1971-03-05

THE PRIME MINISTER


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for not having given notice yesterday of the intention of our esteemed Prime Minister to get married.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The trouble is he did not consult the members of his Cabinet on this essentially private affair, but I am sure all members of the House will join me in wishing great happiness and long life to the happy pair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition I join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in extending deep and warm congratulation and good wishes to the Prime Minister and his bride. I was surprised, however, that he made an admission that the cabinet was not consulted. That apparently is not an unusual course for the Prime Minister, but in this case more understandable than usual. My suggestions are not often accepted by the members of the government, and in particular the Prime Minister, but I think the House would want to know what I said on the occasion of my 30th year in the House of Commons, on March 25, 1970 when in response to the warmth that often fills this chamber I stated:
I do not want to mention personal matters, but on an occasion like this, filled with emotion, I do want to say that one's happiness is greatly increased by having a wife to support and to counsel one. I am not passing that on to the Prime Minister by way of a suggestion but I say to him that if he would follow my advice in that connection he would be amazed at the transition that would take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to the Prime Minister and his bride the happiness that has been that of my wife and myself. The bride is the daughter of one of the most distinguished members this House has seen in my time. He was elected for the first time in 1940 during his honeymoon. Some years thereafter I recall seeing the bride of yesterday in the gallery opposite you, Mr. Speaker. She then was about 4 or 5 years of age. It was one of those occasions when there was an interruption from the gallery, dissimilar however from that which
took place yesterday. In a voice which could be heard all over the chamber she said, "There's my daddy".
All hon. members will join in wishing the couple all that is good, with the happiness of today to be theirs always.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister need not have apologized for not having notified the House yesterday that the Prime Minister intended to embark on the sea of matrimony. We in the opposition parties are now accustomed to the Prime Minister doing things without giving us any advance notice. The fact that he did not inform the cabinet is understandable. They would probably have insisted on the matter being considered by a study session, followed by a task force, and brought to a conclusion by a white paper, after which nothing would have been done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I suggest that at the Prime Minister's age such delay is unthinkable.
It is a matter of great pleasure to those who come from British Columbia that the Prime Minister should have chosen a girl from British Columbia as his wife. This will help to cement relations between the two provinces of Quebec and British Columbia. I know that the people of B.C. will be very pleased at this event. I am sure that members of the NDP join all members in the House, and the people of Canada generally, in wishing both the Prime Minister and his wife every happiness in the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we were both surprised and pleased to learn that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had changed his civil status. On this important occasion, we wish to offer him and his bride our most sincere wishes for happiness and success in their new life.
Mr. Speaker, according to the Bible, it is not good for man to live alone. The Prime Minister has understood this and he has chosen as his bride a Canadian girl from a worthy and eminent family, and we are happy about this.
I would also like to recall that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and leader of the New

March 5, 1971
Urban Affairs
Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) has said that the fact that the Prime Minister has married a girl from British Columbia gives us reason to hope that the bonds that unite Canadians will no longer be broken because of the vastness of this country.
Mr. Speaker, we are both moved and happy about the decision of the Prime Minister and we hope that every time he goes off like this to meditate in hiding on his status, some change will be brought about in Canada's policies.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Marceau (on behalf of Chairman.)

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in both official languages (Mr. Clermont).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
* * «

[Stage Direction]
TABLING OF REPORT, "URBAN CANADA: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS"-STATEMENT BY MINISTER
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: would like to table in this House and for public discussion a document entitled "Urban Canada: Problems and Prospects". It is a report commissioned by me and prepared by Dr. Lithwick of Carleton University, along with many associates. In the year since Dr. Lithwick produced his first draft, he refined the report and the government has considered its many public policy ramifications.
The document was sent recently to the premiers of the provinces with which governments a process of discussions about new ways to approach urban problems has already begun. This is Dr. Lithwick's study; the analysis and conclusions are those of a consultant, not of this government. It should not be read as representing government policy. It is the first attempt at a comprehensive overview of Canada's documentable urban problems, the separately known aspects and conditions of urban life analyzed in a total context as they affect each other.
The commissioning of the study was an important step by the federal government to explore and document the 
nature of urban Canada, and to understand the rather phenomenal pace at which we are speeding toward giant cities and urbanized life in this country. The author makes no claim that this is more than an exploratory study. It has, however, influenced the government's thinking about the directions of urban Canada as a matter of national concern. Perhaps I might highlight, in the most general of terms, the report's principal findings.
On Canada's urban problems the report suggests that our urban problems are serious and getting worse, but they can be handled. They are still manageable and we have brilliant opportunities in this country to shape and direct an urban future of our choice. There has generally been a basic lack of understanding of the root causes and indirect consequences of major urban problems. These major problems of high housing costs, slums, traffic congestion, pollution and social unrest are greatly interdependent, and they are in large part a consequence of untempered economic growth and urban expansion.
On Canada's urban prospects the report suggests that urban growth will continue to be very rapid, and will be increasingly concentrated in our largest and most problem prone cities. Within 30 years, without applying some shape, direction and planning to that growth, one half of Canadians will reside in the three metropolitan areas of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. The most severe growth pressures will occur in this current decade; they are in fact right upon us now. The complex of urban problems that flow from this growth can well reach very serious proportions, as they have in other countries.
On Canada's capacity to solve these problems, the report says that there has been great fragmentation of federal efforts in the cities, and this has led to sometimes contradictory and sometimes perverse results. However, the co-ordination of the vast federal involvement in urban Canada provides a most important starting place for guiding future patterns of urban growth. The report mentions that policy making at all levels of government has failed to prompt governments to act in concert on the many problems requiring joint action and thought. The tools for dealing with our present and future urban problems are at hand, but the current lack of policy coordination within and between levels of government means those are not being used.
The report and the related studies led the government to a decision to seek to put our federal house in better order and to work with the provinces and, through them, with the municipalities, to find better ways to confront what had become national problems. The government is developing a new type of institution to deal with this kind of multifaceted problem, and that is the ministry of state. The ministry of state is a flexible instrument that can bring multidisciplinary insights to bear on complex problems without grouping them into the rigidity and constraints of yet another big government bureaucracy.
In urban affairs, the ministry of state will be a source and a focus for the development of comprehensive federal policies that will let our left hand know and affect what our right hand is doing in urban matters in Canada.
March 5, 1971

People are now working to institute a real co-ordination of federal policy efforts in the cities. We are now building a strong research capability that will allow policy analysis and development to proceed systematically on the best available information. This research function will include the capacity to test-I repeat to test-specific policies before major new financial or administrative commitments are made.
One important role will be to clarify to other departments the consequences of the different federal policies being implemented now and in future. Mechanisms for determining Canada's urban objectives through intergovernmental consultations are now being explored, and the ministry will devote much of its efforts to consultation, with the objective of joint co-ordination and rationalization of efforts between the federal and other levels of government.
I want to repeat what I have said many times, that this work is going to be supportive, co-operative, usurping no jurisdictions, imposing no federal urban policy on the country. We will build techniques by which proposed policies can be tested and work with the provinces so as to determine what sort of process may be developed.
I would now like to table the report, Mr. Speaker, and to add that the research monographs, providing detailed technical and analytical documentation for the report, are being printed and will be made available shortly.


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, and despite the daffodils, today Ottawa has been out-snowed by Vancouver, and what a snow job that has been. It makes it difficult for us to get down to business, but I am sure there is pleasure in every heart in this House and across the entire nation as we congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on his successful daring, and extend our very best wishes to his bride, Mrs. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Now, I think, we can understand the content of the Prime Minister's speech to the faithful at Toronto a couple of nights ago.
I thank the minister responsible for housing and urban affairs for his advice yesterday that he would finally be tabling in the House, this morning, the Lithwick study of urban problems in Canada which was commissioned by the government about one and a half years ago. I received the minister's statement and a copy of the study about one hour ago. This study or report has been in the hands of the minister and of the cabinet for about one year. Everybody in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as well as numerous other government officials across the land, seem to have read Mr. Lithwick's work and discussed it long before today. But there has been no opportunity, until now, for opposition members on this side of the House to read it. I assume the same holds true of backbenchers on the government side.
Although 85.4 per cent of Canada's population in 1981 will live in urban centres of over 1,000 people, neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor other members of this House will expect me to discuss Mr. Lithwick's report in detail this morning. After all, it is 236 pages long, and is extremely
Urban Affairs
technical. However, I have thoroughly sampled its author's style in the symposium "Urban Studies: A Canadian Perspective" which he and Mr. Gilles Pacquet published in 1968, and which is to be found in the Library of Parliament. We are told, in that work, that we know very little about the process of urbanization in Canada or about the structure and functioning of our cities. However, much work had been done in the United States to accumulate a certain stock of knowledge about approaches to the urban phenomenon. Mr. Lithwick has criticized the Canadian bureaucracy on the ground that it feels its own expertise to exceed by far any to be found elsewhere, thus making dialogue unnecessary.
The author has also criticized the government for its miserly approach to internal research effort. Furthermore, he came down hard on the CMHC for failing to carry out the serious hard work involved in urban renewal, low rental housing, mortgage financing and so forth, accusing it of stringing most of its programs together on an ad hoc basis. So, it seems to me he was an excellent choice to carry out this study.
There is no machinery in Canada, Mr. Speaker, capable of arriving at a national urban policy. The report before us would provide the basis for designing such a policy, likely a good one. Its findings coincide with the longstanding recommendation of the Progressive Conservative party that a federal department of urban affairs and a national urban council be established. It deals with possible policy options for urban growth and also envisions a central research agency for serious urban research and a large-scale data development program.
May I suggest to the minister that the conclusions and the recommendations in this report be considered by a special joint committee of the House and of the Senate, as well as in the light of representations from all three levels of government and those of other qualified and interested parties? Time is of the essence because the complex urban phenomenon is still very poorly understood. In these circumstances, Canadians generally and the CMHC in particular, are entitled to know what their roles are to be. Is the CMHC to be our great urban planner? From its history, I hope not. But it could do some things very well.
Mr. Lithwick, we are told, has revised his report over the period of a year. The analysis, and the conclusions reached, are not to be regarded as those of the government but rather as those of a consultant. The voice of the minister, and of the cabinet which has considered these documents for so long, must, nevertheless, have exercised a great deal of impact upon the alterations which have been made. From a quick consideration of the minister's statement, it would appear that much has been accomplished by the report in influencing the government's thinking about urban Canada as a matter of federal concern. This, I sincerely hope, will prove to be the case.
The report is of great value if it does nothing more than communicate emphatically to all levels of govern-

March 5, 1971
Urban Affairs
ment, and to all Canadians, the facts contained in paragraph 2 of the minister's statement, namely, that within 30 years one half of Canadians will reside in the three metro areas of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, and that the most severe growth pressures will occur in this current decade.
Dr. Lithwick is to be commended for pointing to the present great fragmentation of federal efforts in the cities, with perverse results on the promotion of the co-ordination of the vast federal involvement in urban Canada. We are told that the tools for dealing with our present and future urban policies are at hand. But where is the will and the skill to use them? It is in this that we in this party are primarily interested.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I deplore the government's answer, which is the ministry of state and more highly paid, flexible instruments. We have had enough reports by intellectuals and experts. What we need now is leadership and action. I find the argument of the minister for proliferation of ministries to be a specious one. Let him emulate the late C. D. Howe rather than his present leader, for too many good works are lost in contemplation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him. Perhaps he could give some thought to bringing his statement to an end. According to the Standing Orders, as no doubt he knows, it should be a brief statement or a brief comment. Perhaps he has exceeded the bounds of the Standing Order. I realize how important the matter is and how interesting is the statement being made by the hon. member for Spadina. I am sure that he will wish to co-operate with the Chair in this regard.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have waited a long time for the report. It is lengthy and deals with an urgent situation. I hope you will forgive me for my lengthy statement; I will try to wind up in a few words.
I suggest that, although it will be good to test specific policies before major new financial or administration commitments are made, we shall expect both good and swift work to be done under the great pressure of our rapid urbanization.
I left out two or three sentences, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that will be our loss.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, a quick look at Dr. Lithwick's report, that is all that we have been able to give it, leaves a very favourable impression. It looks like a comprehensive beginning to the solution of a very important problem. I join with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) in regretting the length of time it has taken for us to get this report. The government has had the report for a long time. Questions and notices of motions for production of papers connected with the report have been on the Order Paper probably for one year or more. Now that we have the report, I hope that supporting documents containing information about the studies which were made, about the people
who worked on it, about what they did, about their qualifications and their pay will be forthcoming. That information has not been given so far.
We agree that a national urban policy is necessary. We have called for the establishment of a ministry of urban affairs for a number of years. Apparently the government, if not Dr. Lithwick, is proposing to establish a ministry that will be devoted to research and not to action. I regret that. Without detracting from the research done by Dr. Lithwick and his colleagues, may I say to the minister and to the government that over the years a tremendous amount of research has been conducted in the fields of housing, pollution and urban growth, but that very little has been done to meet problems outlined by earlier studies.
In his statement the minister talked about the major problems of high housing costs, slums, pollution, and so on, and pointed out that they are the result of untempered economic growth and urban expansion. They have also resulted from the failures of federal, provincial and municipal governments to plan comprehensively. I suggest to the minister in all seriousness that they are also to be attributed largely to the lack of money necessary to meet the problems. It is useless to tell the municipalities of Canada that they must move more quickly to clean up pollution caused by inadequate sewage disposal systems, because they will say, "We have no money for that." The statement contains no answer for them.
The minister said that within 30 years half the people of Canada will be living in the metropolitan areas of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. It seems, therefore, that the government has rejected the suggestions made in the study conducted by the former minister, namely, that satellite cities should be built. The minister shakes his head; nevertheless, the statement does not suggest that that may be done. The statement talks about the growth pressures which will occur in the next decade and says that we must deal with these right now. I suggest that it is time for the minister and for the government to consider something that the Toronto Star, for example, has been advocating for several years, the public ownership of land in and around the large urban areas where the next spate of urban development and growth will take place. Let us squeeze out the speculators instead of encouraging them to get into the act.
The minister said that policy making at all levels of government has failed to prompt governments to act in concert on these problems. How can the municipal and provincial governments act in concert with the federal government, or with each other, when Ottawa decides on the amount of money to be used for housing and other matters to do with urban growth on an ad hoc basis. Its decision is influenced by the amount of unemployment, as well as by other questions. Instead of carrying on long range planning, the government decides how much money will be made available on very short notice. Under those circumstances no municipal or provincial government can act in concert with the federal government. The minister said that people are now working to insti-

March 5, 1971

tute a real co-ordination of federal policy efforts in the cities. It is rumoured that the federal government had decided not to help in future in the funding and financing of community action projects. I hope that those rumours will prove to be incorrect.
Lastly, the minister said that his ministry will devote much of its efforts to consultation, co-ordination and rationalization-I presume that this includes co-operation-with other levels of government. I hope that that will be more than talk. It is very difficult for the provinces to plan their co-operation with the federal government in certain circumstances. Recently the government of Manitoba was interested in a public housing project. Officials of that government came to Ottawa, to talk with the minister and with officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, because they hoped to spend over $50 million for public housing in the next few years in Manitoba. The minister and Central Mortgage and Housing told them that they could get little more than $30 million. It is difficult for provinces to plan when they are given only 60 per cent of the money they have requested to meet their plans. I am sure that Manitoba is not the only province that has found itself in this situation recently.
We wish the minister well. We hope that the planning and co-operation he has talked about eloquently are not just words. We hope that the result will be action, as opposed to the talk we have heard for so many years.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for housing has sent us, only a few moments ago, an English version of the summary report prepared by Dr. Lithwick of Carleton University, about urban problems in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed to find since I have been in this House, the number of reports published by governments and the number of surveys they carry out at various intervals on Canadian problems.
What also amazes me is that after these reports are published, no policies are adopted to implement the recommendations included in these reports.
If this morning we refer to the summary report the minister circulated among us, we see that it only reminds us of the seriousness of urban problems in this country. It only serves to remind us that, and I quote from pages 1 and 3; "Our urban problems are serious and getting worse, but they can be handled."
This is nothing new to us or nothing that members of the House have not told the government in recent years. It only summarizes what hon. members have said with respect to urban grievances.
The report informs us also that if Canada has urban problems it is primarily due to the high cost of housing. The government was aware of that and we had already
Urban Affairs
told them. This is also due to the lack of coordination between the federal and provincial governments in dealing with urban matters and housing.
Unfortunately and inasmuch as the summary report at hand indicates, I note that we are not given the means of solving the urgent problems regarding urban growth.
We have heard statements on the subject of high interest rates, but the report does not deal with it. Nothing is said regarding the cancellation of the tax on building materials which is a major obstacle to housing development in Canada. Neither is it stated that interest rates would be lowered. If the government wishes to have a good idea of the possible solutions, it would do well to publish a document similar to that which has been circulated to us lately, entitled: "How Your Tax Dollar Is Spent". It has only to act according to the example set out at page 28 which deals with the Canadian International Development Agency.
All we have to do is to establish in Canada a Canadian Urban Development Agency and to use it as we ' use the Canadian International Development Agency.
According to the report that I have in front of me, $172 million are now available for loans to international organizations for international development. We have urban development problems in Canada. This morning, we received a summary report which is a reminder, but in which no solution is proposed.
I am still appalled at the number of commissions that study Canada's problems. But, unfortunately, the government does not ensure coordination.
I think that municipal authorities fully realize what they have to contend with in the field of urban development, but the one and only authority responsible for this deplorable situation is the federal government which will not allow them to take any action because it does not put at their disposal the funds needed to fight effectively urban problems in such areas as housing, water-works and sewers; these are all very urgent problems considering the demographic explosion in Canada and the lack of interest on the part of the different governments during the past 25 or 30 years.



FISHERIES


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement this morning about the phasing out of foreign fishing operations on Canada's east coast. The decision to promulgate our fisheries closing lines, as hon. members will recall, was announced in December. These long closing lines will apply shortly to certain large bodies of water including the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

March 5, 1971
Phasing Out Foreign Fishing Operations
We announced the decision to draw these closing lines in December, 1970. The 60-day waiting period expired on February 26, 1971. The earliest date for their publication in Part II of the Canada Gazette is March 10, 1971. They will therefore come into effect on Wednesday of next week. From that date on no nation can establish a new fishery inside Canada's exclusive fishing zones. Nor can it step up its fishing activity from that which it has conducted, traditionally, in what from now on will be our exclusive Canadian fishing waters.
So much for new entrants and new foreign fishing activities, but there is still the matter of phasing out. By phasing out I mean the phasing out of traditional fishing practices by the following countries, namely, France, Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway. No other countries will be able to fish in our exclusive fishing zones in the future.
It should come as no surprise to Canadians, and certainly it will come as no surprise to Newfoundlanders, that these countries have, traditionally, fished close to our shores. Many of them have been fishing close to our shores for more than 400 years!
Against this background it should not come as any surprise either to hear that it will take several years to complete the phasing out process. It will be a negotiated process. It will be a process which will be completed in the mid-1970s. Then the closest which foreign nations will be able to come to our shores is 12 miles from certain major promontories along our coasts.
In answer to a question in the House last week, Mr. Speaker, I said that we would be asking foreign fishing vessels to move out 12 miles. We have now asked Spain, Portugal, Norway, Denmark and the United Kingdom to move out 12 miles from our shore along certain sections of our coast and in certain seasons of the year. We are asking them to do this right away, wherever and whenever there is likely to be a gear conflict. France is a special case. The several hundred year old French treaty provides as follows:
Notice of any fresh laws or regulations shall he given to the government of the French Republic three months before they come into operation.
This notice will be given by March 10, the time at which the ordinance describing our fisheries closing lines are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette.
I have used the term "gear conflict", Mr. Speaker. By that I mean the danger of large foreign fishing vessels interfering seriously with the local operations of our small vessel, inshore fishing fleets. The authority to take action, Mr. Speaker, stems from an amendment which we made to the federal Fisheries Act last year. This amendment extended to Newfoundland, a provision which had applied to the Maritime provinces for some time. Now large Canadian trawlers over 65 feet in length must stay out 12 miles from shore. They must stay out 12 miles unless they are given specific permission, by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, to fish closer to our Canadian coastline.
I intend to use this discretionary power, Mr. Speaker, without discrimination as to nationality. I intend to use it in our dealings with Canadian trawlers and foreign-owned trawlers alike. Countries which have traditionally fished up to the three-mile limit off Newfoundland have been put on notice in this connection. In future, they too will have to stay out at least 12 miles from shore wherever and whenever there is any danger of a gear conflict in the area. We will map out these areas in advance and let them know where they can come into the three-mile limit and where they cannot, pending the completion of our over-all phasing out process.
Hon. members opposite say they are confused. They should not be. Those who come from Newfoundland know far better than I do that foreign fishing vessels have come close to our shores for hundreds of years. They have known all along about the necessity to give notice. They have known about the phasing out process. To tell local fishermen that they can take the law into their own hands and drive foreign fishing vessels out 12 miles is, therefore, an irresponsible act.
We are phasing them out over the next few years. We are phasing them out for all tune. We are also using a recent change in the federal Fisheries Act to eliminate gear conflicts between large vessels and small inshore vessels during this relatively short phasing out period.
This is the orderly way of doing things. It is also the best way. It is the best way especially when we are counting on many of these countries to support our case at the next Law of the Sea Conference in 1973. In effect we will be asking them to join us in our attempt to cut down on big fleet operations, including that of the U.S.S.R., 50 to 100 miles from our shores.
We will need all the allies we can get in this much bigger struggle to conserve the fish stocks in the north Atlantic. An abrupt and unilateral act on our part in respect of this matter of phasing our foreign fishermen from our Canadian exclusive fishing zones would, I suggest, be very shortsighted indeed.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, firstly I should like to offer my personal congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his young bride. I look forward to seeing him back in the House relaxed and refreshed, and I also look forward to a renaissance of closer personal inter-relationships among all members of the House. I can understand some of the pangs of the recent decision-making process.
I thank the minister for his statement, a copy of which I received when I came into the House at eleven o'clock. I should like to make two brief points. First of all, the east coast fishery has two main problems. The first is the general problem of overfishing by many foreign vessels. The second is the specific problem of the infiltration of these nations up to our shores inside our territorial waters and three-mile limit, indeed, right up to our coasts and into our backyards.
[Mr. Davis.l
March 5, 1971

This particular problem recently caused great concern when there were reports of 60, and according to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) 40, foreign vessels fishing right up to our coast. I do not know whether the Soviet Union was one, but certainly almost every other fishing nation of the world was fishing the east coast of Canada. This development has caused great concern and has resulted in threats being made, not by politicians but by members of the public, that if no action were forthcoming from Ottawa they were willing to take matters into their own hands and try to protect their own interests. They were concerned that their property was being stolen. They felt much as if their homes had been broken into and their possessions stolen, and therefore they felt that they had the right to defend themselves.
The statement of the minister was made for the purpose of clarifying recent statements, since the impression left by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was that, as of several days ago, following the proclamation by the Minister of Fisheries, the traditional fishing nations were to remain outside the 12-mile limit off the southwest coast of Newfoundland, which happens to be part of Canada. The fact is that the very next day 40 foreign fishing vessels were fishing within three miles of the coast; hence the obvious confusion.
The minister now tells the House that we should not be confused because these nations have been put on notice, though it will take some time for the Department of External Affairs to give the notice and to elicit the kind of response that we should receive from these nations. We understand that the officials of the Department of External Affairs were very reticent, to begin with, about accepting the proclamation of the Minister of Fisheries and have been very lax in trying to alert the various nations to the problem.
In his statement the minister said we have asked various countries to comply and he referred to certain sections of the coast. Then he went on to say that we are asking them to do this right away wherever and whenever there is any conflict. But it is only a question of "asking them" to do this. Farther on he indicated that these nations have been put on notice and said that Newfoundlanders understand about the giving of notice.
I can speak for most of the people I know in Newfoundland, this is certainly not the understanding they had. They assumed that the matter was well in hand and that a decision had been reached. I am not going to elaborate on the particular point whether or not notice has been given, but certain questions remain in the minds of Canadians. First of all, we want to know when this announcement was made. The minister will have to provide the answers to these questions, if not in a statement on motions, certainly in some kind of prepared written text. We also want to know when these nations were alerted to the problem, when they were alerted to the response of Canada through the proclamation of the
Phasing Out Foreign Fishing Operations
Minister of Fisheries. We want to know what were their responses.
Second, we want to know what plans Canada has for making its presence felt in these areas. We had an announcement about two DND aircraft being mobilized in an effort to try to enforce the minister's proclamation. We want to know to what extent Canada is prepared to make its presence felt so that we can push these foreign vessels away from our coasts and thus allow our own people to make a living from a resource that is being depleted day by day.
Is the government of Canada willing to arrest and charge these foreign fishermen if they do infiltrate the 12-mile territorial zone declared by the Minister of Fisheries, though I understand that these zones are not yet in effect? These nations have been put on notice. Is the Canadian government willing to make these foreign nations pay compensation for loss of gear and the destruction of the fisheries resource, and therefore the way of life of our fishermen?
My third question is: Is the Canadian government willing to enforce a 12-mile territorial limit right around our coasts? It is only a matter of days before the same sort of thing is going to happen in other parts of Newfoundland and there will be a recurrence of the same problem. If it happens in Notre Dame Bay this year then the Minister of Fisheries must not expect me to act in a responsible manner if his own government cannot do likewise. I will not put any covers on the anxiety of the people of Newfoundland if they decide to try to force these vessels away from our shores.
Lastly, there is the more general question whether Canada is now prepared, in view of recent events and the danger of a great international flare-up and crisis over this issue if we do start taking the law into our own hands, to try to force these people away from our shores. I do not know whether this will mean we will not sell as much wheat or shirts made in Quebec, but in order to avoid any trouble is the Canadian government going to launch any new initiatives in the area of conservation?
The minister concluded his statement with the warning that, if we do push these nations too hard, we might kill the relationship he hopes to foster for the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference. If we go back to the 1958 Geneva conference, we recall that Canada was then given the right, one that was accepted internationally by all countries present at the conference, to ask the nations fishing on our continental shelf if they would agree to certain quotas and conservational and managerial steps to be taken by this country. If they were not so willing, then six months after any formal move made by Canada in this direction Canada could unilaterally declare and enforce certain types of conservational and managerial measures.
noon)
So I suggest it is not merely a question of persuading these foreign nations to honour the resources of Canada. I challenge the minister to enlighten the House as to what

March 5, 1971
Phasing Out Foreign Fishing Operations action we can expect the government to take, over and above the recent very specific move, to try to push these foreign vessels outside the 12-mile limit. I also say that if Canada is not willing to give greater attention to the fishing industry in British Columbia, Quebec, the Maritime provinces and Newfoundland, if the Department of External Affairs is not willing to take more action than it has recently, the present difficulties will be minor compared with the unrest we will witness in Canada in our maritime areas in years to come.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnelt (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the announcement by the minister this morning indicates the government's intention to take certain specific action, it is welcome. But as I listened to the minister I could not help but be reminded of how, month after month, indeed, year after year following the passage of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act in 1964, we received bland and wordy assurances from the former Secretary of State for External Affairs that action was imminent as a result of that measure. We waited in vain despite the pleadings, efforts and proddings that some of us on this side of the House engaged in.
There is a distinct contrast as far as the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is concerned. Whether he is wise in this matter I do not know, but the impression he has successfully created in the House is that far from being wordy on this subject he is struck dumb whenever the question of action on fishing matters is raised. These questions are left to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). We cannot accuse the present Secretary of State for External Affairs of having held out any false hopes.
There is one particular point I should like to underline in respect of the statement of the minister. As a member who comes from the opposite edge of Canada from that of the hon. member who has just spoken, I agree with the statement of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry as to the importance of this matter to a very large segment of Canadian workers. Certainly the fishermen on the west coast of Vancouver Island, who are faced with the imminent loss of their livelihood as a result of the encroachment of foreign fishing fleets, understand what this is all about. I plead with those members who come from other parts of the country to try to understand what this is all about, and to recognize that the fishermen who go out on the seas are in a rather peculiar position because they have not got the same control over the resource from which they derive their livelihood as other people have in different types of employment.
If hon. members who represent the Prairie provinces were suddenly to find their agricultural land being taken over by immigrants, without any action being taken by the immigration authorities, I suggest they would be in a situation parallel to that which has developed on the Atlantic coast of Canada and has become more and more obvious in recent years. Therefore I urge hon. members to support the action taken so far. Indeed, I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to expedite further necessary action.
The minister has talked about a phasing out period. Realistically we cannot quarrel too much with the suggestion that this approach be taken. But it does underline the inadequacies in many respects of the fishing zones concept as we have developed it for the protection of fishing resources generally which are important to the Canadian economy, and also the need to co-operate as much as possible with other countries.
I regret that the minister gave us no indication in his statement as to what the government has in mind in respect of phasing out foreign activity outside the 12-mile territorial sea in the Gulf of St. Lawrence fishing zone. I hope there will be something forthcoming on this in the not too distant future.
The encroachment of foreign fishing vessels in territories from which the larger Canadian fishing vessels have been excluded has been a knotty and aggravating problem on the Atlantic coast for many years. I welcome the fact that the minister is going to require foreign fishing vessels to observe the same regulations Canadians have to observe.
All I can say in concluding is that I recognize that the problem on the Atlantic coast is much more complicated than that on the Pacific coast because of the fact that many nations over the centuries have established claims to fishing rights close to our shores. I hope this action by the minister will serve notice that we do not want nations attempting to establish historic rights or claims off the Pacific coast of Canada.



TAPS PROJECT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to move a proposed motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I propose to ask the unanimous consent of the House to put this motion.
The Canadian nation is daily becoming increasingly concerned over the conflicting claims of our industries for energy and the need to protect our environment. The government, which should be providing leadership and direction to Canada on this issue, is divided. Instead we have all around us conflicting voices.
The United States has already stockpiled pipe to build the pipeline from the Alaskan slopes to the port of Valdez for the transportation of crude petroleum. There is still no government decision to implement policies to prevent the pollution of the sea and our environment. A large oil spill on the west coast, and one will occur, arising from a tanker which was involved in an accident could permanently destroy the life of our coastal regions and cause grave economic hardships to our people.
At the same time there are understandable needs by the United States to develop their oil reserves and trans-

March 5, 1971

port energy to the great industrial centres of the mid-west.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Our Canadian oil industry needs the same things. If this House is concerned, I would move-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member, but I am sure he realizes the limitations imposed on us all under Standing Order 43. The hon. member must limit his statement to the matter of urgency and not argue his case. I appreciate that this is a very important matter of concern to all members of the House. Perhaps the hon. member might soon indicate what his motion is.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I had already started to propose the motion. The reason I laid down the terms of reference is that I wanted to win the unanimous consent of the House. I move:
That this House urge the government forthwith to institute an interdepartmental study of the ecological and economic effects of the TAPS project and of alternatives to the TAPS project, and to immediately insist on joint governmental consultation with the United States on these issues before a U.S.A. decision is made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Calgary North. As he has indicated, under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion can be put only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and I regret that the hon. member's motion cannot be put at this time.



POLLUTION


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave under Standing Order 43 to move a motion. May I say I am encouraged to do so and to hope for a warm and favourable response because of the fact the Prime Minister has wed a young woman from British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, this is my motion:
That this House, being aware of the urgent and pressing necessity for action to protect the residents of British Columbia and the waters and shores of that province from the twin threats of massive pollution and ecological destruction involved in (a) the proposed transport along our shores by tankers of Alaskan oil to a refinery in Washington State and (b) the scheduled underground U.S. nuclear explosion test on Amehitka Island in the north Pacific, an earthquake prone zone, urges the government of Canada to act immediately to protect the citizens of British Columbia.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Surrey. The motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge of the Canada Grains Commission, the former Board of Grain Commissioners. Previously I sent notice of my intention to ask the question to the Acting Prime Minister because, according to the roster system, the Minister of Agriculture was not supposed to be in the House today. I see he has received the message. My question must be of importance to the government as it is to the rest of Canada. Did the minister, who is in charge of the Canada Grains Commission, have the services of Mr. F. F. Hamilton, the Chief Grain Commissioner, terminated at the pleasure of the government and, if so, why?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, technically Mr. Hamilton is still with the Board of Grain Commissioners because the effective date of the proclamation of the new Act is April 1. I have had some discussions with Mr. Hamilton and during the course of those discussions I advised him I am not prepared to recommend his reappointment.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the second half of my question concerning why his services were terminated. My supplementary question to the minister is: Is the replacement for Mr. Hamilton to be a former Manitoba Liberal minister and former Liberal organizer on the prairies?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. For the third member of the Canada Grains Commission when it becomes effective on April 1 I will recommend Mr. Forest Hetland, a master farmer from Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to have a further explanation of what appears to be political partisanship on the lowest level. Mr. Hamilton, a war hero with a D.F.C. and a D.S.M., is just being dumped out. Is it a fact that the first notice the minister gave of his disagreement with what the Chief Commissioner had been doing was on February 22?

March 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. That is not true.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I then ask the minister whether he received, a letter from the Chief Commissioner dated February 23 which states:
This is a hurried reply to your unexpected criticism of yesterday, that is, that my board has moved too slowly in the steps and procedures required to bring in a new grain Bill and regulations.
Did the minister reply to this letter?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I wish you would table it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With Mr. Hamilton's consent I could table the letter some time in the future.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he ask for an opportunity to discuss the matter further and did the minister deny him that right?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not think he asked for that opportunity. While I think I should be fairly careful about what I say respecting a private conversation with Mr. Hamilton, I believe I could advise you, Mr. Speaker, and the right hon. gentleman that Mr. Hamilton and I have had a number of discussions over the past two and a half years and Mr. Hamilton has been well aware that I have not been satisfied with his performance during that period.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister brought in the new bill did he let the House know of his dissatisfaction?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether his latest release in favour of partisan appointments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of a supplementary question and I suggest to him he should ask the question.


Stanley James Korchinski: In view of the fact that the opposition members on the agricultural committee have been arguing for appointment for a fixed term of office, does the minister consider that his latest actions will be conducive to the early passage of that bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskafoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in view of this change may I ask the minister whether it is his intention to appoint an entirely new board with the coming into force of the new Act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the notice that has now been given of a strike date having been set for Sunday on the part of the dockyard workers at Esquimalt and Halifax, is the government prepared to reconsider its position and do away with the dollar an hour differential as between the east and west coast that is involved in the government's latest wage offer?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will recognize the impropriety and indeed damage to the collective bargaining process if I were to negotiate with him across the floor of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when this matter has been concluded, will the government be proposing to members of the armed forces that they be paid different rates of pay depending on where they are serving?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman, particularly with his long service in the House, should realize that the policy is that where employees are not expected to be highly mobile across Canada we endeavour to engage them for service in a locality at rates of emolument appropriate in that locality.



DOCKYARD EMPLOYEES WAGE DISPUTE-NEW GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS IN VIEW OF STRIKE DEADLINE

['I can assure the hon. member that the government has nothing to hide. I will speak to the minister and see if that can be arranged.']
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary I wish to ask on behalf of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants who sent notice of it to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question on behalf of someone else. Perhaps the House will appreciate the circumstances in which the question is asked, but the hon. member must ask the question in his own name.


Thomas Miller Bell: I endorse the question on my own behalf, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the minister's reply to the previous member, but can he say whether the government will consider any new proposals in this matter in view of the strike deadline?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: think, as has always been the case, the government does not wish at any time to terminate negotiations or discussions. As long as there is room for them and a willingness to discuss, we are ready, willing and able to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not make room then?


March 5, 1971

[T ranslation]



Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
Could he tell the House whether he intends to increase substantially in the next two years Canadian aid to Barbados according to a statement made recently by Senator Richard Stanbury, chairman of the Liberal Federation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have not seen the statement made by the hon. member of the other House.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us if the government intends to grant additional assistance to needy Canadians through exemption of any direct taxation for low-income people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is very interesting, but he puts it as a suggestion. He must take it for granted that it will be considered by the government.
3j!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to direct my question either to the Acting Prime Minister or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that no decision had been made by the United States authorities in reference to the pipeline from the rich Alaska northern slopes to Valdez. In view of the fact that a consortium of companies in the United States has already stockpiled pipe for the building of such a pipeline, is the minister aware of that and is he now aware of the decision made by U.S. government authorities to build such a pipeline in view of the stockpile?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. It may be that there are such stockpiles; I do not disagree with that. I do know that no decision has been made. I would like to tell the House that the United States Secretary of State has indicated to me that he now agrees to enter into consultations with us on this question. I am sure he would not have done so if a decision had already been made.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that answer, Mr. Speaker. In light of the answer, can the Acting Prime Minister say whether the Canadian government has made up its own mind as to which transportation route would be the best in Canada's national interest, that is, down the Macken-
Inquiries of the Ministry
zie delta or to the port of Valdez and then by tanker to the United States? What is Canada's position and how did the government arrive at it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I thought the hon. gentleman would have learned by now from the repetitive statements I have made in the House that the Canadian government feels there is a very serious risk in the movement of oil by tanker down the Pacific coast, and it would not be in the interest of either of our two countries.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of the minister's statements in that regard, but does the government then endorse the building of a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley and through the Prairies to the industrial centres of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure that as a member from Alberta he would wish me to be in as strong a bargaining position as possible in relation to the United States, and to ensure that if an application is made it is one that meets our requirements and not only those of the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What is your requirement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment, but hon. members must realize that there has to be some limit on supplementary questions if we are going to give opportunities to other hon. members to ask their questions. I notice a number of hon. members to my left who tried to ask questions yesterday, and I am rather anxious to give them an opportunity today. So I will have to seek the co-operation of the frontbenchers at the start of the question period.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I agree that probably we ask too many supplementary questions, but the minister will not answer. There are only two possible routes, either by tanker or by pipeline. Why does he not say which position the government is taking?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh! -


Mitchell William Sharp: I have tried to be as clear and as firm in my answer as is possible at present. I hope the hon. gentleman agrees with me that if we are going to agree to the building of a pipeline down the Mackenzie we should meet the requirements of the ecology. I hope we can meet our economic requirements and I hope we will have to give up as little as possible. If he does not agree with that, he should say so.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I want to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can he give any indication as to when consultations with United States authorities may be held?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would think this would take place as soon as it is convenient to both sides. I expect it will start very soon.

March 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry YOUTH


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is tor the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the conference on services to transient youth and student summer unemployment scheduled for March 14, 15 and 16, has been cancelled because of the lack of federal government assistance, can the Acting Prime Minister say why the government has made this unexpected decision at such a late date and what alternatives the government is considering?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in reply to some questions the other day, the government has been consulting with the provinces about a program for student employment. It seemed to us that the conference that was to be held might be a very useful affair, but we did not think that it would be a good use of the taxpayers' money to finance it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Acting Prime Minister say whether or not this decision was made in light of the fact that the government feared there might be destructive criticism at the conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether or not, in consultation with the Canadian Council on Social Development earlier, the government had in fact asked that this conference be postponed for one month in order that it could actively participate and support this conference in March?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think this question should be directed to the minister concerned. I did not participate in the decision-making.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the fact that this important conference on transient youth and student summer employment, a subject in which the government has professed interest in the past two weeks, is of major importance, there seems to be some conflict in the information that has been given the House with respect to the question, and I wonder-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary question?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the Acting Prime Minister agree to table the correspondence between the government and the Canadian Council on Social Development with respect to this conference in order that the full facts of the situation might be known?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that the government has nothing to hide. I will speak to the minister and see if that can be arranged.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since snowfalls this year in many areas of Canada are at a record high, abnormal, and in many cases catastrophic, would the government consider giving financial aid to municipalities which are overspending their snow removal budgets?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
think that the government of Canada would consider that particular request, but let me point out that it is providing indirectly some very substantial assistance which I think will help the municipalities to meet their budgetary expenditures.



HOUSING


Mr.  W. C. Scoll@Vicloria-Haliburlon: My question is for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. On January 21 I asked the minister a question with respect to Rochdale College in Toronto, whether they are behind in their payments and what is the government's intention? The minister replied:
I will be making a more elaborate statement on that situation in the not too distant future. In the meantime I can advise the House that the mortgagee met the payments in the last three months consecutively.
On February 24 the President of CMHC-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. The question should be put as briefly as possible, and I hope that the hon. member can ask his question soon.


Mr. Scott:: Yes, Mr. Speaker,, I am coming to the point. On February 24 the President of CMHC told the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee that Toronto Rochdale College is $289,000 in arrears, sufficiently behind for the corporation to take steps-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. The hon. member is going over the background of the matter which he wishes to bring to the attention of the minister. It seems to me that there must be some way to ask the question in a more succinct fashion.


Mr. Scoff:: Can the minister inform the House if any action has been taken on this matter?


Robert Knight Andras: This situation involves many jurisdictions. It involves, of course, CMHC and its financial responsibilities. It involves problems of law and order in Toronto. It involves problems of the other creditors of Rochdale. It involves the provincial government. I think it is only responsible that we recognize that unilateral action may not be the wisest course, and indeed consultations with

March 5, 1971

other involved people are going on right now. It is not an easy situation with which to deal. I am aware of the hon. member's concern and sympathize with it. Nobody will be happier than I when I am able to find and announce some wise solution to this problem.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: In view of the statement by the president of CMHC that the arrears on the mortgage are over $250,000 is the minister discussing this very important matter with those who he has indicated are involved with the intention of issuing a writ of foreclosure or of adopting any other legal means whereby the interests of CMHC can be protected?


Robert Knight Andras: All those kinds of options are being considered.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether the agencies involved have discounted the issuance of a writ of foreclosure, and is it the policy of the government not to issue a writ of foreclosure?


Robert Knight Andras: No such action has been discounted, nor has any precise decision been made along that line up to the moment.
Hs * He



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-DANGER TO WILDLIFE-PROBLEMS IN LAYING LINE ON PERMAFROST

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would ask him whether the fears which have been expressed publicly by officials of the wildlife service about the dangers to the wildlife of the north if oil or gas pipelines are built down the Mackenzie Valley have been communicated, and whether steps have been taken to make available the information which his officials have to the National Energy Board, or to anybody else who will be dealing with this question if an application to build a pipeline is made?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we are giving this matter very serious consideration and at the present time there exist a couple of public servants committees representing the various departments concerned, such as the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, my own department and others to insure that there will be concerted action and that no mistake will be made in the development of the final policy.
In August, my colleague and myself have outlined the general principles which will prevail in the construction of a pipeline in the Canadian north and we are still studying this problem. There are consultations taking place at all administrative levels in this respect.


David Orlikow: As a supplementary question I would like to ask the minister whether his officials are studying the
Inquiries of the Ministry
problems involved in the laying of a pipeline on permafrost, because my information is that very little research has been done on that problem?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is exact to say that there was no research. Many people from Canada, the United States as well as Europe came to Inuvik to see the research performed in this field on permafrost, but also on the effect which the construction of a pipeline would have on the movement of wild animals in the north. All those matters are studied by department officials and the House can rest assured that they will provide all relevant information when final guidelines become available.



POSSIBLE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-COMPENSATION TO INDIANS

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, will the Can-dian government be taking the same position with respect to compensation for the lands of the Indian peoples, over which a pipeline will possibly be travelling, as is being taken by the United States government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to proceed always according to the methods used by the Americans. In Canada, we can find original formulas and that is one of the problems that concern us. I am sure we will be able to find a solution that will satisfy Indians and Eskimos and will meet the economic needs of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Will the minister say whether the Canadian native peoples will be compensated for their lands over which any pipeline travels?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible to establish a corridor that would not be detrimental to the native population of the North.
Besides, the famous columnist of Old Crow, Josie Edith, said that at this time most of the people of Old Crow are working for the companies-



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the price of powdered milk and cheese was increased as of February 8, 1971, and as the powdered milk and cheese in storage at that date were sold at the former price, can he tell us whether the producers will

March 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
receive some compensation or whether the processing industries or the CDC will be the only ones to benefit from the increase?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, so far as those stocks that are held by the Canadian Dairy Commission are concerned, I should advise that any gain in the value of that inventory would be used for the purposes of the Dairy Commission. However, any increase in the value of privately owned stocks would accrue to whoever holds that stock.



BUTTER IMPORTS FROM NEW ZEALAND

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
In view of the huge quantities of butter we import from New Zealand, and the overproduction in Canada, does the minister intend to revise the policy on imports of dairy products and by-products, in order to give Canadian products the priority on the domestic market?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has been misinformed because we do not import any quantity of butter from New Zealand, and indeed have not placed an order with New Zealand since September, 1968.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In view of the Dorion report on the integrity of the Quebec territory, with regard to Indians and Eskimos, presented to the premier of Quebec on March 3, and recognizing that that report suggests to the Quebec government that it should exercise a jurisdiction in so far as Eskimos and their territory are concerned, and that certain treaties should be signed with the approval of the federal government, may I ask the minister whether he will urge the government to carry out the recommendations of the Dorion report respecting provincial policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I received no official copy of that report. However, I have read myself the newspaper reports on that matter.
We have to face two very great difficulties in this field. First of all, we must confer with the Indians who are interested, and then we must take into account the provisions of section 92 which state that legislation concerning Indians and Indian lands comes under federal jurisdiction. We will have to reckon with the Constitution and
this will necessitate an amendment which may not be easy to obtain without the consent of the Indians.


Roch La Salle: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister if Quebec, in the first place, has requested discussions with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and if the minister is willing to meet the provincial authorities?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are always ready to hold discussions with the Quebec provincial government. I already had some about this and I am prepared to hold others in the future.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Were consultations held between the federal government and the government of Prince Edward Island and the agreement, or at least the acquiescence of that government obtained, before it was decided to transfer the newest, largest, and most important unit of the P.E.I. ferry service, the John Hamilton Gray, from that service to the Sydney-New-foundland service?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of that question and bring it to the minister's attention.


John Angus MacLean: Would the Acting Prime Minister ask his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to make a full statement on motions at an early date with regard to the future rearrangement of this ferry service?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport makes this statement on motions, presumably on Monday, would he indicate quite clearly that the services to be maintained between the mainland and Prince Edward Island will be no less than presently enjoyed and, in particular, that the icebreaking facilities, so important to the ferry service in the winter, will be assured?



HOUSING


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure you that the people of western Canada have a lot of patience and can stand up many times before being recognized. We are always living in anticipation that one day someone will pay attention to us and hear some of our pleas.
[Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse) .1
March 5, 1971


An hon. Member:: We are all with you. Come on over.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I do not need to go over there I can stand here and be heard as well. I wish to ask the minister responsible for housing whether the CMHC intends to take any action to reduce its section 40 interest rate, since the banks have reduced their NHA rates recently?


Robert Knight Andras: certainly hasten to respond to one of the eloquent spokesmen for western Canada. The answer is yes, I expect there will be an announcement by the CMHC today to the effect that the section 40 interest rate on loans will be reduced to 8f per cent.


Erik Nielsen: Will that reduction apply in the case of existing mortgages?


Robert Knight Andras: The standard practice will prevail with regard to mortgages in train. What is done will depend very much on the state of advance or the state of commitment on them.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the minister cut me off at the pass, but I have the nerve to try again. Will the hon. gentleman investigate the reason a Northwest Territories elected councillor was denied access to those of his constituents who live and work on a Marconi contract site at Resolute Bay? Further, will he ensure that councillors will have the opportunity of gaining access to their constituents so that the concept of Arctic sovereignty is not restricted?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: As I recall it, the hon. member asked about access to a ballistic missile early warning site and I pointed out there are no such sites in Canada. If he would like to provide me with details of any complaint he may have, I would be glad to investigate.
* sfs *



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister in charge of housing.
In view of the statement he made in the House today to the effect that consultation mechanisms will be established with junior governments, could he assure us that the government will not consider creating a ministry of urban affairs shortly or in the near future?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Knight Andras: The intention of the government is clearly stated in the Speech from the Throne. It will be establishing a ministry of state for urban affairs. The whole problem at the moment is that opposition members are not permitting the passage of the organization bill.



FORUM FOR DISCUSSION OF LITHWICK REPORT

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should like to address a supplementary question to the minister. Earlier he expressed the hope that the Lithwick report would lead to public discussion. I would respectfully ask what machinery he intends to use to initiate such public discussion. Does he envisage such discussion will take place within the confines of a standing committee on urban affairs or will it take place in a joint committee? I would appreciate the minister telling us just what he has in mind in this regard.


Robert Knight Andras: shall be in a much better position to answer that kind of question and take that kind of action when the opposition allows me to become legitimate in this role.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether we might not go on to another subject. However, if the hon. member for Hamilton West feels he should ask a supplementary I will recognize him.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am wondering why the minister cannot be a little kinder to us in the opposition and do his best to answer a simple question. I do not think the question I asked had anything to do with the creation of a ministry of state. The minister already has ideas about what he wants to do. What machinery does he contemplate using to initiate the public discussion which he desires of this important report? Would he kindly advise the House whether he has in mind a standing committee? Just what does he have in mind? It is a simple question.


Robert Knight Andras: I think the first move in the creation of such machinery would be, as I suggested, the establishment of a ministry of state for urban affairs.



DIFFICULTY OF LAYING PIPELINES ON PERMAFROST-INVESTIGATION OF RUSSIAN PRACTICE

Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Having regard to the difficulty involved in laying pipelines on permafrost, has the minister, in his research, contacted his opposite number in the Soviet Union with a view to finding out what is done in that country? Further, would he recommend or approve a visit by the northern affairs committee so that its members could see for themselves what methods are used?
3998

March 5, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE



REOPENING OF CERTAIN POST OFFICES

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Post Office. Having regard to the large number of complaints about rural route mail service in areas where post offices were closed in the last year, will the minister reopen such post offices when requested to do so by a large majority of the residents concerned?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: would have to consider exactly what is meant by that question. I have received many requests to reopen post offices. My immediate answer would be that we do not intend to reopen post offices. Nevertheless, we will look at cases where people are suffering hardship because of the loss of post offices in circumstances in which an alternative service is not in fact replacing the post office.


Donald Craig Stewart: At the time these post offices were closed the department said it was on a one year trial basis. In these circumstances, would the minister not reconsider his decision?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: I do not remember that, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say that as of today the fishing nations which have had traditional rights within the 12-mile zone mentioned by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry are not permitted to fish inside that 12-mile limit?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The statement made by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry speaks for itself. I think it was clear on that point. If it was not, perhaps I can take a look at this particular question, but I believe it was answered by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in his statement this morning.


John Howard Lundrigan: Surely to goodness, the minister can tell us whether these countries can fish inside the zone. After all, he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having looked over the minister's statement, if indeed he has seen it, can he tell us whether Canada is prepared to take unilateral action to enforce the law and to exact penalties if it is broken?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can only make the reply which the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry himself made, which is that action of that kind might not further the over-all interests of Canada or, indeed, of the fishermen of Newfoundland.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In connection with the negotiations going on with various companies concerning a replacement for the Argus maritime patrol aircraft, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman whether the interesting offer from the Boeing Aircraft Company of which he spoke yesterday consists of delivering Boeing air frames for modification in Canadian aircraft plants?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I should point out that Boeing has made no offer as such. What we have received amounts, really, to a proposal concerning a method by which the 707 aircraft might be adapted for use as a long-range maritime patrol aircraft.


Douglas Charles Rowland: Is it any part of such a proposal that this adaptation should take place in Canadian aircraft plants?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The preliminary question to be decided is whether this aircraft, which was constructed primarily as a long-range transport, can be modified so as to possess the hover-on-site capability possessed by the Argus. We would have to solve the technical questions involved in the use of the aircraft in this role before we could get down to any specifics as to construction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I wish to adress a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns what might be called the still-born child of the Singapore conference, the standing committee on security in the Indian Ocean. Bearing in mind the growing number of resignations from this group, can the minister advise us whether a decision has been made by the remaining members to hold a meeting? Will the committee be disbanded, or is Canada waiting until all the other members drop out?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the hon. member that we have no intention of taking any initiative to drop out of the committee. We considered that it was a useful initiative, and we still think so. However, I am satisfied that the committee will not meet. Too many countries have now indicated their intention to drop out of this committee, and a meeting would not be in accordance with the purposes of the Singapore conference.

March 5, 1971



URBAN AFFAIRS


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the subject of my question, as well as the importance of its constitutional aspect, I will put my question in English because the minister responsible for housing may not understand my French. May I ask the minister if the government intends to set up a ministry of urban affairs without the consent of the provinces?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this subject has been under consultation with all the provinces-I repeat, all the provinces. In the discussions about the formation of a ministry of state for urban affairs and housing, we have found no one who has suggested that this would be improper.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he has discussed this matter with the province of Quebec, and whether the province of Quebec expressed to the minister its opposition to the setting up of such a ministry?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, their views have been communicated to us. I think the sensitivity of the situation has been recognized by the type of institution, a ministry of state for urban affairs and housing, which we are contemplating and about which I may have more to say in more detail when the government organization bill is back in the House.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the minister a question along the same lines.
Would he tell the House whether Quebec has given an affirmative answer and how many provinces have answered that they were in favour of this project to establish a department?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had indicated that none of the provinces have responded in the negative.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is absent, I will direct my question to his Parliamentary Secretary.
Would he tell us if steps have been or will be taken to prevent closure of the shirt factory in Saint-Denis-sur-Richelieu, that is the Jame Manufacturing Company, which is being forced to cease operations because of the large number of imported shirts to be found on the Canadian market?
Yukon Minerals Act


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there have been difficulties, as the hon. member knows, with a number of shirt factories in Canada. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is discussing and examining each case and, where necessary, references have been made to the Textile and Clothing Board for specific examination.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, my question was direct. It does not need such an elaborate answer. I just want to know if specific measures have been taken or will be taken in this special case in order that this manufacturer will not close up shortly.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, measures under the regulations and under the legislation are taken for the industry as a whole and not for a specific factory. In this context, the remedy must be applied on an over-all basis.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a non-controversial question which I wish to direct to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Watch out.


Barry Mather: Could he say what consideration the government is giving at this time to selling to the United States a basic, renewable Canadian resource, snow?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-187, respecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
23966-41i

March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act


Mr. Speaker:: I now leave the Chair and the House will resume at two o'clock.

The House will resume its work at two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

John Angus MacLean: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to state what the business will be on Monday.


Mr. Jerome:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Monday we propose to call as the first order of business the report stage of Bill C-182 concerning statutory instruments. If debate on that measure is completed, the second order of government business will be the report stage of Bill C-215 respecting the Textile and Clothing Board.



YUKON MINERALS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-187, rejecting minerals in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, before I open my remarks on Bill C-187, I wish to indicate to the House that I had the honour and privilege of being in the Yukon for the Sour Dough Rendez-vous last week. I enjoyed once more the warm hospitality of the people of the Yukon and I must say that this annual festival re-creates this so exciting period of the Klondike gold rush for all Yukon residents.
I was fortunate to be accompanied on this trip by a symbolic personality of Quebec City, Bonhomme Carna-val, who during these activities showed the people of the Yukon that the carnival spirit of their region was indeed very good, but certainly not better than that of Quebec. In fact, I think events such as this should be mentioned in the House, for they indicate that such exchanges between East and West and between South-east and North-west are most commendable. Therefore I would like to thank the people in Whitehorse and more especially the authorities for their warm hospitality.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today of introducing in this House a piece of legislation which amounts to a
revision of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which was passed by Parliament on July 23, 1924 and which governs the acquiring and managing of mining rights on Yukon hard rocks.
The act was written to a large extent along the same pattern as the regulation on franchising quartz mines on federal land in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, including the provisional district of the Yukon, and that regulation had been adopted by order in council dated March 21, 1898.
The 1924 act has been only slightly amended since then, the last instance dating back 18 years ago.
In recent years, newly-developped processes and techniques for mining research and exploration activities have been in use. Owing to this progress, it has become increasingly obvious that the present Yukon Quartz Mining Act is obsolete and an obstacle to the potential economic expansion of the Yukon territory.
Several sections of this act are obsolete and lack clarity. I think the existing legislation does not allow for adequate management of the mining rights on quartz nor does it promote through more suitable means the exploration and development of the Yukon's large mining resources.
The concession of rights for the development and operation of mining resources by the Crown no longer brings to the latter a reasonable financial return, especially if we compare it to royalties levied in other mining areas in Canada. The existing act does not provide for the application to mining operations of existing land use regulations for the protection of nature in the Yukon.
The proposed bill is therefore a complete review and up dating of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which will give way, if this new bill is passed, to a new text entitled the Yukon Minerals Act.
The primary objective of this bill is implementation of long-overdue changes to legislation on purchase and operation of minerals in the Yukon. The bill not only provides for more efficient local management but also for some new measures to stimulate the mining industry which is already flourishing in the Yukon.
The following are some of the main changes made in the act.
First of all, the elimination of the limit set on the number of claims which can be staked by an individual, which was formerly eight claims within a radius of 10 miles.
Second, the possibility for companies habilitated to operate in the Yukon to stake claims by proxy.
Third, the possibility of using a mound of stone instead of wooden legal posts in areas where there are no trees.
Fourth, the possibility of selling, before the staking out of a claim, metallic tags to be fastened to legal posts at the time of the staking out;

March 5, 1971

Fifth, the increase from 16 to 36 of the number of claims allowed to be grouped for the performance of representation work.
Sixth, the possibility of accepting as representation work any work other than material done at any time of the claim period.
Seventh, the possible authorization of representation work done on a claim after its staking out, but before its registration.
Eighth, the possibility for the Governor in Council to grant a lease of an initial duration of more than 21 years, if it is justified by special circumstances.
Ninth, the simplification of necessary formalities to obtain a mining lease.
Tenth, the possibility of deducting prospection and preliminary work expenses in calculating operating mines royalties, and also the possibility of receiving an allowance for the processing of the ores, as is already the case in some provinces as well as in the Northwest Territories.
In addition to the changes I have just mentioned, the text of the act was completely revised to take into account modern techniques of prospection and mining. The mention of firemen, horses and fodder, in the present act, is now obsolete and has been done away with in the new text. These changes are, on the whole, the result of a series of recommendations that were thrashed out, at meetings, by my associates and the representatives of the mining industry in the Yukon who made the proposals. The latter formed a joint commission to which participated the Chambers of Mines for the Yukon and British Columbia.
Another objective of the bill is to ensure a more realistic financial return to the Crown in exchange for minerals mined. It is proposed to increase the royalty rates applicable in the Yukon to a level comparable with those presently in force in some of the other provinces, such as Quebec. But they still will remain lower than in British Columbia or Ontario. While Quebec has a sliding scale similar to the one proposed for the Yukon, the Yukon rate would still be slightly lower than Quebec's, which imposes a 15 per cent royalty at the $4 million level as compared with the proposed Yukon maximum of 15 per cent on a net value of output of $5 million. The royalty rates proposed for the Yukon are lower, particularly with respect to small mines, than those levied in British Columbia, which are based on a fiat rate of 15 per cent above $10,000, or Ontario's which are 15 per cent on everything over $50,000.
I should mention that most provinces have increased their royalty rates in recent years while the royalty rates in the Yukon have not been revised since 1928. The government has a responsibility to ensure that the people of Canada-including northerners-are paid at an economically sound rate for their nonrenewable
Yukon Minerals Act
resources. The government is very conscious of this responsibility and is fully determined to discharge it. Royalties in this instance ought not to be disproportionately below levels in other parts of Canada. The north is not the only place in Canada where mines operate in remote and isolated places and in difficult climates. British Columbia and Quebec, for example, have many mines which prosper under conditions no less difficult than those in the Yukon.
Under the existing royalty scale, returns to the public clearly are inadequate. Mining production in the Yukon in 1968 was $21 million. Royalties were only $45,000. In 1969 production had risen to $38 million and royalties paid by the six producing mines were still only $245,000. Even the new rates would still yield less than $1 million.
Another change to the act establishes that production expenses are exclusive of taxes payable or paid on the profit of a mine when calculating royalty payable under the act.
Regarding Canadian ownership and participation requirements, you will note that such provisions are being included in the new act. This will ensure that new mines in the Yukon meet reasonable requirements of Canadian ownership. Similar provisions already exist in the Canadian mining regulations which apply in the Northwest Territories and in the oil and gas regulations which apply to both territories. The provisions to which I refer stipulate that mineral leases may be issued only to Canadian citizens or companies that are incorporated in Canada. The provisions are not retroactive and will apply only to new claims or to existing claims which change ownership after the new act comes into effect. I should emphasize that the new decision at this time to include the Canadian participation provisions does not reflect or in any way anticipate the outcome of the general review of foreign ownership now being undertaken by the government.
I might add that some misunderstanding seems to have arisen concerning the Canadian participation provisions in that 50 per cent Canadian ownership would be required in all cases. This is not so. It should be remembered that the provisions would not apply during the claim stage, but only for actual production when leases must be acquired. Also the basic requirement is that all companies acquiring leases must be incorporated in Canada and must ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to participate in the financing and ownership of the company. If a company is listed on a Canadian stock exchange, this requirement is met, and the specific percentage ownership applies only to private companies, where the stock is not widely distributed or available for purchase.
Fears have also been expressed that it would be difficult to raise risk capital as a result of the introduction of these provisions. Our experience in the Northwest Territories where similar provisions were introduced in 1961 does not bear this out. For example, there have been three major staking rushes and the number of claims

March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
staked annually has risen from an average of 2,000 to an average of 20,000, with a peak of 44,000 in 1968. The value of mineral production has increased from $25 million annually to $125 million for the same period.
Another feature of this bill is to require the approval of the Governor in Council for the export of any mineral or ore from the territory. In so far as currently producing mines are concerned, we will, of course, take steps to accommodate existing sales contracts. Future export approvals will be reviewed on an individual basis; the intent being not to inhibit mineral development and the sales of minerals abroad, but to encourage additional processing within the territory where feasible and to encourage attendant secondary industries. The building of smelting facilities in the Yukon would undoubtedly help the economy by creating employment for perhaps several hundreds of people and at the same time provide additional revenue for both governments.
I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that there are provisions in the bill for the Governor in Council to establish regulations to bring into effect the purposes and provisions of the act. Section 102 of the bill details the circumstances under which regulations may be made and you will note that these are mainly administrative or having to do with fees and rentals. While such regulations will be mainly administrative, I am aware that the industry wishes to be consulted before they are introduced and I am not opposed to this process of consultation, or indeed, to the inclusion in the bill of suitable provision for this.
I might add that it is the intention of the government when these regulations are promulgated, to raise fees associated with leases and to increase lease rentals to a level approximating those in other jurisdictions. These adjustments will not be onerous and will affect only companies. It is not intended, at this time, to increase those fees for recording claims that would affect the individual prospector.
Conservation in Canada's northern territories, Mr. Speaker, is a matter of importance to all Canadians. The government's and my own department's response to this problem is well known and has received widespread support; the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Northern Inland Waters Act, the amendments to the Territorial Lands Act, the reports of the MacKenzie Delta task force on conservation, the close inspection of seismic operations and the development of land-use and wildlife research programs. To enable the government to protect and control the use of the surface of territorial lands within the Yukon, provisions have been made in the bill to make prospecting for minerals, or any work on a mining claim for which a surface lease has not yet been obtained, subject to regulations intended to preserve the delicate ecology of northern Canada. These regulations will be made available in a few weeks. Provision has also been made to facilitate the withdrawal of land from staking for various public purposes as these may be deemed advisable for the public good.
With regard to the regulations I have just outlined, these, of course, Will apply to other industries and other
facets of activities in the north. The mining industry has expressed concern that such regulations might inhibit development of the Yukon. I would like to assure members that discussions with industry have already taken place and I have every expectation that the regulations in their final form will protect the environment, but will not hamper mineral exploration and development unnecessarily.
Mining in the Yukon is moving ahead at an accelerated pace after stagnating for many years. The late sixties were very good years for the Yukon. The value of mineral production increased from $13 million in 1962 to nearly $38 million in 1969 and to an estimated $80 million in 1970. The decade of seventies appears to be even more promising. Mineral production has trebled in the past two years and is expected to double its present value in the next two.
I am excited by the prospects which now exist in the Yukon. I am excited at the prospects for all the north; and the Yukon especially stands at a new take-off point. This has come about as a result of favourable markets, of the incentives provided for the industry and to no small extent as a result of the government's program of providing infrastructure and special assistance in the north. Transportation facilities, townsite, hydro electric power and direct aids have all had their place in resource development in the Yukon.
The government stands ready to assist in the future as it has in the past. We are accelerating the construction of the Dempster Highway and now plan its completion in 1974. This new road will open many attractive areas of the Yukon for development. We are also studying alternative routes for connecting the Yukon to the continental railway system. Road and rail transportation mean growth of the kind so necessary in the north. They make it possible to develop resource based industries which are needed to provide the amenities of life which everyone expects today.
This newly revised act will bring the regulation of mining up to date and will modernize the legal structure on which mining claims are based. The proposed changes will materially assist mineral development in the Yukon and they will provide for a more realistic return to the public. The bill will have far reaching consequences for the Yukon. I have asked, therefore, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to consider holding hearings in the territory. I believe northern residents should be heard. They must have a voice in what affects their future. They must also be directly involved, and given that opportunity to be involved, in what is happening in their part of the country.
Since first reading was given to this bill on November 9, 1970, I have received several representations from the Yukon's mining industry, from territorial residents and from other concerned people. This bill is not perfect and I do not say that it must remain precisely and exactly as drafted. When representations are based on new informa-

March 5, 1971

tion, when they bring a viewpoint which was not available at an earlier date, we are fully prepared to look a second time, or a third, at the proposals. The bill should be amended if there are substantive reasons for amendment. From representations that have already been made to the government, I agree there are substantive reasons for amending the royalty provisions to allow interest payments as deductions in calculating royalty and that such royalties should be computed only on ore actually sold in any given year. I would also agree there should be additional provision for appeal from the decisions of government or an official, specifically in cases of claim concellations and increased royalty assessment.
The government will give careful consideration to any further proposals for change. We want any changes to be improvements. We want any changes that are made to be based on sound and reasoned judgment, but we are not opposed to change if it can be shown that change is in the best interest of the Yukon's mining industry and of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to introduce this legislation. I hope that it will show the House the progress we made these recent years.
As far as economic and social progress is concerned, I feel that the Yukon can anticipate a future perhaps better than ever, because the basis of its economy is ever more varied owing to the different minerals which have been discovered and to other possibilities like the development of the lumber industry and, a very promising factor, the ever expanding tourist industry.
The Yukon is a marvelous place to visit and I hope that Canadians who want to know a place where the air is fresh, where pollution is at a minimum will visit the Yukon and perhaps also the Northwest Territories. This will give all Canadians the opportunity to realize that Canada is a young country and that 40 per cent of its territory is hardly at the primary stage of an extraordinary development. I hope that all Canadians will be willing to work together in order to ensure that the development of the North, and especially of the Yukon, will be a considerable asset not only for ourselves but also for our children and for future generations.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we were very happy to have the minister with us during our celebrations in respect of the Yukon sourdough rendezvous. One thing for which we in the Yukon are noted is our hospitality, but even that invariable hospitality could not possibly have hidden from the minister the deep and bitter resentment of all Yukoners with whom he spoke about the introduction of this legislation, about the land use and other regulations made under federal statutes which he has mentioned. He knows from the previous representations he has received from the people that they do not want this legislation, with its objectionable features. He knows, by and large, the opinion of the Yukon people and of industry, not only in the Yukon but also in British Columbia, Alberta and Toronto, because he has received
Yukon Minerals Act
representations. He has been told that the good features of this bill should be retained in the form of amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, but that these good features are far outweighed by the attempt of this government to assume complete state control over the mining industry in the Yukon. I hope to prove that point as I go along. I hope to bolster it, not only with the views I express, but also with those expressed by organizations and individuals in the two western provinces, as well as in the two territories.
The minister has camouflaged his attempt to minimize the effect of these objectionable features of the bill by placing emphasis on the less important features of the bill, not less important per se but less important in relative terms. He says that new techniques make the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act out of date. He says the present act limits the development of the mineral industry in the north. How can he, out of one side of his mouth, say with pride that there has been greatly increased mineral production in the Yukon, almost double normal production last year, and at the same time say that the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which governs that development is limiting development in the north. I suggest to him his argument is specious in that regard. He says the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act does not allow effective management of mines. If he is speaking of effective management of mines by the private entrepreneurs who manage those mines, he is being critical of the management of private industry. But I do not think that is what he meant.
I think the minister meant that the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act, because of its lack of facility for state control, limits effective mining in the Yukon by the government. He, therefore, attacks this in his bill by introducing the sort of stifling and suffocating provisions to allow bureaucratic control of the industry and then ties it all in with an all-embracing regulatory power. This regulatory power is not so innocuous as he would have members believe because of nine sections in the act only three relate to fees and rent. He says the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act makes no provision for the protection of the environment. That is not in keeping with the fact. If the minister were familiar with the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, he would not make such statements. We all agree it is essential to protect the delicate ecology of the north. Large tracts of land in the Yukon do not fall within the category of what one might term a delicate ecology.
I have said the minister's statement that the existing Yukon Quartz Mining Act does not provide for the protection of the environment is not true. Now, I should like simply to point out to him that one of the sections, Section 72(1), which provides him with the power now to govern the manner in which the surface of the land over which the mineral claims are staked is used, gives him the power to direct that the surface of a mineral claim shall be used pretty well as he sees fit. There are other sub-sections of Section 72 which provide that the mining operation can only occupy the surface, and just so much

March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
of it as is essential for the purpose of its mining operations. There are other other similar sections in the act. He says the new bill will allow more effective management. Well, if one accepts my argument of a moment ago that private industry is doing a pretty efficient job of management, since otherwise there would not have been the greatly increased production we see today in the Yukon, one can only assume the minister means that the new bill will allow more effective management by the government. It will certainly do that. The clauses in the new bill provide broad and sweeping, almost limitless powers, to officials in the department and to the minister himself. As the bill now stands, there is only the rare clause that provides for any appeal to the judicial process.
The minister says that the new bill provides incentives. I have looked over that bill pretty carefully and I cannot see any provision of incentives to the mining industry. Indeed, there has not been one of the dozen or more briefs that I have read, copies of which the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have received, that has not cried out against the oppressive clauses in the bill. When the minister speaks of incentives, therefore, he is inaccurate.
Then, the minister went on to list the ten relatively minor improvements to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, and they certainly are improvements. Nobody is going to argue that the removal of staking limits is not an improvement, nor will anyone argue that staking by proxy is not an improvement or that staking by stone cairns on top of a 7,000 or 8,000 foot mountain is not an improvement over carrying up or flying in stakes in great numbers. Nor is anyone going to argue that our taxing provisions are not out of date and that the provisions in the new bill are an improvement over the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. Similarly, the increase in grouping the remaining provisions which the minister pointed out in his remarks is also an improvement. But these are only minor improvements in relative terms.
He asked the House to believe that the new royalties provisions for the Yukon are more favourable than are those in Quebec or those in British Columbia, yet he has received submissions from the organizations in British Columbia, in the Yukon and in Toronto that this is not the case at all. He speaks of the rate of royalties which indeed, in the manner in which he has explained it to the House, appear to be more favourable in the Yukon than in existing legislation elsewhere. However, he refrained from informing the House that if one examined carefully the subsections of the royalties provisions in the new bill one would find that there were all sorts of broad discretionary powers given to the minister, and one would also find that the allowable deductions with respect to royalties are not as generous as those elsewhere.
The minister said also that the government has a responsibility to ensure that the people of Canada, including northerners, are paid at an economically sound rate for their non-renewable resources. I wonder how many times he has heard those northerners whom he would like to include as participating in this kind of revenue cry out to partake not only in the revenues that are raised in the Yukon but in the manner in which they are
spent. He said also that the north is not the only place in Canada where there are remote mines, that there are places just as remote and isolated as the mining operations in the Yukon. But he neglected to point out to the House that there are none more remote from the markets of the world with which our product has to compete. He failed to point out that our transportation problems, in the Yukon are far more difficult than those in any other comparable area of Canada. He also failed to point out, and this is a big factor when one is considering royalties, that in the Yukon the costs on the average are between 25 per cent and 30 per cent higher than elsewhere. One statistic comes to my mind as a good example, and this goes back eight years. The average annual production of United Keno Hill Mines used to fluctuate between $12 million and $15 million, and what was left of this after paying the costs of production, transportation and smelting, was between $1 million and $1.5 million. There is a comparison which he can stack up against the mines of the more southerly areas of Canada.
Then I had to sit back and listen to the irony of the minister's remarks with respect to mining production in the Yukon. He said that in 1968 it amounted to $21 million, and the royalties were only $45,000. He said that in 1969 production had risen to $38 million and the royalties paid by the six producing mines were still only $245,000. Not long ago we were debating changes to the Yukon Act which, if the government had followed the importuning of this House, would have given the people of the Yukon at least the democratic right to determine how the tax money which they were required to raise would be spent. We heard the minister say that the government could not broaden these powers now because the Yukon was not making enough to pay its way. He played down the economic contribution of the Yukon to the national treasury. Now, because it suits him, because the federal treasury wants more money from the producers of the Yukon, he speaks with pride. He tells us how much money is coming out of the mineral production in the Yukon, and this justifies the federal government in taking more. It seems to me that that must be the height of hypocrisy.
He spoke also of the Canadian ownership provisions. I will have a little more to say about that in a moment. There are two very weak points in the ownership provisions in this new bill. One is that if a company is listed on the Canadian stock exchange, under the provisions in the new bill, the requirement of Canadian ownership is met. All one has to do is to list the shares of a foreign company on the Canadian stock exchange. Then, the other requirement relates to a foreign company which is a private company, and unless the stock is widely distributed or available for purchase the provision in the new foreign ownership clauses will not be met. This introduces the element of discretion. Who is going to say whether or not a private company's stock is widely distributed or available for purchase? It is going to be the minister or, at the very most, the Governor in Council. If the minister asks us to believe that this will not hamper

March 5, 1971

the flow of risk capital into this country for the development of our resources, I will say, rubbish. In order to bolster this argument that the new bill is not going to scare away risk capital, because the Canada mining regulations have contained such a clause for many years, he cited the development in the Northwest Territories. He pointed out the difference in the great increase in the number of claims that have been staked and the great increase in the annual production in the Northwest Territories. But he refrained from saying what part was played in that increase in staking activity, and what part was played in that increase in production, by foreign risk capital. If one were to analyse the situation before the introduction of the Canadian mining regulations, and the situation in the years following their introduction, one might have a fairer idea whether or not the Canadian mining regulations foreign ownership clause did inhibit foreign risk capital coming into the country.
He says that another feature of the bill requires the approval of the Governor in Council for the export of any mineral ore from the territory. If that is not complete and absolute control by the state of the mining industry, I certainly do not know what is. Could the minister inform the House how many of the provinces exercise this power by Governor in Council? Could the minister tell us whether or not the province of British Columbia, or the province of Alberta, or the province of Saskatchewan, or indeed any other province even his own province of Quebec, exercises the power of export control over mineral production in the province? It would be very interesting to hear the answer to that.
And what a prospect this is for existing mines! Here are mines that in some cases, came into production in the Yukon on the basis of an investment in excess of $100 million, with plans laid over the space of three or four years and projected for 20 years. Now, the minister comes along and says that future export approvals will be reviewed on an individual basis, and if he so chooses, or the Governor in Council so chooses to disapprove of any particular mining company exporting ore, he may do so. What a prospect this is for existing producers. I wonder how many of them would have decided to go into production if they had been confronted with such a dictatorial power.
The minister speaks of a smelter improving the economic future of the Yukon. If this is such a great idea why doesn't the government do something about it? Why doesn't the government provide real incentive, and cooperate with private industry by establishing a smelter in the Yukon? The minister knows that has been the cry there for a good many years, and not only there but by organizations such as the British Columbia Chamber of Mines in Vancouver, as well as the Alberta Chamber of Mines in Edmonton. The minister says that if a smelter were constructed there would be hundreds of new jobs. He says that perhaps several hundreds of people would find new jobs. I can tell him, and he has received briefs from individuals and organizations which support this statement, that the very existence of this bill, the very disclosure of it last November when it was tabled for first reading, has caused all sorts of companies that were
Yukon Minerals Act
planning exploration activities in the Yukon this year to pull back. The general estimate of the Yukon Chamber of Mines, and of the British Columbia Chamber of Mines, is that exploration plans have been pulled back one-third, or that roughly 30 per cent of the dollars that would have gone into exploration activities in the Yukon this year are going elsewhere because of the existence of Bill C-187 and the land use regulations.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And the white paper on taxation.


Erik Nielsen: The white paper on taxation is another matter, and it is the prime reason for the introduction of the amendment which I will be introducing shortly. Then, the minister speaks of the regulatory power. The Yukon Quartz Mining Act has been with us in the Yukon for almost half a century, with no regulatory power, and yet we have made the astounding progress in mineral development that we have. Now, the minister wants the House to believe that, because of the introduction of a new regulatory power, all of a sudden we are going to experience even more progress and development; that is garbage.
All the government wants by the introduction of that regulatory power is more control, more say over how the mines are going to be operated, more say over how much they are going to produce, and more say as to where their production is going to go. The minister says these are mainly administrative matters, having to do with rents and fees. Out of the nine subclauses only three have that import. The minister speaks about consultation. The minister has listened. He has listened to the members of the Yukon Chamber of Mines talking about consultation, consultation which he promised but did not initiate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I met them personally last week.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, the minister met them personally at the airport, with placards and a demonstration.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is not too familiar with the situation. He was not at the airport. There were no placards. There was a good group of Scottish pipers, and it was a welcome such as I never received anywhere else in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: All I can say is that the minister does not know a placard from a babpipe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, in travelling from Ottawa I met far more people in the Yukon last weekend than the hon. member. I do not know why he had to hide.
4006

March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act


Erik Nielsen: The minister does not know a point of order from an objection to the remarks I am making. Speak to Mr. Hunt. Speak to the other officials who went up there to speak to the Yukon Chamber of Mines. Look at the pictures on the front page of the Whitehorse Star, where the placards are displayed for all to see. The Yukon Chamber of Mines organized a demonstration for the specific purpose of bringing home to the minister and his officials the fact that this bill was objectionable.
The government speaks of government by the people, and the minister knows that 95 per cent of the people in the Yukon object to this bill. Yet he comes to this House and attempts to put across the idea that all is rosy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why doesn't he have a plebiscite if he thinks this is right?


Erik Nielsen: Plebiscites are not their way of doing things. They are not the Prime Minister's way. He doesn't even consult his cabinet on important decisions.
Then, the minister speaks about licences and fees. I mention just in passing what is now happening in the Yukon under a broad and sweeping change in the licensing and fees provisions of local ordinances, with decisions made in Ottawa funnelled down to the lackey of the minister and funnelled through him to the other two lackeys that he has made of two elected representatives of the people, all under his so-called governmental reform. That is precisely what they are.


An hon. Member:: Oh, fuddle duddle.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says that these land use regulations will have a great effect in the Yukon. Let me tell hon. members that one of the sections in those land use regulations will prevent any of you from driving your automobile, if it weighs over 2,000 pounds, off a public highway and along a non-public trail in the bush. What automobile today, even if it is a little jeep-


Mr. Sulaiycky:: It's a damned good regulation.


Erik Nielsen: It's a good regulation, some member in the back says. I wonder if he would identify himself.


Allen B. Sulatycky: Keep talking.


Erik Nielsen: No, he won't identify himself. I invite him to come to the Yukon, and I invite him to try to get off the public highway in a vehicle that weighs less than 2,000 pounds, unless of course he has a bicycle. Now, if the hon. member wishes to stand up and identify himself he may ask a question.


Mr. Osier:: He has been here as long as you.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member may ask how I get away from the Yukon. Every day I have been receiving objections from the Yukon Chamber of Mines, from prospecters and others, giving me their complaints and urging me to come down here and lay them before the minister. I am not going to say that the minister, knowing I am back there for that purpose, decided to smuggle this bill in

today. I am not going to say that; I would not make such a charge. The minister is a good friend of mine and he explained that the bill was ordinarily to come up-


Mr. Francis:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member implies that this bill was smuggled in, and he knows this is not so. Full notice was given and it was arranged that this debate would take place when he was here. There was full understanding with the House leaders that there would be no debate unless the hon. member were present. The implication is most unfair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I said I was not going to say it, didn't I?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I leave it to the readers of Hansard.


Erik Nielsen: Except for the last part of the government whip's statement, I agree with him. I said I was not going to say anything like that which I did say! The minister says the regulations are intended to preserve the delicate ecology of the north. If the regulations are passed in their present form you will not be able to wear a pair of crampons up the mountain or go across the golf course wearing golf shoes, in case you damage the permafrost. The regulations are too tight. The minister would be aware of the reaction if he had listened when he was in the Yukon. Maybe he was overwhelmed by the hospitality.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is willing to let me comment on that, the regulations were discussed with the people of the Yukon when I met them. I will not apologize for trying to protect the environment of the north. The hon. member should read the other parts of the statement I made recently in Whitehouse to the effect that we should not be so preoccupied with ecological balance as to inhibit development. We can apply good Liberal judgment in this matter and we will have a policy that will not promote either extreme.


Erik Nielsen: That is correct! I cannot find any fault with what the minister says. However, the regulations are not for the purpose of conservation, nor is this bill for the purpose of conservation. Both of these invidious pieces of legislation are for the purpose of preservation at the expense of development and progress in the mining industry. There is no reason why the two cannot live side by side and hand in hand-but not this way. Conservation yes, but preservation never!
One does not want to create, as is the feeling in the Yukon, British Columbia and Alberta, one huge national park out of the Yukon. There is too much of value, not only to Yukoners but to all Canadians, to do that. We certainly do not want the kind of situation that exists in the park that is in my hon. friend's riding in Banff.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have such a good policy in the park that the Liberal member, who is a very good member, was elected in Rocky Mountain in 1968.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Twenty-six per cent of the vote.
March 5, 1971


Erik Nielsen: March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
Another communication concerning the letter sent by the B.C. Chamber of Mines is as follows:
Received your letter regarding Bill C-187 and after reading it over discovered that a company such as ours cannot explore in the Yukon Territory.
It is unfortunate that the government chose to restrict entry of exploration capital. Our company will be doing mineral exploration throughout Canada, excluding the Yukon Territory.
Another reads:
The developments earlier this year and an extrapolation of further indications of restrictions have led to our decisions to cut back considerably on our initial 1970 budget. The recent blow of the Bill C-187 has now just appeared while we prepare our 1971 budget involving some heavy work commitments under options with Canadian companies.
You will understand that our outlook into our future in Canada is overshadowed with deep concern, as to what restrictions we have to expect next. If there are no signs of an end of the present trend, we may have to reconsider our willingness to invest large sums in Canada, and we may even have to change our mind completely and to dispatch Canada from the list of favourable countries for investments by our large group.
Another reads as follows:
Approximately three years ago, Mr. Chretien toured Europe in order to stimulate European investment in mineral research and exploration in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. He put special emphasis on the potential of these countries and on the general political stability of Canada. Ever since, all measures taken by the federal government tend to completely modify the climate of the mining industry in Canada: new fiscal legislation, limitation of foreign capital in the Yukon. All these measures tend to discourage foreign companies to invest in the Canadian mining industry which adopts a nationalistic policy like South American and African countries.
With regard to the Yukon, the recent increase of the royalty was already an unfavourable factor and in my opinion not justified considering the high costs of prospecting and mineral exploration in this country. The provisions of Bill C-187 would force us to create new companies to work in the Yukon in order to have Canadian shareholders right from the stage of prospecting.
And so it goes. Another communication reads:
Should this bill be passed and all other factors being equal, I would say that, given two exploration situations of comparable promise in B.C. and the Yukon, we would probably pick the B.C. project over that in the Yukon.
Another reads:
I can see no reason to recommend to my company that we do exploration in the Yukon if Bill C-187 is passed. It does not seem fair that if we take the big gamble on the exploration we should then have to give half of any success out to others who did not also participate in the earlier, high-odds gamble of exploration.
The British Columbia and Yukon chambers of mines sent excerpts of 30 letters to the minister. The last of these perhaps sums up the whole matter:
With respect to Bill C-187, under the conditions imposed by the bill it would effectively shut-out any exploration work that we would have in mind for the Yukon.
That indeed sums it up. We have heard from the industry. How about labour? Next I wish to read a telegram sent to me last January 18, by Teamsters Union, Local 31, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory. It reads:
Teamsters Union wishes to register our objection to the proposed Yukon Minerals Act Bill C-187 because we believe it would be highly detrimental to the economy and future development of the Yukon Territory and its people. Our members are already feeling the effects of construction postponements due to the pending white paper on taxation and the passage of Bill C-187 would bring about large-scale unemployment to our members as well as economic hardship to every Yukoner connected with mining in the Yukon.
It is signed by Frank Bachmier, business representative. That opinion by labour could be repeated but I will not take up the time of the House in repeating it. I have received several such representations. I shall read one excerpt from a lengthy telegram I received from a company engaged in representation work for the mineral industry in the Yukon. The company, Archer, Cathro & Associates Ltd., is a small one. The telegram is dated February 8 and reads in part as follows:
During 1970 our firm managed mineral exploration programs in Yukon amounting to over seven hundred fifty thousand dollars in addition to a large involvement in casino project most of this money was attracted to Yukon entirely through our efforts and was spent there on goods and services this year our volume of work will likely drop by at least one third and will consist mainly of projects which were committed before first reading of Bill C-187 we now notice a strong reaction against Yukon by prospective clients and fear that we will be unable to find sufficient work in 1971 to maintain our Yukon base we have maintained our Whitehorse headquarters since 1966 and have concentrated our work in Yukon-
They go on to make critical comments about the bill. When the minister was in the Yukon, Jack Webster, the radio personality, asked him to comment on the unemployment predictions which I had made. The minister suggested in his reply that I should prove what I had said. I cite these examples and these telegrams, of which he is aware, as authentication of the statement I have made.
Once previously the Liberal government attempted to do what it is now attempting. At that time a Liberal member opposed the measure. The minister of the day was Mr. Lesage and the member in question was Aubrey Simmons. Some hon. members of the House remember the courageous stand Mr. Simmons took at that time. Although the government was stubborn in insisting on introducing amendments to the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which would have established the power with respect to making regulations for the people of the Yukon, that member was instrumental in having the bill withdrawn, or not proceeded with, after it had been read the first time and after some debate on second reading had taken place. I can do no better than refer hon. members tp Mr. Simmons' speech, to be found in Hansard of May 25, 1955. The debate commenced at page 4097. The motion was put by Mr. Simmons, that the bill be not read the second time, seconded, I believe, by Mr. Green. When Mr. Herridge spoke in support of the stand taken by Mr. Simmons-I might say he was supported by members of the NDP on that stand-he said on May 25, 1955, as recorded at page 4113 of Hansard-


Stanley Howard Knowles: We were CCF in those days.

March 5, 1971


Erik Nielsen: And who knows what you will be tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We'll be here.
Mr Nielsen: He said:
I can understand the hon. member objecting to any change being made, but I think his main argument on this occasion is that he is speaking for the people of the Yukon and that the government in introducing this legislation has overlooked completely or disregarded completely the wishes of the majority of the people in the Yukon.
That is exactly the situation that exists today-when I speak against these objectionable features of the bill, namely, that 95 per cent of the people in the Yukon are opposed to it. He said further, as reported at page 4114:
That is a massive weight of evidence and a massive weight of opposition against this legislation.
There is similar material in the possession of the minister; letters and telegrams that I cannot possibly read into the record of this debate. He continued:
For the life of me, I cannot understand the minister proceeding with this bill in view of the apparent opposition of the great majority of the people in the Yukon Territory.
The minister says it should be proceeded with in the interest of the mining industry and in the interest of Canada. He knows it is not in the interest of the mining industry. He says it is; the mining industry says it is not. The minister knows that it is not in the interest of the people of the Yukon. He says it is, but the people of the Yukon say it is not.
Surely, in the name of reason neither the minister nor the government would go so far as to say that regardless of what the people in the Yukon and the mining industry think, we shall proceed with this bill and enact it into law. There is an underlying need for cures in areas in which the government has dabbled or fuddle-duddled. There is need for an Arctic waters pollution prevention act, a northern inland waters act and amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. There is need for reform in these areas. However, when you add to Bill C-187 the land use regulations, all the other regulations made under various pieces of legislation, and the white paper proposals, you have a fairly definite pattern emerging. And when added to the CDC bill and other similar policies espoused by the government, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that this government has embarked upon a road which is leading directly to state control, socialism, and nowhere else.
I had to wait for some time to obtain a copy of the recent publication "Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Approaches to Politics". This book was published in 1970. There is a prefatory note to the volume, by Jacques Hebert. This series of articles is published in book form for the first time. I wish to quote an excerpt from article 16, page 76. Mr. Hebert says there is no way that the author of this book has changed his views between the time the articles were written, in and about 1958, and today. He is speaking about humane governments and where they derive
Yukon Minerals Act
their power. He is speaking of benevolent despotism. The author said:
-a benevolent despot might rule wisely, establish a just order for all his subjects, and leave them enough freedom of expression. Would such a regime not be based on the consent of the people?
Yes, this is conceivable. But such consent clearly could not be taken for granted. A mechanism would have to be provided to allow the people to express their opinions freely on the excellence of the regime and the wisdom of the despot. There would also have to be some device to ensure that the despot would abdicate if opinion went against him. And finally-[DOT]
This is timely:
-a means would have to be invented to designate, peacefully, a successor whom the people would agree to obey.
I think the Prime Minister may have solved that problem.


Mr. Pepin:: Don't look at me.


Erik Nielsen: I am not looking at the minister when I say that. I draw that philosophy to the attention of the House because one must compare the actions of the government with this pattern of legislation. One can only reach the inescapable conclusion that that philosophy is being implemented.
There is no way in which we will defeat the government majority and prevent this bill receiving second reading and being sent to committee. I would like to do that: that is what the people of the Yukon want. However, it seems that the will of the people of the Yukon will be overridden by this government which is intent upon completing this great experiment in socialism in the north. None the less, I make this appeal to the House, as does the mining industry, the prospectors associations, the labour unions and, indeed, all Yukon people: Wait before giving the bill second reading. Wait before referring the bill to committee. Wait until the full impact on the industry and economic fabric of the Yukon and the north as a whole is known after the publication of the white paper, in terms of legislation, which I understand will appear some time toward the end of April.
This legislation cannot be assessed in a vacuum. There is no way in which the impact of Bill C-187 upon the economic fabric of the Yukon can be assessed until after all the combined economic factors have been brought to bear on that economy. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"That this bill not now be read a second time, but be read a second time this day six months."


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the two preceding speakers, and I have just heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I should like to inform the House that we cannot support the motion. We feel that this bill should go to the committee of the House and that every opportunity should be given to

March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
interested groups to appear before the committee in an endeavour to change the legislation if we see fit. I frankly admit that I spent a considerable amount of time on the bill. I believe some changes should be made to the legislation, and the place to make them is in committee rather than killing the bill at this time.
The minister has indicated that even with the new royalty rates that he announced and which will come into effect if this legislation passes, the Canadian government will receive less than $1 million in revenue from all the mineral activity in the Yukon. This seems to me not an excessive amount of income for the Canadian people to expect from this mineral resource. It also seems that in view of federal expenditures on incentives in this area perhaps the royalty rates suggested in the bill are not too far out of line.
Another point I should like to make is that while this legislation applies to the Yukon in general, I feel similar legislation should apply to the whole of the Northwest Territories. I understand that this is one of the major objections causing upset in the Yukon. They feel, quite naturally, that if they are to have excessive royalty rates or royalty rates that are higher than those in surrounding areas, mining companies could well move into the neighbouring Northwest Territories and, as a result, a considerable amount of exploratory investment capital could be lost to the Yukon. I feel that the government should not hesitate to make certain that legislation similar to that which they envisage for the Yukon Territory in the form of this bill should apply to the Northwest Territories.
This bill replaces the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. I believe improvements have been made in various parts of the bill. However, any mining operation in our northern territories is difficult. Costs are always high and conditions, weather and so on, are certainly different from those found in most parts of Canada. I feel that in the committee we could improve the bill having heard the views of all groups affected by the legislation. I trust we will be able to amend those sections of the bill which the minister has indicated he is willing to have changed so long as those amendments do not kill the intent and purpose of the legislation.
My main criticism of the legislation is that once again the federal government has completely ignored Canada's policy in regard to the over-all development of our natural resources. There has been no adequate planning to determine our actual reserves or the demands of the Canadian nation in future years. I feel it is essential that something be done along these lines to ensure that the natural resources which belong to the Canadian people are not depleted to the point where the economy of the nation in years to come is affected. In this respect the federal government has had very little policy in the past and has given practically no direction in the over-all development of the north.
I suggest that one of the main purposes of developing our mineral resources in this area is to provide a base for economic development that would bring both prosperity and stability to northern areas. At present the larger part of the mineral wealth has been staked out by foreign
corporations which are using it to supply their foreign-based companies with raw materials. Very little attention has been paid either by these foreign corporations or by the present government to the basic development that is required for the people who live in these areas.
One interesting and important change made by this bill is the increase in royalties over those stipulated in the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. One important point on royalty rates must be stressed. As I mentioned earlier, this royalty scale applies only to the Yukon, whereas I feel it should also apply to the Northwest Territories. These royalties are based on a sliding scale, running from 9 per cent to 15 per cent. The mining companies, particularly the mining promoters, make the usual cry that the new royalty rates will break them. However, an examination of these royalty rates, when viewed in conjunction with the large number of exemptions which the mining companies are able to deduct from their gross profit, indicates there is no doubt that they are still receiving very generous treatment at the expense of the Canadian people. Any mine producing minerals to a value of under $50,000 would pay no royalty. Under the present act the exemption is only $10,000. When we talk about the value of the output we must not forget that it has nothing to do with the gross value of the minerals involved. This is one point that many speakers very carefully neglect to mention when talking about royalty rates and taxes.
The value of the output upon which the royalty scale is based is arrived at after a considerable number of deductions have been allowed. These deductions include, first costs wholly and necessarily incurred for the purpose of operating the mine and processing and marketing the output therefrom to the extent approved by the minister; second, the cost of any research carried on in Canada for the purpose of reducing production costs at the mine, or salvaging additional minerals therefrom to the extent approved by the minister; third, the cost of any exploration work conducted on lands in the territory held or owned by the mine operator, other than at the mine site, not deducted in calculating the value of the output of any other mine. This cost is not to exceed 10 per cent of the gross value of the output of the mine for that year. Fourth, the cost of work on shafts, excavations, drifts, trenches, borings and other mineral exploration and mining development on lands at the mine site; and fifth, for a mine operator who processes ore in the territory there may be deducted an amount equal to 8 per cent of the original cost to that mine operator of the machinery, equipment and buildings in the plant used for the processing of the ore. This amount is not to exceed in any year 65 per cent of the value of the output of the mine before making such deduction. There may also be deducted an annual rate, not exceeding 15 per cent and in the aggregate 100 per cent, of the total expenses incurred by the mine operator prior to the day on which production commenced at the mine in exploring and prospecting for and developing the mine.
When all these deductions, along with the three-year tax exemption on profits which is presently in force, and

March 5, 1971

a number of programs under which mining companies can obtain assistance from the government in northern development, it would appear that an increase in royalties is certainly justified. I might point out that the province of Ontario has placed a flat rate of 15 per cent royalty on all profits over $50,000. They have a total exemption if profits are less than $50,000. The province of Manitoba set the royalty rate at 6 per cent of income less than $50,000, and 15 per cent on total income over $50,000. British Columbia and Quebec have different royalty rates but they are slightly higher than in this act. I might add that the present bill only reaches the 15 per cent royalty rate when the value of the output exceeds $5 million.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the more important aspects of this question lie in what I consider are very grave omissions in the legislation. It is my intention to deal with several of these, and other speakers in our group will no doubt enlarge upon these topics. As I mentioned earlier, there has been lack of adequate research and study into Canada's mineral resources in the north and in the rest of Canada. There has been no adequate research on our future national needs for various minerals, similar to the study by the National Energy Board on oil, gas and coal. In this study, the future demand and supply reserves were estimated, based on probable reserves and projected future production. Our future needs were based on certain premises of what our economic growth, industrial development and trading patterns would be.
It seems, however, that as far as other mineral resources are concerned the Canadian government is pursuing a "head in the sand" type of policy. The government apparently assumes that we have plentiful reserves and that our economic growth and balance of payments depends upon ever-increasing development and sale of our natural resources by whoever can be enticed to exploit them. This is the situation in which we find ourselves today. Our natural resources are being shipped outside our national boundaries in ever-increasing quantities and we in turn are buying back the finished products from the countries which take this raw material.
The tragedy of this policy is that our nation, which is one of the richest in the world, always has a large float of unemployed. Much of this unemployment could be eliminated if we had the foresight to insist upon fabricating a great deal of this raw material within our own nation. This fabrication has not taken place on a large enough scale because of the lack of foresight and planning by the federal and provincial governments, which have allowed the control of our natural resources to pass mainly into the hands of foreign investors.
For every job which is created in the extraction of raw materials for shipment to another nation there are literally hundreds of jobs which the other country can create by processing and fabricating our raw material into manufactured goods. Every step in the manufacturing process is usually far more job-intensive than the initial extracting process. It is time the Canadian people realized the position into which successive governments have driven us by their continual failure to take firm action on this major problem of having far more of our raw materials processed within our own country. As I men-
Yukon Minerals Act
tioned earlier, this "head in the sand" economic policy is making fortunes for a handful of promoters in our extractive industries but is creating large-scale unemployment and poverty in some sections of Canada. The present policy might suit the industrial tycoons of the world but it certainly is not the best policy for the vast majority of Canadians.
In section 81 of the bill which is before us the government is offering an 8 per cent deduction of the original cost of the machinery, equipment and buildings in any plant used to process a mineral in the Yukon Territory. I feel this is a step in the right direction. It is similar to the incentive grants which are used to help establish industry in some of the slow-growth areas of our nation. In my opinion, however, this legislation does not go far enough. The federal government should insist, just as the Ontario government has done, that in future all ores mined in the territories must be processed and treated in Canada. Any exemptions would have to be based on a very strict set of regulations. One exemption might be in the shipment of uranium ore, which I understand is safer to ship without too much processing. The requirement that all ores and minerals mined in the territories be treated and processed in Canada would help ensure the development of our north and would help guarantee that the mineral resources in that area would benefit the citizens of Canada and especially those living in the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
There is no doubt that there are a number of opportunities in the north for the building of smelters. The raw material is there, and all we need is the determination of the government to insist that this type of processing shall take place. Any increased processing in the area would be a major economic boost for the territories. It would mean more jobs for the inhabitants and a larger tax base for the territorial governments and their municipalities. The processing of ores in the territories could lead to other types of industry and the establishment of a sound economic future for the entire area. All reports from our Canadian north indicate the lack of job opportunities, particularly for the native Indian and Eskimo populations. This bill, if adequate amendments were made to it, could make a start on providing more employment in our northern areas for all the residents who live there.
There is another large area of concern in northern development and this is in the field of pollution control and protection of the over-all environment. The lack of concern in this bill for pollution problems is a glaring omission. It is a clear indication that this government has no intention of really clamping down on environmental pollution. Section 96 refers to the northern inland waters act and any regulations made under section 3 (b) of paragraph 1(a) of section 18 of the Territorial Lands Act, yet no regulations have been made under this act. Therefore, we are being asked to pass a bill with no knowledge of the regulations that will be passed. There is no doubt the economic interests have been successful in diluting the measures required to fully protect our northern provinces. This will show up eventually in the land use

March 5, 1971
Yukon Minerals Act
regulations which are still being held up in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development despite the fact that increasing oil, gas and mineral exploration has been going on for years in the territories.
This bill should contain a list of pollution regulations which should be rigidly enforced by the department. High national standards should be included in the regulations. Our Canadian north is a relatively new area so far as major development is concerned. It should be protected at all costs from the disgraceful environmental pollution which has taken place in other parts of the country due to lack of enforcement of adequate regulations. Administration in this area would be relatively simple because of the limited number of operations. New mining operations should, before production is commenced, prove that their standards are adequate and that they have met fully what I hope will be a set of strict regulations laid down by the department.
Another example of government neglect is the lack of ecological studies done in our north. Such studies are absolutely essential to the drawing up of meaningful regulations but, as usual, the federal government has blundered along with little attention being paid to this very important aspect of environmental control. The result has been unregulated economic activity in all sections of the territories, and already immense and lasting damage has been done to the ecology of that area.
Perhaps one of the major blunders of the federal government and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been in the complete indifference and lack of concern over the building of the Bennett Dam on the Peace River. Officials were too shortsighted and indifferent to appreciate the damage which could be caused to the lower reaches and in fact the whole of the Mackenzie River and the Mackenzie delta. The enormity of the damage already done is just beginning to be realized by the parties concerned. Water levels have been dropping, the nesting of wild fowl, fish runs, muskrat life and the native population in the area have been hurt. Despite the subjective lesson in the need for ecological surveys, we find that this government has again ignored the need for such surveys in the over-all picture. Under the northern Canada power commission bill powers are given to the commission in respect of hydro development without the stipulation that adequate surveys must be made to ensure that the ecology of the area is fully protected.
There has been a great deal of discussion in the last few days in the newspapers, over the air and in this House concerning the building of a pipeline down the Mackenzie River valley to bring oil from Alaska and oil and gas from the northern section of Canada. Again this is just part of the need for ecological regulations in respect of all legislation, including that concerning minerals and processing in the Yukon and in other parts of the Canadian north.
Pollution control involves not merely prevention of destruction of the environment but concern for conservation and a judicious use of our resources. Government policy in the north shows little concern for the conservation of our non-renewable resources. It is absolutely essential that governments realize that population control, resource conservation and pollution control all play a part in the over-all plan of managing our environment. Unless we realize this at a very early date and take the necessary steps to set up a program to integrate these various features, there will be little chance of adequately solving the grave pollution problems which face us in the north. I say, Mr. Speaker, that of all places in Canada the northern area is where these three major and important factors should be included in all our environmental planning.
The demand for mineral resources is best illustrated by the increasing rate of extraction and the dwindling global supply of high-grade metallic ores. If we use available data from the United States, it would appear that the United States will need about 700 per cent more aluminum, 225 per cent more copper, 50 per cent more iron and 40 per cent more lead by the year 2000 than they now consume. At present the United States imports most of its manganese, chromium, cobalt, tin and bauxite, having used up much of its own high-grade supplies. Available mineral deposits are not inexhaustible, even in our Canadian north, and I feel that Canadian planning and conservation measures are needed.
Here is one view of mineral resources which is most interesting. If the standard of living represented by Canada's per capita gross national product were extended to all the five billion to seven billion people of the world, the human race in the year 2000 would need annually 1,300 per cent more aluminum, 900 per cent more copper, 700 per cent more iron and 1,100 per cent more lead than it now consumes. Before we could possibly reach this level of consumption the present estimated global supply of readily recoverable ores would be exhausted. The magnitude of these figures, however, is not limited in significance to the metal supply alone because as we get into bodies of ore which are less concentrated than those currently being mined in the north we will need a great increase in the energy required to extract such vast quantities of metal from these lower grade bodies of ore. In addition to the raw needs for material and energy, this rate of consumption would be accompanied by pollution and waste-disposal problems of similar magnitude.
If we are to provide for future generations we will have to learn to recycle our mineral supplies rather than depend entirely on the development of new mines. That is why it is essential that adequate and proper planning for our natural mineral resources should take place in the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. This is one reason we should not be too anxious to turn over to foreign speculators some of the richest ore bodies to be found anywhere in the world. This is another reason we should insist on far more of our natural resources and far more of our mineral resources being processed and fabricated in our own country. The rape of natural resources is going on in many countries of the world at an

March 5, 1971

unprecedented rate. Once a resource has been depleted by money-hungry promoters, these promoters pull out with their fortunes and leave behind a hole in the ground and a large number of inhabitants who have no basic economy to which they can turn in order to make a living.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Della) moved:: That Bill C-25, an act respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week, be amended by deleting the long title and substituting therefor:
"An act respecting Canadian National Environment Week".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Goode) agreed to.


Thomas Henry Goode: That Bill C-25, an act respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week, be amended by deleting clause 1 on page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"1. This act may be cited as the Canadian National Environment Week".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Goode) agreed to.


Thomas Henry Goode: That Bill C-25, an act respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week, be amended by deleting line 7 on page 1 and substituting therefor:
"every year, the second week in October shall"


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Thomas Henry Goode: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is a move toward implementation of two important changes which I
Pollution Awareness Week
promised the members of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works I would propose at the report stage.
Hon. members may remember that during the debate on second reading of Bill C-25 the feeling was expressed by a number of hon. members that the name of the proposed week be changed from Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week to Canadian National Environment Week. I believe that the suggestion was first made by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange). The hon. member's reasoning was to the effect that such a change would emphasize the positive good to come from a clean environment, rather than the negative image of a polluted country. As I told the committee, I find this argument a compelling one. The word "environment" seems to encompass a broader range of activities and subject matters than the words "pollution awareness". In addition, I believe that such an amendment would also meet the objections of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) who pointed out a possible inconsistency between the French and English versions of the bill.
Several members commented during the debate on second reading on the suggested timing of the environment week. My proposal had been the second week in March, in line with the observance of pollution awareness week in my riding. In Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, in the second week of March we are well into spring and so the thought of environmental housekeeping is a very natural one. However, we have only to look outside the walls of this House to see that March is not likely to mean spring in all parts of this country, and for this reason alone it seems preferable to choose another time.
Another factor concerns National Wildlife Week which is established by statute as being the week which contains the date of April 10. There was some concern by the Canadian Wildlife Federation that the impact of each week would be lessened by virtue of their being so close together. The federation made clear that while it supported the proposed environment week, it would prefer the week to come at some time other than the spring of the year.
The members of the committee considered very carefully the two issues involved here, the change of name and the change of date. I believe it can be said that the proposed changes received the general support of all committee members. To avoid the possibility of becoming involved in certain procedural difficulties, it was decided by the committee that the bill would be reported without amendment provided that I would undertake to propose the necessary amendments at the report stage. I am fulfilling that commitment today.
Before resuming my seat I wish to express my very sincere thanks to those members from all parties who have shown that a matter as important as the preservation of our environment need not be made a partisan issue. A spirit of co-operation and selflessness has been evident during both the second reading debate and consideration of the bill in committee, and for this I am

March 5, 1971
Pollution Awareness Week,
truly grateful. I hope that that spirit will reign once again this afternoon in order that we may move through the report stage and third reading within the next few minutes.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to corroborate many of the statements just made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode). I sat on the committee which met a day or two ago at which this amendment was discussed, and the agreement was as has been stated by the hon. member. As he said, the chief objection to the timing was that it might conflict with National Wildlife Week and, therefore, lose some of its impact.
The fact that this is a necessary and useful bill stems from the fact that much public attention now is drawn to environmental pollution and the study of the environment in all its phases. Therefore I think it serves to underline, if that is necessary, the need for public attention in respect of this very important social aspect of our society. While the bill is a rather simple one, it does not do much more than that. Perhaps it will be the forerunner of other legislation and will support other legislation affecting our environment, such as the Canada Water Act. So we on this side of the House go along with what the hon. member said and we are ready to give this bill speedy passage.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on the bill which is before us and say that our group has no hesitation in giving full support to the legislation. I am a member of the committee which dealt with the bill. I am pleased that we are to have a change in name, not so much because the name itself is a major factor in dealing with environmental problems but the change from Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week to Canadian National Environment Week is certainly an improvement and will bring home to the youngsters in our schools, who will no doubt have this drawn to their attention in October of each year, the fact that pollution is very much concerned with every aspect of environmental policy.
There has been a tremendous change among members of this House and the public regarding environmental problems. It is good to see people in all parties and in every section of the country determined that at long last we shall clean up our environment. I believe this bill is a step toward making them aware of this problem and, as I said earlier, I have no hesitation in fully endorsing it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this bill. The hon. member's idea has survived, although the title and all clauses of the bill have been amended. That is quite a mauling for a committee to give a bill but, as he said, he undertook to introduce these amendments and I think they will help in making the bill more effective. [DOT]
I rise merely to make one suggestion in connection with the choice of week for pollution awareness. We are aware of pollution during the whole year. We cannot help being aware of it. The public is aware of it. We who represent the public are aware of the many problems associated with it. It is not just one week of the year that we will be aware of pollution, or of the environment, as the amendment reads.
I suggest that for communities which have special water pollution problems-and there are a number of them-combined with the second week in October they might have a "soap week" in order to make people more aware of the pollution problem. This would be a good idea for communities which have special water pollution problems caused by phosphate detergents. During that week the communities could encourage their citizens to use non-phosphate cleansers, and have the local water resource commissions tabulate the results. If a special program such as this were undertaken in various parts of the country, environment week would have a much greater impact.
It is generally recognized that there is not enough phosphate-free soap in Canada to meet the needs of the people. But there should be enough phosphate-free detergent available for communities which have these special problems. Preparations for such a program could be made early in the fall after schools have reopened. I have found that high school students are keenly aware of the pollution problem and are anxious to do something about it. That is another reason why I support this proposal.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Goode) agreed to.


Thomas Henry Goode: that Bill C-25, respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week, as amended, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Henry Goode: that the bill as amended be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that we have agreed to proceed with Bill C-32 in the name of the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Shall items Nos. 2 and 3 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.

March 5, 1971



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Hyl Chappell (Peel South) moved: that Bill C-32, to amend the Criminal Code (Abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 would remove abortion from the Criminal Code and allow it to be a moral and medical decision rather than a legal one controlled by sections of our Criminal Code. Judging from the correspondence which I have received, I believe this subject has been discussed by almost every adult Canadian during the last three years. In fact, few subjects have received more consideration. Although there is extremely strong support for removal of the criminal prohibition, I am well aware of the fact that some in my riding, and indeed in every riding in Canada, are not only opposed to this extension of the individual's rights but would turn the law back and prohibit abortion completely.
Of course, abortion is an important moral and social issue and will always remain so no matter what the law says. We all hope that some day research and dissemination of information on family planning and birth control will make it unnecessary and obsolete. But our problem is here and now. Can we allow our laws to deny medical assistance to those whose moral beliefs can accept medical termination of pregnancy, and want it desperately?
In 1969, by amendment to the Criminal Code we restated the law, allowing abortion provided a committee of doctors in an approved hospital was of the opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life or health of the woman. That legislation passed with a substantial majority after lengthy debate in the committee and in the House. I believe there is a need to re-examine the basic points relevant to the first debate.
In England, as far back as 1861 a therapeutic abortion was lawful if necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman. That law remained constant for over 100 years from 1861 until codified in 1968. There was clear judicial pronouncement not only that the abortion was not unlawful if for the purpose of saving the life or health of the woman, but "health" was given a broad interpretation in that the courts recognized that continuation of a pregnancy could depress health both mentally and physically. That law was adopted in Canada and remained until, by a drafting error some years ago, the word "unlawful" was left out of the code.
After that we had uncertainty until 1969. A doctor might have found himself in the impossible situation where he could be charged criminally if he performed an abortion to save a life, and sued civilly if he failed to do so if such operation might reasonably have saved a human life. Even worse was the moral conflict in the minds of doctors. Medically and privately doctors might have felt a duty to end a pregnancy to preserve the life or health of the woman, but feared to do so because of possible criminal charges or, at best, public criticism. In 1968, England codified its law on abortion, spelling out
Criminal Code
the need for two doctors to agree that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman. This included physical and mental health and also the health of her existing children.
When we were cross-examining the doctors who appeared before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee in respect of the proposed abortion legislation, they agreed that abortions had been taking place in many Canadian hospitals for some time when the life of the mother was seriously endangered. It would seem, however, that this medical salvation of life was only sparingly used.
In 1969 we codified what had been the law in England and in Canada also for many years and had been the practice, to a limited extent, in some Canadian hospitals, namely, to allow abortion if a continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life or health of the woman. But there is a limiting condition. It has to be authorized by a committee of doctors, in a hospital which has governmental approval and which has in fact set up such a committee.
Because the subject is so immensely important from both a social and individual standpoint, the entire nation and in fact the world has had to revalue its attitude toward the individual's behaviour and to rethink the basis or ground rules for legislation which interferes with an individual's rights. In Sweden, Singapore, Japan, just recently in England and Hawaii, New York state and Maryland, abortion is now at the woman's choice. In many other American states abortion is allowed in certain cases. Abortion is here both in law and fact, but does our abortion law properly respond to conditions as they exist in Canada today?
The Canadian Federation of University Women, which has a membership of 10,000 university graduates from every province and territory in Canada, at its conference in August, 1970, took the position that our present restrictive law on abortion constitutes a serious threat to the health of an alarmingly high number of Canadian women. They adopted the policy of liberalization abortion laws so that it would not be a crime for a licensed physician to perform such operation at the request of the woman. They argue that this would protect the health of many Canadian women who are forced to have illegal abortions by unqualified persons, under unsanitary conditions.
The Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada has recommended that the Criminal Code be amended to permit abortion by a qualified medical practitioner at the sole request of any woman who has been pregnant for 12 weeks or less, and at any period if the doctor is convinced that continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the physical or mental health of the woman.
The Globe and Mail in its editorial of May 19, 1970, pressed us to follow the abortion legislation changes just
March 5, 1971

Criminal Code
passed in England and in support oi this position pointed out that there were reasonable grounds to believe that literally hundreds of illegal abortions were performed in Toronto every week, and perhaps as many illegal abortions in Canada as there are births. If this is correct or even only substantially correct, it would seem that the Canadian Federation of University Women and the royal commission have much justification for their stand.
It is generally accepted that a just law is one that applies equally to all persons. Our present abortion law does not. Whether or not a woman can obtain an abortion in Canada would be accidental, depending on the city in which she lives, whether there is an approved hospital, whether an abortion committee has been set up and the interpretation the committee members put on the meaning of "health". If refused, a wealthy woman could go to a foreign nation. It is a relatively short trip to New York state. But a woman of very little means, who may have far greater need for the abortion, could not afford to do so. Daily advertisements appear in the Toronto newspapers offering to arrange abortion services in Buffalo. This may be fine for those who can afford it, but it creates bitterness and resentment for those who cannot.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association, whose members have charge of our mental health and who will have to make the decisions as to what abortions are justified, request that the restrictions in the Criminal Code be removed and that the decision be left, like any other medical matter, to the doctor and patient. In a sampling of his riding, one hon. member found that 85 per cent favoured removal of limitations from the Criminal Code. The topic is full of questions of principle, irreconcilable differences of opinion and emotional overtones. Some hold the religious belief that a fetus from the moment of conception is a human life with a soul. Others disagree, believing it is only potential life. Who can say which view is correct or that their view should be forced upon others and that one must not or may not have an abortion? Are we not better to leave it to the individual conscience?
We all profess to believe in equal application of the law, but in this case we do not give it. Nothing could be more cumbersome and expensive than the procedure now required to get an abortion. For all practical purposes, only the very rich can benefit from the law as it stands. We profess, also, to agree with the principle of the protection of individual rights. If this is so how can we legislate away the right to a medical abortion by calling it a crime unless performed according to the ritual set out in the Criminal Code?
As the law stands today, a doctor who is a member of an abortion committee must decide in which case he will perform the abortion to save a mother's life and in which case he will take a chance and risk her life. This is a heavy and unnatural burden on him, particularly if he has to decide in his conscience whether he is taking a life. It is a cruel position for the woman who is refused the abortion and believes that her health will be permanently impaired, her life lost or she will be incapable of properly sustaining that life after birth. Would it not be better for the person whose body is involved to make the
moral decision whether an abortion would be taking a life, and the physical decision whether to submit to surgery or let the pregnancy continue?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the mini-debate we are having this afternoon is perhaps but a preview of a longer and more intense debate which will take place presumably before the end of this session. I think it has been indicated, perhaps because of the increasing unrest across the country, that one or two days will be given to debating this important question. I am sure that all members are grateful to the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) for placing this topic before the House again in this bill taking, as he does, one of the positions espoused by a growing number of people in this country which can best be described as "abortion on demand".
I am somewhat surprised that the hon. member, who is a distinguished lawyer, as is the seconder of the motion for second reading of the bill, should in effect take the route of dealing with this difficult problem by simply suggesting that this part of the law which refers specifically to the question of abortion be wiped from the statute books. My profession is not the law, so I find it rather strange that I should be standing in this chamber telling at least two lawyers-and perhaps others-that the way to deal with a serious social problem is surely not to avoid facing it altogether by removing it from the legislative statutes of the land.
Surely the hon. member for Peel South and others realize that in trying to deal with the question of abortion we are dealing with something that has a host of social consequences. These social consequences are so fundamental that not to observe them in some way or other under the laws of the land in a sense would be to advocate some form of anarchy. For instance, I presume that the hon. member for Peel South would not advocate the removal from federal or provincial statutes of laws with respect to marriage, with respect to the responsibility that guardians have for children, with respect to inheritance, and so on. These are all very important social questions and social contracts.
It should also be stated that in moving this kind of bill the hon. member is not in fact advocating liberalization of the laws; he is advocating that there be no law. That is an entirely different question. It is important for us not to become confused, because we are not dealing with a liberalization of the law; we are erasing the law respecting an important social matter. If we are to maintain order in society, our actions must be governed by law.
The Criminal Code, in a free society, reinforces the freedom of individuals, a freedom derived from democratically prepared laws. If we remove from the present code provisions governing human life from its inception, we shall be removing from the code an area of major responsibility. If we did that, it would be like removing from the code all concerns for humanity. I admit that the code is not in any final and perfected state and that
(Mr. Chappell.]
March 5, 1971

many improvements could be made to it, because it applies to conduct within our society. But that is not the question.
I have been struck increasingly by the extreme positions that have been taken on the question of abortion. There is, I suggest a "groceteria" approach to conception. That approach is known as "abortion on demand". That position is symptomatic of the condition of our society in which too many want convenience above all else. An endorsation by this House of the "store-front" approach to abortion would be a major step backward for this country. That would be questionable, especially from the standpoint of how we value human life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The other extreme that many of us have witnessed could be described, I suppose, as the "fetus iiber alles" approach. Those advocating this approach are prepared to sacrifice all for the fetus, the physical and mental health of the mother, of the family, and perhaps of the unborn child. They do not mind if the child is to live a life of discomfort and misery. The rights of the fetus are above all. I submit that this position is as tyrannical as the one advocating abortion on demand.
A strange aura surrounds this question and many suggestions introduced as arguments are irrelevant. One argument that you hear quite often from those who advocate abortion on demand is that, after all, since the fetus is in the body of a woman she should have the right to determine whether she should give life or not. My answer to that argument is that I have not known of any women who became pregnant all by themselves. Pregnancy is not the result of one person's act. It does not occur because a person suddenly says, "I think I will now become pregnant." It arises in most instances out of a social relationship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Usually, it is one that is cemented by a bond resulting in permanent union. That being so, how can someone who says that the individual has the right to determine whether or not the fetus shall live overlook certain basic responsibilities and feelings of the individual who shared in the act of conception and who has related responsibilities to other members of the family and to the community? This whole question must be looked at in some kind of balance and taken in its totality. There is a danger of our losing sight of that fact in this discussion.
The basic question which cannot be ignored is, when does life come into being? There is no agreement on this. How much easier it would be for our discussions in this House and elsewhere if we could say when the human fetus is recognized as an individual and unique human being. It is fair to say that the largest religious community in this country, the Roman Catholic church, has been most outspokenly opposed to suggestions that the abortion law be liberalized. I have in my hand a copy of the brief which the Canadian Catholic Conference submitted
Criminal Code
to the special committee of this House on abortion in 1968. They state as follows:
-it is difficult to determine the exact moment when we can be certain that the fetus is human.
That statement is true not only from the standpoint of their ethical and religious position but also from the standpoint of medical science. The basic difficulty, as we all admit, is that we have not arrived at any commonly agreed position as to when human life begins. I would also argue that there is as much danger in our spending too much time on this question as there is in ignoring the larger question, the question that must be obvious to members who are concerned about the health of society generally. I am talking about the value of life itself. That is why as a member of the House I have become increasingly alarmed about the dogmatic positions taken by a number of people in the country.
Anyone who argues that abortion should simply be a matter of the individual's whim ignores some important questions. Think, for instance, of the difficult position in which this might place doctors. Let us say that on a certain afternoon a patient walks into a doctor's office and says, "Doctor, I am so many weeks pregnant. I believe I should not have this child and I want an abortion as quickly as possible." Being busy, the doctor probably will not spend too much time going into the reasons for her request and he will perform the abortion. Then a few days or a few weeks later we might see the same woman coming into the doctor's office and saying that she feels unhappy and disappointed now because she has decided that after all she wanted the child. That would not only be ridiculous; it would be tragic. Obviously, some reasonable mechanism must be set up for dealing with the question. It will not be dealt with if we simply ignore the question by erasing from our statute books existing laws on this subject.
A large proportion of people in this country probably agree that the present law touching abortion is unsatisfactory. But you will not get better law by having no law, and that seemed to be the argument presented in the chamber this afternoon. One of our major difficulties in this country is that we do not know accurately how many abortions take place. A number of different authorities have suggested that perhaps upward of 100,000 women in this country have recourse to illegal or completely unsafe abortion procedures which sometimes bring tragic results and often cause the unnecessary death of innocent women. That problem, surely, cannot be overlooked, no matter what position one takes on this question.
Quite frankly, I think that federal and provincial governments have displayed a major shortcoming in the past few years because they have been either unable or unwilling to gather sufficient information on this question. With such information, Members of Parliament and members of legislatures could bring forward better laws and better procedures than exist at present. I participated in an extensive series of hearings on this question almost three years ago. Time and again when we tried to make definite decisions with respect to

March 5, 1971
Criminal Code
improving the law we were faced with difficulties arising through insufficient accurate information. Without that information, of course, it will be impossible to improve our laws.
We must face this problem, Mr. Speaker. I think all hon. members have received sufficient correspondence and talked personally to enough constituents to realize that this is a growing and pressing problem, not only from the standpoint of the health of the individual but from the standpoint of the health of the entire community. If we are not prepared to face it, we must find a reasonable procedure which will allow for an acceptance of decisions with respect to the question of abortion that can in some way meet what seem to be almost extreme and unresolved positions.
I believe there are few questions with respect to modern-day family life that are more in need of thorough study, more thorough than any of the studies I have read to date, than the whole question of response of society to the question of abortion and the total health of the family.
p.ra.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in support of the bill before us. I hope it will be referred to the committee for further consideration. I am sure the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) is aware that there is on the Order Paper Bill C-165 in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). Except for the number of the bill, it is identical in every way to the one we are considering. As a result of the way in which bills get on the Order Paper, the hon. member's bill is being dealt with earlier because of its lower number.
I wish to deal with one or two points raised by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). He referred to the fact that a decision made by two people to bring a new life into the world is a matter of serious social consequence and one that should not be indulged in lightly. I agree with that portion of his remarks. However, I was astounded when he suggested that the mover and seconder of this bill, whom he referred to as distinguished members of the legal profession, were in effect taking a simplistic approach to this question from a legal point of view by simply suggesting that certain provisions be deleted from the Criminal Code.
Like the hon. member for Egmont, I am not a member of the legal profession. However, I am amazed that he would suggest that if the subject matter of abortion were removed from the Criminal Code-that is, if the various sections which make it a criminal offence were taken from the law of the country-we would be in the position where there would be no law on this subject. I suggest that the hon. member for Egmont is being simplistic in his approach, rather than the members who proposed this bill. All that is suggested is that these matters be removed from the area of what constitutes a criminal offence.
I suggest to the hon. member that all the normal laws of the land with respect to health matters, who legally
can carry on the practice of medicine or surgery, are not in any way affected by what is or is not in the Criminal Code in this connection. The hon. member suggested that if this bill is passed, there will be a vacuum in the law on this very important question. That is not in accordance with the legal facts as they prevail in this country. Let us consider what is involved.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Yes.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the hon. member indicate what legislation would cover the controls that might exist with respect to the whole range of an individual's options if there were nothing in the Criminal Code or any other statute with respect to the terms under which a woman might secure an abortion?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not have all the relevant information before me. I am well aware that we have a great many laws which restrict the practice of medicine and provide who may perform surgical abortions in this country. The question of what can or cannot be done as far as individuals are concerned depends a good deal on the laws which state who can or cannot practice in the area of health. This law, in my opinion, adequately deals with the question of whether an abortion should be performed. I agree with the hon. member that abortion on demand is a lot of nonsense. There is no such thing. Even with the legislation in the Criminal Code-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Perhaps I can be more specific, to help the hon. member with what he has in mind. Can he indicate what legislation presently exists, either federal or provincial, that guarantees the rights of the father with respect to the question of abortion?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, that may or may not be so, but I suggest that the Criminal Code as it presently stands does not deal with that question in any way. In any event, I suggest that when a married woman approaches a doctor, in the ordinary practice of his profession the doctor would have some right to exercise his medical discretion to determine whether the other parent should be consulted. This, of course, moves into the question of social legislation.
I do not argue with the hon. member that there should not be certain changes in some of the relevant provincial social legislation. My main point is, first, that the passage of this bill would not leave a complete vacuum in the legislative field in this area, as suggested by the hon. member. Second, this whole subject matter should not be dealt with in the Criminal Code as part of the criminal law. There is a place for offences committed by those who are licensed to practice in the field of health services, but the questions that arise in relation to this provision in the Criminal Code are theological rather than criminal. The question should be considered in that light. In my humble submission, Parliament and the

March 5, 1971

agencies of state should avoid legislating on theological matters. That is properly a matter for an individual's conscience, for religious bodies to which individuals choose to belong, and the religious tenets to which they choose to subscribe.
So often in the correspondence I receive on this subject it seems to be suggested that if this kind of bill were to pass, Parliament would be taking some positive action to say, in effect, that people must have abortions. Of course, this to me, as I think to any member of the House who has followed this matter, is arrant nonsense. It is this misconception of what is involved in changing legislation that should be stressed in a debate of this kind. I think this misunderstanding has been added to in part by some of the people who have coined the phrase "abortion on demand", because it creates the impression that if Parliament takes action to eliminate certain sections of the Criminal Code we will, in effect, be compelling people to have abortions, which of course is complete nonsense.
I have digressed from what I originally intended to say about this bill so as to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Egmont. While we may not have reached a complete meeting of minds on the matter, I think we may have moved somewhat toward common ground. I have made the point that what we are doing is releasing this question from legislating on what people should or should not believe, freeing people to live according to the ordinary tenets of social legislation in such a way that they can follow their own beliefs in this matter regardless of what they may be. In a country which prides itself on freedom of religion and on freedom of belief, I think this kind of theological restriction should not be within the ambit of the Criminal Code of Canada.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-32, to amend the Criminal Code.
First of all I should like to point out that the object of this bill to remove from the Criminal Code the word "abortion", which would enable us to look upon abortion as an operation very similar to a tonsillectomy or a blood transfusion with which the government has absolutely nothing to do and which is left at the doctor's and patient's discretion.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely against this bill and in saying that, I am speaking on behalf of all my colleagues.
Our position is not only a matter of conscience for us as human beings, but it is also the point of view of 90 per cent of our electors.
As all hon. members know, abortion was openly questioned by the Ralliement creditiste at the time of the now well-known omnibus bill in the spring of 1969.
My position and that of my party is still exactly the same: time and government may change but a man's
Criminal Code
conscience does not, at least I hope so. It is quite often said that we should modernize our way of thinking. I agree on several points such as the union of churches, the modification of electoral legislation to lower the voting age to 18 and so on.
But the moment the subject is pure and simple murder of a child that cannot defend himself, I do not agree any longer. If I were to accept this principle I would have to agree that, for the economic welfare of pre-war Germany, it was alright to kill all the Jewish people who owned the biggest part of this country's capital.
If I did agree with the abortion principle I would also agree with the Felquistes ideas to the effect that federal or federalist politicians are harming the political and economic health of Quebec and so on.
However, I find from reading Hansard that the sponsor of this bill entertains a rather wide conception of freedom.
As recorded on page 935 of Hansard for November 5, 1970, the hon. member stated and I quote:
Freedom consists of freedom of the press, freedom of speech with the right to criticize and protest, freedom of movement, which includes the right to carry on one's chosen activities without fear or interference.
It does not include the right to destroy the basis of the society which is out guarantee of freedom.
I should like to call the attention of the House on this excerpt from the speech the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Chappell) delivered in the course of the debate on the bill to provide temporary emergency powers for the preservation of public order.
I am very anxious to hear the hon. member state whether he and his party consider that the basis of our society is simply not freedom to be born. Otherwise, what is our society heading for?
Why should we for days and months discuss the proper means to punish those who oppose our present system and, at the same time, try to legalize murder on request?
I might be told that the aim is to free the woman and to allow her to be the master of her own body, that the government should not interfere with a woman's alleged freedom to kill the fruit of her womb, but I do not believe in such a freedom. I do not think that to enjoy freedom one can justifiably kill another person, and I emphasize these words because evidently, before birth the child is already a human being distinct from his mother and possessing all the essential features of a human being.
Here, I should like to recall a fact that all hon. members have no doubt witnessed, at least those who keep small pets for the enjoyment of their children.
I for one have always allowed my children to keep a few rabbits as it keeps them busy and teaches them from infancy a sense of responsibility towards living beings. Now, if a female happens to litter while people are around, it will eat all its young to the last.
Such action is repugnant to me and certainly to all hon. members, after the explanation given.
March 5, 1971

Criminal Code
We could therefore say under the law that a mother is killing her child so that he will not have to struggle for life. This is punishable just like murder. To my mind, a mother is not free or so-called free to decide whether the child must live or die once he is born. Now we would give this so-called freedom to the mother in respect of her unborn child?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The private members' hour has now expired.

It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m. I will not make any more predictions about the weather. I hope it will be pleasant and that hon. members will be able to enjoy a day outdoors.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 8, 1971