1972-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a pressing matter. In view of the fact reports from Washington show that automobile and auto parts manufacturers as well as manufacturers of non-auto products are exporting their products to Canada under the United States DISC program, contrary to information given this House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), with possible serious consequences to Canadian manufacturing and Canadian jobs, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House refer the subject matter of the effects of the DISC program on Canada and the urgent need to develop an effective Canadian response in order to safeguard manufacturing and jobs in Canada to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for immediate study and report to this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South proposes this motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put at this time.



TABLING OF TELEGRAM TO CANADIAN COPPER PRODUCERS HAVING CONTRACTS WITH JAPANESE PURCHASERS

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to lay on the table the text in both official languages of a telegram I have sent to Canadian copper producers who have contract arrangements with Japanese purchasers.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of a statement made last March by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to whom, as he might assume, my question is directed. At that time the minister said the government understood that United States automobile manufacturers had no intention of using the DISC program. In view of the revelation today that Ford did establish a corporation under that program last December and is exporting cars and trucks under it, is the minister going to make a statement to the House on the subject?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: I will try to answer the question succinctly, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend has suggested this was my "understanding" and "impression," and I referred to it in the House always in those terms. My understanding was based on conversations I have had with representatives of the automobile manufacturing industry in Canada. I emphasized in the House that I received no commitment from them. My understanding of these conversations was confirmed by discussions which took place between my officials and officials of the United States in respect of the automobile agreement. They, too, understood the U.S. manufacturers would not use DISC. I might observe that we received information from Ford to the effect that it was registering for DISC status last week, and we received information from General Motors yesterday. So I want to stand on what I said to the House; I said it and nothing else. It has to be observed also that U.S. companies-


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister is making a statement he should return to motions for that purpose.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the minister must determine whether he simply wants to answer the question or revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement. If an answer is long and involved, normally the information conveyed at that point should be conveyed by way of a statement on motions. At that point the minister should seek the consent of the House to return to motions. If not, he should be satisfied with replying to the question.
25104-49!

April 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think hon. members on the other side will have a few supplementary questions.


Mr. Peters:: Chicken!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, when the noise has subsided I will ask the minister my supplementary question. He has already answered some questions that might have been supplementary, but let me conclude with just one question. Because of the seriousness of the problem and the fact that the DISC threat is now a reality, and keeping in mind that a budget will be presented in the House a week from Monday, will the minister seize an opportunity next week in order to make a full and frank statement of the government's position and the facts, to which there could be a reasoned response? This development is bound to have some impact on the coming budget debate, so will the minister seize an opportunity to do this early next week?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do that, Mr. Speaker, but 1 cannot say at what precise time. It might be during the budget debate, for example.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-PROVISION TO GOVERNMENT OF NAMES OF AMERICAN COMPANIES MAKING USE THEREOF-CANADIAN PROTEST

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister the following question. According to the report to which reference has been made, the United States government refuses to reveal the names of the DISCS which are in place, and refuses to reveal the names of the parent companies. There may or may not be justification for that as far as the public is concerned, but I should like to ask the minister whether the government of Canada, as a partner to the auto pact agreement and generally as a partner in trade, has demanded that it be given the name of these DISCS and of the parent companies which have established such corporations so we may know exactly how our trade and jobs will be affected?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, my officers have made
attempts to find out which companies were registering or applying for DISC status. They have not been successful. I do not know exactly at what level that was done, but I have already indicated this morning that in respect of Ford and General Motors we have received information from those companies that they have registered for DISC status. If the question is wider than that I will see what I can do about obtaining official information, but I have little influence on the way the United States decides to implement its laws.


David Lewis: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister of the very soothing words the President of the United States used-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have not yet reached the point of debate on this matter but we should try as much

as possible to limit the exchange to questions and answers.


David Lewis: I will put it this way, Mr. Speaker. In view of the soothing words addressed to this House by the President of the United States, is the minister making a protest to the American administration that, as he himself said on March 17, the DISC program is a violation of the auto pact as well as all other trade arrangements under GATT?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this has already been done. A note was sent to the United States government last December, if my memory is good. We also made a formal protest during a debate which took place at GATT on all of the United States economic measures of August 15.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are many members seeking supplementaries. The matter is important and we will spend some time on it, but I must try to establish some kind of balance between the representatives of parties in the questioning. I think the hon. member for York South should be allowed one further supplementary for the moment and then I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-NON-IDENTIFICATION OF DISC EXPORTS FOR CUSTOMS PURPOSES- SUGGESTED PROTEST BY CANADA

David Lewis: My further supplementary is based on the information that the American program does not require American exporters to export their products under the DISC name, with the result that customs officials in Canada cannot ascertain whether the products were manufactured under DISC. In view of the fact this practice seems to be a deliberate, clandestine attempt to take advantage of Canada, may I ask the minister whether the government will protest vigorously against this kind of policy by the American administration?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I said in answer to the previous question that this had already been done. I do not see what we would gain from repeating these things. I might observe en passant-


David Lewis: You did not say you did it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I might answer this morning the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I just want to observe that the prices of the exports of an United States Manufacturing Company to Canada are not necessarily affected. It may very well dec'de to use the DISC advantage simply to maximize its profits. Therefore there is a distinction between the DISC effect on the profits of the company in the United States and its effect on export prices to Canada, which is an important distinction.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON CANADIAN COMPANIES AFFECTED

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade
April 28, 1972

and Commerce. It has to do with the request of my colleague from Peace River that the minister consider making a statement next week. In the interval I wonder whether he could direct the not inconsiderable energies of his department to ascertaining from Canadian industry, which may have a fair intelligence net, what industries will be particularly affected? I have in mind the Canadian petrochemical industry, fine papers and many others. Would he do this so that he could amplify his statement and we could look at the whole question with much more information at the time of the budget debate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is being done by a group studying the effects of DISC in Canada. As every hon. member knows, there are a number of things Canada could do to react to the DISC effects, but it is too early for me to indicate which route the government will take.



SUGGESTED REASSESSMENT BY CANADIAN AUTO


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In light of the information that has been given to the minister to date with regard to two major automobile manufacturers and in light of the now public exposure of the differences in prices of automobiles manufactured and sold in Canada and the United States and the flood of automotive parts coming into Canada from the United States under the encouragement of DISC, is the government now considering calling upon the auto manufacturers to make a complete reassessment of their position in Canada, particularly as it affects the Canadian consumer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Every word should be qualified. When the hon. member talks about a "flood of parts" imported into Canada, he should look at the answer I gave yesterday or the day before on that subject. Our exports to the United States at the moment are as good as they were at this time last year, at which time they were excellent, and they are not as good as they will be if automobile sales trends continue. There is nothing wrong with the present situation with respect to trade in auto parts.
With respect to prices, the other aspect of the question raised by the hon. member, I have already indicated to the House that a very thorough analysis is now being made. I personally believe that the gap in prices between the cost of production of automobiles in Canada and in the United States will always exist. The question is how wide a gap is tolerable, and I hope to give answers to that in the very near future.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO MINISTER BY AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in reply to questions by myself in the past month in the House the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce assured us that on the basis of his
Inquiries of the Ministry
information automotive manufacturers had not applied for DISC, and in view of the fact it has now been revealed that as long ago as last fall the Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation applied for DISC, could the minister inform the House whether or not he was misinformed by the companies in the past about their intentions with regard to DISC or was he relying on some other source of information which perhaps was not reliable?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I said this morning in answer to the first question, I formed my own impressions. Whether they were right or wrong, whether it was my fault or the fault of the people who gave me the information, I will let hon. members judge.


John Edward Broadbent: Notwithstanding the minister's assurances that he will do something in the future to somehow improve the situation, would he be a little more specific in the following way: would he assure the House that within the next week or ten days he will request the heads of the automotive companies in Canada to come to Ottawa for a meeting with him to explain their intentions concerning the DISC legislation? Will he point out to them that their profits are running in excess of $150 million a year over and above what they get for similar automobiles in the United States, and would he also point out that they have had very substantial benefits and that they owe Canadian workers and consumers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question. The hon. member is now making a speech.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-LAST COMMUNICATION BY MINISTER WITH FORD OFFICIALS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question follows the one just asked. Have the minister or his officials contacted the Ford officials since the information was released that they have been using the DISC program as far back as December, and when did he last speak with the Ford officials?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I spoke to Ford officials at 9.10 this morning, or about that time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question follows the minister's statement that he spoke to Ford officials this morning. Did they confirm that they have been using the DISC program since last December?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was confirmed.


Mr. Fairweather:: What a fantastic breakthrough.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the minister in a position to say that he misinformed the House or was given the wrong information?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I have already answered that question.

April 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



AUTO PARTS-ALLEGED INHIBITING OF EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES BY STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF U.S. CUSTOMS REGULATIONS

Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I use the occasion to answer a question raised yesterday by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. At that time he alluded to a statement by Mr. Wood, vice-president of the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association to the effect that abnormal pressures were being used by United States customs officials on Canadian exporters of automobile parts. My officials have checked with Mr. Wood. He declares emphatically that he was quoted out of context. He says there is no indication that abnormal pressures are being applied at this time.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-BASIS FOR MINISTER'S STATEMENT THAT AUTO MANUFACTURERS NOT INTENDING TO MAKE USE THEREOF

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. On March 28, as recorded at page 1203 of Hansard, the minister, in answering a question I asked him regarding DISC, said that as a result of conversations and consultations with the industry he could state that "automobile manufacturers do not plan to use the DISC facilities". I want to ask the minister specifically whether he made that statement on the basis of personal consultation with representatives of Ford Motor Company of Canada and General Motors of Canada, or between them and any of his officials? Was this statement based on hearsay, or did the minister have actual conversations with the representatives of these companies and did he receive the information he gave the House from those sources?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I answered that in reply to the first question asked this morning. I can only repeat that answer, if that will suit the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will return to this subject later. I will allow the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands his supplementary and then try to see two or three other hon. members before returning to this subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I understood the minister to make a general statement about misinformation. I am asking him specifically with respect to the representatives of the two companies, Ford and General Motors. Did he have any conversations with them or did his officials have any conversations with them, and did they state categorically at that time that they did not intend to use the facilities of DISC, as the minister told the House on March 28?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I answered that very clearly. I said what impressions I gained from speaking with these gentlemen. This is very clear. I also said in the same answer that "no assurances had been given". That was pretty clear. These were impressions I gained from per-

sonal conversations with them and these personal impressions were confirmed, 1 thought, by conversations my officials had with officials of the United States government, who have apparently had the same impression. That is pretty clear.


An hon. Member:: It is facts we want.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I said a moment ago, we will return to this subject and I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in a few minutes. For the moment, perhaps the Chair should be allowed to recognize two or three other members, and then we will return to this very important and urgent matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to ask a very short follow-up question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps other hon. members also have very short questions to ask about the matter. These members will be recognized for that purpose in a few minutes. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Speaker, mine was a supplementary and I wonder if I could direct it to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems that hon. members have not exhausted their supplementaries on this subject. We might devote another five minutes to it. First I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact cabinet ministers dealing with corporations do not generally deal in impressions but rather in specific statements, did the minister at any time put the question directly to the representatives of the automobile companies concerned as to whether or not they intended to use the facilities of DISC, and what reply did he receive from them at the time such conversations were held by him or his officials?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only repeat that I said no assurances had been given. I said that in answer to a question at the time. I know this is very sophisticated but maybe I can get through. There is a difference between using the DISC program to maximize profits for the United States companies involved and using the DISC program to influence the cost of goods being sent to Canada. As 1 say, I know this is sophisticated, but I am sure I am getting through now. It is too early in the game now to know what will be the effect on exports to Canada of the use of the DISC program by U.S. manufacturers. It may be that it will have an effect; it may be that it will not have an effect. We will watch.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent will have to wait a while longer because the hon. member for Wellington is rising on a question of privilege.
April 28, 1972


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege, and I think it affects every member of the House, is that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advised the House on March 17 that the American car manufacturers, according to information that he had received from them, would not, had not and were not using the DISC program. Now we are advised that they have been using the DISC program since December. These American car manufacturers have misled the minister or given him the wrong information. I think it behooves the minister to advise the House accordingly and require an apology from the American car manufacturers in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent has a supplementary.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH AUTO MANUFACTURERS-SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN OFFSHORE AUTOMOBILE IMPORTS

Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, many questions have been asked but I should like the minister to clarify whether formal talks on this matter are being organized with the United States branch plants that are operating in Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a previous question I said that I would be giving all the information I have on the subject, as I usually do, in the coming days. I suggested this might take place during the budget speech. Obviously, before making these remarks I will want to have optimum information. Optimum information obviously implies a meeting between the gentlemen mentioned, the heads of the Canadian manufacturing companies, and myself in order to obtain all the information possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Many supplementaries are being sought. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent on his supplementary and then we will determine whether we should try for two minutes to give other members a chance to ask questions subject to returning to this matter later.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for clarifying the matter as far as the companies are concerned. However, my concern is for the Canadian consumer. Therefore my question is whether the government would consider dropping the 12 per cent excise tax on low and medium-value automobiles imported from offshore-I do not mean luxury cars-so that Canadian consumers as well as automobile manufacturers could get a break?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the Minister of Finance would be pleased to send to my hon. friend a list of all the categories of producers and people in Canada who have asked for similar advantage, that is, the exemption of the 12 per cent tax.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INTENTION OF CAR MANUFACTURERS RESPECTING USE THEREOF AND REDUCTION OF PRICES IN CANADA

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows there is sophistry as well as sophistication. I should like to ask the minister for specific answers to the questions I put earlier today on the need for direct discussion by him with the heads of the automobile companies on their intentions. I should like to get answers to the following questions and not impressions. Do they intend to use the DISC legislation not just to maximize their profit position but to increase the percentage of their sales in Canada in terms of American produced automobiles as opposed to Canadian produced automobiles? Let us have a specific answer to that specific question. Second, do they intend to do something soon about reducing the prices of automobiles to the Canadian consumer? Would the minister do that within the next ten days?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will try hard, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands in a moment but for the time being the hon. member for Vegreville has a supplementary.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INVESTIGATION OF EFFECTS ON INDUSTRIES IN GENERAL

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the revelation that auto manufacturers are now using the DISC program, is the minister now going to investigate actively the utilization of this program by other industries, which may be detrimental to Canadian interests?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that we have a group in the government administration doing exactly that. It is trying to get all the information possible on the effects the DISC program will have on Canada. I also said this morning that the Minister of Finance, with the government, will see what the best answer to this would be.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO OFFSET EFFECTS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that about a month ago the government leader in the Senate stated, in a speech in Washington, that the Canadian government had detailed legislation ready to deal with DISC if it became apparent that it was going to be widely used with respect to exports to Canada, I want to ask the minister whether such legislation has been prepared and does the government intend to introduce it? In view of the fact that apparently the United States government is now embarking on a trade war, what steps does the minister intend to take, what legislation does he intend to introduce, and how soon?

April 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this shows the difficulty involved in forming impressions. Reading the speech of the distinguished government representative in the Senate, my impression was that he said that there were on the legislative books in Canada a number of ways and means that could be used to counter the DISC program. That is what 1 think he said. It showed how well informed he was.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the government leader in the Senate knows what steps are to be taken, may I assume that the minister knows what steps are to be taken, and will he tell the House what those steps are, either now or on motions on Monday?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will again read the speech given by the government leader in the Senate at that time, he will find a number of ways and means that the Canadian government could use. I think Mr. Martin was specific on some of these.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. I have read with interest the minister's statement as presented to the New Brunswick commercial salmon fishermen in Chatham, New Brunswick, yesterday. In view of the economic impact on Atlantic Canada brought about by the closing of the commercial salmon fishery, would the minister make a brief statement on the response of the fishermen yesterday to his proposals?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I can say very briefly now that the fishermen were very interested in the scheme for compensation which the government is advancing. They are interested in monitoring the recovery of the rivers and of course they are very anxious to see us get the Danes to stop fishing off west Greenland immediately.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-RESTRICTIONS ON ANGLING

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Even though there may be certain provincial responsibility in the matter, can the minister state whether there will be restrictions on angling, particularly in New Brunswick?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are already restrictions on angling, as the hon. member knows. We intend to have conversations with the province, which is responsible for administering upstream angling licences.
[Mr. Douglas.J



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL AND RESTORATION OF DEPLETED RIVERS

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he can assure the House that, with the provision of additional funds, additional personnel will be hired to assist the river wardens in the inspection and supervision of existing rivers? Could the minister also assure the House that a program to restore depleted rivers in eastern Canada will be undertaken?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I can give the House those assurances. I should also like to mention that in the use of funds for compensation we intend to employ as many fishermen as possible both for policing the rivers and helping us to help rehabilitate the runs.



ATLANTIC SALMON FISHERY CLOSURES-MEASURES TO CLEAN UP POLLUTION IN RIVERS

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether as a result of his visit to New Brunswick and his discussion with the fishermen there he gathered any fresh information on what measures should be taken to speed the cleanup of pollution of such rivers as the Miramichi in order to make anti-pollution measures more effective?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I told the fishermen that more than $30 million had already been spent on pollution abatement in the three rivers affected, the Saint John, the Miramichi and the Restigou-che, that the annual operating costs of these facilities were in excess of $5 million a year, that this effort was having an effect already, and that the $5 million annual expenditure exceeds the present gross value of the commercial fishery in the total Atlantic area by a ratio of more than two to one.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. When will the government be in a position to issue a statement on foreign investment?


Some hon. Members:: Author!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a statement on this matter this coming Tuesday.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in making this statement will the minister indicate whether
April 28, 1972

he has legislation prepared and will he give some idea of when he intends to introduce it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand that later today the government House leader intends to speak to the House leaders ot the other parties about arrangements connected with the statement I intend to make.



FOREIGN INVESTMENT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF PREPARATORY DOCUMENTS WHEN STATEMENT ON POLICY IS MADE

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of National Revenue a question in relation to the question that was conveniently asked by a member of his party. On Tuesday will he merely make a statement, or will he table his report and any other documents that were supposed to be prepared before the policy could be announced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to be in the House so he can see for himself. Next time, perhaps he might ask a question of the type that he regrets was asked by a member on the government side.


David Lewis: I have been asking it for months.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister with reference to a new book which it has been announced will soon appear on the newsstands and is supposed to be laudatory of the present Prime Minister. As this book will soon be on sale at newsstands and as the author is a member of the Prime Minister's staff, can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether the time spent on writing this book was paid for by the Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the answer to that question is in the negative. This is, of course, a private venture just as I understand that laudatory book on the Leader of the Opposition was.



RAPESEED-ACTION TO OFFSET PROJECTED DECLINE IN ACREAGE

Mr. Stanley Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In light of the expressed intention of farmers to grow 37 per cent less rapeseed this year than last, is this action in line with the
Inquiries of the Ministry
wishes of the minister? Has he indicated the acreage of rapeseed he wishes farmers to plant? Will there be a survey to see whether his wishes are carried out? If not, will there be an incentive to have what he wishes brought about?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the expression of our view this year included information that about the same amount of rapeseed as last year seemed to us to be reasonable, according to the information we had available about market prospects. I have since expressed the hope that severe reduction in acreage would not take place because I believe that market development requires a continuity of supply to keep pressure on in the marketplace. I have made this clear to producers.


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister intend to provide some incentive, if surveys indicate that this level will not be met?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the basic incentive is provided by the price available for rapeseed. That price seems to be relatively attractive when compared with the price of other grains. There is some hesitancy no doubt at this time concerning the move to lower erucic acid rapeseed. We will be trying to reassure growers that they ought not to hesitate for that reason.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-REPRESENTATIONS TO MINISTER BY CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE CONCERNING EFFECTS

Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on a former subject. Has the international representative of the Canadian auto workers, Dennis McDerment, ever made representations to the minister concerning the effect that the DISC program might have on Canadian auto workers if put into effect by the American companies which are in competition with Canadian companies, inasmuch as the Canadian auto workers' brothers who belong to the same international union are employed by the American companies and I understand are in favour of the DISC program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, in a previous meeting with Mr. McDerment the concentration was really on the two formal safeguards. I do not recall whether he mentioned the DISC program also in those conversations. I will check and see what record was kept.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN SAFEGUARDS UNDER CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the obvious disappointment of the minister at what seems to be a very clear betrayal of his confidence by the automobile companies, will he indicate whether he is now prepared to shift away
1720

April 28, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
from the sort of quiet diplomacy he has engaged in with the automobile companies and increase the safeguards under the Canada-U.S. auto agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Time will tell, Mr. Speaker.



MANPOWER


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the length and severity of the winter, has the government decided to extend the time for eligibility for forgiveness under the local initiatives program from May 31 to the end of June?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this subject is under active consideration and I expect that the responsible minister will be making a statement soon.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-SUGGESTED REQUIREMENT THAT EXPORTS TO CANADA BE IDENTIFIED

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the expressed view that there is no United States government requirement to use the DISC name in any export transactions, is the government considering the possibility of developing or formulating a disclosure requirement with respect to United States DISC exports to Canada?
*


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the question is too complex for me to deal with this morning. I will inquire into it further.



TRANSPORT


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the government giving serious consideration to the use of airborne oil tankers for the movement of oil from wellheads to deepwater ports?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the generality of the question I can say that the answer is yes, but perhaps the hon. member may have some specific idea or concept in mind.
[Mr. Saltsman.J



POST OFFICE


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is he in a position to make a progress report to the House on the contract talks taking place with the postal unions inasmuch as the contract expired more than one month ago?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the talks are continuing. There was a slight deferral caused by some disagreement within one of the unions in the council of postal unions. Hopefully, this is being repaired.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the President of the Treasury Board advise the House whether an offer involving wage and job security has been presented by the Treasury Board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I indicated relating to the current, temporary interruption, no such proposal has been made.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-PROVISION OF INFORMATION BY PRESIDENT NIXON OR SECRETARY ROGERS ON IMPLEMENTATION DURING VISIT TO OTTAWA

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Acting Prime Minister a question related to the questions asked of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since it is obvious that at the very time conversations were going on between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States and between the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs and Secretary of State Rogers the President and the Secretary of State must have known about the developments under DISC, was this matter brought forward by either of these gentlemen in their discussions with the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Did any discussion take place? If they did not raise the subject, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister raise it, or have they both been deceived and betrayed by them as well?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the discussions between the President and the Prime Minister about trade consisted of a decision to review our respective positions with a view to resuming negotiations. This was the position I also took with Secretary of State Rogers. There was no detailed discussion of particular questions because both the Prime Minister and the President were anxious not to complicate the decisions by getting into a discussion of details. These were to be handled, and I think will be handled most competently, by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-
April 28, 1972


Mr. Nystrom:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will first recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and, before calling orders of the day, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the minister whether the President informed the Prime Minister or Secretary of State Rogers informed him in any way at all of developments under DISC or of United States efforts to solve their trade problems?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-ACTION TO PREVENT UNDERCUTTING OF CANADIAN BY AMERICAN GOODS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he tell us what action he is taking or is contemplating to prevent the undercutting of Canadian goods by American goods in third countries with which both the United States and Canada trade? What action is he contemplating along this line?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the question will either have to be repeated or clarified because I could not understand it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is the minister contemplating action or taking action to prevent the undercutting of Canadian goods by American goods in countries with which both Canada and the United States trade?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I presume the hon. member means the effect of the DISC program on third country exports. I can only repeat what I said earlier this morning, that we have identified DISC as damaging to Canadian exports bilaterally and in third countries and that we shall announce in due course what we intend to do about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to the Criminal Code 1967 Amendment Act, the Criminal Records Act, the National Defence Act, the Parole Act
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
and the Visiting Forces Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was saying a few words about a couple of clauses in the new amendments to the Criminal Code. I said that a lot of women across this country were disappointed at the slow progress the government has been making in implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
However, I think it is necessary that when steps in this direction are taken they should be noticed. The amendments before us do contain two or three amendments which will be appreciated by women as implementations of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women.
Before returning to this subject, I wish to express personal satisfaction that the clause providing for corporal punishment is being deleted. I realize it has become fashionable around the country to indicate that because there is a great deal of violence around in real life, on television and in the other media, the only thing which will defeat violence is violence. The minister must have been under some pressure not to propose this particular amendment repealing the clause on corporal punishment. I am glad he is doing so, and I trust he will have the courage later in the year to resist the pressure not to abolish capital punishment. I am sure from everything we have seen that continuing capital punishment would in no way do away with murder in this country or anywhere else. I see some people shaking their heads in disbelief. I am waiting to see the facts and figures produced.
I repeat, I am glad to see that the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women with regard to vagrancy has been followed. There was discrimination against women under this section. The Commission did not recommend that there should be penalties in the Code for soliciting, but I am glad to see this offence put on a basis which does not discriminate as between women and men.
The other thing I want to mention is the satisfaction a lot of women and a great many men will feel in relation to the amendment dealing with women and jury service. This is an acceptance of recommendation No. 141 of the report by the royal commission. This recommendation is to the effect that it be made mandatory for women to be called to serve on juries on the same terms as men. I wish to take this occasion to pay tribute to the long and persistent campaign waged by Senator Muriel Fergusson in the Senate to get this matter regulated and remove discrimination. In her later efforts in the Senate she was assisted by Senator Therese Casgrain who added this campaign to her many other campaigns to raise the status of women to that of full persons in every field. It was interesting to me to find out that on February 3, 1971, Senator Casgrain drew attention, during a debate in the Senate, to the fact that in Quebec and Newfoundland women were not called for jury duty. They still are not called, as I understand it, and will not be until the legislation before us comes into effect. She was pushing for the implementation of the recommendation of the royal commission.
25104-50}

April 28, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Then, Senator Fergusson came along later and supported Senator Casgrain. She had, of course, been pushing for this herself for many years. She referred to the experience in New Brunswick which resulted in the passing of a law making women eligible to sit on juries but not under the same terms and conditions as men. She pointed out that only in British Columbia, Nova Scotia and the Territories do women serve on juries under the same conditions as men. It is an interesting sidelight on Canadian psychology that in 1951 a bill was introduced into the Nova Scotia legislature which would have limited jury service to males. It is noteworthy that women had never been prohibited from serving on juries, but they had never been called. In 1951, someone got the bright idea that it would be a good thing to prevent women from ever serving as jurors. However, such a fuss was raised that the bill had to be withdrawn. Women now are called and serve on juries in Nova Scotia on the same basis as men.
Various comments have been made by judges at various times in connection with the campaign carried on by Senator Fergusson. One judge was of the opinion that women should not be permitted to serve on juries in the Northwest Territories because of alleged emotional instability and other factors. But the Senator's efforts were encouraged by other judges who had seen women serving on juries and who said that women were in every way as competent to serve on juries as were men. Senator Fergusson pointed out that in 1957, Canada ratified the United Nations Convention of the Political Rights of Women. In ratifying this convention, we, in Canada, undertook to bring Canadian legislation into conformity with the United Nations convention on the political rights of women and jury duty is one of those rights, yet we have allowed all that time to go by between 1957 and 1972, without bringing Canada into line with the United Nations convention which we ratified in 1957.
Then, of course, we have the Canadian Bill of Rights, which was passed in 1960 and provides that there should not be discrimination on the ground of sex, among various other things, in regard to a number of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including, and I quote, "the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law". Denying women the right to serve on juries on the same terms as men is denying them equality before the law.
It is interesting to note that apparently one of the reasons the federal government hesitated to pass this legislation giving women the same right to serve on juries as men was that some people expressed the opinion to the government that this was strictly a provincial right. I think the federal government is now satisfied that it need not be so timid and that the federal government itself has a perfect right to take action in this matter. Consequently, I congratulate the Minister of Justice for going ahead and at long last taking the step, which has been long overdue, of making it mandatory that jury service be open to women and that women will now be called to serve on the same basis as men.
I welcome these amendments to the Criminal Code, though I would have liked to see other matters included as well. For example, there is no reason in the world why the
(Mrs. Maclnnis.]
government could not have dealt with the subject of abortion, one of the other rights women should have. However, the government has dealt with vagrancy, with abolition of corporal punishment, the right of women to serve on juries, and a number of other matters having to do with sentencing.
There is one other area in which I should like to see our practice go further. I should like to see the provision of halfway houses for women coming from penal institutions widened. I think they are a good thing. I am not at all sure whether the Solicitor General (Mr. Goyer) was discriminating when he announced a program to put inmates of penitentiaries in private homes. He mentioned only the homes of old age pensioners, but I personally do not think this would be wise. I think the program should be extended to any group of people willing to take those who are given leave from penal institutions to stay in their private home.
As I say, I do not know whether the minister was discriminating and restricting the program only to men. If so, I think women should be included as well. There should be some outlet for those confined in our institutions of punishment of various kinds in order to give them the opportunity of leading a normal life, but on a protected basis for the first little while. Halfway houses would be one way of doing this, but a more intimate and better way would be to find a family willing to receive these people as equals. I repeat, I should like to see this practice extended. I do not think it would be necessary to pass legislation in this regard, though the minister would know whether or not that is the case. In any event, I think this program should be widened.
We in our party are glad to be able to congratulate the minister and to support these amendments to the Criminal Code, which we think are steps in the right direction.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take much of the time of the House, because I know the minister and his colleagues would like to get this bill through second reading and into the committee for study. There is just one aspect of the minister's proposals that I should like to comment on, and I refer to the proposed removal of corporal punishment.
There has been a great difference of opinion about this matter both in this House and elsewhere for many years. I recall sitting on a committee of this House in 1954 which was, considering the subjects of capital punishment, corporal punishment, gambling and lotteries. It used to be known, though perhaps somewhat inappropriately, as the "claptrap and strap committee". However, apart from the rather jocular name that was applied to it, the committee did do a lot of serious work. The members of the House who have not read the reports of that committee on those particular subjects would find them well worth reading.
Although I have never considered myself a sadist, I do have grave doubts about removing corporal punishment from the Criminal Code at the present time. Indeed, I think the minister has some doubts, too, since in presenting the bill to the House last night he said, as I recall it, that he felt corporal punishment should be removed from the Criminal Code but perhaps it should not be removed in some other areas or under some other circumstances,
April 28, 1972

which is some indication that there is doubt. Certainly, I am one of those who has some doubt about such removal. Corporal punishment is very seldom used today, being reserved for particularly aggravating or special cases, such as cases of rape, cases where torture is inflicted on innocent victims, and that sort of thing. It is used only in the rarest of circumstances, and I think its use should be retained as a threat to those who will commit that sort of crime.
As hon. members will recall, a few years ago the question of capital punishment came before this House and, of course, it will be coming before the House again next fall for review if the House is sitting at that time. At the time it was suspended, we were told that capital punishment made no difference to the commission of the crime of murder, that it was not a deterrent. As the hon. member who has just preceded me mentioned, all of the statistics in this regard have not yet been collated, so there does seem to be some doubt about them. However, one thing that is quite clear is that there has been a considerable increase in the number of crimes of murder, particularly of the gangland variety, since capital punishment was removed in all but special cases. In fact, I think we can safely say that capital punishment has been removed in all cases, except in theory; the cabinet has seen to that. The same argument is put forward in the case of corporal punishment. It is said corporal punishment does not deter crime, that it is mediaeval. Perhaps it is, but not all customs and habits of mediaeval days were bad. Human nature does not change.
Some of the people who strongly advocate the complete removal of corporal punishment from the Criminal Code are among the finest people in the country. For example, I think of the minister, some of my friends to my left, members of my own party and others throughout the country. However, everyone tends to interpret these problems in terms of their own feelings. I am sure that the minister would be the last person ever to merit the use of corporal punishment. Certainly, he and many other members of the House, particularly the previous speaker, our lady member from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), would never dream of committing and could probably never imagine anybody else committing, some of the offences you hear about.
It is assumed that everybody in Canada is a reasonable person. Someone put it very well when he said that man may be the only animal with the ability to use logic, but man is by no means a logical animal. We are much more often governed by our own emotions and wishes. I am sure there are many social workers, clergymen and others-I will not refer to them as "do-gooders" because that implies some sort of motivation-who are fine people in themselves, who cannot conceive that there are others who are not motivated in the same way as they. They cannot accept the fact that there are people who are sub-normal, or who have a very low degree of intelligence. These are the people who cannot understand logic, common sense or sweet reason. There are also people who have, in psychological terms, psychopathic personalities. They have no sense of responsibility or morality in the broad sense of the words, and reason has no effect on them.
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
Some years ago before I came to this House I acted as Crown Attorney for two years. I used to hold the same view as the minister and perhaps the hon. lady, but I now know that at any particular time in any society there are gangs of animals which come before the Magistrate's Court charged with committing some violent offence, either singly or in groups. There is no use putting them on probation, telling them to report to a Sunday school teacher or probation officer once a week. They leave the court roaring with laughter and making rude jokes about the whole thing. I know it is difficult for some people in this House who never have had any dealings with these animals to understand this, but it is true whether one likes it or not. It is as simple as that. Certainly, corporal punishment should not be used indiscriminately in respect of any offence, but it should be used in the most extreme cases such as gang rapes and that sort of thing. That sort of thing does take place, even though we like to pretend it does not. I think it should be retained for use in these very severe cases, particularly in view of the increase in violent crime in this country, which has been unwittingly encouraged by those who would like to see it eliminated, as we all would.
I suggest to the minister there is another reason for the retention of corporal punishment, and this may sound rather strange, even contradictory, in view of what I have just said. It is still my view that as long as reform institutions remain what they are today, probably the worst thing you can do is send a fairly young, first offender to one of these institutions. As we all know, they just learn worse habits or new methods of using the bad habits they already have. In certain instances, and of course this is up to the official trying the case, the very moderate use of corporal punishment might well be a better substitute. When you send boys of 16 or 17 to one of these institutions for the first time, some come out with what these gangs refer to as a service chevron. This is almost the reverse of a good conduct medal. Such an individual chalks up another chevron when returned to his element of society for each term spent in custody. If such an individual received some type of corporal punishment, and I agree that the method used could be improved, he would not come back bragging about it.
Corporal punishment should be retained in a somewhat severe form in respect of aggravated cases, the type to which I have referred, and perhaps in a much milder form for the young first offender in respect of whom no real purpose is served by sending him to an institution.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this is the sort of legislation which is really better discussed in committee because of its detail. There are 76 clauses in the bill and it is almost impossible to distil any single principle. There are a number of principles involved, but I do want to make a few remarks to indicate our support for most, if not all, the provisions of the bill, and to indicate our desire to see it enacted into law as soon as possible.
Let me point out something to the House and to the minister. Perhaps he knows this and does not need it pointed out, but I will point it out anyway. Although these

April 28, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
changes are important and, generally speaking, are in the right direction, they do not meet the need for fundamental reform of the criminal law of this country. There is much more to be done and these changes are concerned only with incidental matters. We must make our criminal law modern, up to date, compassionate and remedial. We have so far not succeeded in using the criminal law for the purpose which justifies it, including changing the attitude and conditions of those who tend to criminal acts.
The members of the law Reform Commission, which was created by parliament, have now been appointed, with Mr. Justice Hartt as chairman. I believe it is admirably qualified to suggest fundamental changes to his House and I certainly hope it will do so. I am thinking of the field of law that applies to insanity in criminal cases. In this regard we still observe the M'Naghten rules enunciated, if I recall rightly in 1848, although the wording in the code is not identical to the rules, when there was no real understanding of mental conditions and so on such as we have today. This is a field in respect of which I hope the Law Reform Commission will make suggestions.
Perhaps I should not deal with detail, but one cannot discuss principles without reference to some particular provisions. May I comment on Clause 4 of the bill which deals with appeals in respect of convictions for contempt of court. It always seemed to me an extraordinary thing that a single judge could sentence someone to a rather serious punishment for contempt of court, and yet only the question of punishment could be considered on appeal. We live in an era in which some people believe in confrontation. We live in an era when courts sometimes use intemperate and harsh language, and we have seen recent examples fo this. I support this part for use in dealing with persons who have made some angry remark in the heat of the moment, perhaps provoked by the language or attitude of the court itself, because that ought to be reviewable by a higher court. I am very pleased to see that clause 4 provides that where a court, judge, justice or magistrate summarily convicts a person for contempt of court, whether committed in the face of the court or otherwise, an appeal exists from that conviction for contempt of court.
I also welcome the provisions of clause 6, and the following clauses which deal with the question of hijacking. I am not going to make any elaboration on this particular matter, as it is a technical one, but this particular provision follows the international rule. I should like to take advantage of the opportunity by saying it is an example of the development of the international community, and that our criminal law must sometimes take note of the fact that we are living in a so-called global village. Laws which are made in this country and other countries for the security of people against hijacking and acts of violence of that sort, have to take on some international aspects. This particular provision has our support for that reason.
Another clause I think deserves commendation, and this has been referred to by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and I think also the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), relates to the repeal of those provisions dealing with vagrancy and prostitution. The removal of these particular provisions from the Criminal Code is long overdue. Prostitution has been a

part of life for a very long time. The criminal law has totally failed to deal with it in any sort of way. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said, our law has been applied in a way that is grossly discriminatory on the basis of sex with regard to this particular offence. We welcome the removal of that from the Criminal Code.
I was almost tempted to enter into a private conversation with the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but I will not do that. His comments are interesting. Perhaps he will make them later.
Another provision I was delighted to see is the one related to a conviction for a driving offence Now, the suspension of driving privileges does not have to be an absolute suspension, but can be a suspension limited to certain times and places. I have often had people come to me whose livelihoods depended on their being able to drive and who have been subject to a mandatory suspension of their licences. The penalty there has been tremendously enhanced, not only as far as the individual is concerned, but often his family. In effect, their whole livelihood has been taken away in addition to the penalty normally and directly imposed for the commission of the offence. This will be a great relief to many families. It deserves to be commended.
I do not feel equally satisfied with the amendment proposed in clause 22. This increases the penalty for assault on a peace officer or police officer from two to five years. This is going in the wrong direction. We all know that in this age of confrontation, there is a need to protect our peace officers and others from interference and obstruction in the course of duty. There is a serious problem involved in connection with this field, but it is a delusion and a mistake to think that the problem can or should be dealt with by increasing the severity of sentence. That goes against the direction in which we should be looking. People in association with police officers who are conscious of the difficulties in their own job think the severe penalty acts as a deterrent. They are wrong and this parliament should not accept that approach because it just does not work.
I rejoice, as do others in this House, at the clause in the bill which repeals sections of the act which deal with the added penalty of whipping in addition to other punishment. I quite agree with the minister and others in this House that this has a brutalizing influence. Expert criminologists say it has no effect on deterrence and, indeed, a sentence of whipping tends to aggravate the criminal tendencies of anyone so sentenced and creates a resentment that is later borne out by the commission of other offences.
Another clause that should be very carefully considered by the committee is clause 62 which deals with a stay of proceedings. As I understand it, this enables counsel instructed by the Attorney General to direct a stay of proceedings in summary cases. I believe this device has been abused, particularly in the courts of British Columbia, with regard to indictable offences. It enables a charge to be partially, but not totally, withdrawn and left over the head of an accused with the right to recommence the proceedings at some future date. If the Crown or
April 28, 1972

prosecuting authorities do not have adequate evidence to proceed against someone, the charge should be withdrawn, not suspended and left hanging over the head of the individual. The extension of this provision of the right to direct a stay of proceedings from the field of indictable offences into the field of summary offences merely extends the possibility of abuse. This particular provision, and the use of pressure tactics on the part of prosecuting authorities, is not suitable.
It is not necessary to go into a lengthy discussion at this stage. No doubt all of these clauses will be subject to careful review by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I want to summarize by saying we welcome these changes. Most, if not all, go in the right direction. We look forward to a more fundamental review of our criminal law so it will become more modern, compassionate and effective in the future.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I take up the theme referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) that this is sort of a mini omnibus bill, since it touches on many aspects of the criminal law. Maybe there is a good case for the development of an evolution of the law. I do not share entirely his optimistic note that there has to be a greater degree of compassion. I place a greater emphasis somewhere else. I want to take violent exception to those people who seem to believe that a reassertion of the fundamental principle which in some circles, is referred to in a derogatory manner as law and order, is necessarily bad. The first principle that must be observed is that the citizen has the right not to be offended by his neighbour. If that is a maintenance of law and order, I am in favour of law and order in those terms. Some individuals, for social, economic or other reasons, choose to set aside the law and justify either the taking of property or the assault on other persons. In this day of confrontation, there are many people who will say such actions are fully justified.
What a spectacle we have in the streets, even in front of this building and in many other places, where individuals must run the risk of assaults and other actions from people who frankly say they are the only judges of their conduct, regardless of what it may be. I thoroughly reject this idea. I go back to the fundamental principle that each individual has the right not to be offended by his neighbour and that it is in the public interest that citizens shall live peacefully and at rest from the anxiety and worry of assault on them, on their property and on their other rights. Unfortunately, human nature does not always permit this, whether because of acquisitive instincts or other instincts I cannot say. The reasons for crime are legion. But the ordinary citizen is always the recipient, the one who takes the shock and has to suffer. How often do we hear that the criminal is an unfortunate person. We pat him on the head and tell him to be a good boy in the future. But what about the family that he has abused in some way? What about the poor person from whom he has stolen and who finds himself or herself deprived of property?
I will put this to the minister and to other hon. members, and it is unfortunate that some of them are not here. In
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
my city of Edmonton in the past year the reported cases of rape have tripled or quadrupled, and the police say that only one third of the cases are reported.


Mr. Bechard:: Would the whip cure that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I can assure the hon. member that in violent cases it certainly would. Does the hon. member think that rape by three or four men of some young or older woman does not call for that type of punishment? Some people say that this is wrong, that it brutalizes. I say, what does it do to the victim?


Mr. Gilbert:: It is degrading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would like to see the
hon. member who has said that go to some of our mental hospitals and see what happens to the victim of one of these gang rapes. He says it is degrading to that person.


John Gilbert: Do you think you will make it better by what you are suggesting?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is much greater fear-at least that is my judgment-of performing in this way if at the end of the road there could be corporal punishment. But they say that we should have concern for the individual, for the four or five men who brutalize and ruin a young woman who is much weaker. This is one of the most despicable crimes that we can have in the world; yet we turn around and pat the criminals on the head. We want to exercise compassion for these people. I say that we should exercise compassion for the victim. Let us have some concern for the ordinary citizen. I say that it is the citizen who should be protected.
I can hear comments at the back. As soon as you start talking about this insistence upon the safety of the individual, about law and order, you are ridiculed as though you wished to run some sort of a fascist state. It is not so. The other way is a form of mob rule. It is the principle that the mob can impose its will upon the individual or upon the government. I thoroughly disagree with that.
Certainly, there are changes necessary, changes that I would have liked to have seen in the matter of curbing other crime. Our major metropolitan centres have become more and more the locale for crimes of violence. There is increased use of guns in Toronto today. We hear of people standing on the street, a car pulling up, and immediately there is fire from an automatic weapon. It is a gangland crime. The city of Montreal is replete with such crimes. The easiest thing in many of our major cities today is to get hold of a gun or a knife and to use them. I say that the carrying and the use of an offensive weapon for an unlawful purpose should be considered a much more serious crime than it is today. If I go into the streets with a loaded gun in my pocket or in my vehicle, I should face a far more severe punishment than that which is presently on the statute books. We should eliminate as much as possible the use and the carrying of offensive weapons for unlawful purposes. I am sorry that the bill does not provide for this.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) spoke about appeals against a sentence for the offence of con-

April 28, 1972
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1972
tempt of court. I do not see why, just because this is an era of confrontation, we should have our courts opened up to all sorts of disruptive practices and we should give licence to individuals to take such action. Remember that the right of appeal can be abused. I think that if we have faith in our judiciary, then a degree of trust must be placed in them with regard to the maintenance of proper proceedings. I know that the question of contempt of court may be a difficult one, but I do not think it is right to say that there must be a right of appeal because today is the age of confrontation. There seems to be an implicit approval of some of the things that are said and done in the courts. I grant you that sometimes a lawyer may pass rather ascer-bic comments about the court and do so with some justification, but they are not the ones about whom hon. members complain. What they are complaining about is those certain individuals who decide for themselves on the spur of the moment what shall be the standard of law as it shall apply to them, not to the other man. They say to a court, "Fine; I shall behave as I see fit."


Francis Andrew Brewin: You are certainly knocking down a straw man there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest to the hon. member for Greenwood that the door has already been opened, and we see far too much of it. I suppose it is unfortunate that he has not had enough exposure to that type of performance in a court in order to realize what it
is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Hon. members to my left behind me sit like crows on a fence, cawing away. I hope they will take the opportunity to say something about these particular subjects.
The minister may have given some clarification on the next point I am going to raise but, if so, I missed it. This concerns the continuous abdication of responsibility under the Criminal Code, involving those sections which govern the breathalyzer test. The Crown still has not met its obligation to the public to provide a type of container to hold a sample of breath to be given to the individual concerned so as to provide him with a possible defence. The breathalyzer test has been imposed for two years or more. Cases on this point have gone to the courts, and I am not satisfied that the courts have been right in their decisions. In this instance, the individual has had his rights restricted, not by parliament or by statute, but by the failure of administrative action. Is there any guarantee that the government, the law enforcement agency on which there is an obligation by statute to provide something for the possible defence of the individual, will now act? It has failed to do so for more than two years. Is this state of affairs to continue for another three or five years? Is there anything going to be done about it and, if not, why not? If nothing is going to be done to provide such a container, then let the government be honest and say parliament should remove that possible defence from the individual. It is the height of hypocrisy to maintain such a provision in the Criminal Code and yet totally disregard
it.

Clause 18 allows a court to suspend a driving licence for certain periods of time. This may include only certain days of the week or certain parts of a day. In principle, I agree that in certain cases this would be all right, but it will place some courts in a rather difficult position. The vehicle and highway traffic acts of many provinces not only authorize but direct ministers of highways and ministers of transport to revoke a driver's licence, and these acts contain ancillary provisions with regard to a driver's insurance.
Under the provisions of this bill, a magistrate will have authority to suspend a driving licence intermittently. He will have authority to agree with the submission of a defendent that it would be more realistic to prohibit him for driving a vehicle, say, after the hour of five p.m. in the afternoon and before the hour of eight a.m. in the morning. But it must be remembered that the provincial minister of highways or provincial minister of transport is the person who has issued that individual's driving licence, and if the provincial act makes it mandatory upon the minister to suspend his licence for eight months or a year, then we will be faced with a conflict of law. If all the provinces want to get together with the government of Canada and make their highway codes conform with the Criminal Code then all will be fine, but I do not think that is happening at the present time.
I just wish to touch on one last point in connection with the suspension of a driver's licence. This was also referred to by the hon. member for Greenwood. The amended Criminal Code will allow a court to be selective regarding the time of suspension of a driver's licence, out of compassion for the individual concerned, and out of compassion for his family. I would like the court to have some compassion for the poor victim of an accident. While it may be very hard on the individual or on the family of the individual who loses his licence, and while this may place his job in jeopardy, we must also remember the family of the injured or killed victim.
Here, I am thinking of one particular case, that of the younger son in a family, a man with a very brilliant future, who was killed as the result of a very blatant case of impaired driving. There is no doubt that the driver and his family may be subject to some difficulties as a result of the suspension of his licence for, say, a couple of years. But that will not in any way alleviate the heartbreak of the parents of the young man who was killed, nor will it alleviate the heartbreak of the young man's fiancee, who was also injured in the accident. Nor does it compensate society in any way for the loss of the skills of that young man and of his future contribution to society. These are all things that must be taken into account.
This bill is going to committee, Mr. Speaker. I hope that in committee it will receive a lot of study. I hope to have an opportunity to participate in that study, and after the committee has made its recommendations I will reconsider my views with regard to certain clauses of it.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel that these debates tend to be reserved for people with law degrees. However, although lawyers are intimately associated with law, citizens are equally
April 28, 1972

associated with it since because of it we have all the problems of court cases and associated public concern. I agree with the previous speaker that in order to live in a civilized society there has to be some concern with the law, but it must be a just law strongly supported by the population or it will be challenged and ultimately ignored.
I think since ancient times society has been concerned with the dichotomy of what is good for the individual versus what is good for society. I think there is always the simplistic approach that if the law is repressive enough it will provide a strong enough deterrent to remove crime or at least make it less common. There are those who argue that if we would only bring back the lash there would be fewer crimes of violence but I do not think there is any statistical proof of this. Some people can argue quite effectively for the return of the noose as well, and the same kind of outlook suggests that if strikes were banned there would be no labour disputes.
With great respect to my hon. friend, I think his point of view tends to be simplistic. I know that he is well read, but I wonder if he has perused the great work written by the Attorney General of the United States, Ramsey Clarke, called "Crime in America". In this book he was concerned with the contempt in which a large group of young people held the courts in that country. They were considered to be repressive institutions, used to stifle legitimate dissent. When this occurs there can only be contempt for court. Although we have come close, I think, in this country we yet have to see an incident similar to the Bobby Seal case in the United States. However, if the feeling grows that the law is unjust to certain groups in our society we may see it here, although I am assured that we have court techniques to deal with this kind of thing. The good of the individual versus the good of society has been of concern to man for centuries. I think the side you take in this particular argument, whether you are going to be permissive or repressive, depends on whether you feel that all people are fundamentally bad and if you smack them that is going to make them good or if you feel that people tend to be good and want to do the right thing.
In the time remaining, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about a number of items that I would like to see in the Criminal Code which are not there. The minister, since he is a responsible minister in a government led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, during the recent constitutional conference with the provinces has proposed that the right of counsel be entrenched in the constitution, will be interested. It seems rather anomalous that while the right to counsel has been proposed by the Prime Minister as part and parcel of Canada's constitution as a just and enlightened measure, there is no mention of it in the proposed Criminal Code amendments. I would, therefore, be interested to know on what basis the minister, who is shepherding this bill through the House, decided to ignore this feature. I hope he will be able to enlighten us.
Many constituents seek to employ their member of parliament or MPP in the role of lawyer, not because they are cheapskates but because they cannot afford counsel and thus may be denied justice in the civil or criminal courts. There are many people languishing in our prisons because they have been denied their civil rights, because they could not afford counsel. I would be interested to
James Bay Power Project
know from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) why this provision has been omitted. Is consideration being given to making the right to counsel explicit in the Criminal Code, as has been proposed by the Prime Minister for our constitution?
Perhaps I could call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Leave having been granted to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the federal involvement in the James Bay hydroelectric development project of the province of Quebec, particularly (a) interference with and relocation of Indians; (b) altering the course of navigable waters protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and (c) effects upon the total Canadian environment.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I consider it a matter of extreme urgency that the federal government develop and state publicly a policy concerning the James Bay hydroelectric development project. If decisions have been made, it is equally urgent that they be declared immediately. The urgency has become even more apparent this week in view of indications that the provincial government is moving towards completion of its project plans, and in view of the shameful situation in which a group of Canadians, the James Bay committee, has felt it necessary to approach an American consumer advocate to support their protests.
The government of Quebec is proceeding with its plans and has undertaken the construction of roads, bridges and other preparatory works to the point of no return. The Prime Minister of Quebec has declared the project decision to be irreversible. By delaying its decision on the federal responsibility, the federal government is being fair neither to the province of Quebec nor to the Canadian people. The federal government is gradually being backed into a corner. It will either have to abdicate its responsibilities under the constitution because the job has gone

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
too far to stop or cause a major upheaval in provincial plans in the future.
We have seen in the past several months a major failure in policy development on the part of this government. It has been apparent for over a year that decisions of major proportion would have to be made. If the government, by chance, had overlooked this fact, it has been reminded of it day by day and week by week as a result of questions asked in this House. Every single question, Mr. Speaker, has been passed off, has been answered in vague terms, indicating that neither any of the ministers of the government nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself knew what to say.
The project itself is of major proportion. The size of territory to be developed is 200,000 square miles containing 10 energy rivers and 6,000 Indian people who hunt and fish. The energy potential of this area is of the order of 85 billion to 97 billion KWH per year; this amount of energy is approximately three times the output of Churchill Falls. Total cost estimates range from $5 to $7 billion of which 60 to 70 per cent is expected to come from outside Quebec. Diversion of rivers will leave the lower 90 miles and 81 miles of the Nottaway and Broadback rivers dry. At least 50 miles of the Opinaca, 20 miles of the Eastmain and 230 miles of the Great Whale river will be dry or have a greatly reduced flow.
There are three major areas of direct federal responsibility in the proposals to develop the James Bay project: (a) interference with and relocation of Indians who are residents of the area; (b) altering the course of navigable waters protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act; (c) effect upon the total Canadian environment. There are also other areas of federal concern. Export of the power produced is one of them. And of even more concern is the effect of the required financing on the Canadian dollar. On none of these matters has the federal government expressed an opinion.
I turn now to the environmental problems. A federal-provincial task force has looked at the situation and has issued a preliminary report. This report is far from reassuring. The report indicates, according to evidence given in the Committee on Resources, Public Works that "no catastrophic effects" would be apparent resulting from the carrying out of the project. Mr. Speaker, what is catastrophic? Perhaps the task force had in mind certain predictions that the weight of the accumulated water on one-quarter of the surface of the Province of Quebec would cause breaks in the earth's crust and result in earthquakes and possible alteration in the rotation of the earth. This would be catastrophic, and the task force has decided this will not happen. But almost anything short of that can.
Some of the other environmental dangers have been outlined as climatic repercussions-a longer winter- alteration of water flows and currents in James Bay; possible destruction of shoreline vegetation and drowning of forested areas. I understand that areas to be flooded will not be first stripped of trees. There are dangers to waterfowl and wildlife. Yet, there is still no indication of the manner in which the extent of these dangers is to be

evaluated. The task force was admittedly a preliminary manoeuvre, but it did not study these factors in depth.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), in common with other ministers who have been questioned in the House, has given us no idea how he proposes to deal with these problems, of how he intends to deal with any threats to the environment. Hydro Quebec has apparently made some fairly complete studies of the project but no information has been made available; indeed, as far as we know, results have not been conveyed, even to the Department of the Environment. I stand to be corrected if such is not the case. In any event, the studies by Hydro Quebec have not surfaced for reviewing by the general public.
It is not necessary to view the James Bay hydro development in a negative way. It is a tremendous undertaking and undoubtedly it possesses great possibilities in the area of development, the exploitation of mineral and forest products, the on-site construction of mills, the realization of gigantic power potential and, temporarily at least, major employment prospects. Sadly, the federal government has not even responded to these positive factors with any enthusiasm. It has failed to respond at all. If this project is to succeed it must go ahead on the basis of sufficient study of the dangers involved and the chances which are being taken. Herein lies the shortcoming of the federal position. The federal government has failed to carry out needed research and has given no indication whether such research in depth will, in fact, be undertaken. Perhaps it intends to accept and act upon the work done by Hydro Quebec. We have not been told there is to be an examination of the James Bay project department by department, or as a concentrated effort shared by all the departments concerned.
The problems of the native population are so serious as to be difficult for them to comprehend. They are caught between a provincial government which states it is determined to proceed with the plan and the federal government which is supposed to be protecting their interests but does not appear to be doing so. They are in danger of being uprooted from their homes, and, what is even worse, of finding their style of life completely altered because of environmental changes. One of my hon. friends will be dealing with this aspect, and I shall not expand on it further.
Under our constitution, the federal parliament and government have been assigned responsibility for the protection of navigable waters. Federal legislation requires that any work which would interfere with or alter navigable waters must first receive approval under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. No indication has been given us that such an application is being made or that the federal government is prepared to receive one. Nor is there any indication from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) that his department is undertaking studies upon the basis of which an informed decision may be reached when the time comes.
Surely, it is not sufficient in an undertaking of this magnitude for the Department of Transport to sit back and say: When the Province of Quebec comes along and asks us for permission we shall give the matter some thought. These studies cannot be carried out in a few weeks or months. It may be, of course, that studies are, in
April 28, 1972

fact, already under way in the Department of Transport but in spite of the many questions directed to him day after day, the minister has never told us whether any preparation is being made on the basis of which the ministry can recommend a course of action under the terms of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. My colleague for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is fully aware of the dangers of bypassing normal requirements in this type of application, and I am sure that he will have something to say on that score.
We are falling down somewhere, Mr. Speaker, when a group of Canadians finds it necessary to turn to an American consumer advocate for protection. If the fault has been in this House, then I hope we can do something about it today. The opposition has questioned the government constantly on the subject and they must be getting tired of these questions. But perhaps that is not good enough. If the government is at fault, and I suggest it is, then it is time it rectified the fault.
This House is a place where complaints about Canadian matters shouls be aired and settled by the government and the people's elected representatives. As I have already stated, I find it rather disgraceful that our citizens have to run to Americans to ask for protection. There has been no effort whatsoever to inform the public what is going on in the federal government with regard to this matter, if anything is going on. All the ministerial statements made in this House have been mumbled platitudes in order to get past the question period without saying anything, and I must say the government has been extremely successful. There have been no statements on motions, the traditional way of keeping the people of Canada and the House informed.
That is the reason I moved this motion yesterday, in the hope that the urgency of the situation would be evident. Urgency of debate is the basis for a Standing Order 26 motion. I am most gratified that the Chair accepted the motion so that this matter can be debated. I think the time has come for a clear and unequivocal statement on this project from the government, and I hope that as a result of this debate today we will receive it.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity of speaking to the motion that is currently before the House regarding the James Bay development project. I must congratulate the hon. member who just spoke for bringing the motion before the House yesterday and the Speaker for his decision to allow this rather important debate. I feel it gives the members of this House an opportunity to discuss some aspects of this proposed development.
The federal government has some jurisdiction in the area to be developed, but to date we have received very little information from the departments concerned despite numerous questions and inquiries put by various members of the House. It is a bitter disappointment, to say the least, to realize that another major project is underway without adequate studies having been made to determine what its over-all effect will be on the natives in the area, the environment generally and, of course, the Canadian economy. No serious attempt has been made to find out
James Bay Power Project
whether the detrimental effects of the project, when added to its cost, will outweigh the advantages to be derived. This information is required before the project gets underway, and it is a tragedy that once again resource development on an immense scale is taking place without the over-all planning that is necessary in this day and age. It appears that the environmental blunders of the past will be repeated, and the federal government must take its full share of criticism for it has given poor leadership in this regard. Apparently the tragic effects of the Bennett dam on the Athabasca and Mackenzie deltas have been forgotten, and it is felt to be politically expedient practically to ignore the present project.
Our group is not opposed to hydro development; this must come in many areas of Canada. However, we suggest that these developments should be based on a thorough study of their full impact on the residents in the area, the environment and the economy. This study has not been done as far as the James Bay project is concerned, and we are requesting more action and information from the federal departments involved.
Perhaps I should place a few general facts on the record regarding this project to show how quickly it has come up and to indicate the lack of interest on the part of federal authorities. In April 1971, the Quebec government announced its plan to develop the hydroelectric potential of the James Bay area. In July 1971, the National Assembly of Quebec enacted legislation to establish the James Bay Development Corporation with the objective of promoting the development and exploitation of natural resources in that area. It is an immense project. Its final generating capability could be as high as 12 million kilowatts. It will cost about $7 billion. The premier of Quebec claims that it will create 125,000 jobs. The decision to proceed with the project in such a rush is obviously a political one.
I have no doubt that the project is feasible on an engineering basis. It can be built. But whether the project should proceed is another matter. Engineers can estimate the cost of the project, the output of the turbines, the delivering of power to the market, etc. They never seriously consider the cost of environmental damage, the dislocation of people, the possible effect on our nation's economy, or the fact it might be another energy sell-out to the United States. For this is not the task of the engineers; they are primarily hired to plan for hydro development, and in this respect they do extremely well.
The previous speaker covered a number of topics and I should like to expand on several of them but will deal primarily with the environmental aspects of the project. May I again point out that this House has not been given full and proper information on the James Bay project by the departments involved. This is not good enough when we realize that there will be a major social impact on about 7,000 of our native people who live there. Questions have been asked of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) about what his department is doing. The answer has been that negotiations are going on between the natives and the Quebec government. This answer is not good enough. Is he actively assisting the natives who have requested his help, or is he ignoring the claims of the natives, as he has done in the

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
northern part of our country? Other speakers will deal extensively with the rights of the natives, but may I point out to the House that the minister is obligated by law to protect the rights of the natives in this area.
I have a copy of the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act of 1912 which I understand is still in effect. It extended the boundaries of the province of Quebec to the north. This addition to the province included the Eastmain River and the area north of the Eastmain River. Part of this addition is within the project area. May I quote from this act which is entitled the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912. I quote the first part of the second section as follows:
The limits of the province of Quebec are hereby increased so that the boundaries thereof shall include, in addition to the present territory of the said province, the territory bounded and described as follows:- Commencing at the point at the mouth of Eastmain River where it empties into James Bay, the said point being the western termination of the northern boundary of the province of Quebec as established by chapter 3 of the statutes of 1898, intituled An Act respecting the north-western, northern and north-eastern boundaries of the province of Quebec; thence northerly and easterly along the shores of Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait-
There is more to the section but it does not apply to the point I am making. This indicates that part of the James Bay project comes under this treaty.
Another part of the section indicates that as a condition of the extension of the boundaries, the government of Quebec is required to do certain things. Let me go a little further and read section 2(c) and (d). Section 2(c) provides:
That the province of Quebec will recognize the rights of the Indian inhabitants in the territory above described to the same extent, and will obtain surrenders of such rights in the same manner, as the Government of Canada has heretofore recognized such rights and has obtained surrender thereof, and the said province shall bear and satisfy all charges and expenditure in connection with or arising out of such surrenders-
Section 2(d) provides:
That no such surrender shall be made or obtained except with the approval of the Governor in Council-
Where does this leave the federal department of Indian affairs as far as this addition to the province of Quebec, which took place in 1912, is concerned? I suggest it means that before any of these lands can be taken away from the natives by the government, the province must obtain from the natives who live in the area the surrender of their rights.
I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) this question and perhaps he will answer it when he speaks later in the debate: Has an agreement been made between the natives and the province of Quebec that the natives shall surrender their rights? If it has not, I suggest in all humility-I am not a lawyer-that it is illegal for a province to say it will move into an area and take away certain rights from the people who live there. If there has been a breach of the law in this regard, I ask the minister and those responsible in the federal government what they are doing about it. Are they protecting the rights of the 7,000 native Indians who live in the James Bay area?

I have here a number of newspaper and other articles written about the project. These people have come to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for help but they have received nothing.


Mr. Chretien:: That is not true.


Randolph Harding: They are asking the minister to fight their case if necessary before the courts of this land in order to protect the rights of our native peoples who have been guaranteed rights under an act passed by the Parliament of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When have they done that?


Randolph Harding: I understand the minister has been approached.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, may I have permission to ask the hon. member a question? The hon. member has made a very direct allegation and I should like to know the date when the Indians asked the Minister of Indian Affairs to take part in this fight. He said it was made officially and I would like him to be precise.


Mr. Nielsen:: July of 1971-and I will get to that later.


Randolph Harding: I do not have the specific letter before me-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If you don't have it, don't talk about it.


Randolph Harding: -but time and time again questions have been asked of the minister in the House and he has not answered. We have had numerous reports, including a lengthy report from the James Bay Committee, which indicate that the department has been approached, but these people have received no affirmative reply from the minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is not true.


Randolph Harding: Whether or not they have approached the minister, the fact is that this is the law of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Skate away.


Randolph Harding: This is the law of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I remind hon. members that this is likely to be a long debate. We began the debate in a very cool and calm manner. I suggest we allow the hon. member who has the floor to speak and be heard by the Chair.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was not my intention to irritate the minister, but we expect answers to these questions and we expect them today. We hope that beneficial results will flow from this debate. We have had a series of environmental problems throughout the country over the past few years, some of which have been rather tragic as far as environmental effects are concerned. We have had for some time a number of federal measures on the statute books. Some of them were referred to by the previous speaker. We have the Canada Water Act and the Fisheries Act; and, of course, the
April 28, 1972

Department of Indian Affairs has responsibility under a number of acts.
In the past few years we have experienced across Canada some rather serious problems simply because the federal government has not initiated the proper development surveys, nor have the provincial governments, before certain projects have been commenced. I mentioned earlier the Bennett dam on the Peace River. Let me draw to the attention of the House that only a few years ago this dam was completed and the flood waters of the Peace River were stored behind it. Apparently Canadians at that time were not very interested in the effects of the dam on the downstream area. Now, a few years later, we find in the Athabasca and Mackenzie River deltas that very severe and adverse environmental effects have taken place.
Just the other day in the committee I was questioning one of the officials of the department about the effects of the dam on the Athabasca delta. He indicated in his answers that initially, there were 750,000 pair of nesting ducks which produced about 2 million ducks. The effect of the dam has been to cut this down to about 200,000 pair of nesting ducks and the over-all production of wild duck to just over one-half million. These are not all lost but it means that in many instances they have probably gone looking for other nesting places. This is a very serious matter. It affects the whole wildlife and ecology of that vast northern area.
Even the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) in a speech which he made several weeks ago outlined very ably the damage that has been done through man's neglect to take into consideration the over-all effects of damming these rivers. We are asking the very same thing about the James Bay area. What has been done?
We had a federal-provincial task force. They started in the middle of last year and produced a report on either February 2 or 3 of this year. However, the report is not based on any basic research for the simple reason they did not have time to do the research.
The report has generally indicated there will be no major dislocation as far as this project is concerned. In effect, they have given a green light to the James Bay Development Corporation to proceed. I repeat, this is based on no actual or effective research having been done on the effects which the damming of these rivers will have on not only the inhabitants of the area or the wildlife, but on the effect it will have on James Bay itself.
There have been warnings by one or two scientists who have indicated this could change the whole climate of that area. What effect will it have on the fish? For years our party has been urging that before major projects of this nature take place, full and proper ecological surveys should be made. This should be done before a project is announced, not after. Here it is 1972 and we find that this has not been done.
There is another question I wish to ask the ministers in charge. When the dams are built, about 4,000 acres will be flooded. I come from the area of the Columbia River project and I know what flooding can do. When the Duncan Dam was built, about 15 per cent of the area was
James Bay Power Project
cleared. It is a national disgrace to see the vast areas of the north end of Duncan Lake where there is a mass of floating debris, trees, stumps and sticks. Is the same thing going to happen in the province of Quebec? Is there provision in this agreement whereby these areas will be cleared so they will be recreational assets to the province in the future? As far as I know there is no provision for clearing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say a few words on the topic before the House. The James Bay development project is of major importance. Many Canadians live in that area, and have the right to live there, and according to some if that area is developed the very existence of those citizens will be jeopardized.
We must therefore seek justice; the government must protect citizens whose rights are threatened. If citizens live in that area and fulfil themselves there, it is our duty to study closely what their fate will be, especially if their right to life is being threatened. It may be that the whole situation will have to be studied before we find out whether or not those citizens' rights will be violated.
Mr. Speaker, there are collective rights which it behooves society to protect.
In our era of progress and abundance, we see the structures and institutions of peoples being totally transformed. This is accompanied by cultural, economic and social evolution. Those changes exert great influence on the political, intellectual and moral life of the community, particularly with regard to the rights and duties of the individual in the enjoyment of civil freedom and the pursuit of the common good, as well as the organization of relations between the citizens and the public authorities. The citizens of the James Bay area certainly need public powers to help them claim their rights.
Owing to the greater awareness of human conscience and dignity, efforts are being made, in various areas of the world, towards establishing a political-judicial order in which, in public life, the rights of the individual will be better protected. For instance, the guarantee of the right of free enterprise, the right to express personal opinions or profess a religion is a requisite for citizens, individually or in groups, to be able to take part in public life and the administration of public affairs in keeping with cultural, economic and social progress. Many people manifest the will to participate to a greater degree in the organization of the political and economic community, and many of these are becoming increasingly anxious to protect the rights of minorities within a nation.
Those involved are, I believe, some 4,000 citizens living in the James Bay area and they are certainly entitled to receive justice from the government, without thereby failing to carry out their obligations to the political community. Moreover, there is increasing respect for those who hold different opinions or practice a different religion. At the same time, there is more co-operation, whereby all citizens-and not only the privileged few-may truly enjoy human rights. It is evident that the citizens who live on

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
this immense territory are its true owners and that we have a duty to preserve all their rights and privileges.
We cannot recognize that political influences which operate in some areas hinder civil and religious liberties. There are more and more victims of passions and political crimes, where the exercise of authority is diverted from the public interest for the benefit of a few cliques or for the benefit of governments themselves.
Even though a government must gain control over this territory and develop it for peaceful ends, a great number of citizens live there who have a right to our respect, because this is their own territory. When these citizens are oppressed under any consideration, justice must be done. Citizens must find moral and often legal support so that the protection of their rights can be ensured.
Individuals, families, various groups, all those who make up the civil community are aware of their inability to achieve on their own a fully human life. Often the whole community must join efforts in the pursuit of public interests. This is why they form a political community, according to various institutional patterns, but always for the common good, in which they find their full justification and their very rights.
This common good comprises the whole of social conditions and allows individual, families and groups to develop more easily and to enjoy freedom.
But the men who live within the community are many and different. They can rightfully hold various opinions. But it is the political community which, despite that fact, protects them against confusion. So there must exist an authority capable of channeling all efforts towards the people's well-being, yet acting above all as moral forces anchored in freedom and in a sense of responsibility.
Evidently, the political community and public authority rest on human nature and depend on an order set up by the Creator, although the establishment of political systems and the appointment of their leaders should be left to the citizens' discretion.
It is beyond question that the people of this large territory have fundamental rights and it would be unjust on the part of the government to fail to intervene-if only for social, moral and logical reasons-in order to study the situation as a whole so that justice may be done to those citizens.
It may well be said that this is an area belonging to Quebecers, to Canadians-and in fact there are Quebecers and other Canadians there-but what matters is to ascertain first whether the liberty and the right to life of those people will be affected by this hydroelectric project. Those 4,000 people who live there are worth much more than the ten or fifteen billion we will invest there into this project.
Human forces go far beyond those of money. There is the might of 4,000 citizens, who earn their living in this large and beautiful area that they love. Mr. Speaker, to remove them from there would have many effects: the situation may become complex, and before it becomes too complex, we are studying today the Bay James development project because, even though a government is

involved, such projects cost money. We must not discuss that matter here, other than casually. Perhaps they will not even profit to the community.
It might be more profitable to let these 4,000 Canadians live in that area since they have chosen to grow up there and to die there. If we develop that area, they will be deported, just like the Acadians were. It is not natural or normal to deport citizens and take their land away from them.
We are studying today a motion about which, I understand, many hon. members are concerned. We take an interest in this motion because it implies the protection of human lives. It involves human beings, not animals; there is no price for the people living in the James Bay area or all the other people on the earth. There is no price for any human being, however humble he may be. There is nothing greater than a human being.
Mr. Speaker, once more I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), to consider seriously this situation with the government. In my opinion, he will be supported by all the hon. members, and we shall thus be able to give justice to the honourable and good citizens of that area.
Mr Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask my hon. friend-and I mean my "hon. friend"-a question?


Henry P. Latulippe: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member if, in spite of the reservations he has made that the native people must of course-and I hope they are-be protected, he is prepared to state whether he is in favour or not of the development of the James Bay area?


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I am against it. I have asked the departments concerned to study the situation and to deal with it fairly. I do not have enough information to decide whether I should be for or against the project. It is not for me to decide. Although my remarks are a little vague, I know that it is essential that the inhabitants of this area be treated with fairness. This has been the gist of my remarks. As to my being for or against this project, I am not the one to decide because I do not now have sufficient information on the subject.


Mr. Corbin:: You are on the fence.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: In French.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In French? Very well.
April 28, 1972

Mr. Speaker, I should like, as the first speaker on this side, to indicate that other cabinet colleagues will take part in this debate. By way of introduction, I say that this very important issue means a great deal to us.

What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is make a general introduction to the question, to respond as far as my own ministerial responsibilities may be affected in this regard, and then to orchestrate the response which will be made by my other colleagues on this side of the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Let's get some harmony out of it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), will come in with the French horn. The Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) will bring in a western music theme, and no doubt the tubas will be heard from the other side of the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The big bassoon is being heard now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: And as one of my hon. friends says, the opposition will fiddle as usual.
It is difficult to improve on the concise statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 24 in response to a question put by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), to be found in Hansard of that day as follows:
Of course the establishment of hydroelectric services on a river within a province falls under the jurisdiction of that province. Still, such undertakings may have consequences in areas under the responsibility of the federal government, for instance on the Indian population, the financing method, the export of energy-if that is the intention-the establishment of means of transportation, if the provincial government waits for the federal government to build them. Now for all those reasons we are interested in certain aspects of the project and it is those aspects that the government of the province of Quebec will have to discuss with the federal government if it wants to have our co-operation.
At present, the federal government has made no commitments.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) basically accepted that proposition, and I noted his words that the development of power wholly within a province is entirely the prerogative of that particular province. I think it is recognized that it is the constitutional prerogative of individual provinces to select priorities for resource development within provincial boundaries, so long as such development does not interfere with the over-all development of Canada and does not have an adverse effect on neighbouring provinces.
The first question, which I take it is not in debate, is as to the wisdom or otherwise of proceeding with this particular project. Perhaps the answer is to be found best in a quick review of some of the statistics with regard to the estimated demand for energy, and in particular for electricity, between now and the end of the century. The demand for electricity is expected to grow at something like 6.5 per cent per year over the next 30 years, which is a five fold increase over the demand in 1970. One staggering conclusion is that in order to produce the electricity required in the year 2000, one half of all the primary energy used in Canada will be for electric generation. This therefore means that the province of Quebec has
James Bay Power Project
decided, as has been the case with provincial governments across the country, that it will have to meet the load demand in the province by bringing on to stream additional sources of electric power. And of course the preference is, and this has been the practice for some time, to attempt as far as possible to do as the province of Ontario has now done, to develop the hydroelectric head first and then proceed to thermal generation.
One of the points mentioned by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was a reference to the possibilities of export of power. The National Energy Board of course is the body within the government of Canada which has the responsibility of dealing with the removal of power, whether across provincial boundaries or from a province to a foreign country. I am advised that while the National Energy Board is maintaining a watching brief on the proposed James Bay project, it has had no direct involvement to date. In other words, there has been no direct request to the Board for any approval, formal or informal, for any export of power from the province of Quebec. Indeed, so far as I know, and I do not pretend to have read all of the releases on the subject, there has been no indication by the Quebec authorities that they will seek to remove any part of the proposed power either to the province of Ontario, the state of New York, or any other adjacent user.
What is clear is that there will be a heavy demand for power in the province of Quebec in the coming several years. For that reason it is not unlikely that the product produced by this proposed development will be used entirely within that province. In any event the National Energy Board does not express hypothetical views on projects as they are started by provinces, nor does it consider the question of export until it is the subject matter of a formal application, which in this case would presumably be three to five to seven years away from the present date.
In the event that a licence and certificate are sought in connection with the James Bay project, applications would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the National Energy Board Act. This would involve, among other things, a determination of the surplus nature of the power marked for export, and a finding as to whether the proposed border price was just and reasonable in relation to the public interest. Therefore, as I have mentioned, the question at this point is not so much as to whether the power project should proceed, and the hon. member has not raised that point. He has put his case on three other points.
His first point is in connection with responsibilities with regard to the native peoples in the area. I can confirm that my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, will be speaking both with regard to that subject and with regard to the hon. member's second point, namely, the responsibilities of the government of Canada under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. My colleague the Minister of the Environment, is also with us this afternoon and he, in turn, will be speaking on the environment studies which have already been carried on by Environment Canada and the provincial authorities, and he will set out the viewpoint of the federal government in this particular regard.

April 28, 1972
1734_______________________________________
James Bay Power Project
So, in summation, Mr. Speaker, the three points which the hon. member has raised will be dealt with by my colleagues. I also affirm a point that I think he recognizes, that it is not for the federal government to say at this juncture whether we should or should not continue this project, just as we would not interfere with the province of Ontario carrying out a similar activity.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the minister a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, by all means.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I would like to ask the minister if he is proposing the view that since the National Energy Board has to make the ultimate decision on the export of power and so forth, it is not within the jurisdiction or the requirements of his department to do some work, to give evidence before the Board if necessary, or give some indication of what the general view of the government is on the export of the power, or the development of power within the country? Is he therefore taking the view that his department has no responsibilities whatsoever in regard to this project except through the National Energy Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was taking the viewpoint, and it is strictly the jurisdictional point, that it is not for the government of Canada to say yes or no to a particular project within a province. If the hon. member has another viewpoint, then I would be interested to hear it. There is, of course, the over-all concern and responsibility of the government of Canada, and in particular of the ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources, to keep close track of the energy resources of this country, particularly the power resources. The vast majority of these, of course, are under the immediate control of the provinces. It will be a matter of equal concern, as substantial developments come forward, to try and time these by arrangement and consultation between the federal government and the various provinces. I think the hon. member would agree with me that it is not for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to say yea or nay to a specific project within any particular province.


An hon. Member:: He can give his opinion, though.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member has a question?


B. Keith Penner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. He spoke about the growing demand for electric power in this country. Does the minister not agree that there is now a need in Canada for a program to conserve, even restrict or perhaps ration, the use of electric power? Is the federal government, either by itself or with the provinces, considering such a program of restriction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would not necessarily concede that at the moment there is a need for conservation or, as the hon. member said, restriction of the use of energy, particularly electrical energy, but I recognize the fact that over a period of time there is going to be a heavy

demand on Canadian energy resources. To put it the other way, wasteful practices with regard to energy, as for example avoiding the construction of facilities which involve energy or heat loss where this is possible is definitely the kind of thing to be pursued and is being pursued by the federal government.
Again I go back to the point that I do not think it is for myself, as minister, to sit over top of Mr. George Gather-cole in Ontario Hydro, and tell him how he is going to conduct hydro business in the province of Ontario.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member rise for the purpose of asking a question?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to the speech by the maestro as he fiddled away over there. In my opinion, he neatly dumped the question of assuming responsibility for establishing power development visa-vis the federal government and the provinces. The statement brought to mind the situation which presently exists in Nova Scotia, where consultations have been held for some considerable period of time about the development of electrical energy through the use of the Fundy tides. I wonder if the minister would indicate whether in his opinion this is a matter that must be entirely resolved by the provincial government or will responsibility for this development be shared equally between the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member will recall, under our constitution ownership of the seabed below the low water mark lies with the government of Canada. Undoubtedly, while the provinces that would use the resources would be Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, any participation in a tidal power project would involve the use of federal property, in this case the seabed, so naturally the federal government is directly involved. We have no direct proprietary right in the case of the Ontario Hydro properties or James Bay.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say something nice about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I saw him as he was leaving yesterday, and he asked me if I would miss him. I said that I would but I would try to say something nice about him and that is what I am going to do now. I am going to thank him for his recitation from Desiderata the other day-I don't know what he told the caucus but he did not make them too happy. I looked up my old copy of Desiderata, and in paying tribute to the Prime Minister I would also use this as a prelude to what I am going to say and what my approach is going to be to this debate.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit.
I guess we will have to put up with that. I want to say to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that I accept his approach that the constitutional responsibility lies with a province for the steps to be taken to initiate the development of electric power. On the other hand, by our constitution, by practice and also by the statutes this parliament has passed pursuant to its right to do so, there are embodied in our laws certain restrictions on that provincial right. I am not referring to the direct
April 28, 1972

right to initiate a project but a right to attach conditions to the development of the project. I think there is no easier way to look at that than to look at what happened not long ago when the National Energy Board, a child of the federal government, acting within the jurisdiction legally given to it by this parliament, said to the producers of natural gas in the province of Alberta "You may indeed produce gas, but the limitation we place upon you is that it cannot be exported". In a mixed jurisdiction, that is the way this sort of thing operates.
In making his statement, the minister indulged in a little sophistry. I think he has been standing too close to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), who is a master of sophistry, and a little intellectual osmosis has developed. It is true that the right to initiate any project for the development of power lies exclusively within a province but subject to the right of the federal government, or institutions developed under federal jurisdiction, to place certain obstacles or conditions which must be met before a plan can proceed and before the energy which has been developed can be exported. I do not think the minister will deny that to be the fact. Any federal government which refuses to accept that proposition and refuses to act upon it if it is considered essential, is denying its responsibility under the constitution of this country.
The hon. minister referred to the importance of this subject. It is, of course, an important subject and that is borne out by the fact that two other ministers, as well as other members on the government side, are going to speak in this debate. Then, if this is so, why did we have to wait until the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) was able to persuade the Chair that this matter was important enough that the business of the house should be interrupted for a debate? Why did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the minister who has just spoken, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), each of whom has some responsibility, not speak for the government or make a statement on motions? I ask them to tell the House precisely what their position is and what the government intends to do on this issue. I think they have a duty to this House in the exercise of their collective responsibility to make known to the country from time to time where they stand on important issues, and not wait until the opposition, in pursuance of its duty, drags these statements out of them.
One has sympathy and understanding, Mr. Speaker, for the desire of the Province of Quebec or any province to develop its industries, to develop its resources and to try to provide an increase in its standard of living through any of these means. It is proper for governments to do this, and I for one would never want to do anything which would interfere with the right of the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario and the Province of Alberta to so proceed. I think that must be the basic point of our discussion.
Today we realize more and more that our resources are not inexhaustible. We know that steps taken by governments and corporations, private or public, in the develop-
James Bay Power Project
ment of these resources can lead to consequences which may not have been foreseen originally but which may have serious detrimental effects upon future generations of Canadians. If we do not draw these consequences to the attention of the government-I am speaking not only of the federal government but of provincial governments-and make known the knowledge that we have obtained, we shall be abdicating our responsibilities with respect to development projects of this kind.
My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) has objectively and reasonably put forward grounds to show that this question must be examined by parliament. I intend to deal with one aspect of the matter, that is, the responsibility of the federal government under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I shall speak about what this government should do and what it has failed to do. While so doing I will yield to temptation and show, by illustrating what happened on another occasion, precisely how governments and the people can get into serious trouble when they neglect to abide by the provisions laid down in a particular and important piece of legislation.
I will not take up the time of the House by reciting the legislation. It is well known; it has been discussed in the House and has been the subject of questions. We know today, from answers given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) with respect to two bridges which were constructed or are being constructed by the corporation of the province of Quebec charged with responsibility for the project, that an application has been made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. There is another bridge with respect to which approval may not have been given. One must also consider the extent to which these bridges and other works will interfere with the free flow of the river.
I will quote a highly qualified witness to confirm the correctness of my statement regarding the necessity for complying with the Navigable Waters Protection Act in these matters. Speaking about the Moran hydroelectric development in British Columbia, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), on page 9 of a news release dated March 1, 1971, said as follows:
And what do I mean by that? Well, the Fraser River is a major salmon river. It is also navigable. It therefore comes under two federal acts, the federal Fisheries Act and the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act. Before a dam could be built at Moran, B.C. Hydro would have to get a permit from the Federal Department of Transport under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. And before it could begin construction it would also have to satisfy the federal Minister of Fisheries that there will be adequate provision for fish passages and so on.
The minister then quoted sections of the Fisheries Act. I agree with what he said: it is right, it is sensible and it is the law. The law must be complied with in every province of this country. It was not complied with a number of years ago in the case of the Peace River. May I recapitulate the facts.
In the early part of the 1950s a Swedish industrialist, Axel Wenner-Gren, applied to the British Columbia government for a permit with regard to the feasibility study and ultimate construction of a dam across the Peace River near Hudson Hope. He hoped that this would lead to exploration and development of natural resources in a large part of the trench of the Rocky Mountains. Ultimate-

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
ly, Mr. Bennett, Premier of British Columbia, decided that there must be development of two rivers in that province, the Columbia River and the Peace River. This proposal was objected to by the Hon. Davie Fulton who was minister of justice in the government led by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The proposal was rejected. Then the government changed.
In the new government the then secretary of state for external affairs, now government leader in the Senate, being determined to pull off a coup and produce Mr. Bennett at Washington for the signing of a treaty, permitted, nay, encouraged, the government of British Columbia to proceed with the power construction program involving the two rivers. He encouraged the province of British Columbia to build a dam across the Peace River without requesting the consent which was essential and should have been obtained under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
At that time I was the only member of the House who was aware of the problem. I challenged the minister of justice of the day and finally, after much questioning, obtained an admission to the effect that the Navigable Waters Protection Act applied, that permission had to be obtained for construction and that application had to be made. At that time the Department of Public Works was responsible in the House for that legislation. For two years I pursued this question with the Liberal government and got nowhere.
Finally, the dam was constructed. Irreparable damage was suffered by the lower parts of the Peace River and particularly the Athabasca-Peace River delta, and no one can be certain as to the consequences to the Mackenzie River basin. The Minister of the Environment admits this. In a press release dated February 17, 1971, we find the following statement:
Mr. Davis said that preliminary hydrological studies indicate that filling of the Williston reservoir, created by the construction of the Bennett dam in B.C., appears in part responsible for reduced water levels in Lake Athabasca and ecological changes in the Athabasca delta.-
Ecologists say that a continuation of low water levels in the Athabasca delta may permanently change the vegetation and in turn the animal life. They say that it is especially necessary that high-level flood flows cover the delta not later than the spring of 1972, in order to avoid permanent ecological changes.
I thoroughly agree with that statement. I was in that area recently, and we do not know what will happen. I only hope there will not be permanent damage. The government cannot avoid its responsibilities. The waters I am talking about come squarely within the definition of navigable waters under the act. One of the last cases I was involved in before coming to this House concerned a narrow creek not wider than the aisle which separates the front benches of this House. In that case, a fisherman seeking to go from his home to Lesser Slave Lake was compelled to travel through the waters of that stream which crossed the land of a farmer. The farmer built a fence across the stream. Officials of the federal Department of Public Works in Edmonton instituted an action, secured an injunction and ultimately a judgment for damages. The farmer concerned was compelled to take down the fence.
Without doubt, the definition of navigable rivers and navigable waters as interpreted by the Exchequer Court of this country makes it clear that such rivers and waters are covered by this legislation. Nobody in the government has told us what the government's intentions are regarding the navigable waters in question. I hope, and I will give the government credit in this regard, until the contrary appears that these projects will not be allowed to proceed until the corporation of the province of Quebec charged with responsibility files plans and those plans have been examined in detail by competent and responsible engineers, so that the results which will flow from the proposed changes to the rivers will be acceptable.
That is the plea I am making. I could be much more critical, but I think this is the time for plain speaking. This is the time to urge upon the government the view of the vast majority of people in this country, namely, that when governments and powerful corporations become involved in vast public works undertakings, every precaution must be taken to ensure that the kind of irreparable damage we have experienced in the Peace River area is not perpetrated in other parts of Canada.
I urge the government to take this plea to heart. If they do not, I assure them that as long as they sit on the other side of the House they will have to deal with a determined opposition and, I am sure, with a determined people in this land.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I was in no hurry to rise but clearly the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wants to speak after me, so I am not in the least embarrassed, quite the opposite. I do not evade committees or the House. I can face the situation as it is.
I welcome the opportunity for us to take part in this debate which is extremely important, particularly so for a certain group of Canadian citizens, the Indians of the James Bay area. In fact, it is gratifying for me to be able to clarify the matter and to give a detailed explanation of the situation of the Indians now facing this problem.
First of all, I refer to the point raised by the hon. member who spoke on behalf of the New Democratic Party. He has, concerning the Indians, an attitude which in our times is no longer acceptable, that is that we should replace them completely in all situations.

We decided a few years ago that we should not act as great white fathers to the Indians, that we would respect their wishes. I have been very much involved in this project since it began. On many occasions I have talked with ministers of the province of Quebec on behalf of the Indians, but those who speak officially for the Indians in Quebec are the Indians themselves through the band councils which have now joined together in a provincial association.
A year ago, the Association of Indians in Quebec asked me not to participate directly in this affair. They have held many discussions among themselves. Both Mr. DeLisle and Mr. Gros Louis have informed me of the

April 28, 1972

progress of their strategy. They have initiated discussions on many aspects of Indian affairs with the Quebec government. They have said all along that they wanted me to wait, to be ready to intervene when the time came. I have respected this wish.
The Indians have, of course, passed resolutions, and so on. I overheard the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) talking about a resolution passed last July. It is true that a petition was signed last July, but I tell the hon. member and the House of Commons that it was only on Monday that the association sent me officially a copy of this petition and asked me to take part in the debate.


Erik Nielsen: They asked you last July.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Sir. They passed the resolution last July but they decided not to send it to me. They decided they ought to work among themselves before making up their minds what they should do. In the meantime we have looked into the situation carefully. We recognize that it is a serious one. I said in the House when questioned this week that now the Indians have officially requested my help I am happy to offer them my assistance. They have asked me to meet them next week and I have agreed to do so.
Since the beginning of this affair I have discussed the situation three or four times with Mr. Bourassa, Premier of Quebec. I have been in touch with him this week and asked him for a meeting after the Indians meet with me next week. He said any time I want to meet him in connection with this matter he will be happy to discuss it with me. So we have been available. We are willing to help the Indians find a solution.
What will be the best solution for them? This week my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Ciaccia, had a discussion with Chief DeLisle and the representative of the Indians in the James Bay area, Chief Billy Diamond. They had a long talk on technical questions and the course to be taken. This will be followed up in the course of my meeting with the Indians next week. But I wish to repeat that I shall not decide for the Indians. I think the Indians should be left to make a choice, and I will be there to help them. They are well organized at the present time and they want a piece of the action.
Apparently members of the New Democratic Party and others are asking me to take over in a paternalistic way and stop certain things or do certain things for the Indians. I will not do that, because this government does not wish to take over responsibilities which the Indians themselves are willing to discharge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are not paternalistic toward the Indian people but, as I say, we are willing to help them. There are two courses open. There is a solution which could be negotiated. The Indians would like us to help them. They have tried alone and they have not been completely satisfied. Now they say the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can help them. Fine. I am ready to help them. I will sit down with them and I will meet the Premier of Quebec to discuss the problems of the 6,000 Indians who could be affected by this development. It is
James Bay Power Project
my duty to do so under the terms of section 91(24) of the British North America Act and, as usual, I shall discharge my duty-but not at the expense of the self-respect, pride and wishes of the Indians of this area.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, is extremely complicated because it is common knowledge that the lands in question in the James Bay area have not always belonged to the Quebec government and have not always been under its jurisdiction. These lands, formerly known as Rupert's Land, belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company and, in 1867, the Canadian government, in a petition addressed to Her Majesty, asked the Imperial government to hand over Rupert's Land to the government of Canada.
It is in 1870 that Rupert's Land was actually handed over by the Imperial government of Her Majesty to become part of the Canadian confederation. For several years, this land was administered by the federal government and in 1898, the southern part of the Rupert's Land was transferred by the federal government to the province of Quebec.
The northern part was in effect transferred in 1912 under the transfer act of that same year, in which it was stated that the interests of Indians were to be protect ed if the area came to be developed, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) who spoke for the New Democratic party.
We are quite aware of the judicial aspect of the situation in this area, and we firmly intend to protect the interests of Indians.
Does this mean, however, that in order to protect the interests of the Indians, we must act irresponsibly? The Indians recognize the complexity of this situation. They themselves are trying to discover what solution could best serve their interests.
This is why they asked me a few days ago to meet with them in order to clarify this matter, and we will meet with them next Wednesday to try and make some progress. Economic progress does not necessarily exclude the reaching of a reasonable agreement between the parties concerned.
I think the Quebec government should recognize that it is in the interest of all Quebecers to see to it that a development of this kind will not cause irreparable prejudice to Indians, and that the people who must be the first to benefit from this development should be the Indians who have been living in this territory from times immemorial.
I think it is possible to ensure that some agreement is reached which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Of course, the judicial situation cannot be shrugged away. It is indeed an extremely complex situation which involves various concepts. However, studies have been made on this subject by independent commissions. We are all familiar with the report of the Dorion Commission, which also recognizes that the Indian problem is important to the economic and social development of this whole area.

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
The task force on the environment which studied this situation last summer also came to the conclusion that the people most deeply affected would no doubt be the Indians.
Mr. Speaker, we are ready because we have been studying the situation very carefully in the last few months. Every time questions were put in the House, I replied that we were following the debate on behalf of the Indian population without directly participating in it, but if the Indians were to request us officially to intervene to safeguard their interests in this debate, we would be ready to do so.
I must say to the House that in the course of the discussions I have had-though unofficially since the Indians were opposed to my involvement in this question-with the premier of Quebec, he has been very understanding and anxious to find a solution that would be acceptable both to Amerindians of that territory as well as to the government of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to state once more that we will help Indians to find a negotiated settlement which will be the best thing to do since legal wranglings would certainly not be the best course of action to solve this problem.
At all events, we are going to consult with the Indians and whatever the ultimate decision they ask us to make, we will support them, in accordance with our responsibility to do so under the British North America Act of 1867.
Once again, I hope that the first citizens of the country will not be used in this debate, as has too often been the case, as an all-purpose political football. I think we should show restraint, objectivity and seek out a solution that would first of all benefit the first citizens of this country. Such is certainly our aim. I can assure my hon. friends that I have no other concern and no intention of reverting to the old paternalistic attitude whereby we, white people, should at this time intervene and systematically replace the Indians of New Quebec and James Bay at the negotiation table, speak on their behalf and jointly with them and the government of Quebec, in order to protect their interests in that territory.

I should like to pay tribute to the Indians of the James Bay area and the Quebec association for their participation in the events leading up to this debate. They have had many meetings with the provincial administration on many different topics. They have acted responsibly. They told my assistant deputy minister this week that what they want is a solution. They do not want to be stubborn; they just want to reconcile their interests, which are vital, with the interests of the Canadian public in general and particularly the citizens of Quebec. I am delighted that we can talk with them and will probably be able to find a solution. I assure them that this government will be there to help them arrive at a negotiated solution. If that does not work and if the Indians decide upon other legal courses of action, we will again be there to help them as it is our responsibility to do.
On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) I should like for a few minutes to touch upon-

Navigable Waters Protection Act.
I realize that up to now the government of the province of Quebec has recognized that the Department of Transport has jurisdiction in that field under federal law. And at present-as stated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)-there has been a request for the construction of a bridge on one of the rivers involved. Of course, plans are being worked out for the construction of other bridges on other rivers. The Department of Transport has already sent inspectors in that area so they can get an idea of the work to be done.
Of course, everytime the government of Quebec submits a request to the Department of Transport the minister has assured the House-and I can do it also-that such request will be examined on its merits and according to the letter and the spirit of the law.
This legislation is intended to protect shipping and transportation on those rivers. Naturally, until now they have been very little used by shipping. That is why to this day the Minister of Transport has not had to get very much involved in the building of bridges or wharves on those rivers since they are very little used for navigation and transportation except by Indian canoes.
I think that, in this connection, the Department of Transport has discharged its responsibilities and the Quebec government has admitted the validity of the federal Navigable Waters Protection Act. Besides, this matter has never been disputed by the Quebec authorities and heaven knows how many Quebec rivers such as the Saguenay, the Saint-Maurice, the Ottawa and some others have been the subject of developments and directives from the Department of Transport.

I do not want to take up too much of the time of this House, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to just state the position of this government. It was only on Monday of this week that the Indians asked us to participate directly in the debate. We have already said to them we will have meetings with the Indian associations and representatives of the James Bay area, and those meetings will be in Ottawa next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. We are planning to hold meetings whenever it is convenient to them, and we have agreed on Wednesday next as the date for a meeting.
Since Monday, when I received this request, and the resolutions passed by the different bands in the past weeks and months, I got in touch once more with the Quebec government and have been assured that they are willing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret I must interrupt the hon. minister but his time has expired. He must secure the unanimous consent of the House to continue his remarks.

Is there agreement that the minister be allowed to continue his remarks?
April 28, 1972


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. members for their courtesy.
I plan to meet these representatives next week and, in the days that will follow, I will be in touch with the Premier of Quebec who has already agreed to meet with me at my convenience. We are following the situation very closely, and I can assure hon. members that the interests of the Indians will be protected by this government, and that we will keep our cool. I am sure the best interests of everyone concerned will be served by finding a settlement acceptable to everyone.
I am very grateful that no one in this House so far this afternoon has taken an extreme position, denying any development or anything like that. I think this is the approach we have to follow. There are many interests which have to be considered and I want to say to the Quebec government, the Indians and members of this House, that we will make sure the interests of the 6,000 Indians living in this area will be well protected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting this afternoon to listen to the statements made so far from the government side of the House. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) took a very narrow view of a situation lying entirely within the jurisdiction of his department. I listened with interest to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who did make reference to the problems of the Indian people. Quite frankly, while he said a lot about talking to Indians, neither he nor the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources gave us any kind of assurance that this government is going to cease doing what it has been doing, namely flaunting the laws of this parliament and the constitution of Canada as they relate to the rights of the aboriginal inhabitants of this part of Canada or, indeed, of any other part.
It is small wonder that the Indians of that particular region may have thought it advisable to talk first to the government of Quebec, in light of the announced policy of the government as made clear by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country, that as far as the federal government is concerned it refuses to recognize the aboriginal rights enshrined in the constitution of this country. I certainly would not want to see the minister go back to what he referred to as "any old paternalistic attitude" in his discussions with the Indians. However, I would have liked to hear him make a positive statement assuring the members of this House and the people involved that the government of Canada was prepared to protect their constitutional rights.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is what I said.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister made some reference to the act of 1912, and this was mentioned by my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), in which this parliament validated an agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Quebec. It reads:
James Bay Power Project
That the province of Quebec will recognize the rights of the Indian inhabitants in the territory above described to the same extent, and will obtain surrenders of such rights in the same manner, as the Government of Canada has heretofore recognized such rights-
Perhaps in 1912 the government was still recognizing the necessity of obtaining surrender rights from the aboriginals, although the present government is not doing so either in the province of Quebec, the Northwest Territories or, for that matter as far as I can determine, anywhere else in this country. That is the nub of the question and that is why the minister, when he speaks in his engaging way, has to hedge and go around and around in circles, saying he must wait for resolutions from the Indian people and then have meetings and discussions with them, after they have discussed things with the Assistant Deputy Minister and officers of the department.
The minister did make some reference to the fact that the territory under discussion in this resolution was not originally part of the province of Quebec. It is interesting to note that, but I should like to suggest to him that he might have gone back to the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763, which sets out certain boundaries. It reads:
The Government of Quebec bounded on the Labrador coast by the river St. John, and from thence by a line drawn from the head of that river through the lake St. John, to the south end of the lake Nipissim; from whence the said line, crossing the river St. Lawrence, and the lake Champlain, in 45. Degrees of north latitude, passes along the high lands which divide the rivers that empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the sea;
Later on there was the act of 1791, which separated Lower Canada, and the Union Act of 1840 that put the pieces together again. We then moved on to the point where in 1867 the Dominion of Canada was established under the British North America Act. The point that has to be mentioned, and the minister made reference to it, is that these territories known as Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territory in 1870 were added to and became part of the new nation of Canada under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government. It is interesting to note that in the Order of Her Majesty in Council of 1870, based on the British North America Act, there is reference to a matter which I think is pertinent to the debate today. I should like to just make one or two brief references to it.
I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) on a couple of occasions what the government was doing in relation to the terms and conditions under which these lands were transferred to the province of Quebec from their original territorial status so far as Canada is concerned. I also asked what position the government was taking with regard to the proposed James Bay development with particular reference to the rights of the Indian people in that region. The minister said they have been looking into the matter. When I asked the minister directly if he would participate in this debate today, he apparently decided to hide behind the skirts of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). We have not had from the government any clear policy on this matter.
I quote as follows from term 14 of the order of 1870 of Her Majesty with regard to Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories:

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
Any claims of Indians to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement shall be disposed of by the Canadian Government in communication with the Imperial Government; and the Company shall be relieved of all responsibility in respect of them.
In other words, that was the transfer of jurisdiction to the government of Canada. In schedule (A) of an address to Her Majesty there is an explanation of what is involved here. Schedule (A) is an address to Her Majesty the Queen from the Senate and House of Commons of Canada. It is addressed to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty and reads:
That in the event of your Majesty's Government agreeing to transfer to Canada the jurisdiction and control over the said region, the Government and Parliament of Canada will be ready to provide that the legal rights of any corporation, company, or individual within the same shall be respected, and placed under the protection of courts of competent jurisdiction.
This is the part I wish to emphasize:
And furthermore, that, upon the transference of the territories in question to the Canadian Government, the claims of the Indian tribes to compensation for lands required for purposes of settlement will be considered and settled in conformity with the equitable principles which have uniformly governed the British Crown in its dealings with the aborigines.
That raises the question of what were the equitable principles of the British Crown. These are part of our constitutional documents. In that connection one must go back to the royal proclamation of 1763. The royal proclamation in part reads:
And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the* use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments-
One of these was the government of Quebec.
-or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.
And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.
And, We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described, or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such settlements.
And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests, and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians; In order, therefore, to prevent such irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians, of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where, We have thought proper to allow Settlement; but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie-

As the minister of Indian affairs has at least indirectly admitted today, under the British North America Act he has upon him the responsibility of acting as an agent of Her Majesty in connection with the treatment that is outlined in that proclamation which has been passed on. I submit it is inherent in the acts of 1898 and 1912 which enlarged the original boundaries of the province of Quebec. This is clearly a prior condition to any entry upon these lands for such purposes as hydroelectric development. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) suggested, and I freely admit it, that apart from this and some of the other federal areas of jurisdiction referred to here it is a matter for the province of Quebec.
I submit this government is not making clear that it is prepared to abide by the constitution of this country and see that the Indians enjoy the constitutional protections set out in some of the documents to which I have referred. That clarification we have not had so far today from a government spokesman. I submit that before any move is made this question must be clarified. Anything else will constitute trespass.
Unfortunately, because of my observations of federal government action in parts of Canada which still remain directly under their jurisdiction as far as land resources are concerned, I am not very hopeful that the Indians, when they have the forthcoming meetings with the minister to which he referred, will receive very much backing from him in negotiations with the province of Quebec. I am inclined to believe, in light of recent events, that some time since 1912 at least the rest of us in Canada have turned our backs upon the constitution and the statutes enacted by parliament.
What in fact is happening is that the government of Canada, and in many cases the governments of the provinces, are going blithely ahead in their own sweet way as if such documents did not exist. From my point of view, that is the nub of the question that must be debated and settled in this House of Commons prior to any participation by the federal government with the government of Quebec in the question of hydroelectric development in the James Bay region. That is why I am very happy that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka brought this matter forward, especially in light of the continuing lack of any clearcut statement from the government, because it gives us an opportunity to seek, if we can, to persuade the government to fulfil its constitutional responsibilities.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for moving this motion. Obviously, judging from the response from all corners of the House, there is not only a lively interest in the subject but also a good deal of thinking has been done about it in recent weeks and months. In his motion, he refers to three main areas of concern: one, interference with the relocation of Indians, and this matter has been dealt with by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien); two, altering the course of navigable waters protected under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and this has been dealt with by several speakers this afternoon; and finally, three, the effect on
April 28, 1972

the total Canadian environment. It is item number 3 to which I shall be principally directing my remarks.
I think that the essence of the concern in respect of the environment relates to timing, to ecological studies, and to environmental investigations which must be carried out before the final decision to undertake large scale development and construction is made. It is a matter of timing. We should and must do our environmental engineering first before construction begins on a large scale. This principle applies to large projects as well as small ones. It must apply to projects which fall under the responsibility of all three levels of government in this country. Indeed, it must be followed in respect of all kinds of development which has measurable impact on our environment in Canada.
In the United States, and increasingly in Canada, we are insisting on the preparation of what I might call environmental impact statements. In order to prepare proper environmental impact statements, we must first obtain the basic biological data on which they can be built. We need a good deal of background information, in other words, on the living resources in an area, how they will be affected by a particular development, and what the alternatives to that development are so that we can make sure that the best possible construction proceeds and that information is available in advance of construction, as I said earlier. We are in the process of obtaining this kind of information in respect of James Bay. "We" certainly includes the province of Quebec and it includes the federal Department of the Environment.
In order to describe the sequence which we are following in respect of a project which falls much more directly under federal jurisdiction, namely, a possible pipeline or pipelines down the Mackenzie Valley, we are currently spending in the order of $15 million on studies which will require a three year period to make sure that all of the ecological data is assembled beforehand, that environmental maps are available, that all of the necessary data which bears on wildlife, fisheries, and forestry, indeed all flora and fauna, is available before the final choice, the final selection, is made by the National Energy Board. That is the sequence which we are following in respect of that project. A similar sequence is being followed in respect of the James Bay project.
The James Bay project is unique in several respects. One, of course, is its massive scale. Another is that the province of Quebec itself requested help from the federal government in respect of the assessment of the environment. This certainly did not happen in respect of the big Bennett Dam on the Peace River, a project of great scale in western Canada, the construction of which began in the early 1960's. The consequences of that project have been considerable and they have been damaging outside of the province of British Columbia. Clearly, we would have benefited considerably in western Canada had the environmental engineering preceded the decision to go ahead and build that massive project.
As I said, the province of Quebec has asked for the help of the federal government in the assessment of environmental effects. We have been supplying expertise. We have some of the world's top biologists in the employment of Environment Canada. We have several of the world's
James Bay Power Project
top authorities on wildlife and on fisheries. Canada is one of the leading nations, has done a great deal of research, and knows a great deal about the nature of its resources. In the area of forestry we have a good deal of expertise as well. We have some of the world's finest meteorologists, climatologists and some very well known oceanographers. These people have been asked to help out in the assessment of the James Bay Project. The assessment is proceeding a step at a time. I might call the assessment, a six months assessment which began in the summer of 1971, phase I.
The second assessment, which will cover a period of 18 months or more, has begun this spring. The first assessment involves quick on-the-site surveys and a thoroughgoing review of the literature. A summary report entitled "A Preliminary Study of the Environmental Impacts of the James Bay Development Project in Quebec" was released in February of this year. It was, as I indicated, the result of a joint effort by experts employed by the province of Quebec and our own experts in Environment Canada. To my surprise, and I think the surprise of many people, it did not pinpoint any substantial environmental effects which might have been characterized, for example, as likely to be catastrophic. It did, however, indicate that there were a number of areas of concern, and it did say quite emphatically that because of the lack of baseline data further investigation would have to be undertaken. Those additional investigations are under way in phase II.
Phase II, which is now under way, involves investigations particularly in the areas which might be described as climatological, which involve expertise in the area of hydrography, and also will call on the knowledge of our people who have been concerned with migratory birds. They are concerned with tides and the drift of ice as well. In order to put some of this information on the record, I should like to refer back briefly to the first task force report, a report which is published and which is already available to the public, but I might also add, which is backed up by some 50 studies, all of which are available. They are available in several universities and through several departments in the province of Quebec. They are also available in a number of departmental libraries here in Ottawa. I understand they are also available in the library of the University of Toronto. There is no secrecy here. However, we are only beginning phase II. I can say definitely that, so far as the government of Canada is concerned, we have every intention of publishing all of the studies which are prepared by our experts at the conclusion of each phase or stage in these environmental investigations.
More particularly, Mr. Speaker, I might quote from the study which includes the findings of the task force. This was written at the end of Phase I, and was published in February of this year. I quote as follows:
On the basis of limited data available, the Task Force can identify only one ecological impact of potentially alarming proportions and significance-the impact on the native population of the area.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, this matter has already been dealt with by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The report went on to say:

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
Appropriate action must be taken in advance to alleviate the ensuing disturbance in their mode of life.
There do not exist enough data to permit a positive statement to where useful action in advance must also be taken. For example, intelligent planning is required so that the destruction-of the downstream reaches of the rivers concerned, and of their ecologically sensitive estuary and bay areas can be minimized.
Quoting further:
Finally there are those impacts which are unavoidable and unalterable consequences of the James Bay development scheme, for example, flooding of forest-producing lands, loss of anadro-mous fish from one or more river channels, and some reduction in sediment and nutrients reaching sea level as a result of entrapment in upstream reservoirs.
The task force found:
There are insufficient data to support a clear-cut over-all preference between the NBR-
Meaning the Nottaway, Broadbank and Rupert proposal.
-and La Grande proposals.
Indeed, one of the terms of reference of that task force was to see which of those two major alternative schemes was preferable from an over-all environmental point of view. Apparently, the task force was unable to reach a conclusion by the spring of this year in respect to that term of reference. Again quoting:
The Task Force has found no cases of fauna or flora species that are near extinction or which are very rare and would be endangered to the point of extinction.
Again quoting:
There do not exist enough data to permit a positive statement to be made that climate in James Bay itself, or in the surrounding area, or even continentally, will or will not be measurably influenced by one or both of the hydroelectric projects now being considered.
Later, it said:
-the Task Force feels that on the geographic scale of these projects alone the effects on the ice regime and other climate-controlling factors will not be more than local.
In other words, the effects, which are likely to be minimal, would be highly localized and probably confined to the province of Quebec.


Erik Nielsen: What is the date of that report?


John (Jack) Davis: The report is dated December, 1971, and it was released in early February.
The final paragraph in its conclusions section reads:
The Task Force sees that James Bay now provides, on a grand scale, an opportunity to integrate ecological research with a major engineering program in order to develop data and experience that will be needed in future resource developments in these latitudes. In this way James Bay could become a laboratory of world-wide significance.
In other words, we are embarking on something which both in scale and in consequences is in some measure unique, and considerable care is necessary in order to protect the environment.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I might refer briefly to several of the recommendations which the task force has produced, and which flow logically from the conclusions which I have already quoted. One of these recommendations is:
[Mr. Davis.}
That the James Bay project be used as a large-scale natural laboratory for comprehensive multi-disciplinary research into environmental problems and studies of how ecological processes are modified by major developments at these latitudes.
Another recommendation is:
That priority attention be given, before construction starts, to the gathering of data of existing environmental conditions to constitute a base-line measurement against which to relate subsequent changes both temporary and permanent.
And still quoting, Mr. Speaker:
That particular attention be given to river reaches below points of diversion, the estuaries into which they flow, and the storage reservoirs upstream to insure that the transition between the existing ecological equilibrium of these areas and the ultimate new equilibrium shall be as gradual and as non-destructive as possible. This means a planned control of flows and water levels during construction, particularly including maintenance of adequate minimum flows. Effective planning and action to regulate this transition process can be expected to prevent serious consequences similar to those created by the Bennett Dam in the Athabasca Delta area in Alberta.
And still quoting:
That every effort be made to completely cut as much flooded timber lands as possible.
I might say parenthetically that I believe this is the intention of the Quebec government and of Quebec Hydro. Quoting further:
That all future environmental impact studies related to the James Bay development be centrally co-ordinated so as to insure effective communication and interaction between the different scientific teams involved, to avoid duplication of effort in some areas and lack of effort in others.-
The final conclusion I will quote is:
That the co-ordinating mechanism be designed so as to (i) reflect the inter-relationships between the various identifiable elements of the total ecosystem; (ii) provide for the conduct in parallel of both short-term and long-range research studies; and (iii) recognize the jurisdictional responsibilities of the various agencies concerned and harmonize their efforts in the common task.
From what I have already said, it must be apparent to all hon. members that there has been some considerable measure of co-operation between the province of Quebec and the federal government on this matter. This is certainly to be welcomed in view of the fact that there has been very little co-operation of this kind in the past relative to large hydroelectric projects anywhere in the country, so that in one very important sense we are breaking new ground. There has been very close and, I believe, very effective liaison between the new ministry of the environment in Quebec and Environment Canada.
We have offered our considerable expertise to that province, and Quebec Hydro has taken advantage of that offer not only in respect to Phase I studies, which I have summarized in my preceding remarks, but also in respect to Phase II, in which we will be gathering a lot of new basic data necessary to carry out a thorough environmental appraisal.
If I could return to that point of principle which I tried to outline at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, ecological investigations must precede the decision to uproot nature, to uproot our natural surroundings. In other words, Mr. Speaker, environmental engineering must be completed before construction starts on a large scale. This is a principle which I believe the province of
April 28, 1972

Quebec endorses, or certainly appears to endorse, in respect to the Janies Bay development. It is certainly one in which this government believes wholeheartedly.
Now, I cannot help but make a few comments of what I might term a more political nature. I sometimes wonder when I listen to members of the New Democratic Party talking about ecology, about their concern for the environment. In four cases out of five when they are expressing their concern they are also attacking a large socialistic enterprise. They are either attacking B.C. Hydro, or in recent times occasionally Manitoba Hydro, and now Quebec Hydro. They seem to find that the biggest villians in this piece are government-owned Crown corporations.
I am inclined to agree with that, partly because developments carried out by big Crown corporations are usually on a larger scale than those undertaken by private enterprise. Nevertheless, I find the cynicism of the NDP rather amusing when they rarely attack private enterprise and its callousness. I agree that it is more difficult to get at the large, Crown-owned, socialistic enterprises in this regard because they appear to be less sensitive. This has been true of British Columbia Hydro in recent years and also of Manitoba Hydro. However, there is some reason to expect, as a result of our recent experience with Quebec, that perhaps Quebec Hydro is becoming more sensitive to environmental matters.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to our sad experience with the Bennett dam. Like him, I remember the debates in the early 1960s. I also remember putting questions to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he was prime minister. In fairness, I think this House should realize that if there was fault in respect of the performance of the federal government of those days because of its lack of insistence on a licence being granted under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for that development, the fault lies both with the government headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister, but his time has expired. If there is unanimous consent of the House, he may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: I would like to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that in retrospect the fault seems to lie with both sides of the House. However, we were not as aware in those days of the importance of the environment; we were not aware of the necessity for the federal government to take a positive stand in respect of large scale developments, even in cases where the effects were likely to be serious and carry downstream to other provinces. We must in future be much more tuned to the need to protect our environment and at the national level we must be highly sensitive to consequences which may result beyond the borders of a province in respect of developments of this kind.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister a question?
James Bay Power Project


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Because the minister's time has expired I will have to ask the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to ask the minister one question for clarification. During my remarks I raised the question of studies carried out by Hydro Quebec. Is the minister in possession of these studies, are future studies to be joint projects between the minister's department and Hydro Quebec or is his department carrying out separate studies on the impact of the project?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have received copies of all the studies of an environmental character carried out by Quebec Hydro. The work that is under way at the present time falls under two headings; one is in respect of joint studies to be carried out with the province of Quebec in phase II, either with agencies of that province or with the environmental department of Quebec. The other category is in respect of initiatives of our own. For example, Environment Canada is carrying out studies with respect to migratory birds, oceanographic effects on James Bay and climatology.


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite pleased to participate in this debate in view of the fact that all hon. members have recognized the importance of this project for the province of Quebec and the fact that it is closely related to the interests of the country.
I want to make a few comments on what has already been said as well as on the project itself; it is my duty as a member representing a Quebec riding. Above everything else, I would like to ask all hon. members to deal with the matter as objectively and impartially as possible.
We all know that this project, the cost of which has been estimated at $6 billion and which should provide jobs for 125,000 workers, is of vital importance to the province of Quebec in the present context.
All hon. members will recognize that if the province of Quebec could improve its economic situation by means of that project, the whole of Canada would profit by it.
I listened with pleasure to the speeches of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) and of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who successively showed clearly that the initiative proposed by the mover of this motion (Mr. Aiken) was not as necessary as the motion made it out to be. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development told us that negotiations have been going on for some time with the province of Quebec, which I readily approve.
I should like at the outset of my remarks to ask the federal government to comply with the Quebec government's request, as regards the services as well as the facilities the federal government can provide for the carrying out of that project.
Although the project is typically a Quebec one, I do not believe the Quebec government should be left to carry it
1744

I am confident that these basic principles will not be overlooked by any member of this House.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I should like to quote from what was said by a university professor about James Bay. His lecture was entitled, Can the Province of Quebec afford to do without this project? I quote:
Considering the number and complexity of the tasks which await us, considering the huge sums of money-billions of dollars-involved in the hydro-electric, industrial and human development of this territory, some people have asked whether Quebec could commit itself fully to this bold course, whether we can afford such a grandiose policy.
Of course, this will entail rather heavy expenditures. There is some concern over the control of investment in Canada, over the extent to which the federal government can appropriate money for this project. It should be well recognized that the government of Quebec is not that eager to borrow from the United States or elsewhere the money that will be needed.
Surely, the federal government should consider the possibility of making available to the province of Quebec financial assistance which would enable it to realize this project and that would be Canadian investment.
Instead of worrying about the fact that the government of Quebec is borrowing money abroad, some thought should be given from time to time to the assistance that could be offered by the federal government, not only to Quebec but to other provinces as well for projects of public interest. I quote again:
I suggest that this problem should be considered from another angle. Statistics showing the increasing number of people old enough to work indicate that if unemployment in Quebec is to be reduced from 8 per cent on the average in 1971 to 4.5 per cent as it was in 1966, jobs must be created for 75,000 newcomers on the labour market, for each year during the next ten years. In order to create one new job in industry or construction, an investment of $50,000 is needed today. If half the new jobs are to be opened in these two directly productive fields, as compared to jobs in the administrative and service fields, which in the end are supported by the two others, an investment of nearly $2 billion a year will have to be made for new activities in industry and construction.
The question should not be: "Can we afford to invest $1, $2, $3 or $4 billion a year in the James Bay development project?" but: "Can we allow ourselves not to do it, and what would the alternative be?"
Is it not really the aim which all hon. members should be seeking too? I leave it to them.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make these few comments in order to state that I was in favor of the James Bay development project, and especially to urge, in a very special way, the federal government to co-operate willingly, as far as possible, as the responsible ministers have done it. Therefore, I urge them to continue in the same direction, and as a member from a riding which is located in the province involved, I take the liberty to urge all other members from other provinces to co-operate to the realization of this project, not only for the benefit of Quebec but for the benefit of Canada as a whole. They can count, from now on, on my co-operation and that of all Quebec members, as if it were a project introduced by another province and in which the interest of the whole country was at stake.
James Bay Power Project


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks, I should like to make an observation with respect to the order in which speakers have been recognized recently in this debate. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) spoke, after which the Chair recognized the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). Subsequently, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) stood up, at which time I was seen but not recognized by the Chair. Then, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) stood up and was recognized. It seems to me, Sir, that there should be a fairer recognition of hon. members on the basis of numerical strength in the House than is suggested by that distribution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: In any event, the motion which has been brought before the House is of interest. I think the debate has been largely academic, because whatever we say here will not make the slightest difference to the direction the government is taking or to the direction the government of Quebec is taking. It will not make the slightest difference to the claims of the Indian people to which I intend largely to confine my remarks. I say this because the project is going ahead. Roads and bridges are already under construction. Some are almost completed. We are told by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that negotiations are being conducted. But there does not seem to be very much sense in conducting negotiations for the return of a cow after the animal has been killed and eaten.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) says that ecological studies are being carried out. But surely, to be useful, these studies ought to have been made long before the project was ever started. With respect to the treatment of these studies by the Indian people themselves, the report to which the minister referred at some length was actually burned, together with a great many other reports, by the people at Ruperts House late in February shortly after release for publication. The minister quoted at length from the study of December, and one of the recommendations contained in it, in addition to those he read, appear in a report which was printed in the Montreal Star of February 24.1 quote:
An element in the book burning is that the people resent a statement in the ecology report-a perfunctory, throw-away statement-that people here depend on white people and that do not depend on trapping and hunting "as much as some people think."
If this is a gauge of the calibre of the study being conducted by both governments, and which the minister cites as his authority for saying that this ecological survey is being carried out, if this is a measure of the concern felt for the rights of the native people affected by this project, then I suggest the report is not of much use, anyway.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has chosen to make a great distinction between representations which he receives officially and representations which he receives otherwise. He continually makes this distinction. He is resting his oars on it now. The native brotherhoods which have been set up across the country
251041-51)

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
are being used by the minister as a political buffer between the actions of his department and the legitimate requests of the native people. I would remind him that he has responsibility under the Indian Act to consider not only the representations of provincial and territorial brotherhoods; he has a duty to consider the representations made to him by individual band councils, indeed, by individual Indians in this country. So when he stands in his place and sheds crocodile tears because he has not received any representations of an official nature, I do not feel much sympathy for him. Indeed, I condemn him for abdicating his responsibility under the Indian Act to do something positive.
I ask the minister this: What is the use of standing in this House today and telling us he has refrained from intervening in this affair because of a fear of being paternalistic, because he has been asked by the Quebec Association of Indians to wait until they call him, when all the time the project is moving inexorably ahead? He is not disclosing the full facts when he says he has received no representations of an official character. If he confines that statement to representations he has received from the Quebec Association, he can hang his hat on that very slender peg. But he received, in July, a petition directed to him by 33 Indian chiefs. I have a copy of it here and the minister is welcome to see it, though I am sure he must have it in his department.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to make one point if I may; I do not think the hon. member would like to misinform the House. I recognize that this resolution was passed last July, but it was not transmitted, to me until last Monday. Of course, they pass resolutions in many different regions on different dates, but those resolutions were not transmitted to me until last Monday.


Erik Nielsen: This is not a resolution, Mr. Speaker, it is a petition which was forwarded to the minister. It reads:
We, the representatives of the Cree bands which will be affected by the James Bay project or any other project, oppose those projects because we believe that only the beavers have the right to build dams in our territory and we request the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to use his legal jurisdiction to stop any attempt of intrusion on our rightful owned territory by the government of the Province of Quebec or any other authority.
At the foot of that document, there appear the signatures of 33 chiefs of the area.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was sent to me last Monday.


Erik Nielsen: The minister may have received it officially last Monday, if he wishes to hang his hat on that slender peg, but he cannot tell us he was unaware of the upheaval this project has been causing and the resentment it has aroused in the region affected, a resentment which is almost universally felt by representatives of the Indian people and certainly by the combined band councils. Granted, the minister may not have received representations from the Quebec brotherhood, officially, until last Monday, but he cannot say he was not aware of the problems which are confronting these people, that he was not aware of their concern for their rights in the land which is affected by this project. Nor can he tell us he is not charged directly with responsibility, as minister, to intervene to ensure that the legal rights of the Indians in

this area, founded upon the documentation which has been read into the record by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), are protected.
The minister tells us, in his holier-than-thou attitude, that we should not use these people as a political football, thus hoping to excuse his inaction in discharging his responsibilities towards them. He says he hopes members will not take extreme positions. But I suggest to him it is not playing politics to direct criticism at him and his department where criticism is justly deserved, and it is not taking an extreme position to criticize the minister for failing to discharge his responsibilities as clearly set forth in the documents already placed on record and in the Indian Act. It does not do very much good for the Indian people, whose land rights are affected, for the mininster to "snow" the House with platitudes about not wanting to be paternalistic to the native people affected and not wanting to intervene. These people had the right to expect his help, and to expect his intervention, to protect their rights from the very outset, but they did not get it. In this regard, the minister has absolutely abdicated his responsibilities under the act.
What good, I ask, will holding a meeting with the government of the province of Quebec do now? What good will it do now that the authority has already been granted for the project to proceed? What good will it do in areas affected by construction of roads and bridges already under way over lands to which these people have a legal right? His duty was to do something before the authority was granted to get the project under way. His clear duty under the act was to do something before the project, or any part of it, got under way. His clear duty under the act was to ensure that the rights of these people were secured and that their bargaining position would thereby be secured. Their bargaining position at the moment, and in any negotiations that follow, have to be seriously weakened by his inaction.
These people cannot now say, "Retain for us some of these traditional hunting and fishing rights from which we and our ancestors have made our living for over 100 years". All they can say now is: "You have taken away our land rights, overrun our lands; you are going to destroy our traditional hunting and fishing grounds and take away our lands from us from which we have gained our livelihood for centuries; we therefore need compensation". All they can negotiate for now is compensation, and that from a very weak position because of the inaction of the minister and his abandonment of his clear duty under the Indian Act.
The combined chiefs who sent the minister the petition should have been heard. The minister spoke recently in committee about this great dialogue that is going on between him and his departmental officials respecting the formulation of policies affecting the native people of Canada. It is dialogue that is one way, dialogue that the minister and the government of which he is a part construe as meaning the setting and the formulation of unilateral policies, policies formed without consultation with the Indian people, as clearly substantiated by the report of the subcommittee of the cabinet considering the funding of native associations which was submitted to the
April 28, 1972

interdepartmental committee in June of 1971. No part of that very complex and extensive document making all sorts of recommendations, a document which, I might add, has been approved by the cabinet, has been discussed with the Indian associations. That is the government's idea of dialogue.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That is not dialogue, it is monologue.


Erik Nielsen: Exactly, it is monologue. The minister said in his statement before the committee respecting his so-called new northern development policy that the prime concern of him and his officials was to make sure that the native peoples are involved not only in policy making- which they are not-but also in matters such as the James Bay project.
I am informed that of the jobs which were available last summer-I think the premier of Quebec said that the over-all project would create something between 100,000 and 125,000 new jobs-a very small fraction of 100 native people were hired on the project. That information comes from individuals on the spot. I might also inform the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) that I am told that none of the areas that it is intended to flood by the dams and rivers to be constructed in this project are going to be denuded of timber, of growing trees. This will effectively destroy a good deal of the viability of the land so far as it has the capacity to support the needs of the Indian people of the area.
With respect to the minister's defence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) concerning the applications made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for construction of bridges, again it is my understanding that the bridge at Mattagami was two-thirds completed before any application was made for permission to build it, and before federal approval was obtained. The only hope that the Indian people who are affected by this project have at this stage, now that they have been sold down the river, as it were, by the minister, is to negotiate for some form of compensation. What can be negotiated? In my view, the only negotiations possible are in the area of the establishment of an industry that will replace that which has been taken from them, namely the way they have made their living in the past. I suggest, perhaps, their participation in industries such as tourism, fish and duck camps, perhaps in boatbuilding, woodworking, canoe making. It will not be much good to come up with a settlement involving dollars that they will put in the bank; that will not keep the Indian people of the area alive.
The action of the minister, or rather his lack of action in my view, in this matter has been deplorable. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have bobbed, ducked and weaved all over the place on this question. It is only now that the resolution of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) is before the House that they have come up with some examples. I am really surprised by this. I know that the representatives of the Indian people of this area have been seeing the minister this week, and I expected him to come into the House with a positive statement outlining what he is going to do on their behalf. I am really surprised that he or some member of the government has not come to the House and
James Bay Power Project
informed the House exactly what the government intends to do on behalf of these people. I suggest he has not done this because it is a matter of embarrassment to him.
My suggestion to the minister, being as politically gentle as I can, is that the reason he has not intervened in the past-for he had a clear responsibility to do so-is his fear of embarrassing the Liberal government of the province of Quebec. There is no way that this Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development wanted to get into a hassle with the premier of the province of Quebec. This is why he has abdicated his responsibility and thrown these Indian people to the wolves, as it were.
There is another aspect of this matter-


Mr. Osier:: Did you get that from a tapped line?


Erik Nielsen: I cannot hear the hon. member. If he would get to his feet and address the House, perhaps he would be more successful.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to remind the hon. member for Yukon that he has one minute left to finish his speech. If questions are asked and he allows them, his speech will end in one minute in any event.


Erik Nielsen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the House has been most generous with other hon. members and I hope that I am being sufficiently entertaining to receive the same courtesy from the House. Therefore, I am prepared to entertain a question.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is not a very serious question. I was wondering whether the hon. member got that information over one of the tapped lines he is so fond of talking about in this House. I am referring to his authoritative statement about the minister's relationship with the premier of Quebec. Did he learn that from one of the tapped telephone lines that he talks about so authoritatively, without bringing forward any evidence that such is the case?


Erik Nielsen: I think the hon. member is tapped. There is one other very serious aspect of this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House to pursue his remarks.


Erik Nielsen: I thank hon. members for their courtesy, Mr. Speaker. The other serious aspect-I will be brief-is the conflict of interest with which the minister is confronted here. He is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and as such he has direct responsibility to care for the best interests of the people coming under his jurisdiction, namely, the Indian and Eskimo people of Canada.
On March 15, as reported in a Montreal newspaper, he approved of the James Bay project. I do not have the

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
quotation immediately available, but he did approve of the James Bay project on that date. Shortly thereafter he said in the House of Commons that he did not morally approve of the project. I will read that quotation in a moment. On March 29 the minister stated in the House, as recorded at page 1265 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker, I have no moral approval to give on this proposal. I repeat once again that I follow very carefully the talks taking place between the Indians and the Quebec government on the James Bay proposal. In due course, at the Indians' request, I shall be glad to participate in the discussions.
Not only is there a conflict between his statement of March 15 in Montreal and this statement, but he said again on April 24 that he did not have to establish Indian priorities in Quebec. It is his clear responsibility to do so, yet he is telling members of the House that he has no such responsibility. As a minister of the Crown he is coming down on the side of approval of this project, yet at the same time he has a responsibility to take action under the Indian Act to maintain the integrity and security of the rights of these Indian people. These are the rights of the people involved in the James Bay project. So there is here a clear conflict of interest.
I am not alone in this view. This opinion has been expressed in the press and by others concerned with Indian affairs. It seems to me the government is confronted, in respect of this project, with a clear requirement to decide whether the Minister of Indian Affairs should continue to act while the government is taking a stand to approve a project which is directly to the disadvantage of the Indian people involved.


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up too much time in this very interesting debate. I commend the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for raising the topic. I am tempted in some ways to perhaps take out my tomahawk on this issue, but I will save that for later.
When speaking on this question I suppose it could be said that if the Indian people had adopted a different immigration policy many of these problems would not have arisen. On the other hand, I am reminded of my good friend Gus Gottfriedsen, chief of the Kamloops band. The reservation there is across the river from Kamloops, and when he looks across the river he says, "I see the white men building cement basements. I guess they intend to stay here for a while."
This topic has been a very lively one in all parts of the country, especially in my constituency. I suppose there are a number of reasons for that. There is a very large Indian population in the province of British Columbia, 50,000 or so, and there are 12 or more reservations in my constituency. We have been faced in the Kamloops-Cariboo area with a situation which involves similar principles. There was an attempt some years ago to divert water from the Shuswap River to the Okanagan River. It was being made on very narrow grounds-actually, on a purely physical basis. In a report by the provincial government it was stated that it was physically possible to move water from point A to point B. The government did not consider any of the environmental consequences.
I understood from the remarks of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) that he feels it is regrettable that

many of the projects developed in the past were carried out without consideration of the total environmental picture, the environmental consequences and what might happen if you divert water, in this instance, from the Shuswap River to the Okanagan River. The members of various governments which made these decisions did not consider what might happen if you dam a river or a series of rivers. They did not consider the ecological consequences.
I am pleased that the people in my constituency, particularly those in the Kamloops-Shuswap area, got up on their hind legs and fought very hard against the proposal to divert water from the Shuswap River into the Okanagan River. As a result of the fight they put up, we were able to obtain what is called the Okanagan basin water agreement, signed by the province of British Columbia and the federal government. The resulting study will be one of the most comprehensive, in respect of water, ever carried out in this country. I think this is the best way to proceed in respect of such a project.
Environmental and ecological consequences must be evaluated before decisions are made. I regret that in the case of the James Bay project the ecological and environmental parameters were not investigated before the decision was made. That is very regrettable. As we go down the trail from here I hope that with a very enlightened Minister of the Environment, a very enlightened parliament and Department of the Environment situations such as this will not occur. I hope we will be much better informed about our environment and ecology, which involves birds, bees and animals of all kinds, before this type of decision is made.
Let me deal for a moment with the report on the James Bay project, entitled "A preliminary study of the environmental impacts of the James Bay development project".


Erik Nielsen: How about the land rights of Indian people?


Len Marchand: I will get to that. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from this report which I think are significant and represent the kind of thinking that should take place before the project proceeds. The report reads in part:
Any intervention in the environment, if it modifies any one resource, agent or process, is bound to have an effect at every strata of the ecosystem, through the close interactions between resources, agents and processes. Prior to any intervention it is necessary to determine at least the orders of magnitude and significance of the impacts and to evaluate the relative vulnerability or compatibility of the site with respect to the anticipated development. In this context the terms "magnitude" and "significance" are not necessarily synonymous.
If the specialists' views and recommendations had been heeded, many of the environmental consequences of the Great Aswan High Dam-some of which have been described as disastrous- could have been avoided; but none of these specialists had "the strength or the influence to be heard at governmental or policy levels ... while the integrating forces of human society in Africa and elsewhere come apart in the face of single-tracked ramrod solutions that erode, then erase, our environment"
That is a significant statement. Another significant paragraph reads as follows:
If man is to become an intelligent resource manager, he will need to take the proper steps, indicated by ecologists and other
April 28, 1972

environmental specialists, to restore nature to a new state of equilibrium at least as diversified and productive as before.
I should like to turn to some of the conclusions outlined in this report which bother me very much. The first conclusion reads:
On the basis of limited data available, the Task Force can identify only one ecological impact of potentially alarming proportions and significance-the impact on the native population of the area. Appropriate action must be taken in advance to alleviate the ensuing disturbance in their mode of life.
It continues:
The hydroelectric development project will affect about 6,000 people (approximately 90% Indians), distributed along the coast and inland in the following settlements:
I will leave it at that, and quote from another paragraph with which I should like to take issue.
Indians in the area are, economically and politically, strongly dependent on white man's society. Fishing, hunting and trapping are still important social and economic activities in the life of the region, but the Indians are no longer as economically dependent on them as some people think.
I should like to challenge that statement. I disagree with it and I will deal with it a little more fully at some later date. I am going to be participating in the meetings when the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) meets the people of Quebec. I should like to examine all of the facts before I take out my tomahawk in this particular case.
There are three points I should like to make in the summation of my remarks. As I said before, it is regrettable that projects like this in James Bay commence without studies being made well ahead of the decisions. Decisions should be based on good, sound studies rather than trying to justify them by studies later. Second, it is my hope that a satisfactory solution to this problem can be worked out between the Indian people in the James Bay area and the government of the province of Quebec. I hope that as a result of these dealings with the province of Quebec, a new and better life can be found for these Indians, if this is their wish. However, it is imperative that they be adequately consulted and their wishes respected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: The last point is, I hope we will see some further discussion on the question of aboriginal rights. The question of aboriginal rights is involved in this whole decision. As we go further down the trail, I hope we will get a report from Mr. Barber, the commissioner who was appointed to look into incidents in which treaties have been abrogated. I hope Mr. Barber can come up with some suggestions whereby grievances can be finally settled.


Erik Nielsen: What a hope.


Len Marchand: I was very
encouraged by some of the remarks made by the Minister of Indian Affairs. I have said before, and I say again, that I have a great deal of confidence in this minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
James Bay Power Project


Len Marchand: He has done a lot of things, taken some pretty hard decisions and has a very tough role. In many respects, the Minister of Indian Affairs is somewhat like the Minister of Finance. The people always say none of them is really good.
The situation of the Indians in this country is very serious. It requires a lot of cool thinking and study. One of the most important things that has been happening in the past few years is that the Indian people are being consulted on what kind of life they want. This is sometimes awkward and sometimes very difficult, but I believe this minister is sincere. I know he is sincere in his efforts to try to bring about a better relationship. For verification of that statement, one need only look at the amount of money that has been spent and the number of organizations that have sprung up in the past three years. This never happened before. I disagree with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who said that these organizations are being used as a political buffer. I say to the hon. member that I am surprised. This indicates the hon. member does not know the Indian organizations very well. If he is out of touch, he should have a little chat with them to see whether they like being called a political buffer or political whipping boy for the Minister of Indian Affairs.


Erik Nielsen: I said the minister is using them in that way.


Len Marchand: That is a lot of
baloney. It just is not the case. We have some very competent Indian leaders on the scene today who are supporting the rights of Indian people. I think the Minister of Indian Affairs is correct when he says he should not intervene in these situations until he is asked to do so by the Indian organizations and the Indian people involved.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: You have contradicted yourself.


Len Marchand: I have not. It is a good principle. For too long, the Indian people have been patted on the head by governments and people. They have been told "Nice little Indians; go back to the reserve and be good boys". This minister has not been doing that under any circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: He sold James Bay land down the river.


Len Marchand: That is not so.
Right from the beginning when he took office, he said "I am too young to be the great white father to so many people".
In closing, I want to offer any assistance I can give to the people of Quebec and the people of James Bay. I have made this offer before to some of the people, but they have not requested any assistance. As I said before, I am going to be participating in the meetings between the minister and the Indian people of Quebec. I hope that a satisfactory solution can be found.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) would like to ask a question of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo. He can allow the hon. member to do so if he wishes. Apparently the hon. member indicates he will receive a question.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member is too kind. Does the hon. member agree that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has a clear responsibility under the terms of the Indian Act in a case like James Bay to secure the integrity of the land rights of the Indian people of that area before the commencement of the project, and then sit down to negotiate the terms upon which the project can go ahead? Does the hon. member agree with that?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Indian Affairs made the position of the government very clear when he said the interests of the Indians will be protected by this government.


Erik Nielsen: Do you agree with that statement or not?


Len Marchand: The approach
being taken, where the minister is not pre-empting his duty to the Indians and the responsibility they want to take upon themselves, is good. As I said before, it has too long been the case that successive governments have been treating the Indian people as children. That is not the attitude of this minister. I think he is taking the proper course.


Erik Nielsen: Their land rights are gone.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo has terminated his remarks. In fairness to him, if he has more to say, he should be allowed to do so before I call on the hon. member for Timiskaming.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I quote the story of my good friend Gus Gottfriedsen: The white man is here to stay.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this discussion. I have listened very carefully to the speeches made and I think I have learned something from them. I would like to say to the previous speaker that he belongs to a government that has negated its position by not bringing this matter before the Parliament of Canada a long time ago and leaving it to the opposition to do so. To you, Mr. Speaker, goes part of the credit for your wisdom in allowing this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the rules, hon. members are not allowed to praise the Speaker's wisdom.


William Arnold Peters: I thought that if the statement was affirmative it would be permissible. During the last election in the province of Quebec the idea was born of establishing 100,000 jobs for the people of the province. In looking for ways in which this might be accomplished, the decision was taken to start the James Bay power development

project. This was done in a totally political atmosphere. No study was undertaken by the provincial government. As a matter of fact, the project had not been discussed to any great extent.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Kierans, an engineer from Sudbury, put forward the idea of developing the Grand Canal which was a diversion from Hudson Bay and which would have taken in the Rupert River, the Harricanaw River, the Moose River, probably the Mataga-mi River, the East Quebec River and a number of other rivers flowing into the James Bay area. This project was also supported federally by the Liberal government. One of the candidates in my area spoke about running barges up from Ottawa to New Liskeard. Freight was to be floated back and forth and industries would thus be established. Suddenly we found that the provincial government would receive the benefits.
Before the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) leaves, I would like to say that I am not very proud of the representation that he has made. He has been more interested in supporting the position of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) than in speaking for the people who need to be represented here. I know some of the Indian people in that area. They have been in the bush for years. They have been trapping and they have made a livelihood from that way of life. Their way of life, in my opinion, has not prepared them in any way to question the power of the Quebec government, which in any case does not brook questioning from anyone. They have not been able to speak for themselves. They have been in need of strong representation and they have looked to the government to protect their interests.
My colleagues have drawn attention to the legal requirements of the treaties. The Indians for many years have been protected by the federal government under agreement. When the government gave to Quebec jurisdiction over the land in that area, we retained certain land rights on behalf of the Indians. The Indians themselves are not capable of putting up the kind of fight that is necessary. Here I am not referring to the Caughnawaga reservation where the Indians have been dealing with the government for a long time, or to the Six Nations reserve in Brantford which has been dealing with the government for a long time. I am referring to the nomadic people in the area who have not had much to do with governments, and the little experiences they have had with white people have been bad.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo has the right and the ability to speak on behalf of the Indian people and in my opinion it is his obligation to speak for them. In my opinion he should have supported the position that has been taken by many other people in the province of Quebec, namely, that the rights of the Indians must be protected. This has not been done, and I condemn the minister for not doing it on behalf of the Indians. The very least that the federal government, in particular the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, could have done was provide a legal precedent by applying to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision regarding the land rights of Indians and what would be a reasonable settlement.
April 28, 1972

During this summer a $60 million project for building roads in that area is going forward. Under no circumstances does Quebec own that land. Anybody else would be protected by expropriation rights and would have the right to go to court. But a man who has been living from trapping, a man who has been only peripherally involved with white people, has no such right. All that the Indians have received from the white people has been bad, such as alcohol, dealings with the Hudson's Bay Company, and so forth. The Indians' way of life has not enabled them to deal with white men and to oppose the Quebec government, which has given no consideration to their rights.
If the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo is to represent the Indian people, and it is his right and responsibility to do so because he has a greater advantage than the rest of us, he will have to say that the minister has not done a good job. Instead, he supports the minister. The project has already been started; the bulldozers and developers have moved in.


Len Marchand: Don't just pick on me.


William Arnold Peters: I am not just picking on the hon. member. I, too, have an obligation toward the Indians because I represent five Indian reservations. All I am saying is that the hon. member is fortunate in having an advantage that I do not have. I am sure that because of his background he is able to go into these areas and talk to people who would resent my doing so. He is able to talk to the Indians who would violently resent the minister. They do not resent the hon. member because of his special birthright. Therefore, I say he has the obligation, and certainly the ability and the right, to act in a special way to ensure that those rights are not negotiated away.
The Indians' rights must be protected in a special way. That is why the Queen said she had a responsibility toward the people living on these lands. Just because it is the province of Quebec that is involved does not give this government the right to waive the treaties which give the Indians special rights. These are God-given rights until they themselves ask that they be revoked or modified.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: An article in the Montreal Star of March 27 reads as follows:
The province began negotiating when a commission of inquiry under Judge Henri Dorion established that the native people have "real and incontestable territorial rights" over huge tracts of northern Quebec, including the James Bay area.
The provincial government, in what the association lawyers describe as a "sign of good faith", has already agreed-
It goes on to say that they waived the 8 per cent sales tax in the area. Big deal! They did say that they gave some concessions, but what are they to these 7,000 people who are not represented by any really unified force? To be fair to the minister I should point out that he has done a good job in helping the Indians to develop the ability to participate in meetings and to discuss their problems. This minister should be given full credit for that, but I suggest that he knows as well as I do that the Indians have not yet fully developed this ability.
James Bay Power Project
Four years ago the minister set up a meeting in Sudbury at which the chiefs sat around the table. Each one said, "I will pass because I want to hear what everybody else has to say". So 25 chiefs sat around the table and no one said anything until they came back to the first one who spoke. They all decided to wait until someone else had spoken, and no one got around to speaking. The people did not understand. The chiefs of the bands had never talked to each other before.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That was four years ago.


William Arnold Peters: That is right, and I give the minister full credit for having developed this policy. But it took us 200 or 300 years to do that. Now, how can we suddenly expect the Indians to stand on their own feet in our councils without our backing? The minister should not wait until they come to ask him. He is supposed to protect their interests. If he and his department leave it up to the Bourassa government, which is only interested in creating jobs for Quebec voters, the Indians will have nothing left to negotiate in a few years.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) today took another tack. He indicated he was very concerned that the department had not been able to ascertain a number of things that should be ascertained in advance of construction. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) showed a great weakness in his argument when he said we have not really discussed hydroelectric power as an energy resource, and that we do not know what our actual needs are. If we develop the power at James Bay, we may find that the province of Quebec cannot afford to make a $10 billion expenditure in that field, because power may be generated more cheaply through other means. I well remember an argument which took place in Saskatchewan a number of years ago, when it was pointed out that hydro power in that province was not the cheapest form of power, and that power could be produced more cheaply there through the use of thermo plants.
The Minister of the Environment indicated that his department had completed only a preliminary study, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development showed a great weakness in his ability to negotiate for the Indian people. I point out that these Indians are not like those in Fort George, Prince Rupert or any of the reserves. They live spread out over the entire area. I am sure many of them only know who their band chief is, and quite often that is the only relationship they have with their band. Some of them live permanently on reserves, but a very large number of them spend most of their time hunting and travelling around the territory in which their hunting grounds are traditionally located.


Erik Nielsen: And secured for them.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, and secured for them. Despite what this House has been told, they are not in a position to negotiate. They will have to be protected by do-gooders. The James Bay Committee met in Montreal in March of this year. Most of the members of that committee are do-gooders. They have pointed out some very interesting things
1752

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
concerning the attitude of the developers of the area. I quote from their report as follows:
The Development Corporation has gone ahead and started the construction of a road network without first seeking or obtaining the permission of the native peoples who live on the land. This contradicts public statements of the Corporation proclaiming concern about them.
The premise there was:
The inhabitants of the area will be the first to benefit from its development.
This statement was made by the president of the James Bay Development Corporation on January 18, 1972.
This statement reveals an assumption which F. H. Knelman has interpreted thus:
Our "progress" and our values are ... not open to question or doubt, and we have the divine right of developers to confer these upon native peoples whether they want it or not.
The report also includes some of the irrational statements that developers make, and which could apply in this case, such as:
The program-as proposed-has to be enacted now.
The program will be enacted in any event. You can't stop progress.
The program is needed to fill the demand that will be created by the program.
No one opposes the program. It will benefit the majority, and harm no one.
Data used to estimate effects of the program are the only valid, pertinent data available.
Since there is no proof that the development will damage the environment, we can safely assume it will not.
All effects of the program have been considered.
The program, as presented, represents the sum total of the development contemplated for this particular resource.
All applicable alternatives have been considered.
That is the attitude of the developers. Obviously, that is the attitude of the Quebec government. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government was embarrassed by the Hamilton Falls project in Labrador. This did a great deal to hurt their prestige. They did not like it one little bit. Now, they think they have to do something to counteract that.
I plead with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I consider him to be a very progressive minister. He is a person who has thought out some of the problems of the Indians. This is something I do not say about his department. Some of the officials are as archaic as some of the treaties they are abusing. In my opinion, the minister is progressive but his departmental people are not. They are cowards. They won't really make any decision on anything that might get them into trouble or make work for them.


Erik Nielsen: You are just saying that because the minister used to be a member of the NDP.


William Arnold Peters: I didn't know that. Well, there is a saving grace in everyone. I suggest that the minister should not rest on his laurels, on his ability to provide a new environment in which the Indian population will be able to negotiate. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to the claims of the Indian people to the territorial lands given to them by treaty. I consider those treaties to be sacred, held 
in trust by the federal government, not to be negotiated with provinces, not to be negotiated with developers but only to be negotiated with the Indian people.
We have a law in this country which provides that if people are not competent to enter into a legal agreement, then a legal agreement cannot be negotiated. It is my opinion that the Indian people are not competent to assess the value of what they possess. The native peoples are looking at their land in terms of their livelihood, in terms of their background, in terms of the use to which they put it. This is land that may be worth far more than any other type of land in 50 years time. Water may become our richest resource on this continent. It is something that, in its pure form, will be very precious. If this minister allows the Indians, in their ignorance of the potential of the land, in their inability to deal with the courts of the land, to lose their land, he will have failed in his duty. If he gives up the duty that has been entrusted to him by the people of Canada, and by the parliament of Canada, to protect this land which has been left as a heritage for the Indians by the Queen who negotiated the treaties in good faith, then he will have done nothing for democracy, nothing for the native peoples of this country, and he will be forever remembered as the one who sold out their heritage for a mess of potage.
The minister is a young man. I am sure he will be here for quite some time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: But not as a minister.


William Arnold Peters: I hope he is around for a long time, but I do not want him sitting in this House in two or three years time, and saying to himself and the people of Canada that if he had to do it over again he would do what he was supposed to do in the first place, that he would provide the protection to the Indian people that it was his obligation to provide, that he would provide it whether they asked for it or not, that he would make money available to them to protect their rights, rights which another government would have stolen from them because of their ignorance and because of his unwillingness to defend them.
Mr. Speaker, I may be unfair to the nature of the Indian people, but in my part of the country many of them are like children when it comes to dealing with the white man's problems. We have seen them in the courts, we have seen them trying to buy cars, we have seen them dealing in the white man's society in a less than competent manner. Knowing that, I cannot stand here and say that the minister should wait until they all get together and decide to come to him for protection. Mr. Speaker, he has an obligation to protect the Indian population in the James Bay area now. Anything less will be a sell-out of the rights which those Indians deserve in a fair and just society.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join other members of this House in expressing gratitude to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) for affording us this opportunity to discuss a most impor-
April 28, 1972

tant question and one with which we are all likely to become more and more concerned during the next year or two.

When the Quebec Prime Minister introduced in the National Assembly Bill 50 on the development of the James Bay area, the main argument used by his opponents-the technocrats of the Parti Quebecois and of Quebec Hydro who led the opposition against Bill 50 in the National Assembly-was that it would be more profitable for Quebec to develop atomic energy than the hydroelectric potential of the James Bay area.
Given the increasing cost of building and maintaining atomic plants and the problem of controlling the pollution which those plants might cause, I believe that economically the hydroelectric project is to be prefered to atomic plants because of the touristic and mining advantages which will result from this project.
However, I was most concerned to find that during the debate on Bill 50 no mention was made of the Cree people who are the only residents in the area involved. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to deal with this subject.

Mr. Speaker, under certain circumstances I am convinced that this project could benefit the people of the area. In theory, it can supply jobs that the growing population along the coast of James Bay and the interior need. Until recently, wildlife resources in the area were adequate to provide a livelihood but this is no longer true.
When I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development I visited the James Bay and Hudson Bay areas in the autumn of 1970 along with three other members of the committee. Meetings were held with the Cree peoples at Miskassini Post, East Main and Fort George and many things were discussed. The question of language seemed to bother the local people more than anything else. We put forward the proposition that the children learn both English and French in school, asserting that jobs in the hydroelectric industry or the mining industry would require a knowledge of French whereas the tourist industry and the prospecting industry would require English. They indicated that they would be interested in learning both languages but were insistent on their right to choose the language of instruction for their children. It should be remembered that the language of all these people at home and at work is still Cree.
In our discussions, the prospect of hydro development did not invoke any adverse reaction from the public audience. About a year later the project was officially announced and no doubt there will be additional reaction as more and more activity appears on the scene. In theory at least, in this kind of scheme we should be able to provide the type of development where the people would play a major role. However, judging by past experience, can we really hope that the Cree peoples of the James Bay region will have an important role to play? Certainly there is nothing in our recent history to justify that hope.
The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development recommended that the education branch of the department should tackle innovative educa-
James Bay Power Project
tion for young Indians in the James Bay area because of the additional language problem there which is not faced by Indians elsewhere in Canada. The Department of Natural Resources of the province of Quebec wishes to have French as the working language of the area. This conflicts with the Anglican heritage of the Cree peoples, whose language remains basically Cree but whose exposure through religion has been to English, so there is some prejudice in favour of English rather than French.
Given this conflict of interest, the committee recommended that the department devote its initial energies to the inauguration of new teaching methods that would enable the younger people in the region to master both the English and French languages. That is asking a lot, considering that we in the rest of Canada are not able to do this. So far as I know, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not moved toward implementation of this particular recommendation.
We also urged, in our education committee report, a new approach to vocational training. One of the deficiencies in vocational training, whether in Indian schools or white schools in northern Canada, is that vocational courses supplied to youngsters and students simply do not reflect the industrial needs of the area. For instance, mining courses are not available where mines exist. We feel it is only common sense for the kinds of courses offered to students to reflect the kind of job opportunities that are likely to be offered in the area.
I am not aware yet of any innovation in our program which would permit, in the James Bay area and Hudson Bay areas, Cree youngsters to acquire the type of education and, later, the type of vocational education which is necessary if they are to play an important role in the hydroelectric developments projected there. If, on the other hand, everything that should be done were to be done, if we were to do everything to permit the Cree peoples of this area to play the major role which should be theirs in any hydroelectric development after the construction period is over, I am confident that the support of the indigenous peoples for this project would be increased. If that support were not guaranteed, at least there is a very high likelihood that the project would be approved by the Indian peoples living in the area.
Quebec, in its approach to the peoples of the area through the provincial department of natural resources, has not given us too much ground for encouragement.

The Minister of Natural Resources of Quebec has made the mistakes of paternalistic actions in New Quebec as our federal ministers responsible for the Indians have been making since the beginning of the twentieth century.

We are making the same mistakes all over again. Quite frankly, since the announcement of the James Bay project there has been nothing in the approach of the department of natural resources of the province of Quebec which would indicate a change of heart or a more enlightened approach to the job. There is nothing to show that any-
1754

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
thing more has been done to prepare the indigenous peoples for the new kind of development which is proposed.
It is all very well to talk about settling with our Indian peoples in the area and negotiating with them. Whether these negotiations succeed or not, I am convinced that the Indian peoples could decide on legal measures which would effectively block the project for years. I would say to Premier Bourassa that this is a very real possibility. The Indian peoples of these areas are not simple people who have recently come out of the woods and who are unaware of the ways of the white man. I could name Chief Diamond of Rupert House and Chief Kanatewat of Fort George as two extremely capable and competent chiefs. If they are at all representative of the calibre of the chiefs of this area, those people will adopt a very energetic and hard position on whatever is being negotiated.
I am confident that with the advice of legal people now assisting them, and their lawyers are among the best in the country, the chiefs will adopt the kind of legal position that will protect their peoples now and in the future. I therefore warn the minister and the authorities in Quebec responsible for this project that the possibility of legal measures holding up operations in the James Bay area in the next year or two are very great. Indeed, this is likely.
Putting aside for the moment legalities and the question of whether legal positions will be adopted, I submit that there is little evidence to show that the kind of enlightened approach that is necessary if the peoples of the area are to be brought into the modern world is being adopted in the circumstances. These new approaches are not evident and they ought to be evident, Mr. Speaker.
For the past few minutes I have dealt with Indian affairs. Now, I wish to touch briefly on other aspects of the project. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) indicated that environmental impact statements are now being insisted on in connection with major projects in this country and elsewhere in the world. Such environmental impact statements would involve the work of top biologists, laboratory people, forestry people, meteorologists, climatologists, etc. I wonder-I admit that perhaps I did not hear the minister referring to this subject matter and that there may have been a reference to it-whether there is any plan to produce scale models of this entire project, either in some computerized form or physically, in order that we may determine clearly and without doubt that in the long run this project will not adversely affect climate, the ecology of the rivers and James Bay and Hudson Bay in a way that will have far reaching effects on the continent and even, perhaps, on the world.
Another fear I harbour has been stimulated somewhat by a paper I received from a local STOP group-Society to Overcome Pollution-of my riding. This group, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Evelyn Retallack, prepared an excellent study of the James Bay project and was kind enough to let me have a copy of it. While I do not agree with everything in the report, it does contain one subject that no other speaker today has covered. The warning in that particular part of the report warrants further study by the department headed by the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Sylvestre, formerly with the department of lands and forests of Quebec, has warned that in the area south of James Bay there is a potential earthquake and

landslide zone. Montreal, he says, is located on a fault running along the St. Lawrence River. He goes on to point out that the Canadian Underwriters Association now has refused to give automatic earthquake insurance to people in the Montreal area. Man and His World was specifically refused earthquake insurance. Mr. Sylvestre goes on to say:
The 50,000 square miles to be flooded and the billions of tons of water in new weight this land must bear, presents very strong dangers for the residents of all of North America south of the project.
Oxford geographer Gordon Rattray Taylor in his book "Doomsday Book" deeply explores the correlation between seemingly natural catastrophes and man, the engineer, as earthquake maker. Pressure changes are known to shift the crust of the earth causing earthquakes in the process. Through intensive scientific and technical research, such earthquakes as the one in India in 1967 and the one in Rhodesia in 1963 can be traced to the filling of the reservoirs created by the Koyna Dam in India and the Kariba Dam in Rhodesia. These areas were quite free of shocks before the dams were built. The dam at Monteynard in the French Alps cause a series of tremors culminating in a shock of several points on the Richter scale. The artificial lake of Kremasta in Greece caused earth slides and fractures-480 homes collapsed and 1,200 were seriously damaged.
The possibility that man might be disturbing the earth's crustal forces only dawned on scientists in 1945 when Dr. Carder pointed out what was happening at Boulder Dam, Colorado. There had been no shocks in this area for 15 years before the dam was built. Lake Mead, formed by the dam, began to fill in 1935. The first shock came in 1936. During 1937 more than 100 shocks were felt. When the lake reached its full depth the shocks reached a maximum with further bursts in several years when the lake was particularly full.
In view of this it has been suggested that the disastrous earthquake which hit Iran and Turkey in 1957 and in 1966 were caused by changes in the level of the Caspian Sea. The water level had fallen six feet as a result of the industrialization of the lower Volga Valley.
He goes on to mention the slides in the St. Jean-Vianney area in Quebec. I think the point is fairly made that the addition of this extra weight caused by billions of tons of water on a 50,000-square mile area, an earthquake-prone area, might quite conceivably have a disastrous result. It may well be that as a result of geological and other research it will be determined that the structure along the St. Lawrence River bears no relation to that around James Bay and that land pressures there could not conceivably affect the St. Lawrence valley. But no word of such a finding has come from the minister, and I would suggest that at least this is an essential question for study in connection with our environmental approach to this project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member; his time has expired.


Ian Watson: I wonder if I might have unanimous consent to complete my remarks?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member's time in fact expired two minutes ago, but if there is unanimous consent he may proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 28, 1972


Ian Watson: A further point which I feel should be mentioned is this: at some stage the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should indicate the effects on the national economy of attempting to handle the James Bay project and the two Mackenzie pipelines for gas and oil, from the point of view of the almost intolerable pressure which will be placed upon the Canadian dollar. Undoubtedly if this were the result, Canadian ability to compete in world trade would be seriously impaired.
Even if there is an assurance forthcoming that in the long run the ecological effects of this project will be minimal, that no serious danger of earthquakes will be involved and that the financing will not throw our economy out of balance, and leaving aside the legal aspects of the Indian peoples' position, we will still be left with the special problem of ensuring that the indigenous peoples of this area receive a decent deal. I am thinking in terms of a deal which will enable them to face the future not only with confidence but with competence, the competence which an adequate system of education could give them and which is not being given them now. An enlightened approach must be forthcoming from the education branch of the federal Department of Indian Affairs, the department of natural resources and the department of education in Quebec.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) for using this rule relating to emergency debates intelligently, perhaps for the first time in my memory; and you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing that fact. Many phony efforts have been made to use this rule and at last the hon. gentleman has come up with an intelligent one. I wish him well.
When this issue came to the fore in February, parliament was not in session but a press release was issued dealing with a joint federal-provincial report on the environmental impact of the project. That report dramatically illustrated the inadequacy of Canadian procedures for handling environmental problems.
I intend to focus my remarks on the final points made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I think the joint federal-provincial report made it clear that instead of a full evaluation of environmental damage and costs being made at the time the engineering and economic studies were carried out, the report was made after the decision to proceed with the James Bay development had been taken. Thus, it came too late to be of use in evaluating the project.
This is "cart before the horse" decision-making. I think it is the wrong way to go about major developments involving an alteration in the environment. Instead, there should have been studies made of all the factors involved, economic, engineering, social and environmental before proceeding to any decision as to whether construction should begin. Only in this way can a proposal such as the James Bay project be properly evaluated.
I should like to refer to the situation created in connection with the Bennett dam in British Columbia, where costly remedial construction is now being undertaken to rectify the environmental problems ignored when the decision to build the dam was taken. The situation in
James Bay Power Project
James Bay might be compared to the situation which has now arisen in northern British Columbia. I would have thought that the Bennett dam would have been an object lesson on the dangers of this nineteenth century approach, but apparently the lesson has not been learned. What I would like to see instead of our present ramshackle, hit-or-miss procedures is something akin to the United States legislation, the environmental policy act of 1969 which despite its defects would make an excellent model for Canadian legislation. It is the model for a private member's bill of mine which I am sure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka would be happy to second. I would present it to him with that in mind because I think it is a bi-partisan sort of approach.
What we should have is a systematic, interdisciplinary approach to these major engineering undertakings, one that will ensure that the natural and social sciences, environmental design arts and the planning and decision-making are properly integrated. We need a recommendation or a report on any major undertaking that might significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and a detailed study by the responsible federal or provincial, or joint federal and provincial, authorities should be made.
Such a report should include the environmental impact of proposed action. It should include any adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented. It should also include alternatives to the proposed action. It should include the relationship between local, short-term use of the environment and area and the maintenance, the enhancement as it were, of what you might call long-term productivity. Finally, it should include a statement on the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources that would be involved if the proposed action should be implemented. I realize that this sounds rather technical in form but I think hon. members are quite capable, without further elaboration, of understanding how it could be applied to the James Bay project and how, if such report had been prepared prior to any decision to proceed, we would have been a great deal better off than we are now.
It is my view that once such reports are prepared they should be made public and they should then be subjected to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, this House has not seen fit to re-establish what was an excellent committee of the House, the special committee on environmental pollution, on which the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka as well, I may say modestly, as myself did some excellent work. The House has not seen fit to re-establish that committee, a failure for which I think the government House leader is directly responsible. It is most unfortunate that he has taken this retrogressive step.
It is my view that with such a committee the members of this House would be able to examine projects such as this, report upon them and perhaps come up with a decent assessment of any damage that might be done, along the lines that I have suggested. We do not have any legislation such as the legislation I referred to, which is basically American. Neither, unfortunately and most regrettably, do we have the committee I have just mentioned. Therefore, I feel it is incumbent upon the Minister of the Envi-

April 28, 1972
James Bay Power Project
ronment in particular to make sure that my private member's bill, which I earlier said would, I am sure, be supported by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka as well as the hon. member for Kootenay West, lays the foundation for his bringing forward soon some government legislation that will achieve these objectives and permit the making of environmental impact studies such as the one I have suggested, allow the publication of such statements and the holding of public hearings of interested parties who would be able to make their views known.
It is late on a Friday afternoon and I have no wish to prolong the debate. However, I hope that my plea, though
it falls on a rather thinly attended House, will not fall on deaf ears and that before long we will have procedures in this House as well as in legislation to allow us better to deal with the sort of problem we are faced with this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(13), I am satisfied that the debate has been concluded and I therefore declare the motion carried.
At 6.26 p.m. the House adjourned pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday. May 1. 1972