1971-05-12

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-19, an act respecting the Royal Victoria Hospital, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Beer.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Wahn.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.']


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of a letter written by the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of Quebec, dated today, correcting an inadvertent error that was made in his letter to Mr. Bourassa of May 7.



HARBOURS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in August of last year I invited comment from interested parties on a number of proposals designed to improve the operation and development of our major Canadian ports. The response was gratifying both in terms of the number of submissions and the comprehensive nature of the various suggestions advanced. In addition to receiving a number of written submissions, I met with various representative groups particularly from the Vancouver, Montreal and some of the major Atlantic ports to discuss at first hand with them their particular suggestions and problems.
Although the submissions received represented a very wide range of different and sometimes conflicting views there was unanimity on two basic principles. First, there is a continuing and increasing need for federal participation in comprehensive planning of port development on a national basis. In determining the federal role, it has become clear to me that the situation is not precisely the same for every major commercial port. Indeed, there is a diversity of practices that will need to be reconc.led, but I am convinced that the federal role can be achieved best through the closest co-operation with the provincial governments and even more particularly with those concerned with the particular ports themselves.
Second there is a clear need for more local involvement in the day to day operation of our major ports and for more effective communications between these local groups and the federal departments and agencies with responsibilities in these fields.
To meet this second objective, I propose to create local port authorities for each of the nine major ports now administered by the National Harbours board, namely and from west to east, Vancouver, Churchill, Montreal, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec City, Chicoutimi, Saint John, N.B., Halifax and St. John's, Newfoundland. Details concerning the responsibilities and make-up of each of these authorities will be worked out through consultation. In general terms, I can say that each group will be as representative as possible of all local interests, including management and labour, municipal and provincial authorities. Each will have a good deal of autonomy, including consultation in the appointment of port managers, the preparation of budgets, forward planning and all other important matters.
In order to strengthen still further the expressed desire of many to bring the decision-making process closer to the actual ports, rather than having much of it centered in Ottawa, we will change the system that has seen all four members of the National Harbours Board resident in the capital. In future, one member of the board will reside in Vancouver with special responsibility for dealing with western ports and one will reside in Montreal with similar responsibilities for the east.
Also, since there are major port developments on the west coast that are outside the normal activities of the National Harbours Board, but which are of great present or potential economic importance, we intend to appoint a senior official of the marine transportation administration

May 12, 1971
Minister's Statement on Harbours of the Department of Transport to co-ordinate all port developments in British Columbia and to serve as the department's direct liaison with various harbour interests. This official will, of course, be resident in British Columbia.
These steps alone should do much to answer the need for local autonomy and for shorter lines of communication. In addition, there is a need for co-ordinated planning at the national level and for a means through which the various port authorities can be kept informed of what is taking place in other parts of the country.
To answer this need we will establish a National Ports Council. It will be chaired by the marine administrator of the Department of Transport, and its membership will consist of nominees from the port authorities and, as well, from the various harbour commissions throughout the country. In addition, because inland provinces without harbour facilities have a vital interest, nevertheless, in how our major ports are administered, we will invite the provinces to name representatives to the National Ports Council. This council, and thus indirectly, the port authorities and commissions will act as advisors to the Department of Transport and the National Harbours Board.
One of the first assignments to be given the council will be the task of monitoring how the new system is functioning and to make recommendations for additional improvements. Some who submitted briefs in recent months have suggested that some ports now under the National Harbours Board should become, instead, commission harbours under the present Harbour Commissions Act. There was a wide divergence of views on this point and, in any event, much study is needed to assess fully the wisdom and practicability of such a transfer.
Since the National Ports Council will in fact be making recommendations about the total system and what ports should remain under the National Harbours Board or, alternatively, what ports might be granted commission status, it would be premature in my view to alter the legislation affecting the National Harbours Board until such recommendations are received. It is my intention, however, to announce soon the appointments of new members for the National Harbours Board and, at as early a date as practicable, the names of those who will serve on the National Ports Council.
In addition, representatives to the local ports authorities will be named without extensive delay because quite clearly the functioning of the National Ports Council is contingent upon their appointment.
I am sure that all those concerned will agree that this is a practical step which the government is now taking to ensure that Canada's ports remain strong and viable. At the same time, it ensures that private initiative is integrated in an effective way with the general objectives of the federal government which must be concerned with the good of all Canadians and not just of any particular vested interest or indeed particular region.
When I announced the reorganization of the new federal transportation complex a little over a year ago, I stated one of the purposes of change was to adopt new
principles designed to co-ordinate, stimulate and balance regulation, operation and development throughout the entire transportation system. I also emphasized the greater emphasis which was to be given to decentralization of responsibility and to the concept of financial viability through the balanced use of the principle of cost recovery. The new ports policy is not only consistent with this objective but an important step in carrying it forward.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Transport for having provided the Official Opposition with a copy of his statement in advance so that we might have the opportunity to prepare a reply. We welcome this statement by the minister on his new ports policy. Since his announcement of last August, all those concerned with the activities of various ports have anxiously awaited details of his proposal.
In general, we in the Official Opposition agree with the objectives set forth-to decentralize responsibility and ensure financial viability. We realize that this is simply a statement of objectives and that machinery is to be set up to hammer out the details of the program. A determination as to which ports shall remain under the National Harbours Board and which shall receive commission status will emanate from discussions with the parties concerned.
We hope the minister will be receptive to having the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications visit the ports concerned to make an assessment of the situation and present its recommendations to the National Ports Council.
We trust that any changes in the administration will not interfere with the present efficient operation of the ports and that proper consideration will be given to the existing labour force and that there will be no undue dislocation of the same.
We note that the new council is to make recommendations for additional improvements. We suggest that the council should constantly review policies and present an annual report on its findings. I would hope that when policy is finally formulated under the set-up of the new board there will be a greater measure of control than exists under the present board. I hope there will not be a repetition of unauthorized people settling or squatting on harbour commission property, with the expensive litigation that has followed.
The program as outlined will give a greater degree of responsibility to the local port set-up but we are wondering what will be the situation with respect to policy-making. It is not clear from the minister's statement who will be responsible for policy-making. Will it be the National Ports Council, the Minister of Transport or the port authorities themselves? Will the Ports Council also be responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the various ports?
I welcome the suggestion by the minister that the National Harbours Board should be decentralized so that the four commissioners will no longer reside in Ottawa. I note that one commissioner will be stationed in Vancouver, and another in Montreal to handle the affairs

May 12. 1971

of all the ports in eastern Canada. I urge the minister to give consideration to stationing a port commissioner in the Atlantic provinces. As a Maritimer himself, I am sure he will agree with me that the Atlantic ports are different in their nature from the port of Montreal and that sometimes they are in competition with Montreal. We fear that if all control is centralized in Montreal decisions may sometimes be taken to the detriment of the more active ports in the Atlantic provinces. I ask the minister to consider this point when final decisions are made as to setting up the board.
I reiterate that we welcome this proposal of the minister. We hope he will go along with the suggestion of letting the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications assess the situation, and that as a result of their recommendations, plus the recommendations made by the many people concerned, this board will soon be established.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for having provided us with an opportunity to have an advance look at his statement. The announcement he has made today is, in my opinion, an important one because I think no member of the House would argue that the ports of Canada are not one of our most important national assets in a great trading nation.
The basic principle of the minister's statement is, I think, one with which we can all concur, namely, that while we must recognize our harbours as a national asset and national responsibility, there is a need for flexibility in administration and for some degree of local autonomy in their operations. I realize that this statement, in the minister's own words, is simply a rough outline of the steps that are to follow, and therefore we cannot at this point arrive at any definitive conclusions as to how these proposals are going to work.
I am glad that the minister has made reference to the need for greater attention to be paid to the management of harbours generally on the Pacific coast and to the fact that special attention is going to be given to existing problems. I cannot help but interpolate that I hope one of these days some of the smaller fishing ports about which I have been bugging the minister for some time will receive similar attention. As far as our major export ports are concerned, I think the idea of having local administrative bodies that will be autonomous except in matters of major general national policy is sound.
One of the questions that has been raised in many quarters about the operation of local harbour authorities is as to who is going to take the initiative in making appointments. This is one point that I had hoped the statement of the minister would clarify, but it did not. While the minister says that these bodies are to be generally representative, he does not say who is to have the determining voice as to who in fact those representatives will be. This is a point that I hope he will clarify very shortly because I think it is of real concern to many people. Does the authority to appoint rest entirely in the
Newfoundland Railway Service hands of the minister, or does it depend on the appointing authority of local bodies, such as city councils or provincial governments, labour bodies and that sort of thing? I regret that the minister has not clarified this point in his statement because I think it is one of the keys to any judgment and assessment of how well his proposed system is likely to work. I can only say that we will be watching very closely the developments that take place in the coming months.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister of Transport for making his statement available to us in both official languages.
According to this statement, the minister realizes that the situation is not the same in all Canadian ports. That is to his credit! However, he attempts to define the function of the federal government in the administration of those ports.
There is mention of sharing responsibilities and carrying out studies. In the latter case, there is rapid progress, but with regard to realizations, it is not the same thing. As a matter of fact, 100 years ago, our country ranked fourth among countries having a merchant marine, and ours numbered over 1,000 units. Well, today Canada does not own more than two, and I feel that is reason enough for a minister to wonder about the part which the government should play in water transportation.
The minister reveals in his statement his intention to create a National Ports Council. To my mind this is another gimmick within the whole gimmick. It is another agency to create jobs for certain gentlemen who are seeking a role in the administration of the country. It is true that the establishment of a National Ports Council would put to use some offices across the country, but this would also mean the employment of a few more civil servants.
Since our country has 60,000 miles of coastlines, which is more than twice the circumference of the globe, and since we have such a great number of unemployed in Canada, we Creditistes would really have preferred to learn of the establishment of a merchant marine.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 for the usual reasons. A recent statement by the Canadian Transport Commission enunciated and accepted principle of that body to ensure the continuance of transcontinental passenger service to meet the needs of the Canadian public. Two years ago the elimination of rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland rendered that goal unattainable. Today the downgrading and impending elimination of passenger, express and freight service further displaces this national goal. I therefore

May 12, 1971
Questions
move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan):
That the complete question of rail service in Newfoundland be referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation with a directive from this House that the province of Newfoundland be granted equal status in line with the objectives of the rail transportation policy as stated by the Canadian Transport Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Orlikow: How many Maple Leaf Lounges or other similar facilities does Air Canada maintain on its system, and (a) where are they located (b) what is the purpose of their existence (c) what customers of Air Canada are permitted to use the facilities of the Maple Leaf Lounge (d) what is the cost of their operation for (i) rent (ii) labour (iii) furnishings (iv) food (v) liquor and beverages?


Mr. Gerard Duquel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, since the answer to that question is rather long, with the leave of the House, I would like to table it so that it may be reported in Hansard and considered as having been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The abovementioned answer reads as follows:]
The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. 17. (a) Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, St. John's, Nfld., Los Angeles, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Prestwick, London, Paris, Bermuda, and Kingston, Jamaica, (b) To meet similar competitive services provided by other airlines, (c) First class passengers and on occasion to some other passengers. (d) As stated above these services are supplied in order to meet competition provided by other airlines. In the circumstances it is not considered to be in the best interest of the company to disclose the cost factors.


TRANSPORTATION OF POISONOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Fairweaiher: 1.	Did a poisonous chemical escape from a canister being shipped by rail to Halifax, Nova Scotia and, if so (a) what was the nature of the shipment (b) where did it originate (c) what was its ultimate destination?
2 Was the shipment part of a United States consignment to Sweden?
3.	Was the product Canadian in origin or manufactured and produced in compliance with a patent held by Morton Chemicals of Woodstock, Illinois, USA?
4.	At what point during the shipment was the leakage discovered?
5.	Are there any special regulations governing shipment of poisonous substances by rail, road, air or water in Canada and, if so, what are they?


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Nine 45-gallons drums of mercuric fungicide; (b) Regina; (c) Gothenburg, Sweden.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Information not available.
4.	Saint John, N.B.
The Department of Transport advises as follows:
5.	Rules can be obtained from the following sources:
Rail: Regulations for the Transportation of Dangerous
Commodities by rail.
Air: Canadian Air Regulations (1960) and Department of Transport Air Services Information Circular 0/22/64, as well as the International Air Transport Association Restricted Articles Regulations.
Water:	Canadian Shipping Act Dangerous Goods
Shipping Regulations.
For the movement of radioactive materials, International Atomic Energy Agency rules have been adopted and are incorporated in the regulations mentioned above. The transport of explosive materials is treated specifically in the Explosives Act and Regulations.
Regulations of trucking has in the past been in the hands of the Provinces and information as to the rules which exist for the transport of hazardous commodities by highway may be obtained by contacting directly the various Provincial governments.


STUDY OF HEALTH AND MORTALITY RATES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. MacRae: Has any department ever made a study of the health conditions, mortality tables, et cetera, of the Members of the House of Commons comparable to that carried out a few years ago in the British House of Commons?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The only study which has been made is on the mortality experienced by Members of the House of Commons in connection with the establishment of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

May 12, 1971


SNOWMOBILE SAFETY RESEARCH
Mr. Hales: For each research project on snowmobile safety standards mentioned by the Minister of Transport on January 19, 1971, at page 2536 of Hansard (a) to whom was the grant given (b) what is the purpose of the grant (c) what is the amount of the grant (d) when are the results of the research to be given to the government (e) is it expected that the research findings will be made public?


Gérard Duquet: (a) A research project has been awarded Hovey & Associates, Vehicle System Engineers, Ottawa, (b) The purpose of this research project is to carry out a detailed examination of the design and operation of snowmobiles, to identify areas of design, construction or equipment that are related to their safe operation, and to form the basis for development of additional snowmobile safety standards, (c) The amount of this research contract is $45,500. (d) The final results are expected by the end of May, 1971. (e) When the results of the research project have been received consideration will be given to this.


AIR CANADA-INCREASE IN BUSINESS-IMPROVEMENT OF YARMOUTH SERVICE
Mr. Comeau: 1.	By how much has the air service business increased over the past five years and by how much can the service be expected to increase before larger aircraft are needed?
2.	(a) How long have Viscounts been used by Air Canada (b) have these aircraft been paid for (c) have the revenues from Viscount flights been sufficient to pay for the cost of the aircraft?
3.	When calculating earnings, what percentage is allocated to improvement of the Yarmouth service?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Statistical data in this regard may be found in monthly and quarterly reports issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics under the heading Transcontinental and Regional Air Carrier Operations, Air Carrier Operations in Canada and International Air Charter Statistics. In addition significant statistics relating to Air Canada may be found on pages 22 and 23 of the company's printed Annual Report for the year 1970. The need for larger aircraft is related to a combination of factors such as volume of traffic at any given point or on any given route and the frequency of service that it is desirable to provide.
2.	Viscounts have been used by Air Canada since 1955. The present Air Canada fleet of Viscounts is now fully depreciated.
3.	The company does not allocate any specific percentages of total earnings to service improvements at specific points, but rather develops a service plan each year based upon estimated growth and service requirements related to expected revenues and operating costs.
Questions


CBC-CANADIAN PROGRAMS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Is any provisional data available which would give the number of new (a) Canadian producers (b) production of Canadian feature films, since CRTC decision to provide for more Canadian programs on television and, if so, what is the approximate number of increases for both groups?
2.	What financial assistance will the government give to CBC and private broadcasters who will be needing bigger budgets to meet CRTC requirements of Canadian programs on television?
3.	Which educational institutions in Canada offer courses in (a) the development (b) the techniques (c) the social and artistic functions of film and television?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. I am
informed by the Canadian Radio Television Commission that no provisional data is available. It is somewhat early for the CRTC to assess the effects of the new Television Broadcasting Regulations in terms of new Canadian producers and production of Canadian feature films, since the regulations only began to apply to the CBC on October 1, 1970, and will not apply fully to private stations and networks until October 1, 1972.
2.	The Government will continue to give financial assistance through the presently existing channels, i.e. annual Parliamentary grants to the CBC, and CFDC aid to the private feature film industry.
3.	Studies in various aspects of communications are now widespread in universities and colleges across Canada. A considerable number of post-secondary institutions are now equipped with broadcasting and film studios and provide both background courses and practical experience in producing films and television programmes. Information regarding courses available is contained in "A Guide to Film Courses in Canada published by the Canadian Film Institute.


OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-GROUND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISE
Mr. Peddle: 1.	What is the name of the company which now holds the ground transportation franchise at Ottawa International Airport?
2.	What is the yearly fee charged to this company by the government for this franchise?
3.	To what extent is this company obligated by contract to provide limousine service to and from Ottawa International Airport?
4.	What is the duration of the present contract covering ground transportation to and from the Ottawa International Airport?


Gérard Duquet: 1. Blue Line Taxi Company Limited.
2. The fee formula is 5 per cent of the gross revenue derived from the bus service to and from the airport, and 15 cents for each taxicab trip carrying passengers from the airport. The amount paid to the ministry for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1970 was $16,998.

May 12, 1971
Questions
3.	The company is obligated to provide ground transportation services in accordance with directions as may be determined by the Regional Director at Toronto from time to time. The operator is expected to provide limousine (bus) service to and from the airport to meet scheduled flights and to provide taxicabs to meet the demand at the airport.
4.	The contract became effective January 1, 1969 for a term of one year, continues on a year to year basis, and may be terminated on six months' notice.


AIR CANADA-DICONTINUANCE OF FLIGHTS
Mr. Blouin: Does Air Canada intend to discontinue some of the Montreal-Sept-iles flights in the near or distant future?


Gérard Duquet: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: Effective with the introduction of the summer 1971 schedule on April 25, Air Canada will discontinue service to Saguenay. One of the services to be discontinued will be the Viscount flight which operates over the routing Montreal-Quebec-Saguenay-Sept-lles. Air Canada will continue to operate services nonstop Montreal-Sept-Iles and one stop Montreal-Quebec-Sept-lles with the frequency in future dependent on traffic demand.


WETLANDS (POT HOLE) LEASING PROGRAM
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much money has been expended on the wetlands (pot hole) leasing program for each year since it was inaugurated?
2.	How many (a) acres (b) persons have been involved each year?
3.	Where have the major leasing areas been located?


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. Amount expended on the wetlands leasing program since it was inaugurated:
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
Annual
Annual Amount Cumulative Amount $171,408	-
124,692	$296,100
40,000	336,100
-	336,100
2.
(a) Number of acres involved each year:
1967-	68
1968-	69
1969-	70
1970-	71
Annual Number of Acres 29,088 32,272 13,170
Cumulative Number of Acres
61,360
74.530
74.530
(b) The total number of landowners involved is now 3,123.
3. Major Leasing Areas: (a) Alberta-Counties of La-mont and Beaver, (b) Saskatchewan-Municipalities of Lumsden, Dufferin, Sarnia, Craik, Big Arm and Arm River, (c) Manitoba-Municipalities of Roblin, Turtle Mountain, Morton, Alinchester, Whitewater and Ross-burn.


CBC-NUMBER OF MINISTERS AND MEMBERS INTERVIEWED ON &quot;PRESENT&quot; PROGRAM
Mr. Comtois: Between September 1, 1970 and March 1, 1971, how many federal and provincial Ministers and how many federal and provincial Members of Parliament have been interviewed on the CBC "Present" program (a) what are their names (b) on what dates?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Sixty-eight, (a) and (b) Federal Members: R. Matte (R.Cred.), September 7, 1970; Hon. J. Chretien (Lib.), September 7, 1970; Hon. G. Pelletier (Lib.), September 8, 1970; G. Clermont (Lib.), October 7, 1970; A. Fortin (R.Cred.), October 21, 1970; Hon. M. Asselin (P.C.), October 29, 1970; P. De Bane (Lib.), October 29, 1970; A. Lambert (R.Cred.), October 29, 1970; P. De Bane (Lib.), November 12, 1970; Hon. H. Gray (Lib.), November 13, 1970; A. Ouellet (Lib.), November 17, 1970; Hon. M. Asselin (P.C.), November 17, 1970; D. Lewis (NDP), November 19, 1970; Hon. J. L. Pepin (Lib.), November 26, 1970; C.A. Gauthier (R.Cred.), November 30, 1970; R. Matte (R.Cred.), November 30, 1970; P. De Bane (Lib.), December 14, 1970; A. Ouellet (Lib.), January 4, 1971; Hon. J. L. Pepin (Lib.), January 22, 1971; Hon. J. L. Pepin (Lib.), January 25, 1971; Hon. H. Gray (Lib.), January 28, 1971; Hon. G. Pelletier (Lib.), January 29, 1971; R. La Salle (P.C.), February 1, 1971; P. De Bane (Lib.), February 10, 1971.
Provincial Members: M. Tessier (Lib.), September 11, 1970; C. Samson (Rail. Cred.), September 15, 1970; C. Laurin (PQ), September 15, 1970; R. Paul (UN), September 15, 1970; G. D. Levesque (Lib.), September 17, 1970; P. Laporte (Lib.), September 23, 1970; G. Brown (Lib.), September 25, 1970; B. Dumont (R.C.), September 25, 1970; M. Cournoyer (Lib.), September 28, 1970; L. Les-sard (PQ), September 30, 1970; M. Tessier (Lib.), September 30, 1970; C. Castonguay (Lib.), October 5, 1970; G. St. Pierre (Lib.), October 7, 1970; J. G. Cardinal (UN), October 7, 1970; J. P. Cloutier (UN), October 12, 1970; M. Leger (PQ), October 12, 1970; R. Bourassa (Lib.), October 30, 1970; J. J. Bertrand (UN), November 9, 1970; C. Vincent (UN), November 9, 1970; M. Masse (UN), November 9, 1970; J. P. Cloutier (UN), November 9, 1970; F. Lafontaine (UN), November 9, 1970; W. Tetley (Lib.), November 25, 1970; Hon. R. Bourassa (Lib.), November 25, 1970; Hon. R. Bourassa (Lib.), November 26, 1970; G. Tremblay (Lib.), December 1970; G. St. Pierre (Lib.), December 3, 1970; M. Beaulieu (UN), December 8, 1970; M. Tessier (Lib.), December 9, 1970; J. J. Bertrand (UN), December 10, 1970; Hon. R. Bourassa (Lib.),

May 12, 1971

December 10, 1970; J. G. Cardinal (UN), December 14, 1970; F. Cloutier (Lib.), December 15, 1970; M. Ostiguy (Lib.), December 15, 1970; M. Beaulieu (UN), January 5, 1971; C. Castonguay (Lib.), January 13, 1971; C. Cas-tonguay (Lib.), January 20, 1971; G. Springate (Lib.), January 25, 1971; J. P. L'AUier (Lib.), January 28, 1971; V. Goldbloom (Lib.), February 1, 1971; K. Drummond (Lib.), February 4, 1971; J. Coumoyer (Lib.), February 18, 1971; R. Burns (PQ), February 16, 1971; C. Laurin (PQ), February 16, 1971.
[English}


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-INCOME DERIVED FROM COMPUTER SERVICES
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The Department of National Health and Welfare does not derive any income from its computer services.


RESEARCH STUDIES ON MOVEMENT OF SOLIDS BY PIPELINE
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Has CTC recently entered into any agreement with any Research Council or similar organization of or in any of the western provinces for a feasibility study of the movement of coal or other solids by way of pipeline and, if so (a) on what date (b) with whom (c) for what amount (d) what was its purpose and other pertinent detail?
2.	(a) Is there authority for the power and ability to enter into such a research agreement and, if so, what is it (b) what is the source of funding such a project?
3.	Is CTC aware of lengthy research studies on the movement of solids by pipeline conducted by the Research Council of Alberta on behalf of a syndicate, transportation, oil companies and others funded by a research grant from the former Department of Industry in or about the year 1965 and, if so, how would the first mentioned study differ in purpose, etc., from that conducted by the Research Council of Alberta.


Gérard Duquet: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. and 2. The Canadian Transport Commission has entered into an agreement with the Research Council of Saskatchewan to undertake studies and research to prepare "large-scale slurry property data appropriate to suitable candidate commodities for transmission in pipelines". This agreement was signed on December 24, 1970; however, the negotiations leading up to this agreement commenced in detail in the early spring of 1970. The Treasury Board submission for an amount not exceeding $400,000 was made on July 6, 1970. Funds for the project are to be allocated as follows: $104,000 fiscal year 1970-71; $121,000 in 1971-72; $130,000
Questions
in 1972-73; and $45,000 in 1973-74. The purpose of the research into slurry pipeline hydraulics at S.R.C. is to: (a) provide CTC with appropriate technical information on the design of slurry pipelines from which appropriate costing and subsequent economic analyses can be made on that portion of the slurry pipelines system interfacing between the slurry preparation and the slurry reconstitution plants at the source and destination locations respectively; (b) encourage the consolidation of a Canadian Team to undertake meaningful large scale research and development into the hydraulic design of slurry pipelines; (c) make known, to the Canadian public, all technical information directly arising from the research.
The Saskatchewan Research Council, under this agreement is: (a) not attempting to investigate either the technical or economic feasibility of specific commodity movements by pipeline; (b) not attempting to study directly the technology of slurry preparation, reconstitution, subsequent movement of the slurry commodity by other transport modes or other related areas.
In a specific sense, the objectives of the physical research at the Saskatchewan Research Council are to study the hydraulic performance of metallurgical and thermal coal, iron concentrates, potash and sulphur in a water-base slurry in pipelines. Studies will be carried out in 2/4/6/8/10/12-inch diameter pipe test loops. The conditions under which the tests are to be carried out are to be as close to commercial situations as is possible.
Surveys of certain industries have shown that a great interest exists in industry to obtain large scale slurry technical information. Even certain consultants in related fields, who claim that they have considerable large scale data, stated that there are several unknown areas such as start-up characteristics, grade control criteria, and erosion and corrosion problems. These are areas of investigation within the S.R.C. program. Subsequent to the initial industrial survey, members of the Coal Consumers and Producers Association have shown very serious interest in the possibility of moving not only metallurgical but thermal coal by slurry pipelines, and have offered their assistance in the practical orientation of the coal slurry research.
The authority to enter into this Agreement is the 1967 National Transportation Act, Section 15.
The source of funding the project as a whole is Vote 55, Canadian Transport Commission main estimates for the fiscal year 1970-71 and for all subsequent years to March 31, 1974, from the Transport Development Agency.
3. CTC is aware of the research carried out by the Research Council of Alberta on the Transport of Commodities in capsule form. CTC. is, however, also aware that the Research Council of Alberta has not investigated the hydraulic performance of large scale slurry pipelines at their facility. The nature of these two types of solids pipelines is completely different. The research, therefore, carried out at RCA. for the future (sponsored by T.D.A.) is not similar to the SRC. work, in subject or in nature.

May 12, 1971
Questions


INDUSTRIAL MILK QUOTAS
Mr. Nesbitt: Were any industrial milk quotas transferred from Ontario to Quebec between January 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971 and, if so, how many?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: It is only since Ontario and Quebec introduced market quotas on December 1, 1970 that the Canadian Dairy Commission has maintained readily available records of the origin of subsidy quota transferred between these provinces. From December 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971, 350 quotas have moved from Ontario to Quebec.


LEGISLATION WITH RESPECT TO ACTIVITIES OF BANKS
Mr. Rodrigue: Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs intend proposing legislation with respect to the activities of banks?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Consideration is being given as to how to deal with agreements among the chartered banks on certain banking services. Government policy will be announced in due course.


CBC-NUMBER OF TECHNICIANS AND ARTISTS EMPLOYED IN PRODUCTION &quot;ZOOM&quot;
Mr. Caouelle: 1.	How many technicians and artists were employed by CBC in the production of the program "Zoom" of April 4, 1971?
2.	What was the cost (a) in wages (b) in material (c) in travelling expenses?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The production of the program "Zoom" on April 4, 1971 required the services of 83 technicians and artists, including 22 singers and 17 musicians, for a total of 2,400 hours of work in all categories, such as scenery, props, carpentry, graphics, costumes, stagehands painting, make-up, and production crew.
2. The cost of this program was within the budget allocated for the purpose. It has not been customary to require the Corporation to disclose such detailed information about individual programs.


COME-BY-CHANCE, NFLD.-ANTI-POLLUTION MEASURES WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION OF OIL REFINERY
Mr. Carter: Has the Government of Canada given final approval for all or any anti-pollution measures with respect to the proposed construction of an oil refinery at Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland and, if so, on what dates?


Eymard G. Corbin: No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from the United States in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years? 3 What is the balance of payment situation between Canada
and the United States for each of the same years?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES FROM JAPAN
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from Japan in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years?
3.	What is the balance of payment situation between Canada and Japan for each of the same years?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES FROM SWEDEN
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from Sweden in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years?
3.	What is the balance of payment situation between Canada and Sweden for each of the same years?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF VEHICLES FROM WEST GERMANY
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many motor vehicles (automobiles, trucks, tractors and other wheeled vehicles) have been imported to Canada from West Germany in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What is the value of the imports in each of the same years?
3.	What is the balance of payment situation between Canada and West Germany for each of the same years?
Return tabled.


IMPORTATION OF EGGS INTO CANADA
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did Canada import eggs during the years 1968, 1969, 1970 and January and February of 1971 and, if so (a) what were the quantities imported in each of those periods (b) from what countries (c) at what price?
Return tabled.


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Sullivan: 1.	How many Royal Commissions are investigating or inquiring into specific subject-matters?
2.	What are the dates on which each received their terms of reference?
[Mr. Duquet.l
May 12, 1971

3.	What is the subject-matter of the terms of reference of each?
4.	What are the names of the Commissioners?
5.	On what date is each report expected?
6.	What was the cost to the government of each Commission to March 22, 1971?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before the remaining questions are allowed to stand I should like to ask that questions 1,098 and 1,100, both standing in my name, be allowed to be dropped as I have already been furnished with the information requested.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, on November 12, 1970, six months ago today, I placed a simple question on the order paper asking for an audited financial statement of the affairs of the Blue Water Bridge Authority. This question was taken in order that certain disturbing rumours that were circulating about the financial operations of the Authority could be brought to an end. As the seconder of the bill originally establishing the Authority in 1964 I have a particular interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member. I hope he will not make a speech. I do not believe a motion that the remaining questions stand is debatable. The practice that hon. members may inquire whether or not a specific question will be answered has been allowed, but I do not think it should be the occasion *Of a speech on the part of an hon. member who is .complaining that his question has not been replied to or a speech on the part of the parliamentary secretary in reply. I assume the hon. member will put his question as soon as possible.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the seconder of the motion on the bill I feel a moral responsibility and I would hope the government would see fit to answer this simple question soon.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to speak to me about this matter last week and following this I have had the matter reviewed. I did have some information on it this morning and I hope to be able to table a reply soon.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet weekly for the last month or more asking the parliamentary secretary when I may have an answer to question 79 which was not only placed on the order paper on October 8 but was also on the order paper last session. It has been there for a year or more. I do not think it is that difficult a question. The parliamentary secretary has been very nice and has assured me the answer is coming. I am anxious to know when it is coming.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to give any assurance to the hon. member at this time, but we are working on it.
Motions for Papers



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 217 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions stated by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 217 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



STUDY CONDUCTED BY CANADIAN BECHTEL LIMITED ON FEASIBILITY OF NORTHERN SMELTER OPERATION

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 217-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by Canadian Bechtel Limited on the feasibility of a northern smelter operation.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the question of unemployment will be placed upon the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference as has been requested by, among others, the premier of Ontario?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question of the agenda of course has to be agreed to by all members of the conference. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Davis has asked that this be done. However, I cannot answer the question until the first ministers have a discussion concerning what the agenda will contain.



CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON MEASURES USED TO FIGHT INFLATION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the policies of the government for which the Prime Minister now accepts the blame in terms of the creation of unemployment, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether there was consultation with the provinces and agreement by

May 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the provinces with regard to these policies which created unemployment?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the sequence of the policies with regard to the fight against inflation, there was consultation with the provinces and general agreement by the provinces that this was a major problem in Canada and that all governments must do all they could to fight inflation in the country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance very directly whether he or some other minister of the government consulted the provinces and secured their agreement to the adoption of policies deliberately designed to slow down the economy and therefore create unemployment, for which the Prime Minister now accepts the blame, despite all the difficulties they would create for the provinces?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there was consultation with the provinces at several meetings of first ministers, and Ministers of Finance and provincial treasurers, at which this was agreed to be the major problem in Canada and at which it was agreed that certain things, including some wage guidelines, would be adhered to by the provincial and federal governments. I must say that beyond the meeting at which this was agreed some of the provinces at least were not noteworthy in carrying out the voluntary guidelines with regard to wage settlements in respect of their own employees.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION BY REPRESENTATIVES OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government has made provision with regard to the forthcoming federal-provincial conference for the inclusion of representation of the councils of the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories at that conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and if the Prime Minister is not here tomorrow I shall endeavour to answer it.



INCLUSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM ON AGENDA OF FORTHCOMING MEETING

Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Temiscamingue rising for a supplementary?


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the agenda of the federal-provincial conference will not necessarily be established or submitted exclusively by the provinces, and the federal government will have a say in the matter, does the government intend to suggest discussion of the alarming unemployment situation at the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite confident that whether in this Parliament or among the first ministers there will be discussion about economic conditions in Canada. Whether that discussion should take precedence over the importance of agreeing upon a formula for amendment of the constitution and other matters is, I think, a question of judgment. I would hope that this meeting and all members of the House would agree that we should make as much progress upon the question of constitutional reform as possible.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the government has now admitted its role in the unprecedented high unemployment the country faces, is the government now reconsidering its position and is it now in a position to state it is prepared to help the provinces and cities which have been practically bankrupted as a result of the policies of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not asking a question; he is making a statement. The hon. member knows very well that a question cannot be asked in those terms. Perhaps he could make it easier for the Chair by rephrasing the question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether, as a result of the government's fiscal and monetary policies, the government is now in a position to give further assistance to the provinces and cities which have been injuriously affected?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. I think the policies followed by the government have resulted in a stronger Canada than would otherwise have been the case, and if one doubts this one should look at the situation throughout the world in respect of inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North on a supplementary and then I believe we should move on to the next subject. If hon. members have further supplementaries on this subject a debate could develop. Hon. members will know, of course, that when argumentative questions are asked argumentative answers are given and we have a debate rather than questions and answers. However, I think we might allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North to ask a supplementary and then we will continue with the next subject.
[Mr. Stanfield.)
May 12. 1971



CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON MEASURES USED TO FIGHT INFLATION-MANITOBA RESERVATION RESPECTING WAGE RESTRAINTS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. When the government of Canada discussed the question of its restraint program with the provincial governments, is it not true that the government of Manitoba entered reservations with regard to the federal government's proposals, including the reservation that wage restraints should be implemented only if restraints on other forms of income, including rents and profits, were included along with wage and salary restraints?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that at the particular meeting about which my hon. friend is talking, which was a meeting of Ministers of Finance and provincial treasurers, such a condition was suggested by the province of Manitoba. It was also indicated by some provinces, as indicated by some members of the opposition, that they really did not care about inflation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
OF RIGHT TO BARGAIN COLLECTIVELY FROM CERTAIN .	EMPLOYEES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. It is supplementary to one that I asked yesterday and which I would have asked had Your Honour not rung the bell at the end of the question period. In view of the minister's statement to me yesterday regarding the removal of top public servants from collective bargaining, which the minister said was a request for a prejudging of the review, may I put the following question to the minister. In view of the fact that on April 26 the Prime Minister gave tacit approval to this recommendation,will the government not relieve the apprehension of top public servants by stating that the government has not taken the position of approving the Clyne committee recommendation in this respect?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: would repeat again that to make a judgment now, and in fact to report a decision or to suggest a decision, would be prejudging the issue. I cannot share the hon. gentleman's view that top civil servants are apprehensive about the Clyne committee report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the minister feels that it is not appropriate to prejudge the situation, why did the Prime Minister do so on April 26 when he tabled the Clyne report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister tell the House whether he has strengthened his position by defining government policy in respect of federal jurisdiction in the field of communications and more particularly in broadcasting?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I don't know exactly what the hon. member has in mind when he talks of strengthening my position. The positions that I have expressed so far and which are those of the government are, in my opinion, firm. I can only say to the hon. member that we shall formulate them more precisely in a very short while.



JURISDICTION OVER TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND BROADCASTING-DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC AND ONTARIO AT FORTHCOMING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
According to the news we receive with regard to communications, Ottawa would be ready to negotiate while Quebec is entering the field. Would the minister tell the House whether the federal government has started negotiating with the Quebec government and if so, what reply did it receive?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member's question, including the preamble, has been put previously. Should I be mistaken, the minister is free to answer it, but I think that this question has been asked before.
Is the hon. member for Charlevoix seeking to ask a supplementary?


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is as follows:
Will the Secretary of State produce a working paper at the next premiers conference in Victoria in order to start discussions with Quebec and Ontario on telecommunications?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer this question by yes or no. I realize that the agenda of the Victoria conference is not an accordeon, in the sense that it cannot be extended indefinitely. On the other hand, should the premiers request that this issue be put on the agenda and should the government ask me to produce a paper, of course my department would be ready to do so.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietfe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: I now recognize the hon. member for Joliette, for a supplementary.

May I bring to the attention of hon. members that quite a few supplementary questions have been asked on the original three questions. I suggest to hon. members

May 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
that we attempt to limit supplementary questions at this point because obviously a number of hon. members are seeking the floor.

The hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Referring to yesterday's answer given by the Prime Minister to the effect that discussions have already opened between Quebec and Ottawa officials and taking into account the wishes of both Quebec and Ontario concerning telecommunications, I would like to ask the hon. minister if he is in a position to say whether his government will allow the provinces to take part in the formulation of the federal policy on this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, this question seems rather vague. I have already indicated-and I believe it to be the government's position-that there have been discussions aimed at dividing responsibilities especially in production where all producers in Canada will have to do their share in the field of broadcasting if we want to meet the requirements of a consistently developing system.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice with regard to the desirability of the Canadian government and the provinces agreeing on a constitutional position. Has he consulted the Attorneys General of the provinces with regard to the position they might take at the Supreme Court hearing with regard to the Manitoba appeal court decision on interprovincial trade so that the federal government and the provinces might take a united stand at the Supreme Court hearing?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: In the
course of the usual proceedings the factums representing the positions of the various provincial governments and that of the federal government will be presented to the court and argued out before that court.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know it will be argued out before the court, but my question was whether there has been any prior arrangement by the federal Minister of Justice in consultation with the Attorneys General of the provinces so that they might present a united argument at the Supreme Court hearing? Has there been any prior consultation?


John Napier Turner: I have had certain informal conversations with some Attorneys General, including the Attorney General of Manitoba. It is within the interests of the Attorneys General to represent their provinces as they see fit. I have said to the hon. member and the House that I intend to defend the constitution through counsel at the Supreme Court level.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: When these factums are filed and are available publicly, will the minister table copies of the factums so the House can decide if the government is defending the constitution or has only a watching brief?



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: My question is to the President of the Privy Council. It concerns the motion to establish a special joint committee which as I understand will be debated tomorrow. The answer to this question may give some direction and determine the length of the debate. The terms of reference contain the following words:
-the nature and kind of legislation required to deal with emergencies that may arise from time to time in the future-
Does the President of the Privy Council agree that the alleged crisis that took place last fall would be material evidence under the terms and conditions of that motion?
Hon Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): I think the terms speak for themselves. It was not intended that it would be a back-looking motion but rather one looking to the future.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the minister not agree that, in preparing legislation for the future in reference to a possible crisis, what occurred in the province of Quebec and what occurred in Parliament with regard to legislation would be material evidence to assist the committee to come to a conclusion?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that this would be a relevant argument to make tomorrow when the matter is before the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I say with the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, that unless the House wants the debate to last a considerable length of time this simple and straightforward question should be answered. I have asked a straightforward question and if the minister says yes the debate might be shortened accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put the question. I did not dispute the question in the first instance, but he asked it a second time and I suggest that perhaps this is debating in advance a matter which will be before the House tomorrow. I had some doubts as to the original question by the hon. member. I took into account the circumstances which he brought to the attention of the House, but I do not think it would be helpful to have the question asked a second time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As far as I can see, the whole motion is a sham and a whitewash.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: I have a supplementary and related
question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. For the time being I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
May 12, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



FISHERIES


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Several weeks ago the minister undertook to bring forward his income support program for fishermen before we debated finally the unemployment insurance legislation. Can the minister tell the House how soon we may expect that income support program to be provided to hon. members?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it has not been possible to bring it forward in time for the first year of operation of the new unemployment insurance plan and therefore the matter should be reviewed in that light.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that members will have to make a decision with respect to the unemployment insurance legislation which allows the government to remove fishermen from the benefits of that legislation, will the minister be able to give the House, some time before that legislation is dealt with, an outline of the kind of income support program for fishermen that he has in mind?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is provision under the new unemployment insurance plan, as it has been explained and introduced in the form of legislation, for coverage for commercial fishermen for the indefinite future. I do not expect to be in a position to outline an alternative plan for catch insurance before the unemployment insurance legislation is passed.



RETENTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR FISHERMEN PENDING NEW PLAN

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that the present unemployment insurance benefits to fishermen will remain part of the present unemployment insurance legislation until a plan is brought in which will assure them of at least as good a position as they now hold under the old legislation?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think this promise has been made many times by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. The present plan provides coverage of fishermen in the same manner and on the same basis as in the past. I understand it is the intention of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry to introduce some time in the indefinite future, I think he said, a plan that will be comparable and acceptable to the industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again suggest to hon. members that we will soon be running short of time and we have already had two supplementaries on that question.



OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION INDUSTRIES-CONSIDERATION OF POSITION IN PREPARING INCOME TAX CHANGES

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether he has become aware of the deficit that has arisen in the discovery of oil reserves in the province of Alberta as against the utilization of present stocks, and has he taken note of this in the preparation of income tax changes as they deal with resource development industries, in particular the oil and gas industry because this is one of the very serious positions that is affecting the future discovery of oil and gas reserves?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the representations of my hon. friend and similar representations made earlier.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a question I have raised previously. Is the minister in a position today to announce if a decision has been reached regarding the request of the Nova Scotia government for a $2 million grant to allow the McBean mine to continue in operation?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to so announce today, but discussions are continuing with the Nova Scotia government.


Robert Muir: In view of the minister's answer may I ask him if it is the intention of the government to continue to use the 200 miners involved at the McBean mine and their families as political pawns in the Central Nova by-election?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for South Shore.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate when he expects to hold discussions with the French authorities on the thorny
question of phasing out their fishing activities in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in areas adjacent to Nova Scotia and N ewf oundland?

May 12. 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I understand there will be preliminary discussions beginning next week.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Following those discussions will the minister consider making a statement on motions at an early date outlining any progress made in the discussions with the French as well as indicating whether any progress has been made in discussions with Portugal, Spain, Italy, Denmark and the United Kingdom?


John (Jack) Davis: I shall certainly consider that proposal, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has a supplementary to a previous question and I will recognize him shortly. For the moment the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has a supplementary.


VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER TO SOVIET UNION-DISCUSSION OF DEPLETION OF CANADIAN FISHING STOCKS BY RUSSIANS
John Howard Lundrigan: My supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he indicate whether, when the head of our government visits the Soviet Union next week, discussions will be held on the east coast fishery and the depletion of our fishing stocks by that country, as promised by the Prime Minister about six months ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall
draw this to the Prime Minister's attention, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he will want to discuss with the Soviet authorities all important matters of Russian-Canadian relations.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker -


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I bring to the attention of hon. members and of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate that about 25 members of his party and as many members of other parties are awaiting an opportunity to ask their questions and we should limit supplementaries.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I shall forgo my supplementary but I should like to say that I have no intention of limiting supplementary questions on the east coast fishery after six or seven weeks have passed with hardly a question on a matter of such importance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member knows that according to the procedures and the Standing Orders supplementary questions are in the jurisdiction of the Chair. When 25 or 30 members are seeking an opportunity to ask their questions it is difficult to determine at what point we should try to go on to the next subject. I know that hon. members feel very strongly about certain questions and I apologize if I make a mistake and go on to the next question too soon, but I can assure the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate that I try to be as fair as possible.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, in the last two years questions have been raised in the House a number of times about the 40-minute question period. Perhaps I should raise a question of privilege and say that if matters of vital importance, such as the east coast fishery, have to be circumvented and cut short because of the 40-minute question period, then it is time to reassess the fact that we are being guillotined by this kind of rule in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Howard Lundrigan: It has been brought to the attention of the Speaker on a number of occasions that we cannot get our points across sometimes in the 40-minute period, and when we would like to pursue in some detail the matter of foreign fishing off our shores we are not able to do so because debate is not permitted on many occasions when we would like to do it so in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege at all in my opinion. The hon. member has an interesting point when he says that we cannot consider all matters of importance during the question period. This is obvious as there are only 40 minutes allotted. I suggest to all hon. members that the question period was never designed for exhaustive debate on all important matters that are under consideration or of interest to members at any one time. I suggest that hon. members have to exercise discipline to some extent, co-operate with other members and give others an opportunity to ask their questions. It is as simple as that.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a supplementary, but we have already taken five minutes on this point and to my mind that is highly unfair and unreasonable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: My supplementary question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister request that during the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union he seriously and formally discuss with that government the matter of the exploitation, rape and depletion of our fishery resources off the east coast of Canada so that we will get an official position from them on the conservation and management of these resources?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* [DOT] [DOT]


REPORTED DISPENSING OF SO-CALLED ABORTION PILLS BY DOCTORS IN HULL AREA
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of reports that so-called abortion pills are being dispensed by doctors in the Hull area and

May 12, 1971

573?
in light of the proven uselessness and indeed danger of such pills, will the minister investigate the matter and take steps to warn the public?


John Carr Munro: I shall certainly have the matter investigated, Mr. Speaker, and report back later.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall return to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby whose supplementary was lost in the shuffle a moment ago.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, during that shuffle I seem to have lost the minister as well so I shall refer my question to his parliamentary secretary because it is of very real importance. I am informed that the minister is behind the curtain. Perhaps he is listening. Would the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion inform the House whether or not he has taken action on the request by the provincial member for Cape Breton East that the minister bring about an expansion of coal production at No. 20 colliery, Glace Bay, as one important means of dealing with the 25 per cent level of unemployment?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wants to answer for the minister, but perhaps the hon. member who asked the question might ask it again. The question period will not be charged with the few seconds used to rephrase or put the question the second time.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker. I will omit the preamble. Can the minister inform the House whether he has taken steps to bring about an expansion of production in No. 20 colliery, Glace Bay?


Jean Marchand: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I could ask what are the plans of Deveo in that regard and report to the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: 
John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard that all swordfish have been cleared for human consumption.


Donald MacInnis: Since the minister has said that he has not heard that swordfish have been cleared for human consumption, am I to take that his departmental officials are watching the sale of this commodity closely in order to protect the public?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have been watching swordfish and other fish very carefully. Tests are carried out at all times and only fish which pass our very strict standards are allowed to be sold on commercial markets.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is a matter of great concern to each and every member of the House and each and every staff member of the House. I ask the minister, what kind of operation is he running in that department? He has publicly stated that his departmental officials are carefully watching this commodity; yet on May 11, yesterday, the parliamentary restaurant served swordfish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You walked into that one, Jack.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, all fish that are sold commercially, and this applies not only in Canada but to Canadian fish sold commercially abroad, have first been tested and our department's inspection service guarantees that it is safe for human consumption.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, it appears that some hon. members have survived.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member one more supplementary, but I remind hon. members that only five minutes are left before the end of the question period.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a further question of privilege. Why did the minister announce the policy that prevents swordfishermen from taking these fish from the ocean, because they cannot be tested until they have been caught? Why does he not allow them to take the fish and subsidize their operation if there is anything wrong with the fish?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

May 12, 1971


SUGGESTED EXTENSION OE SEASONAL BENEFITS BEYOND MAY 15
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Inasmuch as seasonal benefits payable under the unemployment insurance plan expire on May 15, is it the intention of the minister to extend that date, in order to prevent workers from going on welfare and thereby imposing a heavy financial burden on the municipalities?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot presume that everybody who comes off unemployment insurance goes on welfare. I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the House in that regard. I have no intention at present of extending seasonal benefits beyond May 15.


FINANCE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since the number of unemployed seems to remain at a very high level in Canada, mostly in the province of Quebec, is the government considering the possibility of giving financial support to the Maison du Chomeur, in Montreal, to help those people solve their financial problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think so but I will check.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILI^OBJECTIONS TO ALLEGED FALSE AND MISLEADING NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENTS
Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wenlworlh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he received objections from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to false and misleading newspaper advertisements calculated to oppose Bill C-176 and obviously intended to misinform the farmers of Canada, which solicit replies to the Leader of the Opposition in particular?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the advertisements may be misleading in trying to purport that the Leader of the Opposition would be effective in his opposition, but surely it was not the purpose-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill.


An hon. Member:: The minister surely is falsely packaged.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the minister seen the Liberal advertisements in the by-elections?



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour and relates to the unfortunate situation at Flin Flon, Manitoba, where members of the Association of Trade Unions have been on strike against Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company for three and a half months. Has the minister anything further to report in relation to the recent resumption of negotiations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker, other than to say that the offer submitted by the company was rejected by the unions a few days ago and talks have not resumed since. Unless both parties appreciate their responsibility to the community of Flin Flon, I might find it necessary to appoint an industrial inquiry commissioner in the near future.



WHEAT-ADDITION OF UNUSED PORTION OF LIFT PROGRAM FUNDS TO TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that only $53.7 million of the $100 million voted for Operation Lift has been paid to farmers, and since the minister has expressed satisfaction with farmer response to the program, is the government considering adding the unspent portion of the money voted to the transitional payments provided for in Bill C-244. This would be done, of course, after making allowance for certain payments still to be made.


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, of course the $100 million associated with Operation Lift was an estimated figure of the amount which would be used if farmers took the fullest possible advantage of the program. The amount spent indicates exactly the extent to which they took advantage of the program and the extent to which cash flow increased in the Prairie region under that policy.


John Stratford Burton: Does the minister then renege on the $140
million figure that he originally gave to the House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 12, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to make it clear that at no time did I indicate to the House of Commons a $140 million figure, although it is true that some press headlines used that figure.


An hon. Member:: Where did they get the figure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: From Information Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BAY OF FUNDY TIDES-REVIEW OF PROGRAMMING BOARD'S REPORT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchesler Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to provide the House with information on the status of the re-examination of the report of the programming board, which is being carried out by his department and officials of the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, with respect to the Bay of Fundy tides? Can he also tell the House who is heading up the re-examination as far as his department is concerned?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing further to report at this time in regard to the proposed review, but discussions are continuing between my officials and officials of the two provinces concerned.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. On March 16, as recorded on page 4293 of Hansard, and again on May 6, as recorded at page 5558 of Hansard, I raised a question concerning a publication issued under the authority of the minister of the environment. I was promised a reply to that question and I wonder if the minister has an explanation now?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, some of the staff of the forestry service in their enthusiasm produced a draft document which was reproduced by the Queen's Printer and which contained a reference to the department of the environment. This has since been distributed with an erratum sheet attached correcting it to read "Department of Fisheries and Forestry."
Inquiries of the Ministry PENITENTIARIES



MILLHAVEN-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF REPORTED HUNGER STRIKE

Mr. Arnold Pelers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Acting Solicitor General. In order to avoid any serious difficulty, will he investigate a reported hunger strike engaged in by 85 per cent of the inmates at Millhaven the other day, which apparently resulted from lack of exercise, no reading material and lack of razors and other facilities?


John Napier Turner: On
behalf of the Solicitor General, without conceding the preamble to the question I will have the matter investigated.



AIRPORTS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister indicated to the city of Edmonton the conditions under which the industrial airport of that city will be kept open to 737 air traffic?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, I have not done so formally. I received a report this morning from the officials of the department who went to Edmonton for consultations on the matter. They have put forward a set of proposals which I understand are acceptable to all the parties as an interim measure. While I have not formally indicated our decision to the city, I am disposed to accept the recommendation of the officials.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport about a matter which was not contained in his statement on port policy. Now that the changeover is formally taking place and new appointments are to be made, about which reference was made, will the minister again give a full guarantee that there will not be one employee of the existing National Harbours Board out of work after this changeover takes place?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can
give that guarantee in this context, Mr. Speaker. The reorganization that I am anticipating, and which I announced today, will not affect any employee of the National Harbours Board. It may be that the normal kinds of operations will result in either hirings or firings, but they will not be related to this change.

May 12, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ATOMIC ENERGY



POSSIBLE SALE OF PLANT TO AUSTRALIA

Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister give us a progress report on his talks with the Australian government regarding the possible sale of a Candu atomic energy plant to that country?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a statement on motions later this week in that regard as well as about my trip to Australia generally.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: My
question is for the Minister of Justice. It is important because of tomorrow's debate. Does the minister know whether Claude Ryan and others allegedly involved in the plot to set up a parallel government have been charged with seditious conspiracy or with an offence under the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act, or are they to remain a convenient excuse for those attempting to prove the need for invocation of the War Measures Act?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



HARBOURS


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: My question to the Minister of Transport arises out of the harbour policy announced today. Will the minister assure the House that apart from representation on the National Ports Advisory Council there is no change contemplated at this time in the constitution or operation of harbour commission ports as detailed in the statement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give that assurance. There is no change contemplated in terms of the harbour commissions.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR LIST OF ACCEPTED PROJECTS AND AMOUNTS TO BE EXPENDED

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: My question is for the
Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the minister indicated yesterday that more than 600 projects under the Opportunities for Youth program have been accepted and 100 more per day, is the minister willing to table a list of these projects, the number of people involved,
their locations and the amount of money to be expended so that the Canadian public may have a better idea of the effective nature of this program?


Gérard Pelletier: I do not see
anything wrong with that, Mr. Speaker. I could even say to the hon. member that we intend, as of today, to inform all members by sending them a daily list of all the approved projects.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder whether the Secretary of State will answer the question directly with regard to tabling a list of these projects. Also, will he indicate whether it is the case that some provinces are directly represented in the selection of the projects under the Opportunities for Youth program? If so, will he indicate what provinces are represented?


Gérard Pelletier: I did answer the question directly, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if the hon. member did not understand my answer. I said that I am favourably disposed to tabling a list of the projects when they are completed. All provinces were informed that if they wished they could send one of their civil servants to act as advisor to our secretariat as far as their region was concerned. I know that Quebec and Ontario have done so and maybe some others, but I am not sure.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-PRIORITY TO EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS IN TAKING CENSUS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: In the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I will direct my question to the Secretary of State. In view of the concern expressed about the problem of student unemployment this summer, did the government consider giving priority to university students for the thousands of census-taking jobs or did it decide to award these jobs in the traditional way to loyal local party supporters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question, asked in those terms, is not in order.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, May 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Baldwin:
That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress lor northern Canada offers great opportunities for the people of this country; and that the eco-

May 12. 1971
[Stage Direction]
nomic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed progress; and that it is essential to make appropriate changes in our approach in respect of northern Canada;
And this House condemns the government for its failure to promote a truly Canadian strategy for the north based on human, capital and natural resources, and urges that appropriate policies be adopted at once that will bring about such development in that region.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis.
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the debate in
which we have been engaged since yesterday is quite wide ranging. The opposition have been talking about a vision of the north. During the debate they have discussed the policies of the north. Some hon. members have said that the government is not providing enough incentive to the mining industry and in so doing is destroying the potential development of the north. The leader of the New Democratic Party talked about extravagant socialism. He said we should not develop the north, but sit on the resources that are there. I detected in the representations made by the leader of the New Democratic Party that his main preoccupation was not so much what is going on in the north, but he is afraid that everything from the north is going to the United States. If he checked the facts, he would see that most of the exports from the north are not going to the United States but to Japan, India and western European countries.
I cannot understand the position of the opposition. This is not a very embarrassing attack on the government. On the one hand, we have the main opposition party stating that we are directing the north toward a socialist state and, on the other hand, the leader of the New Democratic Party says we are just selling to American interests. However, Mr. Speaker, we should not be influenced by these positions in trying to assess the situation and decide the kind of development which should take place in the north.
This government is not like the previous government. We are not trying to develop the north in a nebulous and uncontrolled way by merely building roads and development of resources. Our objective is a balanced development in the north which takes into account all the factors which we have in mind with regard to developing any part of Canada. In terms of northern policies, the first objective of this government is the people of the north. We have to make sure-


Mr. Yewchuk:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the minister, but a point of order is being raised by the hon. member for Athabaska.


Paul Yewchuk: I wish to refer to a statement the minister made yesterday. He said: "I will speak tomorrow, and I shall not speak from a text." I see that the minister is reading directly from a prepared text.


An hon. Member:: Peanuts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to make his speech in any event.
Development of Northern Canada


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If I were reading from a text, Mr. Speaker, I would not be making the errors in English I am now making. If the hon. member knows a bit of English he will recognize that I am not speaking from a text. I am speaking from my mind and my heart right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have no prepared text but I can say we know where we are going in the north; we understand the position much better than do members of the opposition. Yesterday there were complaints that nothing was going on in the north. As usual, the opposition showed a bad sense of timing because on the day they put forward their motion in the House another discovery of oil was made in the north. It is always the same. The opposition does not know where to go, in the north, in central Canada or in Quebec.
As I was saying, we have decided that the north is not to be developed at any cost. The first thing to be considered is the wellbeing of the people in the north. It is all very well to be sentimental and talk about the traditional way of living of the Indians and the Eskimos. But at a time when the Eskimo birthrate is 46 per 1,000 because the government is providing better health services than ever before, and at a time when the average life expectancy of native citizens in the north is increasing to a point at which it is almost equal to that of white citizens, it is necessary to find ways and means of permitting Indians and Eskimos to follow a different way of life if they choose to do so. This is why we have decided to put people first. This is why we are providing better services than before.
I should like to remind those who say we are doing nothing in the north that when the opposition was running the country-and those were pretty bad times-in 1960, there were only 930 Eskimos and 948 Indians in school. Nine years later there were 3,100 Eskimos and 1,600 Indians in schools.


An hon. Member:: The same program.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why are hon. members opposite so sensitive? They say it is the same program. But when the opposition formed the government they were spending $56 million on Indians. Right now we are spending $264 million, apart from what is being spent on health services. Of course, it is the same program, but the emphasis is on the number of dollars we can put into these developments, since we are concerned with people.


Erik Nielsen: Those figures apply to Indians all over Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, but I am speaking of the north, too. We have 730 native people in vocational training schools at the present time. We are spending more than $76 million on education alone in the north, compared with probably one-tenth of that sum when the Progressive Conservative party was forming a government.


An hon. Member:: That was ten years ago.

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was not a progressive party, of course. Look at the housing program in the north.


Erik Nielsen: You are not proud of that, surely?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not proud of it? You were talking about going from igloo to igloo, but we are talking about going from one house to another. When I visited the north last summer, accompanied by the former Interior Secretary of the United States, I found he was amazed at the kind of housing available to Eskimos.


Erik Nielsen: Eskimos, not Indians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know we have not done so well for the Indians, but we are on the way to improving the situation. I realized that was the situation when I was first appointed, which was why I put the Indian and Eskimo programs in the north under the same roof, as it were- to give the same services to each. I hope that within a few years we shall be able to give the same kind of service to the Indians as to the Eskimos in terms of housing.
Criticism has been directed toward the kind of bureaucratic administration from Ottawa which is responsible for some aspects of northern administration. We have transferred the administration of the Northwest Territories to the new capital of Yellowknife and right now we are trying very hard to extend a policy of local government into the settlements. We have founded the first municipalities in the north. Yellowknife, for example, was the first to be established as a city. We have passed ordinances providing for settlement councils and many of the small communities in the north are now administering federal programs themselves. I repeat that we are concerned with people. We must make sure that we provide these people with opportunities to work if they are to share the advantages of the general economic and social levels of Canada.
Of course, we are criticized for not doing enough. I admit that two or three years ago probably only 3 or 4 per cent of the labour force in the mining industry were native people. However, I am glad to report that two years later 17 per cent of the workers employed in the mining industry in the Mackenzie District are native people. Last year we signed an agreement with the Pine Point Mining Development Company as a result of which 21 per cent of their employees at the Pine Point mines are natives. So, the situation is not as bad. Of course, we must continue these efforts, backing them up by a good education program to give the natives the schooling they need to take these jobs.
Some social problems are developing in connection with this effort. Of course, we cannot force Indians and Eskimos to work in the mines if they do not wish to do so. But I say to the Indian and the Eskimo people that we are willing to give them training. In fact, we have trained a lot of Indians and Eskimos in schools at Fort Smith and Edmonton to work on heavy equipment or to become operators on drilling sites and so on. At the same time, even if Indians and Eskimos are taking training to do some of these jobs, I say time and time again in my

speeches that it is not only the Indians and Eskimos who have to adjust; the white man has to adjust, too, and accommodate himself to the ways of the Indians and the Eskimos. The Indians and Eskimos should not always be called upon to adopt the same methods of work as ourselves.
I am confident that in time more and more of the native population will become part of the labour force in the north and share in the benefits of northern development. However, if we wish to provide these opportunities for the native people it is necessary to develop the north. This is where my position becomes uncomfortable, because I am caught between two fires. Spokesmen for the Official Opposition tell me I am too tough on the mining industry, I am not giving them sufficient incentive to develop the north. In short, I am not giving them a free ride in the north. On the other hand, the members of the New Democratic Party have told me to sit tight on our resources; not to develop the north or sell nonrenewable resources, to keep them frozen in case 20 years from now those assets are of greater value. But what is going to happen in the meantime when there are not enough foxes or caribou or seals to provide a livelihood for the natives?


An hon. Member:: You have plenty of seals over there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My first preoccupation is with the native people in the north. Certainly, it is not my ambition to sit on resources of the north so that Indians and Eskimos are deprived of any opportunity to find a place in the wage economy and have their share in the wealth of Canada, thus forcing them to live on welfare. Our policy is to develop the north in a balanced way. Even if I am caught between these two extremes, the position of the government and myself is that we want to develop the north in a balanced way so as to take account of human need and the market that exists for our natural resources. We need a new emphasis in these days because of the preoccupation of the Canadian public with ecological problems. We have to find new methods.
For example, we are doing some seismic work trying to find oil and gas. We are taking modern machinery into the tundra where Eskimos and Indians used to hunt their caribou, foxes and muskrats. Some hon. members, like the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), may laugh at this, but the Eskimos on Banks Island have a real problem finding foxes, as do the Old Crow Indians in hunting muskrats. Even though this is not all that important to the total development of Canada it is damned important to them, and this is why I have personally visited the area in order to find some solution.
I have concluded that the solution is to ask oil and gas companies and mining industries to take into their labour forces some of the trappers from various localities to advise them whether they would be destroying trap lines or the habitat of the wildlife when conducting their operations. We must develop the north in such a way that we do not repeat the errors that have been made in the south. We have developed many mines, gas and oil
May 12, 1971

fields in the south of Canada, and at the same time have created pollution problems.
The government has not been waiting for the opposition to tell it what to do. What amazes me, Mr. Speaker, is that the opposition do not realize that the problem they are talking about today was resolved a year ago when this House passed four different pieces of legislation dealing with environmental control in the north. Perhaps the opposition were asleep the day we passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Northern Inland Waters Act, the land use regulations-


Mr. Harding:: Just one question; have you proclaimed the Northern Inland Waters Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are referring to the land use regulations. You asked me many questions, and I told you why we have not proclaimed them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the conversation between the minister and the hon. member might be continued later outside the House, but for the moment the minister should make his speech, which is addressed to the Chair.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have to have a balanced development of the north to make sure that this development, first will be in the interests of the citizens of the north and also to the benefit of the economy of the whole of Canada. I am amazed that members of the opposition attack the government for having done nothing in the north. Hon. members might be interested to know that in 1963 mining production in the north reached a total value of $29 million. In six years we have taken the total from $29 million to about $200 million.


Gerald William Baldwin: You owe that to the Pine Point Railway.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That railway is not used in the Yukon. I know the argument used by the other member from Alberta. Since the people of Alberta benefit from northern development, I think hon. members should give us some encouragement rather than trying to stop development in the north.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is why we have moved this motion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that the goals we have in the north have been spelt out by the government on many occasions. I do not want to repeat what I have said so many times in speeches in this House, but perhaps I can just elaborate for a few moments on the kind of objectives we have developed over the last few years for the north. The government has made very clear what are its goals. What we are seeking in the north is a more satisfactory life for northern residents who must become full partners with other Canadians in developing the area and whose preferences and aspirations must be taken into account.
We must also protect the northern environment and prevent irreparable damage to it. This means controls based on research and planning. We intend to maintain Canadian sovereignty and security in the north. We must continue to encourage viable economic development
Development of Northern Canada within the regions of the north so as to realize their role in all the objectives and their potential contribution to the national economy. We want to ensure the continuous evolution of government in the territories. We want to realize the potential contribution of the northern territories to the social and cultural development of Canada. We intend to encourage development of leisure and recreational opportunities in the north, particularly through national parks and other appropriate conservation measures. Those are the general goals we are proceeding towards in the north.
I am glad that the opposition has chosen the north as the subject of this two-day debate. What disappoints me is that members of the opposition did not put forward any suggestions for developing the north. They have moved a long way from the vision of the north held by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er). Although there were some criticisms yesterday, many of the members who spoke did not even refer to the north. Some members spoke about Labrador, some about new Quebec, some about the Athabasca delta in Alberta and some about the British Columbia government, but very few members of the official opposition made a speech on the north.
A debate like this is an occasion for presenting positive ideas. Although some members had good ideas, the majority did not talk about the real issue, which is: Should we or should we not develop the north? Should we or should we not try to find out whether there are renewable resources in the north? What kind of development should we undertake? Should we construct pipelines in the north or should we not? That is the kind of issue we should debate. Very few members on the opposition side will adopt this approach. That is why I decided to speak first today in an attempt to put this debate back on the rails, otherwise we are wasting time.


An hon. Member:: That is what we are doing now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am discussing the real issue, I was glad the leader of the NDP stated we should not sell our renewable resources. I do not share his view, but that is what he stated. He said we should not sell gas to the United States. That is his position, but he should have checked his facts. Much of the production from the north is going to Japan, West Germany, India and so on.


An hon. Member:: He said he was not an expert.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That was quite evident when he spoke. I think there is a possibility of finding a solution which lies somewhere between the suggestions of those who say our resources should not be sold, and the position adopted by others that we should develop our resources and take advantage of them. If you sit on an asset for years and years, you lose all the interest on that asset. You lose the market and you do not derive any revenue which would permit the development of schools, social programs and so on.
The government realizes once more that we cannot go the way members of the official opposition are advocat-
5746

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada ing. They suggest we should just follow certain grandiose visions, build roads, develop our resources without much concern for other problems-the problems of the people and other interim difficulties. There are two approaches to the development of the north. We must develop northern development by finding jobs, and we must do this in a way which will avoid creating new problems. We know there is a lot of gas and oil in the north. We have not yet scratched the surface of this vast land which contains 1.5 million square miles. This amounts to 40 per cent of the land area of Canada. It is half the size of the United States, nine times the size of France and is equivalent in terms of area to that of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan put together. Even if we find a few mines and develop them, along with a few oil and gas fields, we will not deplete the resources of this vast area. If we do not try right now to find these resources we will never know the extent of the resources in that area. This is why we are trying to provide incentives to industry to move to the north. I am referring particularly to the oil and gas industries.
What is significant is that in the north we have a diversity of prospects for Canadian investors. In respect of the oil industry, for example, the first foreigners in the north were the French.


An hon. Member:: You mean the minister?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I had in mind the French from Europe where my ancestors of 300 years ago lived. Since that time we have become Canadians and we speak French. We need incentives. In the Arctic Islands, for example, most of the land exploration is under control of Canadians through Panarctic. The Canadian government has a 45 per cent interest in that endeavour. Most of the private corporations participating in that venture are Canadian concerns. Between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of the shares of Panarctic are controlled by Canadians. This is a new development undertaken by this government.
We need money to find oil. You do not just look at a map and say there is oil there; you have to drill wells. The cost of drilling a well in the north is approximately $2 million. This is a very expensive operation. You must use aircraft to get the material there. We must have plans for development, and we must take into account the need to protect Canadian sovereignty in the north as well as the interests of the Indians and Eskimos there. We must make sure that these vast resources are found and developed in the interests of the people there.
Those who think we have no competition in the resources field better not kid themselves. Along with a member of the NDP and a member of the official opposition, I visited New Zealand and Australia. Those who think we have no competition should visit the northern part of Australia to see the kind of mines they are developing there. Those who think there is no competition in respect of our resources are not on very solid ground. A lot of natural gas has been found in the last few years in the North Sea off the coast of Europe.

Perhaps they will devise some method of developing oil fields there.
As a result of these developments, we might find in time that we have lost our markets for our own resources. We have to devise sound development plans. We must develop enough to maintain interest, and at the same time make sure we retain enough reserves to improve our bargaining position if the market becomes improved. This is exactly what we are trying to do.
There is reference in the motion to the difficulties of the Indians and Eskimos in the north. I referred to this today at the beginning of my remarks and I should like to come back to one main point. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested we should look into the rights of the aboriginal people in the north. That hon. member, coming from Alberta, should know that the Indians in the Northwest Territories have treaties with the Crown. We have made many attempts to solve these treaty problems with the Indians. We have held many meetings with them.


Erik Nielsen: Treaties do not apply to the Eskimos.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Let me finish. I am talking about Indian treaties. I will come to that point later. We have assured these people that we intend to honour these treaties. During our consultations with the Indians we were told that before they will make any deals in respect of treaty rights they want to resolve their own positions. They intend to retain their own experts, and they have asked the government to help them form a committee to look into these treaty and other rights. They have their own specialists.
Let me settle one thing right now. We have appointed an Indian claims commissioner to look into this situation along with our experts. He is available to these Indians in the north for discussions regarding their treaty rights. They say they are not quite ready to discuss these matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With permission I can complete my remarks in a few minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister is seeking the consent of the House to pursue his remarks. If that consent is given I respectfully suggest that the extension should be brief. In about an hour and a half the vote will be called and a number of members have indicated an interest in this debate and a desire to participate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: and 11; we have told those Indians that we have every intention of respecting those treaties because we would not impose a unilateral solution on them.
Now, there is the matter of two particular groups in the North, the Eskimos and the Yukon Indians who have yet to negotiate a treaty with the Crown. Obviously, with regard to the Yukon Indians, we can consider their situation similar to that of the B.C. Indians who have presented their case to the Supreme Court of Canada, basing their claims to certain rights on legal arguments, and it would be quite inappropriate for me now to comment on a possible decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Everybody knows that the Indians of the Nishka Tribal Council, in northern British Columbia, have submitted the question of their rights to the Supreme Court and are waiting for a decision.
As regards the Eskimos, last winter they took a similar decision about their rights, and they joined the Indians from British Columbia in order to obtain a decision from the Supreme Court. I understand that the question is now before the courts.
However, as regards our attitude, we do not believe that it is always necessary to use the same approach as the United States. In fact, it was rather amusing to note that NDP members, who are always traumatized by what comes from the United States, suggested that we should follow the same course of action as the Americans regarding the Eskimos and their rights.
In my opinion, we can find, in Canada, an original solution, and those we have proposed until now tend to ensure that northern development will benefit as much as possible the Eskimos and Indians, the first inhabitants of those territories.
I could dwell on that for a long time, but I must say that our policy is well established. As a matter of fact, we are trying to proceed to a well balanced development that will take into account not only the interests of the citizens living in the North, but also those of the whole country, because mistakes that have been made in the South must not be repeated in the North, we must protect the environment. That is why, even last winter, we took measures which have proven, I believe, that we were interested in these problems long before the opposition which, as usual, woke up a little late. The opposition has dealt with problems for the solution of which we had already passed legislation last year. Even from the point of view of timing, as I said, the opposition, with its usual awkwardness, acted once again in a strange fashion: It moved a non-confidence motion the very day we discovered a new oil-field in the North; all this proves that it has lost whatever for sightedness it might have had a few years ago.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my views on northern and national development have been expressed by me many times in this House before. Rather than go over them again, I shall review some of the philosophy of the government which prevents the implementation of
Development of Northern Canada adequate policies for development. All the minister seems to do every time he rises is talk. He is great at winding up but has no pitch. The failure of the present government to promote, articulate and advance, let alone construct, a truly Canadian development strategy for the north can and should be discussed from many perspectives. This is one reason the motion is couched in such broad terms.
Today, I would like to speak to the motion in terms of the central personality of the Trudeau government. The failure of this government in the north is not a peculiar defect, not simply a problem of priorities. It is symptomatic of the general atrophy and unacceptability of this government as an instrument of Canadian development and the public good.
There is no constructive, realistic, coherent or Canadian design for the development of the north because the government has no such design for Canada. The minister talks of isolated projects but fails to emerge with a pattern of development. This is because the government has no such design for the country as a whole. There can be no intelligent strategy for the north by a government that has not a development strategy for Canada. Therefore, this is not merely a motion of non-confidence in the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), although they richly deserve a singular motion of nonconfidence, but a motion of non-confidence in this government and its lack of design and counter development strategy for Canada.
A discussion of northern development is not simply about the appendages, but the heart of the government because the destiny of the north is intimately and integrally connected with the development of Canada. To view the north as an incidental and experimental matter is not only colonial, it is a stupid development policy. For instance, the north will not be developed by some utopian spin-off of 10,000 unemployed young people being told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on Friday in Vancouver to build a city in the north. For what purpose? What will they do there and how much will it cost? How will they sustain themselves? He does not say but looks for ideas. A full recognition of the potential growth and a conscious diversification of the Canadian economy is the first step.
Further, it would be a sell-out for Canada to escape the TAPS pollution danger by the premature construction of a Canadian oil pipeline in our north. Recognition of native rights to land and adequate research on ecology are essential prerequisites. It would not take an instant for the minister, on behalf of the government, to say they recognize native land rights and will deal with them. But he has not done that and escapes in a diverse fashion by saying we will not follow the United States precedent. The people in the Yukon ask for the recognition of their land rights, but the government does not budge and does not recognize those rights. Standing up for our west coast as firmly as the government appeared to do for the north coast would be both more courageous and practical.
24107-14J

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
I have said these things, not to make a case against the government's past behaviour, but to underline the assertion that the possibility of a truly Canadian development strategy for the north depends on the capacity and equality of a government strategy for Canada. And the development of either is a function of the personality of the government, in this case of the Trudeau government. I would like to express some of my conclusions on the question Peter Desbarat asked back in 1968: "He looks fantastic"-referring to the Prime Minister-"but will he work"? Another question should be added: "At what will he work?" Will he work at putting 800,000 Canadians deliberately thrown out of work back on the job? What has he done about the face of a people pockmarked by poverty? What does he do about implacably rising costs of living? What does he do about lakes and rivers all fouled up, and air that kills, and terrorists who kill? What does he do about a land beset by internal pain for which diagnosis is conflicting and prognosis uncertain? What has he done with the law of our land which now punishes for holding an opinion, assumes guilt in the absence of proven innocence and gives such law retroactive effect? At what will he work? At being a leader who pantomimes obscenity upon the stage of Parliament.
These questions are about the three fundamental components of a federal strategy for Canada-inspiration, energy and organization. I assert that on all three the collectivity of Trudeau has been inadequate, wrong, lazy, anti-democratic and disorganized, and in the north his policies have been Simon-pure socialistic.
What has been the inspiration of this government? What are its intellectual preoccupations? I think it displays all the pretentious and narrow radicalism of its first organ Cite Libre. It is essential to recognize the importance of this intellectual womb and its resultant Utter who now occupy the treasury benches and other positions of power in the government structure. Most of his old cronies have been provided with sinecures. Harry Crowe did far more justice to this phenomenon than I can. In his article "Decline of Liberalism", published January 16, 1971, he stated:
The most striking fact about leaders of the Liberal party is that they have been obsessed with demons-
King's Frankenstein was industrial conflict, class conflict, and the omnipresent forces of darkness. Lester Pearson's demons were first the Soviet Union and then the more formidable John Diefenbaker. Pierre Trudeau has a (closet) full of demons but Duplessis and nationalism tower above (all) the rest.
King sought to exorcise the evil spirits with moral excellence; Pearson with slogans and Trudeau with mild exhortations.
Crowe further states:
Now for Trudeau. What is his Liberalism? Strong support for authority, almost to the point of obsession-(his own authority). Advocacy of democracy is-a vital one. (He talks about it but does not practise it). Most of the political leaders, in and out of the Liberal party, assume democracy. But Pierre Trudeau advocates it. (Pays lip service to it in his grasping for absolute power). He grew up with the demon Duplessis-so the Liberalism of French Canada, fashioned as a "counter weight" to "censorship authoritarianism, clericalism, and dictatorship" (Trudeau or Duplessis) becomes the liberalism of Canada.
Crowe goes on to explain:
But we won that round in seventeenth century England. The anachronism and the irrelevance are monumental.
Whatever vision and imagination this government had, is being used up in a paranoid struggle against dark dinosaurs of the Cite Libre's past. This posture is negative and in substance anti-democratic. The Trudeau government does not trust the people. What is the explanation? James Eayrs has explained it. He is a dilettante in power. He is the Walter Mitty in the cabinet room. A dilettante is one who interests himself in an art or science merely as a pastime and without serious study. This has immense consequence on the shape and calibre of any Trudeau development strategy for Canada. Leonard Beaton writes of Trudeau:
In spite of long periods spent wandering about the world, he understands very little and does not know it.
First, most of the inspiration of the Trudeau government is about the unreal world of processes and opinions, not the improvement of the quality of Canadian life. Consequently, the energy of this government is usually spent on the idea and the moods of Canada; his creation of regional offices proves his preoccupation with this area. It is not concerned with the personal needs of Canadians and the economic health of this country, particularly in the north, as the minister would have us believe just now.
The government has made great strides in a counter insurgency propaganda campaign against separatism, parochialism, trade unions and greed. Yet, this government does not even have inflation and employment targets, let alone strategies. Give them credit though, they had an unemployment target of 6 per cent and have exceeded it substantially. They have no timetable for their white paper on foreign investment, and the last draft white paper on income security is back in the cabinet. The white paper on taxation, as well as the other legislation of which the minister is so proud, have scared off up to 50 per cent of the investment risk capital in the Yukon this year. But Pelletier has had the time to write a book. While unemployment grew and inflation rose, he scribbled.
Two aspects of the personality of this government have deeply shaped its organization, its demonology and its arrogance. The first is not surprising and has obvious roots. This demonology-their distrust of the people-has clearly dominated the priorities of the government. Inflation must be eradicated, for inflation, as the Prime Minister stated, has elsewhere led to a fascism of the middle class. But perhaps that is what he wants. Every heckler warrants a lecture on the stress and strain of democratic dialogue. Police surveillance of politicians and peoples homes must be accepted as essential in the protection of our fragile democracy.
A disagreement on the tactics of protecting Pierre Laporte's life became an ingredient in the "erosion of the public will". Nothing could be more damaging to democracy than to send troops into our streets, unless it is to suspend its civil liberties. Trudeau sent troops, suspended civil liberties, and called his critics bleeding hearts.

May 12, 1971

Organizationally, this distrust of the people has permeated the government. This morbid and negative attitude has generated a kind of defensive organization that covers the powers of government and the status quo. Economic growth, fiscal sharing with the provinces, the business of co-ordinating and constructing a development strategy, have been delegated to the drones, the Bensons, the Mackaseys, the Basfords and the rest. These are not the matters that preoccupy the helm.
Second, this government has not escaped this demonology because of its arrogance. And its arrogance is monumental. After all, Pierre Elliott Trudeau-dilettante and traveller-only just got to Ottawa in 1965. He only got here as an orphan, clinging to the coat tails of Jean Marchand and trailing Pelletier behind him. That is a track record that would humble most. The Prime Minister best described his own kind of arrogance in a discussion in London in January of 1969. A student asked whether it is possible for an intellectual to remain an intellectual after he has become a Canadian politician. The student obviously touched on a rather narcissistic hangup of Mr. Trudeau who replied:
Not in the true sense of the word, no. I think an intellectual is one who looks for absolute truth and one who looks for absolute values and one who, in the face of any problem, states his belief as to the best answer on moral grounds, on philosophical grounds and who does not inflict a sense of politics into his answer.
With his absolute candour and his absolute moral motivation, the Prime Minister concludes:
The politician will water it down and say that he cannot get away with it, he must compromise or it will not pass parliament.
So, as Peter Desbarats predicted in the earlier article, Trudeau, the beautiful intellectual, will "have nowhere to go but down". However, the danger of politics to the Prime Minister's precious essence has hardly been overlooked by him or his reverent handlers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Chappell:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening for the last ten minutes and I have reread the motion. I have searched to the best of my ability to see how anything that has been said in the last ten minutes is relevant to the motion. I bring it to Your Honour's attention that if hon. members are serious on this subject, they should speak on the subject and not wander all around Canada, in fact all around the world, to try to find something to criticize.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order that has been raised. The very fact that the hon. member has raised it at all indicates his woeful lack of familiarity with the subject matter of the motion we are discussing. In my remarks I have been pointing out that the underlying reason for the failure of this government to come up with constructive and real policies for the development of the Canadian north-and this includes not only the area above the 60th parallel but the northern portions of
Development of Northern Canada Canada-is the lack of a basic philosophy, and nothing could be more justified than to point out the dearth of this government's policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for a moment but the Chair would like to comment on the point of order raised. The Chair felt that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was probably ranging quite broadly, but I must say that I think the terms of the motion before the House are quite broad. I might read just one phrase in the motion before the House, which refers to the economic and social policies of the present government, "and that the economic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed social progress". I think, with respect, that the remarks of the hon. member may have had a loose connection with that part of the motion but he was generally relating his remarks in that context to the problems of the north. So I think that, in general, the hon. member was in order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat? Is the hon. member rising on another point of order? The Chair has already ruled on the point of order.


Erik Nielsen: As I say, Mr. Speaker, this government has manifested, in all its structural reforms and its attitude toward Parliament, toward the press, business and all other intruders, a neurotic and devious desire to protect their charmed Prime Minister from the vulgarities of public life. Their dream is of a ship of state with an airtight helm, one that can be seen but not seduced.
Such a state of mind is extremely interesting. However, it is completely inappropriate for the construction of a truly Canadian development strategy for either our north or for the whole of our country. The inner sanctum of this government is not in possession of impeccable motives or impeccable vision. This unadmitted pretention is both ridiculous and malicious.
The men who lead this government have a lot of narrow and irrelevant prejudices to grow out of if they are to lead us well. However, such growth is not evident; they are still a bunch of amateurs and that goes double in spades for the north. They do not have the maturity nor the courage to recognize the fact that Parliament, the press and the Liberal party, for example, must participate and must be engaged in governing if any government is to grow into something really worth while. Paranoia and vanity are not bases for growth and democratic government, but these qualities, above all others, underly the jazzy jargon of Trudeau and his systems men.
Revealed in the Prime Minister's manipulation of his own caucus is the expeditious and loving construction of Information Canada, the unchecked and silly conceit of the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer), his arrogance, and the departure from the cabinet of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), two men who possess constructive insights and

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada energy for government far beyond those of the Trudeau collectivity.
Mr. Kierans' suggestion that the present disarray and ad hocery in the economic policies of the government calls for some sort of superministry responsible for the economy is all very well but it falls short, I suppose for understandable partisan reasons, in expressing the real problem. The fact is structure is not the real obstacle in developing a constructive economic and social strategy for Canada. A new mentality for the Prime Minister or better still, a new Prime Minister, is the first requirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It is obvious that this government is not going to begin to employ the very generous mandate it received from the Canadian people. The Prime Minister and his fan club will never grow out of their present arrogant, sterile, and obsolete concept of themselves and of the business of governing Canada. They are stagnating; it is time for them to go.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hu Harries (Edmonfon-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in connection with the approach of this government to northern development. Before I do, however, it might be appropriate for me to suggest, in view of the observations of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that there are a number of people on this side of the House like myself who have confidence and faith in our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). That has not changed nor is there any evidence to indicate that it should; quite the contrary. We feel that in the last three years Mr. Trudeau has been our Prime Minister he has effected important, lasting and significant changes in Canada which were not only necessary but highly desirable. Members opposite should make no mistake about that.


Gerald William Baldwin: For the Liberal party.


Hu Harries: For Canada, particularly the region I represent.


Erik Nielsen: Not mine.


Hu Harries: As far as am concerned, it would be presumptious for me to attempt to defend the Prime Minister in those circumstances because there are many who could do it much better. As a new back bencher I would remind the hon. gentlemen opposite that we feel very strongly on the issue that has been raised. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) spoke first, and quite properly, because he was able to give the House a good deal of factual information, particularly with respect to the way in which his department has instituted programs with respect to the people of the north. If I may, I should like to comment on one or two aspects of the economic policy, the approach of the government to northern development.
This is an approach, Mr. Speaker, that does not presume that all the answers as to the best policy are
already in our possession. It is not based on hopes or vision; it is a policy based on the acquisition of facts and the use of those facts to provide an approach to northern development that will be meaningful and lasting, of material benefit to the north and to other parts of Canada. This is the basis of this government's approach to northern development and, in my view, it is one that should be commended because it is intelligent and it will be effective.
Let us take a look at the area of oil and gas development. In the past three years, massive and effective exploration programs have been mounted and we are gradually seeing the result by finding substantial quantities of natural gas with indications of the vast store of oil that is available.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In spite of you.


Hu Harries: These happenings have not been in spite of the policy but because of the policy. The policy is
realistic and does not presume that we are going to develop the resources of this vast territory by a few government directives or even a few speeches. We tried the speeches ten years ago and obviously they were a failure. I suggest to you that the policies this government is following are soundly based and will result in the most effective use of the resources as they are found.
In connection with the development of the north there has been a great deal of discussion about tax incentives, and I am confident that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) brings down his budget in June we will find that this government is still evidencing a program of support for northern development through the use of tax incentives. I find it interesting that in Russia, which is a state that I am sure some of my friends opposite might have some enthusiasm for, people who work in northern areas get substantial premiums in addition to an element of private property that is completely lacking in other industrial sectors. You cannot expect to have the necessary incentive to develop unless the opportunity is given for capital and income gains. To say that this government's approach to northern development is socialistic requires a rather peculiar definition of socialism, it seems to me.
Fundamental to the development of the north is, of course, the question of transportation. I should like to commend the government on two policies they recently adopted in connection with research. First of all, a grant of half a million dollars was given to the Saskatchewan Research Council for research on the slurry pipeline. This was followed by a grant of almost the same amount to the Alberta Research Council for the further development of capsule pipelines. The use of pipelines in the north to move fluids and gases is something that does not require a great deal of research as to its economic effectiveness. It most certainly requires and, indeed, is receiving a good deal of research in connection with the environmental impact.
The use of a pipeline for the transport of solids opens a whole, new technology which could have the most important significance for northern Canada. Solids pipelining

May 12. 1971

involves, as you know, Mr. Speaker, either the mixing of the solids with a fluid and the transporting of those solids as a slurry or, secondly and more significantly, the use of capsules which float in a liquid in a pipeline and are transported from one point to another in that fashion. The concept of developing mines in the north where the concentrate could be moved by pipeline directly to markets is one that I think ought to be greated with a good deal of excitement. It implies that it is not necessary, with respect to bulk movements, to have a surface transportation facility. Railroads, of course, are the prime bulk movers. They are very expensive facilities. If it were possible to transmit solids in a facility designed to transport either gases or liquids, we could benefit from a tremendous economic opportunity and a great opportunity for development that otherwise would be denied to us.
This government has indicated that it is aware of the technological possibilities of that sort of development. As I said before, I am delighted that the government will give such wholehearted support to a research effort in this field. That seems to typify the approach of this government to northern development, an approach that is based on an understanding of the technical requirements of that area and the desire to search out and explore the best possible technology to meet the needs of the area.
The development of northern Canada must certainly take place within the context of the development of the rest of Canada. The distribution of regional economic effort within the federal system is certainly occupying the attention of this government. So far as I am concerned, I think it would be quite inappropriate if the government were to pour undefined sums into northern development without having regard to the fact that those funds could be allocated to other regions in Canada in order to obtain the maximum development for all Canada.
I certainly do not support the position taken by some of my hon. friends opposite with respect to the idea that northern resources ought to remain unworked until some indefinite time in the future. If one appreciates what is meant by a "time discount factor", one will realize that that sort of technique suggested involves tremendous costs. On the other hand, it seems that northern resources and their development ought to be considered in some sort of sequential system that considers the needs of other parts of the country. I hope I will be forgiven for distinguishing western Canada, and particularly the Prairie region. More research must be done in that area and there must be substantial greater investment in that area in addition to that investment which has been made with respect to the agricultural economy. Only in that way, only if we develop the various regions of Canada as we go along, will be obtain the best mix of economic activity, designed to give the best opportunities for our people. I, therefore, support enthusiastically the approach of this government to northern development, because it seems to me to make the best economic sense.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) say that
Development of Northern Canada he is here because of his confidence in the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I suppose we are entitled to assume that there is some relationship between his attendances here in Ottawa and his actual degree of confidence in the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sorry that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) is not present to hear my remarks. I will proceed with them, in any event. First of all, I think I can properly commiserate with the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I understand that several of them were forced to work all Monday night in a desperate effort to find something for the minister to say in this debate.


Erik Nielsen: They failed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We have heard the results. It is obvious that their job was not easy.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Who wrote the hon. member's speech?


Mr. Boulanger:: It is a shame that the hon. member speaks in that way.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The north, of course, is a physical frontier where life perhaps is hard but where hopes can certainly bloom. There are hopes of vast economic growth and hopes, at the same time, in that area for the preservation of a land of rugged, natural beauty where pollution so far is virtually absent and where a healthy and natural life is, so far, possible. The very expression of these goals makes it obvious immediately that there is a danger of conflict from the outset. We can already see the need for the careful balancing of policies that others have referred to that are based on the realistic appraisal of the effects of the various choices that we must make. That is the basic premise from which we, in the official opposition, have started initiating this debate on the northern policies of the present government.
The development of realistic and effective northern policies demands a good deal of care. That, certainly, should not be an excuse for inactivity, confusion or ignorance, all of which this government stands accused of in this present debate.


An hon. Member:: What does the hon. member know about this subject?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It stands accused of that, if I may say so, not only in connection with this debate. From the government's own ranks have come charges of neglect. From its own ranks have come suggestions of incompetence and of refusal to take the necessary lead. There are two questions that we must ask.


An hon. Member:: Who must ask them?


Erik Nielsen: People like the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) are asking them.

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What do we, meaning all the people of Canada, want from our north; and what does the north, and I refer to its peoples and its animals, want from us and need from us? I refer to, those who hold the reins of power. First, what do we want from the north? We want to see a realization of the north's economic potential for the benefit of the whole country, including the present and future inhabitants of that vast area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We want to see our resources developed and, as the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said, we want to see them processed to the greatest degree possible. Certainly, we do not want to see the processing issue used as an excuse for holding back northern development.
May I point out, in connection with the settlement of Indian claims in Alaska, that the discovery of vast oil reserves in that region has made it possible for the state of Alaska to make a generous offer. I am not suggesting that we should withhold a generous settlement until those circumstances prevail in this country. I am just pointing out this fact to those who would tend to downgrade the significance of economic development and the revenue that it can produce. I suggest that much more might be done to encourage the diversification of the economy, especially in the middle north. I am not talking only about the far north. Much more could be done to expand the processing of our nonrenewable products. As others have emphasized, we must not simply be satisfied with draining the north in the shortest possible time. We must have long term policies. As far as I know and can understand, this is where this government has failed. I would love to be proved wrong, Mr. Speaker.
What do we want from the north? We want the north to make its unique contribution to the Canadian economy and Canadian life because the north is part of our heritage. It is a part that we should use wisely for our common benefit.
What does the north expect from us? It is perhaps presumptuous to try and express this, but I would like to try. I think it expects wisdom of the sort to which I have just referred. It expects an understanding of its peculiar problems. It expects a determined effort to find policies that will enhance and not destroy its basic character. It expects us to deal justly with the issue of the rights of the native peoples, not to try to tell them what we want from them, as the present government has been attempting to do so disastrously, but to work with them in a co-operative effort to maintain their culture and to ensure that they benefit in the way they desire from the economic development that will take place.
The native land question has been allowed to fester for too long. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) spoke at some length on this subject which he knows so well. I would simply like to say that the settlement of this issue in a way that is fully acceptable to the Indian and other native peoples must be a top priority
for any government that is working out a long term program for the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said this afternoon that the Indians concerned are governed by treaties. As I understand it, that is not a fact.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You better get your facts straight.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I want to get my facts straight and the minister better get his facts straight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As I understand it, those treaties do not apply to the Yukon and certainly do not apply to the native people in the territories. This was a misleading statement for the minister to make. The white paper relating to the Indians was a disastrous start to the whole discussion.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: You were in favour of it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I said it was a disaster, Mr. Speaker. This has been indicated from day to day. I hope the minister deals more carefully and more openly with the Indian and other native peoples than he did in the House today when he made that assertion about the treaties covering the Indians in the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I challenge the minister and member opposite to justify that statement. It cannot be done.
Beyond that specific issue, the north expects us to act on the basis of accurate knowledge as to what its problems, potential and needs are. It is not enough to go in half-cocked like the present government and throw around suggestions in Texas or somewhere else without knowing the actual situation and the effects on the ecological balance of such massive undertakings. In the north, as in the south of this country, this government has frequently indulged in very loose words and vague promises. These are not what is needed, but it is apparently all that this government is able to give.
Although I was joking yesterday with the leader of the New Democratic Party that he might become an expert like myself, I make no pretense at being an expert on the subject. However, on my desk upstairs I have a massive report put out three years ago by the United States government with regard to every aspect of life in Alaska. This report, prepared in the knowledge that the Alaska frontier would soon become an issue, deals in detail with the culture and economy of the native peoples, the geological and geographical structure of Alaska and the possible impact of change. This was done so that any future projects could be examined in the light of knowledge, not in the light of vague reassurances or easy prejudice.
What have we in Canada done that is comparable? That is something I would like to know. What are we doing now?

May 12. 1971


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You should see all the reports on the north.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not say that the government has done nothing, but almost nothing. Regardless of the other issues that it raises, the trans-Alaska pipeline system has already had a good deal of work done on it. I say in all sincerity that surely here is an opportunity for the Canadian government to send observers to learn first hand some of the problems in such a major project, a project of a type that we may well be faced with in the future, perhaps before not too long. I believe that observers would have been welcome. I got that impression when I was in Alaska last month. However, none were sent. Why? I do not know.
The University of Alaska at Fairbanks is deeply involved in northern and Arctic studies. Some Canadian students go there, but there is no evidence of any interest on the part of the Canadian government about what is happening.


John Cole: We know more.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister says we know more. I want to assure the minister that while I am certainly not an authority, I was highly impressed with the competence of the people I met at the University of Alaska.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: How about the universities in Canada and the work they are doing?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I content myself with the fact that there has not been enough liaison with regard to what is going on in Alaska in connection with TAPS by way of research. Also, there has not been nearly enough association with the University of Alaska. There is an agreement with Russia providing for some kind of interest with regard to the north. I highly approve of that. I visited Russia last summer. It was obvious that Canada should be urged to do that. I am happy that it has been done, but we have been neglecting sources of information right next door. This is just another example of the government's lack of foresight or lack of interest. I think it is a lack of foresight. The government has obstinately refused to develop a comprehensive northern development strategy. Such an attitude is not easily forgivable.
I am not suggesting that the government should be planning to take over the northern economy. I say that the federal government has a great responsibility for and toward our country. We have an obligation to encourage its rational exploitation and to protect the environment. We must actively look into the possibilities for future transport routes and systems. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona referred to the research that is going on in connection with certain aspects of transportation. This is good, but we must go far beyond this. We must see where airport facilities should be developed and expanded. We must see what things are possible and desirable.
Former Progressive Conservative governments did move in this field. As already pointed out, the Roads to Resources program was greeted with ridicule then and now by members opposite. Fortunately, they could not
Development of Northern Canada
prevent its achievement, but they are making it clear today that they have no intention of making a contribution of their own to any integrated transportation policy.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona spoke about ways in which the government was helping out in the north. This is not the impression I gathered from talks with those who were actively engaged in northern development. They were full of complaints about the ineffectiveness of the government, particularly in the area of an appropriate transportation policy. In transport, as in other directions, we must develop a northern strategy, not to destroy the north but to see how it can best interrelate with the southern parts of this country. The present government's lack of such a strategy is merely a reflection of its general lack of long term policies. It has been unable to formulate policies to benefit the economies of the southern or middle parts of Canada. How, then, could we really expect it to accomplish more in the north? It has no policy to protect the environment of the coast of British Columbia threatened by the possibility of oil spillage along the proposed tanker route from Alaska to the south. How could we expect it to do better in the north? Its policies are weak in every sphere of activity and in every area of Canada. This is not the moment at which to deal with regional disparity about which so much was said two or three years ago by the Prime Minister, except to note that it is deeper now than ever it was.
We have chosen in this debate to put the spotlight on our northern land because nowhere is the ineffectiveness of the government more glaring or its failures more dangerous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It would be too much for me to ask this government to display vision in the north, or anywhere else, I suppose. I would settle for a little common sense and a spark of imagination, though there is no evidence that even this will be forthcoming. The government has not even been seeking out the information readily available to it. This is why I ask hon. members present for their support for our motion this afternoon. By passing such a motion maybe we could at least scare the government into paying a little more attention to this whole issue, and fear is, after all, sometimes the beginning of wisdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: I have followed with a great deal of interest the debate which has taken place on northern development. I listened with unusual interest to the minister's speech today. He gave the impression that everything was going well and according to plan, that the government has the development of the north well in hand. I also gathered that he and his colleagues are content to allow the present type of development to continue without much change.

government's integration policies and of those mining companies which have moved into the territory only to exploit the mineral wealth there, leaving precious little behind for those native indigenous groups which have called the territories their home for generations.
It is obvious that the indigenous groups in the Canadian north do not receive an adequate share of the wealth created through the exploitation of the mineral resources in their area. In addition, there is increasing evidence that adequate plans have not been made either to protect the environment and the wildlife in our northern regions upon which many of these natives depend, or to put much effort into the establishment of a basic economy which could offer them alternative employment. There is increasing evidence that the present unplanned economic activity and exploration which is currently taking place in the north is having a detrimental effect on many aspects of the environment.
We have talked about planning for northern Canada. It is nothing short of disgraceful that the land use regulations, which would help to give some proper direction to economic development in the north, have not yet been brought down by the government. The land use regulations were promised months ago and they should have been in effect right from the start of economic and exploration activity in our northern areas. I see absolutely no reason why they should be held up any longer and I now protest to the minister and this House that they should include the whole of northern Canada rather than only the few selected areas to which apparently they are going to apply.
The Science Council of Canada outlined the problem very clearly in one of their releases last year. The council suggested that we make a special effort now in the Arctic. The council went on to say, and I quote:
It seems likely that Arctic resources will soon be vigorously exploited without adequate background study of the natural environment. In consequence, there is every prospect that northern development will be accompanied by the creation of a new set of environmental problems which would have been far easier to avoid than to rectify. Because of its high costs, the current prospect is for curtailment of Arctic ecological studies, even though the present pace is too slow. Yet here is a chance for Canada to try to steer the development of a great natural area on an ideal path, a course based on thoughtful prior analysis of the consequences of various policies.
In association with the various aspects of oil and mineral exploration and transport in the Arctic, it is strongly recommended that there be an intensive program of environmental research. The first priority should be given to renewable resource inventories that would enable classification of Arctic ecosystems and define the distribution of various kinds of frozen ground water. These studies should be initiated immediately. Equally important is study of the productivity of Arctic ecosystems, particularly the tundra and the taiga. The omission of a tundra ecosystem study in the Canadian proposals for the international biological program is much to be regretted. Research is greatly needed on the effects of a modem technology on the slowly renewable resources of the Arctic to which a native culture is adapted.
The sparse human population of the Arctic makes it unlikely that development will be associated with a strong public reaction. In these circumstances a more positive governmental policy and action are appropriate.
Development of Northern Canada
That was the statement made by the Science Council of Canada which pointed out to the government what we should do to develop our northern areas. I should like now to take a little time to point out what is actually happening as far as developing our northern areas is concerned. I should like to quote what the minister said in a radio broadcast on March 11, 1971 in the program "Encounter". This is the statement the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made at that time when talking about pollution of waters in the north:
We said about the water in the north that nobody will use it if they pollute it. We will not fine them; we will cut off the water and that will be the end of it. So we want to develop the north in a fashion that we will not repeat the errors that we have made in the south.
Here we have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development telling us that the government has a program to develop the north, that it is going to look after pollution of the water systems of this vast area. Yet today he was boasting about the passage of several acts relating to northern development, one of which was the Northern Inland Waters Act. We passed that act in the 1969-70 session. Today, I asked him whether it had been proclaimed and he replied that he did not know. Let me tell him that it has not been proclaimed. This legislation, passed a year and a half ago, would have given protection to the rivers, streams and lakes of northern Canada. The minister has the gall to come and tell us the government has legislation on the books, intimating to the general public that they are ready to move in respect of pollution. The minister is the one who is at fault. When we pass legislation it should be brought into effect so that protection against pollution could be given to our waters.


Erik Nielsen: They think if they sit on it long enough it will hatch.


Randolph Harding: I have here a statement, presumably for the council in the north, by Dr. D. J. C. Horwood of the Department of National Health and Welfare, in which he points out to the federal government the pollution problems we are facing in the Yukon Territory, particularly in the Yukon River. Not much more than a year ago we heard about the mining town of Faro, which I understand was planned by the federal government. That town is now dumping raw sewage into the river. The government did not even plan for a sewage treatment plant.


Erik Nielsen: They did the same thing at Whitehorse.


Randolph Harding: We find now that warnings are being issued by the Department of Health to the people in the area of the Yukon River not to drink the water from certain parts of the river until after they have boiled it 15 minutes. We are now talking about plans for 1971.

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
This sort of procedure in respect of northern development is just not good enough as far as Canadians are concerned.
Let me refer to another point which is of major concern to the NDP. We are not happy with the extent of foreign ownership of the natural resources in our country. We have made this point time and time again, and we intend to push for Canadian control of our natural resources and our industries. What do we find in the reports emanating from the north? We are subsidizing foreign investment companies in their efforts to go into the north and skim off the cream of our mineral resources. These minerals are not processed in the north or anywhere else in Canada. These resources are shipped out in their raw form to other countries, and that is where labour intensive industries are being developed. This is one reason for wholesale unemployment in this nation. This is the direction in which this Liberal government is leading Canada. It is time Canadian people woke up to the fact and began to realize we need a new deal and a new approach.


Erik Nielsen: And a new government.


Randolph Harding: And a new government. This problem in respect of our resources is a problem which has irritated us more than enough. We have talked about the native population of the north. There is no reason at all why communities cannot be developed there in which this material can be processed. In this way we could build up the areas with people involved in resource extraction, process and use.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have not listened to all of the debate since I participated yesterday to some extent in committee functions. I have had an opportunity to read some of the speeches. I have listened with great interest to the words of hon. members this afternoon, and I have followed with great interest the intent and the direction of the debate. I am now a little reluctant to participate. Many Indian people have suggested to me that perhaps the white man talks too much. I shall attempt to avoid being guilty of that offence. I am delighted with the manner in which members on both sides of the House have referred to our native people. Perhaps I should limit my remarks in this regard to the difficulties faced by the native people of the Northwest Territories.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the opposition House leader referred to one outstanding thing which must be settled in the Northwest Territories in the interests of the native people. I wonder how many members in this House know what these treaties are all about, what they contain, when they were signed and so on. I have a few of them in front of me. Two of the treaties outstanding in the Northwest Territories are Treaties No. 11 and No. 8. Treaty No. 8 was dated June 21, 1929. I cannot seem to find the exact date when Treaty No. 11 was signed. Let me refer to some of the things contained in Treaty No. 11. It refers to terms, where it was signed and the people who were involved.
Let me refer to one pertinent section here which reads as follows:
And His Majesty the King hereby agrees and undertakes to lay aside reserves for each band, the same not to exceed in all one square mile for each family of five, or in that proportion for larger or smaller families;-
This is a very important part of that treaty. Perhaps one of the important questions to be decided upon by this government, the Parliament and people of Canada is the establishment of reserves. The minister has said we have a lot to learn from mistakes we have made in southern Canada. Since I became a Member of Parliament I have often been asked whether the Indian people might not be better off if we abolished these reserves.


An hon. Member:: What is the answer?


Len Marchand: I do not know the answer. This is a typical question. If we could turn the clock back it is difficult to guess what this Parliament, this government or any other government might have decided in respect of the establishment of reservations. This whole question is fundamental to the Indian people, particularly in view of the many disastrous situations which have existed and exist on the Indian reservations of the country.
When I was growing up I was often asked why I was trying to get an education. I was told that I would never get any place, even with an education, because I was an Indian. I was told I would never find a job anywhere because I was an Indian. This is the kind of belief which has been festering over the years and causing difficulty in respect of the reservation system. I do not know what decision I might have made had I been a member of the government at the time these reservations were set apart. Perhaps in the context of the history of that time I might have done the same thing.
It would be a mistake, in retrospect to abolish reservations. This is not the answer to the problem. Reservations are the domains of Indian people. They are part of their heritage and the life they have learned to live. These reservations must be developed. The resources must be developed in order to provide a better living for Indian people. The human resource on the reservations must also be developed in a way that these people can participate in all aspects of Canadian life, social, economic and political. This is what must be done in the Northwest Territories.
I was very pleased to learn recently that four native people were elected to the Northwest Territories Council. This representation is still small when one considers it in terms of the relative proportion of the population comprised by the native people in the Northwest Territories. The native people represent 60 per cent of the total population in the Northwest Territories. However, this is a giant step forward. Part of the reason for the native people being elected to the Northwest Territories Council is the action of this government. I take my hat off to the government for recognizing and encouraging this trend.

May 12, 1971

Abe Okpik was the first Eskimo appointed to the territorial council. One of the underlying reasons for his appointment was the desire to show that the Eskimo had a contribution to make. It was also a recognition of their culture, that they are a part of the Northwest Territories and should participate in the whole political process of the Territories.
What happened after that? Not too long afterward Simone Michael was elected. This is the way it should be. A few years ago I was involved in encouraging the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, at that time the Hon. Arthur Laing, to appoint an Indian to the Northwest Territories Council. I suppose I assisted in a way because I was helping the Member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories who was of the same mind.


Erik Nielsen: He does not have a mind.


Gerald William Baldwin: He needs help.


Len Marchand: No; he is doing pretty well. So, what happened from that point on? A couple of native people, Metis and Indian, have now been elected to the Northwest Territories Council. This is a great step forward in the participation of the native people in the electoral process and in the government of the Northwest Territories. This is as it should be. During the time I was discussing many things with the natives of the Northwest Territories we also discussed the idea of reservations. It was very interesting to note that a great number of them stated they did not want reservations. They are looking for some other way that would perhaps better fit the times. I do not advocate the establishment of reservations. I really am not suggesting this as a way by which the land part of treaties Nos. 8 and 11 should be settled in the Northwest Territories.
Another significant remark was made by one of the chiefs who has been appointed to the Council. He said that perhaps the longer his people wait for the settlement of this part of the treaty the better off they will be because many of them really do not understand what is going on. He said that perhaps as a great many more of the young people become educated and become leaders in the community the people will be in a better position in 10 or 15 years to understand the situation and make the right kind of settlement or deal for the Indian people so that they will have a better future than the native people have had in the past.
I was very interested when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that the white paper on Indian Affairs was a disastrous start. In many respects this is quite a turnabout because when the white paper policy was announced on June 25, 1969 his party was quite happy to see it introduced. I should like to read a little of what the hon. member for Peace River had to say on that occasion. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his courtesy in sending me within reasonable time notice that he would be making a statement, and the copy of the statement which accompanied that notice. I hope this permits me to make a reply, keeping well within the framework of the injunction Your Honour laid down the other day.
Development of Northern Canada
I thank the minister for the statement he has made. There was a reminiscent tone to it. I recall during the last years of administration under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that a joint committee studied this issue. The wording of the report of that committee dealt with the winds of change which were blowing through the ranks of the Indian people of Canada. Many of the thoughts which the minister expressed in his statement were good thoughts, repeating the thoughts in the report of the committee.
We welcome the statement by the minister. It amounts to an acceptance of many proposals made by the Indian people through the years, and made by those who have worked on their behalf, in this party and elsewhere.
That is an indication of that party's acceptance of the policy on that occasion. I had some apprehensions at that time concerning the policy because, knowing how the Indian community would react, I felt some of the things were quite unrealistic. In retrospect, however, I believe this has probably been one of the best things which has happened to the Indian community. More than ever before the Indian people have been discussing the kind of future they want. This discussion has been carried on in the Yukon Territory, in the Northwest Territories and all over Canada. This is a good thing. Very often in the past policies were handed down and the Indian people had to live with them. I commend the government for taking this kind of approach. It is the right approach because if policies are to be made for the Indian people the Indian people must be involved in making those policies. I hope it will not be too long before there is some positive indication of what direction the policy will take. I hope the federal government, the Indian people, and perhaps the governments of the provinces involved will soon arrive at some consensus because there are a number of things which need to be done by way of legislation.
The present Indian Act is very restrictive. It is outdated and must be amended to fit the needs of the Indian people in modern Canada. The Indian people of Canada many years ago lived, and are still living, in very difficult circumstances. We are all aware of this. However, on the other end of the scale some of them also are very progressive and are quite capable of taking on the responsibility of administration of their own affairs and own communities. Such an opportunity should be provided to those who are capable of taking on responsibilities. It has always been my view that a new act should be based upon the philosophy of progressive options. The legislation should provide that the Indian people may move along as quickly as they wish.
During the recent trip to the New Zealand and Australia I had some very interesting discussions with the Maori people. There is a system there whereby four seats are set aside in Parliament for Maoris, representing the north, the south, the east and the west. This system has been advocated in Canada from time to time but I do not agree with it. I believe it would be a backward step if we were to adopt such a system now. The House of Commons must never be a place in which there is special status for any group of people. Everyone who comes here must be elected on the same basis. But on the other hand, the Maori system has worked very well. The people we talked to have said that the standard of living

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada which they now enjoy is a result of their having participated in the political life of the country and in the running of the country. It was also interesting to note that they feel that perhaps their system has now outlived its usefulness. They were interested in doing away with the system so that the Maori people may be elected to their parliament on the same basis as the other people.
I have covered the waterfront here. There are a number of things that I could have dealt with perhaps, but I will end my remarks here.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on the motion before the House my first observation is that the government's failure to develop a workable policy concerning human and industrial growth in our northland is simply a reflection of their much greater inability to develop policies to promote a healthy economy. The problems of developing our northland are so vast and require schemes of such great proportions in terms of human and economic ingredients, that they cannot be undertaken, at a time when the economy is in a depressed state and when its future is so clouded with uncertainties, with any hope that we will do a good job.
Hon. members on the opposite side may wish to take some false comfort in the view that it is the opposition's role to oppose the government merely for the sake of opposing, and that we ought not to have anything constructive to say about the government on any occasion. That is certainly not my view of the role of the opposition, but I believe that certain facts speak for themselves.
The present government has had the embarrassment of having two of its senior ministers resign from the cabinet because of disagreements over the economic, fiscal and monetary policies which it is pursuing. The fact that the two former ministers may not have had identical views on the development of our economy should not in any way diminish the dramatic impact of their resignations and the clear evidence of what great divisions exist within the inner circles of the government, particularly on the matter of determining the direction which our economy is to take in the next few years and the fiscal and monetary tools which are to be used in order to arrive at our goals.
As disturbing as anything to me is the division of opinion which clearly exists within the government's chief advisory agencies on the most fundamental issues in our economy. The Bank of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada very clearly and publicly differ over the important question of whether tax cuts are now appropriate measures to be used to stimulate our economy, and I suggest it is most important in view of the future development of our northland.
The government may find some small comfort in reverting to a number of curious slogans such as "we have licked inflation", but the realities which are evidenced daily in the business and economic sections of our newspapers refute the notion that inflation has been stemmed. Indeed, going back to the Economic Council of Canada, it has warned recently that inflation is a prob-

lem which is going to persist as a serious matter in our economy for some years ahead, and for the development of our northland this is significant. Combined with this uncomforting but realistic appraisal of the situation goes also the advice that it is going to be some years before Canada returns to a full employment economy. I do not know what constitutes full employment but I should think that a level of unemployment not exceeding 3 per cent would be accepted by most Canadians as a reasonably high rate of employment provided, of course, the 3 per cent of the work force who are unemployed are not the same 3 per cent all the time and that during periods of unemployment they are adequately served by the various institutions and agencies which the government has erected to assist people in such circumstances.
In the not too distant future, and as Canada's vast and virtually untouched supply of natural resources, particularly our great quantities of fresh water, become even more in demand by various countries than they are today,
I feel quite certain that the question of our sovereignty in large areas of the north is going to be challenged seriously. Moreover, I believe that some of the over-populated countries of the earth are going to question not only the morality of our holding such vast tracts of land which we appear incapable of putting to useful purpose, but indeed our very sovereignty over them as well.
It may be tempting to hon. members opposite to dismiss such questions, but I think we should all remember that our claim to holding so much of the northern hemisphere has never been acknowledged internationally with complete unequivocation, but rather we have fallen heirs to this land by default. I would have thought that the voyage of the United States tanker, the Manhattanf through our northern passage demonstrated the beginnings of a challenge to our sovereignty. The Americans, you will recall, Mr. Speaker, while attempting to do everything possible to assuage our concerns over the possible consequences of an oil spill, nevertheless failed to give a clear acknowledgement of the fact that the seas through which they were travelling were Canadian waters. If the Americans take the position that such waters are indeed international waters, then it is an easy matter for the Soviet Union, China, Japan and other great trading nations to take a similar view when it becomes necessary, convenient or desirable for them to make greater use of this northern route.
When one examines the pathetically reduced armed forces which this country has, we must give serious thought to whether we have any realistic capability at all of enforcing claims to our entitlement to all of the lands in the north which we now regard as sovereign Canadian soil. I believe the government could well be advised to consider the possibility of referring to the International Court of the Hague our claims to the northernmost regions of our country, particularly to the water between the islands, so that these may be clearly settled before our sovereignty is challenged by different and less impartial sources.
But of even more fundamental concern is surely the question of what bold and imaginative concepts or plans the government has to put forward as realistic measures
May 12, 1971

to develop our northern lands. The question is rhetorical because the answer is very obvious; it has no such plans to place before the House. The government's single largest failing, in my view, is that they have allowed to persist the notion that settlement in our northland is synonomous with deprivation and hardship. Under present development concepts, or rather I should say lack of them, this surmise is a logical and valid one. Surely, it should be apparent to the government that if they wish to attract to the north the human resources which will be required to develop it, they must implement a number of incentive schemes. Chief amongst these must be taxation measures which will offset the economic penalty of settlement in the north. I use the word "penalty" quite deliberately because in the present situation where the price of butter, bread and other staples, let alone any of the luxury items, is twice or more than in the southern parts of Canada, a most basic economic case can be made for tax alleviation.
Some may think that the salary differential in our northern regions is sufficient to offset the increased costs of foodstuffs, clothing and other items. This is not so, and what one must remember is that higher salaries place one in higher income tax brackets so that the net take-home pay which a person receives does not necessarily compensate him fully for the added net salary disadvantage which he encounters by living in the north.
Beyond taxation concessions to people who settle in the north, the government must consider ways of making life in the north more meaningful and attractive for its residents. It is my understanding that the Soviet Union has taken a much more progressive view in developing its northern land, and I think that we might well have something to gain from their experience and achievements. It might be opportune in this connection for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who will shortly be leaving for Russia, to discuss with Soviet officials some of the questions and problems which the Soviet government has encountered in developing its more northerly regions.
I do not believe that we shall ever have sustained growth in our northlands until we begin to develop fully integrated communities. This means that the residents there must have meaningful access to a well developed cultural life. It seems to me that if we are serious in our desire to develop the north, we cannot expect the people who settle there to be deprived of the benefits of multiple radio channels, television channels, live theatre and a modest and expanding range of the performing arts as well as all of the other educational and cultural institutions which mark our southern municipalities and make them attractive urban centres for our population. The days of developing our north on a frontier basis have long since passed and I would have hoped the government would have realized that a frontier mentality will do nothing to develop our northland.
.
In discussing the development of our northern regions, we come to a more modern and timely problem which perhaps only in the last few years has really begun to seize our attention as it should have done some years
Development of Northern Canada ago. I am referring here to the ecological problems which settlement in the north can bring about. I think it is just as important, and perhaps even more so, for the government to have on-going and in-depth studies of the environmental and ecological problems which would be faced in developing the north in the same way that they are concerned with these problems concerning the pollution of our coastal lands by merchant tankers. The permafrost of the north with its problems for drainage and absorption of waste material, and the easy manner in which the tundra can be damaged, make it imperative that before large numbers of people are encouraged to settle in the north the government should bring to bear the best scientific resources and minds possible to determine the implications of large scale human settlement of the north. Only in this way can precautions be taken to meet the problems which will surely arise. Ecology and pollution are modern terms in our vocabulary, but the consequences of our failing to give them proper consideration could well be as devastating upon our future lives as plagues and other great pestilences were to generations gone by.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, I have two suggestions which I believe the government ought to act on forthwith if it has sincere intentions regarding northern development. First, I believe the time is now opportune to make the Yukon Territory a province, and the Mackenzie area as well. It is time that the residents of these two territories were removed from their semicolonial status and accorded the full rights and advantages of provincial status. I believe that the psychological effect alone of such a step by the government would help to attract more people to the areas.
Second, I urge in the strongest possible terms that the government reconsider and withdraw the increased mining taxes and royalties payments which the proposed new Yukon minerals act would enact from mining in the Yukon Territory. Few measures could be more detrimental to the development of the north at this time than for these burdensome measures to become law.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that I support the motion because the government is derelict on all counts in developing a northern policy, as I have endeavoured to outline in my few remarks.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments that remain until the bell must ring I cannot possibly deal with all the issues raised in the motion and the amendment before us, nor indeed with all the issues surrounding northern policy and northern development.


Gerald William Baldwin: It would take you an hour to defend the government.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Nevertheless, I should like to raise a few issues. In the first place, I note that in the debate which hon. members opposite made possible a few weeks ago on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, the environmental aspects of this particular subject as introduced by the NDP amendment were dealt with in an extensive and adequate fashion. Had they listened to or even read that

May 12, 1971
Development of Northern Canada debate, perhaps this particular item might not have been introduced at this time.
Looking at northern Canada realistically, it seems to me that we must admit, regardless of the rosy-eyed vision of many of us from southern Canada, that we are looking at an area which for a good long time to come, is going to have a resource based economy. With that in mind I think we have to look at programs for northern development from the point of view of resources. Programs that are most likely to benefit all of Canada, but particularly the residents of the north will encourage resource development. There is an idea fixee that seems to be shared mainly by members of the New Democratic Party, university professors and to a lesser extent some of our younger people, that it does not matter how we got where we are in Canada. They have accepted the fact that we have arrived and that it is presumably an act of the good Lord that brought us here. They seem to think that it does not matter how inhospitable we are to foreign investment, that we will continue to benefit from it. They have taken an almost psychopathic interest in the degree of foreign ownership in the resource industries, saying that because the companies which are largely engaged in those industries are now foreign owned and controlled, the resources themselves are owned by foreigners. That simply is not true.
Premier Strom has very clearly stated the view of his government when he said:
It cannot be effectively argued in Alberta that there can be foreign ownership of Alberta's energy resources. Such resources are available for lease, license, or other form of terminal grant. Ownership does not pass to the company developing the resource. The province has and preserves the right to regulate the manner in which operations may be conducted, the terms and conditions under which any energy resource may be acquired and held for development, and the rentals and other charges that must be paid to maintain the operation.
In the federal field, Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board controls exports of oil and gas, where and when pipelines may be laid, and the federal government controls the federal lands by way of permits or lease terms, rentals and royalties. As we all saw so clearly in the revocation on April 15, 1970, of Land Order 1-1961, the federal government is prepared to exercise its jurisdiction.
With the exception of a few instances of freehold ownership of mineral rights, the people of Canada by and large through their provincial and federal governments own all our resources. The fact that we grant opportunities for the development of these resources to foreigners in no way changes the ownership, and our governments have exercised the kind of control that is conducive to the public interest.
Another idea that seems to me to be predominant is that investment in resources is not productive of jobs, that it is not in the best interests of Canada and that some other type would be better. In view of the fact that the 1971 census is almost upon us, the figures I have to rely on here are out of the 1966 census, but I am confident that the 1971 figures will bear out the trend that is emphasized here.

It seems to me that between 1946 and 1960 the only thing that happened in Alberta that was unique to that province was the discovery of petroleum in a very large way. During that period the number of jobs in Alberta more than doubled on the basis of the DBS employment index with 1949 equalling 100. Employment in Alberta increased from 82.6 to 167.4. In Canada as a whole the increase was from 88.2 to 130.3, a rise of 48 per cent. For Manitoba and Saskatchewan the increases were 30 per cent and 43 per cent respectively. The total labour force in the province of Alberta increased at an annual rate of 3.3 per cent during the period compared to 2.1 per cent for all of Canada. In other words, the number of jobs expanded in Alberta half again as fast as for Canada as a whole. The non-agricultural labour force in Alberta during that period increased at an average annual rate of more than 5 per cent compared to 3.2 per cent for Canada as a whole. The population of Alberta rose from something over 803,000 to something over 1,463,000, an increase of 82.2 per cent. During the same period Manitoba's population increased by 32.5 per cent. Saskatchewan's population increased by 14.8 per cent. The percentage of increase applied to Canada as a whole was 60 per cent.
What happened in Alberta to create this tremendously better performance in terms of population, jobs and wealth? It is a well known fact that during that period Alberta made the transition from a "have not" to a "have" province. Mr. Speaker, the only thing that happened there that was different from anything that happened in the rest of Canada and that was perhaps more spectacular than anything that happened in the sister Prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan was the tremendous investment in the resources industries that took place in the province of Alberta.
The theory that nobody is standing around a producing oil well or that very few people are standing around a producing mine is all very well. Those who adopt that simplistic approach are not being completely honest in ignoring the additional exploration activity that is being induced by successful production. They completely ignore the secondary and tertiary employment that results from the resource industries. I think that any policy that on a national basis discourages investment in the resource industries will do a great disservice to all of Canada, and particularly to northern Canada.


Erik Nielsen: That is what the government is doing with Bill C-187 right now.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, when you speak of the north you immediately think of the wealth of the country.


William Arnold Peters: Why does the hon. member speak now, just before the vote? Did he not wish to make a speech lasting 15 minutes?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is some time since oil was discovered at Prudhoe Bay; yet I suggest that that discovery represents only the tip of the iceberg. All Canada is excited about
May 12, 1971

these new discoveries of oil. What the previous hon. member said about Alberta could well prove true for the whole of Canada. We ought to handle our national heritage as Alberta has handled its resources. We need to fear no spectres of American domination of our oil fields if we handle our own resources as they ought to be handled. There is no reason why, in developing the north, the people of Canada cannot utilize the same techniques of government controlled free enterprise which made Alber-
Rose
Rowland
Rynard
Saltsman
Schumacher
Scott
Simpson
Skoberg
Southam
Division
Messrs:
Stanfield
Stewart (Marquette) Thomas (Moncton) Thompson (Red Deer) Thomson
(Battlef ord-Kindersley)
Valade Woolliams Yewchuk- (87).
ta prosperous in the last decade. As has been carefully				NAYS
pointed out, we own	that oil that is still undiscovered.	Messrs:Nevertheless, it is there. What we need is a shot in the	Anderson	Lanielarm which the	government could provide.	Andras	Leblanc (Laurier)


Erik Nielsen: A new government.		Badanai Barrett	LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I hope that the government is thinking of	Basford	Lessard (LaSalle)going to the people. I sincerely hope it will do that, and	Bechard Beer	Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean)the sooner the	better.	Benson	Lind['Translation]	Blair Blouin	Loiselle MacEachen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. It being 5.45	Boulanger	MacGuiganp.m., it is my	duty, pursuant to section 9 of Standing	Breau	MackaseyOrder 58, to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith	Caccia Cafik Chappell	McBride Mcllraith McNultyput every question in	respect of the motion now before	the House.	Chretien	Mahoney[English]	Clermont Cobbe	Marceau MarchandAccordingly,	the question is on the amendment.	Comtois	(Kamloops-Cariboo)The House divided	on the amendment (Mr. Lewis)	Corbin Corriveau	Morison Munrowhich was negatived	on the following division.	Cote (Longueuil)	MurphyCrossman	NoelYEAS	Cullen	OlsonMessrs:	Cyr Danson	Orange OttoAiken	Knowles (Norfolk-	Davis	PelletierAlexander	Haldimand)	Deachman	PepinAlkenbrack	Lambert	Deakon	PortelanceAsselin	(Edmonton West)	De Bane	PringleBaldwin	Laprise	Drury	Prud'hommeBarnett	La Salle	Dube	ReidBeaudoin	Latulippe	Dupras	RichardBell	Lewis	Duquet	RichardsonBenjamin	Lundrigan	Emard	RochonBigg	MacDonald (Egmont)	Forest	RockB rewin	Maclnnis (Cape	Forget	Roy (Timmins)Broadbent	Breton-East Richmond)	Foster	SerreBurton	MacLean	Gendron	SmithCadieu	MacRae	Gervais	(N orthumberland-Carter	McCutcheon	Gibson	Miramichi)Coates	McGrath	Gillespie	Smith (Saint-Jean)Code	McIntosh	Goode	StaffordComeau	McKinley	Gray	Stewart (Cochrane)Crouse	McQuaid	Greene	StewartDanforth	Marshall	Groos	(Okanagan-Kootenay)Dionne	Mather	Guay (St. Boniface)	St. PierreDouglas	Matte	Guay (L6vis)	SulatyckyFairweather	Mazankowski	Guilbault	SullivanFortin	Monteith	Harries	TolmieGauthier	Muir	Hellyer	TrudeauGilbert	Nesbitt	Hopkins	TrudelGleave	Nielsen	Howard	Turner (London East)Godin	Noble	(Okanagan Boundary)	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)Grills	Nowlan	Hymmen	WahnGundlock	Ny strom	Jamieson	WalkerHarding	Orlikow	Jerome	WatsonHarkness	Peddle	Kaplan	WeatherheadHees	Peters	Lachance	WhelanHomer	Ricard	Laflamme	WhicherHowe	Ritchie	Lang (Saskatoon-	WhitingKnowles (Winniueg	Rodrigue	Humboldt)	Yanakis-(118).North Centre)	Rondeau	Langlois	
5762

May 12, 1971
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow.
It being 14 minutes past six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, May 13, 1971