1971-04-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Pringle (for Mr. Weather-head).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41 (2) I should like to table copies of Mineral Information Bulletin MR 110, corporate disclosure requirements as they pertain to mining companies.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
1915 ARMENIAN MASSACRE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a truly urgent and important matter, namely the slaughter of Armenians in 1915.
Canada itself was party to the signature of the Sevres Treaty, Section 88 of which provided for the return to the Armenian people of the lands they had been despoiled of following a premeditated genocide. The year 1971 marks the 56th anniversary of this Armenian genocide by the Turks in 1915, an event which should bring all Canadians, and particularly the House, to pause for a moment and pay tribute to the 1.5 million Armenians who perished violently during-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that under Standing Order 43 be must propose a motion to the House and indicate why it is urgent that such motion be considered before other questions on the order paper.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I was getting to the heart of the matter.
Canada is involved and Canadians, who with reason believe themselves to be a peaceful people, should demand that justice be assured to this unfortunate nation
whose lands are under foreign domination. The House cannot ignore this fact, especially on this 56th anniversary, to be celebrated tomorrow, April 24.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to present a motion? He has invoked Standing Order 43 and, in accordance with the rules, he must indicate the content of his motion and give a copy of it to the Chair. If the hon. member does not wish to present a motion, we shall have to proceed to another subject.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minisier of Manpower and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the equivocal nature of the replies of the Solicitor General to questions yesterday concerning electronic surveillance of the telephones of Members of Parliament I should like to ask him whether he has inquired into the question of whether the offices of Members of Parliament and their telephones are being subjected to any kind of electronic surveillance or monitoring?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine, following the questions put yesterday, that you intend to consider the whole matter and I think that it would be unadvisable for me to make further comments.


Erik Nielsen: That question, with respect to the Solicitor General, was not put to him yesterday, Mr. Speaker. The question today is whether or not he has caused any inquiry to be made into the question of whether or not the offices or telephones of Members of Parliament are subjected to electronic surveillance or monitoring?

April 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, since the minister is shy about answering that one. Can the Solicitor General exercise procedures to ensure that he is informed prior to and after any electronic surveillance or monitoring of the telephones or offices of Members of Parliament?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, once again I have clearly indicated that there was no general policy. I have the greatest respect for the Speaker of the House and I will be ready to answer similar questions when the Chair has considered the problem raised yesterday by the members of the opposition.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. The Solicitor General obviously does not appreciate his own responsibilities with respect to the RCMP. The RCMP does carry out this kind of activity, and I am not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make a speech; he can ask a supplementary question. He has asked the question originally and he has asked a supplementary question. He now has the floor for the purpose of a further supplementary question, which is quite in order, but it should be a question.


Erik Nielsen: Obviously the Solicitor General requires explanations before answering questions. Since he is responsible for the RCMP, can he assure the members of this House that he is exercising his responsibilities to ensure that he is informed both before and after any electronic surveillance or monitoring of telephones in the offices of Members of Parliament?


An hon. Member:: Answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can ask a further supplementary question, but the hon. member for Joliette also has a supplementary question to ask. For the moment the hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I will try once again, Mr. Speaker. Is the Solicitor General prepared to assure the members of this House that the government is prepared to consider the policy that the Speaker of this House be fully apprised of and agreeable to any and all security activities in the parliament buildings by agents of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that at this stage he may be coming a little close to the position of the Speaker. He has asked a few questions. I recognize that there is a problem which is somewhat complicated, and I think the hon. member is right when he asks questions relating to the responsibility of the minister regarding the RCMP. Of course I would not want to get involved in a debate in any way, and this is why I did not intervene at an earlier point in the questions asked by the hon. member.
I recognize that there are two responsibilities, first, in respect of what goes on in this building, which is the responsibility of the Speaker and, second, what may go
on in the administration of the federal police, which is the responsibility of the Solicitor General. I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps the last supplementary question may not be quite in order because he is asking a question which perhaps might be related to the office of the Speaker. I want to assure the hon. member that the questions he has asked yesterday and today have been noted.


Erik Nielsen: At the risk of being overly insistent, may I point out that I was directing my question to the Solicitor General and confining it to his responsibilities only. May I put it once more so that it may be clarified for Your Honour.
I am asking the Solicitor General whether he is prepared to assure the members of the House that the policy of the government will be to keep Your Honour informed and fully apprised as to any electronic surveillance or monitoring which is carried on by agents of the government, and particularly by those for whom the Solicitor General has specific responsibility, namely, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I have to rule that the question is out of order. I must suggest to the hon. member that what he is asking for is in a way hypothetical or theoretical. He is inviting the minister to indicate what the reply would be to inquiries that would be made of him by the Chair, and in this respect the question goes beyond the limitations of a question that may be asked at this time. The hon. member for Joliette.


Erik Nielsen: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, affecting the privileges of all hon. members of the House, perhaps Your Honour might permit the Acting Prime Minister to assure members of the House that this whole matter will be referred for inquiry to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I put that question to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Would he explain his use of the word "precedent" last night when he was referring to this matter of electronic bugging? He referred to a precedent. Would he explain that to the House?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will
get a clear answer. I must make a new attempt and ask a direct question of the Solicitor General. Once again, expecting him to be as precise, I ask him if the RCMP did or did not instal a wiretapping device in the residence of Mr. Cossette and in the affirmative, when will it be asked to remove it?

April 23, 1971


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, those devices are available to all citizens and if the person concerned is able to establish to whom the device belongs, whether it is an individual or an organization, it is up to him to do it.


Roch La Salle: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister assure that the RCMP did not instal any device in that house?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have also replied to this question by stating merely that it is never in the public interest-and the hon. member should be aware of the practice in this House-to answer affirmatively or negatively to this type of question.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My question relates to the announcement he made in the House yesterday afternoon concerning the purchase by Consumers Gas of Toronto of a controlling interest in Cygnus Corporation, and hence a controlling interest in Home Oil. In view of the participation of the government in the discussions that led up to this purchase, can the minister say whether the parties were given any assurances by the government concerning tax treatment?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the parties concerned were given no assurance of any kind, nor did they ask for any assurance of any kind or discuss tax concessions with the government in respect of their transaction.



PROPOSED PUGET SOUND-CHICAGO PIPELINE-OIL SHIPMENTS FROM ALASKA-POSSIBLE POLLUTION PROBLEMS-EFFECT ON CANADIAN MARKET

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can he inform the House if the government of Canada is aware that oil companies are considering the construction of a major pipeline from the Seattle-Puget Sound area to Chicago, and has the government knowledge of the volume of oil that will be shipped from Alaska to the Seattle-Puget Sound area?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): In regards to the volume, Mr. Speaker, that depends on the quantum of the find at Prudhoe Bay. To date the companies have kept this information confidential, so we do not know what total volume will be found.
Inquiries of the Ministry
We have only estimates that have been made. With regard to a pipeline from Puget Sound to Chicago, I have no knowledge of any specific plan by any company to build such a line.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Has the government carried out any studies on the probability of pollution problems in the Puget Sound area in relation to the various amounts of oil which might be moved to Seattle from Alaska?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there have been any specific studies as to the pollution hazards in the Puget Sound area which I could bring to the attention of the House. As the hon. member knows, general questions of pollution by reason of tanker movement from Alaska are very much in the mind of the government, and I believe discussions at a very high level will take place in Washington shortly as announced by the Prime Minister to the House.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the government carried out any studies on the possible effect on the Canadian oil market of such a pipeline?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board has under constant review the possible economic effects on Canada of various modes of oil transportation. I think I have indicated to the House previously that from the standpoint of the cost of moving northern oil from Prudhoe Bay or northern parts of Canada, if found, to the Chicago area, some 30 cents per barrel could be saved by Canadian movement rather than by Alaskan tanker movement.



APPLICATIONS TO ENERGY BOARD TO CONSTRUCT CONNECTING LINES BETWEEN BRITISH COLUMBIA AND STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether there are any applications before the National Energy Board at this time for construction of any increased capacity for oil or gas pipelines in an intertie between British Columbia and the refinery at Cherry Point in the state of Washington close to the Canadian border?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any specific applications to the National Energy Board. When the board sits in its capacity to hear applications, it sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, and thus is an independent entity, for that purpose. I shall be glad to make inquiries of the board on the specific question asked by the hon. member and let him know whether any such applications have been made.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-INQUIRY AS TO REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

['Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As far as I am aware, it is not the intention that any member of the government will meet with this delegation which will be on Parliament Hill tomorrow, though we do recall the tragic events to which this demonstration is related.']
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Fundy-Royal: Is consideration being given by the government to preparing a

April 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
reference to the International Joint Commission on the subject of the TAPS plan?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge no such consideration is under surveillance at the present time. The International Joint Commission, of course, is under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I cannot tell what action would be planned after the Washington meetings, but at the present time I do not believe there is such an intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the minister used the word "surveillance" did he mean that he is afraid of being bugged too?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize a last supplementary on this subject from the hon. member for Hillsborough and will then recognize the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In light of the statement by the Minister of Public Works that Canada should scarcely criticize the western oil tanker route, can the Acting Prime Minister tell me which of the several and varying ministerial viewpoints the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be reflecting on May 3, when he talks to the Americans?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will reflect the viewpoint of the government.


An hon. Member:: What is that?



[Stage Direction]
1915 ARMENIAN MASSACRE-REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MEET DELEGATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister.

Tomorrow, April 24, the Armenian community of Canada will commemorate with a great peaceful march on Parliament Hill the slaughter of more than 1,500,000 Armenians. Would the Acting Prime Minister say whether a representative of the Department of External Affairs will greet the delegation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. As far as I am aware, it is not the intention that any member of the government will meet with this delegation which will be on Parliament Hill tomorrow, though we do recall the tragic events to which this demonstration is related.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the increasing severity of the interprovincial restrictions on agricultural trade and the government's view that they will be disposed of by Bill C-176. Can the minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to instruct counsel to appear at the proceedings now coming before the Supreme Court of Canada, in order to oppose the validity of the provincial regulations which have given rise to this very serious situation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will consider that very interesting suggestion and discuss it with the Minister of Justice.


Gerald William Baldwin: In taking it into consideration, will the minister bear in mind that it is the understanding that the case will be before the Supreme Court of Canada very shortly and if the government is going to intervene it should make up its mind to do so at once and instruct counsel accordingly?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Having in mind the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry indicating a reference of the status of Point Roberts to the International Joint Commission, may I ask whether, in that connection, it will be Canada's intention to propose the creation of an international park at Point Roberts? This is a question of great interest in British Columbia.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Labour but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Since we will be dealing with the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in the near future and as it is necessary for the committee to be

April 23, 1971

apprised and aware of all objections by the provinces, if there are any, can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether there have been further representations from the province of Quebec regarding any inadequacies or injustices within the present bill?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt is aware, a series of important conversations have taken place between the Minister of Labour and the provincial Ministers of Labour this week. I will transmit to the Minister of Labour the concern expressed in the House this morning by the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that the parliamentary secretary will register my concern. Can the parliamentary secretary assure the House that before we deal with this bill in committee in a definitive way the minister will make a statement regarding the objections, submissions and representations made to him about the bill so that the committee will be aware of the specific problems being faced by the provinces? Can he assure the House that a statement will be made on motions before we deal further with this bill?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, now that the measure has been given such substantial support by all members of the House-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Could the parliamentary secretary not answer the question?


Raymond J. Perrault: -we are moving to the committee stage. At that point a full opportunity will be given to crossexamine the minister on these important points which have been raised. It is not the intention of the minister to avoid any possible problems that may arise. Matters are proceeding very well indeed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Which way are you moving, forward or backward?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the parliamentary secretary's answer although I accept it in the spirit in which it was given. I am asking the parliamentary secretary whether, on behalf of the minister, he can assure the House that a statement will be made regarding the positions taken by any provinces which have found objections within the bill. It is a simple question. Will a statement be made on motions before we deal with the bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might reply to the question briefly, but it seems to me that the hon. member has reiterated very forcefully the question that was asked initially.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have not been given an answer and I want an answer.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that this measure is proceeding in a spirit of co-operative federalism and it may be expected that such a statement will be made.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether-if the government should persist in wanting to implement this act which will cost Quebec some $20 million- the government would intend to adopt compensation measures to allow that province, which already has a deficit in that field, to collect funds through other means?


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. member that he attend the meetings of the committee so that he may direct his questions at that time to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are in a way anticipating an order of the day. As the parliamentary secretary has indicated and as hon. members realize, we are dealing with a bill which is still before the House under consideration. The question asked originally by the hon. member for Hamilton West as to whether a statement would be made on motions was quite in order, but I do not think the matter should be pursued.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
In reply, the parliamentary secretary invited me to attend the meetings of the committee. If the bill were passed, parliament would finally have to commit itself with regard to it and I am trying to avoid that in order for the government to express its views.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order is not founded.



MANITOBA-NORTH DAKOTA BORDER-ALLEGATIONS OF ACTS OF HOSTILITY BY CANADIANS-DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED DAM

Mr. Jack Muria (Lisgar):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister of which I have given him notice. It concerns flooding along the American side of the border in North Dakota and on the Canadian side in Manitoba. Have there been any formal complaints from the United States government based on charges by North Dakotans that, as a certain congressman has stated, there have been acts of hostility on the part of the neighbouring Manitobans north of the forty-ninth parallel?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to study this question as

April 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
fully as I would have liked since I received the notice, but I have no information that would support the hon. member's inference.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question. For some time now there have been discussions about the proposed Pembillier dam that would control flooding and provide irrigation along the Canadian and American sectors of the international border. Is any action now being contemplated by the federal government to reintroduce discussions on this very important matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I understand the situation, Mr. Speaker, it is under active surveillance and discussions will likely take place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



RAPESEED-OBJECTIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES TO POSSIBLE CLOSING OF FUTURES MARKET AND INCLUSION UNDER WHEAT BOARD

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who reports for the wheat board. It is in connection with rapeseed to which reference has been made during the last couple of days. Is the minister aware of the fact that in Holland, Japan and Germany, where there are large purchasers of rapeseed, strong objections have been taken to closing the futures market? Indeed, the indication is that it would strike a tremendous blow against the expansion of rapeseed production in Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly aware of quite a bit of conversation about the rapeseed market and the futures market, probably based, of course, on an earlier erroneous report that there was an immediate move afoot to make a change with regard to the marketing of rape-seed and several other grains. I presume, with the clarification that no such change is being made and that the futures market is in no way interfered with, that any such concern should be allayed.


John George Diefenbaker: I have before me a number of cables that I received today expressing fears for our rapeseed markets along the lines I have indicated. Because of the uncertainty of the government's attitude in producing a bill with an amendment permitting the Wheat Board to have control over three types of seed grains, will the minister consider holding up the bill until an opportunity is available to the government and to the House of Commons in committee to hear the representations, because what is included in the bill is a threat that concerns these purchasers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any threat contained in the bill and that has been a cause of
concern. There has been concern based on an erroneous report. I think it has been allayed by the assurance I have given that no change will be made without the fullest consultation. Indeed, I am glad to say again that certainly on our part we have no intention of making any change without the very fullest support of the producers and consultations with the trade.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says he has no intention of making any change without consultation. Then why bring in a bill to permit the board to do the thing that he says they are not going to do?


Otto Emil Lang: This question will no doubt be discussed when the bill is before the House, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of reasons for doing this which I will be glad to explain at that time. Over the years there have been fairly strong representations on this subject from producer organizations. The oilseed marketing committee recommended a plebiscite in order to determine this issue. Further work is being done on the whole aspect of the issue. The issue is very complicated. In my opinion, the existing system is working very well, far better than the producers may understand.


John George Diefenbaker: Why ruin it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister's department investigating the recent increases in gasoline prices in British Columbia and are these increases justified and generally applicable in all of Canada west of the Ottawa river?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker there have been quite a number of gasoline and fuel oil price increases, most of which, if not all, are being investigated by the Prices and Incomes Commission. I believe the particular price increases referred to by the hon. member are in that category.


Randolph Harding: Are the increases in the west caused by the increase in price of oil east of the Ottawa river? Imported Venezuelan oil has jumped rather sharply. There might be a reason there for an increase in gasoline prices, but does the same apply to the western part of Canada?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The purpose of an inquiry is to determine the reason for something. That is why we are having an inquiry.

April 23, 1971



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the intention of the minister to hold public hearings in Newfoundland with interested citizens and authorities to permit them to participate and advise on the progressive planning of the national park at Bonne Bay?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have formulated a policy along those lines, and public hearings are being held where can be heard those who wish to make representations concerning the preparation of future parks.
In so far as the new parks are concerned, the problem is naturally a little more complicated since we must take into account the wish of citizens to proceed quickly. It is obvious that consultations like those requested by the hon. member could cause considerable delays. However, we can consider the possibility of having one for Bonne Bay.



NOVA SCOTIA-PROVINCIAL REQUEST FOR SURVEY OF SITE FOR THIRD PARK

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will the minister indicate to the House whether he has received a request from the government of the province of Nova Scotia to undertake a survey of the area between Joggins and Apple River in Cumberland county as the site for a third national park in Nova Scotia?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply to the hon. member's question. In the past I have expressed reservations about questions being asked during the question period regarding the possibility of national parks in the many constituencies across the country. I suggest to hon. members that this kind of question should normally be put on the order paper. All hon. members have an interest in the possibility of national parks in their constituencies. We might spend most of the question period every day asking whether national parks will be established in hon. members' constituencies, including Stormont-Dundas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: For the moment, the minister will be allowed to reply to the question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very happy to confirm the fact that the national parks of Canada are very popular indeed. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member, I do not know of any request by the provincial
Inquiries of the Ministry
government with regard to a survey. We are having discussions with the Nova Scotia government with regard to establishing a third national park in that province, but I cannot state the nature of those conversations at this time.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the Solicitor General. Has the minister received a letter from Paul Gascon, secretary-treasurer of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Solicitor General component, asking the government to grant $5,000 compensation to each of the officers who were held hostage last week at Kingston penitentiary? If so, what does the minister plan to do about it?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



WHEAT-AVAILABILITY OF TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS TO FARMERS PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF STABILIZATION LEGISLATION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mounlain):: have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Having regard to the serious cash shortage in the western agricultural economy at the present time, will the government give immediate consideration to and implementation of suggestions that the contemplated $100 million acreage payment be made available to western farmers prior to the passing of the government's agricultural stabilization legislation?


Otto Emil Lang: We shall require legislative approval for the payment of the $100 million. I hope this may be given fairly soon in order that the money may get into the farmers' hands as early as possible.



RAPESEED-PRODUCERS' VOTE ON METHOD OF MARKETING

Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the question which was posed by my right hon. friend from Prince Albert and ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board whether he can assure the House that a producer vote will be taken with respect to the inclusion of rapeseed under the Canadian Wheat Board and that action will not be taken merely on the basis of requests from large grain companies and farm organizations?


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to assure hon. members that when I spoke of full producer support I was talking about the

April 23, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
broad category of individual producers, not of any specific way of determining their consent. The question of a specific vote is a very complicated one; it involves, somehow, trying to identify the group concerned and the voting system, and I would not wish to commit myself to the support of a particular technique at this stage.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Monireal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General.
Could he say whether he intends to appoint a hoard of inquiry into the recent disorders at Kingston penitentiary or if such a board has already been set up?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to announce that the Commissioner of Penitentiaries has created a board of inquiry on the events which took place at Kingston penitentiary on April 14 to 18. Mr. J. William Swackhamer, Q.C., a lawyer from Toronto, has been appointed chairman of this board. Other members are Mr. W. T. McGrath, executive director of the Canadian Criminology and Corrections Association, and Mr. H. E. Popp, director of security, Canadian Penitentiary Service. Mr. Ian G. Scott, a Toronto barrister, will act as secretary and adviser.
I asked that the Board report to me at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Will this Board consider the matter which was raised a short while ago with respect to the possibility of granting some sort of compensation to the guards who were kept as hostages?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the Board will have to stick to its terms of reference and I doubt that these will allow the Board to consider this matter.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responsible for parks and recreational places.
For some time, now, American citizens have taken a tremendous interest in the abandoned lands of northwestern Quebec and northern Ontario, and especially in recreational areas. I would like to ask the minister if he has been in touch with provincial authorities and some citizens who have expressed concern over this invasion by American interests.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this problem. I have not had any discussion concerning northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec with the authorities involved, but I shall look into the matter and see what can be done about it. This is a problem which is to be found practically everywhere, especially as regards Atlantic and Pacific beaches, and we are trying to do our best so that this land should remain in Canadian hands.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It comes from a senior high school class at Killarney High School in my riding. These pupils have been studying the 1970 report of the Canadian Pacific Railway and they note that the company received a grant of $33.1 million as a normal payment from the federal government. They also note that the net income-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member should ask her question. Up to this point I greatly suspect that it may not be a question which should be asked now. In any event, the hon. member should ask her question soon.


Donald MacInnis: I am coming right to it, Mr. Speaker. They note that the net income for 1970 was $55,772,000. They want to know-I do not know the answer and that is why I am putting the question now-whether the minister would explain the reason for such a grant to a company with so favourable an earnings statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will appreciate, I am sure, that such a question is not in order. It is an interesting one, but normally it should be placed on the order paper.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the minister responsible for the Post Office and it arises from a growing number of complaints about the confusion created by the new postal zoning policy because of the odd mixture of numerals and letters. Has the hon. gentleman any advice to offer whereby this difficulty can be resolved?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: do not think that there is such confusion with the new postal code system, which is not a zoning system. If there are special cases, I should like to study them and see whether changes should be made. Up to now, it seems to me that everything is running smoothly.

April 23, 1971


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Post Office. Was it absolutely necessary to compose the individual postal codes from a mixture of letters and numerals when it is commonly known that straight numerals are easier to remember?


An hon. Member:: Oh, I don't know about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is clearly debate or argument. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not in order.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister give the House the assurance that the government will not use the importation of agricultural products as a price regulator governing future domestic production?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The
implications of that question are far wider than can be covered in a reply during the question period, Mr. Speaker. I would need further definition of what the connotation of some of the words used might be.



ONTARIO-DUMPING AND FREE DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCE-REVIEW OF POLICY OR USE OF MARKETING BILL TO CORRECT SITUATION

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Since Ontario farmers are in some cases dumping their produce and in other cases distributing their produce free in order to direct public attention to the lack of adequate returns to food producers, may I ask whether the government is reviewing its basic agriculture policy or whether it intends to continue to rely on Bill C-176 as the main instrument to correct this hardship?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not
sure there is any relationship between Bill C-176 and some of the practices referred to. I might say I do not believe this dumping or free distribution is going on in a significant way. There are some local quota problems, and we certainly want to look into them.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have another 30 seconds in which to correct an answer I gave yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: It could be done only with the unanimous consent of the House because the question period has expired. I suggest that the matter raised by the hon. member for Kent-Essex might be continued next week, but the minister needs the unanimous consent of the House to make a correction at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Do it tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not consent. Orders of the day.
Yukon Minerals Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-187, respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been proceeding now over the past several months and in order to refresh my memory I have been reviewing the Hansard report of the debate. Before commenting directly on some of the statements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), I should like to point out that actually this discussion has been going on for much lohger than the past several months. This is a subject that has been debated for a number of decades. For example, I can recall in the mid 1950's the then member for the Yukon, supporting the Liberal government of the day, was taking strong exception to the principle of the bill that is once more, in substance, before this House. He was speaking on behalf of the people he represented in the Yukon Territory. I refer to Mr. Aubrey Simmons, who so effectively dealt with the matter at that time that the bill was set aside. Now, once again it is reappearing today in much the same terms as the bill that was discussed during those controversial days in the mid 1950's.
As a former minister of the department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has been looking pleadingly in the direction of the Chair for the last few minutes. I think the time has finally come to bring to the attention of the members of the House that the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) has the floor and is attempting to make a very interesting speech. Those who are interested in following his remarks, as they are anxious to do, are having some difficulty.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The grand exodus that follows the question period when Orders of the Day are called always creates a momentary disturbance. However, I feel the matter before the House is so important that I should put my introductory statement before the House, because it should be noted that this is not a piece of legislation that has suddenly emerged but rather one that has been under discussion for many years. It appeared once before and was strongly opposed, as I have said, by the then member for Yukon.
As I was saying when Your Honour so kindly intervened in order to assure the attention of the members of the House, this matter was under discussion when I had the privilege of having ministerial responsibility. The reason no action was taken at that time is precisely the reason that was put forward by the former member for Yukon and put forward once again by the present member for

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in very forceful and comprehensive terms. The Yukon is one of the old established areas of Canada, established even before the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta which came into Confederation in 1905. I think the minister is well aware, as a result of his many visits to the north, that because of the long traditions that exit in the Yukon and the growing desire for autonomy, before any initiative is taken in this matter that is going to be helpful it will be necessary to have extensive consultations with the responsible people in the north, including the Territorial Council. During the course of my remarks this morning I want to indicate, by quoting statements from residents of the territory including members of the Territorial Council, that this is still precisely the case.
In reviewing the introductory statements of the minister, let me say he has done a very excellent public relations job. The present administration is very long on PR and sometimes short on actual involvement. We have the phrase "participatory democracy" that has been one of the shibboleths of the present government. But if we are to have participatory democracy we really must get down to the grass roots and consult with the people most concerned. It has been said that there are politicians who are born great, have greatness thrust upon them, and achieve greatness; but in this modern age of PR many of the politicians achieve their position as a result of hiring capable press agents.
In the minister's statement to this House, he used the phrase that Bill C-187 is "the updating and modernizing of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act of 1924". He suggested that the changes were going to be minor, such as using a mound of stone rather than wooden staking posts, for example. That is quite logical because wood is scarce and stones are plentiful in the Yukon. Then, there is going to be the use of metallic tags and an increase in the number of claims allowed from 16 to 36. This is what is known as the "soft sell". The minister also makes the point that financial return to the Crown will be more generous than under the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
I want to raise a point that appears at page 4000 of Hansard for March 5, a point that is a vital aspect of this debate and the real point of controversy. The minister is reported as saying:
The bill not only provides for more efficient local management but also for some new measures to stimulate the mining industry which is already flourishing in the Yukon.
I am going to make that the text for my remarks this morning because that one sentence brings into focus the main area of controversy. Instead of providing for local management, the bill is placing more and more power in the hands of the bureaucracy. The new act provides for sweeping powers to be given to officials and the minister, and it is for this reason that there has been some strong protest from the Yukon Territory. The minister also talked about stimulating the mining industry, and then immediately used the contradictory phrase "which is already flourishing in the Yukon". If the mining industry is flourishing in the Yukon, why do we have to go through the exercise that has been initiated by the introduction of Bill C-187? The question of local autonomy or,
to use the minister's phrase, "efficient local management", is the essence of the problem at the present time.
noon)
In the last two decades since the establishment of the Department of Northern Affairs in 1953, there has been a growing sentiment in favour of more local autonomy. A promise was made that by Canada's centennial year, 1967, a giant step would be taken toward local autonomy. That giant step was not taken, with the result that there have been increasing protests from the residents of the Yukon Territory. These protests initiated a report by Mr. Carrothers which went into the difficulties in some detail. The report has been made available to members of the House. I want to deal briefly, however, with a more recent confrontation on this problem which occurred when members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution of Canada were in the Yukon Territory last September. There, the Yukon Chamber of Mines appeared before the committee, represented by Mr. Dave Robertson. In this regard I should like to quote from the Whitehorse Star of September 17, 1970:
What was described by one M.P. on the Senate Joint Committee as a "thorough and thoughtful brief" was presented Tuesday night at their first Whitehorse hearing, by Dave Robertson on behalf of the Yukon Chamber of Mines.
During the first day of their Yukon visit, members of the committee had travelled to Dawson City and heard a number of speakers there, before flying back for an evening session in the Elks Hall here.
That refers to Whitehorse.
The Chamber of Mines' brief sparked a two-hour discussion in which almost every Senator and Member of Parliament took part.
The essence of the brief was that members of the Yukon Chamber on Mines, as represented by Mr. Robertson, felt they had not been consulted fully concerning the bill which is before us at the present moment. Their protest was in the same terms as that presented by Mr. Simmons back in the 1950's and again by the present member for the Yukon at this time. Let me read further with regard to that brief:
The Chamber of Mines brief, designed to be applicable to the development of all the Yukon's resources, summed up its recommendations in the following words:
"The initial establishment of the administration of all regulations governing the resource industries to be located where direct contact with those persons developing the resources can be maintained, as in the provinces. The transfer of control of the resources, flexible and subject to other considerations.
"Local involvement in legislation affecting the Territory and the development of its resources, by requiring the local government (the Territorial Council) to become involved in the legislative process affecting matters which would be the concern only of the Territorial Council of the Yukon had status equal to the provinces. This is no more than a right already enjoyed by 21 million Canadians.
That places the point clearly in focus in respect of the man who was representing the resource development industry in the Yukon Territoritory. If I may be a little more specific, one of the councillors elected in the latest elections in the Yukon last summer, Mr. Norman Cham-

April 23, 1971

berlist, also appeared before the committee and spoke in the following terms:
Norman Chamberlist told the Committee they were sitting in an area "where 70 years of frustration and the worst type of colonial status" had existed. "Even in the crown colony of Hong Kong they have the power to administer their own affairs" he said.
And then in a further paragraph in the report in the Whitehorse Star, we find this:
The councillor, recently re-elected for Whitehorse East, said the changes which appear to have been made in council set-up are really not improvements at all. Putting two elected members on the executive committee doesn't go far enough and is "just the icing on the cake" he said. He charged that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was building "a government within a government" to control more than 50 per cent of the land area of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the point the hon. member is making is very interesting, but he is making it at the wrong time. Last fall we had legislation concerning the administration of the Yukon and the changes were discussed and debated in the House. They were approved by the House. Now, we are discussing a mineral bill which really does not concern the administration of the Yukon Territory. I believe the hon. member should confine his remarks to the bill itself, because we wish to have his enlightened views in respect of this bill and not in respect of the bill that was passed last year.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the minister, may I say I think perhaps he has overlooked the fact that the changes in the Yukon Act which passed trough the House recently had to do with the transfer of certain areas of jurisdiction to the territorial administration. Unlike most areas in Canada, the Yukon has a two-headed, jurisdictional monster, one head of which is the responsibility of the federal government in respect of the bill under discussion and another head in respect of which the jurisdictional responsibility has been transferred to the territorial administration to which the minister is referring. Therefore, I believe the hon. member who has the floor is perfectly in order in referring to these federal aspects of the administation of the Yukon Territory.


Mr. Speaker:: The point raised by the minister is one of interest. The argument by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) appears to be reasonable, but it is difficult for the Chair, without looking into all the details of the act much more closely, to determine whether the hon. member who now has the floor is going beyond the limit of the bill itself. That hon. member, who is one of the senior members of the House, knows the rules much better than the Speaker, and he realizes that he must limit his contribution in the debate to what is before the House, which is the second reading of the bill. I might add that he knows much better than the Speaker what is in the bill, and I am sure he would not want to take advantage of the situation to discuss at this time matters which do not fall within the scope of the bill which is now under consideration.
Yukon Minerals Act


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for those enlightening words. Perhaps because of all the noise which prevailed when the debate began today, the minister did not catch my point. 1 am emphasizing the fundamental problem that arises in connection with legislating for the Yukon Territory. The minister makes the point that it is the responsibility of the federal government. This is the reason we have such a strong protest from the people of the Yukon. They want to have move of this responsibility in theii hands. I was quoting from responsible leaders of the Yukon who underlined this point. Now, I should like to quote from the minister himself. I refer to a press release of February 27, 1971 from his department. The following appears on page two of that release:
Regarding the Yukon Minerals Act, Mr. Chretien said that recent discussions in Whitehorse by officials of his department and representatives of the mining industry and the Yukon Legislative Council had resulted in a very meaningful exchange of ideas.
The phrase "a meaningful exchange of ideas" means that there was a good deal of heated controversy. In the world of semantics, that is the interpretation which one can always make at. The press release continues:
He also said that he had been persuaded that further consideration should be given to some modification of the deductions allowable for royalty purposes. "While I know the reasons for concern about the Canadian participation provisions," the Minister said, "I feel that activity in oil and gas exploration in the North and in mining in the Northwest Territories, where similar provisions apply, indicates that the concerns are over emphasized."
Obviously, there is real static arising from the territory. I know, as a former minister, that this is the case when Ottawa arbitrarily intrudes into areas of responsibilities that should, at this late date, devolve upon the local people. The minister referred to "efficient local management". That is the first point I want to make, the necessity of consultation. The minister, I am sure, is aware of that point.
I should now like to deal briefly with another major issue, that is the application of the Canadian mining regulations to the Yukon territory. These were introduced to the Northwest Territories in 1961 and provide, as hon. members know, for Canadian participation in companies incorporated in Canada, and the listing of shares on the Canadian stock exchange at the production stage of resource development. There is no application of these regulations at the exploration or the lease stage of resource location and exploration.
The reason that these regulations were not applied to the Yukon territory in 1961 is precisely that there was no local agreement from the Yukon chamber of mines nor from the Yukon Territorial Council for the very good reason that they had an established industry. They had these traditions and they had a record of efficient management of resources over half a century. The minister himself acknowledged this when he used the phrase "the mining industry which is already flourishing in the Yukon". If it is already flourishing, why aggravate the situation, as the proposed new bill does? It is true that
5186

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
there has been an upsurge in the Northwest Territories since 1961, but this is more related to developments such as the Pine Point railway, which was to open the Pine Point mining operation, a project which was opposed by the Liberal opposition oi the day. The upsurge has nothing to do with the Canadian mining regulations. The opening of the Pine Point mine was directly connected with the construction of the Pine Point railway by the former Conservative government.
The same applies to the exploration activity in the high Arctic with respect to oil. This is directly related to the well that was drilled on Melville Island in 1961, promoted by Dome Petroleum and a consortium of minor Canadian oil companies which took this tremendous risk of going into the high Arctic in the winter of 1961-62 and drilling an exploratory well. It is called a wildcat well because, I suppose, it was really a wildcat operation which paved the way for the present interest which is going forward under the auspices of Panarctic. Panarctic is a consortium of government and private companies, much on the same basis as the initial operation in 1961.
I should like to revert to what this will mean in terms of development in the Yukon. The same principle applies in the Yukon as in the Northwest Territories. During the 1960's there has been an upsurge of production from $13 million to $80 million. This is largely based on the development of the asbestos mine at Clinton Creek, the New Imperial mine on the outskirts of Whitehorse, and on the Anvil mine which came into production just over a year ago. But again, these operations are related more to the development programs that were carried out in the latter 50's and 60's than to any change in the legislation. There was no change in the legislation. The New Imperial mine was made possible by capital investment from Japan, and the Anvil mine is a consortium of Canadian, Japanese, German and British interests. All these projects were made possible by the Roads to Resources program that took place in the latter 50's and 60's. In other words, progress has been based on infrastructure rather than legislative manipulation.
I notice that the minister made an announcement recently that the Dempster highway is proceeding to connect the Yukon territory to the Mackenzie delta. The Mackenzie highway was under way in the early 1960's and was stopped by the Liberal government when it came to power in 1963. Instead of a new development, it is the resurrection of an aborted development that was under way and should now be completed. It is being revised now because the growing mining activity in the Yukon and right through to the Mackenzie delta has made it absolutely necessary to proceed with this project. A railroad will have to be developed also if we are going to bring in the rich iron ore deposits that were located by the Crest Explorations people on the Arctic circle. There are special development problems in the north. These areas are remote from markets; there are special transportation problems, so the costs are 25 per cent to 30 per cent higher. All these matters have to be taken into consideration. We have to listen to the voice of the local people if we are really going to deal with these problems by legislative action.
There is one other matter that I should like to bring into focus, and which I consider to be fundamental. The minister says that he wants efficient local management. This involves giving some consideration to the aboriginal rights of the native people of the Yukon. The minister, because of his failure to consult with Indians and with Eskimos, the aboriginal people of this country, has run into difficulty. He has also encountered difficulty in the national parks because he has failed to consult the local people concerned. I would refer him to the present controversy that is going on in Riding Mountain where the government has decided to close down a roller-rink which has provided positive recreational activities for many years. At a time when the government is providing $15 million for the Opportunities for Youth program, it phases out this program. The department is also phasing out church camps at a time when we need to expand summer opportunities for youth rather than to contract them.
The same problem has arisen with our aboriginal people because of failure to consult. The minister recently made a speech in this connection, as reported in the Globe and Mail of March 24, 1971, as follows:
"The government does not intend to force progress along the directions set out in the policy proposals of June 1969. The future direction will be that which emerges in meetings between the government and Indian representatives and people,"-
This is good, commonsense even though it comes belatedly. The article goes on:
-he said in a lecture sponsored by the Dunning Trust Lectures Committee.
Later in the speech, he referred to the "now defunct policy proposals."
In other words, he has backed down completely on the famous or the infamous Indian white paper in 1969. The response to this white paper was the publication of the Red Paper by the Indian people of Canada. This is something that must be taken into consideration when dealing with this bill. For this reason, I would like to move an amendment:
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this Bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House the terms and conditions agreed to by resolution of this House and recorded in the Journals for 1867 that, upon transfer of the Territory to Canada and upon grant to Parliament of authority to legislate for the welfare and good government of the Territory, the claims of the Indian tribes in the Territory to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement 'will be considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which uniformly governed the British Crown in its dealings with the aborigines' be implemented as a prior condition to the enactment of any further legislation concerning the sale of mineral rights in the lands of the Yukon Territory."
I move this amendment at this time, Mr. Speaker, because in the same article the minister was reported as follows:
Mr. Chretien said flatly that the government will not renegotiate any treaties. It would become, he said, a never-ending process.
(Mr. Dinsdale.]
April 23, 1971

"What will be the situation in 100 years where the Indians of the day will say that the people who dealt with Chretien were crazy to make that kind of deal? We are smarter than that," he said.
"That will never finish. So we say we will respect the treaties and uphold the treaty rights so they can share in the advantages and responsibilities of the Canadian society."
The matter goes further in the Yukon because the aboriginal peoples there do not have treaty rights, and if justice is to be done under the terms of the 1867 resolution this will mean that the present government will have to negotiate in terms of the amendment I have put before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the amendment to the House I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that the Chair has some doubts as to the procedural validity of the motion as put by the hon. member. Briefly, and perhaps this will help hon. members who may want to advise the Chair, it seems to me that this amendment is, in effect, a substantive motion. It is not a reasoned amendment because it does not oppose the principle of the bill. Further, the amendment attaches a condition to the motion for second reading. The amendment clearly states that it attaches a condition, and there are many precedents which say that such an amendment cannot be moved on second reading.
I thought it might be helpful to hon. members, who may wish to argue in support of or in opposition to the regularity of the amendment, if I were to indicate my reservations. Of course, I would be grateful to hon. members who wish to indicate how the Chair might be guided in making a decision, or making a ruling on the acceptability of the proposed amendment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the House but I do wish to make exactly the same point as Your Honour has made. Really, this amendment is not related to the bill at all. It relates to a different problem, a problem of a different nature. The bill that we have before the House is a measure dealing with the administration of minerals in the Yukon, and ways and means of making sure that this mineral development will be achieved for the benefit of all. The amendment is related to a completely different problem. I recognize that it is a problem, but this is not the time to raise that problem. In terms of the specifics of the rules this is the only point I wish to make, but I think some other hon. members on the government side wish to raise other arguments in terms of the procedural aspect of the question.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief but I would submit that the proposed amendment offends the rule governing relevancy, as the minister has just suggested. In the second place, it does in fact clearly establish a condition precedent to the enactment, not only of this legislation but of any other contemplated legislation dealing with this question. This type of condition precedent is doubly repugnant. In the first place, it is repugnant because it is a condition precedent. In the second place, it is repugnant because it is not only a condition precedent to this measure but to any measure dealing
Yukon Minerals Act
with the sale of mineral rights in the lands of the Yukon Territory. There is precedent to indicate that amendments which propose to interfere not only with the passage of the contemplated legislation but with other legislation as well are repugnant.
I would submit that this amendment seems to raise an entirely new question outside the terms of this legislation altogether. But what troubles me the most about it, Mr. Speaker, is that it not only is a condition precedent to the passage of the legislation, but I wonder when Your Honour will be able to decide that such a condition had been fulfilled. The condition, in the terms of the amendment, says that prior to proceeding with this legislation, or the passage of any other legislation dealing with mineral rights in the lands of the Yukon Territory, a resolution enshrined in the Journals of 1867, dealing with fair treatment of Indians and their claims, must be implemented.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, when do we determine that a resolution, such as that referred to in the amendment, which stands on the books of this House and stipulates that we must have fair dealings with the Indian tribes in the territory, has been implemented? When do we arrive at the point when we say that this House has implemented such a resolution which calls upon us to be fair in our dealings with Indians and to compensate them for lands acquired in the Yukon Territory?
I submit that this amendment does not appear to be opposed to the principle of the bill, but rather refers to in general to fair dealing. Since it is not opposed to the principle of the bill, it should be ruled out of order. I submit that it is not relevant to the provisions of the bill and should be ruled out of order. I submit it raises a new condition, Mr. Speaker, and in imposing a condition precedent, not only to the passage of this legislation but to the passage of any other legislation dealing with this question, it should be ruled out of order. Furthermore, the condition precedent is impossible of fulfilment. For these reasons, I submit that Your Honour should rule the amendment out of order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The parliamentary secretary has placed before Your Honour two questions, one dealing with a matter of fact and the other dealing with a matter of the relevancy of the amendment to the bill.
I would submit with regard to the matter of fact that the question of whether or not the terms of an earlier resolution of the House have, or have not, been implemented would rest within the judgment of the House rather than being considered a procedural matter for Your Honour to decide. I feel that this is the obvious answer to that particular question which was raised by the parliamentary secretary, and I would submit that particular question is therefore irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not the amendment is in order.
I should like now to consider the question of whether or not the amendment is relevant to the bill. In view of a remark Your Honour made earlier to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that perhaps he might have more acquaintance with the details of the bill than

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
Your Honour had an opportunity of acquiring, might 1 point out that Part II of the bill deals with the acquisition and recording of mineral claims in the lands of the Yukon Territory. In that Part, there are specific proposals that certain lands may or may not be acquired for this purpose. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the question of relevancy is being raised, the principle of the amendment is on all fours with the basic principle of the bill. The bill deals with the acquisition and recording of claims or, to put it in reverse language, with the sale of mineral rights in the Yukon. It is quite within the ambit of the discussion of the basic principle of this bill for this House to have an opportunity of declaring itself on whether the terms and conditions with respect to the acquisition of these claims should be determined in light of the previous action of this House which is mentioned in the amendment.
I would therefore submit that, in substance, the amendment is on all fours and lies within the ambit of the basic principle of the bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: I just arrived in time to hear the golden words of wisdom falling from Your Honour-


John James Greene: That will do you no good.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has obviously been attempting to use the same steps without any success.
As I heard Your Honour, you indicated the doubts you have and indicated what should be the practice with regard to amendments of this type. In response to the hon. parliamentary secretary, I would say that as usual the government approached this with a simple childlike faith that all things must be in order and in strict accordance with what has been done in the past so far as the form of amendments is concerned. If there is any deviation at all-and I use the word in its very best sense, Mr. Speaker-ministers, parliamentary secretaries and others are shocked and horrified. They say that it cannot be done because, although the principle and the idea is the same, a form of wording is used which they do not understand.
As I understand the practice it is very simple. No amendment can be moved, the objective of which could be achieved in the same way by voting against the measure. That leaves it to the ingenuity of those who see some value in the motion being considered by this House, but whose appreciation of that value is diminished by the fact that there should be some other principle expressed by the House. This principle need not necessarily be repugnant to the measure which the House is considering but should at least be at variance with it. Hon. members are then saying, "While we would like to vote for the passage of this bill, and while we do not want to vote against it, we would ask the House to adopt a principle which is somewhat different and which involves an acceptance of a fact which would otherwise be neglected by the passage of the original motion to adopt the bill for second reading."
I think this is the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). He is saying, "We do not want the bill read a second time," but suggests this House resolves that it accepts a principle which the House a great many years ago had apparently adopted. With the adoption of that principle by the House, then we are inclined to say that the bill may have second reading. However, without the adoption of the measure contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris, we are not so inclined.
At this time hon. members find themselves in a quandary. Do we vote against second reading of the bill or do we vote for it? We say we suspend our decision on that until the House has dealt with this amendment which contains a principle not contrary to but at variance with the original bill which the House is considering.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is to propose that Bill C-187 be not now read a second time but that the House proceed to resolve that the claims of the Indian tribes in the Yukon Territory "be considered and settled in conformity", and so on, as the resolution reads.
In my submission, Mr. Speaker, this practice follows the authority of May's Seventeenth Edition, pages 526 and 527 under the heading "Reasoned Amendment" at the foot of page 526, and I quote:
It is also competent for a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a "reasoned amendment." This amendment is to leave out all the words in the main question after the word "that" and to add other words; and the question proposed upon the amendment is, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.
Under the first subparagraph of that citation, Mr. Speaker, appear these words:
It may be declatory-
That is the amendment.
-of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill.
In my submission that effectively disposes of the submission of the parliamentary secretary that such an amendment cannot be adverse to the principle of the bill, even if the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was right in restricting the effect of the amendment to the expression of a variance with the principle of the bill. May goes on further and stipulates that such an amendment may be declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principle of the bill.
The same conclusion is reached if one refers to Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition, page 168, paragraph 201, which reads:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the House an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the words of the question after the first word, "That", and to substitute in their place other words of a different import.

April 23. 1971

I draw Your Honour's attention to the closing words of that sentence, "and to substitute in their place other words of a different import".
I should like also to draw Your Honour's attention to a publication which was put together by one of the respected officers of this House, Dr. Ollivier. It is entitled "British North America Acts and Selected Statutes, 1867-1962" At page 92 of that publication is set forth a section of the British North America Act which I shall read:
109. All lands, mines, minerals, and royalties belonging to the several provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union, and all sums then due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals, or royalties, shall belong to the several provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise-
And here are the words which I wish to draw to your attention:
-subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the province in the same.
It is my submission, Your Honour, that the legislation with which this bill purports to deal is subject to a trust which is recorded in the Journals of this House of 1867. Therefore, the amendment properly deals with a reference to our Journals and purports by its wording to have the Parliament of Canada proceed, subject to the trusts by which it is bound, as recorded in its own Journals. I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that I have dealt effectively with both points raised by the parliamentary secretary with the authorities that I have cited and I urge Your Honour to accept the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with apologies to my friend, George Bain, perhaps I might say a few words on this point of order. I think it must be accepted that reasoned amendments always create difficulties for those who draft them, for those who speak to their procedural validity, and for the Chair. I might also say that I have frequently been surprised both ways. Sometimes reasoned amendments that I thought were clearly out of order have been accepted; and, on occasion, the reverse has happened.
Your Honour has indicated that you have some doubts about this. I think, therefore, that that gives us the right to try to resolve those doubts and to suggest that this can be done. One of the arguments that has been advanced- indeed, Your Honour suggested it from the Chair-is that this amendment in its very language lays down a prior condition and, therefore, that it should be ruled out of order. I know that that has been a reason in the past for ruling out of order some reasoned amendments; yet I suggest that it is hard to get around Citation 382 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which is a condensation of the citation that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) just read from May's Seventeenth Edition. Precisely because it is a condensation I might, perhaps, be permitted to read it:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a Bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing
Yukon Minerals Act
opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress;-
I will stop there. There are two more lines but they are completely irrelevant to the point before us.
It seem to me, Sir, that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) is opposed to the progress of the bill. He is concerned about its being introduced when this other matter has not been dealt with and I suggest that it is not repugnant to parliamentary procedure if a member takes that stand. May I characterize the substantive question. It is a clear one. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris says that he does not want this bill to be proceeded with until a clear declaration has been made about a certain matter.
That leads me to the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council. May I comment on this question briefly, even though my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in my view disposed of it pretty quickly. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council suggested that if this amendment were allowed it would put Your Honour in a difficult position. How would Your Honour decide when a bill had met this so-called prior condition. I think my friend from Comox-Alberni was quite right; that would not be a decision that Your Honour would have to make. The House might pass a motion today saying that we will not accept any legislation for all time unless this condition has been met, and the same House tomorrow might pass legislation without that condition having been met. There is nothing standing in the way of Parliament doing inconsistent things. I have been annoyed at some of the things that have been decided around here, presumably for all time, which subsequently have been changed. We have a statute known as the Canadian Bill of Rights that says that certain matters shall not be enacted into legislation. But that is only an annual statute. Arguments have surrounded that piece of legislation. It has been argued that Parliament can pass a bill contrary to its provisions, even though it may protect itself by saying, "notwithstanding the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights".
So, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the authority and sovereignty of Parliament at all times, it seems to me that the passing of an amendment like this would be simply a declaration of where the House stands today on this matter. But the House is still the master of its proceedings and the master of its destiny and can make another decision tomorrow, next week or in the next session. So, Sir, to answer the suggestion put forward by Your Honour and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, it seems to me that this amendment really does not offend our procedural practices in that what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris is saying is, "I do not want this bill to be proceeded with until the House has had a chance to make this statement." Personally, I am not opposed to the passing of this bill on second reading; but it seems to me that the right of my hon. friend to seek this declaration is covered by the rules.
Some question has been raised as to whether the amendment is relevant to the bill. I think, again, that my

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
colleague from Comox-Alberni has cleared up that point. That is always a fine point. The subject of a reasoned amendment has to be relevant to the bill. Somehow it has to touch on the subject that is touched on in the bill, or you cannot raise it. But, if it is an amendment that seeks to do something which could be done by amending a clause in the bill, then you cannot do it. That is one of the reasons why reasoned amendments have always been so difficult from a procedural point of view.
We must also consider another point which has been raised both ways. I think I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council say that this amendment was wrong in that it was opposed to the bill. Usually, the ruling of the Chair is-


James Alexander Jerome: In that it is not opposed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In that it is not opposed? That is fine. I accept the correction. The hon. member says that it is not opposed to the bill. I do not see how he can adopt that position because, after all, if the amendment were passed it would defeat the bill right there. That would be the end of it for this session, and if that is not opposing the bill I do not know what is. That meets the condition that has been frequently laid down from the Chair, namely, that when one presents a reasoned amendment one cannot just beat around the bush and talk about things that are interesting to talk about. The mover of that amendment must be clearly opposed to the bill.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, this is a mixed up kind of subject. If I may speak for 30 seconds about my own views on the substance of the matter, may I say that I should like to see the question of aboriginal rights, and so on, discussed by the House. On the other hand, I do not want to see the bill blocked. I should like to see the bill get through. Nevertheless, I defend the right of my friends to my right to take the position that I think they are taking, namely, to use the words of Citation 382, to oppose the further progress of the bill at this time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I very briefly speak about the matter that Your Honour raised. In case Your Honour has been persuaded or influenced by some of the arguments which have been put forward, may I draw to your attention Citation 203 of Beauchesne which I think is the essential one. The essential question is not whether there is relevancy. Although every member knows that is a requirement. An amendment is ruled out of order if it raises a new question which can only be considered on a distinct motion after notice. I think this amendment raises a new question within the context of the motion that is before the House. I do not want to expand further on that, although authorities and citations can be found at the bottom of page 527 and on page 528 of May's Seventeenth Edition.
There is one other essential point in view of the arguments that have been made. It is with respect to citation 382, to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred. That is that it is competent for a

member to move an amendment where he is opposed to any further progress being made on the bill. I am sure Your Honour will recognize that there are appropriate ways to move an amendment for that purpose. This is not one of them. Even if it were one of them, the House has already taken a decision on that kind of amendment.
Yesterday we voted on an amendment that invoked the six months hoist. I think that is the most direct way to get the sense of the House as to whether members wish to make further progress on the bill before the House. I suggest that determination has already been made by a decision of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their valuable guidance in connection with this very interesting point of order. I took the initiative of indicating to hon. members that I had serious doubts as to certain procedural aspects of the amendment. The hon. member of Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out the difficulty with which hon. members are met in drafting so-called reasoned amendments, and the difficulty with which the Chair is faced in determining whether such amendments fall within the four corners of the established practice in relation to reasoned amendments.
I indicate nothing new to hon. members when I remind them that there are not very many kinds or types of amendments that can be moved on second reading. The scope or range of such amendments is very limited. Hon. members know that, generally speaking, they can move what is termed the six months hoist which was moved earlier in connection with this bill. Hon. members can move, by way of an amendment on second reading, that the subject matter of a bill be referred to a committee and they can move a reasoned amendment. That is about the limit of the amendments that can be proposed.
Reasoned amendments are not frequent in our practice. They are used more liberally in the British House, and to some extent we have to rely on the British practice to determine whether such amendments moved as reasoned amendments can be accepted. The hon. member for Yukon has very helpfully referred to May's Seventeenth Edition which specifies the conditions which govern a reasoned amendment.
Other hon. members have referred to the matter of relevancy. I indicated earlier that I had some difficulty determining whether the hon. member for Brandon-Sou-ris, in the course of his contribution to the debate on second reading of this bill, was entirely relevant. Having made that admission, I find it a little difficult to make a ruling on the relevancy of the amendment which applies the line of argumentation proposed earlier by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.
I have some reservations. Looking at the amendment and the title of the bill, I find that there may be some difference between the two, but I do not think that I should make a ruling on this basis. What worries me more seriously is whether this amendment as drafted imposes a condition precedent. Hon. members know very well that it is not competent to move an amendment which imposes a condition precedent, that is a reasoned amendment based on such conditions. I refer hon. mem-
April 23, 1971

bers to May's Seventeenth Edition at page 528, subparagraph (2), on this point.
Perhaps an even more important point is whether this amendment opposes the principle of the bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the consequence of the adoption of the amendment would be that the bill could not be proceeded with if the amendment were carried. I do not disagree with that, but the amendment in these words, taken as such, does not oppose the principle of the bill. I believe that this is one of the essential aspects of a reasoned amendment, that it should first oppose the principle of the bill and indicate reasons why the second reading should not be proceeded with.
I refer hon. members to citation 393 (1) of Beauchesne:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a Bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the Bill.
I think this is fundamental. I have always felt that hon. members who wished to propose a reasoned amendment can do so fairly easily with a bit of imagination, providing they find some way which does oppose the principle of the bill and indicates in general terms why the mover of the amendment does not think that the bill should be proceeded with further That is why I have not been entirely reluctant to rule a reasoned amendment out of order because I feel that hon. members are not penalized very seriously. With some imagination, they can always rectify or remedy what the Chair thinks is a defect in the amendment which has been proposed.
This having been said, I have no alternative but to make a ruling in conformity with the British precedents relating to reasoned amendments and to tell the hon. member that I do not think that the amendment as proposed is acceptable. I do so with regret, because I appreciate the importance of the matter and the willingness and anxiety of hon. members to discuss, in relation to the second reading of the bill now before us, that aspect of the matter raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. My conclusion must be that the amendment cannot be put.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
.00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, when Bill C-187 was introduced in the House last November, and during the brief time in which it was debated during March, it had been my intention to speak briefly on the subject, not so much in respect of what the bill contains but rather in relation to some glaring omissions which I felt I should bring to the attention of the House.
The bill is a comprehensive one. It is a complicated measure, and generally speaking hon. members feel it represents the government's plan for the operation of Yukon mining resources in the future. When we consider the legislation in this light we find, as has been men-
Yukon Minerals Act
tioned by previous speakers, that it runs somewhat contrary to the views expressed by several ministers sitting on the other side of the House.
A great deal of interest has been shown in this subject over the last few years, especially in the question of foreign control of Canadian industry and natural resources. At the present time, a large group in Canada is recruiting support in favour of what it terms an independent Canada. I said a few moments ago that the bill, in many respects, runs contrary to statements made by Ministers of the Crown. Yesterday in the House the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) referred to the remarks of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) in the course of the symposium on petroleum economics and evaluation which was held in Dallas in March. I know the minister may say we are misinterpreting his words, but it appears to me the minister indicated that foreign investment would certainly be welcomed by Canada. I can tell him I appreciate his interest in this respect.


An hon. Member:: The minister of energy does not want it, though.


Robert Simpson: My hon. friend is right. He has spoken out against it on many occasions. However, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time stated to this group that foreign capital need not fear because Canada would remain an open country seeking positive, not negative, answers to questions relating to foreign investment.
A close look at this bill reveals that it introduces, unlike the existing act, Canadian ownership requirements which in effect provide that a lease of mineral rights can be granted only to a Canadian citizen or Canadian corporation incorporated in Canada; that 50 per cent of the outstanding shares of such corporation must be issued and beneficially owned by Canadian citizens or other Canadian corporations. It is easy for one to say that there should be not too much quarrel with that proposition, and generally I have no quarrel with it, though I for one do welcome foreign investment in Canada. The one reason that I wish to speak on Bill C-187 is that I learn from the bill that there are certain requirements governing foreign investment in minerals in the Yukon.
Ministers have been going across the country offering their own suggestions as to what the Canadian government should require in respect to foreign capital in Canada, and this brings me to the point I should like to make. Although I have said that this is not a good bill, I feel that in many places it is an exceptionally bad bill because of several important omissions in its provisions.
For example, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) mentioned briefly that nowhere in the bill is there any spelling out of the rights that native peoples may have in regard to the future sale or development of natural resources in the Yukon. The hon. member went so far as to move an amendment, which I was disappointed to see ruled out of order because the main objection that I and many others have to this bill is that the rights
5192

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
of our native peoples are not spelled out or even considered in it. I realize I might be charged with being out of order in speaking at great length about the rights of our native peoples in a debate on Bill C-187. But if this legislation is passed by the House, certain mineral resources in the Yukon will be developed, as they are being developed, with no opportunity whatever being given to the native peoples to discuss or put forward any of the requests they have made for a fair share of the natural resources of the land that once was theirs.
The government may say that all these things will be taken care of, though I think they will have a great deal of difficulty convincing the native peoples of this. For many years members of this House protested that there was no Indian claims commission in operation. For some seveh or eight years, these members were told that an Indian claims commission would be set up in the near future. The Indian people got tired of waiting for this commission to commence operations. Nevertheless, they carried on very extensive discussions, or at least endeavoured to, with the government representatives in respect to their claims which, over the years, have remained unfulfilled.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to be unpleasant to the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a point of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should remember that we are discussing the Yukon minerals bill, not the Indian claims commission. I am ready to entertain questions in the House on that subject when the occasion arises, as I have many times so far. But may I say I should like enlightenment on the subject of minerals in the Yukon, not on the subject of the Indian claims commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think the minister has made a point. When the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson) began his remarks about the Indian peoples he indicated that he would not be very long because Mr. Speaker might find him out of order. I am taking the hon. member at his word, and I hope that he is just concluding those particular remarks.


Robert Simpson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can understand the minister's concern in bringing this matter to your attention; it must be getting very tiresome for the government to hear continually requests regarding our native people's rights in Canada, especially in view of the fact that nothing whatever has been done about the many demands made by the Indian peoples regarding their property rights, let alone their hunting and other rights which are theirs through treaty. I realize, of course, that the Indian people of the Yukon Territory do not have treaty rights, as do Indian peoples in other areas.
If I may make my remarks a little more relevant to Bill C-187, and not discuss further the property rights of our native peoples, may I say I am also very disappointed
that there is nothing spelled out in this bill about any royalties that may accrue from mineral development on lands that are presently occupied by native groups.
It is all very well for the minister to say that if a large mining development takes place in the Yukon closely adjacent to or on land upon which our native peoples are living and have lived for a number of years, proper compensation will be paid to them. The minister may say that and may genuinely believe that this question will be taken care of by the government of the day. However, in view of the fact there is no provision in this bill giving the native people protection in this regard, I find it is very difficult to accept the bill at this time. Before I conclude my remarks it is, therefore, my intention to move an amendment to the bill.
Once again I wish to say that it is exceedingly difficult for me to comprehend why the subject of the rights of the native people of the Yukon is not relevant to this bill. After all these people have been there for many years and undoubtedly the land on which they live will some day produce mineral resources. I think that in itself is an indication that their cause is very relevant to this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
The hon. member for the Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke on this bill on March 25, I indicated to the House and to the minister, because I am sure he was not aware of the extent to which there is opposition by the mineral industry in the Yukon and by the people of the Yukon, that the mineral industry generally is opposed to four offensive and objectionable features in this bill. It would be well to remind hon. members because 48 days have passed since this matter was last discussed, what these objections are. There is a lack of judicial appeal from the discretionary powers given to the public servants and the minister himself under this bill. There is virtually no provision for appeal by judicial process from a decision affecting the title to mineral rights in the Yukon made in governmental offices. No intelligent long-range planning can be made with any security by anyone undertaking the development of mineral resources if the rules are changed halfway through the game.
The second objectionable feature is the power in this bill to make regulations. The bureaucrats would have us believe this power is inserted in the bill because they want some kind of flexibility in these modern times. They say that technology has been so far advanced, and mineral exploration techniques altered so substantially, that there must be this kind of governmental interference now for the sake of efficiency. Yet we have had a mineral

April 23, 1971

code in the form of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act operating in the territory for almost half a century with no power to make regulations. In the same breath the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) likes to take all sorts of plaudits for the rapidly accelerating development of the mineral industry in the Yukon. If it is rapidly accelerating and growing, it must be doing so in an efficient fashion. If so, why then is there the need for the inclusion of these wide discretionary powers in respect of making regulations? There can, of course, be but one answer. The government, the state, does not want the mineral industry to be controlled by the investment dollar. They want to tell the mineral industry where, when and how it can mine and under what terms. In fact, they wish to have virtual and absolute control over the industry. That is why, the last time I participated in this debate, I said it is their intention, whether declared or otherwise, not only in this field but in all the legislation I have seen go through this House in the last two and a half years, to garner for the government an increased degree of control through legislation. There is a long list of those engaged in the mineral industry in the north country who are profusely objecting to the provisions of this bill, two of which I have pointed out. I am not understating the situation.
A third objectionable feature of the bill is the newly constructed royalties provisions which the minister would have the members of the House believe alter in no substantial way the provisions that are in effect in other parts of Canada. That, Sir, is far from being the case. The royalties provisions now in this bill, if applied, will triple and more the royalties which are now payable by those pursuing the development of our mineral resources in the north. The minister, in his last remarks on this bill, equated the royalties which would be payable under these provisions with those now payable in Quebec and British Columbia. That is far from being the case. If the regulations are applied as they are now, the royalties will be substantially increased over the royalties paid by the industry in those two provinces, and this despite the fact that mineral resource development in the Yukon must compete with markets 1,500 miles further away than those in the province of British Columbia and the province of Quebec.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend but perhaps I could save him some time. Is he not aware that I said I intend to propose at the committee stage some changes in respect of the point he is making. I said this in my first speech. I would hope, therefore this debate could be completed as quickly as possible so that these changes might be made.


Erik Nielsen: I realize the minister would like to see his bill go through without any objection whatsoever or that he would like to see a minimum amount of disagreement in respect of these objectionable features.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: State the facts.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am stating the facts, and when I do not I invite the minister to interrupt. The minister made a token gesture, accompanied by blaring
Yukon Minerals Act
trumpets, when he stated that he would make some alteration in the royalties. I predict the alteration the minister will introduce before the committee will be simply taken as a camouflage in an attempt to make the bill more palatable to those who submitted massive objections to him, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the committee in respect of royalties and the other objectional features. When the minister made the statement to which he referred, and published his press release, he said nothing about making alterations to the offensive regulatory power he has included in the bill. He said nothing about presenting an amendment in the committee regarding the restrictions we now impose on the investment dollar. For some 70 years the investment dollar has been flowing into the Yukon for the purpose of developing its mineral resources. Now, all of a sudden, the minister includes a provision in this bill which has already frightened away 30 per cent of the investment capital which is non-recoverable this year because the companies make their plans much in advance of the fall.
I have been told that the loss in respect of the investment dollar this year might be 50 per cent. This is accompanied by another serious difficulty. When I was in Alaska I was informed they have now enacted a retributive regulation which imposes upon Canadian companies a requirement of reciprocity. In other words, Canadian companies that have been active in exploration activities along the 50 mile strip of the Alaskan territory west of the Yukon-Alaskan boundary will be required to come up to the same standard that we are imposing upon United States Companies, otherwise they will not get rights to go in and explore that territory. Already deleterious effects on the Canadian industry and resource development in the Yukon have been noticed.
I will name just a few of the companies that have registered complaints with respect to this bill. This bill cannot be considered in a vacuum because, when combining the odious provisions in this bill with the completely impractical provisions in the land use regulations, which the Governor in Council intends to enact, governing the activities of explorers for mineral resources in the Yukon, and combining these provisions further with the probable legislative consequences of the white paper, we can find that the independent existence of the mineral industry in the Yukon will be virtually snuffed out.
Dynasty Explorations Limited, one of the major shareholders in the $100 million mining development at Anvil in the Yukon have registered very strong complaints against the provisions which I have pointed out in this bill. Atlas Explorations Limited, active in the Yukon to a great extent, have now pulled in their horns this year as a result of this odious piece of legislation. New Imperial Mines Limited who have closed down their operations this year because they ran out of economic ore as a result of the lowering of copper prices, is another such company. It takes no genius to figure out that the more overhead you place upon the mineral industry in the Yukon territory, a high cost area of operation, in the form of royal-

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
ties or taxation, the less economic ore that industry will have to mine, the more marginal will be their operations. If the royalties provisions as proposed in this bill are enacted, very likely that mine will not go back into production. United Keno Hill Mines in the heart of the mineral rich Yukon territory, if these royalties provisions are enacted and if the white paper proposals on taxation are enacted, will likely also go out of business.
This government holds itself forth as a government which offers incentives for the development of resources in the Yukon and in the north. I say that is rubbish, otherwise they would not be proposing this kind of stupid legislation. Cassiar Asbestos Corporation Limited and Clinton Creek Asbestos, have both registered strong objections to the provisions in the bill. The Council of the Association of Professional Engineers, the Mining Association of B.C., the Mining Association of Canada, the A. J. Forsythe and Company Limited, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Hanna Mining Company, Archer Cathro and Associates Limited, who already have sent a telegram to the minister saying that they have curtailed their investment plan in the Yukon this year by 30 per cent and are looking elsewhere for a more attractive investment climate, have all registered complaints because of the objectionable features in this bill.
The previous Liberal candidate in the last federal election, who took leave of absence from his position as a geologist with the federal government in order to run against me, has written personally to the minister at length expounding the objections which I am now raising on behalf of the industry and on behalf of the people of the Yukon. I imagine that his representations are getting just as short shrift as any that will be made by government members, if they indeed are making any. As a matter of fact, the very lack of any contribution from hon. members sitting on the other side of the House indicates the extent of their knowledge of the mineral legislation that is now before the House. It would be interesting to hear a few of the members. I see some who are sitting here who know what effect this kind of provision in the legislation will have on the growth of the mineral industry and generally the resource industry in the north. Why do they not rise and express their views?
The Yukon Chamber of Mines have expressed extremely strong views. They represent the mineral industry and are the voice of the development segment of the Yukon population. The Yukon Research and Development Institute in the Yukon, the Yukon Prospectors Association, the Alberta Northwest Chamber of Mines, the Petroleum Association of Canada, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Yukon Trades Council, the Anvil Mining Corporation, the Yukon River Industries Limited, are some of the companies which have expressed objections which I know the minister has received, not to mention the dozens upon dozens of telegrams and letters which have come to the minister and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), all objecting to this bill.
Who are we in this Parliament of Canada to get up and speak, as they do on the other side, of the high-flown principle of participatory democracy and the voice of the
people when there is such massive representation by well over 95 per cent of the people of the Yukon saying that this legislation is something they do not want? Who are we to insist on forcing it down their throats? When this proposal was last brought before the House in 1954 this self-same argument was made by the then sitting member, Mr. Simmons who said that the people of the Yukon do not want this legislation. They do not want the minister to have regulatory powers when we have had a mineral code that has been in existence for half a century which operated quite efficiently and acceptably. Who are we to force our views down the throats of the people of the Yukon. This is participatory democracy? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say "let us have your views; we will consider your views". So, 95 per cent of the people of the Yukon do just that. They say they do not want this measure, but the government goes ahead with it anyway. What a hollow mockery of the principle of participatory democracy.
Reference has been made here today to the rights of the native people with respect to lands and minerals in the Yukon. In my submission, this Parliament is bound by a sacred trust which is recorded in its Journals of 1867 at a time when the territory of the Yukon was purported to have been transferred to the then Dominion of Canada, a fact which I seriously doubt and which has yet to be tested in the courts of our land. Yet, here we are attempting to fly in the face of that trust.
I recently had the good fortune, at the invitation of the minister, to make an extensive tour of New Zealand and Australia, one of the purposes of which was to compare the policies of those two countries with respect to dealing with their aboriginal peoples with those which exist in Canada. The policies which exist in New Zealand, because of different factors, are not relevant to this debate, but they certainly are in Australia where the aboriginal peoples have no absolute right to their lands. They have no treaties and no equivalent to the treaty of 1763, nor do they have the equivalent of what the Maoris of New Zealand have. But what does the government of Australia do? Notwithstanding the absence of any legal basis upon which to develop their policies, they have adopted the position that it is only morally correct that the government should recognize that these peoples do have some rights, and before a mining company obtains a lease to go into production the government of Australia ensures that a part of that production will be guaranteed to their aboriginal peoples. The minister learned this when he was in Australia, and I learned it for the first time, too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Would the hon. member permit a question? I have nothing against this, Mr. Speaker, but I would like him to try to justify his plea to have an added royalty for the Indians in the Yukon when he opposes us having any royalty. Is he suggesting that we should have another royalty for the Indians? I am willing to accept that suggestion.

April 23, 1971


Erik Nielsen: I am very interested to hear that the minister is amenable to a suggestion, but obviously he must be tired because he is not looking at all the facets of the suggestion. I admit that is one possibility, but what I meant was that out of the royalties even now paid into the federal treasury, why isn't a portion given to the Indian peoples and tribes in the Yukon Territory? If it is the intention of the government to insist that these royalties now, or in some minor adjusted form be paid into the federal treasury, why doesn't it give the Indian people of the territory a right to a portion of those royalties? I am not suggesting an additional royalty be added to that already imposed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is the case in Australia.


Erik Nielsen: I didn't hear the minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I said that is the case in Australia. It is an added royalty.


Erik Nielsen: No, no. As I understood the policy, in Australia a mining company, before it goes into production, has to enter into a lease agreement with the Australian government. It is in that agreement that these royalties are negotiated and spelled out at some length. But it does not follow that the government figures out the royalties it wants, and then adds to that sum a further royalty for the aboriginal people. In any event, even if I am wrong on that, it is long past the time when the Canadian government should have guaranteed to our native peoples a portion of the royalties that are now being received by the federal treasury. It is their moral right, without imposing on the Indian people of the Yukon the obligation of going to all the expense and difficulty of proving their claims in court.
Surely, there is a moral obligation to satisfy the legitimate demands of these people, particularly in an area where there have been no negotiations with the Indian people. There are no treaties with the Indians in the Yukon. It is not the case, as it is in the provinces, where treaties have been negotiated with the majority of the Indian tribes and where, under those treaty arrangements, the Indian people are entitled to their quid pro quo, meagre as it might be. Here in the Yukon you have a situation where the government of Canada has presumed to assume control over all of these lands without a yes, no, or by your leave from any of the Indian peoples.
The minister knows that it is the specific desire of the Yukon Native Indian Brotherhood, which he himself has been instrumental in funding, that there be some recognition extended of these rights, but there has been no scintilla of assurance from the minister that they will ever be given any recognition of their rights. That is something that should be done through this legislation, all the more so because the provisions as presently worded are in breach of the specific trust imposed by the Parliament of Canada to ensure that these rights would be guaranteed to the native peoples. What they require now is a statement from the minister that this kind of policy will be the policy of the government. If the government does not come out with a statement such as that, it will be confronted at a crucial time with actions taken
Yukon Minerals Act
through the courts. Injunctions will be obtained and major projects will be held up. I give the minister fair warning that this is going to happen. I think he knows it is going to happen. But all this could be circumvented by the minister saying that the moral obligations-indeed there is a good argument to be made that it is a legal obligation-of the government of Canada to recognize the rights of the native peoples of the Yukon will be honoured.
All he has to say is that it will be the policy of the government to ensure that a portion of these royalties will be put into a fund designated for the benefit of the Yukon Indian peoples. It is a very simple matter, but I very much doubt that he will do it. Indeed, if one can rely on the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), something which it is becoming increasingly difficult to do these days, we have his assurance, given two years ago in British Columbia, that there will be no more treaties, no agreements that amount to treaties with the Indian people of Canada. As a result, it is a very short and unbright future which the Indian people have to look forward to, particularly those in the circumstances in which the Indian people of the Yukon Territory find themselves as well as a good many of those in the Northwest Territories.
There is one other objectionable feature of the bill. I mentioned that there were four. I have mentioned royalties, the lack of judicial appeal, and the regulatory power. The fourth objection that I have, and which I raise on behalf of the industry and of the people of the Yukon, is the fact that the provisions of this bill, as can be seen easily even if hon. members only browse through it, place wide discretionary powers in the hands of such persons as the mining engineer, the mining recorder, the minister, the deputy minister and the myriad of officials who go to make up the empire of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All of these officials, in each of their capacities, are empowered to make decisions anywhere along the line from exploration to production, which can vitally affect the question of production itself. With this kind of lack of security, with this kind of broad discretionary power there can be no reliance whatsoever placed upon a continuing set of circumstances by any of the planners involved in the mineral resource development industry.
What may be valid today at the point where the first prospectors go into the field, might very well be altered tomorrow. The minister knows that it takes around three years to go from the exploration stage to the development stage of any mine. If people in the industry do not have the guarantee of rules written into the statute, rules that will govern their activities from exploration to production, they will just not get involved. For instance, there have been strong statements made such as the one which was made by the President of Anvil Mining Corporation, that if the same legislative prospects had been before them when they made the decision to go ahead with their $100 million development at Faro in the Yukon, that decision would not have been made.
Yesterday the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) said a similar statement was made with

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
respect to a $150 million development in Newfoundland-Labrador. It the promoters had been confronted with the prospect of the proposals in the white paper on taxation finding their way into legislation at the time they made their decision to go ahead, they would not have made that decision. Surely, the massive outcry of the people in the Yukon-the minister smiles, but surely the opinion of these people must mean something to him. Now, he nods in affirmation. If they do mean something then what they say to him is that they do not want this legislation. Surely the voice of the people has to mean something if we are to believe at all in this hocus-pocus of participatory democracy. It is either that, or against that massive outcry in opposition to this legislation the minister is saying to them fuddle-duddle.


John James Greene: Shame! Shame! Withdraw!


Erik Nielsen: I said it.


John James Greene: Unparliamentary.


Erik Nielsen: In my view this highflung phrase, this ostensible adherence to this principle of participatory democracy is just about worth the powder it takes to blow it to kingdom come. We in the Yukon are much too familiar with the antics of the ministers responsible for Yukon affairs, and the bureaucrats responsible for Yukon affairs, to have any faith in a phrase like "participatory democracy".
I may sound like a cynic but it is a very simple question with a very simple answer. If you have this kind of situation where virtually all the people of the Yukon say "We don't want it" and the minister says, "You are going to get it anyway, whether you like it or not", it is like a dose of castor oil. The minister must be interested in the philosophy of justice since law was his profession at one time. If he has any fairness in his heart at all, he will write into the bill a provision for appeal to the courts in every case where a major bureaucratic decision is involved. It is neither justice nor government by the people when bureaucrats make unappealable decisions, particularly where they affect title to mineral claims.
When the minister speaks again, I hope he will deal with some of these questions to the satisfaction of the people of the Yukon. I have mentioned four specific areas in which he and I both know that the people of the Yukon do not want any part of this measure. Unless he puts forward more than mere token admissions that changes will be introduced, and unless he can spell out that the wishes of the residents of the Yukon will be adhered to, then the voice of the people is pretty meaningless. Perhaps we were right all along when we said we were a mere colony subject to the whim of the Chief Governor of the Yukon, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and his Deputy Governor, Mr. Smith of the Yukon. In other words, there is validity in the phrase, and the minister might as well say it, "l'Etat c'est moi" est absolument correct.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the bill before us go by without saying a few words on it. In its way, it is one of the most important bills that has come before this House in a long time. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), its effect upon the territory of the Yukon will be as considerable as the effect of the new tax bill which we expect to see before the end of the current session.
I do not have the same pessimism as the hon. member for the Yukon about the ability of members of this House to write a good bill. I think it is within our capability to appreciate the problem and within the capability of the committee system to come to an understanding of some of the details and practicalities that must go into a bill to make it a good one.


Erik Nielsen: You know all the companies that will go to B.C. from the Yukon.


Grant Deachman: If I might be permitted to continue, the hon. member for the Yukon and I would not find ourselves too far apart, just as the Yukon and British Columbia are not that far apart.


Erik Nielsen: Bennett would like us closer.


Grant Deachman: First of all, I should like to draw attention to the great importance of the Yukon Territory. It is a part of the country that has to be seen to be believed, but not many members of this House of Commons have had that opportunity. If the problems of its mines are to be appreciated, if the infrastructure of the roads, the airstrips, the railways and communications are to be appreciated, then more members of this House should see the territory before this bill becomes law. With that in mind, I hope when the bill goes to committee, the committee will undertake to go to the Yukon and see some of the territory. I hope that an opportunity will be given to others in this House to accompany that committee and that all will then appreciate the importance of what is before us now.
In order to understand the question fully, I believe the committee should visit the city of Vancouver where the head offices of many of the western mining companies and associations are located. Then, members could speak to those who have been involved in the development of mining in northern British Columbia and the Yukon. Perhaps they could also visit Edmonton, which is the capital centre for mining in western Canada. I do not believe that we can fully appreciate whether the terms within this bill are valid to sustain the mining economy unless we first of all go through that exercise and understand the difficulties that these people encounter.
Those members charged with the responsibility of making a report from the Standing Committee should have an appreciation at first hand of what it is like to open up a low grade mine in a remote area of Canada such as the Yukon, to reduce the ore to concentrate and finally to get it out of the country and into the market at a price that is world competitive. If we do not understand this, and the vast capital cost required to build mines and

April 23, 1971

the roads structure necessary to take the product to the market, then we have not come to grips with understanding the bill now before us. As we move the bill from this House into the committee, Mr. Speaker, I feel there is a real necessity to understand the size of the problem that faces the committee and to ensure that the committee understands the proposition by having an opportunity to look at it on the ground.
I am not going to comment on the point raised by the hon. member for the Yukon. He is something of an expert in the field because he lives with it daily. He would not be in this House unless he represented his people well in the field of mining development in the Yukon Territory. I do not feel competent to judge whether his criticisms are fair, but I feel that it is incumbent upon the government when considering this bill, just as it was in the examination of the white paper on taxation, to do such a thorough job that we cannot be accused, when the bill comes back at report stage and for third reading, of not understanding what it is about. We do not want to be accused of not understanding this territory of Canada which has the potential to become one of the richest corners of the world.
I make the plea that we do our job thoroughly as we have learned to do in other cases. We must do it here if we are to respect the territory of the Yukon and its people.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that it was a matter of regret to me that the motion proposed earlier today by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was ruled out of order on procedural grounds. In commenting on the motion now before us I note that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in his remarks referred to the subject matter, shall we say, of the amendment that was proposed by his colleague this morning. I agree with what he said in that respect. Indeed, I think he underlined some remarks of mine yesterday when I spoke on what I felt should be considered as the rights of aboriginal peoples with respect to their heritage in the Yukon Territory. However, that is not really the subject matter of the motion now before us.


Erik Nielsen: That was precisely the reason for the amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Hon. members are familiar with the vigorous and expressive way in which the hon. member for Yukon makes his views known to this House, and I certainly would not accuse him of fuddling or duddling when trying to let us know what he thinks about a matter. Nevertheless, as I listen to him from time to time I detect in the tenor of his arguments the kind of language which he may use in his profession as a pleader before the courts.


Erik Nielsen: Does the hon. member mean that I did not have him in tears?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I think that we in this chamber do not exercise any judicial function over the arguments of hon.
Yukon Minerals Act
members, Nevertheless, I have detected certain flaws in the logic of some of the statements of the hon. member. Up to a point I felt there was a lack of logic in various aspects of his argument respecting the royalties that might be levied on the mining industry. However, I made some general comment on this subject yesterday. I made clear that I do not always share the views of the hon. member for Yukon as to the manner and method under which mining corporations ought to operate and what legal restrictions should properly be imposed on their methods of operation.
The motion we are considering says that the bill should not now be read the second time, but that the subject matter thereof should be referred to the standing committee. I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that this motion contradicts a previously stated position so far as this party is concerned. I and my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), have said that we are prepared to see this bill go to the committee after second reading. We hope that the fullest consideration will be given to it in committee. We reserve our right to determine after that whether we are prepared to agree to final passage of the bill in this House. I again say that this, of course, involves the question of report stage amendments as well as any appropriate motions that may be in order at third reading stage.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Will the hon. member say whether he and his colleagues intend to support the amendment, since its sole purpose is to refer the subject matter of the bill to the committee, as opposed to the bill itself, thus enabling the committee to go into the question that we attempted to go into by way of our previous amendment, namely, that of native rights?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, we in this House are often capable of reading into amendments what we want to read into them and of seeing in them that which we wish them to accomplish. I was coming to the general point which I think is in the mind of the hon. member for Yukon. He has implied that the motion was moved so that the subject matter of the earlier motion concerning aboriginal rights might be considered by the committee. I touched on this matter in my remarks yesterday and said that in my view there would be some opportunity for raising the question of the rights of native peoples during committee stage of the bill. I refer to clause 9 of the bill, which I think provides such an opportunity.
In light of the amendment that was moved earlier today, I do not think there would be the opportunity for the kind of complete consideration of the broad position that I think was proposed this morning. Nevertheless, I feel that this question could be considered in committee under the part of the bill which makes provision for such examination. I indicated yesterday that I intended to look at the question of appropriate amendments that might be considered by the committee in this regard.
In the course of the hon. member's remarks I think the minister referred to amendments that he had in mind which would be suggested for consideration by the committee. We certainly will be prepared to consider them

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
on their merit. I also hope that the minister and his political supporters on the committee will show the same kind of flexibility to amendments which some of us may propose.
Although I might sympathize with the hon. member for Yukon who suggested the purpose of the amendment, having just now listened to the main thrust of his argument I still find myself in disagreement on the position that he feels should be accepted by the House with regard to the activities of mining corporations in the Yukon or in any part of Canada. I made this clear yesterday. However, I agree, as I think he does, that the committee ought to have the opportunity of listening to their arguments. I think all of us want the mining industry of this country to be a viable, economic activity. We may come, as I think was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), somewhat closer to general consensus on this subject than one might think from some remarks made in the debate. So far as I am concerned, that is something for the future.
That brings me to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. He suggested that the committee should visit the Yukon Territory in the course of considering this bill. As a member of the committee, this idea has been very much in my mind. Indeed, I have put it forward. It has been discussed in the committee and I am hopeful there will be general agreement that part of the proceedings of the committee can take place in the Yukon Territory. If I heard him correctly, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra also suggested that the committee should visit Vancouver in the course of its examination of this bill because, as he put it, the headquarters of some mining corporations and those interested in mines are in that city.
I say at once that although I have nothing against the idea of a committee visiting Vancouver on occasion, I think in the circumstances it would be much better if the people to whom he referred were to meet the committee in the city of Ottawa after we have had an opportunity of hearing those who live in the Yukon.
The remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, particularly when he touched on the question of the problems of transportation as they affect mining and economic activity in the northern parts of Canada, including the Yukon Territory, suggest that consideration might be given to the committee visting and examining the situation in the part of British Columbia where the main transportation gap between the Yukon and Vancouver exists.


Erik Nielsen: How will we get there?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We could leave that to the ingenuity of the member for Vancouver Quadra and his colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Borrie), who is sitting close to him at the moment. The matter indirectly raised by the member for Vancouver Quadra is certainly not new. I am glad that a member from the government side of the House raised the question. If this
House is interested in seeing what is necessary for the Yukon Territory to develop economically, increase its population and improve other aspects of community living, there could be less uncertainty in the mind of the government about the Yukon arriving at full provincial status.
The point by the member for Vancouver Quadra about transportation development is well taken. I am glad this question has been raised by a member on the government side because it has been raised more than once over the years from the opposition side. Until now the federal government has not indicated that it is prepared to take responsibility for some of the steps, financial and others wise, which would assist in any major way to close the gap.
I remember a debate a number of years ago when it was proposed that federal financial assistance be extended to the provincially-owned railway system, the Pacific Great Eastern, for an extension of that railway northerly from the city of Prince George. The decision of the government at that time, led by the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, was that the government was prepared to assist to the extent of 50 per cent of the cost of construction up to a maximum of 50 miles northerly from the city of Prince George. That was the limit.
It was suggested at that time that it was not economically viable for the federal authority to be involved in the extension of that railway to any greater extent. As hon. members know, particularly the member for Vancouver Quadra and the member for Prince George-Peace River, that railway system has been extended northerly for a considerably greater distance than 50 miles.
Without having any expert knowledge of the situation, my own view is that it has been a very valuable and economically viable proposition. The connection of that railway to link the Peace River area of British Columbia with the Prince George area and on to the city of Vancouver was an important and constructive s'.ep. As hon. members know, extensions to that railway system are in the course of being developed; there is now a thrust of railway construction in the general direction of the Yukon Territory.
In connection with the general subject matter of this bill, it might be desirable for serious consideration to be given by the government and the House to the fact brought out by the member for Vancouver Quadra that there is a real disability to economic development in the Yukon Territory because of inadequacies in the existing transportation system.
As hon. members know, I do not always agree with the ideas put forward by the Premier of the province of British Columbia nor with all the requests he makes to the government of Canada, usually through the medium of newspaper headlines. However, the idea of federal assistance to link by means of the bulk transportation vehicle-the railway-all the lower parts of British Columbia to the Yukon Territory is economically justified. This matter is in the general national interest. It is a program that the federal government should be seriously considering. Whether the Pacific Great Eastern Railway

April 23, 1971

remains a provincially-owned system or not, it should be recognized as being part of the national transportation system of Canada. This is why I am glad this question was raised by the member for Vancouver Quadra.
If there is any real value in the standing committee visiting anywhere other than the Yukon Territory in the course of studying this bill, it would be much better if the committee were to direct itself to the city of Prince George which, I am sure the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River would agree, is in the geographical heart of British Columbia. From that perspective it would get some idea of what would be involved in our responsibility as members of the federal House toward extending that transportation link northerly toward the capital city of the future province of the Yukon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Call in the
members.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, because of a very important engagement I have this evening in Hamilton, I had every intention of going home a little early. But because of the importance of this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am very pleased by the reception of my colleagues because of my devotion to duty. Because of the very significant aspects of this bill I thought I should rise after my colleagues from the Yukon and from Churchill and give some of my thoughts on this important piece of legislation. Some of my colleagues on the other side may ask, "Is Alexander an expert on the question of minerals?"


An hon. Member:: It never occurred to us.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am as honest as my friend from Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). He said he is no expert but in keeping with his devotion to duty he thought it was required of him to indicate to the House and the people of the Yukon his thoughts in this regard. I

April 23, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
suggest that more members on the other side should follow the lead of the hon. member, who said to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that perhaps they were not too far apart. After the impassioned plea made by the hon. member for Yukon as well as by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Simpson), I feel that when given the opportunity to do so I should add my concern to theirs.
I have often said that the role of the opposition can be extremely difficult and that at times it is misunderstood. I think there are three prime functions of an opposition. The first is to make the government behave. However, we will not go into that matter now. The second is that we are the watchdogs of the people's rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is leaving the chamber. He may have found some offence in these remarks. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are the watchdogs of the people's rights. Having heard the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Churchill elaborate in no uncertain terms and with strength of conviction about the objections they have received from organizations, agencies, mining associations and companies as well as from those who are most important, our native people, I think the phrase I used "watchdogs of the people" has meaning. We must have participatory democracy, and this is the only way we can get it. If the government will not listen to those who are directly affected, then I say it is up to the opposition to voice their objections.
The third matter which I believe is of consequence in the role of the opposition is that it must provide constructive criticism to bills which the government introduces. Surely we cannot complain about such a role, because it is important. I think the government, in its charity, will admit that we do have the capacity to understand bills and to submit amendments which will make bills good-not for our sake on this side, not for the sake of hon. members on the other side or for that of the Parliament of Canada but, rather, for the Canadian people.
When I look at Bill C-187, entitled an act respecting minerals in the Yukon territory, I feel that the mining industry is certainly of importance in this country. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said that we should give due deliberation to this bill as we will to the legislation which will follow the white paper on tax reform. I hope that in the context of the white paper on tax reform and the mining industry, the government will show some understanding of the need for a viable and economic industry. This is what my friends on this side of the House have been talking about. We want do do a thorough job with respect to this matter.
The hon. member for the Yukon and the hon. member for Churchill have indicated that there are at least four main objections to this bill from which we shall not back away because it is necessary that they be implanted in

the government's mind in order that the government has second thoughts on this most important piece of legislation.
But I say to the minister who has just come back to the chamber that what is more important is that the hon. member for Churchill was extremely concerned-I am trying to be as fair as I possibly can-about the lack of understanding by the government regarding the rights of our native peoples. I say this also to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), because for obvious reasons and with my background I feel some comradeship with our native peoples and with the problems with which they are faced.
I am not saying that the government is deliberately ignoring their plight and their pleas, but there seems to be no action. When members on this side point out to the government in no uncertain terms that they are ignoring the aboriginal rights of the native peoples, that they have shown no consistent understanding of their problems, it is time for many more on this side to stand and speak for the rights of our native peoples.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I admit that I am not an expert, but surely to goodness it is high time we realized that the government cannot continue bringing in legislation which ignores the rights of these people who I think have justification in asking us to understand, probe and come up with the necessary solutions. The hon. member was very concerned about royalties which our native peoples do not seem to be sharing. This is one of our main objections. Also, the industry that is directly involved seems to be ignored in terms of what they expect and should get.
Another matter that concerns me as a lawyer was mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon, who is also a very good lawyer, which I am sure the Minister of Justice will admit. The hon. member pointed out that there was an absence of judicial appeal from bureaucratic decision. Surely this is so. I have every faith in the ability of the hon. member who pointed this out to us. I feel it is a matter the minister should look into, because without the judicial appeal required in a democratic society we cannot speak of participatory democracy.
What also concerned the hon. member, and concerns me as a backbencher trying to learn his job, is that every time I am confronted with a bill I find that there are regulatory powers everywhere you look. This is required for flexibility. It is the Big Brother approach. I am told that it is required for efficiency, yet I heard the hon. member say that for the past 50 years these industries have been able to carry on without this type of unwarranted and unnecessary intervention. There is too much regulation. It seems to me that this government is attempting to control the industry to tie it up in knots in order that it can no longer be a viable and economic operation.
Another matter that concerns us on this side is the administration of the legislation. In Clause 3 of the bill I
April 23, 1971

find that many people will be appointed other than those who are directly involved in this matter and who, with all due respect, may not have the necessary expertise. 1 shall mention just a lew. Clause 4 reads:
The minister shall designate a person to be supervising mining recorder-
That is one. Then, the minister shall also designate one or more persons to be engineers of mines. Who else do we get here? Then we get a deputy mining recorder and a supervising mining recorder.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but it being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Robert Carman Coates: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of taking immediate action to initiate a further study to examine the feasibility of developing tidal power in the Bay of Fundy which would include the papers prepared by experts in this field that were prepared for the International Conference on the Utilization of Tidal Power, held at Halifax from May 24 to May 29, 1970, as well as a full examination of interest rates as they have applied to federal government projects in the capital works field.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather unique experience for a member of the opposition to rise in his place on a private member's resolution and to be able to say to members of the government that almost everything that is proposed in the resolution has already been accepted by the government and that plans are now going forward to implement these recommendations.
I say this with one thought in mind, that when my notice of motion was prepared and placed on the order paper, this was certainly not the case. Indeed, shortly after beginning the present session of Parliament, on questioning the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) I was informed that the government was not giving further consideration to the examination of the programming board report that covered the basic essentials of harnessing for power the Bay of Fundy tides.
But because we are as we are in the Maritime provinces, that is, very persistent and very determined to see that we have projects undertaken in that area of Canada which will allow us to determine our own future as a viable part of this nation, members of both political parties-I say both political parties because in the Maritime provinces we do not have any members of the NDP-[DOT]
Request for Bay of Fundy Tital Power Study


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are there not two New Democratic Party representatives in the Nova Scotia legislature?


Donald MacInnis: No; they only think they are.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I say to him that while at one time, a very long time ago, there was a member-a very good member-of the NDP from the island of Cape Breton, which is part of Nova Scotia, that has not been the case for some time and I do not foresee that it will happen again in the present century. What I am talking about now, so far as the electorate is concerned in the Maritime provinces, is what is happening federally; and federally I believe that in the future, just as at the present time, there will be representatives only from the two major parties in the House of Commons. I may be wrong but I do not think I am.
Members from the Progressive Conservative party and the Liberal party joined together in a manner that I have not known in the years I have been in this House- indeed, 1 am doubtful if it has happened in the past 100 years-to endeavour to see that a re-examination of the programming board's report on the Bay of Fundy tides be carried out by the federal government in co-operation with the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
We in the Progressive Conservative party are in a position to make a good deal of noise because we happen to sit in the opposition, but I would not want it to be thought by the people of the Maritime provinces that the Liberal members of this House are not as dedicated and determined as the members of the Progressive Conservative party to see that this re-examination is carried out. In fact, the decision by the government to carry out the re-examination came only after much pressure had been demonstrated to the public by members of the Progressive Conservative party and by similar pressure being applied by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) and various other members of the Liberal party in this House, on the minister responsible, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), to see that such an examination was carried out.
In so far as the government's decision to carry out this re-examination was concerned, I am quite certain it was made only because the President of the Privy Council, for instance, placed the problems of the Maritime provinces and the possible solution of those problems ahead of party politics. Certainly that was the case with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I feel that their particular and unique knowledge of the problem associated with such re-examination assisted materially in the final determination by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to carry out the examination.
I believe that these two cabinet ministers, along with other Liberal members, deserve as much credit as any member of the Progressive Conservative party for seeing that the re-examination is going forward. I think this

April 23, 1971
Request for Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Study stands as an example of what we in the Maritime provinces can do if when we are elected to this Parliament we place the problems of our area ahead of partisan politics and endeavour to accomplish what we all believe will be in the best interests of the people of our area.
I believe that the parliamentary committee, which is non-governmental but is composed of every member from the province of New Brunswick, every member from the province of Prince Edward Island and every member from the province of Nova Scotia, is an indication to the people of the Maritimes that with or without Maritime union we can do much to convince our people and the government, whatever government it might be, that we are determined to solve our own problems, wherever that is possible, by utilizing our own resources wherever they are available. I hope the same approach will be taken to offshore mineral rights as has been taken to Fundy tides. I say that our accomplishments to date, although we are not yet building the dams that will harness the waters that will produce the power, represent a tremendous step forward in the re-examination that is to be carried out.
I can foresee in the very near future the dams being built that will harness the tides that will produce the power that will make the Maritime provinces a "have" area of this nation-not an area that is worried about equalization payments, but an area like Ontario that is more concerned about having to pay additional revenues into the federal treasury to be used in other parts of this nation; because we will no longer be a "have not" area but will be a "have" area and will be able to contribute more than we receive from the federal treasury. It will be quite all right with me when that time comes.
I want to make it positive and clear that so far as Fundy tides are concerned, as Members of Parliament we want every bit of useful information produced to help make a definitive decision. We hope when all the facts are put together they will indicate that the federal government, in co-operation with the private sector of this country, should harness these tides and produce energy. But in order to do this I believe we must consider certain things that the original examination did not take into consideration. One of the matters that unfortunately did not receive the careful attention it warranted concerns what the power produced from the tides would do for the over-all electrical energy system in the Maritime provinces. In other words, Mr. Speaker, those who initially examined the possibilities of harnessing the tides looked too much at what the energy output from Fundy alone would be, rather than examining it from a system point of view within the Maritime provinces.
Fundy tides produce a unique type of power that is best used from a peaking point of view. In other words, they produce a type of power that when placed into the grid is most useful at a time when large volumes of power are required in large sectors of the Maritime provinces or the northeastern United States. This power is not of a value similar to firm power which can be produced in other ways and is saleable at a much cheaper rate than peak power.
It is contended that the input of Fundy power into a grid system provides a type of power, expensive from the point of view of saleability, that would bring great dividends both to our nation and to the industrial community of the northeastern United States. Today we are aware that there is a great desire on the part of the utilities of the northeasern United States to secure additional power. They need it badly because they are facing blackouts and grayouts. Fundy has that power. All we have to do is harness the tides and the market is available.
In determining whether we should harness these tides and supply that market we must discover what the cost will be. We should not be rating the value of this power as compared with firm power; we should be rating it as a unique type of power saleable at a much higher rate. It is in demand to a greater degree than the firm power that can be produced from thermal or hydro energy.
The Americans want to buy our power, but as Canadians naturally we must think of Canada first, and we as Maritimers must first consider what this power can do for our region. At the same time, however, we must accept the fact that initially more power will be generated than we can use. We must also accept the fact that a market is available for it, and indeed we should be negotiating now with the power utilities of the northeastern United States to determine the extent of that market and the value of the power to be produced when the tides are harnessed.
I contend that when we examine what is available from the American point of view in the northeastern United States, coupled with what is now available and will be available in the future in the Maritime provinces, we will find that there is plenty of power to assist both areas at the same time. We will also find that we can look forward to a degree of industrialization in the Maritime provinces that has not yet been imagined. We will also be able to assist in solving a serious problem in the northeastern United States. The great value of this power is that it is pollution free. There is no great danger to the ecology of the Maritime provinces from the harnessing of these tides. There are none of the forbidding drawbacks associated with nuclear energy.
I believe that at the earliest date possible we should get this committee moving and have it examine the papers prepared for the International Conference on the Utilization of Tidal Power. We should do it today rather than the day after tomorrow. I hope that the government is now negotiating with the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to arrange for the re-examination of the programming board's report.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that the personnel who produced the original report should be re-examining it. That would put us in the same position as the private who appealed the decision of a corporal to a sergeant to determine whether it was right, and had it confirmed. The sergeant appealed it to a lieutenant, who confirmed it was right and appealed it to a captain, who confirmed it was right, who appealed it to a major who confirmed it was right. In other words, you get into the position where everybody is confirming what you said was right. I should like new people to examine the programming

April 23, 1971

board's report to see whether they were right and used the proper technology. I am sure that is what the people of the Maritime provinces want.
I believe a number of other things should be involved in this re-examination and I shall list them: First, they should re-study the effect of barriers on tides; second, they should devise a scheme that will supply firm power; third, they should tailor the tidal scheme for the most lucrative power market; fourth, they should restudy projects using simplified lower cost generating units; fifth, they should reassess costs based on the caisson method of construction; sixth, evaluate the export power market and integration of tidal power; seventh, examine maximum use of the new interconnection between New England and the Maritimes for Fundy development; and eight, re-examine competitive power costs in the light of unusual price increases since 1968.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for its willingness to re-examine the programming board's report of 1969. I also commend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources for his attitude throughout the process from the point where it was said there would be no re-examination to the point where today the re-examination is going forward. I commend the President of the Privy Council, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and those members of the Liberal party from the Maritime provinces who have taken a special interest and made a special effort to see that the programming board's report is re-examined. And certainly I congratulate the members of my party who have also shown a determination to have it re-examined.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their courtesy in extending to me the privilege of speaking at this time. I assure them that I shall not abuse this privilege but will keep my remarks brief.


An hon. Member:: Take your full time.


Charles Humbert Thomas: I should like to take much longer, but my time is limited. I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) for placing this motion on the order paper. He has been a long-time advocate of Fundy tidal power and has kept the project alive at times when it seemed nobody was listening. He was also instrumental in forming the all-party House committee actively engaged in studying the subject at this time.
I should like to read an interesting comment which appeared in the Toronto Stock Exchange survey of energy resources in Canada. This confirms some opinions that people recently have made about this project. After referring to the vast power requirements in the next 10 or 15 years both of the United States and of Canada, and mentioning that sources of energy are declining and the United States and Canada are worried about the situation, the article says:
Recent declines in interest rates and the increasing costs of fossil fuels have begun to make the hydro-electric development of the Bay of Fundy tides appear more economically feasible.
Request for Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Study
My main purpose in speaking this afternoon is to put on record, as a member from New Brunswick, that the proposed project is important not only for Nova Scotia but for all Maritime provinces as well as for New England states and the eastern seaboard of the United States. Recently, the Premier of New Brunswick fully endorsed the project. In his remarks he noted that although interest rates are dropping, they still remain high. They are on the downward trend. He noted that environmental pressures have become more urgent and there is a growing realization that tidal power plants, one of our few non-pollution energy producers, must be further developed. He went on to say:
-because of the interprovincial nature of such a project, it would appear that any future undertaking must command heavy federal participation with related lower cost investment capital.
Governor Kenneth Curtis of Maine recently stated that New England is desperately short of power and would probably buy any and all power available from the Fundy project if it is built. He said that he could not think of a project which would be of greater mutual benefit to the New England states and the Maritime provinces.
The chairman of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, Mr. George E. Mclnerney, has gone on record as being strongly in favour of further research and the possible development of Fundy power. New Brunswick faces a growing power shortage, as do most countries today. New Brunswick has a reciprocal arrangement with Maine under which power that is produced in New Brunswick can be sold to Maine. At present Maine is taking all the extra power that New Brunswick can produce.
To take care of the growing power needs of the province, a new $50 million thermal plant is just being completed at Eel River. Nevertheless, the province faces the prospect that all the potential energy from the new plant will be sold and as a result plans are now on the drawing board for a further $50 million thermal plant which is to go into operation in 1975. All this indicates the desperate need of the area for power in the future. The chairman of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission also said that the costs of thermal fuel are steadily going up. The recent increase in oil prices probably prompted him to say that every increase of $1 per barrel in the price of oil represents an additional expense to the province of $4.5 million annually. He therefore feels that serious thought must be given to developing further sources of power such as the Fundy project.
Premier Regan of Nova Scotia has done an excellent job in keeping the project before the public and in keeping it alive. His recent action in forming a corporation to carry on studies relating to the project must be commended. Some people are accusing the Premier of trying to "go it" alone. I do not buy this entirely. I think that his enterprise and initiative must be commended and that he is prepared to co-operate with the other provinces. I emphasize that one province cannot "go it" alone and that if the project is to be successful there must be co-operation between the three provinces, which must

April 23, 1971
Request for Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Study co-operate with the federal government. A recent editorial in the Telegraph Journal reads in part:
The Bay of Fundy is not a Nova Scotia bay. It is at least as much New Brunswick's bay. New Brunswick has a tremendous interest both in what is done with the bay and in the power that it can produce-pollution-free power that would be endlessly renewable and not consume any of the world's shrinking fuel supply. New Brunswick must be involved and must be just as rigorous in pursuit of the idea as Nova Scotia.
The editorial points out that the bay is interprovincial and that therefore the federal government has a definite responsibility to take part in the project and assist the provinces financially because they cannot "go it" alone. The editorial concludes:
The federal government should look at the project with an open pocketbook-
That pocketbook should be just as open for this long neglected region as it was for wealthy central Canada in the 1950s when the St. Lawrence Seaway was built.
That editorial expresses my thoughts aptly. I simply say to all hon. members that the development of Fundy tidal power is worth examining seriously and I make this plea: Let there be a concerted effort to develop the project, an effort which should be made by the three provinces co-operating with the federal government.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambion):: Mr. Speaker, I was not surprised to see this notice of motion on the order paper. I welcome this motion. I believe that when an hon. member feels as strongly about a subject as the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), he is under an obligation to not take no for an answer. I think the forum available to him, the House of Commons, ought to be used on every possible occasion for putting forward his point of view. He ought to do this during the question period, as he has, during budget debates, opposition days and in private members' hour, as he has.
Without doubt, Mr. Speaker, his motion has merit. The matter raised by the hon. member has been the subject of a study. I will not labour that point. Some hon. members may wonder why I am speaking on this matter during private members' hour. I say to the mover of the motion and to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) that I have lived in northern Ontario for some time and when I have had occasion to go outside Canada I have always been asked, surprisingly, about Niagara Falls and the Bay of Fundy tides? People outside Canada seem to have the idea that these areas are just around the corner from where one lives. I blush in confessing that I have not had the good fortune to see the Bay of Fundy tides. I hope to remedy that situation this summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Bay of Fundy tides have a magical quality. Their quality permeates not only the area that the hon. member for Moncton represents, not only Nova Scotia and New Brunswick but all of Canada. I strongly suspect that if some way could be found to take the action suggested by the hon. member, Nova Scotia would
certainly benefit as would New Brunswick. Probably the benefits would be even greater, since anything that benefits part of Canada surely benefits the country as a whole.
I have read the report on this subject and undertaken some background studies, and I have read a number of press clippings. As the hon. member for Moncton said, the Premier of Nova Scotia has been criticized in some circles for "going it" alone. Clearly, the point the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North was making was that certain things had to be done and that he was doing them alone. All the same, it was gratifying to hear him pay tribute in this connection to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube).
I recently read in the Globe and Mail that Mr. R. B. Cameron was appointed president of the recently created Tidal Power Corporation by the Premier of Nova Scotia, Gerald Regan. Then the article reads:
A Crown corporation, the new company was funded at $10 million by legislation at the just completed session of the Nova Scotia legislature to derive power from the Bay of Fundy tides.
The article then says that Premier Regan and Mr. Cameron will leave for Europe to inspect the French tidal power plant in Brittany. It must also be pointed out that the hon. member's motion says, not that the government should consider the advisability of initiating a study but that it should initiate a further study. "Further" is the adjective used. I think this is obligatory because it is incumbent upon those who have the responsibility today to determine whether in this very comprehensive report something was in fact missed, and if there are ways of harnessing this tidal power particularly for the benefit of Canadians in that section of our country.
I want to read a short passage from the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board's report. It points to what man has been trying to do and what we are endeavouring to do in Canada. I quote:
Over the centuries, mankind, in his quest for survival and his search for a better way of life, has directed his ingenuity to harnessing the forces of nature to his uses. Mastery and utilization of the energy evident in the sun, the wind, the rivers and the tides as well as of the latent sources existing in various elements of the earth has been a much sought goal, wherein the degree of achievement has grown or varied with the development of technical knowledge and its application and with the economic value of the forces to be harnessed.
In our search for this goal we must face the ever present questions, "Is it financially feasible? Is it in fact economically viable?" I understand from officials of the government that the federal government has offered to join with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in a general review of the findings of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board and present comments on the proposed development, with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick representatives, regarding a review

April 23, 1971

group comprising a review board and a review committee.
I was interested in the comment by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) that the same people should not be making the decision. I hope attention will be paid to that representation. The point I am trying to make is that I am in favour of this motion. I salute the hon. member for bringing it forward in another form in this House. It is an opportunity to put forward what I think is a good idea.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I too associate myself with the two previous speakers in paying tribute to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). He has been a consistent and vigorous advocate of this very important project for a very long time. He was very generous in paying tribute to others. Much could be said about his own unrelenting, thorough, ongoing efforts in which he has fought for this very valuable project. I commend him on his continuing zeal and for the vigour with which he has presented his case, as well as for the thoroughness with which he has mastered the research necessary to make him as much an authority on this matter as a non-technical person can become. Along with the hon. member and other colleagues to whom he has paid tribute, it should be pointed out that some of the newspapers in the Maritime region, desiccated by Davey, were also in the forefront in keeping this very valuable project before the public for consideration.
The Fundy project is not only of concern to the people in areas surrounding the great Bay of Fundy. It is a matter of concern to all in the Atlantic Region because the whole Atlantic region is interested in it. The whole Atlantic region would benefit if this great project should reach actuality. I could go even further. If the region should prosper therefrom, the whole of Canada would benefit because where one region is weak economically the whole country is weakened thereby.
We from the Maritime provinces do not particularly enjoy the "designated area" status. We do not relish pointing out year after year that the pact of confederation, as it is sometimes called, the arrangements of confederation and the tariff and economic adjustments of confederation have placed upon us disadvantages which, added to certain geographical disadvantages, have sometimes been almost intolerable. We do not enjoy constantly harping on these things. We ask that we be given a chance and some assistance in helping ourselves.
I was impressed when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was in Saint John last December. He spoke about the markets to the south, the important markets in New England and the chances for great Maritimes' trade with that area. I think he was profoundly correct. The ties with the economic portion of the great north-east United States has meant a great deal to the Maritimes. The artificiality of our being cut off from economic liaison with that area has been one of the consistent problems facing the Maritimes since their entry into confederation. Anything that can be done to further trade with the
Request for Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Study
northeastern portion of the United States is to be welcomed wholeheartedly. As the mover of the motion has pointed out, the sale of power to a power-deficient area is not only good economics regionally and nationally but internationally as well.
The arguments are compelling for this great project. A former colleague who used to represent Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, now the constituency of South Western Nova in large part, was an expert in engineering and in business. I recall that he gave quite a dissertation on the types of power and the way in which power could be rendered efficient and expanded. He spoke about tidal power as being an inexhaustible source. Very dramatically, Mr. Bower said that as long as the moon, the earth and the sun endure, there will always be tidal power. He said it is an exhaustible source of energy. I was much impressed with that very simple but profound illustration of the situation.
My colleague referred en passant to the question of Maritime union. Maritime union is not a project which greatly excites me. I am still capable of being excited over some things. The regrouping of some provinces, closing down three capitals and building a new provincial legislature would not do much to cope with the real, profound problem, the economy of our region. The development of such things as the Prince Edward Island causeway, the corridor road and the magnificent Fundy power project would be far more important than Maritime union and the studies which might emanate from that project which seem to interest some people.
It strikes me that very often we major in minors on some of the fundamental questions. Here my colleague has directed us to a major. He has done it in a major and important way. I commend him. I hope the study will go forward. I agree with him that not a day should be lost and that indeed too much time already has been lost. I hope that the study will be completed soon and the recommendations will be favourable. This great project will do much for our economy, to strengthen the region and thereby strengthen Canada. We should go forward in this area with the leadership of the provincial governments and the government of the nation which, as my hon. friend from Moncton (Mr. Thomas) pointed out, has responsibilities. Since it has responsibilities and the economic strength, I hope it will accept this obligation.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, I was hardly able to rise to my feet in the sense of having been so caught up in the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who perhaps more than most of us in this chamber has a gift of using words more effectively on almost any subject, be it a subject of philosophic content or even such a very practical motion as that which is before us today.
I want to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. friend on this side of the House, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), and each of those very fine speakers who represented what I might

April 23, 1971
Request for Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Study be permitted to call the holy trinity, the three Atlantic provinces so far represented in this debate, and pay tribute to the man in whose name this motion stands, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). I have for some time, of course, as have all other people, been aware of the concern and interest in the tidal power project, the feasibility studies, the waxing and waning not only of the tides but of interest in them. Among those who, from what I have been able to learn, have neither waxed nor waned in their interest is the hon. member in whose name this motion stands, and his non-partisan presentation today has, I am sure, impressed all of us in this chamber.
To come to the substance of the motion, this project is particularly intriguing if we recognize the many spin-off benefits which would accrue from it not only to the region but to the whole nation if a substantial source of low-cost power could be developed as recommended in the motion before us, provided, of course, studies could predict favourable results. No one who has taken seriously the ongoing discussion concerning the development of the Atlantic region of Canada can fail to be interested in the subject matter with which this notice of motion deals.
I am impressed that certain steps have been taken in Nova Scotia and, indeed, in other areas since October 16 last, the date on which this motion was set down. I know it is not permissible under the rules, but I would love, if it were permissible, to be able to ask the hon. member whether there would be any substantial changes made in his notice of motion if he were writing it this afternoon instead of some five months ago. Does he feel that his motion is as relevant now as it was then? Perhaps he believes it is even more relevant than it was on the date he first presented it in this House.


Robert Carman Coates: I should just like to tell the hon. member that this motion is in exactly the same words as one I put forward last session. There is no difference whatever in my attitude or in the words of the motion.


Murray Arndell McBride: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, what I was really getting at was this: Does the hon. member feel that the need for federal participation is increased because of the action which has been taken in Nova Scotia? I am referring, of course, to the establishment of the Tidal Power Corporation. Does this make it more urgent that there should be federal participation in the sense of the study being more relevant, or does the situation remain roughly the same?
Be this as it may, we are all aware that the Tidal Power Corporation has been funded to the extent, as I understand it, of $10 million and that a man who it is my pleasure to know, in part at least, from my work on the regional development committee has been appointed president of that Crown corporation, Mr. R. B. Cameron. I for one, was delighted to learn that a man of his ability had been chosen. I think it is widely recognized that Mr. Cameron is a man of unusual gifts. His record in the field of industry and his work in Devco and other places is Well known to all the Maritimes members, especially

those from Nova Scotia. I see both the members from Cape Breton here. They know this situation even better than I do, even though we may not always concur in our assessment of aspects of the situation.
In October, 1969, as is well known-I shall not spend much time on this-the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board released its report entitled "Feasibility of Tidal Power Development in the Bay of Fundy." One of the conclusions of that report was that it had become abundantly clear to the board that substantial portions of the large potential tidal power resource of the upper part of the Bay of Fundy were possible of development in a variety of sites and arrangements. In fact, according to the findings of that report, the development of but three of the 23 possible development sites could provide electrical energy in excess of 13,000 million kwh annually.
I hardly need refer to the board's report in much more detail, but the board did conclude-this is some time ago now, and of course the purpose of the motion is to have the issue reopened-that the economic development of tidal power in the bay under conditions prevailing two years ago was not feasible.
I for one must confess this is such an imaginative project that I should be pleased if those who are technically more competent than perhaps any of us in this chamber could see any light at the end of the tunnel, any hope at all that some success may be obtained from further studies in the sense that some program might be developed which could prove economically feasible taking into account some of the additional factors which have been introduced so capably here. I refer to the export of power to the United States, with the large northeastern market available there, taking into consideration the over-all growth, energizing and stimulus effect this would have on the maritime economy and certainly, therefore, in a broad, general way on the economy of all of Canada, even to the perhaps optimistic but certainly intriguing dimensions suggested by the hon. member for Hillsborough. Hon. members will recall he suggested that the day might well dawn, if a feasible project could be constructed and sizeable power realized therefrom, when a province such as Nova Scotia, or since he was speaking for Prince Edward Island, the whole region, I suppose, might become a "have" rather than a "have not" region, to use the colloquial terms with which we are all familiar.
I was impressed earlier today with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) pointing out the role of the opposition. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that here we see a good example of the role of the private member. A member is able to bring forward a subject for discussion and thereby put it on the record and have some of us respond to a project which certainly is dear to his heart and of value to a whole wide region of our nation.
I hope a study containing some input from the federal coffers might come forward with a proposal for action that would result at least in a portion of the benefits to
April 23, 1971

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island that have been so glowingly described this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during this hour the House has heard from members representing each of the three Maritime provinces and also from Ontario. As a member from western Canada, I should like to add that we too commend the hon. member for bringing this matter before us. We should like to see the resolution passed.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to pre-empt exclusively the interest of western Canada in this matter. I do not claim to have any particular familiarity with tidal power. However, energy is a matter of considerable concern in my part of Canada and therefore I should like to speak for a few moments on this interesting resolution.
I suppose the hon. member has already garnered sufficient accolades and congratulations that perhaps he might be able to do without any from me, though perhaps I may say his persistence, as he admitted in his remarks, has in large measure been gratified between the time he placed this resolution on the order paper in the first instance and today, when finally the House has had an opportunity to debate the matter.
A couple of things have occurred in very recent weeks in the over-all field of energy as it affects the Atlantic provinces which have a bearing on the economic feasibility of this particular study. Certainly the price changes in crude petroleum imports to eastern Canada must make alternate energy sources more attractive and be yet another plus factor for this type of project.
Then there is the ongoing exploration for petroleum off the east coast of Canada. We have had some titivating rumours from time to time in this regard, but regrettably nothing of sufficient substance on which to hang anything firm. Nevertheless, in the petroleum industry in Atlantic Canada there is a firm confidence that these exploration efforts will be rewarded with success which, if that is the case, will mean another factor enters the field of supplying energy to Atlantic Canada, a factor that will contribute to its economic well-being.
One hon. member who spoke earlier, I believe the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), pointed out that the federal government has already offered to join with the two provincial governments directly concerned in making a review of the finding of the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board. The papers presented at the Halifax meeting of the International Tidal Power Conference in May last year are, of course, available to the federal authorities, and they have been studied very thoroughly. The results of that conference confirm the technical viability of that project; there is no question about that. But regrettably, as the hon. member noted in his motion, the results of that conference did not contribute materially to our knowledge of the economic viability of the project.
Business of the House
The resolution before the House today refers specifically to the interest rates that have applied to federal government projects in the capital works field. Interest rates for major capital projects is a subject that is to be reviewed by this joint study with the two provincial governments. The problem is to determine what the interest rate pattern is likely to be over the next eight to ten years when the project is being built. Federal interest rates for funds advanced to Crown agencies for capital cost programs increased through the 1950s and the 1960s to a peak of about 8i per cent in mid-1970. During the current calendar year this rate has dropped to just below 7 per cent-6-15/16ths per cent-in the present quarter.
This is for all practical purposes the same rate that the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board adopted for its studies. The board used the figure of 7 per cent. It should, of course, be noted that commercial rates and borrowing rates by the provinces are likely to be somewhat higher. At the moment I think the prime commercial borrowing rate and provincial borrowing rates are running 8 per cent to 8J per cent per annum. So at the moment it appears there is no indication that interest rates will decline sufficiently to improve the economic viability of the project beyond the information that was available to the programming board.
On the basis of the board's 1969 report, interest rates would have to fall to 3J per cent to 4 per cent in order to make tidal power competitive-when I say competitive, I do not mean cheaper-with other hydroelectric power sources. Therefore, it does not look too promising that interest rates will soon achieve a level that will make the project economically viable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair. This House therefore stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the acting government House leader what the business is for Monday and the ensuing days?


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know to whom that reference is directed. However, if I may answer on behalf of the party involved, I believe that at page 5161 of Hansard for April 22 the government House leader outlined the sequence of government business. This means that we will continue with Bill C-187, an act respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory. I gather there is a disposition to conclude debate on this matter on Monday. That being the case, it will be followed by

April 23, 1971
Busness of the House
Bill C-228, an act to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Hon. members will appreciate that I have no lines to read today, though I could have been poetic about the romance, adventure and wealth of the Yukon. At the same time, I should have
recalled the beauty and powerful majesty of the untamed tides of the sea of Fundy. We Canadians are fortunate indeed that all these things are ours to enjoy and cherish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 2G, 1971