1971-05-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41 (2) I should like to table copies of a letter from myself to the Premier of Quebec concerning the expiry of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act. The letter is dated May 7 and follows up the correspondence from the premier which I was asked to table a week or two ago.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I raise an urgent question to which, in my view, the House must give consideration.
Considering that the situation of a large number of Canadian farmers is deteriorating day by day and that Bill C-176 can bring some relief or even correct the situation; and considering that it is the responsibility of Parliament to act quickly with regard to this serious problem, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau);
That the House should instruct the Committee on Procedure and Organization to study the possibility of establishing a reasonable though limited delay for the adoption on third reading of Bill C-176, and to report to the House within 48 hours.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Joliette. This motion, under Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Is there unanimous consent for the motion proposed by the hon. member for Joliette?


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN FUNDS-STATEMENT BY MINISTER

Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on April 22 I spoke to this House of the enthusiasm, imagination and creativity of the younger generation as so abundantly demonstrated in the quality and quantity of the proposals submitted under the Opportunities for Youth program.
Last week, as agreed, I began to announce both to the students and the public at large what projects had been approved. To date, some 600 project co-ordinators have been notified that their projects will be financed by the government of Canada. Similar announcements are being made at the rate of some one hundred a day. As I already mentioned to the House, we hope to have this phase of the program completed around mid-May. To date, we have received more than 13,000 projects.
On April 22, I emphasized that the government would respond to the enthusiasm of youth and I am pleased to announce today that the government has decided to allocate $10 million more to the Opportunities for Youth program. The government is aware that the amount does not fully meet the young people's requests but we are convinced that the vast majority of the many excellent proposals may now be approved. Furthermore, we count on being able to inform the young people whose projects may now be approved through this additional amount by May 25 at the latest. The Opportunities for Youth program, it will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, is based on the initiative of the young people and is designed to create new jobs and additional activities.
The government has presented a program to which the youth of our country has spontaneously responded. It is therefore obvious that the program truly meets the needs of the younger generation.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must congratulate the Secretary of State for accepting the suggestions made on this side of the House and elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Hon. members over there have a short memory. I am glad that the government is expanding the funds for the program from $15 million to $25 million. As happens so often when the government finally accepts the advice of the opposition, its action is too little and too late.
Some hon. Membersr Oh, oh!

May 11, 1971
Opportunities for Youth Program


Mr. Greene:: Is that an original line?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Quite obviously the vast majority of young people who took the government at its word when the program was first announced will still be disappointed. They are already disappointed because in most cases they have not received any information about the projects they submitted almost one month ago. The fact that the government is now accepting projects at the rate of 100 a day will be cold satisfaction to the vast majority of young people who hoped and expected the government to respond favourably to their applications.
Although all hon. members welcome the addition of $10 million to the program, I must say that some of us are extremely disappointed that the Secretary of State has not indicated what alternative suggestions or proposals he or his department has in mind with respect to the remaining thousands of projects. After all, some 13,000 projects have been submitted. If about 600 have already been accepted, and a few hundred more may be accepted, this means that between 11,000 and 12,000 projects will go unanswered. This is one of the most, if not the most, shocking aspects of the whole Opportunities for Youth program.
I would have been much happier if the Secretary of State had indicated that he and his officials, in light of the great reaction to this program, were now actively consulting with municipalities, provinces, universities and industry so that some of the most imaginative projects that have been put forward by Canada's young people could be acted upon either in the private sector or in other areas of the public sector. Instead we have been told that, while an additional $10 million will be allocated to the program, the vast majority of projects, conceived in good faith and presented to the minister and his officials with great hopes, will simply not be allowed to come to fruition. That is simply not good enough for the hundreds of thousands of this country's young people who have taken the time and trouble to advance some of the most important, useful and constructive projects that young people of this country have advanced for many years. I urge the minister, in conjunction with his officials, to give serious consideration within the coming week to finding areas where programs that have not been accepted may yet be instituted in order to give our young people an opportunity to serve and so that they may be assisted to continue their education in the fall.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of this party may I thank the minister for making his statement and announcing that an extra $10 million is to be made available for the Opportunities for Youth program. Like the hon. member for Egmont, I am very happy to see that the minister has acted upon our suggestions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -and upon the suggestions of thousands of young people across the country. The issue that must be raised is that this announcement has been made on May 11, two or three weeks after many university stu-

dents have finished their classes, when it should have been made several months ago. I do not see why we should still be formulating student employment policies in the month of May. I do not see why this had to happen. It should have been done last fall or in the early winter so that the young people could have planned their university years and their summers.
As the minister has said, thousands of projects will not be granted or approved. What will happen to the young people depending on getting jobs through the Opportunities for Youth program when their projects are turned down on May 25? How much time will they have to compete for jobs that may not be available? These are things the minister should have thought of early last fall and early last winter instead of coming up with an ill-planned ad hoc type of Opportunities for Youth program at the last moment.
There are other points which come to mind. How many jobs will actually be created under this program? We still do not know the answer. In the jobs that are created how long will the students be employed? Will they only be employed for six or seven weeks or for two or three months? Many students need full summer employment if they are to be able to return to university next fall. They also need summer jobs that pay wages high enough to enable them to continue their studies. These are some of the questions which the program has failed to answer.
In general, this program is a good public relations job, but how much of the problem will it really solve? I would like to make two or three suggestions.
The minister and his department should start thinking right now about next year and do some long-range planning. Why not convene a conference with young people such as the proposed conference that was cancelled last spring? Why not contact the provincial and municipal governments with regard to planning for next year? This should have been done this year instead of this last minute attempt to put forward a patched-up program.
The government should also be pursuing a policy of full employment. If we had full employment we would not be faced with so many problems in finding jobs for our young people.
Finally, whether a student finds a summer job should not determine whether he returns to university. We must think about universal accessibility to education regardless of one's financial background.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One's future in education should not depend on how successful one is in competing for jobs that are all too scarce in Canada today.
These are a few points that I hope the minister and the government will consider. Let us not get into this bind next year and disappoint the students again by coming out with a plan at the last moment. Young people want to do something. The minister was surprised that the young people have responded so enthusiastically to this program. I was not surprised. I knew the young people wanted to do something, so let us start planning now for next year and get on with something meaningful.
May 11, 1971


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, last March 16, the right hon. Prime Minister invited our young people to participate actively in the Opportunities for Youth program.
On April 22, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) cited some statistics and pointed out, for instance, that his department had received 2,485 projects and that he was not surprised because the young were enthused over the opportunity of working towards building the country.
Today, the Secretary of State announced in the House that he had received over 13,000 projects from students and that of this number, only 600 had been approved so far. He announced also that the total budget of the program would be increased by $10 million.
No matter what members opposite might want to say, I would like to remind them that after the announcement made by the Secretary of State which has been reported on page 5150, I strongly urged the government to increase the program's budget, so as not to augment further the feeling of frustration of Canadian students.
Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to take this opportunity to direct your attention to the ambivalence of the problem confronting the young students of Canada, namely to complete their studies while trying to avoid as much as possible running into debts. It is a well known fact that the scholarship and loan system contributes directly to get them into debt and to delay their start in life and the benefits that their knowledge and skills can bring to society. When they get out of school, students are up to here in debt and receive no government help to continue their education while governments claim credit for making education free.
Moreover, young people are impatient to participate in building their country in projects where their personal initiative is emphasized, where development, environment beautification, recreation, pollution control are involved. These are problems that are of deep concern to young Canadians and their response to the Opportunities for Youth program-more than 13,000 projects probably involving thousands of students-shows the number of students who are in debt and neglected by governments and also their interest not so much in dissent-since they know that in any case the government will not give them a hearing-as in building up their country.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express somewhat qualified praise of the Secretary of State for the budget and for the number of projects presented by students which have been approved. Ten million dollars are certainly better than the total of $14.7 million originally allotted for the whole program, but that certainly is still inadequate.
Therefore, I want to renew my pleading with the government and particularly the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to review their positions and further increase the budget in order that the Opportunities for Youth program should not bring about increased frustration among students who, believe it or not are really people to build up our country.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has announced an increase in the cost of living for the first four months of this year amounting to 1.8 per cent, or an annual rate of some 5J per cent, is it the position of the government that, as the right hon. gentleman indicated last December, inflation has been licked by the policies of this administration, or does the government intend to announce new measures to control the increase in the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it has never been the position of the government that inflation is something you can lick once and for all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am happy to hear that the opposition thinks it is. I am happy to see that now they are proposing we should shift our economic policies toward combating inflation rather than unemployment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that was surely the shortest licking in history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now that the Prime Minister has admitted elsewhere that unemployment was created by the government to fight inflation, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he intends to fight the bout of inflation indicated by this increase in the cost of living by creating more unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now that the Prime Minister has said that inflation with high employment is not an acceptable alternative to no inflation with high unemployment, I should like to ask the government whether it is quite satisfied to have both high unemployment and a high rate of inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo on a supplementary.


Mr. Sallsman:: I have another question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary.

May 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-RECONSIDERATION OF CUT IN ISOLATED POST ALLOWANCES FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board; I am sure the answer will interest the hon. member for the Northwest Territories as well as myself. Having in mind the figures recently released by the Bureau of Statistics indicating an increase in the cost of living, will the government reconsider its announced cut in the isolated post allowances for government employees in the north?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the hon. gentleman knows, this particular problem has been reviewed quite extensively and is near final resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker-


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I apologize to the hon. member for Waterloo. I believe the hon. member for Joliette has a supplementary.



INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING-FULL EMPLOYMENT POLICY, WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
With reference to the statement made by the Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada that the government should establish compulsory programs, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to propose a total employment policy including the freezing of prices and salaries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have had occasion to state previously that freezing prices and salaries was one of the alternatives considered by the government should other decisions become necessary in matters of economic policy. Obviously if such a decision were taken it would be announced in the House, but for the time being, Mr. Speaker, we are still at the stage of developing such measures and many others.



SUGGESTED OFFER OF ATLANTIC FREE TRADE AGREEMENT TO UNITED KINGDOM

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the information reaching Canada that there is a growing body of opinion in the United Kingdom with serious second thoughts about joining the European Common Market, would the minister tell the House whether he would take the initiative, under these circumstances, in offering the United Kingdom and other members of EFTA an alternative to the EEC in the form of an Atlantic free trade agreement?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is my impression that the British government has always been aware of the opinion of the British population when proposing entry into the Common Market. This is not a new event.


Max Saltsman: As the minister is aware, there is a change in opinion, but the question that I hoped he would answer was whether the department, the minister personally or the government is taking some initiative in offering to the United Kingdom and the EFTA countries an alternative to the European Common Market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think we presume that entry will take place and we are trying to get the best possible deal for Canada within that context.


Max Saltsman: Since that kind of assumption has some doubts attached to it, would the minister say whether he has any alternative program to offer in the event that Britain is prepared to consider-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I can think of many procedural
objections to the hon. member's supplementary.



POSSIBLE ENTRY OF BRITAIN INTO EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET-ARRANGEMENTS TO PROTECT CANADA'S INTERESTS

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Would he indicate very briefly the nature of the arrangements that he is seeking to make in order to protect Canada's interests?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to the Chair that is a very broad question. If the minister is able to answer the question briefly he might do so, but normally this is the kind of reply which ought to be given by way of a general statement on motions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have reported extensively on what we have been trying to do. We have had some relatively interesting results regarding, for example, British agricultural policies and so-called sensitive items such as plywood, newsprint and the like, and doubtless others will come up in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

May 11, 1971



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECTS-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO ONTARIO AND QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Henry Lafulippe (Compton) r Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Will the government consider the Opportunities for Youth program projects presented after the date of expiry since the grants allocated to those projects have been increased?
Gérard Pelletier: We have always stated, Mr. Speaker, that the projects which had been received on the set date would have top priority, but we are not legalistic and a delay of two or three days will not be considered as a diriment impediment.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State how much of the $10 million increase in the Opportunities for Youth budget will go to Quebec and Ontario.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, such calculations have not been made yet. I do not have any figures. My only reply to the hon. member is that the allocation of funds to subsidize projects is in terms of the unemployment rate among the young people in the various regions of the country.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ASSISTANCE OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES-COMMUNICATION WITH APPLICANTS

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has now acknowledged that the vast majority of projects will not be accepted under the Opportunities for Youth program, will he indicate whether steps are being taken to consult with other bodies including municipal and provincial governments and independent agencies such as universities and industries to determine whether some of the more imaginative and important programs can even yet be implemented with their assistance?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Egmont talk about that in his reply to my statement on motions, and I am now to hear him raise the matter again in a question, because it has been established for weeks-I had the opportunity to mention it many times-that the secretariat of Opportunities for Youth would not consider a refusal as final, but would rather try, as it is already 24107-10
Inquiries of the Ministry
doing, with regard to projects that it cannot finance entirely, to find with the young people themselves as much as possible, other sources of financing and other ways of implementing them, either in co-operation with private industry or through various levels of government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many hundreds and conceivably thousands of people who have submitted projects have had no word so far from the Opportunities for Youth program, what steps are being taken to clear the communication log jam that presently exists in order that many of the people who are still waiting, some for longer than a month, will finally be able to get in contact with this agency?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the worst of the problem which in my opinion was unavoidable, has now passed. In any youth organization, like in any other for that matter, when a deadline is set, most people report on or about that date and, inevitably, communications cannot be planned for just that rush period. However, I think we have now passed that period and that the hon. member will observe that the communications situation is coming back to normal if it has not already actually returned to normal.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-INCREASE IN NUMBER OF PROJECTS

Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Monireal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
In his statement, he said he had approved 600 different projects. With the additional $10 million does he expect to be able to approve as many projects as with the former subsidy, and can he tell the House when we can expect information on the additional projects?


Gérard Pelletier: In my statement, Mr. Speaker, I said that we were making every effort to have all the projects approved by May 25, which would give enough time to implement them and give summer employment to the students. On the other hand, the number of projects will depend on the importance of each one and on their average cost which we will try to maintain at the same level, that is the average subsidy allotted each project to date. I believe the program will be increased proportionately to $10 million, that is to say by approximately two-thirds, numerically as well as financially.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECTS

Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister which general criteria are used to reject or approve a project. Is the decision taken arbitrarily or is a particular study made in that connection? The minister must have criteria to decide whether to accept or to reject a piece of legislation.

May 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, those criteria have been established and publicized. If the hon. member will make a thorough search in his office, I am sure that he will find accurate information in this connection. Were I to list here all the criteria, which are rather numerous and sophisticated, I would surely go over the time which Your Honour can allow me.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO BUILD SATELLITE CITY IN NORTH

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Is any part of these funds being allotted to the suggested program announced by the Prime Minister for the building of a city in Canada's north involving 10,000 young Canadians?


Gérard Pelletier: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member was not here the other day when somebody else asked me this question to which the reply was no.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED BY DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the $10 million increase in the money allotted to the Opportunities for Youth program, is the minister now prepared to indicate whether it is intended to increase student militia and civilian employment in this area?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the budget allocated to the Department of National Defence has not been increased so we will not be able to increase the approximate number of 7,000 to 8,000 young people who will be provided with opportunities by the Department of National Defence this summer.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Following the chicanery involved in the reorganization in Ottawa yesterday of Rideau-Carle-ton Raceway, will the minister conduct an investigation of the role played by the trustee and by Messrs. Armstrong and Fasken?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the situation, not being a track fan, but I will certainly look into it and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: In addition to his personal service to myself, will the minister undertake to report back to the House as a whole?


Stanley Ronald Basford: If that is appropriate, of course I will.



AIRPORTS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Transport in a position to inform the House of the circumstances of the reported disturbance at Toronto International Airport last evening concerning the arrival of an Air Canada 774 aircraft which involved the RCMP? Have any charges been laid as a result of the reported fracas?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Could he indicate whether the final plans for the development of the St. Maurice valley national park are ready?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, general plans have been prepared by experts. Of course, there may be changes while the park is being developed but this is not anticipated at the present time.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As Canada is one of the nations that signed the Hague convention in reference to the suppression of unlawful seizure of aircraft, is it now the government's intention to have that agreement ratified by Parliament? Is it the intention of

May 11, 1971

the government to bring forward immediately amendments to the Criminal Code in reference to and along the lines of the suggested agreement which covers, of course, hijacking?
Inquiries of the Ministry



NATURAL RESOURCES


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take notice of the question on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has made any suggestions as a matter of policy in this regard to the Department of Justice, and is that the reason a bill with reference to hijacking has not been brought forward this session?
[DOT] * *



INDIAN AFFAIRS

Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a joint proposal from the five eastern provinces regarding offshore mineral ownership? If so, what response has he made to this proposal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received such a response, barring it having arrived in the last few hours. As recently as a few days ago I looked into this matter and there was no response from the collective five provinces, as the member asked. Indeed, I said last week, I believe, that the federal government was still waiting for an answer from many provinces on the proposals it made more than two years ago.



ESTABLISHMENT OF FIRST INDIAN MUNICIPALITY AT CAPE MUDGE-DEPARTMENTAL INVOLVEMENT

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he indicate whether he or his department was involved in the negotiations that paved the way for the establishment of Canada's first Indian municipality at Cape Mudge, British Columbia? If there was any involvement, in what way was it done?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister not agree that in fact the five provinces concerned have always had a common position with regard to offshore mineral rights.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we always give consideration to new measures approved by the Indians
and I must say that we have had many consultations with the Minister of Municipal Affairs of British Columbia in order to solve the Cape Mudge problem. I am happy to note that a solution has been found. As it was impossible to amend the Indian Act, the provincial government has decided to amend the Municipal Code of British Columbia.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, does the minister consider this step of establishing a municipality as implementation
in part of the white paper proposals? Can the minister give the assurance that the federal government will continue to discharge all its responsibilities in respect of funds, services and programs for the Indian people or will these responsibilities be transferred to the provincial government in some way?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the solution co-ordinates the responsibilities of the federal government and allows the Indians of British Columbia, especially those of Cape Mudge, to take advantage of provincial services since they are citizens of British Columbia.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just mislaid my glasses.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is recognized for the purpose of asking a question.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister without Portfolio who has been assigned responsibility for co-ordinating the proposals of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. In view of the central importance assigned by the report to the provision of day care centres, has the minister consulted or will he consult with the provinces with a view to adopting a national day care act as recommended by the commission?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I think somebody across the aisle answered that. It is a good question. As with all the other recommendations we will give it very serious consideration, but I make no comment at this stage.

May 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC WORKS



TORONTO-ASSISTANCE TO PAINTERS TO COLLECT MONEY OWED FOR WORK ON CERTAIN BUILDINGS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I will direct my question to the acting minister. With regard to the alterations to the dominion public building and the city delivery Post Office building in Toronto, would the minister come to the aid of the 20 painters who are owed $7,000 and who were laid off on April 2 last because the contractor went broke?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. He should be back in the House shortly.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the controversy over Bill C-176 and consideration by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, this bill has been reprinted. Is the minister in a position to say whether a copy of the reprinted bill has been sent to the Quebec Minister of Agriculture?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker. I am not entirely sure one has been, but I believe the general practice is that all provincial Departments of Agriculture receive all bills pertaining to agriculture which are introduced in this House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
In view of the seriousness of the situation and the urgency of solving a certain problem, has the federal Minister of Agriculture received a copy of Bills 15 and 16 which are under consideration in the National Assembly of Quebec?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of the continuing spread between the prices of pork currently being sold to the consumer and the price being received by the producer, representing a differential of approximately
four to one, would the minister undertake to investigate this discrepancy at once and report the results of his investigation to the House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think a definitive statement on this matter was made on the ten o'clock show a little while ago, and there is really not very much I can add.



SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION BY MORE EFFECTIVE AGENCY

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the continuing rise in the cost of living announced today, is it the intention of the minister to terminate the Prices and Incomes Commission and create a more effective agency to protect the consumer from inflation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, a consumer price increase of less than 2 per cent a year on an annual basis would seem to indicate the effectiveness of present government policies.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the announcement by Imperial Oil Limited that a further discovery of oil and gas has been made east of Tuktoyaktuk in the Northwest Territories, can the minister indicate whether he has any information on the size of the find and also what significance it will have on future gas and oil exploration in the Mackenzie area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any other information than what is known at present. This is a new discovery of oil in the Mackenzie delta area. In the course of the next few weeks, we shall know the exact nature of this formation. I should indicate to the hon. member that this is certainly encouraging for Northern Canada and that this will further stimulate oil and gas exploration in that region.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-EFFECT ON GOVERNMENT POSITION OF STATEMENT BY DEPUTY MINISTER-PROVISION OF POLLUTION CONTROL ZONE

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of

May 11, 1971

Energy, Mines and Resources arising out the statement made by his deputy minister, Jack Austin, at Anchorage in which he said that provided full environmental protection is assured for adjacent Canadian territories Canada would accept a United States decision to send tankers from Valdez down the Pacific coast. I want to ask the minister whether his deputy's statement indicates that the Canadian government has withdrawn its objection to the TAPS route and to the passage of oil tankers down the west coast of Canada?


John James Greene: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the government's position has been consistent throughout. We are greatly concerned about the possibility of ecological damage resulting from a tanker accident if the Valdez route is pursued.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. In view of the very firm action the Prime Minister took last year in asking Parliament to provide for a 100-mile pollution control zone in the Arctic, may I ask whether the government intends to take similar action to protect the west coast of Canada where the danger is just as great and the possibility of oil spills even greater?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-MEASURES TO PROTECT CANADA

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister whom I am happy to see back in the House looking very well. Now that he is back I wonder whether he would take a very early opportunity to tell the House what measures he proposes to take to protect Canada with regard to the proposed TAPS route?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated the action we are taking in discussing this matter with our United States counterparts. If any further action is possible by Canada or is determined by the government, it will be announced in the House in proper fashion. I am certainly pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition looking well as usual also, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF SPEECH BY DEPUTY MINISTER

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary arising in part from some questions I addressed to the Prime Minister on May 7 on this subject. First, when the deputy minister spoke in Alaska, was he speaking officially on behalf of the minister and the government?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask that question. Perhaps he might rephrase it. I have previously suggested to hon. members that we will get ourselves into some difficulty if the question period relates to statements made outside the House by officials of the government or public servants. I would think the hon. member should find it possible to rephrase the question.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I will try a different tack. In the light of the answer given to me by the Prime Minister, and in view of the confusion surrounding the question of what this statement made by the deputy minister in Anchorage means, I would first of all like to ask the minister whether he would table a copy of this speech in the House so that we may understand its content fully and, second, would he undertake to clarify to the House whether or not the contents of this speech do represent government policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to file a copy of the speech if this meets with the approval of the House, but of course the government speaks for the government and, popular opinion to the contrary, it is not the officials who determine policy; it is the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What is the policy, Joe?



AIRPORTS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In reply to a question I asked him a few days ago he said that he had had some discussions with the provincial Minister of Transport in Toronto in connection with the new airport that is going to be built there. In view of the tremendous expenditures that the province and the municipalities surrounding the airport are going to be faced with in providing access roads and sewage and pollution control facilities, was there a formula presented or arrived at for a sharing of the costs or for assistance from the federal government in the carrying out of these projects?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker, because, of course, the site itself would' have to be determined before the actual costs of the development at that site could be estimated. However, in consultation with the province of Ontario we did identify the various levels of expenditure, and so it is known for the various sites what roads and various other forms of infrastructure would be required in each instance.

May 11, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Marvin Howe: Have any discussions been held with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in order that this airport region might be made a designated area, as has been done in the Montreal case, so that such assistance would be made available in Toronto as well?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I might borrow one of your phrases and say this is hypothetical until the site is actually known and determined.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to give the province of Ontario the same support for these services as he has given to the St. Scholastique airport in Quebec?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the situation at the moment is as I have outlined it on one or two previous occasions. This is a very complex matter. We have put all of our data at the disposal of the province of Ontario. It is now being examined very thoroughly by them, as I understand from the provincial Minister of Transport, with a view to formulating their response to the proposals we have placed before them. When they have gone through this exercise, which I can well understand will take some time, I have indicated that I am quite prepared to sit down and talk to them about every aspect of the proposals.

PTranslation]



COMMUNICATIONS


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since the Secretary of State is not in the House, I will address my question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the contradictory positions of the Quebec and Ontario governments and the federal government over the subject of telecommunications and since Ottawa announced it was ready to negotiate, while Quebec is entering this field, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if talks are taking place between the federal and provincial governments in order to arrive at tentative solutions to this problem.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that federal officials have already met with their provincial counterparts to discuss the problem.


André-Gilles Fortin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether these negotiations are formal or informal, and whether a report will be submitted to the next federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these meetings are social and I do not know what difference the hon. member makes between "formal" and "informal", but in fact the meetings did take place. As far as I know, no province has called for this item to be placed on the agenda of the June conference.



FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MONTREAL FOR 1976 OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the federal government given or will it be giving any financial assistance to the city of Montreal in preparation for the 1976 Olympics?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position of the federal government was made quite clear in an exchange of correspondence with the Mayor of Montreal at the time the federal government supported both Montreal and Vancouver, British Columbia, in their applications for the Olympics. In the case of Montreal it was that we were not prepared to assist financially in the organization and carrying out of the Olympics.


Donald MacInnis: Would the Prime Minister speak to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in order to clear up the ambiguity in his report on sports and physical fitness which has just been released?



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-SCOPE OF NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD INVESTIGATION OF APPLICATION

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the government given any policy directive to the National Energy Board so that in considering the application for development of power from rivers flowing into James Bay the board will study the effects on the ecology of the region, the possible loss of resources such as lumber and minerals, and the displacement of Indians who live in the area, before giving approval to the project?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I believe the first two items referred to in the hon. member's question are within the direct purview of the board under the terms of the National Energy Board Act. I am not sure whether the last item he referred to is under their terms of reference, but I will certainly be pleased to consider same.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF INDIANS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is his department giving careful examination to the application for the development of the James Bay rivers so that the interests of the Indians living in the area will not be
May 11, 1971

adversely affected, as were the interests of the Indians living behind the Bennett Dam?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter and as Quebec Indians have made such a statement I have requested my officials to place the problem on the agenda of the next meeting of the three-level committee including representatives of the federal and provincial governments and of the Indians.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS   DISCUSSION OF REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FEDERAL PAYMENTS UNDER SHARED-COST PROGRAMS

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of yesterday's statement by the Quebec minister of social affairs that the federal government has failed to establish minimum living standards and that the province should have precedence, is the government considering discussing with Quebec and the other provinces at the constitutional conference the possibility of paying out the federal portion of shared-cost programs without the existing stipulations on the use of such funds?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a meeting has been planned of the federal and provincial ministers of health and welfare for, I believe, May 25 or May 26. That federal-provincial meeting is to report to the federal-provincial meeting in June. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the provinces will make their representations and the federal government will make its representations.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Northern Development. It arises out of the government's announced intention to force the closure of six church youth camps in Riding Mountain National Park. Because of the concern and the alarm of the people of western Canada, will the minister give the reasons for these closures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that if the minister is going to give reasons it should not be done at this time. If the hon. member suggests there is urgency in knowing what these reasons are, perhaps the matter could be considered at the time of adjournment.
* *
*



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate if progress has been made in studies and talks with various cities, including the city of Regina, on rail line relocation projects, and could he indicate if he will be in a position to announce a policy on this matter in the near future?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to evade the question, I am afraid it is a little too broad in its general direction for me to answer. I think I might say that in some cases progress has been made and in some cases it has not. I shall try to get together an up to date report and make it available to the hon. member.
* *
*
*
* [DOT]



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Sian Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that Home Oil owns a major interest in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines, the only carrier of natural gas to eastern Canada, has the government given any consideration to the possible adverse effects of vertical integration which may result from Consumers Gas Co. acquiring control of Home Oil?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and



AIRPORTS


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister made any proposal to the provincial authorities of Ontario with respect to a short takeoff and landing airport at Toronto, either in association with the proposals regarding the new international airport or apart from those proposals?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not
in the manner in which the hon. member phrases the question, Mr. Speaker. The whole question of the future of short takeoff and landing aircraft is of course part of a study going on with regard to airport service for southwestern Ontario, but we have not identified a particular site nor put forward what I might describe as a precise proposition.

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada AGRICULTURE



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILL-SUGGESTED MEETING WITH PROVINCES

Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of the reply he gave yesterday when he said he was not surprised that a number of provinces had wavered in their agreement on Bill C-176. Is the Prime Minister now prepared to call the provinces together again to discuss their approach to Bill C-176?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, after so many months of waiting for a bill it is not surprising that provinces want to try other methods, such as going to the Supreme Court but we still feel that the best method is to proceed with this bill.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will have noticed that for the last few minutes I have tried to allow as many hon. members as possible to ask questions. A number of hon. members did not have an opportunity to ask their supplementaries but perhaps they might be asked as first questions tomorrow.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I
direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. In view of the mounting concern expressed by public service staff associations over the apparent readiness of the government to agree to the recommendations of the Clyne committee, particularly the one which would remove top public servants from collective bargaining, is the minister now in a position to make it clear that the government does not accept that particular recommendation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is asking me to prejudge a review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which is now under study.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley Howard Knowles: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my point of order has nothing to do

with the fact that I did not get in my supplementary question; I will ask that tomorrow. There have been discussions among House leaders about the length of speeches today and I think you will find that, despite the provisions of Standing Order 58(13), there is agreement that the principal spokesman for each of the four parties should be granted 30 minutes and all other speakers 20 minutes. There is no suggestion that the 20 minutes be reduced but there is the hope that nobody will go over that.


Mr. Baldwin:: This is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Gerald William Baldwin: That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress for northern Canada offers great opportunities for the people of this country; and that the economic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed progress; and that it is essential to make appropriate changes in our approach in respect of northern Canada;
And this House condemns the government for its failure to promote a truly Canadian strategy for the north based on human, capital and natural resources, and urges that appropriate policies be adopted at once that will bring about such development in that region.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when you started reading the motion I saw that there were in the House three of the four horsemen on the government side who have been riding off in different directions on this issue over the last two or three months but three of the horsemen have vanished, leaving only the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I had hoped that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis)-soon, we hope, to be given the accolade of minister of the environment-the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and of course last, but not by any means least, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) would have remained for the debate. I am in great hopes that the latter hon. member, before this debate concludes, may give us the benefit of his views, although he may well have left that opportunity to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) who is here and who may well be informed on this particular issue.
This party, which has the honour to be Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, may not have any copyright on issues dealing with the north but certainly by right of its history, traditions and actions, it has the best right to bring forward a motion of this kind. The first leader of this party after confederation was one of the main architects of national unity. He brought in a program and a national policy which has continued to the present time.
During my period in this House and during the elections in 1957 and 1958 the party, then led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), pro-
May 11, 1971

posed a program of northern development which caught the imagination of this country and which was to a large extent implemented during the period when that government was in office. It was the Conservative party which built the railroads that stitched together the far flung areas of the northern continent. When we talk about a country which is unique we use the words bilingualism, multiculturalism, diversity and economic conditions. I suggest to you and to this House, Mr. Speaker, that there is a quality of uniqueness about a country which has a large and well established industrial base, a great expanse of territory and a frontier land awaiting human development to bring about the coalition of forces involved in a nation of this kind.
In spite of differences of language, manners and customs, and in spite of things silently gone out of mind and of things violently destroyed, this land should bind together in passion and understanding and shared problems, a great empire of human society. From time to time this party has been the instrument to bring out to some substantial extent this form of development.
In 1957 and 1958 there was a Road to Resources program; there was the construction of a railroad line into the northern territories, something which had been talked about for many years but was implemented by this party; there was construction of airports and airstrips throughout the north; there were a number of factors which brought about facilities in northern Canada which had been lacking in the past. In his concern for the questions relating to northern development as they touch upon industrial development in other parts of Canada and the dangers of pollution, the present leader of this party has seen fit to intervene and to inspect personally some of the problems of the north and to talk to its people. While he has had some opportunities to discuss this in the House, I am sure we will have an opportunity to hear more about it.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House that our party is qualified by experience and desire to deal With this particular problem. On the other hand, the government is made up of a party which, from the earliest days, has scoffed, jeered and poured contempt on programs leading to northern development. The records of this House are studded with illustrations of my statement. Defences are like trousers; they should be kept up at all times. Unfortunately, the government's defences in this area are down, and there has been a most improper and indecent exposure of the government's insignificant and irrelevant programs with regard to northern development. History shows that this government and the Liberal party have scuttled the expansion of genuine Canadian development. I will not go into the facts; they are well known and taught in the history books. Children in school know that the Liberal party has never been interested in northern development.


An hon. Member:: That is not correct.


Gerald William Baldwin: I and certain of my colleagues have seen at close range the precise form which that opposition has
Development of Northern Canada taken. Who will not recall that the leader of the Liberal party in 1957 and 1958 jeered at the Roads to Resources program and said that we would be building roads from igloo to igloo. Those roads were built, Mr. Speaker. They were built in all provinces of this country and they laid the foundation on which we could build further and necessary northern development.
What about the Pine Point railway, Mr. Speaker? For 50 years, or ever since Alberta came into confederation, there was talk of this development. That was the dream of people in northern Alberta and in the Northwest Territories. Motions were brought in this House under the administration of Right Hon. Mackenzie King, and under that of other Liberal leaders, yet nothing was done. In 1958, the man who led this party made a pledge, and in due course that pledge was implemented. The Liberal party, then in opposition, bitterly and strenuously opposed the construction of that railway.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am afraid that they were joined in opposition by my friends to my left, who were then members of the CCF party. They voted against the bill incorporating the Pine Point railway. The Conservative government of the day, supported by its Conservative members, instituted and brought forward in this country the very wise and sensible program of railway development which has brought about such great improvement in our northern country.
My hon. friends opposite, both while in government and in opposition, have also been opposed to certain other programs. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) illustrated, with his eloquent and articulate remarks, the dangers inherent in the Yukon minerals legislation and in the bill dealing with the Northern Canada Power Commission. This afternoon, in the question period, the Bennett dam was mentioned. Although I and members of my party protested the building of this dam to the Liberal government of the day, that Liberal government insisted upon proceeding with that dam in the face of what I suggest were definite warnings about dangers which were inherent in the proposal to construct that dam. Its construction was bound to affect seriously all those who inhabited the downstream areas in Alberta and in the Northwest Territories. The government insisted on going ahead. They would not demand from the government of British Columbia, as it was their moral and legal duty to do, assurances that that government would proceed to secure a permit under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the building of that dam. This would have meant that the government of British Columbia would have had to file documents indicating what its engineering plans were. I am convinced that if that information had been made available to the public, the people of Canada and this party would have brought pressure on the government of British Columbia because they would have realized the necessity of taking steps to prevent the serious deterioration of the environment which has affected the people of northern Alberta and of the Northwest Territories.

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
The Liberal government has dragged its feet continuously on the question of self-government for the Yukon and for the Northwest Territories. They are satisfied, as they have always been, to maintain the status quo, meaning a quasi-colonial establishment.
May I turn to the motion in my name. After all, I could spend 30 minutes cataloguing the sins, errors and omissions of this government. I want to speak constructively and to make some proposals which I hope the government will consider, although I have strong doubts about that. I want to touch briefly on certain areas covered by the motion and leave to my colleagues the task of going into them in more detail later. We must re-examine the form in which we deliver our resources outside of Canada's borders. Canadian needs of the future must be examined and taken into consideration when considering the question of our resources. We must consider dangers to the environment involved in the processing of our resources in northern Canada and in the use of our rivers, waters, minerals, natural gas and petroleum. We must consider the extent to which we can make use of a combination of our resources to produce power. We must also consider the best way to use resources which we have in large quantities. I am talking about resources which may be refined and processed in this country. For far too long there has been no meeting of minds on this issue. I hope that the hon. member for Duvernay who has made public comments on these matters will enlarge on his views in this debate.
I am convinced that in certain situations we ought to rationalize certain industries. It will be possible for the people of this country to process and refine, in secondary and tertiary industries, resources obtained and developed in the north. All this will require careful planning. We will need to examine our resources and catalogue them. We will need to decide where the markets are for these and, having decided whether the markets are to be in Canada or outside or both inside and outside of Canada, we must decide where we can best process these resources. If we can best process some of these resources in Canada, we must consider our ability to deliver some of these resources to countries outside Canada. This, in turn, will lead to the consideration of transportation questions. Too often we have blindly worked out schemes of transportation to apply in northern Canada without calculating carefully what we ought to transport and where we ought to transport it. Careful planning of that sort will be absolutely essential.
There must be, therefore, a rational approach to the exploring and to the cataloguing of our resources, and a rational approach to our consideration of markets, to our consideration of the placing, processing and refining of these resources, and to our consideration of transportation questions. We have heard much about transportation from this government; yet all too often, when rhetoric is mated with a Liberal government, we find that it produces only masterly inactivity. Some of my colleagues will deal with the question of the TAPS line, the question of using the Mackenzie valley for pipelines, the dangers inherent in that course and what precautions

must be taken before that route may be used if there is an economic need to use it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made a few comments on this matter. Yet his comments have been of the kind that make his silences positively delightful, Mr. Speaker.
However, I want to deal mainly with the question of the native peoples of the country, and the extent to which they are enabled to develop their individuality, something which has been lost in much of our society. With regard to the native peoples, Mr. Speaker, the attitude of this government is abysmal. In particular, I refer to the refusal of this government to accept the fact that the people of the Northwest Territories and other parts of Canada have aboriginal rights. I do not have the time to deal with this as extensively as I would like, but I want to refer the House to the royal proclamation of 1763. I am going to analyse and summarize that document very briefly in so far as it deals with aboriginal rights.
This royal proclamation made it abundantly clear that the Indian people of Canada, including western and northwestern Canada, have specific aboriginal rights with regard to their properties, including the land, forests and minerals under the land. That was made quite plain. As a matter of fact, in one or two judgments the late Mr. Justice Sissons of the territorial court of the Northwest Territories referred to this proclamation and the rights of the aboriginal people. He made it abundantly clear in his judgments that these rights have never been surrendered.
We have a situation today where the government is talking about mineral rights in the north, the possibility of pipelines down the Mackenzie valley and development of the north. I suggest to hon. members that a condition precedent to acts of this nature must be the negotiation and settlement of the aboriginal rights of the native people of the north. I wish to add on this particular score that the history of the dealings of the English speaking people throughout the world with native people, while it is in part a record which is not universally good, nevertheless has always been one of practicing understanding of the native people. This practice has acquired the status of a tradition, almost a law, by which the natives have rights. The lands belong to them until they are taken away by act of Parliament or negotiation. This course was followed in so far as the lands between the west shore of Lake Superior and the Rocky mountains were concerned. A number of treaties were entered into. Those treaties were specifically enacted for the purpose of acquiring the rights and title to those lands from the Indian people. Concessions were made, although they were most inadequate. These treaties were never honoured. The people of this country have this on their conscience and they should be concerned about it. At least, in those cases, the government went through the form of executing a treaty.
For a large part of the Northwest Territories, there are absolutely no treaties. The minister shakes his head. I admit that one of the treaties did cover the southern
May 11, 1971

part of the Mackenzie district, but that treaty was nego-ciated outside of the territories. At that time there was not the distinction that exists today between the territories and the provinces. Because of that, the treaty included some of the areas of northern Canada.
If pipelines are built in the Mackenzie valley, they will be built under circumstances which at the present time do not take into account the legal and moral rights of the native people of northern Canada. That is the smallest part of the problem. What about the rights of these people to the minerals, lands and forests? I suggest it will lay heavy upon the consciences of the Canadian people, including the members of this House, if this pipeline is constructed before negotiations being entered into take place with the natives. This problem will be settled only when there have been conferences and discussions, not the kind of consultation in which we say to the Indian people that this is what we are going to give them. There should be prior, reasonable consultations and ultimate agreement. If we do not do this, we will have something on our consciences for a great many years.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would not mind, Mr. Speaker, but my time is exceedingly limited. Maybe the House will grant permission later.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will give you the time.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am willing, Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees to grant me extra time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In order to save time, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member whether he is aware that the Indians of Canada have formed a committee on Indian rights. This committee is financed by the government. It is now looking into this question.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am aware that the government, pressed by the opposition, has granted an opportunity for the Indian people to press for their rights. However, they have asked for their rights and they are not getting them. This is what we are complaining about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I only have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I want to go into the matter of the extent to which the north may redevelop that which we have almost lost, the spark of individuality. I wish to quote a statement made by John Buchan at the time of the commencement of World War II. At that time he visited the Peace River in his capacity as Governor General. I had an opportunity to show him some of the places of historical interest, including the place where Alexander MacKenzie spent the winter of 1791. He intended to write a historical novel dealing with the north, but death intervened. I wish to quote a statement he made shortly before his death. He talked about the Peace River pioneer. This statement can now be widened to cover the pioneers all over the north. I quote:
He is wholly secure, he possesses his soul, he is the true philosopher. He is one of the few aristocrats left in the world. He
Development of Northern Canada
has a right sense of the values of life because his cosmos embraces both nature and man. I think he is the most steadfast human being now alive.
I am glad to represent people like that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewis:: Not to mention the fact that you think you are like that.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, no, Mr. Speaker. We repress the individual at our peril, and we tamper with him to our great danger. We erect monolithic and gigantic imitations of the prehistory hunting band, the earliest example of the human herd, which are dedicated to the initiation and enlargement of the welfare state. In the end, we will find, as we are beginning to find now, that no such state can continue to exist without some form of police power to enforce conformity.
I do not know whether the exception will always prove the rule, but certainly it has been our experience as a nation that men at war, fighting for survival, will tighten their social contract, renounce individual demands, and exist as a single group. The quality of the group, not the distinction of the individual, then becomes a criterion for survival. Thinking of the individual as the product of the north and the north as a place which can generate individualism as we used to know it, some people conceive of the individual as the ancient reality and society as the human invention. I cannot accept this. It seems that the social order, with its rules and regulations, alphas and omegas, territories and hierarchies, has been the evolutionary way. Surely, it was the individual who created our civilization. It was certainly the individual who created the north. He went in there on his own and created what we have at the present time. This can be seen if we look back over closely recorded history and check out the contributions which have been made. For this reason in many parts of this country, certainly the north, we must make elbow room for individuality.
I realize that it is fashionable today to accept violence, aggression, crime and related phenomena as the product of the individual. There is a limited element of truth in this. However, when we examine our history, are we not entitled to say that the aggressive self-assertive tendencies in the emotional life of the individual are less dangerous to the species than the integrative tendencies of group society? Certainly, the number of victims of individual crimes committed in any given period of history cannot be compared to the masses who have been sacrificed in the name of a religion, a dynasty or a political system. And so, while we desire to redirect our trinking to provide far a better use of our resources, to deal with the question of taxation so that taxation may be used as an instrument of incentive, not as a weapon to blunt the initiative of individuals in the north, while we wish to establish a blueprint for development leading to a greater use of manpower in the processing and refining of our resources, and while provision must be made for consequential transportation facilities, to my mind the human resources which can be accommodated and shaped on the anvil of the north, rank highest, for it is

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada toward a reacknowledgment of the virtues of individualism that the north must be adopted.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert on the north, but two or three experts in my party have insisted that I say a few words at the outset of this debate, so I have agreed to do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You will soon become an expert like me.


David Lewis: I can say to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), I am learning I have to know a little something about every aspect of Canada, and I shall be participating in debates on that basis.


An hon. Member:: A good idea.


David Lewis: I want to take an entirely different road from that followed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) because I do not believe the situation we find in the north today is the result of action by this government alone. It is just as much the result of a vision which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had some years ago, and what he tried to do. Indeed, it is the result of decades of a certain type of approach to the north.
What disturbs members of my party is not so much some of the details involved in this approach as the fact that the traditional attitude to the resources of the north has been the same as has been shown toward the resources houth of the north, if I may put that way, namely, a greedy and reckless desire for exploitation, a greedy and reckless depletion of non-renewable resources for very little purpose other than to ship them out of this country, mainly to the United States. In all of this development in the north, there has been no evidence of any intention to build communities. There has been no adequate concern shown for the native population over the years, and I am not singling out the present minister or the present government. There has been no adequate concern shown for the environment, no adequate concern for the future of Canada, that is whether or not some day we may need the resources we are now so anxious to yank out of the ground. There has been no adequate concern shown for the needs of the world, really. We simply cannot wait to exploit these non-renewable resources and sell them to the one country in the world which uses up by far the largest proportion of the planet's natural resources, necessarily to the disadvantage of newly emerging countries who will need them badly in a little while. And we are doing this without any thought, it would appear, for its effect on the increasingly serious problem of foreign ownership in this country.
The wealth with which we have been endowed, not only in the Yukon and Northwest Territories but in regions to the south, is now to be recklessly exploited by large corporations with financial assistance from the government, to no social purpose which is evident to anyone who has studied this subject-and I have studied it a little. Why are the government and the Official Opposition so anxious that all this exploration for oil, minerals and gas should take place?


Erik Nielsen: Do you want to keep the north in a deep
freeze?


David Lewis: Not at all. If the hon. member would wait awhile, perhaps I can enlighten him. I shall certainly try. What are we seeking to accomplish? Does the minister know what he is trying to accomplish? Does anyone in the government, or even the department, know what is the long range plan? Is it intended that the population in the north should be increased, and if so are plans being made for that situation? Is it intended that the native people are to be employed? If so, are they to be suitably trained? Is it intended that the resources which are exploited should be used for any other purpose than shipment south of the Canadian border? In the course of a fair amount of reading in the last 24 hours I have been unable to discover any long range plan. It appears we are simply anxious to invite every corporation in a position to do so to accept the benefits and incentives provided by the government, to enter the north, endanger the environment and do all the other things I have mentioned, without purpose in terms of the future of this country or, indeed, the future welfare of the world.
Take the question of concern for the natives. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rightly insisted that one of the first things to be done is to settle the claims of the native people in the northern regions. It seems clear that they have rights to the land and its resources. Some machinery must be set up to deal with these claims, and not merely a committee to discuss them, but a body authorized to take steps to settle them. As the minister well knows, both the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States have bills before them at the present time in connection with this subject. I believe they are now in the hands of the joint committee whose function it is to reconcile legislation introduced in each of the two houses. These bills seem to suggest payments to the natives of Alaska amounting to well over $1 billion besides large tracts of land which would be granted to them for the future. But I have heard no suggestion that consideration is to be given to aboriginal rights of native people in the Canadian north.
In turn, now, to consider our record as employers in the north. I cannot see how the minister or anyone else in Canada can help feeling ashamed of this. In all the mining operations in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, only about 4J per cent of the employees are drawn from the native people.


Erik Nielsen: Less than that.


David Lewis: I think it is a little less than that in the Yukon and a little more in the Northwest Territories. And over the two territories, according to one expert from the minister's department, the average is about 4.5 per cent. The proportion of native people to the total polulation in those two territories is close to 50 per cent-some 23 per cent in the Yukon and about 60 per cent in the Northwest Territories. The population in the

May 11, 1971

latter area is, of course, considerably larger than in the Yukon. So although the native people account for almost 50 per cent of the population in the north, only 4.5 per cent of them are employed in these mining companies.
When the private corporations were asked in a survey made by two gentlemen, one of whom was from the minister s department, as to why the mining corporations employ so few native people, one of the answers was:
The point Is made that the industry is not able to shoulder the cost of training or developing the Indigene-
That is a word I have not seen before and which makes me shudder, but I suppose it means someone who is a member of the indigenous population.
-that this role belongs to the public sector and that only when the public sector raises the indigenous labour force, both in training skills and job attitudes, to the required level are they more likely to fit into the industrial environment.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You should read some of my speeches on this.


David Lewis: I have read the minister's speeches, and without intending to be anything but complimentary may I say he is as brave in his speeches as anyone I have known, as forward looking in his words as many people I have known, and as backward and inadequate in his actions as many ministers who have occupied his portfolio before him. The fact that he makes speeches about this does not change the situation; the situation remains the same.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not true.


David Lewis: The minister says that is not true, but let him wait a moment for I shall have more to say about his own department. We give incentive grants and very large tax exemptions to these large corporations which make a very considerable profit, yet they are not prepared to spend any money on upgrading the education and skills of the native people. We, the people of Canada, have to do this for them out of the public purse; otherwise these companies will not employ any of the native people.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Is the hon. member aware that in the last agreement we signed with the industry to develop resources in the north we put in clauses to force them to hire native people?


David Lewis: I have seen those clauses-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Then mention it.


David Lewis: -and I am glad to mention it; and I shall be very glad, after these agreements have been in force for some time, to examine the situation three, four, five years from now. I take such clauses at their face value. I have had a little experience in this world, and the fact that there is a clause in an agreement does not satisfy me or dampen my fears or doubts. These corporations have had a way all through their existence in Canada of finding loopholes in any clause in almost any agreement. Until I see the result and effect of the clauses in the agreement, the minister is not going to raise my hopes by
Development of Northern Canada saying that the department has found some words to put into the agreement. I bet you dollars to doughnuts that sooner or later the department will find some way of saying to the corporation that if they cannot find skilled labour in the north they should find it somewhere else.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The problem is that it is the unions who support you who object to that.


David Lewis: If the minister wants to engage in that kind of argument I shall be pleased to join him, but I know of no union supporting either me or my party that is standing in the minister's way. If the minister refers to the fact that a good many unions in the north have rigid rules that make this difficult-and I condemn and criticize that as readily as he does, though if I were in his place I would be a little ashamed to use that as an excuse for inactivity by his department over many years-then the unions are not a law unto themselves and their rigid rules can be dealt with in the north as they have been dealt with elsewhere.


Erik Nielsen: The problem lies with the minister's bureaucrats.


David Lewis: If the minister and his bureaucrats, referred to by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), have any ideas on how to overcome this particular obstacle that is created by the rigid rules mainly of the construction unions-and, by the way, let me inform the minister, if he does not already know, that these are not unions which by and large support either me or my party-then he will have support from my colleagues and myself in making these rules reasonable ones. So let him not take refuge in that kind of excuse which does not meet the general situation.
The fact is that nothing important has happened to improve the employment opportunities of our native peoples. The minister has made the statement that by 1977 he would like to see people from the north constitute 75 per cent of the total work force employed there by his department. In a story that appeared in the Globe and Mail on January 26 of this year the following appears:
Northern Development Minister Jean Chretien's prediction that 75 per cent of government employees in the Northwest Territories would be native northerners by 1977 won't be realized, officials say.
"The matter is being reviewed by an advisory commission on northern development," a Chretien aide said yesterday.
A little further on in the story reference is made to the proportion of native people employed in his department in 1961, which I have calculated to be about 20 per cent. Then, the article continues:
A federal official said the percentage of native northerners now employed has changed little.


Erik Nielsen: That is in the Northwest Territories.


David Lewis: The percentage in the Northwest Territories has changed little. If that is not true the minister will have an opportunity of contradicting it, but this is the story that appeared in the January 26 edition of the Globe and Mail put out by the Canadian Press, and according to information received from other sources this

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
is true. I notice that the minister is now quiet because he finds he cannot blame the unions or anyone else. The tact of the matter is that in ten years there has not been any improvement in the proportion ot natives in the employ of his department in the Northwest Territories.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Lewis: Or there has been no improvement of any consequence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like the hon. member to be a bit more factual. In the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development this morning I outlined the position to the members of that committee and they said there was a hell of a big improvement. We went from 700 in my department-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -to almost 2,000 in two years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister does not have the floor. This is not a question of privilege but a point for debate. I assume that the minister will have an opportunity to take part in this debate, at which time he will be able to give his interpretation of the facts.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you were tempted to say what a hell of a point of privilege, in answer to the language used by the minister. The improvement is still picayune despite what the minister says; and the fact that this has occurred in the minister's own department shows some of the difficulties that are in the way.
I think it would be much better for the conscience of this government and of this parliament if the minister were to tell us about the difficulties that are in the way, and if the minister would indicate the amount of money his department is willing to put into the necessary facilities to upgrade the educational skills of the native people in order to enable more of them to be employed both by private corporations and government departments. We must not forget that government departments are very large employers of labour.
I used the term the other day in another context "mincing steps of progress" in regard to our native people. By now we ought to have taken giant steps of progress. Every time we pick up a report by a member of the minister's department, a journalist, student, professor or what have you, who has made a survey of the situation we see the same situation, namely that the use of native people in the exploitation of our resources in the north has been very small indeed. Have we made a study of the need for all these minerals, oil and gas that we are now looking for in the north? Are these reserves required in Canada or elsewhere outside of the United States of America? Has anyone made a study to make certain what would happen 5, 10, or 20 years from now if we had these reserves for sale at that time when the needs of the United States will be a great deal more
stringent and the needs of the other parts of the world will be serious? Have we made any study at all? I suggest to you that we have not. We have a large tract of land with which this country is blessed. Everyone expects there are large reserves of minerals, oil, gas and other riches, so, we simply invite people to break open the land and pull out the resources without any plan or study whatsoever.
The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) was saying things which I think I could claim, without any arrogance, our party has been claiming for many years now.


An hon. Member:: You can have him.


David Lewis: Someone said "You can have him". I always knew how easily the Liberal party sloughed off those who disagree with it, and I sometimes admit that with a little envy.


An hon. Member:: You will never get power that way.


David Lewis: I want to say to the hon. member for Duvernay that he is right when he points out to us that large amounts of capital are now being sunk into mineral, oil and gas exploration and exploitation and are being wasted. The only real justification for going at these resources now in any part of Canada, particularly the part over which this government has jurisdiction, is to build around these resources complete industrial complexes. We should not only take the resources out of the land, we should be building processing, smelting and refining plants, and building within reasonable economic distance necessary secondary and tertiary manufacturing plants, so that around these resources in Canada's land we are building all the various industrial complexes for which the resources should be used.
In that way only can we build communities up north that are viable and lasting. In that way only can we have a permanent type of security for the native people and the other people who make their homes in the north, and in that way only can we have what the hon. member for Peace River was talking about, the development of more of the individualism he suggests the north produces. I am sure he is right. In this way only can we attract more people up there. This is the only way we can build cities in the north of greater size, of viability and lasting usefulness to the people concerned rather than little cities populated with hippies as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested some time ago. That was a pretty meaningless and typical Prime Ministerial statement, or the kind of statement made by this Prime Minister.
Merely to pull the riches out of the ground and ship them away to the United States, as we do now, will mean that not only are we shipping our resources out, we are shipping thousands of jobs out of this country. We are making it impossible for this country to develop the larger industrial requirements which can meet the needs of the world as well as of Canada. We are making it impossible to plan for the real development of the north

May 11, 1971

which needs population as well as drills, machines and equipment. If you are not concerned about building the north with people, then of course these corporations will do it for you. They do not need very many people to pull the riches out of the ground and ship them out. That does not require very many people. That does require, as pointed out by the hon. member for Duvernay, very large capital but not many workers.
If we are thinking of developing and building the north in community terms, not only for the native people and other people who are there, but for the people who can be attracted from the crowded cities in the south because of a particular kind of life that many people in the south might prefer, then we are talking of the kind of planning I have been suggesting. That kind of planning will not take place if we merely hold out carrots to the large private corporations, well over half of which are foreign-owned. More than 60 per cent or 70 per cent of the area involved is being exploited by foreign-owned corporations, mainly from the United States, although not exclusively so.
This will all require public investment, public control and public planning. It will require the kind of Canada development corporation the NDP has proposed, with a large funding that the minister and his associates could then use if they had the imagination and the will to do so. They could then develop the riches in the north for the benefit of Canada, the Canadian people and for the development of much larger populations in decent, modern communities in the north. It is only in this way we will get to the point of moving self-government for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories out of the talking stage and into reality.


Erik Nielsen: How could it when the public would not be controlling it?


David Lewis: Let the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) not become so worried, because I am not talking about all this being controlled from Ottawa. If the hon. member for Yukon would stop being a lawyer for large private corporations, he would if I had the chance, with his great skills as an advocate and a lawyer, he could become a lawyer for some public corporations doing some good for the north which he represents rather than those private corporations he now represents.


Erik Nielsen: That's not nice.


David Lewis: I do not always try to be nice, I try to be exact and that sometimes is not the same thing. At that point we could talk about self-government for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This would be more realistic because the communities would be larger and selfsufficient, and we would then have a leading area in Canada in terms of human welfare in this country.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege. Let me assure the hon. member that I would give up my corporation practice and trade places with that hon. member who is a wealthy labour lawyer.


An hon. Member:: Touche.
Development of Northern Canada


David Lewis: I would not say touche at all. I was going to say something rather silly but perhaps I should not. If I exchanged positions with the hon. member I feel certain I would be better off, but I do not know anything about him and he knows nothing about me. I have not been practising labour law since I was re-elected in 1965, except in little driblets, so my friend does not have to worry about that.
In short, let me repeat what I commenced to say and then I will sit down. Our concern is not merely with the details, which will be pointed out during the debate and have been pointed out already, but with the general approach to the subject. We are concerned about the reckless and greedy exploitation of resources without any plan for the north, the native people there or for Canada as a whole. Let me express my convictions that five years from now, when a debate on this subject takes place, we will say the same things about each other because, relatively speaking, the position will still be that the large private corporations will be making a killing out of the north and that the native people and others in the north, as in many other parts of Canada, will be getting very little in return for the exploitation of Canada's rich resources. I therefore plead with the minister that he pay some attention to the over-all long-term program, and tell the House and the people of Canada whether he is merely interested in depleting the resources or that he and his government are interested in building a permanent series of communities where Canadians can live in comfort, dignity and in pride.
Therefore, in order to make clear what we have in mind and in view of the fact that I find it a little difficult to understand precisely what kind of policy the mover of the motion had in mind, I move:
That the motion he amended by deleting all the words after the words "that appropriate policies be adopted" and by substituting therefor the following words:
"which would take into account environmental dangers, the problem of foreign ownership, the future needs of Canada, and the basic and prior rights of the native inhabitants of the Territories, including their claim for a settlement that would recognize their rights in the land of its resources".
I move this amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), because the motion as proposed merely talks about bringing about such development in that region, without enumerating the elements which are of importance. We thought it would be useful to set out the elements the policy ought to have.


Erik Nielsen: You left out the other inhabitants of the north.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, our country's wealth, importance and size offer us in fact endless possibilities. We are all aware of the huge potential of these vast territories in Northern Canada. Unfortunately, it is quite true that the present government has spread

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada confusion and delayed progress as is mentioned in the motion now before us.
Hesitations and delays have jeopardized the successful start of development in this vast region. It even seemed, at one time, that our powerful neighbours to the South were enjoying so much powers that the very unity of our territory could be involved.
So I agree with the non confidence motion which in part reads as follows:
-condemns the government for its failure to promote a truly Canadian strategy for the North based on human capital and natural resources,-
As long as we fail to apply the basic and elementary principles of a sound economy, we will always meet with difficulties of all kinds which too often become insuperable obstacles.
The appropriate programs which would cause such a development to take place in that area, as recommended in the motion, cannot be but of an economic character.
Needless to say, I take into consideration the preservation of the rights and privileges of the native Indians and Eskimos, this being but one aspect of the overall respect for the human individual.
But, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I shall dwell a little longer on the economic aspect of the problem raised by northern development. An adequate financial policy would first determine the true viable potential, taking into account the existing natural resources and the human resources required for this development. The actual potential or actual credit of the area could be determined and converted into banking credit by way of our own Bank of Canada.
If we could start off from this elementary principle of issuing the credit we need to develop whatever is physically apt to be developed, most of the difficulties would dissolve. We have been saying for years and we are still saying more forcibly and vehemently than ever that for us the time has come to take a hard look at the possibility of placing credit in the service of Canada's development and particularly in the service of the development of these immense undeveloped regions which constitute the Canadian north. These areas could contribute greatly to the welfare and progress of all Canadians.
It would therefore be important to try precisely to use interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada for the development of these tremendous natural resources of the great northern territory, which are either underground or lying on the surface.
Mr. Speaker, one cannot object, in my opinion, that this is the same old story, and that we think we can solve all problems by saying: Let us use the Bank of Canada!
Mr. Speaker, when something is true, even if its authenticity and profitability have never been fully tested, it remains true, and we can always think better of it, at a given time, and apply it as we would wish, as an increasing proportion of the Canadian people would wish.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we eliminate this problem of capital investment, as far as northern development is concerned, by using the credit possibilities of the Bank of Canada, we could give more time to the consideration of programs, engineering works and their consequences on the native population of these areas. We could, in other words, carry out much more profitable, efficient and humane work, if we were not so concerned with that big problem of capital investment.
We are all aware to some extent, as I said a while ago, of the development possibilities in the Far North, especially of the inexhaustible oil resources. However, we would have again to consider the development of those oil resources in a way that would benefit the citizens of this country. One overriding concern should dictate every agreement and progress in this regard, namely that it must be really useful not only to the people of these regions, but to all Canadians, and this constant care which should be ours, would, in my opinion, allow for the harmonious development of these regions, for the greatest pride and the greatest good of all people in this country.
The development of all the other mineral resources, the importance of which is not exactly known to us, might result in a true expansion which could only please all Canadians.
The motion now before us, says that the government has failed in its task in this regard, and I think we have to admit that it is quite true. While proper ways to bring about the striking development of these resources are not yet quite settled, it is to be concluded that this is due either to a lack of foresight or to a lack of planning or simply, to a lack of leadership from this government.
Mr. Speaker, we hope very strongly that it will be possible at last to have the whole population enjoy the advantages provided by such a rich, such a vast country as ours; we hope all this wealth from the North will benefit Canada as a whole, while enabling Canadians to have a better life.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker,-


Gerald William Baldwin: You are not under oath.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Pardon? Naturally, I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate, and to talk about the part of the country that possibly I know best, the Canadian north. I commend the opposition for brining forward this non-confidence motion because I have no doubt that when the debate is concluded the people of Canada and this House will recognize the work done and the progress made in the Canadian north as a result of the policies of the government.
Had I the right, which I do not, I would like to amend this motion to congratulate the government on its pro-

May 11, 1971

grams and progress, and to urge it to accelerate what it has been doing in the Canadian north. Any of us who have read the motion can only wonder what the opposition was really proposing to say or do. The first sentence reads:
That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress for Northern Canada offers great opportunities for the people of this country-
That is obvious, Mr. Speaker. It is like motherhood. Then, the sentence continues:
-and that the economic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed progress-
Surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was the kick-off speaker for the opposition. I thought it would have been the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who, in my view, has probably forgotten more about the Canadian north than the rest of his party will ever know.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: What did the hon. member for Peace River say was wrong? He did not say a word about that. He dwelt on past glories of days gone by "when we were in power and we had a vision of the north."
Then, the motion reads:
-and that it is essential to make appropriate changes in our approach in respect of Northern Canada;
I listened attentively to the lead-off speaker for the opposition, the hon. member for Peace River. I am sorry to say that I must have fallen asleep when he suggested changes because somehow or other I missed any changes or new policies suggested by him on behalf of the Official Opposition.


Erik Nielsen: You wouldn't recognize a change if it came back from the laundry, Bud.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Then, the motion continues:
And this House condemns the government for its failure to promote a truly Canadian strategy for the North based on human, capital and natural resources-
And this is the key
-and urges that appropriate policies be adopted at once that will bring about such development in that region.
The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, did not suggest one change in policy.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker; I hate to interfere with this well documented and reasonably articulated speech but I must point out that fully 30 per cent, 35 per cent of my speech was dedicated to that part of the proposition. I will send the hon. member a copy tomorrow and underline those parts.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I won't argue with the hon. member for Peace River because I did hear him say something about
Development of Northern Canada the Bennett dam. I will give him credit for talking about his province and about native people, but he seemed to indicate that the native peoples of the Northwest Territories are not all covered by treaties, which they are.


Erik Nielsen: No, they are not.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Yes, they are.


Erik Nielsen: Eskimos are Indian people. The Supreme Court said so.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Let us review the record of the government's accomplishment in so far as the development of the Canadian north is concerned. Back in the period 1958 to 1962, a proposal was advanced by a former deputy minister of northern development and Indian affairs to the effect that the Northwest Territories should be divided into two separate territories, one to be administered from Yellowknife and one from Ottawa. To give credit where credit is due-	,


Erik Nielsen: Gordon Robertson.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You know who it was, as well as I do. This proposal met with a bad reaction from the people in the north so it was abandoned, for which members of the opposition deserve a great deal of credit.
Following that the Carrothers Commission was appointed, one of its terms of reference being to recommend to the government a political organization system for the people of the Territories. That Commission made its recommendations, and this government has taken action on them. On previous occasions in the House I have mentioned the action which has been taken by the government in respect of the recommendations of the Carrothers Commission. However, it may be useful to review a few of those recommendations once again.
The Carrothers Commission recommended that in no way should the Northwest Territories be divided. The government accepted that recommendation. The Commission recommended the establishment of a capital in the Northwest Territories, with the transfer of public servants from Ottawa to the Territories to administer provincial type activities.


Erik Nielsen: Colonial.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: You will have your turn.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry I said that word.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Subsequent to that, the Territorial government has been established, which is completely responsible for provincial type functions throughout the area. As an illustration, I mention that within the last week or so there was a disturbance at one of the correctional institutions in the Territories. Only two, three or four years ago that would have become an issue on the floor of this House, with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) being asked what he intended to do to take corrective action. But now, because that institution comes under the responsibility of the Commis-

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
sioner of the Northwest Territories and the Council, this is all a local matter. This indicates one of the advances that have been made.


Erik Nielsen: The minister is still responsible.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We can always delegate when we have good people.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: In 1963, there were four elected representatives on the Territories Council and five appointed representatives. Over a period of seven years the number of elected members has increased by 150 per cent, from four to ten. All of the people in the Territories now have a territorial franchise, something they did not have six, seven or eight years ago.
As a result of the activities of the Territorial government, we have seen the development of local government in the Territories. People in the towns, villages and hamlets now have responsibility for managing their own affairs.


Erik Nielsen: You don't believe that.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Go and take a look for yourself.


Erik Nielsen: You can't believe that.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: I know you can't. You are backward in the Yukon; you have not got that far yet. Mr. Speaker, local government has brought to the citizens the knowledge that they can participate in the decisions of the government.


Erik Nielsen: Subject to the minister's will.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that all the people on the other side who are so knowledgeable have not had an opportunity to see some of these councils in action, taking total responsibility for their own activities, with their own budgets. I think they would be very impressed with the advance of democracy throughout the territories.
Regarding housing, upwards of 2,000 homes have been built for the Eskimo people since 1956, thus taking them out of tarpaper shacks.


Mr. Comeau:: It is not enough.


Mr. Boulanger:: It is a darned good start from what you did from 1958 to 1962.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: My friend across the way, who has a penchant for interrupting in areas he knows nothing about, should realize that this program has brought adequate accommodation to every Eskimo family in the territories. I am sorry I have not got the figures on Indian and Metis people, but I suspect they are comparable. I defy anyone to say that our education system in the territories is not as good as any in southern Canada. We have a program of integrated schools going back to the early fifties.
Now, I should like to give a few facts in the area of health. Since 1966, 22 nursing stations have been built to
serve Indians in the territories, three old nursing stations have been replaced and six have been expanded. Four health stations have been formed to accommodate small communities and a new hospital has been built this year at Fort Simpson. By the end of this year every community with a population of over 100 persons will have a nursing station staffed by professional nurses.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is better than southern Canada.


Erik Nielsen: It is wonderful what government can do.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: In the area of justice, Mr. Speaker, a few years ago we had a judge, a police magistrate, and an inadequate system for justices of the peace. All were directed and administered from Ottawa. In the press releases issued by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) since receiving the report on the administration of justice in the Hay River area, which dealt primarily with the administration of justice throughout the territories, it is indicated that virtually all the recommendations of Mr. Justice Morrow have been implemented. There is now a local department of justice and functions formerly carried out by Ottawa are now the responsibility of the commissioner and council of the Northwest Territories. Recently, the number of police magistrates has been increased by 100 per cent.


Erik Nielsen: You have a good sense of humour, Bud.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: This means that the federal government has turned over the reins for the administration of justice to the territorial government.
I listened to the remarks of the new Leader of the Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis). I admire him for the fact that he admitted he was not an expert on the north. Very few people who put a foot inside the sixtieth parallel, or who have read a book about the north, have not formed all sorts of opinions on what should or should not be done. However, Mr. Speaker, I did find his remarks somewhat ambivalent. I do not know whether he wanted to keep the north in cold storage and put everybody back in the igloo, whether he wanted to build satellite cities and let the resources come to the cities or whether he was trying to demonstrate what appears to be anti-Americanism. I was concerned about his confusion and I hope he can unravel it because I think some of the ideas of his party could have an influence on the development of the Canadian north. The idea of building the cities now but not developing the resources is not sound. You have to go where the resources are before you can put up the buildings; it is that simple.
Having been kind to the government up to this point, I think I must now mention a few things to encourage the government to continue in its present direction. We should start with Treaties 8 and 11 and aim at a dialogue between the Indian peoples of the Northwest Territories and the government regarding the unfulfilled provisions. Basically, these unfulfilled provisions relate to land rights. Within the treaties there is a provision that a certain tract of land would be granted to every Indian family, and the size of the tract would depend on the size of the
(Mr. Orange.]
May 11, 1971

family. Time and time again the Indians have said that they do not want to be put on reserves. They have said that so long as the sun rises in the east and the Mackenzie River flows to the north they want the right to hunt and trap throughout their land. The government and the Indian people of the territories must discuss this problem. The government must also soon talk to the Eskimo people about aboriginal rights and about the fact that the land traditionally used by the Eskimo people for hunting is now being used for other purposes.
I acknowledge that in some ways the government is responsive to the concerns of the Eskimo people. We have the example of Sachs Harbour where last year the trappers were concerned about the proposed seismic surveys. The government and the oil companies, under the direction of the minister, sat down with the people concerned and worked out a solution. Another example in the last few days has been the problem which the people of Coral Harbour brought to the notice of the department. Officials were despatched to the north to discuss it with them and today I received a telegram to the effect that an agreement had been reached.
Another area where I think the government must press forward is that of economic development in terms of the operator of a small business, such as a gas station or theatre. I do not understand why we have all sorts of designated areas in Canada where grants are available and yet the program does not apply north of the sixtieth parallel. I do not understand either why it is so difficult for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to provide a loan to the individual who wants to build his own home outside a serviced community. Nor can I understand why the Industrial Development Bank insists on a high percentage of capital in certain areas.


Erik Nielsen: Parliament controls CMHC.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, may I refer to what I was saying about the Industrial Development Bank; I have spoken about those things which will encourage and promote the development of the Canadian north.


Prosper Boulanger: This is the best speech that I have heard so far.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: We must give to the young people of Canada and of the north an opportunity for education. We must provide jobs for them. We cannot just leave the north in cold storage, to be developed at some future date. We must consider the hopes and aspirations of our young people.


Erik Nielsen: All ten thousand of them.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: They want to participate in the mainstream of Canadian life. Around Ottawa at any one time there are between 40 and 100 Indian and Eskimo youngsters who are taking educational and upgrading training. I defy anyone to look at those kids and tell the difference between them and other kids on the streets of Ottawa. We must develop within the framework of the policies of
Development of Northern Canada government those opportunities that will enable those young people to take their rightful place in the economy of the north. We must look at many things. We have talked about pipelines until they are coming out of our ears. I hope a pipeline comes down the Mackenzie valley. I want to see that pipeline, as do most people of the north. We want to see it because it will mean development for the north and permanent jobs for those involved with the operation of the pipeline. We want to see it properly installed in the ground and we want the environment and ecology of the north to be protected. We do not want the way of life of the people who might be affected to be disturbed unnecessarily.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so to advise him that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I had recognized the hon. member for South Shore. If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member for Northwest Territories will be allowed to continue.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, this is a limited debate and, although we appreciate the special interest in the subject of some hon. members, I really think that the remarks of the hon. member ought to be limited to the two or three more sentences necessary to finish his speech in an orderly way.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank hon. members for their co-operation. In conclusion may I say that, at this juncture in Canadian history, we ought to seize our opportunity of looking beyond our parochial boundaries. Development of the north will unify us. We ought to develop northern Canada in a truly national spirit. What we do in the north can become an example of the unity of Canada. What we do there will transcend the sort of regionalism too often found in other parts of the country. Northern development can bring together all the talents to be found in Canada. In developing the north we shall also develop the human resources found in this extensive land. The north can become a melting pot of languages and skills as people work directly for the benefit of the entire economy. I believe that the government has done a good job in the north. It has a tremendous responsibility to ensure the orderly and competent development of our north for the people of the north and for the people of Canada. It has that responsibility to the world, especially if we want to maintain our control of the Canadian north.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to be an expert on the north but I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on northern development and the state of the economy. It is becoming

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada increasingly evident to everyone except the government that our ship of state has been set on a collision course for the rocks of high unemployment and rising inflation. As we tack back and forth between these two hazards, Captain Trudeau and his crew of inexperienced landlubbers appear to be callously indifferent to the falling barometer of frustration among our people or the rising wind of indignation and concern over present policies among the large and small businessmen of this country.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleion):: I am feeling sea sick already.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Canadians today are calling out for leadership; they are calling for a firm hand at the wheel. Yet, instead of setting a true course, the present Liberal government has our ship of state going around in circles, like a ship without a rudder, subject to the whim of every senior civil servant or economic wind that blows. Without a chart or compass, without even a Kierans or a Hellyer to guide them, the present Liberal government is in a fog, with the Canadian nation wallowing in a sea of uncertainty over the right course to follow.


John Napier Turner: Now I am sea sick.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is for these reasons that we moved the motion on northern development and the state of the economy. The objective of our resource development policy especially in our northern areas, should be more jobs. If Canada processed her iron ore, then jobs would be created right here in Canada rather than in the United States. This is basically the same line of criticism respecting economic policy as voiced by the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) following his resignation from the cabinet.
Just what did that former cabinet minister say in his letter of resignation, as submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Among other things, he is reported to have said, "Canada is fortunate in its resource base and can insist on exports with a higher labour content. Tax concessions that force the pace of our raw material exports or favour the over-employment of capital, which we have to import, at the expense of labour, which is in surplus, would not be consistent with long run Canadian growth and employment objectives." "If Canada is to be an industrial force in the 1980's" he said, "we must be prepared now to husband our resources and to select those areas in which we can be internationally competitive and to manage and invest in the resources, physical and human, that will give us a compelling position." Those are strong words, Mr. Speaker, and it is evident that the former minister is of the opinion that Canadian economic policy is directed too heavily towards the export of resources. He is also concerned that present government tax policies favour investment in new machinery rather than the creation of jobs.
In my view there is nothing wrong with tax policies which favour investment in new machinery, since any company seeking to establish itself in the north must undertake additional expenses. At the same time, however, our tax laws should be amended to encourage new

job opportunities through the processing and manufacturing of our raw materials.
It would be difficult to speak on this motion without commenting on the $6 billion hydroelectric project for James Bay recently announced by the Premier of Quebec. This will be the biggest financial undertaking in Quebec's history; yet to date no one has been told how the project will be financed or where the power will be sold. The financial implications of this project are far reaching. I say this because the proposed development will be the largest hydroelectric project ever to be undertaken in North America, and it will have to be financed almost entirely by foreign capital. All Canadians are concerned about the proposed inflow of foreign capital in such large amounts, since that could place further pressures on our dollar. That, in turn, would be harmful to Canada's export oriented manufacturing industry. While it is true that the James Bay project will provide thousands of construction jobs, there is concern about the over-al impact of this project on our economy and on our national unemployment problem. Hopefully, this hydroelectric project, when developed, will encourage the processing of more raw materials in Canada, will encourage new manufacturing industries in northern Quebec and will encourage increased productivity at lower cost, for only increased productivity and the economic benefits that it brings will ease our serious unemployment problem.
How serious is this problem, Mr. Speaker? Last month there were some 625,000 Canadians unemployed, representing about 8 per cent of the Nation's labour force. In March, the nation's consumer price index reached 131.3 points, an increase of 1.9 per cent over the index at the same time last year. Spelled out in layman's language, this means that something which cost $100 ten years ago now costs $131.30. Surely, someone in this government could stop long enough between trips from Canada to some foreign country to ask these questions:	what
brought about this situation? Why have we so many people unemployed? Why has our cost of living reached such fantastic heights? If someone were to ask these questions I feel certain that the answers would be that the government has established wrong policies in the wrong places at the wrong times, and that the Liberal party has been following this course since 1965.
The sad truth is that in this period in which the Liberal party has been in power, Canada has had too much inflation, unemployment and slow growth. Our existing economic policies are not adequately coping with our national needs and problems. These are not my views alone, Mr. Speaker. They are also the views of Mr. John Young, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, who told the Star Forum, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star of March 10, that the country's present level of unemployment results from the inflation which was allowed to develop and persist between 1965 and 1968 and the inability of the experts to agree on a way to cope with it. Who are the experts today, Mr. Speaker? Mr. John Young is one of them. Although he obviously
May 11, 1971

does not have any of the answers, it appears that neither he nor his staff of bureaucrats have any intention of giving up their jobs, thereby taking the load of their salaries and expenses off the back of the Canadian taxpayer.
When the Progressive Conservative party was in power, we had a policy of northern development. We called it Roads to Resources. What did the Liberals say? They called it a policy of building roads from igloo to igloo. They scoffed and they jeered. Obviously, the Liberal party has never been overconcerned with the development of our northern resources. Ottawa's bureaucrats have shown some interest in the north, but they want absolute control over this area so that they can conduct a vast experiment in state socialism. If this ever happens, all initiative, ambition and development will be destroyed. At the present time we have an example of this condition in our nation. We see the incentive of our people destroyed and all of Canada fast becoming subservient to the state.
Anyone who serves on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has a better understanding why Canada and bureaucratic Ottawa is in such a mess. I have been here since 1957. For most of those years I have served on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I have learned that when a departmental head makes a real booboo, he is not dismissed or demoted. He is, of course, moved, but he will most likely be promoted to serve as the assistant deputy in an old department or possibly as the head of a new department whose activities are only adding to our inflationary problems.
Canada and the present Liberal government are prisoners of these appointed bureaucrats. By the time one of these mandarins has worked his way to the top or accepted a top position, as did Mr. Pickersgill, he has lost touch with the people and the country. Money is no longer the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, it is something to be spent, and always a little more than was budgeted so that the budget can be increased the next year.


Gerald William Baldwin: Too many of them come into the House of Commons and sit on the government side.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Programs are set up, not in terms of what they will do for the people but on the basis of what they will do for the department. This results in continuous infighting among departments for control over certain programs. We recently had an obvious example of this when no less than seven departments were fighting over which would be responsible for administering control over pollution. The Department of Fisheries won the battle.
As a result of this victory, the Department of Fisheries is to be abolished. In the eyes of some civil servants, it is obviously not important. It is to be replaced with the department of the environment which will have approximately 13,000 employees. As no existing building in Ottawa is large enough to house this enormous staff, the mandarins have decided that a new, modern, large building will be built in Hull. While this is being done, the Department of Public Works will build a new bridge
Development of Northern Canada
from Ottawa to Hull so that the employees can get to and from work on time.
I have no objection to the building being erected in Hull. What I am trying to point out is that Parliament and its elected representatives were never consulted about this development. In fact, when the decision was made to build the new bridge, it was evident from the loud outcries that there had been no consultation with Ottawa city council, Hull city council or the provincial highways departments of Ontario and of Quebec. This was simply a bureaucrat's dream. In their opinion, what the bureaucrats can dream the taxpayers can afford. Once they have made their plans, it is useless to try to interfere. Outside advice is not wanted or tolerated. For example, look at the number of recommendations of the Glassco Royal Commission on government efficiency which never saw the light of day. What happened to the Carter Royal Commission Report on Taxation? Was it completely useless? When it came time for a task force to study Canada's welfare programs, who headed the task force? It was none other than the deputy minister of Health and Welfare who brought most of the old programs into being. Was he going to say that there was a better way?
During a discussion over loans to the CBC in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts last week, Mr. Reisman, the deputy minister of Finance, said that Parliament had approved the loans so they were the responsibility of Parliament. Parliament only hears of these over expenditures by the CBC after they are a fait accompli.
I have said enough to indicate that, in my opinion, some of the rights of Parliament must be restored. If Parliamentarians are to be held responsible to their electorate, a way must be found to give them some voice in the decision making process for it is the decisions ore-sently being made by people who are not responsible to the taxpayers of Canada which in no small way have contributed to the present crisis in our economy and our society.
In my opinion, our economy is in a mess as a result of the clumsy, ham-handed policies of the present government as set out by one of the cabinet's "yes men", namely the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). Here is a' man whose left hand does not know what his right hand is doing. He is so lacking in mental intellect and moral fibre that he continues to support the left wing policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), the three men who rule cabinet and therefore Canada, when his own conscience should tell him that certain right wing policies are required at this time.
Anyone with a basic knowledge of economics, and I hope this includes the Minister of Finance, knows that economic recovery can always be hastened by lowering taxes or by using taxation as an incentive rather than a penalty for growth. However, when this logic is put forward by those of us who would like to see job opportunities provided for our young people as well as some of the 625,000 unemployed who are not so young, the Minis-

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada ter of Finance says it would be a dangerous action because it would start another inflationary upsurge and bring about the possible imposition of direct wage and price controls.
There has been so much discussion about inflation during the past few years that we sometimes forget that the fundamental condition for the occurrence of inflation is reasonably full employment of our resources. Prices normally rise when the amount of money that people have to spend increases faster than the supply of goods and services on which they may spend it. This is not the situation today. There is excess production capacity and there is not sufficient consumer demand to purchase all the goods and services that can be placed on the market. It seems logical to everyone but the government that what is needed is more purchasing power in the economy. This is precisely what a tax cut will provide. In my opinion, and in the opinion of Mr. Arthur Smith, chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, and other eminent economists, there is absolutely no way in which a tax cut can be generally inflationary in a period of under-employment of resources.
If the government knows of industries or sections within the economy in which there is no excess production capacity, then I believe these industries should be encouraged by tax incentives to locate in areas of regional economic disparity, such as in our northern regions or Atlantic Canada, rather than using the present hit and miss financial handouts as practised by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Employment opportunities, which are now needed, would then be provide in the north and in the Atlantic provinces where chronic unemployment hovers in some areas at 15 per cent of the work force. Whenever tax cuts are suggested as a means of stimulating the economy to bring it back to full employment, the Minister of Finance takes the position that the government cannot afford the loss of tax revenue which is the end result of a tax cut. This, of course, is nonsense.
The very purpose of a tax cut is to stimulate the economy. It should be obvious to even the present Minister of Finance that at a full employment level the total tax revenue will be considerably greater than when the economy is operating approximately $3 billion below its potential. This is the measure of the gap, as estimated by the Economic Council of Canada, between our actual output at present levels of unemployment and our potential output if unemployment had been approximately 3.8 per cent, and a large source of this untapped potential lies in Canada's north.
In fact, the demographic boundaries of Canada lie in a thin band of population 150 miles wide, running along the American border. Above this area, stretching all the way to the Arctic circle, lies a great band of unused Canadian potential. Typical of government economic thinking, no comprehensive development strategy has been articulated for this vast area. The possible returns to this and future generations are immense yet, thanks to the government's ad hoc approach, the Canadian people are not benefitting from northern development. I believe a comprehensive development strategy for the north would assist the

southern regions of Canada in their economic recovery. With personal incomes down and unemployment up, the Canadian economy desperately needs a shot in the arm. Development of the rich potential of the north would provide this stimulus. This development must be approached systematically. With a forward-looking strategy, Canada's north could be a great contributor to the over-all attainment of Canada's economic potential.
Canadians must seriously ask themselves how many billions of dollars in lost productivity, in wasted resources, both human and material, they can afford before they make a determined effort to get rid of this government. Obviously the government takes the position that during periods of unemployment taxes must be kept high since there are fewer gainfully employed to supply the total revenue needs of the government.
The government and its policies are outdated and my concern is that the errors which have been made to date may be compounded by the introduction of wage and price restraints which could well be the final straitjacket imposed on Canadians by the Liberals. If this is done, I believe the cure would be worse than the disease. Whenever we criticize the government and its suicidal economic policies we are asked: What would you do if you had the responsibility to act? Well, as I have already said, I believe a tax cut is warranted to stimulate the economy. I also believe that inflationary pressure in the south is caused in part by bottlenecks in the economy. In these areas of the south, stress could be relieved by providing business with opportunities to expand, and an excellent way of doing this would be to make provision for greater opportunities in the northern regions.
A large area of Canada has been classified as the "mid-Canada corridor". In my opinion this area, rich in resources but sparsely populated, should provide the first take-off area for development. Obviously, the Regional Development Incentives Act, as administered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, has not done the job it should have done because its purpose has not been developed in the larger context of a northern development strategy. The mid-Canada corridor is a project which calls for a hard second look by the government. We can afford to start development now. In fact, if our potential is not to be lost forever, we must start development of the north now.
In the Ottawa area some economies could be carried out and I believe the Minister of Finance would do well to consider the appointment of an all-party committee of Members of Parliament interested in finance to act as a kind of financial ombudsman in the examination of projected programs and expenditures. There are a number of sacred cows around Ottawa and in my view it is time some of their horns were clipped. Consider the CBC, for example. I do not advocate selling the corporation but it would be interesting to see what would happen if the management of the CBC were to be informed that a deficit of $2 million a week, or $104 million a year, was the largest amount acceptable to the government instead of the $165 million deficit listed for the CBC this year.
May 11, 1971

Undoubtedly some programs would have to be curtailed, but the $61 million saved could provide a considerable amount of aid to the 165,000 Indian people presently living in Canada.
As I mentioned earlier, the Prices and Incomes Commission and its expensive staff of economists is only window dressing which adds to the load of the taxpayers without solving any of their problems. In my opinion, and in my opinion alone, it should be abolished. In fact, I have grave doubts whether the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs established in 1967 can justify its cost to the Canadian people.
In conclusion, I implore this government to seriously reconsider its present policies relating to the north, as well as to the rest of Canada, in the hope that productivity, incentive and even the normal desire to build or expand a business are given some encouragement and result in the reduction of the numbers unemployed. Both unemployment and inflation vie for position as our number one problem. I do not believe we can effectively deal with the other needs of our society until we have shown ourselves capable of solving these two problems.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Since the House is considering a motion of non-confidence, I suppose we must expect members of the opposition parties to be wide-ranging in their criticism of the goverment. This afternoon we have been told that our policies are leading the country directly into the morass of state socialism. That was the view of one hon. member. On the other hand, we have heard that our policies are designed to open the north to rampant, greedy and avaricious capitalists. The criticism being as wide-ranging as it is, there is little room left to me to find new areas of criticism, even if I wished to do so.


An hon. Member:: You don't, anyway.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have some of my speech left, some more ideas for you.


Paul St. Pierre: I must say that the tone of doom and gloom with which the previous speaker put his ideas forward reminded me of an old Presbyterian clergyman in the province from which that hon. member comes. Addressing the congregation about their sins, he said: I tell you that you will be up to your necks in boiling brimstone and there will be devils poking pitchforks into you and you will lift your eyes from the smoke and say to the Lord "Laird, Laird, we didna ken." And the Lord in His infinite compassion and mercy will look down on you and He will say "Well, ye ken the noo."
For myself, I intend to deal with only one aspect of this subject, namely, the development of the north and, particularly, the development of oil and gas reserves. I listened with considerable interest to the speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I share some of the concern he expressed. I share his concern for the future of the native people as development proceeds, because such development could be damaging. I also share his concern about damage to the environment. We all know this is possible, and if we neglect to take
Development of Northern Canada adequate precautions it becomes probable. What bothers me about the speech of the leader of the NDP, as well as
other speeches which have been made recently is this___
they seem to reflect a counsel of despair.
Because there are risks attached to the development of the north, because there are risks to the environment, because there is the possibility that the native people will not be helped by such development, they seem to argue that the only course to take is to do nothing. They seem to argue that we ought not to seek solutions or attempt to find a secure and positive method of developing the north but, rather, that we should leave the north in cold storage. This is certainly not the way in which we developed the Canadian west and it is not the kind of spirit in which we shall develop the Canadian north, either.
The leader of the New Democratic Party appears to see a considerable distinction between the sale of renewable resources and non-renewable resources. Part of his criticism of northern development appears to be an opposition to the extraction of oil and its sale abroad, specifically to the United States. Apparently in his view there is something wrong with finding oil, taking it out of the ground and selling it. I wish he would explain that to the people of the province of Alberta and of northern British Columbia who have prospered to a very considerable degree from the oil industry.
Admittedly, we cannot export more than our surplus of non-renewable resources, but surely surpluses are for selling. If there is something economically wrong with selling a non-renewable resource, such as oil, gas, coal, nickel and such minerals, does it then follow that it is quite all right to sell renewable resources, such as grain-I suppose the hon. member would agree with this-lumber and pulp which, as long as we do not overcut our forests, are renewable resources? Among renewable resources that could be sold is water. Water is clearly a renewable resource, for as long as the winds blow and deposit rain and our lakes and rivers flow down to the sea, we shall have water. I wonder whether he would favour the sale of water abroad; I doubt very much that he would. I do not think I would myself, even though it is a renewable resource. There is nothing sacred about the words "non-renewable" and "renewable". Decisions must be made in light of current conditions and a reasoned and sensible estimation of what the future may hold.
The hon. member also spoke of the desirability of settlement in the north and the desirability of developing such industries as smelters in the north. Certainly, I could not agree with him more, except that I would point out that in some areas of the north, specifically the Northwest Territories, the sub-Arctic and true Arctic regions, we are faced with conditions that are in many ways very different from those in the south. The suggestion to build a smelter is interesting enough in this regard. Smelters are notorious for the emission of great quantities of pollution into the air from their stacks. I think most hon. members are familiar with the extent to which air pollution is increased by what is called a

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada temperature inversion. When Los Angeles or Montreal has a temperature inversion in the atmosphere lasting for two or three days, the results are quite noticeable and quite serious.
We should take into account that over much of the Northwest Territories in winter a temperature inversion frequently develops and lasts for a month to a month and a half. Therefore, we may find some developments which, though suitable to the south, cannot be established in the north. I hope there are not but it is possible that there are. In any event, I believe it surely cannot be beyond the ingenuity of our technicians in Canada, or even in the world community, to develop safe delivery systems for oil and gas not only out of the northern mainland but out of the high Arctic.
A great many methods of transport are being considered at the moment for the high Arctic. The northern development committee has heard evidence in this respect from a number of witnesses. To review it briefly, if oil is discovered in, say, the Sverdrup group-and gas has already been discovered on King Christian Island in quantities that would constitute a commercial field if discovered in southern Canada-delivery of oil would almost certainly have to take place by undersea pipeline; by the use of Manhattan-type ice-strengthened tankers with icebreaker support; by submarine tankers of 170,000 tons and above operating in open water to Godthab, Greenland, or down to Trinity, Newfoundland, or by what is called a semi-submersible submarine. This is a new idea not yet fully developed which calls for a submarine to operate near the surface with a tall 16-foot steel sail, so-called, cutting through the ice, the ship being capable of submerging and running on a closed circuit, oxygen-breathing diesel system for sufficient time to move underneath the pressure ridges when the barrier of ice is more than can be cut by the sail.
The committee was also informed-and such is the progress of technology that I do not suppose this will surprise members of the House-that it is not inconceivable that delivery of oil out of the high Arctic by air is possible in the foreseeable future. The cost of heavy air transport is down to three and a half cents per ton mile in the United States at the present time. At least one witness before the committee clearly saw the possibility of the cost of air transport coming down to two and a half cents and eventually to one cent per ton mile.
So, if and when a major discovery of oil is made in the high Arctic, and I think most people who have been observing developments up there would say it is a question of when rather than if, we will be faced with the necessity of doing some adventurous engineering and will need some adventurous and very able people in that part of Canada. Hopefully-indeed, we should insist and demand-the people who are most experienced in the high north, namely the Eskimo and further to the south the Indian, should use their very real and practical expertise in the exploratory and development stages. They should be trained as quickly as possible to take over the ever-increasingly technical aspects of the operation. In this respect the more they take over, the better.
However, there is a difficulty we must face both in the employment of these people in the north and in determining how we are going to get the oil out of these islands. We cannot move too far in the preparation of means of transit for oil out of the high Arctic until we have found the oil. Equally, I can see a danger in too hurriedly giving Eskimos and northern Indians specialized training for pipeline work and other technical jobs if we fail to discover oil in the north. It is bad enough that the training of these people for modern society is, with the exception of a few young people, not as advanced as it should be.
We must hope that the people who have to make the decisions are wise enough to chart these two lines so that they cross at the right point. It is important that our Eskimos and northern Indians be given training to take over most of the technical jobs in the north at the time they become available. Their training must begin at a time that will enable them to be ready to take job opportunities that will open for them. If they are not trained in time we face the prospect of southern whites taking these jobs in the absence of a trained labour pool in the north. If their training is given too early, it will be a tremendous and bitter disappointment to them if jobs fail to materialize.
In any event, I do not want to take more time of the House except to repeat a point I made earlier. We should not look upon the north as a parkland we intend to leave unspoiled, because leaving it unspoiled in its natural state will also mean leaving it with a rapidly increasing population of Eskimos and Indians who really do not wish to go back to living in ice houses. They do not want to depend for their living on the Arctic fox. They want what other Canadians want, the right to earn a decent living, to live in homes and decent communities. We cannot accomplish this by sealing Canada at the 60th parallel and leaving an unspoiled wilderness to the Arctic fox.
I favour, and I hope to see, rapid development of the north, within certain limits. There are two severe limits this House and others should be constantly watching. The first is that the rights of native people must be adequately protected. They must be brought into the mainstream of development. The second is that there must be protection for the northern ecology. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the House who participate in this debate, from whatever approach they take, look to this vast sector of Canada, described by cliche and otherwise, as the undeveloped hinterland of Canada. During this generation we are facing a challenge similar to the one faced by our ancestors 100 years ago during the development of western Canada. I am sure the pioneers 100 years ago looked upon the west with the same degree of hesitation Canadians now experience in respect of the development of the north. They must have looked at weather conditions, the lack of transportation, the lack of
[Mr. St. Pierre.l
May 11, 1971

habitation, the lack of markets for production and sparse population in much the same way we contemplate the north at the present time. The fact is that the west and other parts of Canada which were not developed 100 years ago have now been developed to a tremendous extent, perhaps not as fast as possible, but with considerable success.
Having experienced that development, knowing of the vastly increased number of people and improvements in technology, we as Canadians would be abdicating our responsibility in respect of the development of the rest of the country if we ignored the north. We have in that part of Canada a great number of indigenous people. There is a grave danger that the north will be developed from the white man's point of view. There is a danger that we will be paternalistic in the development of this part of the country without allowing active native participation.
These people have a long way to go in respect of education and technology. They require assistance. There has been a lack and a neglect over the years. It is more than 10 years now since the vision of the north which was derived by many of our opponents as something revolutionary. It was suggested it meant the construction of roads from wigwam to wigwam and from igloo to igloo. There has been a great deal done since that time, and a certain amount is being done now. This effort will have to be increased. It is not and will never be good enough to merely attempt to transplant the Eskimo part way toward the white man's culture. We cannot think in terms of training these people this century and possibly next century up to a certain point, then abandoning them. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) realizes that there is a danger in this regard. We cannot take these people away from their traditional modes of life, give them a smattering of white man's training along with a lot of his bad habits, and then leave them to fend for themselves. We must take a giant step forward in our policies relating to these people of the northland.
Incentives will have to be provided. I doubt if the northland will develop as a result of natural initiatives. I know very little about the eastern Arctic and it is many years since I was in the western Arctic, down the Mackenzie valley. Development was only beginning when I was there 30 years ago. Yellowknife was barely four years old. It was a small hamlet. Today it is the capital of the Northwest Territories. If we wait for natural development we will wait a long time.
We must provide incentives to encourage people from the southern parts of Canada to develop the north. We must convince people in the more populated regions in the south to expand into the north. This is more important than providing the people there with the pill and abortion on demand; that is not the answer and I suggest it is self-defeating. In this part of Canada there exists a tremendous scope for Canadian development. There are tremendous resources yet undiscovered. Incentives must be provided in order to discover and develop these resources and a proper tax system is the way to accomplish this. We need roads, waterways and airways. I do not intend to refer to railroads at the present time, but 24107-11
Development of Northern Canada this kind of development will take place some time in the future. Already we have reached the shores of Great Slave Lake by rail.
In this regard, the present policies of the government are deficient. We have seen the white paper on taxation, but such a policy would quite frankly kill any incentives for the development of the north. We are slowing down this potential development if we pursue our present philosophies with regard to resource development, and the imposition of taxes on the production of primary resources. There cannot be any differentation between that land north of the 60th parallel and the land to the south. We must treat our mining companies, lumber companies and oil companies on the same basis across Canada. We must not adopt attitudes which will destroy incentives to resource development companies and individuals, including unincorporated syndicates who are interested.
In the past, we have given opportunities to foreigners who enjoyed a considerable tax advantage over our own Canadians in the development of our resources. One only has to look at the late forties and early fifties when Canadians who were trying to participate in the development of the oil industry in Alberta and Saskatchewan were beaten to the post every time, particularly by our friends in the United States whose tax laws were much more favourable. Therefore, I say the policies of the government with regard to tax law and tax incentives in respect of resource development have been wrong. If the government persists in the recommendations contained in the white paper it will eternally condemn the north to stagnation, unless that development takes place through public ownership and public participation entirely. This may suit a number of people, but I suggest the history of our performance in that type of development has been indeed a sad and sorry one.
Let us consider transportation. Yes; there are roads. There cannot be an instant system of highways. There has been a certain amount of work in this regard but more could have been done. Then, there are such things as aids to navigation along the Mackenzie. These could be improved. The lack of insistence, for instance, on permits at the time of the construction of the Bennett dam was something that worked against the development of the north because that dam has affected the water levels on the navigable portions of the Mackenzie. In respect of air, last year we saw an ill-fated proposal by the government to tax airline tickets on a percentage basis. If there was ever anything designed to stultify the development of the north it was this proposal. I admit it applies to aircraft of certain size, and that there were exemptions, but the tax applied to passengers going by regular carriers such as Pacific Western Airlines to the down-river posts and the Arctic. What a way to strangle development! Well, somehow or other I think we finally got to the government and it saw how ill-advised this policy was.

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
Here again, I believe the lack of a real regional air carrier policy will also work to the detriment of the north. I say we must have an inquiry into our domestic air policy. I think the Globe and Mail was quite correct in its editorial yesterday concerning the policy of our national air carriers in respect of domestic flights, and the fact that it is costing Canadians far more than should be the case. For that reason, I say we must have an inquiry in order to determine a far better national air policy for Canadians. This will also affect the north.
In the limited time I have available to me, I want to say Canadians must be encouraged to participate in the development of the north since they have an equity in it. There is no such suggestion in the present plan. Where is it suggested that these developments in the North are to be owned by Canadians? I made these proposals during the hearings of the Finance Committee in respect of tax reform, but I want to make them again. I would be very discriminatory in favour of Canadians and Canadian companies, truly owned by Canadians, in the resource development field, be it mining, be it lumbering or be it exploration and production of oil and gas.
In respect of these things which represent the development of our primary resources, Canadians should enjoy a certain tax advantage. If we were to have a capital gains tax such a person should be exempt in respect of any gains made in that field, provided the investment remained in the resource development sector. He could move around from one mine to another mine or from a mining company to a lumbering company or from a lumbering company to an oil and gas company, but there should be encouragement for him to remain within these fields. If the tax is to be 25 per cent, and if he remained there for one year, he would pay the 25 per cent tax. However, if he remained a second year it would be reduced by 5 per cent and if he remained a third year it would be reduced by 10 per cent, then 15 per cent and so on all the way down. If he remained there five years there would be no capital gains tax. That is a medium range investment, but I would say it is a sufficient encouragement to Canadians to participate in the development of their own resources. It would be an advantage for Canadians. I do not deny there is discrimination against an outsider and you may say, in so far as that taxpayer is concerned, there is discrimination in favour of him as against an investor in a manufacturing company in central Canada. Yes, there is, but I have a stated objective.
The objective is greater ownership and participation by Canadians in the development of their own resources. It is not by setting up Crown corporations that you will guarantee this. It will not be done by setting up a Canadian Development Corporation, as we now see it and are studying it in the Finance Committee. This Corporation will be a non-starter in so far as this type of development is concerned. It will not accomplish the purpose. We want Canadians from one end of our country to the other to be able to participate in the development of the resources of our vast north. Certainly there are many safeguards involved.

Members will speak about ecology and so on, but it is still possible to carry out this development of resources which will bring people to the north and see to the development of the north. If one said we would require an instant development of the west our ancestors a hundred years ago would have said, "Why, man, you are crazy". But it went step by step. We require transportation and development of our resources to attract people and provide for the economic development of the whole region. However, I do not see much prospect of that happening with the government's present policy. As a matter of fact, I see the reverse. I see an attitude of complete neglect. Some things are being done, but I want to see greater emphasis on this aspect. I want to see emphasis that is applicable in the tax field, with greater assistance through our financial institutions for this type of work. The challenge is there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You don't agree with the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have not heard the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) speaking in the debate, so the minister has me at a loss.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: About resource development?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I did not know that the hon. member for Duvernay had participated in this debate, but his thesis, so far as I have heard it, has no application to the north country because there are not enough people there. And for all of his strictures, I think he is completely wrong on one because accelerated depreciation only hastens the day when you can no longer claim depreciation on buildings and equipment. It is only when you get, shall we say, a bonus on depreciation that you have a real incentive toward capital-intensive industries.
In the 20 minutes at my disposal I do not have time to argue against the thesis of a former minister of the Crown, but I say that we want our tax system to encourage Canadians to participate more, and it is not on the basis of so-called equity between taxpayers. I would discriminate in favour of Canadians in regard to resource development in order to encourage our development. To that extent, I find that government policies have been deficient in so far as they are oriented toward the north, which to me is now the field of challenge and opportunity in this country; and I most certainly support the motion.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I intend to make will be a change of pace from those of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I intend to confine my remarks to a discussion of one aspect of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), namely, the lack of recognition of the basic and prior rights of the native inhabitants of the territories, including settlement of their claims which would recognize their rights in the land and its resources; because, Mr. Speaker, if there is
May 11, 1971

one single matter about which I have ever-increasing concern as a Canadian, it is the blatant refusal of the government headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to recognize that aboriginal rights do in fact exist. I must say that this came as a bit of a shock to me in view of the fact that it did appear over a period of several years that the government was moving toward a recognition of aboriginal rights and a willingness to deal in a more realistic way with treaty rights than they had been dealt with in the past.
Hon. members may recall that we had two versions of a bid on this general subject matter introduced in the House, although neither one was fully dealt with. The present Prime Minister, before he became a member of this House, before he became Minister of Justice and later Pr.me Minister, from all the reports I heard of him had been a champion of civil rights and liberties. It is therefore with considerable astonishment and certainly with great regret that I feel the position he has taken, and taken quite adamantly, on the rights of the Indian people is a complete negation of recognition of some of the basic principles of civil liberties and human rights.
_ I think it is time that more and more members of this House came to grips with a determination of this basic question, with particular reference to the north. If we do not, before too long if the present pace of exploration for possible exploitation of the natural resources, particularly the non-renewable resources, continues the problem in that area of the country, as has been the case in the past m other parts of the country, will be so late being dealt with that it will be too late for it to be dealt with meaningfully.
The time has come when members of the House should begin to turn their attention to the booklet which was published as the result of a research study by the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada, entitled "Native Rights in Canada." I intend to devote at least part of the time that I have today to putting into the records of this House some of the things which are said in this book The introduction reads:
The issues around Canada's aboriginal peoples are, even today, not separable from Canada's particular history of Indian-tvhite relations. To look at the present we must understand the pas . The emergence of a newer Indian leadership does not change this fact. The new organizations and the new leaders are at least as concerned with the issues of treaty and aboriginal rights as their predecessors.
I think that is a true statement. I had the pleasure and honour of knowing, to some extent at least, the great, late Reverend Dr. Peter Kelly, a chieftain of the Haida,' one of the pioneer leaders of the Indian people who first appeared and made their voices heard before members of this House. His concern for and knowledge of the whole question were deep.
But I think it is true to say, as the introduction to this publication points out, that the new leaders of the Indian peoples have as deep a concern as did people like the late Reverend Dr. Peter Kelly who, as some hon. members may know, in addition to being a chief of the Haida was an ordained minister of the United Church of Canada who was chosen by his church to head the British 24107-11|
Development of Northern Canada Columbia conference some years before his death. The phrase, "To look at the present we must understand the past," I think is the key point in that quotation.
That, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, apparently is exactly what the Prime Minister does not understand or refuses to recognize. In fact, I would say that the only way one can describe him in this context is to label him an historical illiterate, which seems rather surprising if one looks at the record of his academic achievement and his fields of interest as set forth in the Parliamentary Guide. In it we read that he studied law at the University of Montreal, graduating with honours, and undertook postgraduate studies in law, economics and political science in Paris and at the London School of Economics. When he was in practice he specialized in labour law and civil liberties cases in Quebec, and became associate Professor of law at the University of Montreal where he taught constitutional law, civil liberties and carried out research.
All I can say is that during that period of his career the Prime Minister could not have conducted any research into the question of the basic concepts of civil liberties as they apply to the Indian people of Canada.
There is no record of that kind after my name in the Parliamentary Guide, although I was an honours student in history at the University of British Columbia. I do not make the charge of historical illiteracy against the Prime Minister only on my own knowledge, but after reading with interest and I hope some degree of understanding the contents of this book.
This is not a haphazard publication but is the result of a research grant from a foundation in Calgary. The head of the research committee was Dean R. J. Macdonald of the faculty of law, University of Toronto. Mr. Alfred Best, Q.C., Mr. T. A. King, Q.C., Mr. Malcolm Montgomery, Mr. T. H. B. Symons, Mr. B. J. MacKinnon, Q.C., and Mr. I. Binnie were members of the committee. Director of the research staff was Douglas Sanders, faculty of law, University of Windsor. Research associates were Kenneth Lysyk, faculty of law, University of British Columbia, and Anthony Hooper, faculty of law, Laval University.
Having read the book, I feel that I am not alone in my appraisal of the position taken by the Prime Minister in turning his back on the question of aboriginal rights. In an appendix there are quotations from a speech made by the Prime Minister on August 8, 1969, in Vancouver on the subject of Indian aboriginal and treaty rights. He refers to the fact that the government had come up with a proposal, a policy paper on the Indian problem which proposed a set of solutions. "It doesn't impose them on anybody", said the Prime Minister. Mr. Speaker, some of these things were imposed upon the Indian people long before the white paper policy was presented to this House. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that this white paper does not impose anything on the Indian people, but I suggest that it does not propose- -it rejects the alleviation of some of the things already imposed upon the Indian people. If we are to understand

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada the present we must have some understanding of the past.
The Prime Minister went on to talk about some of the choices before Canadians generally and before the Indian peoples within our boundaries in particular. He said the question was the following:
-whether Canadians as a whole want to continue treating the Indian populations as something outside, a group of Canadians with which we have treaties, a group of Canadians who have as the Indians, many of them claim, aboriginal rights or whether we will say well forget the past and begin today and this is a tremendously difficult choice because, if-well one of the things the Indian bands often refer to are their aboriginal rights and in our policy, the way we propose it, we say we won't recognize aboriginal rights. We will recognize treaty rights. We will recognize forms of contract which have been made with the Indian people by the Crown and we will try to bring justice in that area and this will mean that perhaps the treaties shouldn't go on forever.
He went on to talk about its being inconceivable to have treaties between peoples within a single nation, as if the treaties and all they stand for were only concerned with whether the Indians were to receive a little twine and gunpowder. This strikes me as approaching the whole question of treaties with sneering contempt, without any appreciation of historical significance. This is something that is separate and apart from the matter of aboriginal rights. Later he said:
But aboriginal rights, this really means saying, "We were here before you. You came and you took the land from us and perhaps you cheated us by giving us some worthless things in return for vast expanses of land and we want to reopen this question. We want you to preserve our aboriginal rights and to restore them to us." And our answer-it may not be the right one and may not be one which is accepted but it will be up to all of you people to make your minds up and to choose for or against it and to discuss with the Indians-our answer is no .
He went on to refer to a statement of the late President Kennedy regarding the question of the Negro people in American society and quoted with approbation, We will be just in our time. This is all we can do. We must be just today." I agree with the sentiment expressed by the late President Kennedy as strongly as does the Prime Minister. What I am suggesting is that the Prime Minister either cannot or will not see what is involved here. When he interprets the Indians' plea as, "We want you to preserve our aboriginal rights and to restore them to us, this is not my understanding of what they have been trying to tell us.
They recognize that we cannot turn back the clock. None of my Indian friends has ever told me that they want the white man to go back across the seas where he came from, and not return. They recognize that we are here and that they are a minority. They are not asking us to do as some of the colonial powers have in territories in Africa and Asia where the white people have always been in the minority. They are only asking us to recognize their aboriginal rights, to sit down and negotiate a settlement of them. "Then, and then only, they say "we can become part of the same society with the rest of you. Then, and then only, can we discuss whether the ancient treaties should continue."

It is my submission that if we are prepared to accept the reality of aboriginal rights, the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the treaties should not necessarily continue is something that the Indian people would be willing to discuss. Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have lost track of how much time I have left. If I have a few minutes more I would make one or two further references to this book. On page 14 it deals with the origin of the concept of aboriginal titles. I commend this book to hon. members. The book points out that this concept goes back a long way in history, that it is basic to the notion of native rights, that it is not a matter which has been thoroughly studied in this day and age-actually, this little volume is a pioneering work in this field-that it developed really with the beginning of the occupation of North America by people from Europe, and that one of the earliest nations to be concerned about this question and come to grips with it was Spain. It reads on page 14:
o (5:50 p.m.)
Charles V sought the advice of the foremost theologian of the day, Franciscus de Vittoria, a humanist and a friend of Erasmus. Vittoria was Professor of Sacred Theology at the University of Salamanca. He gave two lectures in 1532, which are recorded in his book ... in which he deals with basic questions of Indian rights and the question of slavery. Vittoria asserted that the Indians were the true owners of the land both from the public and the private point of view. Their lack of belief in the Roman Catholic faith could not affect the question, as heretics in Europe were not denied property rights. He suggested that the Indians were no less intelligent than some Spanish peasants and therefore were equally fit to have legal rights.
The author goes on to suggest that the Spanish had the right to travel into Indian lands so long as they did no harm to the natives, for, says the author, "hospitality is part of the law of nations". Also, the Spanish had the right to trade with the Indians. In certain circumstances, if the Indians were to deny these rights after reasonable explanation, the Spanish could lawfully make war. Otherwise, the Spanish could not wage a just war and by that means claim rights by conquest. In 1537 Pope Paul III used the Bull Sublimus Deus and the author quotes from it as follows:
-Indians are truly men ... they may and should freely and legitimately enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it .shall be null and of no effect.
The book contains a further quotation from "Commentaries on the Law of England," by Sir William Black-stone. This was published in 1705 and was a monumental commentary which dealt with the matter of Indian title. The quotation from the work begins with these words:
Plantations, or colonies in distant countries-


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


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I can quote these passages on other occasions.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, for the remaining few minutes before six o'clock I shall whet the
May 11, 1971

appetites of the frontbenchers of my party because I say that the motion is very generous. It assumes that this government has policies. The subject of my remarks will be that the government has no policies. It has no policies so far as the north is concerned and has no policies in most of the other areas of concern. Whose fault is this? The burden always rests on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Mr.   Barnell@: What are the hon. member's policies?


Steven Otto: The fault, if there is a fault, rests with this Parliament, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in this House several years ago. He said that the House of Commons, Parliament, does not govern. It does not set policy. It has only one function. It is the place where grievances are expressed and where freedom is maintained. It has no other function. That is true today. Consequently, when we talk about policy, we have no policy. When matters relating to Home or Denison are raised, we devise instant policies. We encounter labour problems and we devise instant solutions. We work from one position of panic to another. I should like to suggest, in the time at my disposal after eight o'clock, some remedies for this situation.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before leaving the chair may I bring to the attention of hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 40 the following questions will be discussed at the time of adjournment: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Agriculture-Potatoes-Assistance to Prince Edward Island growers; the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams)-Air transport-HijackingParliamentary ratification of The Hague Convention- Amendments to Criminal Code.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baldwin:
That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress for northern Canada offers great
Development of Northern Canada
opportunities for the people of this country; and that the economic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed progress; and that it is essential to make appropriate changes in our approach in respect of northern Canada;
And this House condemns the government for its failure to promote a truly Canadian strategy for the north based on human, capital and natural resources, and urges that appropriate policies be adopted at once that will bring about such development in that region.
And the amendment thereto of Mr. Lewis.
Steven Otto: Before the dinner hour, Mr. Speaker, I had mentioned that the motion very generously presumes that the government has policies. It is a fallacious presumption but nevertheless it is the gist of the motion. My remarks were directed toward the fact that neither this nor any previous government has really had time to formulate policies. We work from one moment to the next and one panic to another. We had no policy on the export of energy resources until Denison Mines was going to be sold; then suddenly we made a decision. Then there was the situation with regard to Home Oil. The shirt and textile manufacturers got after the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and he immediately had a policy for that.
What the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) objected to was that under our parliamentary system it is almost impossible to form policies for any length of time. In order to remedy this system it is not enough to just make remarks about it. The whole system must be changed to a great extent. That may mean the introduction of certain republican ideas or congressional ideas, or a mixture of the two merged with the parliamentary system. It just will not work the present way, nor can we expect the government to have policies for any length of time.
This motion concerns northern development. If I heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) correctly, his idea of development means immediate exploitation. His idea of development seems to be to get the resources out of the ground, sell them quickly and get rid of our energy, including hydroelectric power in the north, because there is reason to get rid of them very quickly. If we examine this situation carefully, we will see that usually the corporation or exploitation company is controlled by an American company which desires to develop the resources to sell to Americans. They want to beat other American companies who are importing from various parts of the world, at the same time leaving a tiny residue of resources in respect of which Canadians can build pipelines, as has been stated by the minister.
I visited these areas and talked with some of the people who are working on the projects. The presumption, of course, is that a great many qualified Canadian will have jobs in perpetuity. But oil riggers are, by and large, members of an international pool and their headquarters are in Dallas, Texas. The pipe manufacturers-


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Are in Edmonton.

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada


Steven Otto: -if they are not foreign-owned, employ a small number of Canadians as labourers, but management skills are something else again. What we are talking about, really, is an impetuous desire to get rid of the reserves. This is what we are really talking about when we say "policy". It seems to me that if we are to have a policy, that policy should be tied to some criteria.


Mr. Benjamin:: Such as a national objective.


Steven Otto: For example, it is not enough to say to the Americans, "You can have $6 billion worth of gas provided we have some labour content." It is time for us to say, rather, "You can have $6 billion worth of gas, but this represents energy you do not possess and that energy will produce for you Americans $50 billion worth of employment. Therefore, if we can reach some agreement by which Canadians will be ensured of $25 billion worth of employment, you can have the gas." The same line of thought can be applied in the case of hydroelectric exports. But we are still working on outdated assumptions and at no time have we stopped to formulate such policies, because we are apprehensive that a small segment of our society will complain on the ground that the resources are there and we are not getting rid of them.
Most of us are cognizant of the problem involved here, particularly as it concerns the export of our gas and the transportation of Alaska oil. I think evey hon. member should read carefully the proceedings of the Special Committee on Environment and Pollution, issue No. 17. The witnesses before the committee were Dr. Fuller, Dr. Lambert and Mr. Passmore, members of a special task force examining the pipeline question and the proposed route by tanker.
It is important to note-the evidence they gave bears this out-that at the present time the government should be in no hurry to allow the export of gas nor, indeed, the construction of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley. The witnesses whose names I have mentioned pointed out that the pipeline, if built, would pass through two earthquake zones. Moreover, no one can tell what the ecological consequences of an oil spill might be, since sufficient research work has not been done. I believe it is now acknowledged that there will be a spill, whether a tanker spill or a pipeline spill, and until more research has been carried out it is not possible to predict the results.
The scientists also pointed out to the committee that insufficient attention had been paid to the possibility of using other transportation systems such as the Alaska Highway or railroad system along conventional lines, or a monorail system. We are going pell-mell into a situation in circumstances in which we are not obliged to do so. We think we have to do these things. We think it is essential to get this oil to the United States because ten years from now it may not be of any use.
The fact is that ten years from now the petrochemical industry may be willing to pay a lot more for these resources. Why this great rush, until we have investigated? The evidence is that it would take a minimum of five years before we could know what the consequences may be. The real question, therefore, is how we could prevent
the Americans risking an oil spill. After all, it is their oil in Alaska.
I believe the government should realize that we are sitting in Canada with a powerful hand. We need not send out battleships, soldiers or anything like that. But we need to say firmly that we have a policy, or propose to have a policy, based on research, on an accurate estimate of the reserves which will be needed by ourselves and others, tied to benefits to our own productive capacity. Then we should say to the Americans, "If you really insist, you can take your oil by tanker from Valdez to a point near Seattle, but we shall not like it. You happen to need our water to keep your Imperial Valley growing vegetables; you also require our uranium, our nickel and our ore. If you displease us, remember we control these resources."
I think it will need no more than that because, after all, the Americans are well aware of our position and some of them are not too keen about rushing headlong into the type of oil transportation which, of course, some of the companies desire. If the government of the United States realized we had a policy and were adamant on it, I am sure we would get co-operation.
It comes down to this. Canadians elected a government which we expect would be courageous, daring and inventive. But somehow all these clouded policy issues have convinced our people that we as a government are not daring, but cautious; that we are not inventive, but that we cling to conventional ways of thinking. This is what influences our lives. The capital is here. If we want it, we have it. We can do all these things. I think the government should pay attention to this disenchantment and ask, "Why are we here?" The answer should be, "we are here because we have been elected to do these great things, and we can do them." Therefore, I believe the second part of the motion has a great deal of substance.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you intend to vote for it?


Steven Otto: I said it has a great deal of substance. Before this debate is over I expect to hear many members contributing to this point of view. How can we, as a government, set policy? How can we, as parliamentarians, tolerate the injection of new concepts into the parliamentary system which will enable the government to formulate long-range policies instead of being a government which looks after immediate problems on a day-to-day basis only?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would the hon. member permit a question? I agree with much of what he has said, though the concepts are not new. I have an application form with me. Would he like to take out membership in the New Democratic Party tonight or tomorrow?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the House is asked to consider a most important question, and I believe that the official opposition was justified in

May 11, 1971

proposing the non-confidence motion appearing on the Order Paper so that this government would state which measures it proposes to take in the shortest possible order to rationalize the development of our natural resources to enable Canadians to exploit them as fully as possible.
Last fall, I visited the North with a House committee and I was enthralled by the magnitude of its untapped natural resources, while in Canada there are today thousands of unemployed who would be only too happy to see the government implement a rational planning policy to launch the development of these resources for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
It is difficult, in a debate such as this, as a member from Quebec, not to say a word about the James Bay project. We know that immediately after the announcement of this project by the premier of Quebec, authorities involved in the fields of politics, sociology and economics expressed their views.
This project, Mr. Speaker, will cost almost $6 billion. Three rivers will be used: the Nottaway, Broadback and Rupert rivers. There is a possibility to extend this number to five. The project will give birth to the most powerful hydro-electric complex in the western hemisphere, with a production capacity of 10 million kilowatts. The dam will produce twice as much power as Churchill Falls, and the project will cover an area of 50,000 square miles.
Because of the far-reaching dimensions of such a project, there are so many factors to be taken into account that many experts have expressed some doubt as to its validity. Until now, over $14 million have been spent on studies and discussions to ascertain the viability of this project.
If I deal with this project tonight it is not that I am a priori objecting to it. Not at all. As a member of Parliament from Quebec, I must naturally ask questions in order that public opinion be further enlightened and to get answers from the authorities concerned.
When he made his statement, the premier of Quebec said that up to 125,000 jobs would be created through this project.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that this debate, if one reads the motion, reflects upon the approach of the federal government. It refers to "our approach", which I presume is the approach of the federal government, to northern development. The hon. member across the way has concerned himself with development in one part of northern Canada, namely, northern Quebec. Although I appreciate his concern, I am wondering whether he is talking about a provincial matter concerning which an announcement has been made by the provincial government.


Mr. Ricard:: Let the Speaker decide that.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: May I continue my remarks? My hon. friend will have his chance later.
Development of Northern Canada


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: There is no reason whatever for saying
that.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: My precise point of order is that the motion is talking about the approach of the federal government to total northern development. The words of the motion are "human, capital and natural resources". I am wondering whether the hon. member is relating his remarks to this debate in talking about a proposed program of a provincial government for a northern part of the country.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend's point of order, I will say that if he will hear me out attentively he will see that what I mean is that the federal government has some responsibility in the implementation of this project. I mention it, of course, because the project was brought forward several times by the premier of Quebec in the National Assembly and opposition members asked what would be the federal government's participation in the very important James Bay project. I do not feel that this debate is restricted merely to Quebec. I also want to stress the responsibility of the federal government in its implementation. That is why I am mentioning the James Bay project. In fact, I had just started laying the foundations for my argument and my hon. friend will understand at the end of my speech that the points I am making will strike home with the government, which will have to take action jointly with the province of Quebec to carry out the project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The hon. member will surely appreciate that the motion and amendment before the House are very broad in scope. The motion reads:
That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress for northern Canada offers great opportunities-
And so on. Northern Canada is not the territory of just one province but all Canada. We are dealing with development policy relating to northern Canada.

I would say to the hon. member for Charlevoix that I well appreciate the fact that he does not intend to limit his remarks to the Bay James project, but rather to the relationship between this project and the general policy the government should establish in matters of development of our natural resources. I understand the hon. member intends to outline some arguments that are by nature related to the Bay James matter and to the development policy of northern Canada.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I did lay the groundwork. First of all, I shall deal with the Bay James project and then, in conclusion, I shall outline the federal government's responsibilities in this regard.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec claimed it could create 100,000 jobs. Such an announcement is really encouraging for the increasing

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada number of unemployed of Abitibi, when gold mines are closing down their operations.
Again, to give an answer to my hon. friend, I will state that until there is contrary evidence the province of Quebec is still part of Confederation and that if some resources are being developed in northern Quebec, they belong not only to Quebecers but to all Canadians.
As I was saying, this will no doubt be of great help to the unemployed in the Abitibi area, at a time when the Quebec gold mines may have to close down in a few years. That again is a Canadian problem.
The project includes the construction of six to ten dams and six canals. A 200-mile road will be built across very difficult terrain. A port will be constructed on the bay and two airports will be required. Within a year,
2,000	jobs are expected to be created.
All the electric power will be sold to the United States. Already, Consolidated Edison of New York intends to purchase some to the value of $2 billion.
The money for financing this project will come from Quebec, which hopefully will contribute half a billion, as well as from Europe, which might contribute almost $3 billion while the balance would come from the United States.
Here, I make a digression to point out that this is where the federal government plays its part. If we follow the policies of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), who urged the provinces not to borrow too much on the foreign market, the minister will have to take his responsibilities and tell Quebec how to negotiate its loans on the Canadian market. This is where the federal government will intervene for the first time in the financing of the project.
It is reported also that a government-owned company will be responsible for carrying out this project. Its aim would be to co-ordinate all activities in this area, including those of such other Quebec companies as SOQUIP and SOQUEM.
Mr. Speaker, the keen observer sees at a glance the vastness of the project not only for Quebec but for the rest of Canada also.
Quebec has furnished evidence of its efficiency in this field: let us consider the Manicouagan and Outardes projects for instance. One passes rapidly from great amazement to questions which remain unanswered. As a French-Canadian member of the House, I have a right to doubt the profit-earning capacity of such a project.
Will this project encourage the development of northern Quebec? Will the electric power produced be used in developing industry in this region? Unfortunately, up until now nothing points to such an accomplishment. Besides water which resources can we draw from this region? The forests are sufficiently exploited and we have no more need for gold.
If my hon. friend who just interrupted me would read today's La Presse, he would notice that this project is
so important to Canada that four pages are allotted to the study of its political and social effects.
When we know that only half of the 13.5 million cords of wood will be salvaged before the area is flooded by the waters of James Bay, we still wonder if the federal government as well as the province of Quebec should not have contemplated salvaging all of it, at a time when Canadian pulp and paper plants are having difficulties.
Will other resources be processed in the United States, in Quebec or somewhere else in Canada? After its $6 billion investment in that hydro-electric project will Quebec have the capital needed to develop and process these resources?
Many are doubtful about the economic viability of the project as far as the potential market is concerned. New England could face a power shortage within five years and plans to build nuclear reactors to meet the demand. Each reactor would produce twice the amount of electricity which would be generated at James Bay.
Of course, the experts answer that the construction of reactors is much too costly and that from a technical point of view, they must undergo major improvements.
Now, what will happen to the ecological balance which is not only the responsibility of Quebec but also that of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien).
Several streams now flowing into James Bay will be diverted. What will be the effects of those changes on the water system of James Bay which, as we all know, is covered with ice seven or eight months a year. The wildlife will be subjected to the effects of geographic alterations.
Let us take, for instance, the wild geese which follow the Nottoway River when migrating. How will the life of these geese be affected by the diversion and almost complete disappearance of this river? What measures has the federal government taken to prevent this situation? Your Lordship, Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Your Lordship!


Martial Asselin: It happens sometimes that I use this expression, Mr. Speaker; as if I were still in court. This is a kind of professional habit.
I have asked the minister, today, what research and what studies had been made, or shall be made, to try to avoid the disappearance of these migrating birds. I know that the minister has already answered that his experts were working on this problem, but I must show to the hon. member who interrupted me and the name of whose riding I have forgotten, that this is not merely a Quebec but also a Canadian problem.
From an economic viewpoint, the only unfortunate aspect is that the financing will come from foreign countries, mostly from the United States. These days, economic nationalism is a current topic. As Canadians, we would also like to keep our natural resources and develop them ourselves.
We would like to learn from the government what projects it intends to bring forward in order to meet the

May 11, 1971

requirements of the economic nationalism advocated by some Canadians who, I think, have every reason to worry about the take-over of our natural resources by foreigners. How will the country be affected by a $5.5 billion loan at current interest rates?
We are aware of the value of the project as to the effects such large exports of power will have on the balance of payments, and we must welcome it. The fact remains that every precaution must be taken to spare Quebec and Canada serious after-effects if the project were to abort or prove unprofitable.
The government expects, as I said a while ago, that
125,000	jobs will be created. What will happen to that manpower when the project is completed? Once it is set up, the hydroelectric complex will operate with the help of a computer or about one hundred men. That is what is happening at Manicouagan, since the projcet has been completed.
What we ask is this: To what extent will the federal government participate in the project? It is now levying an 11 per cent tax on building materials. Does it intend to co-operate with the Quebec National Assembly by repealing this tax to reduce the cost of the undertaking? Building materials will be needed to the tune of $1.5 billion. Does the government intend to remove that tax or to grant an exemption? As was the case for Churchill Falls, does the government intend to grant tax exemptions to shareholders?
Finally, the human factor has to be taken into consideration. In the James Bay area, there are Indians who are still under the federal jurisdiction. Some say that they number 10,000 and others, 5,000. Today's issue of La Presse mentions that there are 3,500 Indians in the territories involved, and as we know they still come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
To speak of the Far North is to speak of the Indians. Therefore we are right in asking the minister whether he looked into the matter or intends to do so, in order to determine what will become of the Indians who live in those territories.
It is a human element that should concern the federal government. In today's edition of La Presse, one could read the following about the 3,500 Indians in the territories concerned, and I quote:
-it is that... the mass arrival of the white people will destroy there as elsewhere the unity of the Indian culture. One must go to Schefferville to know exactly what is going to happen in the James Bay area-
In Churchill and in Schefferville, towns that are not far from my constituency, we find alcoholism, racism, lack of culture, tensions, degradation of every aspect of social life. Of course, those are human factors which the federal government must take into account when discussing a project of such importance.
A more accurate census should be made of the number of Indians living in those territories which will soon be inhabited by white people. Those Indians belong to the Cree tribe and have been living in this hunting and fishing territory for over 300 years. Will they be indemnified 24107-12
Development of Northern Canada accordingly? Will they be hired to work on this project? Does the federal government intend to set up immediately a training program so that those Indians will be able to find work when the project is under way?
Mr. Speaker, this again comes under the government's jurisdiction. We are affected by these questions. Far from opposing the James Bay project, we are entitled to ask questions and to know what will be the government policy and contribution to this huge loan the province of Quebec will have to raise. Will this province be able to borrow the full amount abroad or will it be able to find on the Canadian market the billions of dollars required for this project? This is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.
As regards ecology and natural resources, of course, they come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As he has already been asked today, I ask him how he will co-operate with Quebec toward the implementation of such a project.
This is why, in my opinion, the official opposition was right in raising such an important question, and this is also why I will support the motion.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to confine my remarks this evening to two main areas which are the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). The initial area which I should like to discuss relates to one aspect of the social policies of this government. I believe it is an aspect which has frequently been criticized in the past, but from my personal experience in visiting a number of Indian communities it is evident that we have made enormous progress over the last few years in providing adequate and improved housing for our Indian and Eskimo people. The Indian and Eskimo housing program has already resulted in more than 11,000 new homes having been built. This year alone more than 2,000 homes will be added to the 11,000 total. Without question, we are improving the strictly material aspects of our social policy vis-a-vis the Indian and Eskimo people of Canada.
I am afraid the record is less satisfactory when we look at some of the results of our social policy in the educational and employment field, although I realize that there too the government is making enormous strides. Important new programs have been developed over the past three or four years and these are beginning to produce results. However, I do not think anyone in this government is satisfied with the present unemployment rate among our Indian people, nor is anyone in the government satisfied with the extremely high drop-out rate of Indian youngsters, particularly in our high schools. This drop-out rate is close to four times the national average and unemployment rate ranges, at least for part of the year, between 40 per cent and 50 per cent.
Having said that, I do not think there is any hesitation on the part of this government to take whatever action is necessary and to inaugurate whatever new policy may be necessary to reduce the rates of unemployment and

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada drop-outs among our Indian students, rates which belie the material progress the government has been making in providing for the physical wants of our indigenous peoples. '
Clearly, the most important thing this government has accomplished in the last few years is the provision of the mechanisms by which our Indian people can act on their own and can take the initiative in solving their own problems. Increasingly in the last several years we have seen Indian organizations spring up, representing every provincial group of Indians. A strong national organization has also been developed. These organizations are not yes-men for any government. They are making gains on behalf of the Indian people they represent in a very forceful and effective way.
This is producing results for the Indian people and is instilling pride in them when they are able to see the results of the new forcefulness translated into government action. The mechanisms which have been provided to allow our Indian and Eskimo people to take this selfinitiative will in the long run, I believe, prove to have been the most important thing we have done in this transitional period which started in the late 1950s, really, and accelerated during the early 1960s-a period in which we have seen the number of Indian and Eskimo children in high school multiply many times over, and the number of children in university increase many fold.


Paul Yewchuk: You are daydreaming.


Ian Watson: These years have been important years. But again, Mr. Speaker, the government has not hesitated to admit the serious deficiencies which remain.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is no time to brag about it.


Ian Watson: I should like to deal particularly with one area of the north, northern Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Quebec government will have to hurry its consideration of Indian claims to prevent its James Bay project from being hampered by legal proceedings.
I believe that the Quebec government's position when dealing with the Indian people, in particular those living in the so-called New Quebec area, is untenable. No doubt people know that when the federal government in 1912 transferred jurisdiction on the New Quebec territory to the Quebec government, the latter assumed responsibility for direct settlement of all the claims the Indians in the area could make. Up to now, those claims have never been sustained and, if the Quebec government does not want to see its James Bay project obstructed indefinitely, it is most important that the native rights issue in the New Quebec area be settled.
The other area I would like to touch upon tonight concerns the resource policy of the government as it relates to the oil and gas regulations which have been

under suspension for some time now. I do not remember precisely when the suspension first took effect, but it seems to me it is more than a year ago since the oil and gas regulations applicable to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon were suspended.
Up until they were suspended the basic philosophy behind the regulations was that the permit holder should have first choice of 50 per cent of his permit area and that should return the remainder to the Crown. The choices were subject to certain restrictions, but in any event they all boiled down to a 50 per cent turnback to the Crown in the event of a discovery of normal size. There were a whole series of explanatory rules which provided for the discovered resources to be separated one from another by a row of sections, or that the permit holder could choose his section squares on an alternate basis; but the end result was that the Crown kept its 50 per cent.
The practice in the provinces has been for this 50 per cent to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The regulations were different in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon, at least until they were suspended. They provided that the Crown's 50 per cent was subject to the original permit holder's option to take it, as well, by paying a double royalty. This was an additional incentive, and it was judged to be necessary to encourage the higher risk and cost of exploration in the Northwest Territories. It had that effect; it did encourage a certain amount of risk capital that would not have gone there had this additional incentive not existed. But at the time when the discoveries were made at Prudhoe Bay, all this changed and in this changed situation there was no longer any requirement on the part of the Crown, in my view, to provide this additional incentive.
The potential which was demonstrated by the Prudhoe Bay discoveries, the potential which the Arctic area held for possible oil and gas discoveries was such that this double royalty clause was no longer a justified sweetener for the purposes of getting additional risk capital into exploration.
What concerns me now is the likely direction in which I feel the regultions may be changed. It is reasonable to expect that there will be a tendency on the part of the government to opt for the type of option regulations which already exist in the provinces and which have proven effective in a province like Alberta. These option regulations have given Alberta a fairly high percentage return on its oil resources, when all taxes, federal and provincial, and the royalities are taken into consideration. If Alberta is compared with oil producing countries throughout the world, then the results there compare fairly well. But the Alberta regulations have resulted in a situation which I think most of us deplore, in that the percentage of foreign control of the oil and gas resources in Alberta, and throughout the Canadian west, ranges well over 85 per cent.
This has been a result of this policy and I would like to suggest to the government, as I did in a previous speech- if I remember correctly, last June-that instead of the 50 per cent that is returned to the Crown being auctioned-
May 11, 1971

off, it be retained by the Crown or at least remain directly under Crown control or ownership, possibly with farm-out provisions, perhaps with first preference going to the original permit holder.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Make up your mind. Which way do you want it?


Ian Watson: The members of the NDP on many occasions have made sweeping suggestions about nationalization. I am suggesting a method which in the long run would have a far more sweeping effect than many of the suggestions made by the NDP, short of outright nationalization. We could retain a higher percentage of our oil and gas resources in Canadian ownership, in the long run, if the method I am suggesting were adopted. And we would do this without any cost to the Canadian taxpayer, except conceivably that there would be some slowdown in oil and gas exploration which in turn would result in some slowdown in tax revenues.
Geologists tell us that there is abundant oil and gas in the Northwest Territories. As it is discovered I hope the government will follow a course which will result in Canadian control rising from the present 10 or 15 per cent to perhaps 40 or 50 per cent over a 15 to 20 year period. This method would be painless, would produce results and would not cost the exploration area an insupportable loss of risk interest. If a major discovery of oil were made in the Canadian Arctic within the next few weeks there is no question of the policy I am suggesting resulting in a decrease in risk capital investment interest in that area, although I admit that if no major discovery were made for a year or two perhaps there would be some lessening of interest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is that?


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, if the government were to accept my suggestion, there would be a number of alternatives; and I think we should be flexible. We could maintain the Crown's 50 per cent under a Crown control similar to the Panarctic mechanism; or we could give Panarctic the first choice; or we could give any Canadian company a chance to bid on it, including Panarctic; or we could keep it under Crown control through another corporate entity similar to Panarctic, and with this form of Crown corporation we could arrange for its development partly under Canadian and partly under foreign control.
These alternatives, with their objective being greater Canadian control, would produce better results than anything that is being done at the moment or that can be achieved through tax policies or through the Canada Development Corporation. I do not believe that the Canada Development Corporation under its present setup-and I was critical of this in the recent debate-can achieve what the government hopes for in the resource area, because it is not designed for this. From government statements, the Canada Development Corporation
24107-12^
Development of Northern Canada will have to show a profit eventually for dividend purposes. It is therefore not suited to ventures in the north which are high-risk with no guarantee of return. That being the case, unless there is an extremely capable man at the head of the Canada Development Corporation, with some experience in mining, I believe we will end up-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, with the contributions to this debate limited to 20 minutes I could not, in conscience, presume to roam all over the north and the Canadian Arctic.


An hon. Member:: Stick to Newfie.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I shall confine my remarks to that large area, that huge land mass of Labrador which lies within the riding of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. Of the
121,000	square miles comprising the riding, approximately 100,000 square miles constitute Labrador.
The motion before the House reads in part:
That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress for northern Canada offers great opportunities for the people of this country; and that the economic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed progress; and that it is essential to make appropriate changes in our approach in respect of northern Canada.
I think that applies very well to Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and the next part condemning the government is only a technical form. I shall probably vote for the motion, but I do not see what can be gained by dealing with that aspect of it. I think Labrador is usually described as the near north. It is made up basically of the Labrador City-Wabush area which has a combined population of about 13,000. Then there is the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area with a population of 9,000. Churchill Falls has a fluctuating population which goes up to 6,000 or 7,000, and when the project is completed it will probably go down to a couple of thousand. The only other populated area of Labrador is the very long coast line.
I shall not make any particular appeal on behalf of the Labrador City-Wabush are because I think these twin towns could be described in almost every respect as ultra modern. I do not give credit for this to any federal or provincial government; the natural resources were there, private companies saw them, realized the potential and built two very fine towns. They have every amenity from a curling rink to a golf club to a bowling alley. The only two problems in this area, which are common to Labrador, are transportation and communications. There is an excellent air service, but no road connection with the outside world. With regard to communications, the complaint for the most part is about lack of proper radio and television facilities. I will not dwell on these people tonight because whether they agree or not, they are pretty well off.

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
Up to 1J years ago the people of Goose Bay, one of the other two populated areas in Labrador, depended 100 per cent upon the activities of the United States Air Force base. In the last year or so there has been a wood exporting operation that sort of comes and goes and seems to operate on no firm basis. Generally speaking, the economy of the area still depends for all practical purposes solely upon the operation of the base.
As was done in connection with the other, similar United States installations in Newfoundland, we have been given indications that despite assurances to the contrary there is a possibility that this base might fold. Recently a small curtailment of the activities of the base was announced, causing the people of the area great concern. Between 8,000 and 9,000 people depend solely on this base. I am asking, relative to the motion: What action is being contemplated by the government, which has a responsibility in this area, in the event that the base should close? What will it do after consulting the province? Except for a few desultory or token signs of activity, there is no sign of proposed action.
Let me say that when the base at St. John's, Newfoundland, closed the population affected was absorbed by the larger population of the town. There is no large population in Goose Bay which could absorb the people affected by the closure of the base. I have read that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is interested in making deals with provincial governments and setting up what they call infrastructure. Infrastructure, as I understand it, is a variety of amenities that may improve the economic and social climate. It may entice or encourage industry to come into the area.
There is no sign of any infrastructure program being undertaken in Goose Bay. There is no program, apart from plans with federal participation to build a vocational training school-I do not know what good that will do-for creating an economic climate that will induce industry to the area. As I say, I do not know what good that will do or I do not know what I am talking about. I presume that the people who live in such northern communities could move to the pollution-ridden areas of the south.
I remember vividly one night this past winter boarding an aircraft to fly to Newfoundland. It was a murky evening in Ottawa, with a low cloud ceiling, the kind of ceiling that helps you to appreciate fully the odour that comes from the factory across the river. That night I could hardly breathe. At midnight I left for Goose Bay and a few hours later, five or six to be exact, I landed in Goose Bay on a frosty, clear morning. It was wonderful to get off the aircraft and breathe pure, fresh air. It smelled fresh. One cannot describe it except by saying that it smelled like pure, fresh air.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has spoken about this. He appreciated that air. When he was last in that area, the major part of his speech to groups that were giving him a hard time about their various needs in communications, transportation, and so on, had to do with fresh air. The message that he left with them was,
"You don't know how lucky you are." I agree with him up to a point. Fresh air is not the end-all of everything. People can only appreciate such advantages after they have been given all the other amenities of basic transportation and communications. I appreciated what the minister said, although I am not so sure that he sold the crowds any more than he has sold me at other times.
I do not want to be completely critical, Mr. Speaker. During the past few years, with the co-operation of Bell Canada and the CBC, which is not a national favourite- although I must say that there has been a fair degree of co-operation with CBC and Bell Canada during the past few years-radio communication has improved and there has been a pretty fair improvement in our telephone system in Labrador.
The areas I have talked about so far are more or less urban. Labrador City, Wabush and the Happy Valley area may not seem urban but they are. The area that captures everybody's imagination is that long, 700-mile coast line of Labrador. It is an area that this government nor any other will ever be able to computerize. You might feed the problems pertaining to Labrador City and Wabush into a computer and the answer might be that you should move the people away from the area. You could get away, perhaps, with feeding the problems of the Goose Bay area into a computer, but for the people living along that 700 mile coast line of Labrador no computer devised will really find an answer. If their problems were fed into a computer, the answer probably would be that everybody in the area should be moved to Toronto, Montreal or somewhere else. I submit that the people of the Labrador coast and people of Labrador generally are not going to accept that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Recently the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that we need a new sense of human values in Canada. Apparently it is time we developed a new sense of values, not one that measures people strictly in terms of dollars and cents but more in terms of human values: we ought to pay more attention to human values. I do not know if he is about to use the slogan that he used several years ago, the just society.
I say this with all the sincerity I can muster: People from these districts have written letters to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) asking for a few basic facilities, costing a few thousand dollars, to help fishermen and others along the coast to keep from drowning as they pursue their daily work and try to earn a living. When they ask for a measly few dollars I presume their request is fed into a computer. When the answer is no, it is not economically feasible, I think we ought to remind the Prime Minister that the government should show these people more human consideration and not consider only dollars and cents.
I suppose most people who visit the coast of Labrador have visited it as tourists. Last summer I travelled along this coast on the coastal boat. It took approximately three weeks to get there and back. There were a number of

May 11, 1971

tourists from the United States and Europe as well as one person from Australia. Every time I looked at these people during the waking hours of the three weeks, they had their mouths open in wonderment because of the almost frightening beauty of the coastline.
We have a fairly long-standing commitment from the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether he recalls it. This matter was brought to his attention last year or the year before. Instead of serving the purpose for which they were intended, the coastal boats are catering to the tourist trade. The tourists are ending up with a cheap holiday. It cost them approximately $240 for a three-week holiday. The people of Labrador who live in this area either have to travel steerage or lie out on the deck at n-ght. They cannot get a bunk because these are taken up by the tourists.
When this matter was brought to the attention of the minister, he said that the thought of having a tourist ship especially for this purpose was under consideration. It was an excellent idea. I am convinced that this is thinking along the right line, but it is absolutely useless to talk about it if we do not take action.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Find one.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Build one. Instead of chartering, begging or borrowing a ship, build one. There are many expenses that are less justified than what I am now suggesting.


Mr. McGrath:: You could call it the Don Jamieson.


An hon. Member:: Buy back the Bonaventure.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I cannot say all that I would like to in 20 minutes because I do not have the facility, articulation and eloquence of the Minister of Transport.


An hon. Member:: You do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The minister is a professional. He was spawned by and grew up with the media. He knows how to say things that will be accepted. I have to say what I feel. I keep my fingers crossed and hope that what I say will be accepted; this is the problem I have.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: You are doing all right.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I know that cabinet ministers are busy. I know how busy I am. It is almost a morning to night, seven-day work week operation. I can appreciate that ministers are even more busy. However, a lot of their work, such as acknowledging letters and saying that the minister will reply in due course, can be done by the numerous underlings in the offices. I suggest that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works and the other ministers should get out in the country once in a while. They should do this at least once during their three, four or five-year term. When was the last time the Minister of Transport was on the Labrador coast?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Last winter.
Development of Northern Canada


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The minister says last winter. Maybe he was. How extensive was his tour? You do not get the feeling I am talking about by sitting in a plush office in Ottawa, feeding questions into a computer and reading the answers. Maybe I was unkind to the minister.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That's right. I am hurt.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Possibly the minister does make extensive tours of the Labrador coast. Maybe the influential ministers have not been up there.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thanks a lot!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The ministers should see these dilapidated little places and get the feeling of the people, which is so 'relevant to this motion. They will never get this from a computer which says it is not economically feasible. I toured that coast last summer. I saw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the House is anxious to know what the hon. member saw and he might be allowed to finish his sentence. But according to the Standing Orders I have the duty and obligation to inform the House that the hon. member's time has expired. With the consent of the House, the hon. member might be able to pursue his remarks or at least complete his sentence.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: What did you see?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I warn the House that this may be a long sentence. I thank the House for its indulgence. Sometimes I get carried away. Twenty minutes is not long enough. Mr. Speaker, I saw God-fearing people working in their fishing boats 10, 12 and 14 hours a day. They brought in loads of salmon which would command the price of $1.50 a pound in Montreal, or Arctic char, a delicacy which demands top prices in places like Montreal. Because of the dinky little stores provided by the federal government, they were filled to capacity with frozen fish. The fishermen were compelled to take their day's catch and dump it back into the sea. This is the kind of situation that is relevant to our motion. For this reason I would like to see the ministers get out of their carpeted offices. They will not find any Holiday Inns or Newfoundland Hotels on the coast, but they should visit that area at least once while in office in order to have a better appreciation of what I am saying when the very soon become members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker the motion now before us is of the utmost importance since it will enable Parliament to consider the possibilities of developing our natural resources in the Canadian North.
When in school, I remember having the map of Canada explained to me over and over again I was always so fascinated by the teacher's explanations. Some years ago we could read on top of the map the words-"Dominion of Canada."

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada
e (9:30 p.m.)
A few years later, the name was "Dominion of Canada" while the north changed neither in location nor in name. It was still the north, still the Arctic, still an immense territory which we were told was peopled with Eskimos and Indians, an immense tract of land unfit for white men's settlement, covered by ice and devoid of any resources men could benefit by.
Now, after reading the motion brought forward, I went out of my way to study the history of that vast territory in order to find out how it has been administered in past years, the past 90 or 100 years, and that is when I really understood why the motion has been brought before the House.
The motion is worded as follows:
That this House believes that an enlightened program of human and economic progress for Northern Canada offers great opportunities for the people of this country; and that the economic and social policies of the present government have brought about confusion and delayed progress; and that it is essential to make appropriate changes in our approach in respect of Northern Canada;
It is advisable, I believe, to take a quick look at what happened in the past and at the form of government that existed in the Northern Territories. The Act of 1869 concerning the transitional government provided for the first time for the administration of the land of Rupert and the Northwest Territories. But this legislaion was replaced by the Act of 1870.
Following the creation of Saskatchewan and Alberta the Northwest Territories government saw its status reduced to that which existed before 1870. The Act of 1905 established a council of four members appointed by the government, but no appointment was made during 16 years. An appointment was expected but none was made. After 16 years, a commissioner was appointed and given all powers that had been so far those of the Lieutenant Governor, the Executive Council and the Assembly of the Northern Territories. One man was carrying out all these duties.
The first commissioner was Colonel White, a Northern Mounted Police controller, who, from Ottawa, administered the territories, while carrying out his other duties. It is not surprising then that the North was developed very slowly, as it was administered almost in the same way as it had always been since the time of the fur trade.
It is in 1963 only that the duties of the Commissioner of the North were separated from those of the deputy minister of the federal department in charge of the administration of the northern regions. No territorial law was adopted between 1905 and 1920 and most of the orders made applied to conditions in the Prairies rather than in the region north of the sixtieth parallel.
The present act on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gives to the head of this department vast powers for the development of the northern territories, provided he gets the funds required to carry out the projects that are planned.
The present act gives him the non-allocated powers in all matters of federal jurisdiction in the North. The

minister must co-ordinate in the northern territories the activities of the various federal agencies and provide and apply all measures required to ensure a greater economic expansion of the northern territories. He is entrusted with the control and management of all the vacant lands which form the major part of this vast territory. The federal government's interest and authority with regard to Northern development is mainly explained by the Act itself and the department established under the Act.
In general, the federal government is concerned with the Indians and Eskimos living in the Northern Territories where they make up a considerable portion of the population-nearly 60 %- as well as with the development of most of these areas.
The territorial government has no separate and public body to provide the services which are usually available in the provinces, except for the Liquor Board. Employees of the Northern Development department carry out most of the administrative work, they teach school and provide social assistance as well as engineering work.
Since the headquarters of the territorial government is actually in Ottawa and that the commissioner and council members only visit the North occasionally, the average citizen of the northern territories cannot fully appreciate the contribution, which is still very limited, of the territorial government.
The sources of income within the jurisdiction of the territorial government are very limited. Consequently, a very rapid development of this territory is not to be expected unless the central government is willing to make its fiscal policy more beneficial to this territory.
When we read the history of the Canadian territories, we understand better why this region which contains all kinds of resources has not been developed more quickly.
The second part of the motion condemns the government for its failure to promote a truly Canadian strategy for the North based on human, capital and natural resources, and urges that appropriate policies be adopted at once that will bring about such development in that region.
The word "economy", derived from the Greek, means: good use of home resources. If we apply this definition at the national level, it is to be noticed that the word "economics" means good management of public affairs.
According to a division generally accepted, even by economists, three factors are necessary in order to provide men with the goods they need to provide for their wants: nature, work and capital. Those three factors are also necessary when the development of a given territory is concerned.
Sometimes, nature offers some resistance to man. This element is absolutely essential to the production and development of some resources, because without it human activity would be performed in a vacuum and it would be necessary to create, that is to make something out of nothing.
Whether intellectual or manual labour is concerned, it is the only reality which can be described as an active
May 11, 1971

element. Alone it can take some steps in the production and development process of our resources.
Capital is a passive element. It does not exist per se. It is derived from nature and work and is at times fully created by those who have the privilege of controlling the nation's credit.
Nature provides man with a place to dwell, to build shelters, to cultivate the soil, to harvest fruit and vegetables and to breed stocks answering his two most essential needs: food and clothing. Lastly, the subsoil provides industry with minerals and energy.
Since those three components are required in a national economy looking after the needs of its members, it is normal that society, through the organization it has provided for itself and must improve upon, should ensure conservation and control of those three components, if it wants the natural resources-whether located in the Canadian north or elsewhere-to be at the service and fill the human needs of its members, the work to be geared to the fulfilment of the needs of all-not of a few or of some privileged classes-and the instrumental component, that is capital, to serve the appropriate ends of the national economy.
We have in Canada the potential required for the Canadian government to provide for the development of the northern territory. We have there natural resources a great number of which yet to be discovered. We have engineers, tradesmen of all kinds, the most up-to-date machinery in the world which is gathering rust in manufacturers' lots.
In brief, we have everything we need to develop this vast territory, which would provide employment for thousands of young people and make Canada benefit from their abilities. They would be only too happy, once their education completed or even during the summer holidays, to help through their ability and work, people older than they are to develop Canada and to discover throughout its immense territory, in the north or elsewhere, those great resources with which the Providence has endowed our land.
In that area as in others, in order to use human labour and machinery, one must have the necessary finances. In brief, the "dollar" must be available also, which is not the case yet.
Unfortunately, it happens sometimes that without thinking too much about it we believe that the sensibility of those living in northern territories is different from ours.
But after you have met some of them and have discussed with them and when you know their customs and how they want to improve their situation, you realize how much they expect from the Canadian authorities and from the Canadian people to develop all the resources which will enable them to live decently in spite of their primitive customs.
I do not question the goodwill of the minister in charge of this territory but he does not have all the tools required to improve the plight of those northern people.
Development of Northern Canada
Let us grant him the funds required to develop Northern Canada and we shall find that there will be no lack of projects. I am convinced that his staff are finding new projects daily. They are in a position to submit to him the projects which would make it possible to improve the situation, and develop those territories but the minister must often tell them: I should like very much to comply with your wishes, but available funds are limited.
If it were a war project, money would be there at the right time, as we saw in the past, unfortunately, and in adequate amounts. But as it is a peace, project money is not readily available. In fact, there is none. It does not exist in sufficient amounts to implement projects which should normally be implemented during the seventies at the latest because they were not implemented before. This is too bad. It is a logical conclusion in my opinion.
I urge the government to use its majority to subdue our financial system so that it may become a perfect servant for years to come and enable Canadians to build a beautiful country that will belong to them and not to foreigners.
Mr. Speaker, those were the points that I wished to bring to the attention of the House during the debate on this very important motion concerning northern territories. I am convinced that these two days of study on this subject will cause the government to take it into serious consideration and to bring suggestions that will help improve the situation and develop these territories.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, development in the north has been a dream shared by millions of Canadians for many years. It was not till the period from 1957 to 1962, a period in which we had a Conservative government, that a genuine and vigorous effort was made to carry out or initiate such development. It was the continued destructive criticism levelled by the Liberal opposition of the day, just as is the case with Liberal members opposite today, which again arrested the development plan just as it was getting under way.
In considering such development every effort must be made to conserve the ecology of the region and to prevent pollution of the air and the water. The best possible living conditions must be offered white and native alike who live there now and who will be going to the north in the future. None of this can be achieved without an over-all, well prepared development policy that is based on research, study, adequate negotiations and consultation with the local residents, and a good deal of effort.
I must stress that orderly development can be achieved only with a nationwide policy of development that is acceptable to the population at large, and in this respect I think there has been a gross failure on the part of the present government. Since the Liberals returned to power in 1963 I think it is fair to say that northern development in all its aspects has been arrested.


James Aloysius McGrath: Remember how they laughed at the igloo to igloo policy?

May 11, 1971
Development of Northern Canada


Paul Yewchuk: That is right. The construction of roads was slowed down by the discontinuance of the roads to resources program. There was a slowdown in development of other transportation systems, including the construction of airports. The government failed to continue to carry out educational planning toward the ultimate goal of establishing one or two universities in the north as well as a school system that would much more adequately serve the needs of the widespread population.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Who wrote the speech for you?


Paul Yewchuk: In response to the hon. member may I say I wrote it myself. We write our own speeches on this side. Members on the other side always get them handed to them, but we prepare our own.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) always makes his best contributions from his seat.


Paul Yewchuk: That is correct. The hon. member has not spoken in this or in many other debates, for that matter. This government has tightened its grip on the colonial style of government and has virtually killed any hope of provincial status for the Yukon or Northwest Territories in the foreseeable future. In industrial development, Crown corporations such as Northern Canada Power Commission, while useful in some areas are proving in other areas to be obstructive to the orderly development of private enterprise which, as has been shown on many occasions, can be much more efficient. With the new legislation before us-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A motion of this nature is very badly timed, because we found more oil yesterday.


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps you will discover the real north some day.


Paul Yewchuk: If the minister wants to make a speech, I will yield the floor to him in five minutes. I have only ten minutes left, but I will share it with him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will speak tomorrow-and I will not have a prepared text, like you.


Paul Yewchuk: If I may return to my remarks, I was saying that Crown corporations such as NCPC have proved in some areas to be obstructive to the orderly development of private enterprise, which on many occasions has proven to be much more efficient than civil service-operated corporations.
New legislation before us such as the Yukon minerals act pose greater possibilities of a slowdown of industrial development, particularly in mining. The possibility of slowdown is getting greater as the days go by. I am pleased to note that the discovery of oil was made before some of the new proposals of this government had been put into effect. I am sure they will cut down the amount of exploration going on in the north.

The slowdown possibilities posed by the Yukon minerals act are typical of this government's economic ability. There is not a comprehensive policy or strategy for this vast area of our country. We have seen nothing but an ad hoc approach and the Canadian people, particularly those of the north, are not benefiting from the kind of northern development that is possible and should be in motion at the present time.
In human and natural resources Canada is probably the world's richest country. Under the feeble guidance of the government this potential lies idle and useless. The Economic Council of Canada has estimated that Canada has lost $3 billion a year in income and jobs because of the economic ineptitude of this government. I think it is fair to say that with the present high rate of unemployment, the sagging economy and the decrease in personal income, the Canadian economy desperately needs a stimulus. The Liberal government has failed to come to grips with this need. The most obvious answer lies in the development of the rich potential of the north.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has made a feeble effort in what is known as the mid-Canada corridor, with its high resource potential and its sparse population. The approach used has not been in the context of an over-all development strategy, and for this reason alone this government should be served with an eviction notice at the next election.
For many years the Progressive Conservative Party has been a leader in the discussion of how best to utilize our northern resources. We must rekindle this spirit and vigorously press this slothful government for immediate and significant action. As I have mentioned, unemployment at the present time is worse than at anytime since the depression days of the 1930s, but we continue to export our raw resources and by that method we export thousands upon thousands of jobs to other nations. Why are we not developing resources here in Canada? Why are these raw materials not being processed right here? We have the know-how, the manpower and the money to do it. We have a good credit rating if we need more money. What is required is simply a government with development policies. We do not have that.
In considering northern development we must recognize that Canada has need of nationwide purpose. Canada needs a common objective behind which our citizens can gather to contribute individual talents and energies. We are in a position of being able to learn from others' mistakes in the past and avoid repeating them.
At the moment the majority of our population occupies a narrow strip along our southern border and the rest of the country is a tremendous, undeveloped area. We must avoid exploitation and a degradation of Canadian natives. We must avoid uncontrolled pollution of air, water and land. We must avoid indiscriminate destruction of what is in effect the only remaining, virtually untouched, habitable region left on this continent.
We have a unique opportunity. We know there is a need in the world for our natural resources and we should strive to develop them ourselves. We should develop them in a positive way, to the greatest benefit of
May 11, 1971

our citizens. Perhaps it is time to reconsider and rethink the old ideas that our country's greatness depends upon exploitation and export of our raw, natural resources, particularly by high-subsidized corporations which some people consider virtually steal these resources from us to use in their own manufacturing processes, creating jobs in their own country and selling back the finished products at a very handsome profit. This seems to be the basis of the present government's policy. I say it is an outdated policy.
I do not want to be misinterpreted. I should not like anybody to think I am saying we do not need foreign capital. I do want hon. members to think I am saying the government has a responsibility to create an economic climate and mechanisms which would allow Canadians to do more of the developing and have the opportunity to play a greater role in solving unemployment problems and improving the economic despair which has been hanging over us since this government's policies have had the opportunity of becoming effective.
Any program to develop the north must take into account mid-Canada and the Arctic as distinct geographic belts. Development strategy should relate roughly to three distinct parts. There should be a separate program for the development of mid-Canada, there should be a separate program for the development of the Arctic, and there should be an over-all, co-ordinating program whose principal function would be to provide the various support facilities necessary for the implementation of development strategies for mid-Canada and the Arctic region.
Under such a program the rights of the indigenous people must be protected. This matter has been raised on many occasions in the House of Commons. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) have indicated that the native people along the Mackenzie Valley have been consulted with regard to the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline construction. Information given to me by the residents of the area would indicate that no such consultations have been held. I notice the minister looking in the other direction as I make these comments. I hope he can give us some information on this matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am looking straight at you and your red shirt.


Paul Yewchuk: The same applies to the future of the Eskimo. Adequate planning and consultation with these people must also be carried out, since in the development program their present method of gaining a livelihood may well be seriously altered, if not obliterated. Therefore, a plan of development must include a detailed plan for the development of these human resources in order to ensure that they are not simply overrun by machines from the south.


An hon. Member:: That's Socialism.


Paul Yewchuk: That is Conservatism. Protection of the environment cannot be overlooked. A massive effort in research is still required as against the token efforts now
Development of Northern Canada
being made by the government. It seems rather ironical that this government is objecting to the TAPS system, proposing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline as an alternative, but as yet there has been nothing like the amount of research required before constructing a Mackenzie Valley pipeline without causing irreparable harm to the ecology of the area.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Paul Yewchuk: It will take five or ten minutes to complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps we should call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the House would allow the hon.
member to complete his remarks, if he requires only another five minutes. I must inquire whether hon. members want the Chair to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what hon. members are agreeing to.


An hon. Member:: An extra five minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Do hon. members agree that the hon.
member be allowed to complete his remarks?


An hon. Member:: It is ten o'clock.


Paul Yewchuk: I know that hon. members would not want to hear any more of this tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You have your cheering section along with you tonight.


Paul Yewchuk: With regard to natural resource extraction, an orderly program of exploration and development of our lumber, mineral and water resources is required, along with assessment and exploration of oil and gas reserves. In respect of an over-all, co-ordinating program, adequate transportation systems must be developed. There must be a re-establishment of the roads to resources program. There must be a further development of rail facilities. There must be greater research into the transportation of oil and other resources from the high Arctic.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Panarctic is spending millions of dollars on exploratory work and many of these millions are public funds, but the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated that he has not even thought of having research undertaken on how to transport oil from the high Arctic Islands if it is found in that area. That is rather startling when you consider the kind of expenditures being made. We still do not have any idea of how high Arctic oil will be taken to market so that a return may be realized on the investment.
There is some thought of a pipeline from the high Arctic, but there is no evidence that this is in fact a realistic mode of transportation, say of gas from Chris-

May 11, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion tian Island. Shipping is another possibility. But it is a United States company that has done most of the research, with the Manhattan project, into this method of transportation. We are told that Baffin Island is the site of some of the world's largest iron ore deposits. It would appear that an initial investment of $150 million would provide sufficient capital to bring one of these deposits into production. Therefore, why is this deposit not being developed? Could it be because of the failure of this government to assume, wholly or in large part, the cost of providing the infrastructure facilities required to service an entire area?
It could be that the development of a government-sponsored Arctic shipping network could satisfy these requirements. It could be that construction of a modern townsite at Mary River-the site I referred to-would put to better use government funds now spent at Inuvik or Frobisher, where there is little or no industrial base and little to support the native peoples there except welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude by again referring to the native population. I quote from the Globe and Mail of May 7 with respect to Indians in the Northwest Territories:
There is a growing feeling among Indian leaders in the Northwest Territories that Indians are being used as guinea pigs.
They feel that Indians have been overtaken with a subtle implementation of the basic concept of the federal government's supposedly discarded white paper Indian policy.
The basic concept of the white paper policy was to bring about integration of Indians into Canadian society by granting them equality through such measures as the abolition of the Indian Act and the disbanding of the Indian Affairs Department.
Indians reacted strongly against the policy proposal saying that it was simply a sop to white liberal ideals of equality which would result in the eradication of what remained of the rights granted to them for surrender of their land.
Again may I say that government policy which seeks to achieve healthy, productive and economically secure lives for the native peoples of Canada must respect their cultural heritage and traditions. The Canadian Indian must be free to choose to live in or away from his native community without prejudicing the opportunities available to him to enjoy the standard of living and quality of life of other Canadians. In both the formulation and application of such a policy the native peoples must be fully consulted and fully involved.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence.


[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pursue with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on this adjournment debate a question of very great concern to the people of Prince
Edward Island. I am glad the minister is here this evening. This is an encouraging indication from him, I hope, of his interest and concern for the agricultural situation in Prince Edward Island.
I must confess quite frankly that from the answers the minister has given the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and myself during the past few weeks I wondered whether he was either well informed or concerned about the very serious situation existing in respect of the agricultural industry in Prince Edward Island. For some weeks the hon. member for Malpeque and myself have been attempting to find out from the minister what forms of assistance his department envisaged in terms of the very real problems that exist in the potato industry in Prince Edward Island.
It is no secret to anyone acquainted with the marketing of potatoes over the past few years that for some years now we have experienced very depressed markets, particularly in the marketing of table-stock potatoes. As a result, a number of farmers have tried to diversify into other forms of agriculture or into the growing of seed potatoes. But we in Prince Edward Island are in a particularly distressing condition this year. That is why on Thursday of last week I asked the minister again-it was not a new question; it had been raised on a number of occasions-whether in view of the very depressed conditions of agriculture in PEI and the recent submissions by the provincial Minister of Agriculture, he was prepared to indicate what forms of assistance would be forthcoming to the potato growers as they faced heavy expense in buying fertilizer and seed.
As those involved in the industry know, there is a particularly distressing problem at the present time in terms of farmers having sufficient funds to be able to get on the land and engage in spring planting. There is the heavy expense-particularly so this year, I might say- involved in the purchase of seed because of a crop which was not altogether satisfactory last fall due to a damp period during harvesting, as well as disease, as a result of which the number of people who have usable seed this spring is smaller than usual. All this is an extra expense to PEI farmers. There is the added expense of fertilizer. With fertilizer, as with most of the costs relating to agriculture, there have been regular increases, I think particularly so during the last couple of years.
The minister's response to me last Thursday was simply to indicate that at the present time potatoes were going at a very high price. I was really shocked by this answer-shocked to think he would deal with the potato industry of Prince Edward Island in such a cavalier fashion. He must know, if he knows anything about the potato industry, that the number of farmers who would have any usable stock of potatoes for sale would be minimal, almost to the point of non-existence. For farmers, particularly this year, it was hard for them to hold stocks for any length of time and most had to sell their stocks last fall, during the winter or early in the spring. It was a shame for the minister to suggest that now that prices are somewhat higher this would be of assistance to the producers.
[Mr. Yewchuk.l
May 11, 1971

That is why on Monday I presented a motion in the House urging the government to consult immediately with the province of Prince Edward Island to formulate a program this week of immediate assistance. This should not have come as any great surprise. Indeed, the party presently in power, about three years ago-I believe when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) was Minister of Agriculture-initiated a program of acreage payments of, I think, $25 per acre which was of considerable assistance in terms of giving farmers sufficient financial resources with which to purchase badly needed seed and fertilizer.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker-I do not really like to mention this-if we have not seen, because of the minister's unwillingness to act in this matter, a further instance of government policy to force a number of people to stop growing potatoes in Prince Edward Island. It is a rather brutal method, but I am told that one of the recommendations in a publication from his department suggests that there should be less potatoes grown this year. Well, that certainly will be the case so far as Prince Edward Island is concerned, because already too many farmers have been driven to the point of bankruptcy or have had to sell off their farms by way of farm auction. I quote the words of one rural banker the other day when he said to me, in terms of the crisis into which too many farmers have been forced, "This is the worst I have ever seen."
When the minister quotes, as he did on Monday in reply to the hon. member for Malpeque, the long-term averages, when we look at the situation on the basis of long-term averages that really do not make the present situation look very serious, I suggest he is trying to divert attention away from the problem, particularly when he includes New Brunswick with PEI. I would remind the minister that the agricultural situation is very different, in terms of potatoes, between PEI and New Brunswick.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as I previously advised the hon. member, I had a very useful meeting with the ministers of agriculture of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. At that time they submitted a formal proposal requesting assistance. The agricultural stabilization board, of course, have been considering the proposal and they have not closed out consideration of it, but there are a number of things we have to take into account.
While it is true that for a very short period the price of potatoes to producers dropped to a very low level, since then prices have strengthened significantly and are now higher than they have been in three of the last five years. I am sure the hon. member would be interested in noting that the estimated return to all growers in Canada for the 1970 crop year was approximately 90.4 per cent of the long-term average, and that Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick growers returns were 98.1 per cent and 94.8 per cent, respectively, of their long-term averages. The return to the producers in Prince Edward Island, as a percentage of the long-term average, was higher than any other province for the 1970 crop year.
I do not wish to comment on the problems that agricultural producers are having with respect to purchasing seed, fertilizer and so on. I am sure the hon. member realizes that when we initiate an assistance program we must take into account the total returns to producers from their crops.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.14 p.m.

Wednesday, May 12, 1971