that destroys contractual rights. You see the reason-


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I asked the right hon. gentleman if he would identify the letter from which he was reading-


John George Diefenbaker: I have already identified it.


Russell Clayton Honey: -under the rules of this House.


John George Diefenbaker: Under the rules of this House? That is only when I quote portions from it. Is the hon. gentleman starting to teach me rules?


Russell Clayton Honey: Well, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If I might just clarify my understanding of the situation, the document the right hon. gentleman is referring to is not a public document. He is not obliged, as I understand it, to go beyond what he has done. It might be a question of courtesy, but that is a matter of judgment for hon. members. I am certainly not in a position, if I correctly interpret our practices, to require the right hon. gentleman to name the person who has written the private letter.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman wants it on Hansard, I will have the whole letter put on, since it sets out clearly and definitely the arbitrary injustice and tyranny which is being perpetrated. Does he want the whole letter on Hansard?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea of the contents of the document or letter from which the right hon. gentleman is quoting. He quoted parts of it, and I think it would be reasonable for the right hon. gentleman to identify it. That is all I ask.


John George Diefenbaker: 
National Parks Act
That was not the attitude of another minister occupying that portfolio, who is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) today. When he, with his knowledge of Parliament and his appreciation of equities, was in the position of the minister there was none of that type of thing in dealing with fellow Canadians-"If you don't like it, get out." I presume that is the reason the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development got out today, because he did not like the possibility of hearing any criticism.
If what the goverment is doing, through that minister, to the Eskimos were done anywhere else in the world there would be marches in Canada. They are only a few, so they get stepped on and treated in the most egregious and contemptuous manner in the same way as these people in the parks. That is why I rise, Sir, to ask, is there any possibility of any change in this bill? Will there be alterations made as a result of discussions? Only if the govenment agrees. If the committee dares bring in any recommendations that have not been accepted by the minister, what will happen to them? You and I know they will receive that cavalier treatment which was so brilliantly enunciated, and in such eloquent language, by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) who referred to members of the House of Commons in terms of bovine anatomy by saying, we are just as useful as an udder on a bull. I must say that never has this Parliament received a more cryptic and correct description than the hon. member's words the other day. I am not acquainted with bovine peculiarities but taken at face value, what he said indicated that, even though he is a citizen of the city of Toronto, he knows his bull.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
To sum up, as far as those two parks are concerned there has been a scandalous, inexcusable disrespect shown and a contempt of Parliament. The people living in these parks are entitled to be treated as human beings. What business is it of any minister to say, "If you don't like it there, get out." All I can say is that if he continues to treat other Canadians in the way he is treating the people in those two parks, and the Eskimos, possibly he has a solution for himself in those words.
Seriously speaking sir, is this Parliament to be treated as though it belonged to the government of Canada and to a minister? The Eskimos write, but they are not heard. They are being denied their constitutional rights as the people in those two parks are being

denied their contractual rights. It does not matter how they object, what is stated will be carried out.
We have not heard the last of what is being perpetrated on those Eskimos. I want to hear that discussed. I want to find out why, under the Bill of Rights which is now in effect and superior to any statute passed since 1867, human beings belonging to a primitive race with unusual abilities, who are Canadians equal to the rest of us, are to be stepped on, sneered at and given no equity or justice. They are going to be consulted but they do not have to approve.
In other words, the minister or those who are sent up there will say to the Eskimos, "This is what we are going to give you. Do you like it?" If the answer is no, then they will be told, "Well, you can get out". That is what he said to the people of Banff and that is what he said to the people of Jasper.
I recall the words of a great parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest that ever was in this chamber. I heard him speak when I first came and I quote his words:
It is the will of Parliament, not that of the government that is the will of the nation. When the Prime Minister says that he speaks for the whole of the country, he is mistaking the echo of his words for the voice of the Canadian people. It is Parliament which is and must remain the authorized exponent of public opinion and of the public will.
Sir, Parliament is being treated as a puppet by this minister. The people who will come under the control of this Crown corporation will have lost their rights. Just imagine a soulless corporation giving any consideration to those moral and emotional things, to legal rights, when the minister says, "Whatever your legal rights may be you are not going to be able to assert them." This bill constitutes, as the attitude of the minister shows, a further example of what I have contended is taking place. Parliament is being downgraded, undermined; its basic mission of freedom is being subverted. It is time we in this House realized what is taking place as day by day and week by week members are treated with a disregard not in keeping with the words of the Right Honourable Ernest Lapointe which I just quoted which, in epitome, represents the actuality of Parliamentary responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Russell Clayton Honey: Would the right hon. gentleman agree with me that it was his government which, between 1958 and 1962, ended leases in national parks in perpetuity and limited the longest term to 45 years or 42 years?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that has been answered over and over again by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale). These myths may satisfy the hon. gentleman, but they do not represent the facts.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that I was in the House to hear an outstanding legal presentation of this matter. My friend, the parliamentary secretary continues to deal in-


An hon. Member:: Lies.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: -innuendo, insinuation and terminological inexactitudes. Mr. Speaker, I think I am entitled in this regard to indicate precisely what the situation is. I will have to do it by being fairly specific on the matter. The information should be in the hands of the parliamentary secretary. He is purporting to conduct this legislation through the House and the information is available from the department responsible for these matters. In 1958, a moratorium was declared on any further alienation of national park land until such time as the development policy could be reviewed in each of the western parks and plans to meet the high standards of national park development presented to the people of the parks themselves, so that they might decide and comment on any proposals.
The question of perpetuity of existing leases when they came up for assignment or renev'al became a matter of rnntrnverKv in
1962.	At that time, it was decided that there would be no interference on assignment with the government guarantee of perpetuity. Furthermore, it was decided that the question of perpetuity on lease renewals would not be dealt with at this time. Rather, renewals were for 42 years plus 21 years open-ended. By that time, the whole matter would be reviewed and this fundamental principle guaranteed by the Canadian government would have come under consideration. The policy which cancelled perpetuity came in
1963,	after the change of government.


Mr. Laing:: We have the order in council.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to recognize the parliamentary secretary but 21701-24
National Parks Act
I would like to voice one misgiving here. I recognized the right of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) to clarify a point on which he feels there has been misrepresentation. On the other hand, I am concerned that we are now approaching debate on the matter and as the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) suggests, I am trying to allow the record to be corrected without getting into debate. In this regard I would seek the co-operation of members.
Is the parliamentary secretary rising-


Russell Clayton Honey: On the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), Mr. Speaker. If I had the leave of the House, perhaps I could table two orders in council.


John George Diefenbaker: That is not a question of privilege.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Russell Clayton Honey: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if my right hon. friend wishes me to, perhaps I might refer to the Orders in Council. The first Order in Council is SOR/58-330 and is dated August 7, 1958.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say that I do not object when the hon. member tries to fill in the record, but his remarks have nothing to do with any question of privilege.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: I am inclined to agree. I must say I am having misgivings about the original question of privilege. I am trying to be as fair as possible to both sides of the position. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would like to seek leave-
Ti n linn MomKor* T o+ iic Viovp tVio rvrnrvf


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the parliamentary secretary originally wanted leave of the House to table the two Orders in Council. Perhaps that would be our simplest procedure, if there is consent.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary will speak when he closes the debate. He will then have an opportunity to make a full reply to questions asked and to make a statement.


Thomas Miller Bell: Bring the minister in and let him make a statement.


Russell Clayton Honey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since there is no unanimous consent for the tabling of the Orders in Council, perhaps I could refer to them briefly.


National Parks Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have not yet put the
question to the House. Is there unanimous consent for the tabling of the Orders in Council?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister should come to the chamber and table them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary wishes to rise on a question of privilege, I see. I have some misgivings about the position in which we are. However, the Chair will recognize him on a question of privilege.


Russell Clayton Honey: May I point out, Mr. Speaker, and I am speaking to the question of privilege of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, that the first Order in Council I referred to provides that section 3 of the National Parks General Regulations is revoked and the following substituted therefor:
Where the value of a lot, exclusive of buildings and improvements, in a townsite or subdivision is less than five thousand dollars, a lease of such lot for any term not exceeding forty-two years may be granted ... by the Minister-
And so on. The next paragraph deals with a parcel of land exclusive of buildings and improvements outside a townsite or subdivision which is worth less than $5,000. The term is not to exceed 21 years.
The second order in council I beg leave to refer to is SOR/62-78 dated March 1, 1962. It provides as follows:
Subsections (1) and (2) of section 3 of the National Parks Regulations are revoked and the following substituted therefor:
3. (1) The Minister or an officer of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources authorized by the Minister may grant a lease for any term not exceeding forty-two years, with an option to renew for a further term not exceeding twenty-one years-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to know if this sort of circus we are witnessing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to hear the hon. member on a point of order but I was about to rise myself. I again say that I have doubts about the procedure we are following at this point. As I said at the outset, I have tried to be as generous to both sides as is possible; perhaps I have been too generous. Perhaps the parliamentary

secretary might like to refer to this matter when he closes the debate. At this time, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a further question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the hon. member on a question of privilege. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? However, I should not like to see the present discussion continue, for the very reason I have suggested. If the hon. member wishes to raise a question of privilege, the Chair will hear him.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On my question of privilege and as a point of clarification, may I say that what the parliamentary secretary has indicated is what I said. He confirmed what I said. The question of perpetuity was never violated. The rights of the citizens were taken into consideration because they had been granted by the Crown. The alienation of new lands is another matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to conclude my remarks by five o'clock but I am afraid I shall have to adjourn the debate at that time and deliver the remainder of my remarks during the evening session. Bill C-152, which is before the House this afternoon, amends the National Parks Act. Actually it is a heavy looking document of some 48 pages, most of them taken up with giving us a detailed description of the boundaries of our national parks which are, of course, mentioned in the amending legislation. I find that clause 3 suggests new ideas for park management and would create a corporation known as the National Parks Leasehold Corporation. This actually would be a Crown corporation which would develop, manage and maintain property in the national parks of Canada. This change from existing policy seems to be of doubtful value and could lead to major headaches in national parks development. This new Crown corporation will consist of a president, vicepresident and five other directors, each of whom will be appointed by the governor in council and hold office for a term not exceeding seven years. They are all eligible to be re-appointed.
I note in one of the clauses a very interesting stipulation that a director ceases to hold office on attaining the age of 70 years; this


provision apparently does not apply to the president or vice-president. It seems to me that the retirement ages of officials staffing this new Crown corporation should be the same as that for civil servants. I do not see why someone should hold a position in a corporation until he is 70 years old or older. This is something the committee might well look into.
Another real danger that could arise from the proposed change in jurisdiction is that an increasing degree of commercialization of our national parks could well take place. The corporation's need for funds with which to cover operating expenses could lead to its granting commercial concessions not in keeping with the aims and objectives set out in our National Parks Act. Once we lose the power of scrutiny in the House of Commons, we shall no longer be able to fulfill our role as watchdogs over our national parks development. We are creating a Crown corporation which we shall have little power to scrutinize. I view this development with a great deal of apprehension. It seems that perhaps members of this House will lose a rather precious right, the right to criticize and direct policy so far as our national parks development is concerned.
I am of the opinion that the House of Commons is gradually exercising less and less responsibility over many fields of public endeavour. I regret this trend in government because we are reaching the point of losing control over the public contact with another of the key organization in our society. In this case, the new Crown corporation will not be answerable to the House for its actions with regard to park development. None of the Crown corporations are. We might be able to criticize development, but the Crown corporations are not answerable to us for the policies and programs which they are going to carry out. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that very capable individuals will serve as directors of the corporation, but I personally feel the move is fraught with many dangers as far as our future park policy is concerned.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I feel this is the time to speak out and let my views be known. I have always been interested in conservation. Over the years I have seen some extremely short-sighted moves in relation to our provincial and federal parks. On the whole, our national parks have, in my opinion, been much better managed than the provincial parks. There might be some dispute on this score with 21701-24J
National Parks Act
those in the provincial field, but I believe that our national park service has been run much better than its provincial counterpart.
Canadians must at all times be constantly on guard to ensure that commercial interests do not pressure the politicians at all levels of government to give up some of our present park reserves or try to stop other reserves from being set aside. This has happened in the past and is happening in Canada today. I have seen large logging and mining interests persuade provincial governments to change the boundaries of some of our parks so that some mineral or forest wealth could be available to them for exploitation.
Pressure has already been put upon those in the federal jurisdiction with regard to potential reserves being put aside for park purposes. Unless we are strong and determined enough to resist this commercial pressure, and in many cases government apathy, Canadians will find in a very few years that our park reserves and resources are insufficient to meet our needs. I feel that full and adequate plans for park reserves must be made now. These plans must be made in relation to Canada's expected growth over the coming generations and our ever-increasing need for recreational areas.
I wish to deal with several specific aspects of park development which are related to this bill. I believe they should be raised at this time. There is a great need in Canada today to set aside additional areas for park purposes. There are different classes of parks and I believe we should add substantially to each class. However, I wish to mention specifically one class of park which has been sadly neglected by all levels of government. I refer to the wilderness parks which should be preserved in their natural state for all time.
There is an urgent need in Canada today for more of these wilderness areas to be set apart in every Province of Canada. It is essential that an undisturbed area of our Canadian heritage be preserved if we are to be able in the future to really see what Canada was like in the early days. These areas would serve as sources of study for our scientists and naturalists in the years to come. They will perhaps be the last refuge of many of our present forms of wildlife and plant life.
The national parks which I envisage, Mr. Speaker, would include the best terrain possible for this type of park. I should include those areas which have unique Canadian flora and fauna. If there should be conflicting


National Parks Act
interests in these areas, which are rapidly disappearing, I feel in most cases the national interest would be best served if the area were set aside for park purposes. If we are to preserve wilderness areas for future generations, we must move quickly. For example, choice areas in the Northwest Territories must be dedicated now to park purposes.
We must also negotiate additional areas with the various provinces. The natural historical needs of the Canadian people must be protected and secured by immediate action on this important measure of resource conservation. Today, Mr. Speaker, about 2.8 per cent of our total area is reserved as national and provincial parks. In my opinion this is not enough. Let us not be placed in the embarrassing position of having to buy back park resources which we should have had the good sense to preserve in the first place. All we have to do is look around in every province of Canada and we will find we have sold natural park areas which should have been preserved. Today, we find that the recreational facilities which we need in the provinces have been sold to private interests. Both the federal and provincial governments are in the embarrassing position of being forced, on many occasions, to buy back choice pieces of land, possibly to give public access to some of the lakes for recreational purposes.
I have one or two other specific items with which I would like to deal. This is a good place to stop if Your Honour would like to call it five o'clock.



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 at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie)-trade-radio and television tube imports-threat to Canadian industry; the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher)- veterans affairs-effect of closing of Veterans Land Act offices outside big cities; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- unemployment insurance-commission advertisements respecting fraud.
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. Forest:: At the request of the two hon. members who have presented the first two bills appearing on today's Order Paper, we are prepared to stand them and proceed with Bill C-29 in the name of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant) moved: that Bill C-29, respecting Canada Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 which I am moving today is a short, simple bill which has the effect of repealing the Dominion Day Act and substituting therefor the Canada Day Act. The bill merely substitutes the word "Canada" for the word "Dominion" as it appears in the present Dominion Day Act. The bill also provides that Canada Day shall be kept and observed as a legal holiday on the first Monday of the month of July in each and every year.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
During the summer recess I was approached by a group of my constituents, members of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of Paris, Ontario, and asked whether I would support a bill of the nature I am introducing this afternoon if it were brought before Parliament. I immediately undertook to find out whether there was such a bill set down on the Order Paper at the commencement of the session. I found there was no such bill, so I have no hesitation in moving one myself and submitting it, as I am doing this afternoon, for the consideration of the House of Commons in the hope that if hon. members agree it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I feel that the bill keeps July 1 of each year in its present perspective, as it is looked upon by a large majority of the people of Canada who would like to feel we have a day called Canada Day, a day set aside each year at which time we could celebrate Canada's birthday, its creation, its formation. I believe


it would give to every Canadian a sense of pride, if you will, a sense of importance of our country as an entity in the world. So, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatever in moving the second reading of this bill and submitting it for the favourable consideration of the House.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to make a few brief observations on this bill, one with which I am largely in sympathy. It seems to me we must do one simple, clear-cut thing at this time in Canada's history in relation to our national day, and that is, remove the anachronistic term Dominion Day, appropriate in my judgment for many years when it was associated in the minds of so many Canadians with a particular and close relationship with Great Britain. In my judgment, both constitution-' ally and in the general attitude of the people, this issue of filial loyalty has passed. Thus, one evident virtue of the hon. member's bill, is the suggestion that we call the day what in fact it is for most Canadians-Canada Day- and drop the once appropriate but no longer appropriate term "Dominion".
What would the passage of this bill accomplish? Right now it would add a small, perhaps, but hopefully relevant impetus to a legitimate sense of national pride. I do not like to over-emphasize the virtues of nationalism because no one with a sense of history can forget that the virtues of nationalism tend very often to turn into the vices of something quite different. But it seems to me that in our country we have for far too long been quiet Canadians, if you like. For far too long have we sat back and looked with a particular kind of grudging admiration upon our more boisterous and aggressive neighbours to the south, contenting ourselves with a quiet, smug satisfaction at being different. It appears to me that this is more an expression of some form of masochism, or the lack of a proper sense of identity, than anything else. Perhaps more than at any other time in our history, this is the moment to assert ourselves as a national entity-particularly when we see our economic sovereignty being gobbled up almost on a daily basis, again by no deliberate malicious act on the part of our southern neighbours but as a result of aggressive action on their part and acquiescent behaviour on ours. It is time we as a nation stood up for what most other nations take for granted, namely, the full and unqualified control of our national resources and geographic boundaries.
Canada Day Act
It is time, too, we began to convey to those who are growing up in this country a sense of legitimate pride in what it means to be a Canadian. One of the first steps in this direction would be to call Canada Day Canada Day. One does not want to exaggerate the significance of such a step, and the hon. member who put forward this bill did not do so.
The traditions of this country are not those of the country to the south. Ours is a multiracial tradition, one which has tried to preserve and not to obliterate certain racial distinctions. It has in the main been a peaceful tradition. It has often been thought that somehow Canada missed out by not participating in the glorious adventure-it was really a tragedy of the civil war. Many Canadians, including, unhappily, a number of historians, have lamented our peaceful tradition. But I am not one of those who think this is something of which we ought to be ashamed. Indeed, I believe it is something of which we should be proud.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I shall not go on extolling the virtues of what it means to be a Canadian. This could more properly be done on Canada Day. 1 should like to disagree with part of the proposal put forward in the bill by the hon. member. I have a private bill on the Order Paper, which hopefully will be reached later this session, the greater part of which is similar to the bill presently before the House. However, there is one difference, and I think a significant difference: the bill before the House proposes that Canada Day be celebrated on the first Monday in July.
On balance, I do not think that is a good idea. There are certain days for celebrating events which we never change because we feel they have a certain historical and symbolic significance. I suppose Christmas is the most outstanding example of this. No one, to my knowledge at least, has ever proposed that we begin the celebration of Christmas on the third Monday of December, for example. This is because, for Christian civilization, the birthday of Christ has a particular significance which we are not going to change just to coincide in some convenient way with our holiday plans.
I do not want to suggest that in terms of significance the proposed Canada Day has the same historical import as Christmas day, but I do suggest that it is analogous in importance. Canada Day should be a day for Canadians to


Canada Day Act
enjoy, certainly; but it should also be a day during part of which there are appropriate opportunities for politicians and others in the community to reflect in a serious way on what it means to be a Canadian; to reflect upon what we would hope to do with this nation of ours in the years ahead. Therefore, I suggest we should heighten its significance in contrast or comparison with other holidays that fall on the first Monday of the week and which are appropriately enjoyed by us all. We should make a distinction in terms of our holidays, and Canada Day should be set apart so that it falls on July 1. We should celebrate the event on the day it occurred.
For some this is, perhaps, a minor point, but for me it has a significant, symbolic difference. If our July 1 celebration fell on the first Monday of July every year, then I think the tendency would be very great indeed for all of us simply to treat it as another long weekend. Indeed, as suggested to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it is quite possible that in the very near future the first Monday in July would fall on July 4. In that event, we would have the grand possibility of having a joint celebration with our United States friends. As a Canadian with some sense of genuine pride in our past, I do not think that for sake of the convenience of a long weekend it is appropriate for us to have our holiday coincide with that of our U.S. neighbours. Let each of us celebrate our own traditions in our own way and on different days. I am sure that no American would suggest that the July 4 holiday be changed so that it would be celebrated on the first Monday in July.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, although I am in general agreement with the provisions of this bill-I think it is a sensible measure, the general intent of which should be speedily approved-I do not agree that we should switch our celebration from the first of the month to the first Monday of July. Incidentally, it is worth drawing the attention of the House to the fact that a similar bill was passed by this House of Commons some 20 years ago. It passed through all three readings. However, I am informed that when it reached the other place, that deep and musty other chamber, it was turned down, and in the intervening period the idea progressed no further.
It is my hope that before the end of this session, if not this bill then some similar bill will not only pass through the House of Com-
[Mr. BroadbentJ
mons but get through the other place as well. In that event, in the very new future Canadians will have not a Dominion Day, which reflects the old tradition, but a Canada Day which more accurately reflects the desires and modern traditions of the current generation of Canadians.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) introduce his bill to call our national day Canada day, and I consider it a privilege to be able to speak in favour of the bill. I am in favour of any measure which brings home to our young people in particular the love of country and sense of patriotism which I think in past years has been lacking.
I always like to refer to such things as our oath of allegiance, our flag and other symbols of Canadianism. However, I deplore the fact that when my little boys take their oath of allegiance in Cubs and Scouts no mention is made of our beloved country. It seems to me that things like that are important in the development of our young people and in their patriotic outlook toward their own country.
Certainly, the idea of a national day called Canada Day is the kind of thing that strikes a happy note with me. To some, Dominion Day represents certain things; it may denote other things to others. The same problem is encountered with our national anthem. Many people in years gone by really have not known exactly what our national anthem is. Many people today do not know what the first of July represents. Some refer to it as Confederation day; others call it Dominion Day, and many even call it Canada Day, though this bill has not been passed.
I think the time has come to clarify the situation in some positive way. As the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) pointed out, I think the word "Dominion" denotes something from the past, something that we do not need in Canada anymore. I believe there is even a note of subservience attaching to it. This would be eliminated by changing the name of our national day to Canada Day.
I ask the House to pass this bill on second reading, to send it immediately to committee, and not to talk it out. In this way we could get a private member's bill that is really sensible through the House and passed into legislation. We hear so much about the inadequacies of backbenchers. It is said that backbenchers cannot put measures forward, that if they do so they are cast aside. Let us show that this is


not the way things are done in the House of Commons. Let us show that when we want to we can put legislation through, especially when we believe in it. I, therefore, ask the co-operation of all hon. members in this regard, and I ask the House to pass the bill as quickly as possible.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposed by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) is of great interest to me. I listened intently to his remarks and those of the preceding speakers. I have one point of argument with the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). He insinuated that no private member's bill which appears before this House is really sensible. I certainly do not believe this is true. I think there are some pretty wonderful suggestions brought before this House which often make more sense than some of those coming from the government benches. I wish the House would pay a little more attention to some bills presented by members because this would encourage backbenchers to bring some positive ideas before the House which somehow seem to have difficulty in finding their way here in the form of legislation under government sponsorship.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, through you I should like to say to members of the House and the hon. member for Brant, I believe this to be a very timely bill. There has been a great deal of confusion about July 1 which actually is our founding day. For many years it has been called Dominion Day. This suited very well the situation which existed then. However, times have changed and our status constitutionally has changed. I think this bill is merely an effort to keep up with what has already taken place. It would seem to me that if we could remove the confusion which exists in the thinking of many of our people we would be performing a real service to our country. I believe this applies particularly to the young people of Canada. July 1 is our national day already and there is no better way to define that national day than by calling it Canada Day.
I find myself a little perplexed concerning whether or not this holiday should be celebrated rigidly on the first of July, regardless of the day on which it comes to pass, because I believe there is some merit in the suggestion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). However, I recognize there is also merit in having this holiday on the first
Canada Day Act
Monday in July in order to provide a long weekend, which usually is the first major holiday after the closing of school. I believe this is something the committee could profitably consider. I would hope members on the government benches at this time would permit the bill to be referred to the committee where it might receive detailed study. I say this as an expression of support for the principle of the bill and commend the hon. member for Brant for bringing it before the House.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, because I hope the bill introduced by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Brown) will be agreed to and referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I just had to take the floor to congratulate the mover of the bill, who had the opportunity to introduce it in the House. As a matter of fact, I put a similar item on the order paper, on a few occasions, but the draw did not go my way, whereas the hon. member for Brant was a little bit more fortunate.
I am glad to note that the bill is apparently getting support from all hon. member, at least from all those who have expressed their opinion so far, and I hope it will pass.
It shows an improvement over other similar bills as it sets this legal holiday on the first Monday in July, allowing for a long week-end during the vacation period, whereas at the present time the holiday is on the first day of the month which often falls in the middle of the week.
I feel that this bill should be adopted. As mentioned by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I believe it was passed by the House in 1946 but referred to the Senate at the end of the session too late for the upper house to render a decision on it. So it was left pending.
I feel that the word "Dominion" now in the act has a colonial connotation and is obsolete. It is now confusing because that holiday is often called "Dominion Day" or "Canada Day" or even "Confederation Day". I believe it would be well to make a real national holiday of it, called "Canada Day".
Specially since the adoption of the statute of Westminster I feel the word "Dominion" is no longer justified. Actually, we have become a completely free and independent nation, a self-governing community which freely and voluntarily joined the British Commonwealth.


Canada Day Act
The word "Dominion" having a colonial flavour involves a concept of domination, and we want neither to dominate anyone, nor to be dominated by anyone.
We shall thus have the opportunity to express, as citizens of a free and independent nation, our pride in being Canadians, and to proclaim it through all possible means.
Symbols have some importance for expressing this national pride. As it has already been stated, we, Canadians, are somewhat timid when it is a question of showing our national pride.
The Canadian government has taken a few steps in the right direction by adopting a national flag. I hope that the national anthem shall be officially adopted soon and that the creation of Canada Day will afford us another opportunity of showing our national pride.
Symbols are of some value and I am happy to note that the House appears willing to co-operate by proclaiming the first of July as "Canada Day". I hope that the House will agree to this.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy very much participating in private members' hour and congratulate those who have the initiative and interest to bring forward suggested legislation. In this instance, however, I am of the opinion this measure clearly demonstrates that progress and improvement cannot always be equated. I listened with interest to the last speaker and his reference to our not being a colony. He is quite right. I believe it is important to bear in mind that as this country moved from a subservient and sub national status to full fledged nationhood it was following the path, as one great historian has written, from colony to nation. I am sure that changing the name from Dominion Day to Canada Day will not, of itself, enrich the celebration. We should bear in mind what we celebrate on July 1. I am not one of those who believe we must shift around from Monday to Monday. I would be embarrassed if we were to celebrate our national day on July 4.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I think that we should celebrate the day on a specific date rather than try to fit it in following a convenient weekend. A national day in any country reverts back to a time of great achievement. In some countries it is a revolutionary episode such as the taking of the Bastille or the signing of the Declaration

of Independence. The great moment in Canadian history, one which reflects its unique character among nations, is surely that it has achieved nationhood by peaceful means, by the getting together of different communities; and since they happened to get together in the city which I have the honour to represent, I feel very strongly about the idea that in 1867 a new country was created, one which was not called Canada. There were provinces before that called Canada. The new entity was a new political society which was called the Dominion of Canada.
That was our unique contribution to statecraft, and it was a contribution of which no historian need be ashamed. The Fathers of Confederation were builders in every sense of the word, men of vision, men of compromise and men of political genius. This is the day which we honour and the day on which a new country was formed. It is a uniquely Canadian expression and we are constantly looking for these things. It has nothing to do with subservience. We are told that it is based upon the experience of one of the maritime leaders, who was naturally one of the most religious men at the London Conference, who was inspired by what he read in the 72nd Psalm: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth".
In Latin our motto reads: "A mari usque ad mare". Canada grew from its beginnings in Charlottetown, Quebec City and then Westminster. We broadened our institutions, but always under the framework of that which was created in 1864 and finished in 1867, the dominion structure. Thus the nation progressed.
I ask hon. members to look at the statute of Westminster which we honour by raising the flag on December 11. We find there that the dominions were not colonies; that they were autonomous states. It was this very dominion which led us in a peaceful evolution from colonial subservience to full-fledged nationhood. Robert Borden did not have to drop the name "dominion" to hold office in a country which was fully independent and recognized in the League of Nations and in the chancelleries of the world as a free state.
This is no reflection upon the motives of the hon. member who sponsored this bill-he is a man for whom I have the highest regard-but I think it is an indication, so prevalent these days, that to change is always to go forward. I submit that here is a measure which for historic, geographic, constitutional
February 17, 1970	COMMONS
and indeed religious reasons-and surely we have not lost some of the threads of our religious background in this society-should not pass.
I listened with interest to the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) with whom I have been travelling of late, and I say to him that if his bill were before us I would support it because I think that the depiction of the great prime ministers of the country on the currency of the land is a forward step and one which enriches our history. To do what is suggested in the bill before us, however, does not enrich our history; it forgets the past, ignores the significant uniqueness of this country which makes us not a republic and not what Macdonald wanted to call it but a unique society peacefully achieved, democratically developed and internationally recognized.
In "dominion" we have a concept in which Canadians of all the provinces surely can find meaning. I adhere to the name "dominion" and I will try to do my best to adhere to the goals which were advanced when that name, as the country, was first created.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I gather that there is some disposition to pass this bill and refer it to the committee. I am in agreement with that but I wish to point out seriously, and I hope not narrowly, that last week on February 10 the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) introduced a bill recommending changes to the Hazardous Products Act, the principle of which has been adopted by the government. It could easily have been referred to the committee and been considered there in light of the new legislation which the government announced is being introduced. For some strange reason government members talked the bill out.
I hope that this is not a one-way street; that is, I hope the government is not permitting only government members' bills to go through second reading stage and be referred to committee. Therefore, while we are agreeable to this action today-and I hope the bill will go to committee-I hope the government will reciprocate and will let some of our bills go through which are just as worthy as this one.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to say that during this session some bills presented by members of the opposition
DEBATES	3703
Printing on Canadian Bank Notes have been passed and sent to committee. I remember one particularly, introduced by a member of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), which received this treatment.


Thomas Miller Bell: What has been the proportion of government bills passed?
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, since there does seem to be a recognition of the fact that this bill will be passed and will go to the committee, I just wish to confirm what my colleague has said-that we want this to be done. We do have a reservation about Canada Day always being celebrated on a Monday. For example, we do not want to celebrate it on July 4, but that is a detail that can be dealt with in the committee.
With regard to the remark about bills introduced by a member on this side of the House not being passed and sent to committee, I think that my friend, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), will feel that if this bill is passed, in effect approval will be given to the bill which he has on the Order Paper, Bill C-104, which also asks that our national holiday be known as Canada Day. We will be happy to see this bill passed and go to committee for study and possible amendment on the one point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: that Bill C-30 respecting Canadian currency (effigy of former prime ministers), be read the second time and referred to the S anding Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Thomas Miller Bell: Is it a worthy bill?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: It is so
worthy that it has already been accepted. Mr. 3704	COMMONS DEBATES	February 17, 1970
Printing on Canadian Bank Notes Speaker, I am going to speak on this bill only briefly. I suggest that it be withdrawn, because since I introduced it the government decided to adopt it. Whether my prodding of the government made it adopt this measure, I shall leave to the historians to decide. I introduced the bill the last session and reintroduced it this session, and the government announced recently that it would adopt the measure.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
When I introduced this measure it was with the intention that Her Majesty's effigy remain on one of the bills, perhaps the $20 bill, and that former prime ministers should be placed on all other bills. I believe that rather than this the government has seen fit to leave the effigy of Her Majesty on the $1, $2 and $20 bills and depict former prime ministers on the remainder. Since the matter is a fait accompli, I would suggest that the House concur in my removing this bill from the Order Paper at this time.


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I understand you will be asking for unanimous consent for this action, and we are in favour of it; but I would ask that on the $30 bills we depict the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that Bill C-30 be withdrawn and the order discharged accordingly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, due to the remarkable progress we have made this afternoon I think there would be a general disposition to call it six o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment I was speaking on some of the main amendments outlined in Bill C152, an act to amend the National Parks Act. I expressed my concern over the trend in government to turn many of these vital public functions over to Crown corporations, over which this House has very little control. When it comes to these very vital resources, the national parks, I believe we should have a good look at this legislation and satisfy ourselves that we are moving in the right direction before we pass it.
There are one or two points I should like to make about park development-you might call it general resource development-which are very pertinent to the legislation before us. All members are aware that the various parks throughout Canada, municipal, provincial and federal, are of different types and categories as far as development is concerned. Some parks allow logging and mining within their boundaries: this is something which naturalists and conservationists have been fighting for generations, and I presume will go on fighting it. That is the reason I believe there is more concern today than ever before over the need to set up a large number of wilderness parks where nothing in the way of commercialization is allowed. As I mentioned earlier, I do not believe we can proceed too quickly to set up such areas.
When it comes to general resource development, I do not believe that either the federal or provincial administrations should be too pleased with what has happened in the past. In many instances we find that resource development in Canada has been based on singlepurpose development: it might be, for example, the damming of a stream that flows into a national park and the one thought in mind id


National Parks Act
to obtain hydropower from the dam. The damage that might be done to the ecology of the country, to the wildlife and to the potential tourist industry is never weighed in the balance.
We have been a wasteful nation in this regard. I believe when it comes to general resource development, all provinces in our nation-and all countries, in fact-should very carefully weigh every aspect of any potential development. We must consider the matter in that way, otherwise we will find that we cause far more damage-as we often have-than the good we derive from a particular resource which we are trying to develop. I wish to read a short paragraph into the record to give an indication of what has happened in resource development everywhere in the world:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
If there is anything that history demonstrates it is that an economic raw resource region gets poorer in the process of having its resources extracted. The resource rich regions in the U.S. are the poorest regions. The Appalachian region from Pennsylvania to Alabama produced $500 billion worth of raw wealth for the markets of the world and yet are the poorest predominantly white region in the U.S.
This applies not only to our neighbour to the south but to regions in Canada where resource development in many instances has not been properly carried out. The long-run results have been devastated areas. I hope that those responsible for our parks will in future try to avoid this situation occurring in our resource areas.
I should like to say a few words about one of our outstanding national parks, Glacier National Park in the Rocky Mountains. The park borders my constituency in the north. The potential of this outstanding national park, which strides the Trans-Canada Highway, is truly tremendous. In it we have a number of timber berths which the government is in the process of buying from the owners. I do not know how far advanced are the negotiations. Last year the government was negotiating, and I hope all the timber berths have been obtained and that the Crown owns the entire land surface within this beautiful national park. I think the matter touches the rights of individuals and I feel that when an area is set aside as a park, adequate and full compensation should be paid for timber berths and the like which have been expropriated. The national government should have complete control over such areas in all ways. I think this is a generally
accepted concept of park ownership in Canada.
Glacier National Park is only one of many parks in Canada and I am talking about it to illustrate my general point. Within the confines of Glacier National Park is a remarkable cave system known as the Nakimu caves. Increasing interest and enthusiasm is being generated over these caves, which I understand are longer and deeper than originally thought. They are an outstanding examples of a cave system, perhaps the best to be found not only in Canada but in the entire western hemisphere. Their development potential, I understand, is currently being studied by the parks branch of the department.
The point I make is that the authorities have known about these caves for years. I understand they were discovered in 1904 by a chap called Deutschman who lived in Revel-stoke. Following the custom of the day, he staked two mineral claims around the caves to protect his interests. The following year the Crown purchased these mineral rights for about $5,000. I think the chap negotiating the sale was the head of one of the national parks in British Columbia. He knew a good thing when he saw it and very wisely negotiated the sale.
In the early days the Canadian Pacific Railway used these caves as an attraction. Glacier National Park has a fantastic background of railway history. As I say, the CPR knew a good thing when it saw it. In the old days before they had the Connaught tunnel under the mountain, the railway went over Rogers Pass. Consequently, people visited these caves and came from all over the world to view this natural wonder. Gradually the caves fell into disuse. Some development work was undertaken but finally, when the depression struck, all work was curtailed and the caves were closed.
In the last few years people connected with the parks branch of the department have explored the caves and found they are far more extensive than was originally anticipated. I wish the government would look into this question because the caves are one of the natural wonders of the nation and would attract people to this national park. Not only is there a unique cave system in the park, but there is also some of the finest scenery and hiking to be found anywhere in North America.
I am worried in case the Crown corporation established under the bill tends to put money into those parks which large numbers of people visit and fails to develop these natural


National Parks Act
attractions. That is why I believe this bill is perhaps taking a step in the wrong direction. I do not think this sort of Crown corporation ought to handle our parks development. I could say much about Glacier National Park; it is connected with the railway history of this nation and particularly the linking of the west with the east. That is a fantastic story. When the railway was taken through the Rocky Mountains this area proved one of the toughest sections through which to build the railway system of Canada. There is a fantastic background of stories linking the park with the pioneering of the railways. It would be a natural spot for displaying old, historic engines and everything connected with the early days of the railway. This park happens to be in British Columbia, but other parks which I believe have similar potential are to be found from one end of Canada to the other.
In a moment or two I will sit down and allow other hon. members to take part in the debate. Before I do that, I again wish to stress the point I made earlier: there is an urgent need for Canadians to set aside far more acreage for park purposes than is now the case. I understand that Japan has 10 per cent or more of its land mass in parks; Germany has 8 per cent. They are smaller, more densely populated countries, but they realize the value of recreational assets for the needs of the population.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Although Canada is relatively underpopulated, we must not delay much longer in picking out some of the choicest areas and setting them aside for park purposes. An area in which the federal government cannot escape responsibility is our northern sections. In the Yukon and Northwest Territories there are outstanding areas which should now be set aside for posterity. Already we know the move is on to the north.
There are gas, oil and mineral explorations going on there. We will have clashes with companies who say, "This is a good area for mineral development. Why should we conserve it for park purposes?" This is the tug-of-war that will take place between these interests and the long-run interests of Canadians generally. No one knows what type of development will take place in the north a couple of generations from now. The ecology of the area must be protected. We must not have just one or two parks in the north; there must be a series of parks set aside. The time to do that is now. We must move quickly. We

must move into those areas and make certain they are retained for Canadian use for all time.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the principle of national parks, with particular reference to the national parks which now exist in northern Canada and those which are proposed.
I congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and his predecessor for having taken hold of a political football-to anyone who has followed this debate, it is obviously that-and tried to achieve some semblance of order out of the chaos that exists in the national parks with respect to leaseholds, the principles which determine who can live and work in a national park, and the purpose of our national parks. At the same time I think there are areas which must be studied, particularly as they affect the people who live in our national parks or in areas surrounding them.
I would now comment briefly on the visit of officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development last winter during which they appeared before the Northwest Territories Council in Yellowknife to announce almost unilaterally a proposed national park in the Northwest Territories. I do not think any one of us who was involved in this question objected to the principle. We did not object to the location. However, we did object to the fact that in all probability there had been no consultation with the people directly affected. I am referring to the Indian people who have used the area of the proposed national park in the east arm of Great Slave Lake as a traditional trapping and hunting grounds. I also refer to the people who have expended a great deal of money, energy and effort to find out if there are non-renewable resources in the area.
The proposed park will be one of the more exciting parks of the Northwest Territories. It includes the area of the Lockhart River, including the magnificient falls and part of the Macdonald fault which is one of the more exciting mineral areas on our continent. It includes the treeline as it moves into the barrens. In time it could provide for the people of Canada some of the most exciting and interesting parts of our national parks system.
On the other hand, the proposal put forward by the national parks administration failed to take into account the fact that there were people who had deep involvement, the


Indian people at Snowdrift and around Great Slave Lake as well as the people involved in the mineral industries. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recognized the outcry and hue that came from all concerned, including citizens of the north who really had no direct involvement in the proposed national park other than looking forward to having a park in the north. They said to the minister, "We believe that what you are proposing is all right, but for heaven's sake sit down and talk with us; tell us what your plans are. We will tell you what our objections might be, and maybe we can get together and work something out."
With due credit to the minister, he met the Indian people of Snowdrift. He told them in no uncertain terms-I was present on that occasion-that in no way would their traditional rights be affected by the establishment of a national park in the area. The minister assured them that the other Indian bands situated along Great Slave Lake would be involved in the discussions. He had discussions with the mining industry. In this way he has been able to establish some form of agreement.
I wish to make reference to three principles involved in a document which was presented to the minister by the Mining Association of the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories Chamber of Mines proposed that a park be established in the Lockhart River area with boundaries approximately the same as those proposed by the national parks, to be administered by a government department; that principles involved in parks policy take into account minor changes which would be compatible with the requirements of the mining industry and the Indian people; that the parks administration come up with a concrete plan which would in effect outline for the people of the north, the people of Canada, their intention with respect to the development of this vast wilderness area.
I think, Mr. Speaker, there has been a meeting of minds. I believe there was compassion, understanding and negotiation. Many of the hurdles, the unfortunate circumstances of last winter, have been overcome. We as Canadians can now look forward to a national park in the east arm of Great Slave Lake. This will be one of our most exciting national parks, perhaps not for this generation but for generations to come.
Earlier today I listened with interest to a number of members who made reference to Wood Buffalo National Park, that area which
National Parks Act
comprises 17,000 square miles of northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories. I was a little surprised at some of the comments as to why this national park was established. There was reference to the whooping crane and it was said that the park was designed to protect the whooping crane. This, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of nonsense. This park was established in 1928, as most hon. members know, to provide a sanctuary for the fast-disappearing buffalo. Those familiar with the history of the buffalo on the prairies recognize they were a dying species by the mid-twenties. A far-sighted proposal of the government in those days led to the transfer from the prairies of a great number of buffalo to the Wood Buffalo National Park, where they now number approximately 15,000. There, this magnificent species of animal, a symbol to many of the old way of life in Canada, is protected against hunters and against disease.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Originally, though this area was called a national park it was not really a national park but a wilderness area. At the present time problems are arising which concern the province of Alberta, the government of the Northwest Territories and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in connection with the future of this park. There is no doubt that in the opinion of most people the great portion of this national park ought to be maintained in its natural state as a habitat for the buffalo, the bison from the prairies and the other species of wildlife which exist in the area.
The park is part of our heritage. However, there exist within the area, particularly on the western side, mineral resources which I believe could be significant in the development of western Canada. I am referring primarily to the gypsum deposits which now lie within the park but which must somehow be freed for exploitation without interfering with wildlife and its habitat.
I look to the possibility of extending the road system which now goes as far as Fort MacKay, north of Fort McMurray into the national park and Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories, so as to create a circular route for Canadians and others who wish to visit this region of northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
We look to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his counterpart in the Alberta government to sit down in serious discussion and work out in detail the


National Parks Act
future of Wood Buffalo Park in a way which would free those areas which seem to be good resource areas, while at the same time developing the north-south routes which are so important to the opening-up of the north. I would ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to give us a report, either on second reading or during the committee stage, on the progress of the discussions which are taking place with his counterpart in the province of Alberta.
At the outset I said I supported the principle of this bill. We must remember that the purpose of setting up the Crown corporation is to separate the management of leases and leaseholds from the management of the parks themselves. Let us get on with building facilities within the parks and at the same time minimize the kind of thing which has taken place in this Parliament during the last eight or ten years-the discussion of whether or not our friends should have leases, what they should pay and how they should pay it.
In conclusion, I should like to make a suggestion in which I believe and which I consider to be most important. As we develop our national parks system across Canada- and we should do this with all possible haste-we should look to the Canadian Arctic with the intention of establishing a National Polar Park there. I am thinking of preserving within such a national park the kind of wildlife which we may not see on this planet in the years to come. I have in mind the polar bear, caribou, the narwhal, the seal and the walrus in the coastal areas. I hope the minister, in his anxiety to create new national parks, will look upon the Canadian Arctic as a prime area for the establishment of a national park in the far north of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I regard it a privilege to take part in this debate. For a number of years major portions of Banff and Jasper National Parks were within my constituency. Under the redistribution arrangements affecting electoral districts, the boundaries changed prior to the last election. However, because of the proximity of my constituency to the two major national parks I can still speak with familiarity about these major components of our national parks system.
I do not think it would be redundant if I were at this point to review briefly certain aspects of the set-up of our national parks. I believe it would be relevant after several 
days of debate to remind ourselves just where the national park areas are and just what problems have arisen with regard to them. At the present time the federal government possesses something less than 30,000 square miles of Canadian landscape tied up in the national parks. Half of this area consists of the Wood Buffalo Park in the far north of Alberta, to which the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) has just referred. Few tourists ever reach this wilderness area. Of the remaining national parks area, 94 per cent is in western Canada which contains less than 30 per cent of Canada's population. The national parks area in Ontario is insignificant-a few square miles at Point Pelee, Thousand Islands and Georgian Bay. There is one in the province of Quebec just in the process of formation.


An hon. Member:: One.


Robert Norman Thompson: One is coming, but I do not think it has been formalized yet. From this background it can be readily seen that the question of national parks is one which basically involves western Canada. Certainly, the whole problem with regard to leaseholds relates only to western Canada. For this reason the bill before us is one in which the representatives of the west, particularly those who live in the proximity of the parks, have a special interest and concern.
I would say in as non-partisan a way as I can-my remarks will not be partisan because I believe the real issue goes deeper- that many of those who discuss park administration, and even many who have taken part in this debate, do not really understand from personal experience and involvement just what this bill will mean to a certain portion of our country and its citizens.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
My concern about this bill is that it proposes to place the rights of a sizeable portion of Canadians under the administrative responsibility of a Crown corporation. I believe this is a regressive step, one which will take us back to colonialism of the worst kind. One of the basic concepts that has been democratically developed in our Canadian way of life is the right of people to express themselves in government, be it local government, provincial government or federal government. Those who me of necessity rendering a basic service to our national parks will not only be denied their rights; the bill would


also violate the Canadian Bill of Rights and take us back to a system I thought we had got away from 100 years ago.
The establishing of a crown corporation of this sort is not a new idea. I have in my file letters written in 1963 dealing with the subject. I was interested to note, on going through some newspaper clippings, that in 1965 and 1966 there was much talk about the possibility of setting up such a Crown corporation. I had hoped this idea had died long since, but apparently it has been in the minds of those people whom I believe are basically responsible for some of the confusion about which the hon. member for Northwest Territories has just spoken. I refer specifically to some senior members of the national parks administration in the civil service.
If there was any confusion, as suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories, it was caused by those who misguidedly proposed that certain areas of the Northwest Territories should be taken over as national parks, without any consideration being given to the opinion of the administration in the Northwest Territories or those who have their homes in the proposed park areas. The confusion came as a result of the bureaucrats in the department who drafted policy without full consideration of the people concerned.
This gives the House some indication as to how this proposal of a Crown corporation developed. It is a proposal that we as elected representatives in this House must unitedly find difficult to accept, certainly difficult to support. I do not see how many of my colleagues on the government side of the House can lend their support to this type of legislation since it denies rights that I believe are basic to Canadian citizens.
I am convinced that the policy outlined in this bill is wrong. It will be our responsibility, and particularly the responsibility of the committee members who study the various aspects of the bill, to make sure that the legislation is fully understood. Indeed, I hope the bill will be rejected. I know it is difficult to talk about the progress of the bill at this time, but it is legislation we should seriously think about before giving it our support. Certainly that is the intention of those on this side of the House. My remarks on this point are directed to government members. I do not think any member of the House will disagree about what should be the basic concept of a national park. May I simply go back to some of the earlier definitions that were in the
National Parks Act
minds of those who first set up our national parks and with which we can all agree.
According to the statutes of 1887 we read that the national parks, which were conceived and established at that time, were for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Canada. According to the statutes of Canada for the year 1911, the national parks were defined as public parks and pleasure grounds for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Canada. In 1930 it was again stated that the parks "are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to the provisions of this act and regulations, and such parks shall be made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the use of future generations". No one disagrees with those objectives. That is what the parks are intended for, and these definitions underline what is the basic purpose of our parks.
In this regard I am also reminded of remarks that were made in 1966 by the minister then responsible for parks. He said that the preservation of individualism requires us to spend some time away from the pressures of our daily labours. He said that recreation is essential to all of us, and will become increasingly so as industrial organization progresses and the machine continues to divorce us more and more from the world of nature in our daily lives. We on this side accept that definition because it is correct. I do not believe that any of us who oppose this bill have any intention but to uphold the spirit of the definitions I have put on record and to expand the services and facilities of the parks not only for the people of our generation but for generations to come.
Having said that, there are several basic points that we must take into consideration as we look at the legislation before us. First of all, I believe it is the direct responsibility of Parliament, consisting as it does of the representatives of the people of Canada, to oversee the public property that it is intended to use for purposes falling with the definitions given to us by the statutes of Canada, namely as public parks. To relegate this responsibility to a Crown corporation is wrong: not only is it wrong; it is an abdication of our responsibilities.
All of us have had experience in dealing with problems connected with Crown corporations. For example, the people that we represent may have a legitimate complaint about, or objection to certain facets of, say, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We


National Parks Act
put forward their complaints in this House in the form of a question, either orally or on the Order Paper, or raise the matter in debate. Then we are told by the minister responsible that he cannot interfere with the administration of the CBC since politics must be divorced from the administration of the CBC as a Crown corporation.
Consequently, we decide to write to the president of the CBC or to some other senior official in that organization. I have many letters in my files to verify the fact that they invariably write back saying they are sorry but they do not determine the over-all policy of the CBC; that the Parliament of Canada is responsible for this. So you are caught betwixt and between. The Crown corporation will probably act as it sees fit, anyway. This is the sort of danger we face in establishing a Crown corporation to administer leaseholds and, indirectly, the rights of those Canadians who live in our parks and service the facilities therein.
It is not difficult to ensure that our national parks are preserved so they fulfil their intended purpose. The parks should be preserved not only for their natural beauty but in the interests of promoting those sports and recreational activities that admirably complement their terrain. I refer particularly to winter sports. However, as I say, these recreational facilities in our parks can be so constructed that they in no way interfere with the beauty of the park and its enjoyment by the Canadian people. There are some wilderness areas in our parks that should be classified as such. The hon. member for Northwest Territories illustrated this point when he referred to the Wood Buffalo Park in northern Alberta.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
There is no real reason why that park should be categorized in the same way as Banff and Jasper National Parks. It is strictly a wilderness area which provides a haven for the buffalo herds. I believe these should be preserved. However, at no time will the Wood Buffalo National Park be used in such a way that it compares with Banff or Jasper National Parks. Should the fact that there are important mineral deposits within that area mean that they should never be developed? Certain wilderness and other areas which may exist in major parks like Waterton, Banff or Jasper should be delineated as such, but at the same time we should allow the controlled development of the resources

which may be in the area. This is particularly true in respect of Wood Buffalo Park. The hon. member spoke about negotiations between the government of Alberta and the federal government. These negotiations have been going on for many years. How will the negotiations be improved by signing the administration of the park over to a Crown corporation?
Then there are the townsite areas. In my opinion there is no reason why the areas included in these townsites should not be administered in an altogether different manner from the wilderness or recreational areas of our parks. It would seem to me that the passage of legislation such as this to set up a Crown corporation would even further confuse the picture and deny the right of self-government and citizenship to the people who happen to live in the parks. The rights of Canadians must not be violated. It is the responsibility of Parliament to protect these rights. Whenever people live in the parks we have a responsibility to ensure that their rights are protected, as we do for those who live elsewhere.
The people living in these parks are not exploiters; they are not people who have taken unfair advantage of their place of residence within a park. Some people may have abused the privilege but I ask, where are these culprits? There are very few people in the parks who do not carry out their responsibilities in a loyal and satisfactory way; therefore, consideration must be given to them. We are talking about individuals and communities of people.
It might be interesting to look briefly at the people who are living in these parks at the present time. In 1969 in Jasper-I am speaking now of the townsite and the people living there-30.2 per cent gained their livelihood from railroad employment. Several major transportation lines, either highway or railway, pass through this national park. It is logical to expect there must be people to service these facilities within the parks. Because Jasper is a railroad divisional centre and a large proportion of people work for the railway, are the people there to be denied their right of citizenship? Of the people living in Jasper 17.4 per cent are tradesmen-tradesmen are necessary so far as the building and maintenance of facilities are concerned-and 15.4 per cent of the people are governmental employees. These are for the most part people who are employed by the parks administration.


There are in Jasper 9.4 per cent of the people who are widows or retired citizens. They are not people who have moved in from the outside; they have lived there and their homes are there. Are they to be denied the right to remain where they have lived and served during their lifetime? Only 16.2 per cent of the people living in Jasper derive their income from tourism or commercial services rendered to people who visit or who are living in the parks, such as government employees, railway employees, and so on. In Banff the figure is a little higher; 26.6 per cent of the people-definitely a small minority-gain their livelihood from services provided in the park for tourism as it relates to the commercial life of Banff.
These people give their lives to the area and serve their fellow citizens. It is wrong to place them in the classification of exploiters and greedy capitalists. I believe the most important point is the denial of self-government to these people. Are we to deny to a portion of our citizens the rights defined in the Canadian Bill of Rights? Are we to deny them the right to govern themselves so far as local government is concerned? Why should it not be possible for the people living in the townsites within the national parks to administer their own local affairs, as do people living in any other town or village in Canada? I do not think there is any argument to refute that right. These are not irresponsible people; they are as responsible as any of us in this House or people in any other community in the country. Is it not possible to have clear regulations established basically by the national parks administration under which these people would be able to carry out their responsibilities as citizens of our country under Canadian democracy? It is wrong to relegate these people to the faceless bureaucracy of a Crown corporation?
I hope the government will realize these things before it is too late. In my opinion, rather than having a Crown corporation the parks administration should be divorced from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It would be advisable that the person responsible be either a minister without portfolio or someone more closely associated with the problem, so far as concentration of time and responsibility is concerned. I am told the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development devotes less than 5 per cent of his time and responsibility to the over-all, important projects related to the national parks. One cannot expect
National Parks Act
him to give the necessary time to the different aspects in respect of the parks. I suggest that one reason park policies have been evolved and thought out by bureaucrats living in Ottawa who are not associated with the parks is that ministers have not had time to devote to the responsibility which the parks entail.
I think the hon. member who represents the three major national parks in Canada- Waterton, Banff and Jasper-made some very timely comments. He is a member of the government, and I believe he should be commended for having had the courage to stand up and express the opinions many of us have been trying to express in this debate and in debates of previous years. The hon. member emphasized that the key issues are communication and the community accepting responsibility for its own welfare. The lack of communication is not something which has arisen in the last year and a half or in the last six, seven or ten years. It has been a characteristic of the communities of Banff and Jasper almost since their inception. I could refer to other timely and relevant points which the hon. member outlined in the problem as he sees it. One would hope the government would listen to this voice of logic and reason from among its backbenchers, especially when it belongs to one who is the representative of the people in the area. He is one person who ought to know the situation.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Again, in this area we should make sure that the rights of the people who live in the parks are protected and that the principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights are extended to them as they are to the rest of us, so that they are not considered second-class citizens. I agree with the hon. member for Northwest Territories that more parks should be established in that part of Canada.
As I look at this vast and beautiful province of Ontario and the beautiful province of Quebec across the river, it seems to me there should be more national parks in these provinces. But the administrations of these two provinces have resented the federal government coming in and setting up national parks, and I believe they have a very good reason for taking that attitude. If this bill should become law, I am afraid we will forever block further areas of Canada, in so far as the organized provinces are concerned, coming within the national parks administration. The fears of the provinces have stemmed from the fact that they object to assigning any of their


National Parks Act
territory to the federal government-in this case to a Crown corporation-as it relates to leaseholds within the parks. They will definitely not want to do it. I think it is very likely that this legislation will eliminate the possibility of further national parks being established, with the exception perhaps of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
In closing, I believe that to place our fellow citizens under the administration of a Crown corporation would be tragic and reverting to colonialism. To submit them to the undemocratic procedures of a faceless, impersonal and bureaucratic agency is wrong. Therefore, I am opposed to this legislation. I appeal to members of the government to consider what will happen if this measure is passed by the House.
1 do not even believe the legislation can be amended so as to protect the rights of the people living within the parks. The only way in which the proposals set out in the legislation can be advantageous is by eliminating the bill altogether and making sure that there is closer ministerial supervision so far as concerns the development of the policy that governs the parks. We should also strengthen the administrative services of the parks.
The people responsible for the routine administration of the parks have done a very good job. If one were to compare the way in which our parks are administered with the way in which this 'is done in the United States, one would realize that we have a superior administration. The same comparison can be drawn between parks administration in Europe. Our parks administration ranks with the best. The problem is with policy at government level. I believe that Parliament is responsible for parks policy, not just a few senior bureaucrats who are trying to dictate policy which they think is best when actually they do not seem to know what the situation is. Thus, I hope we will take a careful second look at this bill lest we bring to pass something we will regret in the years ahead.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few moments to enlarge on some of the points that have been made briefly, and to stress other points. We realize that Bill C-152 means many things to different people, just as parks mean different things to different people. To some people parks means a place where they can go for leisure; to other people they are places where they can go to see wildlife, the beauties of nature and many other things that we are not able to see in the large urban centres.

What we must really understand is the true concept of national parks. Is it really the beauty of nature that attracts people to the parks? I think all of us can agree that it is. Do Canadians really believe that national parks belong to them and will belong to them in perpetuity? We know that this is also true. We also know that the people of Canada thought the government of this land would hold our national parks for them in trust forever. This is one of the concerns that I have in considering the bill now before us.
Another point we must consider is whether we wish to retain the natural beauty and the ecology of these areas in exactly the same condition. There are two national parks which hold special status, namely, the national parks of Banff and Jasper. This point has been amply brought forward by many of the speakers who have taken part in the debate. I believe we must ensure that these parks are preserved unimpaired.
Another concern is to ensure that these parks are preserved forever. This leads us directly to the question of why we are establishing a corporation to administer the parks instead of continuing the present method of operation. Members who have spoken on this subject have done an excellent job in explaining why the establishment of a corporation would not be in the best interests of Canadians and of Canada as a whole.
I am sure many of us realize that the primary concern of many Crown corporations is the balance sheet. We have noted in our study of the estimates that services have been cut in some Crown corporations in order to make a good impression upon the government. We have also heard the government saying that an austerity program must be enforced. A perfect example of this is the cuts that have been made to the staff of the National Film Board-the very people who represent our national identity. The same thing could happen to our national parks if they were put under a Crown corporation. The government would then be able to say it will establish an austerity program which will apply to the national parks, and it will deliberately cut the very programs which the people of this nation deserve.
Another aspect to which wie should pay attention concerns the blot on our landscape created by billboards, service stations and hot dog stands, which may bring the national parks corporation a buck today, and to heck with tomorrow! An analogy can be drawn from within our international airports which


are being filled with billboards advertising liquor, automobiles and cigarettes. Who decided the policy which permitted this, and when was it decided? I am sure that no Member of Parliament really knew what was going on when this decision was made. The same thing might happen in the national parks if they are put under a Crown corporation.
I would like to again emphasize the point I made about billboards blossoming within our airports, because it seems to me that if this bill passes in its present form the Crown corporation responsible for the national parks would allow billboards to be put up in the parks. I can assure you that the people of this nation will not take kindly to any government or Crown corporation allowing hot dog stands and billboards to be erected throughout our countryside.
Another point I would like to make concerns the creation of the latest national park mentioned by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), namely, the Gaspe National Park. I realize that the province of Quebec needs this park. However, the point we are all missing is that it is a 99-year proposition. This gets away from the idea of national parks from coast to coast being part of a national identity, because at the end of 99 years the province of Quebec-if it happened to be in the province of Saskatchewan, the same thing could apply-the province could pay back the federal government and take over the park and the enlire concept of national identity and national parks will have gone down the drain. I object most strenuously to this type of legislation being allowed to pass in this House when we consider the entire concept of national park.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We know that too many provinces and too many corporations will use some sort of drawing power to bring people to an area. We suggest that whenever a national park is being established strictly for the benefit of drawing power and commercialism-and what comes with commercialism everybody in this House knows-it is a wrong concept and a wrong method of doing things.
If we wish to retain our identity and have truly national parks it is high time we did exactly that and kept these national parks in perpetuity. This is the only way they could possibly exist under these conditions. In the town of Jasper, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer, there are many people now employed in
National Parks Act
the railway industry and many other service industries. Surely Banff and Jasper in particular should be given self-government.
I am sure that the remarks made by my colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) are very apt and absolutely true as you look at the situation that now exists. He said that people living in Banff and Jasper-and he said it many years ago-should not be the prisoners of their environment. No one in this House would like to see anyone a prisoner of his environment and recognized as a second-class citizen. Unless we recognize that Banff and Jasper in particular have a say in this over-all proposal, and have some means of communication, we are telling them that many people are not first-class citizens.
The officers of our national parks are to be commended for their diligence in trying to preserve a parks identity in this nation. I think it is only right that we give them due credit for that. Too often we hear criticism along the lines that they are not doing a good job, but the officers of these national parks are endeavouring to carry out a policy with which many of us in this House agree. If we are now to suggest that we turn the parks over to a Crown corporation-as members have said, a faceless corporation that does not have the proper feeling and the heart-we are doing a disservice to everybody concerned. I would urge that no consideration be given to establishing a Crown corporation in this particular field. Crown corporations have served and do serve many useful purposes in many fields, but this is a human relations field, it is a social science field, and it is one place where we do not want or need a Crown corporation.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this debate I would first of all say that the constituency of Crowfoot runs very close to the national park at Banff. I have a particular attachment to the national park at Banff because my brother was the member of this House who for nine years represented the old riding of Jasper-Edson. I can assure the House that I listened to him many times, after this House had shut down, when he spoke of the problems of Jasper park and the bureaucratic set-up that was administering the national parks at both Banff and Jasper. So I take part in this debate with indeed an interest in the affairs of the two major parks in the province of Alberta, and also with concern for the growing interest in the playgrounds and recreational facilities at Water ton. These contribute


National Parks Act
a great deal toward our tourist trade in the province of Alberta.
I think this legislation goes much further than concerning itself with the basic facts of the national parks of Canada. It epitomizes the attitude of the government with regard to the whole aspect of responsibility. I spoke on the question of responsible government on a point of privilege this afternoon. I did not get far at that time, but I fully believe the dripping water will wear away the stone at some time. This is one more attempt wherein I take it upon myself, as other members have, to point out the callous attitude of the government in paying no attention to the citizens now living within the national parks.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) quite logically and deliberately pointed out who those citizens are, why they are there and how they came to be there. He also pointed out that 94 per cent of the land of the national parks in Canada lay in western Canada. This is an interesting point if you couple it with the feeling of alienation that exists in western Canada because this government does not care about the citizens there.
Then you look at this piece of legislation and ask, "Are these people to have the right to administer their affairs in their towns; growing, prosperous towns until a few years ago when the 42-year lease concept was brought into being?" If you take that into consideration, this piece of legislation deliberately epitomizes the attitude of the government.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) pointed out this afternoon that with the largest cabinet this country has ever had-with 30 ministers-not one minister is interested enough to come in, take part, observe, and interest himself in the plight of the citizens in our national parks. I see the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in the House dutifully reading a labour contract, no doubt not concerning himself with this question although I know he is a man of generous heart. I wish he would attempt to interest himself in this matter, because he has gone down in history as quite a negotiator. Maybe he could negotiate this bill into oblivion. I know that the member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Sulatycky) would agree.


Mr. Mackasey:: I am a good defence man.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggests he is a good defence man. I can vouch for that. The people of Banff, Jasper and Waterton need a

good defence man today. I urge him to take part. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain isn't a bad forward, either, and this is what he had to say about this legislation:
Its powers are too wide. The corporation would be in a position to compete with free enterprise in the national parks. Such competition should not be allowed when private enterprise is already in the field.
He went on to say:
I do not believe such a result will be achieved by this bill unless there are some very significant changes to it.
I agree with him 100 per cent, but I go further than he did and point out the callous attitude this government has had to the whole concept of responsible government. Is this bill spelling out to the people living in these parks that they will have some say in the development of the parks? No, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not say that at all. The bill says: We are going to set up a corporation.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
If the government were operating with 10 or 15 ministers who were overburdened with work and wanted to get rid of some responsibility, maybe one could accept the idea that a Crown corporation would release them for other activities. But 30 ministers should be able to carry the load that 20 carried a couple of years ago.
What does a Crown corporation do? I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) when he spoke against Crown corporations, although a few years ago the leader of his party was promoting Crown corporations in western Canada. A Crown corporation removes control one step further from the people. An elected representative has to batter down the doors of a Crown corporation in order to be heard, and that is sometimes difficult; the appropriate minister can say that decisions made by the corporation cannot be changed.
I maintain the concept and the basic principle of this legislation is wrong. What does it say? It says a Crown corporation is going to manage and maintain townsites in the national parks. The government are going to give it a few tidbits. Then it comes along and says that it is going to develop. What about the money that is already invested by private enterprise in the townsites and parks? What chance has it to compete with a new developer who is also going to manage and maintain the existing enterprises in the parks? The existing enterprise in that park is not going


to have even the ghost of a chance of competing for business. Mr. Speaker, the glaring crime of it all is that these people will have no say in the governing of the townsite and no say in the operation of their businesses and services to the public.
Now I want to speak about services to the public. In the province of Alberta tourism is the second largest industry, mainly because of the national parks. In the whole North American continent one cannot find such a picturesque, magnificent drive as that linking the national parks of Banff and Jasper-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: The Alaska highway.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a terrific tourist attraction but it is a long way from Calgary and Edmonton, the two major centres at which tourists generally arrive. It is logical that we should have a townsite in Banff and in Jasper in order to give service to the tourists. There is no sense in my going into the question of the effect that the 42-year lease has had on these people. We hear of things "turning on" the younger generation-and some of the older generation, too-but let me tell you that the 42-year lease principle has "turned off" the developers in the national parks. Service has become slack. In the past two summers sometimes as many as 1,500 people could not find lodging in Banff and had to travel 60 or 70 miles to Calgary for the night and drive back to the park the next day.
We have a tremendous asset here, a gift of nature. Why do we cripple ourselves, limit ourselves by bringing in such a socialistic document? A Crown corporation to "manage, maintain and develop"! Somebody suggested that it is a communist document. The socialists in the House did not like it, so it must be something worse. I think it is bad, poor legislation. There is no question in my mind that it will do nothing to develop and encourage the citizens in these townsites to develop and to give better service.
Let us be frank about the question. As we progress in our society today and as town sites and cities become larger, more and more people are looking for playgrounds and a place to relax-for some place to get away from the madding crowd. The national parks of Banff, Jasper, Watertown and others throughout this country have provided this outlet. But we must give service. It amazes me how this government, supposed to be modern, hep and "with it" can think that a Crown corporation
National Parks Act
will be flexible enough to develop every nook and cranny in order to provide such relaxation.
How can what the hon. member for Red Deer called a faceless corporation be in tune or even care to be in tune with the demands of the day in giving pleasing service to the public? I find it beyond comprehension how the government could imagine that Crown corporations sitting high and mighty here in Ottawa, and without competition, could even concern themselves as they should with such a vastly growing business as tourism. Tourism is one of Canada's greatest assets, and Alberta is very fortunate to have the Rocky Mountains, or even part of them, in the province. Alberta is fortunate, too, that Banff, Jasper and Watertown were set aside as national parks in the early days. Could a Crown corporation develop services fast enough to meet the demands of the years ahead? Could it be flexible enough? The parliamentary secretary may say, "Yes, it is going to be a new and different Crown corporation". But where are the new and different people coming from- Mars, the moon?
Crown corporations are made up of people, but people who do not face competition. Without somebody harping at them they are likely to become lax and contented. Occasionally they even become conceited and authoritative. They are not likely to bend to the whims of a poor tourist out from the city for the day. No industry in our whole economy must be as flexible as the tourist industry. No industry, whether it be manufacturing, oil or farming must be as prepared to meet the whims of the individual as the tourist industry. How can we believe that a Crown corporation could be that flexible?
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
It might be argued that the people living in the townsites of Waterton, Banff and Jasper have some say in the management and control of those towns. The bill does not suggest that. They will come under the authority of this so-called National Parks Leasehold Corporation. We see in this bill epitomized the attitude of the government. We see here the government displaying an irresponsible and authoritarian attitude. It disregards the very principles of democratic, responsible government under which the people of the country in towns, counties and provinces have a right to some say as to the way they shall be governed. This bill does not give the people of the townsites that say; one of the basic principles of our democracy has been ignored.


National Parks Act
Unquestionably there is dissatisfaction in these areas. I will not repeat what the hon. member for Rocky Mountain said in this House. He maintained that the people of the area ought to have been consulted and the government would have consulted them if it had not been so callous about their welfare. There will be demonstrations and more destruction. Some people across Canada say that you can only change the government's mind by demonstrating; only then will the government lift up its head and sniff the wind to see what ought to be done to soothe ruffled feathers.
There are indications that all is not well with the citizens of Banff and Jasper town-sites. About a month ago there was a town meeting in Banff townsite. The people asked the present minister and the previous minister to go down there. They have been agitated down there since the question of 42-year leases was broached. And what has the government done? Has it put its ear to the ground and paid attention to complaints in those areas? No. It has brought down this legislation which sets up a Crown corporation, puts the parks under the responsibility of the corporation, and says in so many words that elected representatives in this House will not have much say about what goes on in the parks.
Passage of this bill will lead only to further chaos in the country. I warn the government, and I hope it heeds my warning, not to be irresponsible and not do display a callous attitude to principles which have been fought for over long periods of time. The government's callous and irresponsible attitude must lead to more destruction, more demonstration and greater upheaval. Surely we do not want that in this peace-loving, growing country. Considering the provisions of this legislation and that it will affect people living in Water-ton, Banff and Jasper, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer:
That this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House that the subject matter of this bill be first of all put to a referendum among the residents of the townsites of Banff, Jasper and Waterton Lakes.
I sincerely hope the government will accept the amendment because, as the bill stands the residents of the area have no right to any say in their own government. If the amendment were accepted, they would have that right. It is a precious right for which people have fought and died in wars for over 1,000 years. The amendment would give the people the

right to choose whether they wish to accept this legislation. The government is not prepared to give them the right of self-government. It is not prepared to say, "We will give you some say in your future development."
The amendment would give them that choice, and I urge all hon. members to support it, particularly the Minister of Labour who was in the House a minute ago. He has gone now, but the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is here. Some lovely fish are being caught in the national parks of this country. I know the minister firmly believes in the concept of people making their own choice and their own decisions in matters of self-government. The Minister of Labour enunciated that principle in Vancouver when he spoke about dock workers and longshoremen. Surely he must feel that the people of Waterton, Banff and Jasper townsites should have the right of some say in how they are to be governed and how their area is to develop.
The corporation to be set up will be run by a bunch of bureaucrats who will be inflexible and hard to deal with, especially on questions affecting tourism.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has proposed an amendment. The Chair has very serious reservations as to the procedural aspect of the amendment and would appreciate hearing the views of hon. members as to why this type of amendment should be accepted. If no hon. member wishes to speak on the matter, I shall make my ruling.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, at this stage of a bill the type of amendment that can be put forward is limited. We can put forward either what is known as the six months' hoist or a reasoned amendment. As I understand it, a reasoned amendment must be repugnant to the subject matter of the bill; it must be opposed to the bill. I think that the amendment we are considering is so opposed. Second, it must be the type of amendment that could not be made to any individual paragraph of the bill when the bill goes to committee.
I understand that this amendment meets the second requirement. One could not, by amending any individual paragraph of the bill when it is before the committee, accomplish what is proposed in this amendment. The amendment proposes that the bill be not now read a second time but that the House give consideration to referring the subject matter of the bill to a referendum of the


people of three specific townsites. I respectfully submit that cannot be done by an individual amendment to any one paragraph or clause of the bill, and that therefore the amendment ought to be allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further submissions on the interesting point of order which has just been raised, I am in a position to make a ruling. As the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has noted, only very limited types of amendments can, according to our rules, be presented at the second reading stage. It may be that our rules should be changed.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
As I look to my left and to my right I see a number of procedural experts who are prepared to accept the suggestion that it is difficult to make an amendment to a motion for second reading of a bill. As has been suggested by the hon. member for Oxford, the six months' hoist is perhaps one of the few possibilities which can be proposed by way of amendment.
Also, as hon. members know, a reasoned amendment can be proposed. As is well known, a reasoned amendment is one which opposes the principle of the bill for one reason or another. My understanding of the interesting amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) is that it does not in fact oppose the principle of the bill which is before the House, but rather attaches a condition to the adoption of the motion for second reading. It is perhaps a very difficult distinction to make to decide to what extent, or in what circumstances, an amendment opposes the principle of a bill. Hon. members have many possibilities in the course of debate on second reading of a bill to find reasons which are, in effect, substantially opposed to the principle of a bill and request that in the circumstances the bill should not now be read a second time.
My interpretation of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Crowfoot is that it attaches a condition to the bill but does not oppose the principle of the bill now before the House. It is not essentially a reasoned amendment. Therefore, I find it very difficult to accept the hon. member's amendment. I hope in the course of this debate hon. members who are opposing second reading of the bill might find an amendment which could be proposed to the Chair that might be procedurally acceptable.
National Parks Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are going to keep trying.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says, "We are going to keep trying." I can understand that in the sense it should be reasonably easy to find an amendment which would make it possible for an hon. member to invite the House to oppose the principle of a bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There should not be taxation without representation.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in agreement with the general principle that there should not be taxation without representation. That does not make the amendment acceptable from a procedural standpoint. The amendment is out of order.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments with regard to one or two ideas. Actually, one idea has been promoted by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis)-the idea of an underwater park in the Georgia Strait. I think this is an excellent idea. It is probably the most logical area off Canada's shores for an underwater park. This should be done now before the area is all fouled up with pollution, filled with oil derricks or before there is too much industry on the shore. The Minister of Fisheries wrote a letter to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) promoting this idea. I suggest the minister should send a letter to the Northern Affairs Committee suggesting that the committee discuss this idea. I would like to see the committee study it, possibly tour the area and conduct hearings to ascertain whether there is interest in such an idea.
Snorkeling and other water sports are becoming more and more in vogue. Since most of Canada is not warm enough a great deal of the year to have a park of this kind, I think the Georgia Strait is one of the few areas that could be utilized. I think it should be used for this purpose. I visited Tobago last October. While there I did some snorkeling and looked at the underwater reefs in the area. I found it to be a very enjoyable sport.


Mr. Whelan:: You can't do that in
Saskatchewan.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: No, I can't do that in Saskatchewan. You might wonder why a Saskatchewan farmer would be interested in an idea of this kind. Possibly one of the reasons it appeals to me is that we do not have this type of entertainment close by. Certainly not many


National Parks Act
people in Saskatchewan can afford or are fortunate enough to visit Tobago, but many of them could visit and enjoy a park off the coast of British Columbia.
I might mention that in addition to the large population of British Columbia there are many people on the United States west coast fairly close or adjacent to this strait. A park of this kind would appeal to and be used by a great many people. It might also be used by a few people from Saskatchewan. Instead of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) going to the British Honduras for a swim, he might swim off the coast of British Columbia and draw attention to the beauties of bathing in the water there.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How about the bathing beauties?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I am no authority in that field. I do not think a park of this nature would be too expensive. As the minister suggested, in the national sense we already own the land under the water; therefore, it would not be necessary to lay out a great deal of money. Such a park would bring considerable revenue to tourist operators in the area, mari-nists and anyone who has business or recreation interest in water sports. I suggest the minister should continue promoting his idea. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) and others who are interested should also promote this idea. I favour an examination of the idea by the Northern Affairs Committee. I hope the minister will show a little more interest in the idea.
I also wish to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange). The Crown now owns a great deal of land in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. Before this area is scarred, spoiled or despoiled, I think some of the land should be set apart. This would not cost very much money now or inconvenience us too greatly. If we wait until someone has a vested interest in the area, they will want to be paid for that interest or they will strenuously object to the area being included in a park of this kind.
I do not intend to say where or how large these parks should be, but I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Northern Affairs Committee to take a good, hard look at this idea to see what we might do to protect the future of northern Canada, whether it be the Arctic, the subArctic or any other part of our north. If this is done now it might save us a lot of trouble
[Mr. Thomson.)
later. Others have dealt with many parts of this bill. I just wanted to pursue these two particular lines of thought.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate. I only do so because of the remarks that have just been made by the member of the New Democratic Party. All the ministers of northern affairs in the previous government and all the ministers of northern affairs in this government, save the existing minister, have given their assurance in writing to the people of the Yukon that there will be no national park established in the Yukon territory until the elected representatives of the people on the Yukon Legislative Council ask for a park and delineate the nature, extent and location of the park.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I, together with all Yukoners, resent the idea that any area in the Yukon territory should be set aside in the absence of consultation and decision on the part of the elected representative of the people in the Yukon. I want to make that quite clear. That is how the majority of people in the Yukon feel about it, and the territorial council is on record as supporting such a view. I understood the hon. member who just resumed his seat to suggest that unilateral action might be taken by this government and a standing committee of Parliament. It might be a useful exercise for the committee, on its next visit to the Yukon, to solicit the opinions of the people on the spot rather than endeavour to make a unilateral decision here.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take more than a couple of minutes. I rise because I was among those who went with the committee to the Yukon on its last visit there. I was, to say the least, disappointed at the feelings expressed not by the elected members of the council but by a number of the members of the Board of Trade with whom we met. I felt they did not want a park to be located in any area where there might be the slightest possibility that at some time in the future a mineral deposit of some value might be found.
If one takes that attitude-and I am not saying the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) takes that attitude; I hope he does not-there will never be a park in the Arctic because, of course, there is always a possibility that at some time, somewhere minerals will be found in circumstances where they

COMMONS DEBATES	3719
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
can be commercially exploited. I would hope we would not do so much consulting that we would never take practical steps to establish a park in the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: May I ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat? I am sure he would agree that the same kind of consultation should take place between the federal government and the Yukon Legislative Council with respect to the establishment of a park as would take place with a provincial legislature.


David Orlikow: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I would advocate that, and support such a course. But I would take the same view in connection with my own province as I have suggested in connection with the Yukon. If there was a group, members of a Board of Trade, of a Chamber of Commerce or of any other organization in Manitoba which said, "Let us not establish a national park because there might be some minerals in the area", my attitude would be: let us consult the government of any province, the Council of the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, but let us also go ahead as quickly as possible, because we need more national parks.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in this debate I, too, would like to explain the relation of my constituency with the constituency of Rocky Mountain which contains all the largest national parks. My constituency of Palliser is made up primarily of the old constituency of Bow River which contains the townsites of Lake Louise and Banff.
Having been active to some extent in that old constituency organization, at a non-elective level, I did obtain some knowledge of the problems facing the residents of those two towns. Also, I was fairly closely associated with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), then the hon. member for Bow River. Like my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) I used to hear a great deal about the difficulties encountered by the residents of Banff and Lake Louise at the hands of the federal executive administering those areas. At that time, of course, or during a large part of that time, the party to which I belong happened to have the responsibility which now falls to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House for such administration.
So, speaking in a non-partisan way, I do not think it can be said that anyone's skirts
are completely clean as far as the administration of the national parks is concerned. Nevertheless, I believe that the present government party has carried on a consistent campaign for the past seven years in an effort to deny the people who live in these areas their just rights and leave them without any effective control of their own affairs.
This campaign, which now culminates in the proposal to set up a Crown corporation which will be the crowning glory of those bureaucrats who are impatient to tightly control these areas, began with redistribution. The present legislative assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was very active on the redistribution commission in the province of Alberta. I think he is responsible to a large extent for the fact that the present constituency of Rocky Mountain exists.
The effect of redistribution in this case was to hive off the townsites of Banff, Jasper, Lake Louise and Waterton into one federal constituency, thereby depriving the residents of those areas of three members to represent them here. They are now represented in this chamber by one hon. member and their voice has to this extent been reduced.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, on December 9 I asked the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) what he was able to do in response to a very urgent request from the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. This group presented what I thought was a most cogent case to some of our cabinet ministers and some members of the Liberal caucus from the Toronto and Hamilton areas. Since that time, although the minister said he was seeking ways to assist I have received no indication that he has been very successful.
Whether this group will return and attempt to talk to another sector of the cabinet which might be more helpful, I do not know. The documentation is serious. These men point
3720	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion out that employment in the industry at both CGE and Westinghouse is approximately half what it was two years ago. In November of 1967, 476 production workers were employed at CGE's Dufferin tube plant in Toronto. As of October 24 of this year, this figure was down to 340. At Grimsby, 90 production workers were employed in tube manufacture in November, 1967. By last October, that figure had fallen to 45. This is a serious decline in employment among people who are extremely competent and well trained. Many of them have been working for a long time.
e (10.00 p.m.)
The brief also points out very succinctly that while sales of domestically-produced tubes have been declining, sales of imported tubes have been increasing. So that the minister, wearing both his caps of industry and trade and commerce, has, I think, a very serious responsibility in reference to this matter.
It has been suggested by the group that an immediate ban on the importation of tubes be placed on all such that can be made in Canada. They also make what surely is a familiar suggestion-the immediate removal of the 12 per cent sales tax, as well as the 10 per cent excise duty on Canadian manufactured tubes. They also wish to impress on the manufacturers their responsibility to act more in accordance with Canadian interests. This has reference to the many firms who are foreign-owned.
This question is very important in that it indicates one further area of increasing unemployment. So many of our graduates trained and educated at university are unable to find work. We know a number of civil servants are being forcibly made redundant, and we know what has happened to our military servants. We are also hearing that the western grain growers are now going to pass through a certain form of unemployment.
As I say, we have here an additional area of concern. It should, indeed, be an area of anxiety to anyone who believes that a growing rate of unemployment in any country, under any circumstances, is something that should be opposed vigorously and strenuously. Certainly the minister of industry and all ministers of the cabinet should take this stand.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, when this question was raised on December 9 I stressed the fact that electronic tubes used in radio and television receivers are being

DEBATES	February 17, 1970
progressively replaced by transistors. In the past 15 years we have seen phenomenal technological developments in the field of electronics, and this is one of them.
Demands for higher reliability and lower cost components led to the development of the transistor. In recent years these devices have found growing application in radio and television receivers. This is the principal cause of the reduction in tube manufacturing which is taking place both in Canada and abroad. This is not a strictly Canadian phenomenon; it is an international phenomenon. The situation even affects Japan.
I might add that the electronic tube market in Canada has been characterized by limited demand for a large number of different tube types. The Canadian tube manufacturing industry, which has been based entirely on the Canadian market since it could not export in numbers, has therefore concentrated on those types of tubes for which the domestic demand permitted economic production.
The many hundreds of tube types for which Canadian demand is too small to permit economic production have always been imported, mainly from the United States and Europe. Japan has been attracted to the Canadian market specifically for radio and television tube types and has therefore been in direct competition with Canadian producers. In view of the lower labour cost advantages accruing to Japan and potential adverse effects on Canadian producers, the Japanese agreed to voluntary restraint on tube exports to Canada. These arrangements are the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), and to date we have found no evidence that Japan is failing to comply with these voluntary restraints.
Both in the United States and Canada the new technology of transistors and related devices has been dominated by newly-emerging companies and not by the traditional electronic tube manufacturers. The rapidly expanding employment opportunities in Canada in the new technology compensates for the decline in employment in the tube industry. However, these new opportunities occur in different establishments and locations.
In other words, what is taking place at Canadian Westinghouse and at CGE in Toronto is compensated for, in terms of employment, by what is taking place at, for example, Microsystems in Ottawa.
As a matter of fact, there are probably five times more people newly employed in the
February 17, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3721
new devices business than are being laid off in the tube business. Unfortunately, this is not taking place in the same area. I am sad to say that. Being a connoisseur of communications, my hon. friend will know very well that changes are taking place very rapidly in this field. If a company does not move with the new technology possibly because it is moving in other areas of technology, it is bound to be replaced by some other company which does.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher).



VETERANS AFFAIRS-EFFECT OF CLOSING OF VETERANS LAND ACT OFFICES OUTSIDE BIG CITIES

Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to compliment the ministers involved for being in the House this evening. It is very refreshing to see this attention to our problems on the late show. I hope it will continue. On January 27 I addressed the following question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) as recorded at page 2868 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. It deals with the decision to close full-time offices of the Veterans Land Act administration branch which have been helping veterans in the field outside the big cities. Does closing the full-time VLA office at Drumheller, Alberta and the drastic reduction of services there represent a decision by the minister to reduce the amount of help that the government is giving veterans generally across the country?
I might say that when the question was transferred to this time slot I wrote the minister to express dissatisfaction with this unnecessary and retrograde step relating to Canada's commitment to her veterans. The minister kindly replied to my letter, but with respect I do not feel he met the problem raised by my question. In speaking on this question I am not merely concerned with the veterans of a large portion of my constituency but with the welfare of veterans all across the country, because as I understand it the closure of the VLA office in Drumheller is not an isolated example but merely another example of this government's implementation of what it conceives to be the just society.
What we see happening here is the application of the theories of the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) to the Department of Veterans Affairs-reduced costs by reduced service. Because the veterans who use the facilities of the VLA are what they are, namely, responsi-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ble persons who have demonstrated a keen sense of duty, they will probably survive the reduction in service. What is particularly galling to them is that the saving created at their expense is not passed on to the taxpayer but is diverted by the government to other budgets.
It is diverted to the budget of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. According to releases by his department, almost 65 per cent of the grants made to date have been to businesses operating in the province of Quebec. Then there is the example of the Department of Agriculture which has shifted the bulk of its dairy support program to the dairy industry in Quebec. It seems apparent, also, that this so-called economy drive, which is really misnamed when one considers that it has not resulted in any over-all reductions in government spending, is wrongly directed. After all, the VLA was set up to aid farmer veterans, not urbanites. In this situation I would appreciate the minister explaining why the field office network is being weakened instead of the regional or central offices. For example, if there had to be a staff reduction, why was it not carried out at Calgary or Edmonton, or right here in Ottawa rather than in the field where the job has to be done?
c (10:10 p.m.)


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member said, he wrote to me with reference to Drumheller and I replied to his letter. However, this evening he enlarged his comments to apply not only to his constituency but to the country as a whole. First of all, perhaps I should state that the director of the Veterans Land Act has been reviewing his organization from year to year, most particularly in the area represented by the hon. member. This is not done solely because of the government's fight against inflation, as suggested by the hon. member, but mostly because of a decline in the work load.
During the year 1968-69 only 16 loans, with an approximate value of $252,000, were made to veterans in the Drumheller field area. The main bulk of the business originates in the northern segment of this field area, a distance of 20 to 25 miles from one of our VLA field officers who is located at Stettler.
The hon. member also suggested that the reductions were confined solely to our field areas. This is not the case. I can assure the House that staff reductions were effected at all levels of the veterans land administration.

3722	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion This is done as the work load diminishes, which is normal 25 years after the war, and requests for loans under the VLA diminish. In the country as a whole the VLA staff has been reduced this year from 570 to 514, a reduction of 56 positions. This reduction of 56 is broken down to 24 from the field officers and 32 from the office staffs. Out of the 56 positions, 32 became vacant as a result of attrition due to retirement, sickness or death, and 8 were transferred. This leaves a balance of 16. Not one of these 16 people lost his employment. We hope to be able to find positions for all 16. But I believe it is only good management to effect staff reductions and to increase efficiency.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-COMMISSION ADVERTISEMENTS RESPECTING FRAUD

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on January 28 I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) whether he had seen and approved the advertisements which have been appearing on behalf of the Unemployment Insurance Commission warning about alleged fraud in the collection of unemployment insurance claims and threatening the supposed defrauders with court action. I was amazed-that is why I put the question for debate at ten o'clock-at the reply which I received from the minister. This is the kind of reply I would have expected had I directed such a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and I believe never really understood how ordinary working people live. However, I was amazed to receive such a reply from the Minister of Labour, who in my opinion is one of the few good ministers in this government. For the minister to have taken the hard line which he took and to have almost suggested that by asking the question I was condoning the defrauding of the fund, amazed me.
I give credit where credit is due, and I would say that the advertisement to which I referred was brought to my attention by a column written by Mr. Dalton Camp which appeared in the Toronto Telegram and in the Montreal Star of Wednesday, January 21, 1970. There is a picture of a judge, or of what is supposed to be a judge-and if ever there were a hanging judge, he is in that picture. Let me summarize the main points of the advertisement as Mr. Camp summarized them:
"When someone knowingly cheats (a case had been made earlier for people who cheated unknowingly) they're stealing money-


"We think that should be enough to make anyone think twice before trying to cheat on their unemployment insurance.
"But if it isn't, we know something that is.
"A day in court."
And so on, and so on, Mr. Speaker, ad nauseam. I hold no brief for people who cheat the fund, but a deliberate campaign has been worked out by the Unemployment Insurance Commission or, more likely, by some hot-shot Liberal hack advertising agency which they hire-of which this ad is just one example- which would make people think that there is a fantastic amount of cheating going on. In another publication of the commission they say as follows:
There are close to one and a half million claims for unemployment insurance in Canada each year. Almost 20 per cent of them have an element of suspected fraud.
That would mean that 300,000 people are deliberately defrauding the commission. Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence of that. The commission has never done any investigation, except in regard to a few small samples. If it were parliamentary to say so, I would say that either the officials of the commission or the advertising agency which probably devised this brilliant campaign deliberately lied and misrepresented the facts when they made that claim. There is no evidence of that.
I am not saying there is no defrauding of the fund. I am not saying that the commission does not have to take adequate steps. But I am saying that this kind of scare campaign is unnecessary, is despicable, and I am amazed that it takes place under the aegis of the kind of minister we have. According to figures submitted by the commission itself, in the fiscal year 1968-69 they were able to recover $3 million in unemployment insurance-not frauds but overpayments, which is something entirely different. To do that, Mr. Speaker, they spent $2J million. They had 160 to 181 people working to do that. I submit that the commission's own figures show that the advertising campaign is a fraud; that it is built up on misapprehensions, on faulty information; that the returns are very limited and do not warrant the kind of campaign which is being carried on.
I say it is an insult to the people who are unemployed. I would say the vast majority, 98 per cent of those who are not working are not working because there is no work. They would be more than happy to go back to work, and they do go back to work when work is available. The commission ought not to carry on the campaign which it is carrying
February 17, 1970	COMMONS DEBATES	3723
on, even if it is necessary, in the kind of language and with the kind of spirit in which it seems to be carrying it on.


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), there is nothing in the advertisements which even hints at discouraging people from drawing benefits. Out of a series of four advertisements, the aim of three of them is to explain features of the program and to inform the public as to how and when they should contact the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
To let people know about the pitfalls of fraudulently obtaining benefits it is necessary to dwell on matters which are, to say the least, unpleasant. However, if one considers the consequences which follow when people are found to have obtained benefits illegally, the reason for the warning becomes more apparent. Every year thousands of people are found to have made false declarations to obtain unemployment benefits and the consequences to many of these people are rather sad and severe. They are liable to repay the amounts that were obtained illegally and they are subject to fines and imprisonment.
[DOT] (10:20 pun.)
These added hardships have to be borne at a time when people have already suffered difficult economic conditions. Few people realize the possibility of these consequences. We believe, therefore, that it is important that periodically-and once a year does not appear too often-a warning should go out as to the problem which can be created by fraudulently obtaining unemployment insurance benefits.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
We have no knowledge that anyone has been discouraged by the advertisement from applying for benefits to which they are entitled. The volume of claims and the duration of claims would appear to be normal for this time of the year at all the offices of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. We are convinced, however, that the educational value of the total advertising series was one which was worth doing and one which will prevent people from making the mistake that practices which should not be accepted under any circumstances will be tolerated with regard to the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. It is clear that the advertising campaign was mainly educational, and as such it should help to restore faith in the system for the 98 per cent of the benefits which are drawn honourably and as a matter of right.
I wish to emphasize that the advertisement was in the public interest because it served to inform people of a service to which they are entitled. It helped to protect the unemployment insurance fund in which all employers, employees and the government have an interest as contributors; and it served as timely advice to people who through lack of awareness of the consequences of fraudulently obtaining benefits could perhaps be guilty of doing this. In the final analysis, the campaign should help restore in the mind of the people the value of the program to the hundreds of thousands of people who draw about $400 million in benefits per year. The extent of fraud is not the main concern: better information about the operation of the program and the consequences of fraudulent practices is, in our view, a sound reason for the advertisement campaign.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
This is a copy of the letter given today by Mr. Kierans to Mr. Raymond Parent, secretary general of the Confederation of National Trade Unions, on the mail transportation situation in Montreal.

Mr. Raymond Parent,
Secretary-General,
Confederation of National Trade Unions, Montreal, P.Q.
Dear Mr. Parent:
Since the mail transportation situation in Montreal has become intolerable, I wish to state clearly the position of the Post Office and the Government.
Last September, the Government decided to implement fully the policy of inviting tenders for all contracts of mail transportation services exceeding $1,000 per annum. This is required by section 22 of the Post Office Act.
Among the regions affected is Metropolitan Montreal where temporary arrangements have been renewed each year since 1954. Whatever justification may have been offered for such a policy in the past, it has not worked and is not working. The drivers and contractors alike were faced annually with the dreadful insecurity of losing jobs and contracts. Nor has it benefited the people of Montreal who have suffered through no fewer than 5 conflicts in the last three years, of which only the first was legal.
The resulting disruption, violence, and intimidation have hampered enormously the competitive capacity of industry and commerce in Montreal. It has also provided the people of Montreal with the worst service and the greatest frustrations of any city in Canada.
Nor has the Canadian taxpayer benefited, for he has financed the highest cost transportation services of any major city in the country. The waste and inefficiency can be measured by the combined totals of the new
contracts which amount to $3,350,000 or about two million less than this year's costs. I am not blaming anyone, neither management, union, or government. I am simply stating the facts.
The situation, obviously, could not continue and my immediate predecessor, Honourable Jean-Pierre Cote, started to implement changes that have now led to the division of Montreal into five sectors. The government decision of last September confirmed that policy.
The new 5 year contracts allow the Post Office more flexibility and provide the drivers with greater job security.
Last year, during the 32 day slowdown, Rod Service Ltd. decided that it could no longer provide the service which the people of Montreal had a right to expect. The members of the union, therefore, lost their employer. Again this year, G. Lapalme Inc., the new contractor and employer, is finding that he cannot provide adequate service. Under these conditions, the contracts can be cancelled and, once again, your members will be without an employer and a contract. Unless the mail service returns to normal immediately, we will have no choice but to revoke the Lapalme contract. The public interest, in particular that of the people of Montreal, would demand such action.
I will not list the incidents of violence, sabotage, and destruction of government property which have occurred during the last two weeks. You are as aware of them as I am. I will simply say that the mail is not being delivered.
If I am forced to cancel the Lapalme contracts, the Post Office will immediately request from Canada Manpower the names of approximately 350 drivers needed to deliver the mails until March 31. If the present employees list their names with Canada Manpower, and if they are permitted by their former union to work, we will give particular attention to those with seniority and experience for this temporary period. If they do not register, the Post Office will take drivers from Manpower's present pool.
A separate crown corporation solely for Montreal drivers is not feasible. Nor is the appointment of a Post Office administrator to supervise the Montreal operation. The Post
[Stage Direction]

Office awards some 10,000 contracts across Canada. We rely on the competence and efficiency of our contractors, or we change them. As administrator of public funds, I cannot do otherwise.
The new contracts take effect on April 1. They have been signed and are binding on the government. It remains therefore for you and me to work out three problems. How can we assure the best service for the people of Montreal between now and March 31, secondly, how can we ensure the continued employment of the greatest number of present employees, with priority being given to the 162 men with more than five years service; thirdly, what are the best arrangements that can be made with Manpower to admit the remainder to paid retraining programs.
I will welcome your cooperation in resolving these problems.
Yours sincerely,
Eric Kierans.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 18, 1970