1971-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on March 16, the Prime Minister made the following statement in the House of Commons:

We are saying, in effect, to the youth of Canada that we are impressed by their desire to fight pollution, that we believe they are well motivated in their concern for the disadvantaged; that we have confidence in their value system. We are also saying that we intend to challenge them to see if they have the stamina and the self-discipline to follow through on their criticism and advice.
tTranslation]
Since the closing date for the submission of proposals under the Opportunities for Youth program, April 15, is now past, I should like to report briefly to the House on student response to the Prime Minister's challenge.
As you are aware, the Opportunities for Youth program for which $14.7 million have been allocated is but one aspect of the over-all 1971 summer employment program. As well, there are the traditional employment programs in the public service, the militia, travel and exchange, hostels and kiosks, language training and athletic scholarships which, in all, account for a total expenditure of $57.8 million. All these programs have been most favourably received and are well in progress.
It can be said without exaggerating that in every part of the country, in large urban centres and rural communities, young people have responded to Opportunities for Youth program with an enthusiasm, generosity and imagination which provide tangible and striking proof of the creative ability of the young generation and its desire to contribute to the economic and social development of our society.
To date, from all parts of Canada, we have received more than 8,600 proposals representing a total value of approximately $150 million. More than 148,000 jobs would be created by these projects if they could all be implemented. The vast majority of jobs, or 50,000, would be created in the province of Quebec through 2,485 schemes involving a cost of $59 million. Ontario follows closely with 2,900 proposals for the creation of 47,900 jobs at a cost of $40.8 million.
From British Columbia, 833 proposals were received for the creation of 14,000 jobs at a cost of $17.1 million. From the Prairies came 1,000 proposals for 14,600 jobs at a cost of $15.6 million, and from the Maritimes, 1,410 projects for 19,800 jobs at a cost of $17.2 million.
What are the students proposing? To offer rehabilitation services for blind children; to assist remote pockets of the population which have little or no access to medical and dental care or to the social services available in major centres; to undertake community development projects which would be unprofitable for the private or public sector; to conduct scientific or sociological research designed to produce immediate benefits to the community; to establish contact with the disadvantaged segments of the population, elderly persons and transient youth to encourage them to take part in examining and solving their own problems.
Several proposals are of a cultural nature. Theatre companies will perform in remote areas. Several young people will organize workshops to enable persons who do not normally have access to the visual arts to become acquainted with this field.
There is something contagious about the idealism of youth. Nevertheless, if public funds are to be used to meet this idealism, a number of government requirements must be satisfied.
As you are aware, by the criteria established for the program, proposals which do not involve sufficient student participation or represent merely a financial extension of provincial or municipal services may not be approved; also excluded are profit-oriented schemes and projects which would benefit only those whom they would employ, etc. Each project is carefully assessed and will be approved only if we are sufficiently assured of its successful implementation.
The Opportunities for Youth Secretariat which is responsible for the study of all project applications presents its recommendations to a committee of senior officials of my department. Before any decision is taken, provincial and municipal governments concerned are consulted as well as other federal departments to establish the validity and viability of projects. Finally, a federal interdepartmental committee oversees the program to ensure that it is carried out in accordance with the criteria established and announced earlier by the government.
Despite the size of the demand and the value of the projects, the government must pick and choose. Beginning next week, authors of the proposals will be

April 22, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program informed of decisions reached, a process which will continue to mid-May so that all projects may be fairly and equally assessed. Some persons have doubted the students ability to respond in time to the Prime Minister's challenge. The number of applications belies that suggestion. I wish to assure all those who have taken up the challenge that the government on its side will respond to their requests in good time.

Finally, one thing is certain, Mr. Speaker. Because of the very nature of the program, what government support is enabling young people to accomplish will not reduce the level of employment in other sectors of the labour market.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State, in concluding his remarks dealing with the Opportunities for Youth program, said that some persons have doubted the students ability to respond. I think he might well have indicated that one of the chief persons who seemed to express doubt, though perhaps in a subtle way, was the Prime Minister himself in the remarks he made on March 16. Perhaps the minister himself has also been surprised by the degree to which young people from all across the country have responded. But I can say for members on this side of the House that we have never doubted the capacity, interest or ability of youth to respond.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With the kind of response that the Secretary of State has indicated this afternoon, I believe we have been fully justified in that faith. The question that will be asked today and in succeeding days as this program is implemented is whether the faith of the young people in their government will be justified.
I am afraid that in the remarks of the Secretary of State this afternoon little has been said to relieve the growing fears and apprehensions that many, if not most, of the young people who willingly accepted that the government was acting in good faith when this program was announced will soon be receiving their pink, red or green slips in the mail telling them that their projects will not be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: For days and weeks members on this side of the House have been asking for a clear statement of the criteria and objectives to be used with regard to this program. One would have expected, in fact, that the Secretary of State, who is a reasonable and intelligent individual-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -would not risk the public embarrassment that he has obviously brought upon himself this afternoon by making this kind of presentation without in effect saying to the young people of the country: Here is the basis on which we plan to deal with the
Opportunities for Youth program. Instead, what has he given us? He has given us three negative criteria. I will not repeat them; they are in the minister's statement. But he said nothing to answer the essential questions related to the growing problem of unemployment and student unemployment across the country, nothing related to the criteria of regional need, nothing related to the problems of the individual financial need of students, nothing related to the whole question of initiative which was referred to earlier by the minister in charge of housing, nothing with regard to the format of organizations that might be submitting projects, and nothing with regard to the size of projects, the amount of money to be expended and the size of salaries. The list goes on and on. In effect the Secretary of State this afternoon has offered no direction and no understanding to the young people of this country. One is led to believe that in the final analysis the decisions that will be made will not be made on the basis of any kind of criteria but will be made mostly on the basis of influence and accident. That is not good enough for this kind of program.
We have heard far too many reports, since a special staff was assigned to look after this program, of pure and simple administrative chaos. Members who have had the opportunity to visit the staff working on this program and who have perhaps been in the unfortunate position of trying to contact them by telephone, which I am told is almost an impossible exercise, know that there is extreme disorder in the administration of this plan which was brought in far too late to be implemented with any kind of effectiveness. In addition, seemingly the government has taken positions that make absolutely no sense in light of the large number of students who desperately need work this summer. The decision that none of the money awarded through this program can in any way be related to gainful employment or to profit seems totally stupid when one realizes that if the $15 million allocated for the Opportunities for Youth program had been used in many instances as seed money, as it could well have been because we have heard of some projects submitted on that basis, it could have a ripple effect that would have provided $50 million or even $70 million worth of employment for students this summer.
The Secretary of State told us that the requests submitted amount to some $150 million in terms of forecast expenditures, but he has not answered the basic question of just how much beyond the original allocated amount of $15 million the government is prepared to go. A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in the House that there might be some possibility of using money from other programs in the $57 million allocation, but anyone who thinks about that answer must realize we will only know if that money is available at the end of the summer, not now when money must be available if projects are to be implemented.
I believe we are faced with a most serious situation in this country and it will become increasingly serious as we realize how little the government is prepared to

April 22, 1971

implement the program it announced a little more than a month ago.
The Secretary of State this afternoon quoted the Prime Minister as follows:
We are also saying that we intend to challenge them-
The young people,
-to see if they have the stamina and the self-discipline to follow through on their criticism and advice.
Mr. Speaker, I think that phrase of the Prime Minister must now be turned toward him. If I may say it directly to him, I would say that the young people are now saying to you, Mr. Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to tell the hon. member that he cannot say that, and at the same time I must remind him of the terms of Standing Order 15 which allow an hon. member to comment briefly on a ministerial statement. I think the hon. member is exceeding the limitations prescribed by the Standing Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to trespass on the good nature of the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I presume that your interpretation of "brief" and mine may be somewhat different. To conclude, I would simply say that the young people are saying to the Prime Minister, in his own words, that they have the stamina and the self-discipline. They have accepted the challenge in very large measure, and now they want to see if he has the stamina, if he has the intestinal fortitude, to follow through on their suggestions and their advice. If there is not a response adequate to meet the obvious interest and enthusiasm of young people, if indeed the government has added to the cynicism of youth about its governments, then if there is unrest and disillusionment, even violence on the part of young people this summer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Irresponsible.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -Mr. Speaker, then we will all know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -who it is-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must call on the hon. member to extend a measure of co-operation to the Chair. He knows that according to the Standing Order his comments must be brief. I realize it is difficult to determine what "brief" means, that "brief" is a relative term and that the hon. member's standards may be different from those of the Chair. But I would point out to him that there are other limitations and prescriptions provided in the Standing Order which the hon. member should keep
Opportunities for Youth Program
in mind. I hope he will soon allow an opportunity to other hon. members representing other groups in the House to make their comments on the statement made by the minister.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I will simply conclude by saying that if the government is not able to respond in a positive and generous way to this initiative of young people they will know who to blame.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have the minister's statement because it gives us some indication of the current situation regarding the long-delayed Opportunities for Youth program for student employment this summer. We are extremely pleased at the response of students and young people across Canada to the kind of opportunities and challenges that were placed before them. We agree that they should be congratulated on this score. The young people of Canada have demonstrated once again that they possess initiative and imagination. We do not agree, however, that the government should share in the congratulations. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because if the youth of Canada have made the kind of response that has oversubscribed the budget ten times, then it is incumbent upon the government to respond in turn to the students.
The only reason there has not been an even greater response by youth is the long delay of the government in revealing any kind of program at all. There is nothing in the total program, Mr. Speaker, to have prevented the government announcing it in December. If it had been announced then instead of late in March, giving students and young people less than a month to apply, certainly we could have had orderly and thoughtful discussion and evaluation of particular projects. We would not have encountered the chaotic conditions faced by the Opportunities for Youth office today with a veritable Everest of applications. Obviously the delay on the part of the government and the consequent rush of applications is bound to cause chaotic conditions, is bound to cause wastefulness and is bound to cause some projects requiring a great deal of thought to be applied for without sufficient study of their implications.
While $15 million sounds very generous, we should put this amount in its proper perspective. At the most, $15 million will provide 15,000 students with $1,000 each to go back to university, but we all know that the average cost of attending university is approximately $1,500 a year. We should recognize too, Mr. Speaker, that 990,000 students, nearly a million, will be looking for work as soon as universities and the senior grades of high school finish their terms.
I have been approached to assist on student projects, Mr. Speaker, and I advised the applicants that the forms would be available at Canada Manpower offices. But five days after the announcement by the government no forms were available at Canada Manpower offices on the Pacific coast.
We in the NDP are concerned that some very worthwhile projects have been turned down and we are concerned that there has not been enough time for proper assessment. We would urge the government to make

April 22, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program
certain that project announcements are made early in another year. We know that some of the YMCA projects such as Echo 71 have been turned down and this was a vital and well thought-out project.
Mr. Speaker, we also fear, as do the other opposition parties, that perhaps a good deal of the money will go to the wise boys on the inside, those who have the inside track. I do not think, with the kind of procedure we have seen this year and the kind of rush to award hush money for kids, that we can seriously expect anything else.
I conclude by saying that the students have responded magnificently. We knew that they would respond and that they would respond imaginatively and with a great deal of initiative. Will the government please consider responding, in its turn, to the students?


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) is a joker. He mentions certain words which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said last March 16, and I quote:
-that we believe that they are well motivated in their concern for the disadvantaged;-
That is true!
-that we have confidence in their system of values.
Mr. Speaker, I need hardly say that these remarks recalled by the hon. Secretary of State are correct. But it is just as true that the system of values of students and young people is not that of the government, and the proof is on page 3 of the press release of the hon. Secretary of State, and I quote:
There is something contagious about the idealism of youth.
How marvelous!
Nevertheless, if public funds are to be used to meet this idealism, a number of government requirements must be satisfied.
Well, what are those government requirements? The Prime Minister has said that young people have an excellent scale of values but the policy of the government consists in asking them to initiate projects, to show enthusiasm and generosity. Besides, that is exactly what they do. The government has been unable to create any jobs since it came to power whereas our young people have found 148,000 within three weeks. That is not where the problem is. It is in the financing.

I should not like to take up the House's time unduly, but a remark of paramount importance must be made. The total Opportunities for Youth program budget is $14.7 million, of which $5 million is to be attributed to the province of Quebec. Now, Quebec students have submitted more than 2,485 projects. And how much is available to meet these needs? Five million dollars?
It means that the government, when indulging in propaganda pandering to public opinion was merely performing a farce. It means that the budget established by the government curbs the enthusiasm, the generosity and the initiative of young people who must continue tightening their belts, since it attributes only $2,200 for the implementation of each project in Quebec.
The amounts allocated to projects from other provinces are just as ridiculous. This is absolutely unfair. It is a farce that cannot be tolerated.
There is a problem in the field of employment in Canada; young people are quite willing to help build their country, to help fight pollution and to dedicate themselves body and soul to this task. But after two pages of political gags, the government sets a limit, as stated at the top of the third page of the ministers statement. Despite the quality of the projects, the generosity of our young people and the obvious needs, some limit will have to be established because of other government requirements.
In the very first pages of its statement, why has the government sought to amuse the public by pointing out the existence of a so-called jurisdictional conflict between Quebec and Ottawa, if it was not to make them forget the financial limits it was imposing?
In our view, it is dishonest, on the one hand, to create enthusiasm and to appeal to the generosity of our young people, and, on the other hand, to strangle this enthusiasm, to dilute their efforts and to prevent them from making any progress.
That is the same as saying-even if this brings a smile to the faces of some government members-that Canada's number one problem has nothing to do with need, labour, ideas, enthusiasm nor generosity. It cannot be said that young people do not love their country, but they are smothered by the lack of financial means because the government systematically refuses to make them available. The government not only does a disservice to those young people but it deludes them, since it is in the pay of financiers.
This is why I say that this statement is nothing but a clever political scheme and a foul trick, because the minister is a joker.



TRIBUTES TO LEADER OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON RETIREMENT-SUSPENSION OF EVENING SITTING

['There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.\n[Mr. Fortin.)\nApril 22, 1971']
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a suggestion to the House in connection with the sitting later today. As a prelude to that suggestion I should like to draw to the attention of the House that the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the Leader of the New Democratic Party, will be honoured tonight in Ottawa by his followers who are meeting in this city to choose a successor to the distinguished gentleman.
While many of us will be absentee well-wishers, it is still worth mentioning that this recognition of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is well deserved because of his long service to this House, interrupted by very long service as premier of Saskatchewan, and because of the service that he has rendered to the country as a party leader. We want him to know as he is

April 22, 1971

basking in the glow of congratulatory comments tonight that we also acknowledge the contribution he has made, that we are aware that even though he will not be leader of his party next week he will still continue to be a member of the House, and that we shall look forward to hearing his witty and incisive contributions to the debates of the House. We want to assure him that he has earned that special place in the House of Commons that comes to very few people in the service of the House.
With that introduction I am sure I have convinced the House that it would be appropriate to suspend the sitting of the House tonight so that the members of the New Democratic Party can attend and so that we can privately celebrate this occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But since I still wish to gain a little bit of time for government business from this act of generosity, may I suggest that we consider government business from five o'clock to six o'clock and that we suspend the sitting for the rest of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the House leader of my party suggested that since I have known Tommy Douglas for so many years I might say a few words. I join with the government House leader in supporting the tentative motion that he has placed before the House. Seldom have I been able to speak in such unqualified terms in support of his views as I am on this occasion.
The wonderful thing about the House of Commons is that we sit here from day to day and get to know each other. With only 18 feet separating us, we develop that appreciation of the Parliamentary system that on occasions such as this sweeps aside every suggestion of partisanship.
One of the greatest parliamentarians, Sir Winston Churchill, had one political opponent who in debate it was said he feared above all others, Aneuran Bevan, the incomparable, a man with not Scottish but Welsh incisive wit. He passed away rather suddenly. Sir Winston was approached by his chief secretary who proposed that Sir Winston should say what was in his heart of hearts concerning his political adversary. The relationship between Sir Winston and Nye Bevan had never been of the very best. The press wanted to know what Sir Winston really thought of Nye Bevan. When asked, he said "Are you sure he is dead?" In that reply there was no bitterness or invective. There was simply a tremendous tribute.
I have known Tommy Douglas since 1935. I remember him in the House during the dark days of the early 1940's. He was here until he relinquished his position as a member of the House of Commons to become leader of his party in the province of Saskatchewan in 1944. For 17 years he was the premier of that province. He then decided that he should come back to the House of Corn-
Tribute to Retiring NDP Leader
mons and we have had him here for nine or ten years. His has been a remarkable record.
Mr. Douglas is an outstanding debater, a man with a sense of humour that has always denied vindictiveness, however strongly he has expressed himself, an admirable exponent of that parliamentary system to which you and I, Mr. Speaker, and members in all parts of the House give their allegiance.
He will be 67 years of age later this year. It is a good thing he is not in Newfoundland, in view of the measure introduced in that province yesterday whereby all members of the legislature must be out at age 70. It has not been passed yet, but I have a strong feeling toward that legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member has been a great crusader. I have often disagreed most strongly with him. I do not share his political philosophy, but this does not deny my uttering these words of appreciation for one who has given such devoted service to my province and this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
does not often accept my suggestions, but I have one to offer him now. As a member of the Privy Council of Canada and as one of the three surviving members of the Imperial Privy Council, the other two being the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, I suggest, with that humility that an opposition member must at all times exhibit, that this House express its appreciation by having the NDP leader given the honour of membership in the Privy Council. For 17 years he was the premier of his province. All other premiers in 1967 were made members of Her Majesty's Privy Council. He deserves that recognition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we join the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who spoke about the hon. member for Nan-aimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) in laudatory and sincere terms.
Mr. Speaker, more than any other, our party has been able to appreciate the contribution made in the House by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the leader of the New Democratic Party, since the members of our party and myself are seated close to him.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the same knowledge nor as long a political experience as those who spoke before me, and as a member elected in 1968, I should say that I have always been much impressed by the gracious condescension and the constant concern the NDP leader showed towards new members whatever their party regarding their speeches and contribution in the House.
I often noticed that when a young member of any party is rising to take part in a debate in the House, the
5152

April 22, 1971
Tribute to Retiring NDP Leader hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands remains in his place and listens to the whole speech. When the young member has concluded his speech, the worthy leader of the NDP, this great figure of Canadian politics will very often go and congratulate or tease him and also encourage him. Very often he will say to him as he said to me: "I do not share your views but if you continue in this course I am not likely to succeed in convincing you but you have many chances that I will not believe you either".
Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable feature of his character which shows that the hon. member is not here simply to fight, but rather to defend a philosophy. And what gives us a great deal of joy today, it is to learn that even though he leaves the leadership of the New Democratic Party he will still work as a member of this House. And, in this regard, needless to say that we are convinced his participation in the business of the House will be most useful.
Therefore, we want to join our colleagues, both on the government and on the opposition sides, in extending to him our most sincere congratulations on his long and very brilliant career; we hope that all Canadian youths will follow the example which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands set so brilliantly and with so much dignity for them.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the warmth of the tributes that have been paid to the leader of the New Democratic Party and in light of the story told by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I feel I should assure the members of this House, and also the many New Democrats who are within the sound of our voices, that Tommy Douglas is not dead. Indeed, both on his behalf and on behalf of my colleagues I want to say a very warm word of thanks to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) for their very kind words concerning the contribution that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has made to the deliberations of this House and to the social progress of Canada during the past several decades. We who perhaps know him best-and I happen to have known him personally for 44 years-are very proud of what he has done. We feel that in that far off day when the story of Canada is written his name will be in the history books along with other names of which we are also very proud. I have in mind J. S. Woodsworth and M. J. Coldwell, his predecessors as leaders of this party.
All of this is about a proposal that the House adjourn at six o'clock today so that we can enjoy without inhibition the events of this evening. I hope that some members from other parties will join us because it will be a very enjoyable evening. We agree to adjourning at six
o'clock, and I say to the Liberals that when their leader wants to step down we will do the same for them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House will adjourn at six o'clock and that private members' hour will be dispensed with?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I beg leave to table in the two official languages the text of the Point Roberts reference which has been jointly agreed upon by the governments of Canada and the United States and which is being formally communicated by the two governments to the International Joint Commission.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter requiring the urgent consideration of the House, namely, the failure of the government to construct a policy for presentation at the May 3 meeting with the United States on the TAPS oil tanker route as revealed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House yesterday. Therefore I ask the unanimous consent of the House to consider the following motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie):
That this House instruct the government to establish, as formal cabinet-wide policy, that Canada must be a formal party to the decision on the initiation of the TAPS tanker route and that at this time Canada refuses to give its support to the TAPS project because the research and analysis into the pollution risks in both Canada and the United States is both incomplete and unco-ordinated.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is made under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
[Mr. Fortin.)
April 22, 1971



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Victor Forget (Saint-Michel) moved: , seconded by Mr. H.-Pit Lessard (LaSalle):
That the petitions of Central Del Rio Oils Limited and Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd., tabled after the period stipulated by Standing Order 90, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, with the third report of the clerk of petitions presented to the House on Friday, April 2, 1971, in order that the committee might be able to make the recommendations it deems advisable.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the please of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he can give a simple guarantee to the House that there is presently no police or other government surveillance by electronic telephone devices or otherwise made or recorded in respect of Members of Parliament with regard to any aspect of the performance of their parliamentary duties?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Certainly not as members of parliament, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the minister make a specific statement at this time that there will be no such surveillance made or carried on hereafter?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, not in the performance of their duties as members of parliament.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of his replies earlier this week regarding the actual procedure in use in terms of granting authorization for the gathering of dossiers and the use of wiretapping and other surveillance procedures, would the minister be prepared
Inquiries of the Ministry
to make a statement in order to clear up the considerable fears and uncertainties that have been created during the past few days?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it might not be clear in the hon. member's mind, but should he refer to questions and answers I think he will find some logic in what I said.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a very precise supplementary to the Solicitor General.
Are hon. members' telephone lines on the Hill watched?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think one can draw appropriate conclusions from the answers I have already given.



USE OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE DEVICES BY NATIONAL DEFENCE EMPLOYEES

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I would direct to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister say whether in fact employees of his department are involved in any wiretapping that there may be and the use of any electronic devices of this nature? If so, is he involved in any decisions on whether or not wiretapping should take place?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can respond quite categorically to the second question by saying that I am not involved. While the Canadian Armed Forces are very versatile, I do not think that the capacity to wiretap is one of the qualities that they have.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister say categorically that no employees of his department are involved in any of this wiretapping?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, again I say quite categorically that I have not been involved in it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If hon. members will please contain themselves, I know of no capacity of this kind, nor in fact whether there has ever been one in the department. However, I shall be glad to inquire.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order in regard to the answer given by the Solicitor General to the previous question whether or not telephones on Parliament Hill were or were not tapped. This matter is within your jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion the Solicitor General should not be permitted to say that this is none of our business and that we can check some of his replies. I take no objection to the question about the dossiers. I have had one for 20 years. If the RCMP want to know where I am going, they can phone me up and I will tell them.
5154

April 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
My point of order is that the telephones on Parliament Hill fall within your jurisdiction, not within the jurisdiction of the RCMP. To be fair and factual to the House, the Solicitor General must reply in answer to that question that the RCMP have not tapped telephones on Parliament Hill; otherwise he is in contempt of Parliament and of every Member of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: I do not object to playing around with wiretapping, and the minister can be as flippant as he Wishes in this regard, but I think this is a much more serious proposition. If someone should say that the RCMP had members of your staff or some such thing it would not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has sought the floor on a point of order. He has made his point of order and certainly it is well taken in that any activity on the Hill is a direct responsibility of hon. members, exercised through the Chair. There is no question whatsoever that if hon. members want to know if there is any such activity being conducted, an inquiry would have to be made, I assume through the Chair, in so far as the House of Commons is concerned. In this respect, I should think an inquiry should be directed in the usual way, according to the prescriptions of the Standing Orders and the practice of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point of order. At the time the Chair was occupied by your predecessor there was one such inquiry made, and during Your Honour's term another such inquiry was made. I am wondering whether I would be in order in asking that the results of both those inquiries be made known to members of the House and, since the matter has been raised again, that Your Honour undertake a further inquiry to ensure that this activity is not being conducted.


Mr. Speaker:: 

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General-keeping in mind the answer he
gave me last Tuesday-if he could state in this chamber that federal police has never bugged Mr. Cossette's residence in Repentigny and, should he answer in the negative, when will the RCMP be allowed to take possession of the device which has been inadvertantly misplaced in Mr. Cossette's home?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems the hon. member is substantially reiterating a question which has been put a few days ago and I should point out that I do not remember exactly the answer given by the Minister at the time. If the hon. minister wishes to add something to his answer of last Tuesday, he may have the floor but it seems to me the hon. member is only repeating the question he already asked.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member seeking the floor on a question of privilege?


Roch La Salle: I wish to remind the Chair that if I repeated the question it is because I have yet to receive a valid answer; I have been told that if someone happens to lose a pencil it is not the duty of the RCMP to go and pick it up; I wonder if the RCMP would not have lost a bug in Mr. Cossette's residence. If this were the case, I think the hon. minister would be in a position to answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member suggests he is not satisfied with the answer he received but I do not think he is entitled to ask the question anew.
The hon. member may rephrase his question at some other time if he seeks additional information. Even if the question has been put to the minister yesterday, I do not see why the hon. member should keep asking the same question as long as he does not get a satisfactory answer.



KEEPING OF DOSSIERS ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-ACCURACY OF INFORMATION

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. In view of the increasing accumulation of these files and dossiers, I wonder whether he could indicate to the House what steps are taken to verify the accuracy of the information and to protect the rights of the individual who may not be aware that information is being accumulated about him which may not be entirely accurate?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it seems that pretending there is a dossier or that electronic devices are being used in an office or an apartment becomes a question of social status. I reply to the hon. member that he must first tell me he is sure of having a dossier before being able to have a look at it.

April 22, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will allow the hon. member the opportunity to ask a supplementary, but after that perhaps we might move on to the hon. member for Moose Jaw who has been patiently awaiting an opportunity to ask his question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am sorry the Solicitor General misunderstood the import of my question. It is a well known fact that one branch of the RCMP has the special function of making and keeping these files. I am merely asking about the policy of his department. What assurance is there against a build-up of inaccurate information which could greatly prejudice the position of the individual involved?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I already said that there is no systematic policy to the effect that every member would have a dossier. There is none either to the effect that every union leader in Canada would have one.



SUMMER LANGUAGE PROGRAM-DECISION AS TO ADMINISTRATION

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the minister's statement today concerning the Opportunities for Youth program, or the results of that program, and in light of the fact that universities have closed or will be closing at the end of this month, can the minister say whether there has been a final decision as to who will administer the second language exchange program involving 2,500 students?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I know what the language exchange program is. I know of no program by that particular name. It might be bursaries for the study of a second language or the member might be referring to the travel and exchange program. There exists no such thing as a language exchange program. Therefore I do not know exactly what the hon. member is talking about.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, the phrase I used was "the second language exchange program" as referred to by the minister in Winnipeg when he announced the Opportunities for Youth program. If he is not aware of what I am referring to, perhaps he could indicate whether there has been any determination as to who will administer the program involving 2,500 students inasmuch as there has been no decision up to this time regarding how they should apply or who will accept applications.


Gérard Pelletier: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by a "language exchange program" which would involve 2,500 students. In fact, there are exchange travels through Canada which
Inquiries of the Ministry
involve about this number of people and there are language courses which concern only 1,500 people.
The announcement I made dealt with one or the other of these programs. If, then, these are language courses, they are administered in co-operation with the Canadian council of education ministers; the travel exchanges are directly administered by the Secretary of State.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.
I wonder whether he could tell us what steps the government intends to take to fight the current milk shortage which is jeopardizing our cheese exports to Great Britain?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is not an over-all shortage of milk, although there may be some temporary or local shortages. I can advise the hon. member that we have been producing sufficient cheese to meet all of the markets with the exception of those we have had to subsidize very heavily.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Will he look into reports alleging dumping on Canadian markets of certain recreational vehicles, such as trailers, campers and so on, by United States manufacturers to the detriment of Canadian manufacturers, particularly on the west coast?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be happy to look into the matter.



WHEAT-CLOSING OF 1969-70 POOL ACCOUNT-FINAL PAYMENT-INTERIM BARLEY PAYMENT

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister indicate whether the pool account for wheat for the 1969-70 crop year has been closed out yet by the Canadian Wheat Board? Can he indicate also whether there will be a final payment on wheat for 1969-70 and when it will be in the hands of the farmers?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisier of Manpower and Immi-graiion):: Mr. Speaker, the pool account referred to by the

April 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
hon. member has not yet been closed, but the closing is fairly imminent. Of course, the exact financial state of the account will be reported to the House in due course after the closing.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary in respect of the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that it is almost two months since the announcement of the interim barley payment, can the minister also indicate if all payments are now in the hands of farmers? I ask this question because I understand some payments have just gone out within the past few days.


Otto Emil Lang: I shall be glad to ascertain for the hon. member whether, in fact, all payments have now gone out.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture which I ask on behalf of the apple and beef producers of Canada. Because of the severe hardship being caused by the importation of cheap beef from Australia and New Zealand, and also apples, would the government take action immediately to place restrictions on these unwarranted imports?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speak-in so far as apples are concerned, there have been a number of interdepartmental committee meetings with representatives of the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Trade and Commerce and so on. I am sure the hon. member is aware of an offer we have made to deal with part of this problem through the Agricultural Stabilization Board. So far as beef is concerned, I cannot agree that the imports of beef have had a detrimental effect on the market within Canada, because what is coming in is of a kind and quality in respect of which there is insufficient production in Canada to meet the demand.



QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR AID BY CANADIAN ARMED FORCES

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Since the flow of water in the Ottawa river and Deux-Montagnes lake as well as ice jams in des Prairies and Mille-Iles rivers have placed the residents of Laval-Ouest, Sainte-Dorothee, Sainte-Rose and Fabreville in a state of emergency and forced them to vacate their dwellings, would the Minister of National Defence tell
the House whether he has received a request from the Quebec authorities for assistance from the Canadian Armed Forces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Emergency Measures Organization and of the Canadian forces have been in consultation with the Quebec authorities concerning flood assistance in the regions mentioned by the hon. gentleman. I can indicate that a number of members of the Canadian forces, engineering experts, and so on, have been participating in this operation and there is at the moment a Canadian forces helicopter standing by at St. Hubert. All necessary forces will be made available on request by the civil authorities of the province.



NATIONAL MUSEUMS


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State as minister responsible to the House for the national museums. It has to do with an inquiry the minister said he ordered into the administration of the museums branch on December 7, 1970. Would the minister tell the House whether or not that inquiry has been completed?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I was awaiting the question to again give the reply. The inquiry has been completed. I have received a verbal report. Nothing abnormal has been found, despite the allegations that were published by some newspapers and the absence of any anomaly is confirmed by the fact that the Auditor General of Canada has since examined that administration and found nothing abnormal.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. I should like to ask him whether the supporters of the New Democratic Party who picketed and demonstrated in front of this building today obtained a permit from his department to do so, for the obvious reason that they are not receiving adequate representation here from their elected members and therefore have no confidence in them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

April 22, 1971



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry arising from the fact that after second reading yesterday the House referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration the unemployment insurance bill. Will the minister place before the House what we have been advised is an alternative proposal to unemployment insurance for fishermen so that the committee, prior to its consideration of the terms of the unemployment insurance bill, can have knowledge of what the minister and the government have in mind in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to do so as soon as it has received full consideration by the government.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has any decision been arrived at as a result of talks between his department and the government of Prince Edward Island with regard to rendering some assistance to the potato growers of the Maritimes who have been selling their product below the cost of production for some time?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the precise answer is no, but I should advise the hon. member there will be a meeting, which I am sure is scheduled for next Monday afternoon, between the Ministers of Agriculture for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and my officials and I.



HOGS-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE BECAUSE OF DEPRESSED PRICES

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing decline in the market price of hogs and the hardship this is causing hog producers, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has given serious consideration to taking such action as is necessary to ensure that moneys will be paid out of the agricultural prices support fund to give assistance to these farmers during this crisis period?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I have replied to the hon. member a number of times, we are required under the Agricultural Stabilization Act to support the price of hogs at 80 per cent of the ten-year moving average. When we did the calculations for 1970 the amount for that year was substantially higher than 80 per cent of the ten-year moving average. I
Inquiries of the Ministry
am sure that when we get to 1971 the calculations will be somewhat different because in the early part of 1970 hog prices were still relatively high. But when we reach the stage at which we do these calculations we have an obligation under the act.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on behalf of those hog producers who may not survive until 1971. Would the minister consider calling together the advisory committee of the Agricultural Prices Support Board to see if it can give him some advice which would enable him to take some action?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There was a meeting of that advisory board within the last three weeks, I believe.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Will no further calculations be made in respect of the price received for hogs across Canada with regard to the subsidy payment until after the year 1971 is complete?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not say at the end of the calendar year. I said at the end of the year when we normally make these calculations. I should like to have an opportunity to correct this after checking with my officials, but I believe that in the calculating of hog prices we do this from September to the next September.



RAPESEED AND FLAXSEED-OPENING OF VANCOUVER FUTURES MARKET-PROTESTS AGAINST INCLUSION UNDER WHEAT BOARD

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It has to do with the inclusion of rapeseed in the bill which has received first reading and is now before the House. Will the minister advise the House whether or not the futures market in Vancouver in connection with flaxseed, rapeseed and the like has now been opened? Will he also say whether in the last 24 hours messages have been received by the government and/or the Wheat Board from major importers in Japan taking strong objection to the inclusion of rapeseed under the Wheat Board and preferring the futures system in order to permit them to fix their requirements and, in particular, to meet the competition of soya beans and the like?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know of no messages from our buyers in connection with the Canadian Wheat Board Act, although any messages may simply have not come to my attention yet. As indicated yesterday, there is certainly no intention to make such a decision to change the marketing without full consultation.
On the question of the futures market, I have been informed that the Winnipeg Grain Exchange is now satisfied with the arrangements which have been made or are being proposed to be made in Vancouver to allow for the

April 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
exchange of paper in connection with rapeseed, and accordingly they have decided not to discontinue the Vancouver futures. There were certainly representations from our buyers abroad in connection with this futures market, but they will of course be extremely pleased that the net result of the action which has been taken will be to improve the futures market operation in regard to Vancouver futures.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister-I do not often ask a question unless I know the answer but on this occasion I do not know the answer-whether the rapeseed marketing committee has reported?


Otto Emil Lang: The oilseeds marketing committee filed a report with the government some time ago, but it led to the opening of some additional questions in connection with the marketing of oilseeds and further work was invited in connection with those questions. I have not yet received the final report in regard to that further work.


John George Diefenbaker: In so far as the interim, not the final, report is concerned, did that report recommend that flaxseed, rapeseed and the like should come within the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board? If not, why has the government suddenly decided to ask for this legislation?


Otto Emil Lang: The first report from the committee, which was in the nature of a final report but upon which they were asked to do further work, recommended that appropriate information about the advantages of the different systems of marketing rapeseed be obtained and be presented in full to producers and that a plebiscite be held among producers to determine their choice of the form of marketing. The further work being done is, in fact, in connection with the information required.


John George Diefenbaker: Will there be a plebiscite?



RAPESEED-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PRICING AND MARKETING

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board for information in connection with the operation of the futures market for rapeseed at Vancouver. May 1 now ask the minister whether he will soon make a statement on motions informing the House as to what is actually taking place in the pricing and marketing of rapeseed through the futures market at Vancouver?


Otto Emil Lang: I will give consideration to doing that, although I think the basic information is available on request from the Grain Exchange itself. I must say I have been working very closely with the Grain Exchange. I appreciate very much their co-operation and interest in trying to improve the futures market and the results for the farmers and producers of rapeseed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair feels that perhaps we should go on to another subject, but since the

hon. member for Lisgar has been waiting for an opportunity to ask a supplementary question, perhaps he might be recognized for that purpose.



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE ON MARKETING OF RAPESEED FROM PRODUCERS AND OTHERS

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: I should like to direct this question also to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Would he be prepared to table in the House the contents of the many telegrams and telexes he will be receiving from the producers, exporting agencies and countries in Asia because of the dramatic effect that the government's actions have had on the rapeseed industry in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not know that I can table the correspondence that relates to the item referred to by the hon. member, since I think most of the correspondence received to date has related to actions taken by the grain exchanges rather than by the government. But I see no particular objection to tabling a good deal of this correspondence.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF MONEY ALLOCATED

Mr. Paul Sf. Pierre (Coast Chilcoiin):: I have a question for the Secretary of State arising out of his statement earlier today that applications for the $15 million Opportunities for Youth program now total $150 million. Is consideration being given to increasing the $15 million available?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I seriously intend to submit such a proposal to my cabinet colleagues.



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Minister of Communications. Has the Department of Communications come to the conclusion that Canadian industry will not be able to build the second generation of domestic communication satellites but instead will limit itself to supplying parts for these satellites as in the case of the building of the Anik satellite?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: No, Mr. Speaker. Such decisions are seven or eight years away.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the brilliant achievement of the Canadian industry in building the Alouette series of four satellites, a program that was commenced in 1958
April 22, 1971

and completed just three weeks ago at Vandenberg satellite launching base under the title of Isis II, at which both the minister and I were present, will he now give the assurance to the Canadian industry that it will be given the opportunity to continue its achievements in building the communications technology satellite?


Eric William Kierans: No one in Canada has any doubt at all about the technological capacity of the Canadian industry, especially in the field of satellites. The problem would then become one of the economic and marketing risks of constructing whole satellite systems, and those are economic decisions that can only be taken at the particular time and in the particular circumstances.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I had a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who was in the House but who has now left the chamber. In his absence, I will direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the serious economic problems that are faced by swordfishermen in Atlantic Canada as a result of the arbitrary regulation concerning the mercury content in swordfish, has the government developed a program to date which will be helpful to the fishermen formerly involved in this industry?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing and urban affairs. Is the government participating in the planning, financing or intended occupation of the CNR-CPR complex known as Metro Centre in Toronto at the present time?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: We have had no formal discussions with or approaches by the people more directly involved in that project and consequently there is no direct financial involvement through that medium at this time.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is future participation expected?


Robert Knight Andras: We have had no proposals, so I would
have difficulty in responding to that either positively or negatively. We will listen to any proposals they make within the areas where we have authority.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE PRIME MINISTER



SUGGESTED VISIT TO PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Having in mind his scheduled trip to the Soviet Union and also Canada's improving trade and other relations with the People's Republic of China, would he give consideration to visiting the latter country as well as the former?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for missing the first part of the question but, so far as I understood it, I wish to say I am not giving consideration at the present time to travelling to any countries in an official way beyond next month's planned trip to the Soviet Union.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-REDUCTION OF ALLOCATIONS TO INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS TO COVER MORE PROGRAMS

Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Secretary of state. Since it appears likely that many of the excellent and worth-while applications for grants under the Opportunities for Youth program may be approved in principle but ultimately rejected for lack of funds, will his department given consideration to trimming the financial allocation to individual projects so that the $15 million can be spread out to cover a larger number of student programs?


Gérard Pelletier: I am not
only prepared to consider such a proposal, but that is the spirit in which we are working and in which we select projects, except for some whose scope and very nature demand a given dimension and which cannot readily be subdivided. Clearly, we want to give the greatest possible number of groups the opportunity of undertaking projects.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the Minister of National Revenue when we can expect a definitive statement on the government's foreign ownership policy. Also, in the course of his review has he investigated the operations of international unions within Canada, and particularly the allegation that the labour movement in the United States has milked Canadian workers of $80 million during the last seven years?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the hon. mem-

5160

April 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
ber's question, I am not in a position to give a date as
yet. With regard to the second part, I can say that the work I have been supervising has been directed primarily to the matter of investment.



TELECOMMUNICATIONS


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to say that I hope the hon. Solicitor General
will answer my question before the question period is over.
I wish to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question.
As the Canadian government has refused to let Quebec participate in the Intelsat conference and the province has decided to send in an observer, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the federal government will consent to let at least one observer from Quebec attend this conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of the situation, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. In view of the fact that housing starts in the province of Newfoundland are down critically and that there is a great need for subsidized rental housing, are any arrangements being proposed by the province under the innovative methods program to overcome this critical shortage which is causing great hardship?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing meetings between CMHC and the Newfoundland housing authority, which is the provincial government, with regard to escalating the quantity of shell housing, and many other innovative approaches. I will certainly look into the specific information the hon. member has given me, or reminded me of, and see if there is any short-term action we can take in this regard.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works but in his absence will direct it to his parliamentary secretary, or perhaps to somebody else who will answer on the minister's behalf. Is it true that senior officials of his department are presently holding a meeting at the Seignory

Club in Montebello, Quebec, to discuss reorganization of the department and, if so, what is the necessity for holding the meeting away from Ottawa?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether the question as asked is in order, but if there is urgency the hon. member could give notice of his intention to raise it at the time of adjournment.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, but in his absence I shall direct it to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the serious pollution problem on the Fraser River, and the minister's recent statement that this area should "go to secondary treatment at Annacis Island at once," I would ask the minister when a water quality management board, as provided for in the new Canada Water Act, will be set up on the lower Fraser River so that these problems can be dealt with without further delay?


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the hon. member can assume that the matter is being considered. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a hardy perennial to the Solicitor General. When may we expect a decision regarding overtime pay for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, that is being discussed in committee with the hon. member. I am taking note of the suggestion. We are now giving it serious consideration.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. On the assumption that there are now about 115 CF-5 jets in the department's inventory, can the minister say if a decision has yet been reached on what use these aircraft will be put to on a long-term basis, and also what function is being performed by the ones that are now in use attached to flying units?
April 22, 1971


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the whole decision with regard to the full complement of CF-5's will be made known when the white paper is tabled in the House. At the present time two squadrons of CF-5's, one at Bagotville and the other at Cold Lake, are operating in a close ground support role. They are now fully operational and during the current year will be involved in close support operations with units of mobile command.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question period has expired but we might allow time for one quick, succinct question from the hon. member for Egmont and from the hon. member for Matane. The hon. member for Matane.



HIRING OF COMMITTEE CLERKS

Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw Your Honour's attention to some information I have recently received to the effect that the House of Commons is going to appoint six additional committee clerks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat.
The hon. member cannot draw to the attention of the Chair circumstances such as those he has just mentioned in any way he wishes. The rules indicate in what way such information should be brought to the attention of the Chair and I suggest to the hon. member that he proceed according to the rules.

Yukon Minerals Act



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government
house leader as to the business of the House for tomorrow and for all of next week? In his answer would he say if he has yet secured authorization from his colleagues as to when he may place on the order paper notice affecting the future of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The next item of government business is the Yukon minerals legislation, followed by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, the Farm Products Marketing Act, Bill C-176, and the Canada Wheat Board Act. In reply to the final question, I would like to advise the hon. member that when I do seek authority I am sure I will get it, but I have not sought that authority yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-187, respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nielsen (p. 4009).

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of his statement this afternoon in which he indicated that approval of projects under the Opportunities for Youth program will go through four different bodies, the lack of positive criteria and the number of projects to be examined, what steps is the minister taking to alleviate the fears of young people about the effective disposition of the projects that have been submitted?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised when the hon. member for Egmont raises this question. I have before me the detailed criteria which have been published and sent to all youth organizations and all associations likely to be interested and that have requested them. These criteria are very clear; I can send a copy to the hon. member if he is not aware of them but he is certainly one of the very last individuals in Canada who has not yet read them.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker,
it is exactly 48 days since the Yukon Mining Act was before the House and, on that occasion, I had gone about two thirds of the way through my speech so I welcome this opportunity to complete the remarks I was making at that time. It is rather difficult to join up the two sections of a speech after an interval of almost seven weeks, but the point I was making in the first part of my talk was that there is a desperate need for us to process more of our raw materials in our own country. While I do not have time to go over all the points I made about seven weeks ago, I intend to express my thoughts on what I feel we should be doing with the mineral resources so abundant in the more northern parts of Canada.
The philosophy of this government, it seems to me, is to make this nation of ours a supplier of raw materials for the markets of the world. It is true that some raw materials must always be sold, but we say it is time to slow down this type of economic development, which in the long run will do immense harm to various sections of Canada, and lay out long range plans for the establishment of industry in our country based on our abundant supplies of various raw materials.
5162

April 22, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
I feel there is an obvious need to establish policies, legislation and administrative capability which will ensure that northern environments will be protected while they undergo mineral exploration and possible development. We must make certain that traditional renewable resources, such as the Arctic ecology, the wild life, and so on; are not wasted or desecrated in a search for wealth that may, in many areas, turn out to be futile. It is for this reason, especially in the north, that we must be extremely careful to preserve for future use the land and its ecology upon which the native people and the residents of the area may eventually be forced to depend for their livelihood. This is the reason we must know what is in the land use regulations and how they will ensure this protection. This is why members of our party and other groups have been urging the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) to introduce the land use regulations without delay. We must have them if we are to have a logical and sensible development of oil and mineral resources in the north without immense damage being done to the ecology there.
The record of the federal government in effectively promoting the integration of the native people in our north country into the expanding economic activity which is going on there is both tragic and disgraceful. Adequate plans have not been made to either protect the environment and the wildlife upon which many natives depend or to establish a basic economy which could offer them alternate employment.
Let us look at some facts in relation to the native or indigenous population in our Canadian north. This indigenous group includes the Indian, the Eskimo and the Metis groups. The total population of the north was about 43,000 in 1966; this includes both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. Of this total about 17 per cent of the total population in the Yukon and about 63 per cent of the total population in the Northwest Territories was in this indigenous group. The average for the combined territories was about 43 per cent. This means that of all the population in the north, 43 per cent belonged to the Indian, Eskimo or Metis groups.
In the mining industry, however, we find about 4\ per cent of the work force coming from the native inhabitants. This figure has absolutely no relationship to the percentage of the total population which natives form. In 1968, there were 11 operating mines in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, employing a total of 2,002 people. The total indigenous employment on these projects was 91 men, or 4J per cent of the total. In the Yukon there were 28 out of a total of 820 and in the Northwest Territories 63 out of 1,182 men who were engaged in the mining industry.
There are reasons for this low employment rate, such as the lack of skills, and there is no doubt about that. Then, there is the fact that the employment agencies are centred in Vancouver and Edmonton. But these figures, however, show the dismal failure of federal policies as they relate to the native population and the percentage of employment we should expect them to get from the
development of the resources in the land where they have lived for generations.
The Yukon area has always been noted for its mineral wealth and the exciting period of the gold rush in 1898 is well known to most Canadians. However, it is only within the past ten years that increasing attention has been paid to the rich storehouse of wealth in the territories. Prior to 1964, the average number of claims staked north of 60 totalled something below the figure of 6,000. During the next five years there were five major staking rushes, reaching a peak of 52,000 claims staked in 1968. This represented a tremendous level of activity in exploration and development. In the early 1960s the annual value of minerals produced in the north approximated $30 million. By 1969 this figure had increased to $153 million and there were 11 major mines in production. Many other large mineral deposits have been discovered and are now undergoing evaluation and feasibility studies. It is of interest to note, however, that 64 per cent of the value of minerals produced in the north in 1969 came from foreign-controlled enterprises.
Petroleum exploration activity built up gradually through the early 1960s and then gradually tapered off until the major discovery of Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. This discovery sparked an unprecedented acceleration in the search for oil in the Canadian north. An additional 250 million acres were quickly brought under exploration permits and early in 1970 we found over 440 million acres were under permit. This virtually blanketed the whole of the potential oil bearing formations in the north. Where there had been $32 million expended on oil exploration in 1965, it was estimated that $75 million would be spent during 1970. Eighteen exploratory wells were drilled in 1965, and 56 wells were drilled in 1969. The discovery of oil and gas in the Arctic by the Imperial Oil Company and Panarctic Oils is an indication that activity as far as oil exploration is concerned will continue and grow in the years ahead. However, it is again of interest to note that of the land held under petroleum exploration permit in northern Canada, 69 per cent is held by foreign controlled enterprises.
There is no doubt that the federal government has sparked the oil and mineral exploration which has gone on in the north. A number of federal incentive programs have been set up and many of them are certainly required. I would like to believe that all these incentives were designed to assist in the development of our mineral assets for our own use. This is why we should have more processing of these resources in our own country. All of the incentives to corporations to which I have referred have had some effect on northern development. They have been costly to the Canadian taxpayers. Again, I must point out, however, that the statistics show that about two-thirds of this northern development is being undertaken by foreign corporations. This means we are subsidizing foreign promoters and companies to come into this resource rich land and take their pick of the best minerals available. It is not too comforting to realize most of the processing is not done in our own country. Over 60 per cent of our mineral output is exported and

April 22, 1971

with that export, of course, goes thousands of jobs needed by Canadians today.
There is no distinction made between foreign corporations and Canadian ones. Already more than 60 per cent of Canada's mining industry is owned or controlled by non-Canadian interests. We are therefore providing vast amounts of taxpayers' money in developing these resources, in providing incentive and tax exemption plans to encourage numerous foreign corporations to develop Canadian resources for export. Canadian are being deprived of jobs which could be provided by the processing of minerals in this country. Canada is then forced into the position of re-importing the finished products at higher prices.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is time thoughtful Canadians began to look at the whole approach of government to resource development. We are gradually losing economic control of our country. We are gradually losing economic control of our vast stores of natural resources. Regardless of what individuals say, once you lose the economic control of your country, you lose political control. This is the position in which we find our country today, Mr. Speaker, and it is high time Canadians in every walk of life began to demand that the government take measures to restore this economic control to Canadians. At the same time, our people should insist that there be a major change in economic policy as far as the processing of raw materials is concerned. Far more of this processing must be done in our nation. It is in the processing of raw materials that the real job producing possibilities lie.
Canada has the raw materials. It has the workers. It has the educational and the technical skills. Yes, it also has the capital with which to start an accelerated program for this type of development. If this Liberal government is unwilling to move along these lines, then the people of Canada should turn them out of office and call for a new approach to the solving of unemployment and the stabilizing of industry in our nation. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in the bill before us there should be a clause which should insist upon the processing in Canada, preferably in the Yukon Territory itself, of all the minerals mined in that area. I urge that the members of this House study this proposal and make amendments to the legislation before us which will at least give us a start in this direction.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-187, an act respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, I think it is important to examine the climate for investment in the Yukon. I am speaking, of course, of climate in its broadest sense, that is, social, economic and political. In attempting to come to an understanding of the government's policy concerning the political climate for the development of our natural resources in the Yukon Territory, I should like to draw to the attention of all hon. members some very interesting remarks on this subject which were made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Yukon Minerals Act
Chretien) at the 1971 symposium on "Petroleum Economics and Evaluation", sponsored by the Dallas section of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, to whom the hon. minister spoke on Tuesday, March 9, 1971.
The minister's office was, of course, kind enough to issue a press release of his remarks and I should like to quote from a paragraph on page 5:
For over a century, Canada has avoided establishing barriers to the flow of this investment, except in certain limited fields, and has offered a stable environment for investment. This investment, of course, must operate within controls which protect legitimate Canadian interests. At the present time, some Canadians are asking themselves if there are ways of increasing their own investments in their own economy, or if the present controls are adequately protecting Canadian interests. The point I want to emphasize to you today is that foreign capital need not fear such questioning, for we will remain an open country seeking positive, not negative, answers to these questions.
That particular quotation ends here, Mr. Speaker. However, I should like also to quote a remark made earlier in the same speech:
We will continue to require large amounts of capital to maintain our pace of development and expansion. While much of this investment will come from within Canada, a significant part of it will have to come from outside our country.
The remarks which I have quoted, which were made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, would, I think, lead any reasonable person to conclude that Canada was seeking and welcoming foreign investment as a means of developing our vast natural resources since this appears to be, as indeed the minister clearly suggested, beyond the present capacity of Canadians themselves.
Notwithstanding the very forthright encouragement and invitation to Americans in particular to continue their participation in the development of our natural resources, the same minister, when addressing this House on second reading of Bill C-187 in the same month of March, had this to say regarding non-Canadian participation in the development of the mineral resources in the Yukon Territory:
Mr. Speaker, regarding Canadian ownership and participation requirements, you will note that such provisions are being included in the new act. This will ensure that new mines in the Yukon meet reasonable requirements of Canadian ownership.
The quotation ends here, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note, in contrast with the minister's speech in Dallas, just what he regards as "reasonable requirements of Canadian ownership". The proposed act, unlike the existing act, introduces Canadian ownership requirements which in effect state that a lease to mineral rights can be granted only to a Canadian citizen or to a corporation incorporated in Canada, and that 50 per cent of the outstanding shares of such corporations must be issued and beneficially owned by Canadian citizens or other such Canadian corporations. While this stipulation does not apply to leases and claims existing prior to the date on which this new act may come into effect, it nevertheless effectively discourages any future development of such existing claims or leases by foreign corporations or the development of new claims or leases by them. While it is possible for a company to circumvent the 50 per cent

April 22, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
Canadian ownership requirement by becoming a public corporation, some firms are forbidden to become a public corporation until they have satisfied certain prior commitments to their original shareholders. Indeed, this is the situation of Anvil Mines, the largest mine in the Yukon.
While I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is bilingual, I do not think that he should speak two different languages on the important matter of the development of our natural and national resources. In his speech in Dallas, he certainly gave unbridled encouragement to outside parties to come and participate financially and technically in the development of our resources. However, in the same month the same minister spoke about foreign participation in the development of the Yukon's natural resources in quite different language. In contrast to his remarks in Dallas, he advocated clear and strong measures, the practical effect of which for the Yukon will be that foreign investment will seek out other provinces, such as British Columbia, which do not have such hostile impediments to the development of their mineral resources.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we have seen what the political climate is in relation to the proposed Yukon Minerals act and that climate is not inviting. I should like now to say a few words concerning the economic climate of the Yukon. Mining has always been an endeavour for the hardy and the courageous. The Yukon requires these qualities in perhaps larger measure than elsewhere because of its remoteness, its long and deterring winters and the great practical as well as natural obstacles which have to be surmounted in order for a venture as uncertain as mining to be successful. The economic requirements for mineral development in the Yukon can only be desc.ibed as stupendous.
To give hon. members a concrete example of the level of capital which is required to develop a mineral resource in the Yukon, I should like to quote from the experience of Anvil Mining Corporation Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of British Columbia, which operates an open pit lead-zinc mine and concentrator in the Yukon Territory about 130 air miles north and east of Whitehorse. Anvil Mining Corporation employs some 360 workers and supervisors and has just completed its first year of operations. It has invested in excess of $120 million in its mining operations in the Yukon Territory and has yet to realize a profit from its investment, although the outlook for this is exceedingly favourable, at least under the present act. This company is 60 per cent owned by a United States corporation; without this financial participation it may well be that this particular venture could never have been started.
It is estimated that in 1970 the mining industry in the Yukon accounted for over 50 per cent of the economy's *output. Perhaps as much as three quarters of the work force of the Yukon is employed either directly or indirectly in the mining industry. I submit that the economy of Canada, to say nothing about the economy of the Yukon Territory, is already suffering from sufficient ills
and anxieties to preclude additional ones being introduced. I submit that the government ought not now to be considering restrictive measures against foreign participation in the economy of the Yukon and increased royalties on the mining industry, while at the same time continuing to hold over the heads of potential investors the uncertainties of the government's new taxation measures which, on the basis of the thinking evidenced in this bill and on the government's recent actions, will only aggravate the economic problems of the Yukon.
The government, with its army of economists and other advisers, should know that under the best of conditions it would be a challenging task to attract all of the capital which this country needs to develop an area so remote and costly to develop as the Yukon. The economic climate of the Yukon is such that it cannot afford to sustain the vagaries, inconsistencies and ill-considered proposals that are advocated in this proposed legislation. The social and cultural development of the Yukon is inevitably affected by its economic climate which, in turn, is governed by the political climate set by the government of the day. There are, I submit, Mr. Speaker, great hardships in this proposed legislation. I am confident that these will be dealt with at length by other members of my party.
I should like, for the moment, to remind all hon. members that the Yukon is in a particularly vulnerable position, perhaps even a defenceless one, when we remember that it is a territory as opposed to a province. As such, it is lacking some of the means by which a province would resist the measures which are proposed in this bill. I believe, however, that because of the precarious conditions which do exist, the government is under a special obligation not to treat the Yukon as a ward of the state, but rather should remember that governmental policies which do not promote full political, economic and social development in any region of our country must inevitably be self-destructive.
The proposed legislation gives us grave cause to question the government's wisdom and intentions. Let us remember that in June of 1967 the government and the mining industry held extensive discussions in Ottawa regarding what should be included in a new act. The mining industry came away from this conference having reached a consensus with the government. However, it is interesting to note what they now say. I would like to quote briefly from their submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On page one of their brief, the Yukon Chamber of Mines states and I quote:
The Chamber is profoundly disturbed, however, that the government has taken the opportunity since the consensus reached in 1967, to drastically alter the basic philosophy of the legislation on a number of key points to the serious detriment of the mineral industry and hence to the detriment of the economy of Yukon residents.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the act which is before us for consideration should show greater evidence of more equitable treatment by this government of the

April 22, 1971

people in the Yukon Territory as well as those people from abroad who have invested their resources, time and aspirations in the development of this great region. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the kind of treatment which this proposed bill would mete out to the people of the Yukon Territory illustrates clearly the need for this House to consider at a very early date whether the time is opportune to confer upon the Yukon territory and MacKenzie territory the sovereign status of provinces. I believe that provincial status for both the Yukon and MacKenzie territories would benefit our citizens now living there, eliminate some important difficulties which they are now experiencing and, as well, prove to be a measure with broad popular support.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) has covered the greater part of the position of the New Democratic Party with regard to the bill before us, not only in the remarks he made today but in the previous segment of his speech on March 5. I do not intend to attempt to cover all of the ground that he did in the two parts of his speech. However, I propose to underline one or two aspects of the bill which he discussed.
The minister will recall that a good portion of the hon. member's speech was devoted to the question of the need for ecological protection in the Yukon territory. He emphasized the fact that we are still in the dark as to what the government has in mind in this connection and made particular reference to the action of Parliament last year in making some amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. We still have not had the regulations under that act presented to us which we were assured would be drafted to give some substance to the amendments passed last year. The minister may have some valid reasons for the delay, but I remind him that he assured the standing committee, when we were considering that bill, that a draft of those regulations would be referred to that committee for consideration last fall. We are well into spring and, indeed, approaching summer, but we still have no detailed knowledge of what the minister has in mind.
I think I am correct in saying that the minister made some statements to the effect that discussions had been held with mining interests in connection with the proposed regulations for the areas in which they were interested in the Yukon, and that some understanding had been reached. There should be some understanding between the minister and the members of this chamber as to what is contained in the regulations. That kind of understanding and knowledge should have priority over any behind-the-scenes agreement with the mining interests.


Mr. Chretien:: It is not with the mining interests, it is with the territorial councillors.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister made reference to the territorial council. I may be in error, but I recall him stating that some discussions had been held with the mining interests. I gained the impression that the minister was, in effect, telling us that the mining interests were satisfied with what the government had in mind.
Yukon Minerals Act


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They will never be satisfied.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps the interjection by the minister has put the situation in a more correct perspective. I remember being slightly puzzled at the time. I understood him to say that the mining interests had been easily and completely satisfied.


Erik Nielsen: In no way.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: This brings to mind the fact that the Yukon is one of the more historic mining areas in Canada. It shares this position with the province from which I come. For quite a number of years I lived in a historic mining area of Canada which predates the Yukon, namely the Cariboo mining country of British Columbia. Anyone with that kind of background association, and who has lived in a mining camp area, can understand the minister's interjection about the mining interests never being completely satisfied.
In considering a bill of this kind, I think we should have in the background of our consideration the basic pattern that was set in the real pioneering days of the mining enterprise in this country. This pattern was started, at least in western parts, when man was lured to look for gold. In many respects this proposed law is repeating a basic concept of mining law that was designed to bring some semblance of order to the way in which individual prospectors and miners could utilize mining resources, at the same time avoiding a repetition in Canada of the law of the six-gun which one hears prevailed in the country to the south during the days of the California gold rush.


Erik Nielsen: We have that order now in the existing act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In effect, Mr. Speaker, that is what I was saying. This law is a repetition of this basic concept that was built up in Canada and which goes back to the days when British Columbia was still a Crown colony under Governor Sir James Douglas, and Sir Matthew Begbie, our first chief justice, sometimes known as the "hanging judge", was keeping the boys in order in the mining camps of British Columbia. By this I mean that a large portion of this bill is taken up with the technicalities of how claims can be staked, where they can be recorded, how they can be recorded, and what has to be done in order that those who originally staked them can go ahead and exploit the mineral resources beneath the surface. I do not think any of us will quarrel with the need for the application of this basic concept of bringing in some rule of law to govern this particular type of activity. The question in relation to this bill is whether this is being done in a proper way or not.
I should remind the House, in view of the time lag since this bill was last discussed, that my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) did indicate we were not prepared to support the amendment which actually is the subject matter of this present debate. I should like to restate our feeling on this. Basi-

April 22, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
cally, it is that we should reserve our judgment on this question until the committee has had a full opportunity of listening to the pros and cons as they are put before us by the various interested witnesses. In saying that, I am not being directly critical of the hon. member for Yukon for having proposed the amendment, because as we all know he has a very special knowledge of and relationship to the situation in the part of Canada that he personally represents. We want to weigh the evidence that will be placed before the committee before making up our minds whether or not the provisions contained in this legislation are good, bad or indifferent. Then, based on that we may or may not wish to propose amendments to the committee.
From my own experience in the province of British Columbia, I would say that the era of the free-wheeling miner of the days of the gold rushes of the 1860's and of 1898 in the Yukon is all too often perpetuated beyond its time. As an elected representative of the people of Canada, I believe the time has come when we should sprinkle a little salt on some of the representations made by the mining interests. My colleague from Kootenay West has already made clear that large mining corporations today, in many cases multi-national corporations or corporations that are almost completely controlled in one way or another, principally by our neighbouring country, are asking us as legislators to accept attitudes that were taken in the days when it was man against man in the search for gold nuggets or the mother lode. Certainly, I feel this is something to which we should not agree.
This is one of the facts of life that the hon. member for Yukon and the people of the Yukon must recognize. By and large, the Yukon has been a relatively isolated mining community, but one of our constitutional responsibilities at the present time is to point out to the people of the Yukon that they are part of Canada, that the concepts that are applicable in other jurisdictions should also be applicable in the Yukon. I well realize, of course, that my basic philosophy in regard to the jurisdiction and ownership of natural resources is very different from that of my friend from the Yukon. As far as I am concerned, let me say at once that our natural resources, particularly the non-renewable resources, whether in the Yukon or in British Columbia, in Quebec or in Labrador, should more and more be regarded as the property of all the people of Canada, not only of those living in Canada at this particular time but the property and heritage of future generations.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member believes in that philosophy, does he advocate that the resource jurisdiction now held by the provinces be returned to the federal authority?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have no dogmatic answer to that question, but I will say that personally I think if we are going to have a truly rational use and exploitation of our resources, this is one question that should be considered in relation to the development of a new constitutional arrangement within confederation. As a matter of fact, I think in many ways this is a much more basic consideration than some of the aspects of constitutional jurisdiction and possible constitutional amendments that I have heard debated at length. We have to devise some methods which will not centralize the administration in one spot in the country. We must give greater recognition to the concept that these resources are a national heritage which we, as Canadians, hold in trust for some of the people who live in other parts of the world. I say this in response to the question asked by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but without particular reference to the Yukon Territory or its aspirations to move more rapidly toward full provincial status.
I make these remarks as a result of having lived in the Province of British Columbia since 1952, where we have witnessed the never waning ambitions toward parochialism displayed by the government of that province. I should like to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Yukon that I am basing these remarks very much on my observations of what has been going on in my own province, and in many cases this has been contrary to long-term national interests of Canada. Without going into this, let me say in passing that one of the prime examples is the attitude displayed in respect of the development of the resources of the Columbia River. The attitude shown by a former Liberal administration of Canada was one of a willingness to acquiesce too readily. However, I am straying from the subject matter of the Yukon minerals bill. I shall try to relate my remarks more directly to that matter.
As I said earlier, the hon. member for Kootenay West talked about our belief in protecting our ecology. He also expressed his interest and concern about the lack of opportunity for the native population to participate in mining activities in that part of Canada. Let me relate some of my remarks to the Canadian native population, not directly in that area of employment by mining corporations of Indian people but more in respect of their basic rights to the lands of the territory.
Let me say at once that this question is not restricted to the Yukon Territory alone. This is a question about which I have a basic difference of opinion, particularly in relation to the policy which has been announced by this government. In response to a question in the House not long ago, the minister expressed the view that all of the lands in the territories belong to the Crown, except those which have been specifically alienated. He said this was the basis of jurisdiction in the territories and to a large extent in British Columbia. In the territories there are not reserve lands set aside. The position of the government is that the Indians, Metis and Eskimos do not even have squatters' rights in the land in which their forefathers have lived since time immemorial. This attitude is carried forward in this bill. I might say that had the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) not been preoccupied he intended to deal with this aspect of the matter.

April 22, 1971

I wonder whether the minister has acquired any new outlook or attitude on this question as a result of his recent visits to New Zealand and Australia. One part of this bill relates to the acquisition and recording of mineral claims. It refers to the method to be used and the individuals who may acquire claims. It contains a proviso which exempts certain lands from being staked for mineral claims. It makes it clear that you cannot stake mineral claims on any lands to which the National Parks Act applies. It also makes it clear that you cannot stake a mineral claim on any land used as a cemetery or a burial ground. It goes on to refer to other applications of this exemption principle.
One can search in vain for a proviso in this bill which prevents anyone from staking and applying the full jurisdiction of this act to land that might be occupied by Indians. I suggest this is indeed regrettable and a revealing feature of this legislation. This is not confined solely to the Yukon Territory. This is much more pointed in respect of the Yukon Territory than it is in respect of British Columbia, Labrador or Ontario, because the Yukon has a common boundary with one of the newer states of the United States, namely the state of Alaska, which up until recently held the status of a territory. I cannot help but wonder what the Indian people of the Yukon are thinking about the attitude and ideas being displayed by the government of Canada compared to those being discussed in the United States Congress.
Although the matter has not been finalized, there is a concrete proposal before Congress that involves the payment of something in the order of $1 billion to the aboriginal inhabitants of the state of Alaska for their rights to that land. The proposal provides that there shall be hundreds of thousands of acres set aside for their continued use and over which they will have jurisdiction. It provides that under these arrangements the natives will receive royalty payments as a result of the exploitation of the resources on and beneath the ground. When this arrangement is completed, these people will not have to care whether the Anvil Mining Corporation or other mineral companies hire them. They will have some rights and resources which will stem from their basic heritage in that land which they and their forefathers occupied long before we came.
So far as I am concerned, when we deal with this bill, we re-emphasize what is the greatest Canadian shame. We have absolutely refused, so far as the government is concerned, to recognize that those people have any rights, that they were here before those people to whom we so often refer as the founding peoples of Canada. These are rights which should be recognized as being more basic than the constitutional rights of French-speaking people, English-speaking people or people of any other language in Canada. One of my basic objections to a bill of this kind is that it turns over, so far as the exploitation of minerals is concerned, to any individual 18 years of age
Yukon Minerals Act
or over on his own behalf or on behalf of any corporation authorized to carry on business, the territory for the staking of mineral claims, except in national parklands or other exempted parts of the land, without any consideration at all of the idea of there ever having been a human being on this continent before the colonialists, be they French or English, arrived here.
Since we are talking about land near Alaska, I suppose I should say "or be they Russian". Perhaps getting that close to home I should say "or be they Spanish", but as we know the Spanish heritage is left in Canada only in the form of a number of place names which grace the province of British Columbia. Part of the name of my constituency is one such name. "Alberni" comes from "Don Pedro Alberni". So, we can forget about the colonialists from Spain and from Moscow, and think in terms of the fact that we, as a result of our rights in a sovereign state, are the inheritors of the colonizing regime of Britain and France. As I have said before in this House, while Britain and France have been doing something about unwinding their colonialism in Africa and Asia, we in Canada who are the inheritors of the colonizing regime are doing nothing to recognize the basic rights and basic freedoms of the people who were here before our colonial ancestors arrived.
Nothing in this bill gives any recognition of the fact that there is a single Indian who is native to the Yukon Territory. We know there is not as high a percentage of Indian population at present in the Yukon Territory as there is in the Northwest Territories, but the principle is the same. To me, the situation is highlighted by the fact of the juxtaposition of the Yukon Territory to the State of Alaska. What I have in mind perhaps is not something which could be done in dealing with this legislation. I am not sure the act could be amended to recognize the situation I have tried to describe, although some of us may have a crack at it when the bill reaches the committee. This, of course, is a broader question which in large part lies beyond the scope of this bill. Certainly, however, it is highlighted by the manner in which the bill is drafted in respect of the right, in practical terms, of only a few larger corporations to exploit the natural resources which lie under the ground of the Yukon Territory. Apart from any other considerations involved, I think when we reach the committee stage of this bill I should like at least some consideration to be given to this particular aspect of it.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill C-187, the Yukon minerals bill, I should like to comment at length on the new royalties which are proposed in this legislation and the adverse effect which these, if carried forth into law, will have upon the economy of the Yukon. In order to assess the full implications of these measures for the Yukon, I think it would be helpful if we were to turn our attention to that curious document published by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), which most of us had thought was a white (paper on taxation but which we have been recently informed is merely a document containing some propos-

April 22, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
als for tax reform. In any event, on page 65 thereof, paragraph 5.32 we find this:
At present the profit derived from the first three years of operation of a new mine are exempt from Canadian corporate tax. This provision provides an incentive to corporations to commit the large amounts of money necessary to develop a mine, and recognizes that this commitment must often be made at a time when the extent and quality of the ore body cannot clearly be ascertained. However, the government believes that in many instances the three year exemption is too generous. Neither exploration and development costs nor depreciation need be deducted during the exempt period. As a result, many more than three years profits are effectively exempt, and taxpayers can recover much more than their investment without becoming taxable.
Notwithstanding the admission by the Minister of Finance of the risks involved in mining, he, nevertheless, advocates in his "proposals for tax reform ^ that retrenchments be made in this important concession to the Canadian mining industry which in many respects has been responsible for its significant growth.
It is interesting to note the remarks of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, in its report on the white paper, particularly as stated at page 37. The report notes that the estimated net foreign earnings of the Canadian mining industry amount to some one billion five hundred million dollars per year and that the mining industry's activity has benefited all sections of Canada significantly. The Senate report acknowledges that substantial profits have been realized in the mining industry. It also acknowledges that corresponding risks have been taken. I can only commend to those hon. members who might be inclined to support the finance minister's views the remarks contained in paragraph 11, page 38 of the Senate report which I should like to quote:
The defect in the white paper's approach to the financing of the developing of mineral deposits is that it fails to take into account the essential difference between the two types of investors and the demand of the risk investor for rewards that are commensurate with the greater risks in this area of mining development. The proposals to permit new mines under certain conditions to write off 100 per cent of the cost of mining machinery and buildings to allow deduction of the cost of acquisition of mineral rights as part of the cost of exploration and development are in the opinion of your committee completely inadequate as a reward to attract the financing to begin a program of exploration and development of mineral resources.
Some hon. members will no doubt be tempted to point out that since the publication of "Proposals for Tax Reform", the Minister of Finance has made certain concessions which will affect the taxation of the mining industry. One of these concessions is that the federal tax abatement for mining will be increased from 10 per cent to 25 per cent. What we must, however, bear in mind is that the Yukon territory is not a province, and consequently the benefit of this abatement does not apply to it. Mining in the Yukon is thus placed in double jeopardy by the completely illogical position of being subject not only to a new scale of higher royalties as proposed in the bill under consideration, but also to materially higher taxation than mines in other provinces as a result of the new taxation measures proposed by the Minister of
Finance and which, for some curious reason, he claims to be reforms.
I submit that the government simply cannot have it both ways. It is completely unreasonable for them to expect to have high taxation rates apply in high risk industries. The government must also be mindful of the fact that Canada is not the only country with vast undeveloped natural resources. While of course, at least until very recently, our stable political climate and the existing taxation incentives have served as inducements to foreign mining interests to participate in the development of our resources, we would be nothing less than naive to think that the measures which are proposed in the present bill, plus the impending measures which loom on the horizon in the government's taxation plans, will serve to retain and permit continued foreign participation in this very costly and high risk segment of our economy.
I submit that it is further evidence of the inconsistencies of the government's thinking for it to have a Department of Regional Economic Expansion concerned with promoting economic growth in the slow growth areas of our country, while at the same time the same government proposes measures which will obviously compel mining interests to seek more attractive areas, and possibly areas outside of Canada, in which to invest. Certainly the Yukon territory would not be an area in which these companies would invest should these ill-considered measures come into law.
Surely, the royalty rates which apply to mining in the Yukon territory should fully reflect the fact that mining operations there will not benefit from tax abatement provisions because the territory is not a province. Moreover, they should also reflect the fact of the enormous distance which the ore has to travel from its original source to its marketplace, thus making the operation far more costly than if it were located in the lower regions of Canada. The precise details of the royalties provisions in the proposed act are far too lengthy and complicated for me to deal with specifically and individually at this time. However, hon. members will find upon studying them that not only do the royalties reflect an increase from the preceding act, but they are as well clouded with uncertainty for mine owners by the provision for extensive administrative discretion concerning the amount of the various deductions which the government will permit mines to claim in arriving at the value of their output in the course of any year.
I have tried to make clear that high levels of taxation and high levels of development in the Canadian mining industry are incompatible. I think this claim is borne out in the submission made to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development by the Yukon Chamber of Mines, and I should like to quote their remarks in this connection. On page 7 of their brief the following is stated:
This high level of exploration activity is unlikely to continue in 1971. Respondents to a questionnaire circulated to this chamber, to major exploration and junior mining companies who had carried out Yukon exploration in 1970 almost unanimously reported reduced exploration budgets for 1971. Replies from 39 companies which spent $5.7 million in 1970 forecast expenditure of only $2.3 million in 1971, a drop of some 60 per cent. This

April 22, 1971

sharp drop can be partly attributed to reduced operating profit due to lower metal prices, and junior mining companies being unable to raise risk capital on the stock exchange. However, nearly all respondents indicated Bill C-187 and the white paper on tax reform were factors in their decision to reduce their budgets.
I suggest that there is ample evidence in the experience of other countries to enable us to see that it is never a difficult thing for a government to drive foreign investment from a country. When so many Canadians regard government bonds or real estate holdings as vastly preferred investments to participation in our natural resource industries, I think it would be negligent of us not to give the most careful scrutiny to the implications of the legislation before us. It is easy to say that those people in the mining industry are pleading a special case, and no doubt to some degree that is so. I am, however, well satisfied that their experience is such that it behooves us to give it the most careful consideration before we reach any conclusions concerning it.
The Mining Association of Canada has published an interesting little booklet, on page 2 of which are contained some remarks regarding certain factors which have contributed significantly to the growth of the mining industry in Canada. The third paragraph reads as follows:
Confidence that the ground rules will not be changed have been a vital factor in the growth of the mining industry to its present size, a growth which has been at least at twice the rate of the over-all Canadian industrial sector. This certainty of government and public policy has encouraged the mining industry to undertake the long term risks involved in pushing further into the unknown and undeveloped parts of the country.
The mining industry in the Yukon has been developed on the basis of courage, optimism and good faith. Just when it is beginning to show signs of its full potential, let us not rush in with untimely and unwarranted measures that could well lead to its destruction. Any benefits which the government might derive from increased royalties on mining in the Yukon territory could well be offset by mining companies directing their future explorations to more favourable areas. The economy of the Yukon is so demonstrably tied to mining, that it ought not to require any great insight to anticipate what the effects on it will be if mining ventures are driven from it or discouraged from expansion by legislation which is of such a negative and restrictive nature as that proposed in the present bill.
Before concluding, I think it could well be suggested at this time, in view of the ever expanding interest by the Canadian people in the question of economic nationalism, that this would be a place to start with positive suggestions or proposals to the Canadian people to allow them to participate in the development of the resources of this country.
I feel that all the discussion which has taken place during the past six or eight weeks about our losing control of our resource industries has been really unnecessary. First of all, I believe that the resource industries to a large extent are subject to governmental
Yukon Minerals Act
control and regulation, and so long as the country or the provinces having jurisdiction over these resources, have the proper rules and regulations and those rules and regulations are enforced, then we should not really worry about who owns the resources. Ideally, of course, I think that Canadians should own Canadian resources, but I would not be prepared to opt for government ownership if that were the only way we could have Canadian ownership.
It is the function of the government to create the proper atmosphere to draw Canadian funds into developing areas. For too long we have been operating on the basis that we have been at a disadvantage compared with people who are not Canadians. We can point to examples where our own money has been used by foreign companies to develop our resources. A major illustration of this is the petroleum industry in western Canada. To a large extent the petroleum industry in western Canada, which is more than 50 per cent foreign owned, was developed with Canadian funds, but Canadians were unable to have the same advantage in the use of their funds as foreigners had. This situation has gone on for too long. Here, we have an opportunity to reverse that trend, to set up a royalty schedule which would give a clear advantage to Canadians who would take the risk of developing these resources. I would urge the government to consider taking this important step. In my opinion, this is the only practical way in which Canadians will roll back the high percentage of foreign ownership, particularly in the resource development field.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure I take the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-187 in support of my colleague from the Yukon and of other members on this side of the House who have spoken. It is very clear that hon. members on the other side of the House do not intend to take part in the debate. This debate is very complex. It goes far beyond the reaches of the Yukon, and certainly is of much more significance than just the specific aspects of it that apply to the northern part of Canada. The thing which struck me most forcibly about the hon. member for Yukon's objections to the legislation was his concern about the regulatory powers being given to the minister and the government in relation to the mineral code of the Yukon, and I suppose we can say to the mineral code of the north. This is a clear indication of excessive government intervention, involvement and control in the development of the northern frontiers of the Canadian nation.
The hon. member was very concerned about this. From talking to people who are conversant with that part of Canada, I understand that this bill has already had a significant impact by scaring away capital necessary for the development of the northern parts of Canada. Already we are reaping the negative benefits of a piece of legislation which is still before the House, but which hopefully will be withdrawn and will never become part of the law of the land. Although I do not represent the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or even Labrador, I have a particular interest in the northern part of Canada

April 22, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
because I feel that it epitomizes the youth, vigour, and the potential for development of the Canadian nation. It is the great frontier of our resources. Unlike Ontario, which is highly industrialized and developed, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Labrador are relatively undeveloped, despite the fact that people have been working in those regions for centuries.
The great industrial complex of Ontario, of Montreal, and many of the great industrial complexes of certain parts of the United States, such as the New England States-Pittsburgh in particular comes to my mind in connection with Labrador-depend on northern Canada for their existence. This is their resource area, and this is the area in which we need the clearest kind of direction and legislation, particularly with respect to our foreign ownership and our taxation policies.
When I was 16 years old I worked, for the first time in my life, at Schefferville, or Knob Lake as we called it, which is on the borders of Newfoundland and Quebec. I may say that Quebec is still concerned about the legitimacy of the border between it and Newfoundland, which was established back in the early part of the twentieth century, but that is a political debate which has little significance in connection with this bill. That particular community of Knob Lake, in the wilderness of Canada, at that time had a work force of over 2,000 people, all entirely depending on the development of the mineral resource of that part of the nation, which is iron ore. I worked on building a railway which rims from Seven Islands, Sept Isles, some 360 miles to a little known community. That railway was being built by the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, for the specific purpose of developing iron ore resources. It indicated the extent to which people are willing to risk their financial resources in order to develop something of great potential. Frankly, in most cases, the aspiration of the developer, be he an individual or a company, is to make a killing. Developers have an ambition to increase their wealth and financial power. We have to build enticements and attractions into our taxation policies to draw Canadians with power, vision, determination and drive into remote parts of Canada to develop the natural resources of our country.
I have not been in that area since 1956 or 57 but I have had occasion to visit many other newer mineral developments, and other kinds of resource developments. If the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) were present, Mr. Speaker, with his expert knowledge he could give you in more detail some idea of the $1 billion development project taking place at Churchill Falls, which last year was employing a work force of 6,400. I visited Churchill Falls and was told at that time that it had the second largest labour force in North America, the largest being engaged in the American space program. The total financial resources required for the project come from private sources. I cannot say exactly what proportion of them is made up of American dollars but I want to tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, that we were not too concerned with the question of whether they were Canadian, Chinese, Russian, Indonesian or American. As long as we got the development, we were
quite happy to see it, the largest hydroelectric project in the world, employing a labour force of 6,400 persons. This labour force will be reduced over the next five years as the project develops, but the main thing is that we are getting this major development all out of private capital.
In St. John's, Newfoundland, last year I listened to the competent new President of Brinco, Mr. Mulholland, who spoke before our Finance Committee and presented a report on behalf of his company. He said that if the uncertainty which now enshrouds the taxation system in Canada, and encompasses every way of life, had existed when the promoters of Brinco contemplated the Churchill Falls project, it would never have gotten off the ground. I thought that a very dramatic statement by a businessman in Canada. He also said that the $500 million development on the lower Churchill, the Gull Island development which would cost half a billion dollars would never be developed with the present lack of incentive and tax uncertainty in the Canadian nation. This is as close as I can come to his words, but I think they sum up dramatically the uncertainty and concern in the minds of Canadian developers and businessmen as far as development in the north is concerned.
I should like to suggest that every member of the House of Commons visit Labrador before the project is completed, and after as well. It is the most magnificent development that I have ever seen. I felt like Gulliver in the land of the giants. Everything from the wrenches to the butter dishes in the dining room, which holds 3,000 people, was out of proportion to reality. One expected to see men ten or 12 feet tall walk around the corner. This is the kind of development that we have now in northern Canada, in the last great frontier, the great Labrador mainland part of the province of Newfoundland. It is only one of several types of development in that part of the country, an area which in the next 20 or 30 years will contribute much to the development of our nation.
In that part of the country there is no one who is a drag on the Canadian public. Everyone is contributing heavily in taxation through force of circumstances. With the positive taxation position of the Labrador part of the province, Newfoundland is more significantly a financial part of the nation than most Canadians realize. There are other areas of that country which are developed. I refer to Wabush and Labrador City, which has a population of about 8,000, and its twin city has about 7,000 or 8,000 people.
What has all this to do with Bill C-187 which is before us? I do not exactly understand the purpose of the government in introducing this measure, but it does give Members of Parliament a chance to expound on some of their attitudes toward foreign ownership and such matters. One aspect of this bill is that it places an embargo on investment in the Yukon. Reading the bill, and the remarks of the hon. member from the Yukon, makes me wonder if it should be classified as kite flying. Is the government flying a kite to see how this kind of thing works in the Yukon? Is the Yukon being used as an

April 22, 1971

experiment, an economic guinea pig or is this a specific policy to be applied to the Yukon with no relevance to other parts of Canada? The government seems to be declaring some of its foreign ownership policy in Bill C-187. Is it the intention of the government to seek the reaction of the Canadian investor to the stand it has taken? The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) today asked the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) when he would be willing to make a categorical and definitive statement on Canadian ownership. The minister replied that he was not ready. He has not taken up any stance as yet.
Our party has suggested some guidelines to follow in trying to classify Canadian industry into areas where we would demand complete Canadian control, areas where there would be at least a major equity owned by the Canadian government and areas which would be completely free for any kind of investment from any part of the world. We do not know where this government stands on foreign ownership, and I am a little scared of placing complete restrictions on the flow of foreign capital into Canada. I must add that this is my own position and not the position of my party.
A recent book by Mr. J. J. Servan-Schriber, "The American Challenge", sums up the dilemma of the American investor regarding American control, the superiority of American technology and managerial skills on the one hand and the incapability of certain countries, such as Canada and many European nations, to finance their own projects and thereby retain a certain amount of independence. This is great political hay. People can say that we have to be careful not to have American domination and control. But these are not the things that worry me. What does worry me is that we have the resources which are being exported to other nations without due regard to further refining, further development and further processing within our own country. I am much more concerned that we should adopt policies in 1971 which would take effect in the next ten years to try and get maximum employment from our resources.
The history of Great Britain shows that their mercantile policy of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was to bring in raw materials from the colonies, such as Newfoundland, India, the great African nations and Canada, to refine these and resell the goods to the colonies at a substantial profit, thus ensuring employment in Great Britain. That policy may have been responsible for the several centuries of British economic domination of the world. Certainly, we have learned from that experience the need for Canada to adopt policies which will ensure a greater labour return from our resources.
My own native province of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Gaspe area of Quebec were exporting almost every pound of fish to the American nation without being refined. All the processing of our marine resources was done by American labour. Economists have calculated that if we could adopt a proper tariff structure and proper trade relations with the United States regarding that product, we could obtain the maximum return from the processing and almost overcome all the economic
Yukon Minerals Act
disadvantages and the unemployment problems of the Atlantic region. That is a complicated question which time does not permit me to develop.
Another example is the minerals which go from Labrador to the United States market. They must be responsible for some of the boom experienced in the industrial centres of the United States. Timber would be another example. My friends from British Columbia probably know the correct technical terms relating to this subject. It is my understanding that we take raw logs, without processing them, and ship them in that state to the Japanese market. They might be logs that are five inches or five feet in diameter, as the case may be. I understand from my friends from British Columbia across the way that we may be able to do something about this. Nevertheless, at present we ship that kind of resource to the Japanese market. Also, coal from Alberta is shipped to Japan to keep the great industries of Japan going. I believe that an NDP member has said that for every job created in Canada by the export of these resources, 20 jobs are created in Japan. In other words, we are exporting coal worth one job and creating in Japan manufacturing worth 20 jobs. The Japanese send the finished products back to us. There are companies on the east coast of Canada involved in the manufacturing of paper which are required by the provincial government concerned to send logs abroad for processing. Certain Canadian companies are sending logs overseas to feed their paper mills in England. I am talking about the Bowater Company on west coast of Newfoundland, which is required to export a raw product.
Why has nobody launched an offensive to determine how best we can retain these resources in Canada so that we may obtain a better labour return from our resources and overcome unemployment? That concerns me much more than where the dollars come from for the development of these resources. We do not want to say to a company wishing to go to Schefferville, Whitehorse or Prince Rupert, "You cannot go there because you are financed by American capital." Nevertheless, we ought to lay down guidelines as to how such companies shall operate and how our resources shall be developed, as well as the extent to which resources shall be permitted to leave Canada in a raw state.
In any event, I have only scratched the surface of any arguments about resource development or foreign ownership. I sympathize with the position of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It seems that under Bill C-187 the Governor in Council-and it is the government's favourite pastime to enact legislation which says that the Governor in Council can do certain things-can lay down regulations the effect of which will be to scare away capital seeking to develop the mineral resources of our north. If the government is flying a kite, if it is bringing in a sort of trial foreign ownership policy, if, as suggested, the Yukon is being used as an economic guinea-pig, then I suggest that the bill had better be scrapped quickly or delayed. I do not know what tricks the hon. member for Yukon may have up his sleeve. In any event

April 22, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
I suggest that further consideration of the bill ought to be deferred for six months or two years. I think we ought to reassess the impact that this bill will have on the development of the Yukon and the development of the north generally, because certain implications flow from the effect that this bill will have on Yukon development. The Yukon Territory is a province. No provincial government, on behalf of that territory, can exert pressure on this government. No Yukon provincial government exists to say to the federal government or the Prime Minister, "We question this and want you to reconsider it." The hon. member for Yukon has the burden of speaking for that part of Canada. That is why he has taken up the fight on behalf of the territory and why I and others are concerned about it.
I should like to see other hon. members speaking up against what appears to be an attempt to impose much more state control. I do not mind if I sound like an old Tory-that is another four letter word. The premier of my province talks about a Tory as if that were some kind of unclean animal. I always sort of cringe when I hear him talking on his morning open line program. Of course, "Joey" is also a four letter word, something he has not realized. If I sound like a Tory, I make no apology. I feel that those developing the northern part of Canada must be considered. They have the youth, vigour, drive and determination to develop our resources. That is where the future of Canada lies and those resources have hardly been touched. They are practically unknown. The area is not developed. Its great hydroelectric potential has not been developed. Its minerals are undiscovered. We do not know much about the north, despite all the exploration that has taken place. The area epitomizes the Canadian dream. I do not want the government to do anything that will impede that development. We must look to the north for our future.
Instead of bringing forward legislation like Bill C-187, I should like to see the government come forward with a declaration of expectations, aspirations and goals relating to the development of the north. In conjunction with these expectations, aspirations and goals, let us build in some kinds of incentives that will enable Canadians to apply their energies with greater determination for the development of the north.
When the white paper on tax reform was first introduced, certain tax exemptions enjoyed by Canadian mining companies were to be taken away. That scared away certain anticipated development in the north. As a matter of fact, recently the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador said that a $160 million development at Wabush was cancelled because of tax uncertainties. The Minister of Finance was so scared about the possible effects of the white paper that he has amended it even before bringing it forward as legislation. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of this. Even before bringing forward that white paper as legislation, the Minister of Finance changed some parts of it. As I understand it, he did not allow mining companies the sorts of tax concessions they enjoyed formerly. He modified the provisions of the white paper regarding tax concessions in order that mining companies could go ahead with greater confidence.
I should like to see the government of Canada outline a definite policy on takeovers and foreign ownership. It should let us know where we are going. This has been a very brief commentary, Mr. Speaker, and it has been ad hoc to say the least. As the bill progresses, and as hon. members contribute their thoughts, we should become more conversant with its details and add our individual two cents worth of contributions when it comes before the House again.


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of making an announcement in which I think the House will be interested.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not having made this announcement in the normal fashion on motions earlier in the day but I was not able to make the announcement until all stock exchanges in Canada were closed, which was at 5.01, according to my understanding.
I am pleased to report to the House that control of Home Oil Company Limited has been retained in Canada. Mr. R. A. Brown Jr. has entered into transaction with Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto, under which Consumers' Gas will acquire the controlling interest of Mr. Brown and his family in the voting shares of Cygnus Corporation Limited which, in turn, controls the voting shares of Home Oil. The details of this transaction will be announced by the parties sometime later this afternoon. Consumers' Gas Company is owned by approximately 28,500 shareholders, of whom 97 per cent are residents of Canada.
I obtained the consent of the parties to make this announcement first in the House, because I know that the House is extremely interested in this matter. The House was very helpful in the debate on the matter and I had undertaken to members of the House to keep them posted, as soon as I was able to, about any dealings with respect to this company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from the tenor of the announcement the minister made this afternoon that, in his negotiations, he accepted the advice of members of the official opposition. In his remarks, the minister expressed appreciation for the high quality of the debate that revolved around this important subject. After all, the Home Oil Company is one of Canada's great independents. As I recall the debate the essence of the information was that there is in Canada sufficient capital resource and Canadian initiative

April 22. 1971

in these matters if the government would only clarify its confused thinking on its resource policies.
One of the greatest deterrents to resource development for the past year or more has been the on-again off-again debate and discussion precipitated by the ill-conceived white paper on tax reform. It was obvious that it had created a pall of uncertainty which made it impossible for Canadian investors to anticipate future prospects with respect to their investments. By the announcement which has been made in the House that negotiations have been going on behind the scenes by the minister, on behalf of the government, in order to assure the parties which might be concerned in making this achievement possible and retaining the Home Oil Company in the hands of Canadians, the government has made it clear that there will be no threat to Canadian investors in the legislative proposals that will be brought down as a result of the extensive discussions on the white paper. I hope that legislation will be before the House at the earliest opportunity.
If these behind the scenes negotiations have been going on, and if this assurance has been given, for example, to the Consumers' Gas Company, it is only fair that other potential investors in Canada's resource industry should have the same assurance, so that the uncertainty or confusion can be dissipated as quickly as possible. We can then resume the development of our Canadian resources in the best interest of Canadians in all parts of the country. This is encouraging news. I am sure that if the government will pursue other developments with the same vigour that it has exhibited when sorting out this difficult matter, there will be many such developments to cheer for in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that it is good to have announcements like this made in the House of Commons. I noted that the minister enjoyed doing that on this occasion. I trust he will keep it up.
We welcome the fact that the government has been able to announce that the control of Home Oil is to be retained in Canada. The only comment I want to make is that the minister was right the first time; public ownership would have been even better. Bearing in mind what was just said by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), I suggest to the government that instead of taking wrong advice from the official opposition, it would have been better if they had consulted us.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say how pleased we were to hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) announce that Home Oil Company has been sold to Canadian residents. However, the term "Canadian residents" worries me a little. I would have liked it better if the minister had used the simple term "Canadians", because "Canadian residents" suggests those people may be foreigners who have a few holdings in Canada without being Canadian citizens.
Yukon Minerals Act
I believe that by and large we may be happy because the deal seems to indicate at least that the government is going in the right direction.

The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Richard): Order, please. The House will now resume consideration of the business interrupted by the announcement by the minister.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-187, respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nielsen (p. 4009).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the wish of the House that the Chair put the question on the main motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is the wish of the House that the motion be discussed later. I wonder whether the government House leader can tell us if we are to pursue the same discussion on this bill tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; that is the intention.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Special Order made earlier this day, this stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Friday, April 23, 1971