1973-11-19

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Hales.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. The fishing fleet development policy announced last week by the Minister of Fisheries imposes serious implications on the social and economic life of Canada's east coast fishermen. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter):
That the matter be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and that the committee be empowered to travel from place to place to hold public hearings with the fishermen concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise under Standing Order 43 to seek the permission of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the continuing shortage of railway cars for the movement of lumber out of British Columbia, compounded by the implication the other day in the statement of the Minister of Justice to the effect
that the railways are not competent enough to deal with this matter by themselves. Therefore I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave):
That this House recommends to the government it enter into arrangements forthwith to provide railway cars for the loading and shipment of lumber as it did with respect to providing hopper cars for the loading and shipment of grain.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[ Text]
Mr. Danforth: 1.	What classification is given to the airport situated at Chatham, Ontario?
2.	(a) What government moneys were used to establish or upgrade airports of similar classification in Canada during the years 1969 to 1973 to date (b) in what municipality and province are each of these airports located?
3.	(a) Has the government received any request or requests to finance in total, or on a shared cost basis, the upgrading of the Chatham Airport in the years 1969 to 1973 to date (b) on what basis were these requests made?
4.	Are there any immediate plans to upgrade the airport at Chatham, Ontario at present or in the near future, by the government and are provisions made in the estimates if such plans exist?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. Small local community airport.
2.	(a) and (b). The present airport classifications were not in effect prior to January 1, 1972. Since that date, the following financial assistance grants to small local community airports have been approved:
7898

November 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Municipality and Province	Amount
Cardston, Alberta	 $100,000
Cochrane, Ontario	 70,000
Coronation, Alberta	 50,000
Drayton Valley, Alberta	 50,000
Drumheller, Alberta	 85,000
Edmundston, New Brunswick	 35,000
Fairview, Alberta	 90,000
Golden, British Columbia	 03,000
Invermere, British Columbia	 10,000
Kincardine, Ontario	 38,000
Lacombe, Alberta	 65,000
Maniwaki, Quebec	 43,000
Maple Creek, Saskatchewan	 68,080
Margaree, Nova Scotia	 5,640
Mount Pleasant, Prince Edward Island	 68,000
McBride, British Columbia	 40,000
Nakusp, British Columbia	 140,000
Nipawin, Saskatchewan	 75,000
Oyen, Alberta	 65,000
Revelstoke, British Columbia	 20,000
Rosetown, Saskatchewan	 7,300
Slave Lake, Alberta	 100,000
Spirit River, Alberta	 25,000
Squamish, British Columbia	 40,000
St. Paul, Alberta	 49,500
Taber, Alberta	 65,000
Three Hills, Alberta	 35,000
Unity, Saskatchewan	 33,000
Valemount, British Columbia	 10,000
Vegreville, Alberta	 100,000
Wetaskiwin, Alberta	 68,000
Weyburn, Saskatchewan	 27,000
Whitecourt, Alberta	 30,000
3.	In April 1972, the city of Chatham applied for a financial assistance grant of 100 per cent of the cost, up to a maximum of $100,000, of upgrading the present 3,000 feet turf runway to a 3,000 feet x 75 feet asphalt runway with a paved taxiway.
4.	Two millions dollars is provided annually in the estimates for financial assistance grants for the development or improvement of community airports, and is allotted to specific airports as the applications are reviewed and approved. The application by the city of Chatham is under review at this time.


Mr. Forrestall: With respect to Department of National Defence maintenance and service contracts, excluding construction-related contracts (a) how many such contracts have been made (b) at what locations were these made (c) who is the contractor in each case (d) what is the cost of such contracts or sub-contracts held by each contractor (e) what is the type of skill required of workers employed by such contractors or sub-contractors (f) how many workers are employed for each such contract (g) what is the length of each contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a)Twelve. (b) 1. Canadian Forces Base Ottawa, Ontario. 2. HMC Dockyard Esquimalt, British Columbia. 3. Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Ralston, Alberta. 4. Canadian Forces Base Suffield, Ralston, Alberta. 5. Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta. 6. Canadian Forces Base Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta. 7. Defence Research Establishment, Valcartier, Quebec. 8. Canadian Forces Base Gagetown, Oromocto, New Bruns-

wick. 9. Canadian Forces Base Downsview, Downsview, Ontario. 10. Canadian Forces Recruiting & Selection Unit, Vancouver, British Columbia. 11. Canadian Forces Base Halifax, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 12. Canadian Forces Base Halifax at Stadacona, Halifax, Nova Scotia, (c) 1. Modern Building Cleaning, Division of Dustbane Enterprises, Ottawa, Ontario. 2. Western Janitorial Services, Victoria, British Columbia. 3. Holdens Cleaning Service & Floor Maintenance, Medicine Hat, Alberta. 4. Holdens Cleaning Service & Floor Maintenance, Medicine Hat, Alberta. 5. Northgate Janitor Service & Window Cleaning, Edmonton, Alberta. 6. Northgate Janitor Service & Window Cleaning, Edmonton, Alberta. 7. Entreprises Commer-ciales Morin Enr., Neufchatel, Quebec. 8. Jet Janitor Services Stephenville, Newfoundland. 9. Modern Building Cleaning, Division of Dustbane Enterprises, Toronto, Ontario. 10. French Cleaning & Janitor Service, Vancouver, British Columbia. 11. Modern Building Cleaning, Division of Dustbane Enterprises, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 12. Jet Janitor Services, Stephenville, Newfoundland. (d)l. $172,000; 2. $89,784; 3. $75,000; 4. $20,700; 5. $34,800; 6. $23,200; 7. $62,666; 8. $519,800; 9. $100,782; 10. $4,200; 11. $26,556; 12. $346,560. (e) In all cases the positions are classified as either cleaners	light or heavy duty, or labourers, (f)	1.	22employees;	2.	12	employees;	3.	15	employees;	4.	15employees;	5.	4	employees;	6.	5	employees;	7.	13employees;	8.	73	employees;	9.	12	employees;	10.	1employee; 11.	7 employees; 12.	67 employees, (g) 1.	2years; 2. 2 years; 3.	1 year; 4.	1 year; 5. 2 years; 6.	2years; 7.	1 year; 8.	23 months; 9.	18 months; 10. 2years; 11.	2 years; 12.	2 years.


Mr. MacLean: 1.	Have grants been made by the Department of National Health and Welfare toward the cost of construction of arenas in Sherwood and Morell, Prince Edward Island, St. Catharines, Ontario and for a swimming facility in Arichat, Nova Scotia and, if so, in each case (a) what was the amount (b) when were commitments to pay these grants made (c) on what date were the grants actually made?
2.	Under what policy of the government were these grants made?
3.	On what date was the decision taken to launch such a policy and for what reasons?
4.	Have any other grants been made under this policy and, if so (a) to whom (b) to what amount in each case?
5.	Has a request for a grant or an inquiry about the possibility of qualifying for a grant been received from the Community Gardens, Kensington, Prince Edward Island or from the Crapaud Rink, Crapaud, Prince Edward Island and, if so, was the request approved and, if not, for what reasons?
6.	Have other requests been received from other organizations for grants that have not been approved under this program?
7.	Is the policy under which these grants were made still in effect and, if not, on what date was the program terminated and for what reasons?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to reinstate this policy at any future date and, if so, on what date?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Grants were made by the Department of National Health and Welfare toward the cost of construction of arenas in Morell, Prince Edward Island for $25,000;
November 19, 1973

Sherwood, Prince Edward Island for $50,000; St. Catharines, Ontario for $50,000 and a swimming facility in Ari-chat, Nova Scotia for $50,000. (b) Yes. (c) Cheques were requisitioned on the following dates for these grants; St. Catharines, Ontario, February 5, 1973; Arichat, Nova Scotia, February 6, 1973; Morell, Prince Edward Island, February 13, 1973; Sherwood, Prince Edward Island, February 5, 1973.
2.	These grants were made under the authority of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act.
3.	Discretion to make such grants has existed since the inception of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program and does not require the development of a special policy. The grants were made pursuant to the general objectives of the Act; to "Promote, encourage and develop Fitness and Amateur Sport in Canada".
4.	No.
5.	A request for a grant was received from the Community Gardens, Kensington, Prince Edward Island. It was not approved. There is no record of a request for a grant or inquiry from the Crapaud Rink, Crapaud, Prince Edward Island.
6.	Yes. A number of requests have been received. They have been acknowledged but were not approved.
7 and 8. Grants to finance local facilities are no longer made and there are no plans to reinstate the program. It was terminated at the end of 1972. A re-examination is under way, in co-operation and consultation with provinces, municipalities and universities concerning the establishment of a policy to bring selected facilities across Canada up to international standards. In this review, the department will also be looking into opportunities to develop specialized training centres in conjunction with existing facilities.


Mr. Stevens: As of September 18, 1973, or to the nearest date feasible, what were the total outstanding chartered bank small business loans (i.e. under $200,000) where the banks were receiving the minimum rate of 'A point over prime and, as of that date, what percentage were such total small business loans to total bank business loans and to total bank general loans?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The most recent statistics on the distribution by size of account of chartered bank loans are for July 31, 1973. On that date the outstanding amount of business loans under authorizations of less than $200,000 was $3,610 million. This was 23 per cent of the outstanding amount of all business loans and 13 per cent of general loans which also include the banks' personal loans. In May 1973 most banks introduced dual lending rate systems under which the rates charged on business loans under authorizations of less than $200,000 are linked to a separate base rate that is lower than the prime rate applicable to larger accounts. In mid-September when prime rates were increased by *A per cent to 9 per cent the base rates for smaller accounts were raised by only 'A per cent to levels three-quarters to one percentage point below the prime loan rate. The actual rate charged to
Order Paper Questions
particular borrowers, whether large or small, depends also on the nature of the loan and the credit standing of the borrower.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Since the opening of Terminal 2 at Toronto International Airport, what has been the average number of flights per gate per week, and for the same period, what has been the average number of flights per gate per week at Terminal 1 in Toronto and at Montreal Dorval Airport?
2.	What is the average passenger Terminal floor space per gate at Terminal 2 in Toronto compared to the average passenger Terminal floor space per gate at Terminal 1 in Toronto and at Montreal Dorval Airport?


Jean Marchand: 1. Since the opening of Terminal 2 at Toronto International Airport, the average number of flights per week at Terminal 1 have been 1,124 and 1,539 at Terminal 2. In the corresponding period the average number of flights per week at Dorval have been 2,347. There are 24 gates at Terminal 1 and 16 gates at Terminal 2; these are supplemented by off-gate aircraft positions to an extent which ordinarily raises the number of actual gate positions to 32 at Terminal 1 and 22 at Terminal 2. There are 37 gates at Dorval which are only occasionally supplemented by off-gate positions. In this context therefore the average number of flights per gate per week at Terminal 1 (Toronto) equals 35; at Terminal 2 equals 70, and, at Dorval equals 63.
2.	The total passenger terminal space at Terminal 1 equals 797,252 square feet; at Terminal 2, 628,231 square feet and at Dorval equals 606,000 square feet. In context of total gates served these figures equate with square feet of passenger terminal per gate as follows: 24,914 square feet at Terminal 1; 28,556 square feet at Terminal 2; 16,380 square feet at Dorval.
Note: It should be noted that Toronto Terminals 1 and 2 combined have accommodated 58 per cent more passengers than Dorval in the same time period; additionally, there is a higher proportion (fluctuating) of passengers involved in trans-oceanic/trans-border traffic at Toronto.


Mr. Firth: 1.	What were the names of recipients benefitting from the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program (NMEAP) in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 (January 1, 1973 to end) and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of money involved in each case?
2.	Has the Department completed its comprehensive evaluative study of the program and, if so, what was the date of the report?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. 1972-73 to March 31, 1973:
26635-69J

November 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
Amount
Company	Paid

Charta Mines Ltd	 16,489
Five Star Petroleum	 16,669
Teslin Explorations Ltd	 10,247
Duke Mining Ltd	 4,631
Dynasty Exploration Ltd	 50,000
Boswell River Mines Ltd	 21,487
Norman H. Ursel	 3,689
Cessland-Fort Norman Syndicate	 50,000
High Country Minerals	 6,150
J. M. Wheel ton	 419
Darnley Bay Syndicate	 24,777
Vestor Explorations	 50,000
Claymore Resources	 2,949
Silver Spring Mines	 12,496
1973-74 to October 22, 1973
Five Star Petroleum	 27,727
Savanna Creek Gas & Oil	 26,346
Trans Columbia Exploration	 1,151
B.C. Yukon Exploration	 3,367
Ice Station Resources	 33,198
Dynasty Explorations Ltd	 50,000
Silver City Mines Ltd	 8,468
2. An evaluative study of the program has been carried out and is presently under review.


Mr. Forrestall: How many immigrants illegally in Canada turned themselves in during the recent "Make this country your country" campaign in the Dartmouth-Halifax region?


Mr. Mark MacGuigart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The number of aliens registered under this program in the Dartmouth-Halifax area is 655 made up of 583 registrants and 72 dependants. The program did not differentiate between persons in Canada legally and those in Canada illegally but rather made its benefits available to all who met the criteria.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many applications have been received by the Canadian Pension Commission since the Pension Act was amended on March 30, 1971 and, of these, how many have been adjudicated?
2.	(a, Of the number adjudicated upon, how many were resolved (i) in favour of (ii) against the veteran (b) as of September 31, 1973, how many applications were still on hand?
3.	How many claims are being adjudicated each month during 1973?
4.	As of the end of September 1973, how many claims were on hand and, of these, how many were (a) over a year old (b) over nine months old (c) over six months old?
5.	As of the end of September 1973, how many claims were for World War I veterans?
6.	What is the average age of war veterans who served in (a) World War I (b) World War II (c) Korea?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Applications received to end of September, 1973, 24,472; Applications completed, 15,764.

2. (a) (i) in favour of the veteran, 7,769; (ii) against the veteran 12,492. (b) Applications on hand, 8,708.
Note: Many applications cover more than one condition and/or more than one period of service.
3.	January, 822; February, 982; March, 827; April, 679; May, 559; June, 706; July, 866; August, 811; September, 1,194.
4.	Statistics on outstanding claims are not available for the precise periods indicated in the question, however, following are figures for closely related periods; Total claims on hand, 8,708; (a) one year or older, 2,822; (b) over 10 months old, 2,822 plus 930 equals 3,752; (c) over seven months old, 2,822 plus 930 plus 1,567 equals 5,319.
5.	Statistics available on the number of outstanding claims are not broken down by periods of service.
6.	The only accurate figures available on the average age of all war veterans are taken from the 1971 census which showed as follows: World War I, 76.7 years. World War II and Korea combined, 51.8 years. The average age of disability pensioners as of September 30, 1973 was: World War I pensioners, 79.77; World War II pensioners, 57.85; Special Force (Korea) pensioners, 47.04.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): Has the government given any consideration to the application in Canada of rules applied to the BBC and independent television in Great Britain establishing a category of free-time ministerial announcements to which there is a formal right of reply by the Opposition and (a) if so, for what reason is it not now in effect (b) if not, on what date will it be?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: The Canadian Radio Television Commission has no such regulation. The government does not intend to take any action to establish such a procedure in Canada.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government made any effort to control the ticks which are a nuisance to Nova Scotians and which constitute a menace to tourists visiting Kejimkujik Park and, if so (a) what process has been applied to control these pests (b) what amount of money has been set aside for this project?
2.	Is the government familiar with the progress being made by ZOECON of California in preparing hormonal insecticides to control pests that attack both ornamental plants and food crops and, if so, is it prepared to have this process applied by officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the Nova Scotia ticks in Kejimkujik Park?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a) No chemicals are currently being used by Parks Canada to control ticks in Kejimkujik National Park. Parks Canada by participating in a provincial committee is studying the problem and the park circulates brochures which inform the users of ways to cope with the tick, (b) Not applicable.
2. The juvenile hormone, ZOECON, is not yet registered for use in Canada. The use of this hormonal insecticide will not be permitted in parks until registered with the Department of Agriculture and it is proven that there are no detrimental side effects to the environment.
November 19, 1973


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many farm improvement loans were distributed in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe in 1972 and to October 1, 1973?
2.	What was the total amount in dollars?


John Napier Turner: 1. and 2.
The requested data is not maintained by electoral district.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many farm improvement loans were distributed in Ontario in 1972 and to October 1, 1973?
2.	What was the total amount in dollars?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2:
Farm Improvement Loans Distributed in Ontario
Year	No.	$ (million)1972	
8,705	3,116*1973 (to October 1)	
7,172	2,913
Preliminary data. All final returns for September not yet recorded.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many loans to small businesses were distributed in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe in 1972 and to October 1, 1973?
2.	What was the total amount in dollars?


John Napier Turner: 1. and 2.
The requested data is not maintained by electoral district.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many loans to small businesses were distributed in Ontario in 1972 and to October 1, 1973?
2.	What was the total amount in dollars?


John Napier Turner: 1 and 2:
Small Business Loans Distributed in Ontario
Year	No.	$ (million)1972	
596	6.2*1973 (to October 1)	
411	4.2
Preliminary data. All final returns for September not yet recorded.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. MacLean: How large are the floor areas of each of the passenger terminals and what is the passenger load in each case for the last period for which figures are available for each of the following airports (a) Fredericton (b) Saint John (c) Moncton (d) Halifax (e) Charlottetown?


Jean Marchand: The
floor areas of each of the passenger terminals at the following airports are: Fredericton, 7,343 square feet; Saint John, 6,610 square feet; Moncton, 8,468 square feet; Halifax, 147,234 square feet; Charlottetown, 4,900 square feet. The passenger load for the last period for which figures are available for each of the above listed airports reads as follows:
	Period-	-1/1/72 to 31/12/72	
Airports	Enplaned	Passengers Deplaned	TotalFredericton	71,755	66,563	138,318Saint John, New Brunswick	72,136	72,453	144,589Moncton	83,479	85,674	169,153Halifax	427,033	422,695	849,728Charlottetown	52,306	50,013	102,319


Mr. Crouse: Has the government or government officials signed an agreement with the USSR that would allow the use of Tasu Inlet as an operational base for Soviet vessels and, if so, what was the basis for the said agreement and what are the particulars relating to the scope of the operation of Soviet vessels in this Inlet?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On January 22, 1971, an agreement was concluded with the USSR on co-operation in fisheries in the northeastern Pacific Ocean off the coast of Canada. The agreement came into force on February 19, 1971, for a two year period and was extended with amendments in February 1973 for a further two year period. Article VII of the agreement states; "The Government of Canada will permit fishing vessels of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and their service vessels to conduct loading and unloading operations in Tasu Sound and in the territorial sea of Canada off the west coast of Moresby Island between 52 degrees 23 minutes north latitude and 52 degrees 56 minutes north latitude. Such vessels will be permitted to enter Tasu Sound through an entrance corridor of Canadian internal waters extending two miles to the south and two miles to the north of the centre line of the entrance to Tasu Sound. To ensure safe navigation each fishing or service vessel of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics must notify the Canadian Director of Fisheries, Pacific Region, through the radio stations at Victoria, Tofino or Bull Harbour, preferably twelve hours but in no case less than two hours in advance of its expected time of arrival at the entrance to Tasu Sound." The basis for this agreement is described in its preamble, which may be summarized as recognizing the mutual interest of both countries in co-operating on fisheries in the area, and in conducting operations on a scientific basis with due regard to conser-

November 19, 1973
Order Paper Questions
vation. In particular, through this agreement the government of Canada secured the removal of Soviet trawlers from the Big Bank area on the high seas off the coast of Vancouver Island where there had been conflicts with the operations of Canadian fisherman. The agreement has operated to the satisfaction of both countries, as evidenced by its recent renewal.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For what reason were the numbers of electors on the voting lists for the last federal election not given for those Canadians voting under Special Voting Rules for any federal constituency except Gander-Twillingate in Newfoundland?
2.	What were the numbers of electors on the lists who were eligible to vote under the Special Voting Rules in the last federal election for each riding other than Gander-Twillingate which alone appeared in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on page 799?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. As the lists of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors, prepared pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 37(5) (c) of the Special Voting Rules (Schedule II to the Canada Elections Act), do not include dependant electors, the lists give in fact only a close approximation of the number of electors who are eligible to vote under the Special Voting Rules in a particular electoral district. For that reason it has never been considered advisable to include that information in the report which the Chief Electoral Officer is required to publish pursuant to subsection 58(9) of the Canada Elections Act. However, as under an amendment made to the act in 1970, copies of the lists applicable to each electoral district were forwarded by the Chief Electoral Officer to the appropriate returning officer who had to make them available for inspection during the period of the general election by the candidates officially nominated in that electoral district, pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the act, a number of returning officers, including the returning officer for Gander-Twillingate, did add up the number of names on their lists and included the figure so obtained in their Recapitulation Sheets which served as the basis for the preparation of the statistical report published pursuant to subsection 58(9) of the act. Through an oversight, the figure respecting Gander-Twillingate was included in the report of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Note: The predecessor to the Special Voting Rules, the Canadian Forces Voting Rules (superseded on April 12 , 1971), did not provide for the preparation of lists of Canadian Forces electors by electoral district.
2. Since returning officers were not required to report in their Recapitulation Sheets information respecting the number of Canadian Forces and Public Service electors appearing on the Special Voting Rules lists, and as the lists themselves were destroyed shortly after they were returned by the returning officers because by statute they are not open for inspection outside the period of an election, information is available in respect of only the following electoral districts, where the returning officers reported that information in their Recapitulation Sheets: Abitibi, 191; Ahuntsic, 117; Brandon-Souris, 282; Bruce, 146;

Champlain, 225; Compton, 249; Duvernay, 120; Esquimalt-Saanich, 1,675; Fort William, 150; Halton, 140; Hamilton Mountain, 175; High Park-Humber Valley, 121; Joliette, 162; Kamouraska, 221; Kootenay West, 189; Lambton-Kent, 173; Lincoln, 174; Mackenzie, 153; Manicouagan, 106; Northwest Territories, 38; Outremont, 99; Peace River, 163; Port Arthur, 171; Provencher, 181; Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, 269; Red Deer, 265; Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata, 257; Roberval, 152; Rosedale, 157; Saint John-Lancaster, 713; Saskatchewan-Humboldt, 234; Sault Ste. Marie, 184; Sherbrooke, 299; Skeena, 118; St. Paul's, 112; Stormont-Dundas, 250; Surrey-White Rock, 285; Timmins, 197; Yorkton-Mel-ville, 262; Yukon, 95.


Mr. O'Sullivan.: Did the government purchase a wedding gift for HRH Princess Anne and, if so (a) what was the gift (b) what was its cost, including transportation (c) by whom was it chosen and what criteria were used in its selection?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: The
government of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian people, offered a tapestry by the internationally-renowned Canadian artist, Mariette Rousseau-Vermette, to Her Royal Highness the Princess Anne on the occasion of her wedding to Captain Mark Phillips. In keeping with the occasion and the person to whom the gift was destined, a body of officials and experts considered the selection on its originality, uniqueness, Canadian-ness and artistic value. Protocol demands that discretion be observed in connection with monetary value in matters of this particular nature.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been the total estimated cost of renovating the Confederation Building for offices of Members of Parliament and how was the contract in question awarded and, if tenders were called, what were the names of the firms that submitted tenders and was the successful tenderer the lowest bidder?
2.	How many offices were created in the renovation and, of these, how many are being used by Members of Parliament and how many by staff?
3.	What is the breakdown in the size of offices and suites provided to Members of Parliament?
4.	Was the furnishing of the offices a part of the general contract or were such furnishings provided in a different manner under a separate contract and, if so (a) by what firm or firms (b) were tenders called in every instance and, if so, in each instance (i) by what department (ii) was the lowest bidder awarded the contract (iii) what was the amount of the contract and if there were any exceptions to the low bidder receiving the contract, what are the full details with regard to the calling of tenders, the firms submitting bids and the reason the low bidder did not receive the tender?
5.	How were plans conceived for the (a) renovation (b) redecoration of the Confederation Building and, in each case, were outside consultants involved and, if so (i) what outside consultants (ii) what are the estimated fees that will be paid to said outside consultants (iii) what were the names of the firms and how were they selected?
November 19, 1973

6.	(a) How were the furnishings secured for the offices in the Confederation Building and what was the cost and what firm or firms supplied the furniture and, in every instance, were tenders called and did the lowest bidder receive the contract and, if not, for what reason (b) what were the names of the firms who secured those contracts with all details in relation to the subject?
7.	How many special facilities have been provided for Members of Parliament in the Confederation Building (a) what are they (b) how were they established (c) how many people will be involved in the servicing of these special facilities (d) what will be the estimated cost in salary and wages for the staff in question?
8.	What individuals will be allowed to use the facilities of the cafeteria, the lounge, the barber shop, the sauna and the recreation room in the Confederation Building?
9.	(a) How many mini-buses are provided for travel between the Confederation Building and the Parliament Buildings (b) what was the cost of each mini-bus (c) how many people are involved in the operation of this service (d) what will be the estimated total cost in salaries and wages for the operation of this service?
Return tabled.



APPLICATIONS UNDER CANADA MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM

Mr. Leggatt: 1.	What was the number of applications received under the Canada Manpower Mobility Programme for (a) Exploratory Grants (b) Trainee Travel Grants (c) Relocations Grants in each fiscal year 1972-73 (June 1, 1972 to end) and 1973-74 to date, by province?
2.	In each fiscal year and by province, how many applications for each type of grant were (a) rejected (b) accepted?
3.	In each fiscal year and by province, how many recipients of Exploratory Grants found employment in the area of job opportunity explored?
4.	In each fiscal year and by province, how many recipients of Trainee Travel Grants found employment in the trade for which they were trained under the travel grant?
5.	In each fiscal year, how many recipients of Relocation Grants subsequently registered at Canada Manpower Centres as unemployed?
6.	In each fiscal year and by province, what was the total operating cost of the Programme?
Return tabled.



TOTAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE UNDER ARDA

Mr. Wise: 1.	What were the total government expenditures under ARDA in each year 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	What provinces received money under ARDA and what was the total amount received by each province for each of these years?
3.	For what purpose or projects were ARDA funds utilized for each province for each of these years?
Return tabled.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister concerned about the significant decline in real domestic output in the third quarter, and what remedial measures does he plan to implement?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is talking about the real domestic product. We have not had the third quarter gross figures produced or published yet. They reflect, as I indicated to the House some weeks ago, a certain turndown as a result of the rail strike and other strikes in the third quarter.


MINISTER'S INTENTION RESPECTING IMPLEMENTATION OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF REPORT TO COMMITTEE
Paul Theodore Hellyer: In view of the fact that our real domestic output has begun to decline while our price performance in 1973 has been quite unsatisfactory when compared with six other OECD countries, does the minister intend to implement any or all of the recommendations of the Economic Council? Further, will he agree to refer this report to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take that suggestion under advisement. I see no reason why not but, Mr. Speaker, the problem of growth at the moment is not a shortage of demand but a shortage of supply in many parts of the country, a shortage of materials and of labour, skilled and unskilled.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is, as the minister knows, still a considerable unemployment problem in Canada, which makes it difficult to understand the shortage of supply, but in view of the obvious impact on taxes and inflation of the increasing cost of unemployment insurance benefits, will the minister recommend to his colleagues changes in the act which will make it easier for legitimate claimants for whom the fund was intended and much more difficult for those who abuse the fund as an inexhaustible source for rip-off?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I could not put it any more fully or better than my colleague did some days ago in the House.


POSSIBILITY OF CUT IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact government

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions
expenditures during the five years of this administration have risen by over 63 per cent, and in view of the fact the Economic Council report recommends most strongly to the minister that over the next five years government expenditure increases be held to 5 per cent or under per year, can the minister advise the House if he is considering any cut in the gross expenditures of the government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the percentage of federal expenditures as against the gross national product has remained about constant over that five years, whereas provincial and municipal governments, in terms of their expenditures, have penetrated even farther into the gross national product.
I might point out to the hon. gentleman that he and his colleagues during the last budget debate, when they were arguing about a cash requirement of $2 billion as suggested by the government, said it should be doubled to about $4'/2 billion. I wonder where their change of mind comes from.


MEETING BY TANKERS OF STANDARDS SET AT INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE IN MOVEMENT OF OIL FROM WEST COAST TO EASTERN CANADA
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Inasmuch as the movement of oil by tanker through the Gulf of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca from west coast ports will pose the threat of serious ecological damage if an oil spill takes place, will the minister assure the House that any oil tankers used to transport oil from a west coast port to any port on the east coast will be required at the very least to meet the standards for oil tankers agreed to at the recently concluded IMCO conference, about which the minister spoke so highly and glowingly?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to give the House that assurance. I might also point out that if oil does move from the west coast to the east coast it will be in quantities which are interim only and minute in relation to the vast quantities of oil proposed to be moved from Alaska to the Pacific northwest.


Frank Howard: That is precisely why I asked the question. I did not want us to have a double standard, one applying to ourselves and another to somebody else.


POSSIBLE MOVEMENT OF OIL BY TANKER FROM WEST COAST TO EASTERN CANADA-PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS AGAINST PRICE GOUGING
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a supplementary question with respect to this potential movement of oil out of west coast ports. Inquiries have been made by Gulf Oil, Shell and Golden Eagle and apparently steps are being planned by Trans Mountain Pipe

Line Company to provide oil for shipment through Panama to the east coast. Will the minister establish a monitoring system to ensure that this mechanism of moving oil will not be used to gouge eastern consumers?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. gentleman there is a good probability that the price of oil delivered in this way to eastern Canada could be lower than the price they would have to pay for offshore supplies.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, are we to conclude that the minister will abandon his idea of establishing the domestic price next year based upon the importation of oil into the Montreal area?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir. I would point out that at the moment the price as frozen by the government is lower than it would have been if some of the opponents of the freeze had had their way.

[ Translation]


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Did the minister take any steps to check if the works on La Grande River, at James Bay, have really been interrupted?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not take any steps but according to the information I received the works have now been stopped. Some people are still there on account of the great distances and the isolated site.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Has the hon. minister directly offered the Quebec government to act as a mediator in this conflict and, in the event the proceedings reach the Supreme Court, will his department continue to provide financial assistance to the Indians concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the second part of the question, I must say that we are still responsible for the Indians in Canada and that we shall continue to help them vindicate their rights. As to the first part of the question, indeed I did offer my services to the Indians and the Quebec government.
November 19, 1973


INQUIRY AS TO STATEMENT ON GUIDELINES FOR CONSERVATION THIS WINTER
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister confirm that he will be making a statement on conservation measures this week and that there will not be a delay of a week or two as has been rumoured over the weekend?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with the provincial ministers on Friday of this week.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That has nothing to do with it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has everything to do with it because I think some of the important measures to be taken are within provincial jurisdiction.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: They have already started.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would think it would be desirable to have consultation with the provincial ministers before making an announcement. I would expect, therefore, it would be made a week from today.


Thomas Miller Bell: Since two of the provinces have already gone ahead within their jurisdictions with very commendable conservation measures, and since we all know the minister's record of moving very slowly, will he give an assurance to the House that some leadership will be shown by the government on the very important conservation measures that all other countries that are affected have been taking?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. gentleman that the measures that we indicated to the House some two weeks ago are those that the provinces have been following. I am sure the hon. gentleman would prefer that we have consultation with the provinces before acting in this area.


Thomas Miller Bell: Federal jurisdiction!


OIL-SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF RESIDENT AMBASSADOR TO SAUDI ARABIA
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the statements made by the ministers of Arab oil producing countries that the Arab oil embargo will be partially lifted for many countries in the European Economic Community, and having regard to the fact that Canada was not included in the Arab list and that our current representative in Riyadh lives in Beirut, is the Prime Minister giving consideration to naming a resident ambassador to Saudi Arabia provided he can be sure that the classified reports from that mission will be kept confidential?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


INCREASES IN NATURAL GAS PRICES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-MINISTER'S POSITION-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the increases in gas prices by Westcoast Transmission, encouraged by the British Columbia Energy Commission, of upward of 80 per cent, in this within the guidelines of the voluntary price freeze suggested by the minister some time ago?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the price freeze related to oil rather than natural gas. I have noticed that the NDP government there has increased the price by 81 per cent, and I leave that for reflection.


William Gordon Ritchie: Did the government of British Columbia have any consultations with the minister and the federal government before these increases were made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussions with that government but I must confess I did not expect an 81 per cent increase.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister make representations to the Greek government, as a member of NATO and the United Nations, at this time when students are laying down their lives in the struggle for freedom, expressing the deep concern of the people of Canada about the preservation and recovery of democracy in Greece, the ancient home of democracy?
[Transla tion]


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I take due note of the hon. member's representations.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Again, I wish to address this question to the Prime Minister, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary will give the answer. Would the Prime Minister also make representations urging that student demonstrations in the cause of freedom not be used as an occasion of suppression and denial of human rights?


Pierre De Bané: I am also taking note of these
representations.
7906

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the serious restrictions being placed on our fishermen by the proposed licensing policy as outlined in the minister's statement of November 14 and the implications of this new policy for our fishermen, particularly in Newfoundland, is the minister prepared to say if similar restrictions are being imposed by other ICNAF countries on their fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, no new restrictions are being placed on any of our fisheries. Other countries have limited fleets, but the rule is to subsidize the industry where it shows capability of expansion.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the minister's statement in which he said that a licensing program would be imposed on the fishermen and fishermen without a licence would not be able to fish. That must mean restriction. Is the minister aware of the social implications of this policy for the province of Newfoundland in that, in addition to placing unfair restrictions on Canada as a coastal state, it would have the effect of destroying a centuries old way of life in Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, certain segments of the industry can be expanded very considerably to take advantage of quotas which have been negotiated internationally and where we have a prospect of making a very good return on new investment in new vessels.


PROPOSED LICENSING POLICY FOR EAST COAST
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the serious economic and social implications of the minister's policy statement for the people of Newfoundland, is the minister prepared to have this matter referred to the fisheries committee so that it can serve as a vehicle to hold public hearings before this restrictive policy is implemented?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, certainly the matter can, should and will be referred to the committee. It has already been extensively discussed, however, with the industry, with the fishermen and with the provincial fisheries service and, broadly speaking, they all endorse the policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, as the policy is to be implemented by the first of the year and as the people of Newfoundland do not fully appreciate yet the very serious implications of the policy, will the minister postpone the implementation date so that the people of Newfoundland will have a chance to realize exactly what is happening to them?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the registration of vessels begins on January 1. Some vessels are already registered; others should be. That is all that begins on January 1. So far as the numbers of vessels are concerned and the granting of subsidies in some areas but not in others, this is certainly a matter for further discussion.


EAST COAST-AREAS AND SPECIES INVOLVED IN BAN ON NEW FISHERMEN
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's own words that in certain areas of the continental shelf and with regard to certain species no new entrants will be permitted, no new registrations and no new vessels-I think that spells out the restrictions to which the hon. member was referring-have he and his bureaucrats decided what areas we will not be permitted to fish in terms of new entrants and the species that are on the restricted list?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the species on the restricted list were spelled out in my statement last week. Herring is one example; lobster in the Maritime provinces is another.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to tell us which areas and which species are involved. He indicated in his statement that only in areas which are considered underexploited will new entrants be permitted. Have the minister and with his officials determined which geographic areas of the great expanse of the northwest Atlantic are underexploited and which areas are overexploited? Can he tell us if other countries have the same restrictions on involvement by their fishermen with regard to specific areas?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are no restrictions envisaged other than with respect to the species mentioned in my statement last week such as lobster and herring.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena and the hon. member for Humbert-St. George's-St. Barbe have supplementaries. I will first recognize the hon. member for Skeena.


EFFECTS OF SALMON LICENCE LIMITATION PROGRAM IN BRITISH COLUMBIA-STEPS TO PREVENT SIMILAR RESULTS IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he had an examination made of the salmon licence limitation program in effect for some years now in British Columbia to determine the injury it has caused to the salmon industry there, the fishermen in particular, and the confusion created by it? Following that examination, will the minister take whatever steps he can to prevent a similar visitation upon the people of his own province?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: If that question gets by Your Honour

November 19, 1973

as being non-argumentative, I will be glad to answer it to the extent I can. I will take it as notice and try to give a more detailed reply later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EAST COAST-REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF INSHORE FISHERMEN FROM NEW POLICY RESTRICTIONS
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact inshore fishermen are the victims of the over exploitation the minister is endeavouring to stop, will he exempt inshore fishermen from the restrictions he is imposing?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, essentially the inshore fishermen taking groundfish are exempted from the provisions of the statement I made last week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe will be recognized for a last supplementary and then the hon. member for Scarborough West who has a supplementary to the previous question.


Jack Marshall: Will the minister agree and direct that the matter contained in my motion today be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that representatives of all parties may hear the views of Atlantic fishermen before any action is taken?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to answer questions on that subject at any time in the committee.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary to that of the hon. member for Greenwood to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the armoured and military equipment used by the Greek government during the weekend to suppress mass demonstrations were supplied through NATO, will the Canadian government raise the issue of the Greek membership within NATO during the NATO defence ministers' meeting in December, in Brussels?


Pierre De Bané: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions ENERGY


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF BODY TO INVESTIGATE PRICE INCREASES PROPOSED BY OIL COMPANIES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the fact that whole milk producers must submit milk price increases to a government board and that relevant public notices must be published in newspapers so that consumers may give their opinions, does the minister intend to propose similar measures for oil companies requiring them to proceed in the same way before they can increase their prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand to which product the hon. member referred at the beginning of his question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, since it is an issue of national interest, I will repeat my question.
In view of the fact that whole milk producers must submit milk price increases to a government board and that relevant public notices must be published in newspapers so that consumers may give their opinions, does the minister intend to propose similar measures for oil companies requiring them to proceed in the same way before they can increase their prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having repeated his question, but I can assure him that I will not propose similar measures.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This time I hope the minister will hear the supplementary question of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, given the explicit answer of the minister as well as the ever increasing public concern and since companies are allowed to increase their prices without any warning and without being subjected to any regulation as in other economic sectors, especially the one I referred to, can the minister say whether he intends to propose other measures to protect consumers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the problem is as follows: in eastern Canada we depend on off-shore imports for our crude oil supplies. This is why we do not have the same control as for production cost of whole milk.
26635-70*

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions


PURCHASES OF FUEL OIL ON GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT-SUGGESTED TAKING OF OPTIONS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the minister explain his many references in the House to purchases of fuel oil made by the Canadian Commercial Corporation when in fact that corporation has not purchased a gallon of oil to date?
[ Translation]


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple, the Canadian Commercial Corporation has constantly been mentioned while I referred to the fact that my department had purchased oil. Anyhow, the government has purchased oil through the Minister of Supply and Services.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister agree that rather than purchasing the oil his department might be better advised if it were simply to take options capable of being exercised or not at a later date?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the oil market is very tight right now. It is now important to find as much oil as possible to face the shortage that will occur in eastern Canada. If we could do it under perfect conditions, at prices which are more advantageous than those we are negotiating, we would do so. If we could simply get these options and be satisfied with them, we would. In fact, we made firm purchases and we got a part of this quantity of oil under option. So, we act according to the market possibilities which are extremely difficult.

[ English]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. Over a year ago the Canadian Radio-Television Commission issued a public statement that pay television in Canada would be carried on through federally-licensed broadcasting and receiving undertakings. It now appears that the National Film Board is negotiating with Canadian National hotels to have unlicensed pay television run by Columbia Pictures under the name of Trans-World in the hotels. I should like to know whether there has been a complete reversal of policy since a year ago.
[ Transla tion]


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, there was no change in policy. This agency is not under the responsibility of my department and I personally do not know which transactions may have taken place, between the National Film Board and the CN or CP hotels.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate that the minister is not responsible for the Film Board but he is certainly responsible for the CRTC. Would he look into this matter, and can he tell us today the status of the meeting of ministers of communication at the end of this month. Will it be an open meeting? Can observers be present? Has there yet been agreement upon a definite agenda?
[ Translation]


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Within the logic of the decision taken by the provincial ministers of communications to admit members of the media and newspapermen to the conference, it became imperative that observers and parliamentarians be admitted also and thus it will be a completely open conference. As to the second part of the hon. member's question, I will answer the agenda is established with as much accuracy as we could obtain through agreement with the provincial departments. I will not say to the hon. member that I am satisfied with the degree of accuracy we have reached but, apparently, it was the maximum degree of exactness we could reach by consensus with provincial ministers.


SUGGESTED DELIVERIES BY FARMERS ON MONTHLY BASIS-CLEARING UP OF BACKLOG
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice responsible for the Wheat Board. Now that the Wheat Board has committed itself to final payments at a certain level and since deliveries to the terminals are hopelessly behind, has the minister any plans whereby deliveries may be made on a monthly basis so that farmers will at least have an idea as to what they can deliver in the next few months?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: The Wheat Board has estimated what the final payments will be. It has not made any commitment as to the final payments, as the hon. member suggests. Delivery opportunities will be offered to farmers as fast as the grain can be moved forward. Farmers now know the extent of guaranteed minimum quota levels for the year on wheat, barley and oats and a cash advance program is available to them in case delivery opportunities do not arise as fast as they would wish.


Stanley James Korchinski: Does the minister anticipate that the backlog, which amounts to something in the order of 75 million bushels, will be cleared by January or February? Does he have any deadline at all in mind for catching up?


Otto Emil Lang: The volumes of grain on hand at the west coast and Thunder Bay are gradually growing. The challenge is to get enough grain, particularly barley and oats, into Thunder Bay and then into eastern positions before the winter, and to find alternatives if this cannot be accomplished. The question of the backlog is, in the end, really a question of the volume of grain we can export this year after three years of exporting more than we have
November 19, 1973

been producing. We shall do that once more this year but obviously a target of about 800 million bushels may be a reasonable one to achieve.


DATES OF ISSUANCE OF PRICE LISTS FOR FEED GRAINS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Can the minister tell the House when the next price list for feed grains will be issued if it has not already been issued this weekend? Will the minister ask the Wheat Board to establish dates on which these prices will be regularly stated so that the trade and the farmers may know when to expect them?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe the most recent prices will have been announced in Winnipeg a matter of minutes ago following the pattern established several months ago, namely, the announcement of these prices every two weeks on Monday afternoon. This is Monday, and the hon. member may expect another announcement two weeks from now.


PRICE OF FUEL OIL TO WESTERN FARMERS
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question similar to the one asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Since the government is in the position of establishing set prices for farm produce in this area, can he also guarantee farmers that they will not be required to pay more than a set price for fuel oil in western Canada since it is produced there?


Otto Emil Lang: In this case the price is not set by the government but on the basis of a policy which the government has determined, namely, that the price should be on the same basis in all parts of the country. The feed grain price is, in fact, set by the farmers according to their choice when they deliver in the off-board market.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister put to rest the suggestion that senior staff in his department are resisting moving to the Atlantic provinces which, if correct, demonstrates serious opposition to the policy of the government and a very ill-informed view of the pleasures of living and working in the Maritimes and Newfoundland?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to put that to rest. As I have indicated on a couple of
Oral Questions
previous occasions, there were some minor problems with some people with regard to moving, but I do not think any of this reflects upon the Atlantic provinces in any way. I am happy to say that progress has been made and, indeed, the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Atlantic provinces has already been appointed and his name announced.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture, in whose surreptitious and silent return to this country we rejoice openly. Can the minister indicate when the five cents a quart milk subsidy will be made applicable to Prince Edward Island, and can he reveal the causes for the inordinate delay, for which Premier Campbell blames the federal government?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all I can report is that negotiations are still going on. It would be unparliamentary for me to say what stage the negotiations have reached at this time.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. I do so with some urgency because of the developing situation in the cities of Halifax and Dartmouth as a result of the port strike. Can the minister report any progress from the mediator he kindly named last week, and at the same time can the minister indicate whether or not he is going ahead with some contingency plan to restore port activity in the event that mediation breaks down?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely unfair to talk in terms of mediation breaking down. I would advise the hon. member that Mr. Gibbons is arriving in Halifax today and meeting with the parties. Perhaps I will be able to give the hon. member more information tomorrow after I receive a report from him later today.


TAXATION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether he has any plans to

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions
remove or to adjust downward the federal sales tax on all clothing and footwear following the move made by the premier of Prince Edward Island who took this course of action recently?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, any plans to that effect would have to be announced, if affirmatively, in a budget. I would recall to the hon. gentleman that this government reduced the sales tax on children's clothing and footwear as long ago as last February, when it eliminated sales tax and tariffs on $1,400 million worth of consumer goods.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary. I wonder whether the minister would tell the House if he has any plans to remove or downwardly adjust any tax that the government has imposed in an attempt to give the Canadian consumer a break?



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister advise whether he is in agreement with the Economic Council's conclusion that unemployment insurance payments are transfer of welfare payments? In other words, unemployment insurance to the Economic Council of Canada is the same as welfare.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have an opportunity of examining that report in detail before making a detailed reply, but I doubt very much that I would be in agreement with the terms the hon. member has used.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, then the hon. member for Charlevoix, the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the statement I have just made has some truth, in view of the inconsistency of the statements made by the minister and the department with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Hastings, would the minister now see to it that the whole matter of unemployment insurance is passed to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in order that the whole question can be looked into, with a view to having the act revert to a true UIC bill and so the allegations of the hon. member for Hastings can be answered? Unless this is done we have no opportunity of questioning the minister and his departmental officials in depth.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to discuss questions concerning the Unemployment Insurance Commission will present itself in the normal course of examination of the estimates by the committee. In the meantime I would welcome with a great deal of enthusiasm an opportunity of dealing with the rather curious, out of date and biased comments of the hon. member for Hastings.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West is rising on a question of privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the hon. member for Hastings here today, but I know he would want me on his behalf to take advantage of this situation to point out to the minister that the hon. member has had no opportunity whatsoever of probing the UIC. In view of the minister's statement in which he called the hon. member's paper, which I think was a very critical analysis, biased, the hon. member should be given every opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -as should all hon. members, to probe these inconsistencies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Charlevoix.



JUSTIFICATION FOR OIL PRICE INCREASES IN EASTERN CANADA

Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Following the answer he has given just now to my colleague that prices in eastern Canada were subject to increases on the international market, can the minister tell if his department did make a study on the price increase in eastern Quebec and if so, has it been really determined whether the increase reflects exactly the international increase in oil prices or if some companies do not take advantage of the opportunity to raise their prices without any valid reasons?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in the light of investigations made up to this day, we think that the companies have followed the policy on this matter but we have to point out that this policy does not apply at the retail level and that it is quite possible that retailers have individually taken advantage of the opportunity to increase their retail price.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only a few minutes left before the oral question period ends.

The Chair will recognize first the hon. member for Assiniboia.
November 19, 1973



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the Co-operative Union of Canada, which represents millions of Canadians who belong to the co-operative movement, has asked the minister about the possibility of expanding the marketing and research that is made available to co-operatives to the point where there is at least an assistant deputy minister in charge of operations, would the minister inform the House whether this kind of action has in fact been taken?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a step in that direction by appointing for the first time in the history of the Department of Agriculture people to look after co-ops in regard to research and gathering and providing information on behalf of the government. This operation has just commenced, and what the hon. member asks for may well become fact sooner than he or I think.


William George Knight: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary but again I point out to hon. members that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that since 1970 there has been a massive increase in the number of upper echelon public servants in Ottawa, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether he would give consideration to moving many of these public servants and establishing a new co-operatives department which would give initiative in terms of tackling this new area of endeavour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
In view of the well known outcome of the proceedings against Dr. Morgentaler can the Minister of Justice inform the House whether he intends to tighten the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to abortion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on the specific decision itself, which I understand is under appeal, but I can say that I have asked my officials to look at the question whether a reference of this issue is reasonable, and to discuss the
Oral Questions
question with the provincial authorities in view of the importance of determining the issue as quickly as possible.


Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the recent court decision it would appear we now have abortion on demand in Canada. Would the minister say whether that is government policy or, if not, is he is prepared to bring in legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the expense involved in renovating, furnishing and heating the old mansion at Meach Lake for last Saturday's cabinet meeting, is it the intention of the government to turn the renovated building into a national historic site and allow it to be used as a summer residence for the leader of the NDP in return for past favours-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair thought the hon. member was promoting it as a residence for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the extreme shortages being experienced by the petroleum refining industry and in view of the fact that benzine and other related products are very essential to the plastics industry, I should like to ask the minister what steps he proposes to take or has taken to make these products available to the plastic industry in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in consultation with the users of these products as well as the producers of these products. We are doing everything we can do to ensure that the users get the necessary supplies.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Is the minister contemplating putting on export permits or introducing a quota system?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, at the present time no, but this is under continuing review.

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF WORKERS AS WELL AS INDIANS-DISCUSSION WITH QUEBEC

Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister said earlier in reply to an answer that he was always ready to stand for the interests of the Indians. Since the decision handed down by Mr. Justice Malouf did he contact the premier of the province of Quebec to solve the conflict and vindicate the interests of either the workers or the Indians affected by that decision?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I talked to the premier of Quebec several times during the weekend. I met with his representative this morning. Friday night I met with the Indians and Eskimos in Montreal and we agreed to undertake rapid negotiations so as to meet the legitimate claims of Indians and protect the rights of workers employed in that area.



APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ONTARIO TO CANADA GRAINS COMMISSION-DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND SALARY

Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently an assistant commissioner for Ontario was appointed to the Canadian Grains Commission. In view of the fact that the Canadian Grains Act section dealing with licensing elevators in eastern Canada has not been proclaimed to date, can the minister tell the House the specific duties and responsibilities of the Ontario assistant commissioner and whether his salary is on the same level as his four western counterparts?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency, it can be considered at the time of adjournment.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that people who have completely recovered from epilepsy or have the malady entirely under control are still being discriminated against when applying for positions of employment, would the minister take the necessary steps to remove this stigma from all applications for employment and thus end this discriminatory practice which has

played such havoc and hardship in respect of all those concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member I have sympathy for the theme he is developing. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to supply me with further particulars so I can investigate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York East and then call orders of the day.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns refugees from Chile. The Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke in the House last Friday of the willingness of Canada to accept Chilean refugees who wish to come to Canada. In view of the fact it is traditional for Latin-American countries themselves to accept refugees from neighbouring countries, why does the government of Canada feel it necessary to facilitate the entry into this country of these communists?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is argument and is not acceptable. Orders of the day.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the answers by the Minister of Fisheries to our questions regarding the licensing of fishermen and the effect it will have on Newfoundland fishermen. On November 14 the minister issued a statement which is entitled in Hansard: "Statement on Fleet Expansion in Atlantic Coast Industry, Subsidies and Licensing". The minister would have the House believe that these restrictions will not have any implications so far as the average fisherman in Newfoundland is concerned. I should like to quote, if I may, a few excerpts from the minister's statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the hon. member but I hope he will indicate what the point of order is or on what he founds his alleged point of order. We should not have a debate. The hon. member, after the question period, seeks the floor for a debate. I would hope the hon. member would guide and assist the Chair on this point.


Walter C. Carter: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister in his answers has misled the House. In his statement to which I referred a moment ago he said:
A word with respect to licensing, Mr. Speaker .. New entrants will be encouraged as long as they do not add, unnecessarily, to the over-all pressure on fish . . . all vessels skippers and operators will be licensed . . . all craft, skippers, crews and other operators which have a history in the industry will, automatically, have a right to fish . . . New vessel registrations in the groundfish fishery will be encouraged for underexploited species and areas.
In this statement the minister clearly indicated his department's intention to place restrictions on fishermen,
November 19, 1973

in Newfoundland particularly, in respect of new entrants into the industry. If that is not restriction, I do not know what the word means.


Mr. Speaker:: It may or may not be a restriction, but the hon. member will appreciate again that this is hardly a point of order. It is a point of debate between the member or hon. members and the minister. I suggest to hon. members with respect that we cannot have a debate under the heading of a call to orders of the day. I suggest that, with respect, to the hon. member.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It will have to be a different point of order. I have already made my ruling that this is not a point of order but is debate. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House, I would suggest to all hon. members, make it necessary for hon. members to be honest in their questions and answers. In the past two weeks we have had two events happen in Canada. One was that a broadly travelled minister went across the country telling the fishermen of Canada that we would own the resources off our shelf. Subsequently we had a white paper or green paper or blue paper presented to the committee on external affairs indicating Canada's position to be taken at the Law of the Sea Conference. This indicated clearly that Canada would push for management and control of this resource.
Last Thursday the minister brought in a program which he announced in the House wherein he indicated that our fishermen in regard to certain species would have certain restrictions placed on them. Our members have no objection to certain restrictions with regard to lobsters and crabs, but he went further to refer to coastal species and areas of the northwest Atlantic where no new entrants would be encouraged. My colleague from St. John's West has just referred, as he did in questions, to the minister's statement and the minister today sat in his place and indicated that there would be no new restrictions placed on fishermen.
Your Honour, I can quote from four different places in the statement made by the minister last Thursday to indicate very clearly the extent of the restrictions that will be placed not only on every fisherman in the Atlantic region but even in terms of the further development of our smaller communities. We are very concerned about his statement in Hansard of Thursday last. It is inadequate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I say to the hon. member, as I have to the hon. member for St. John's West, that he is rising on what he calls a point of order. I suggest to him and to all hon. members that this has nothing to do with a point of order. The hon. member is arguing that the statement made by a minister is not correct. That cannot be the subject of a point of order. This is debate. The minister or another member might rise on a point of order and say he thinks the hon. member himself is wrong. Where that would lead in relation to orderly debate in the House I do not know. I really think that this matter should not be pursued by way of a point of order.
Oral Questions


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to complete my point of order. I can quote four different passages in the minister's statement-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: -indicating that he is deliberately misleading the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: -and the people of my province.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member is charging another hon. member with deliberately misleading the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: What else is he doing?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member kindly give the Chair a chance to express itself. The hon. member has, in other circumstances, used what I thought was language which was not parliamentary. He is again doing the same thing today. I call to his attention that he cannot tell another hon. member that he is deliberately misleading the House, whether that hon. member is a cabinet minister, a frontbencher or a backbencher. This relates to basic proprieties in the House, and I would hope that hon. members would keep that in mind in their debates. It seems to me it should be possible to have debate in the Parliament of Canada without using unparliamentary language and making charges. That is entirely wrong, and I think the hon. member will have to withdraw his remark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: At the time to which you, Sir, referred, I indicated that the minister was telling lies, but out of respect for Your Honour and after a delay of three or four days, and with the knowledge that the matter would be handled by a committee, I backed away from that position even though the fact that I backed away from it was an admission on my part that I was not willing to uphold the truth, which is a very serious situation. The minister goes about the country telling half truths. Today he comes here and say something which is completely contradictory of the facts he placed on the record on Thursday. On Thursday he indicated a program which will have very serious implications for our people, but today he says he did not say that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will not back away an inch.


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member, with great respect, that he can feel very strongly about the matter if he wishes. I know that when we have had difficulties in the past the hon. member has felt very strongly at the time and he had every reason to feel

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions
strongly, just as he has the right at this time in relation to this particular incident to feel very strongly. But that does not justify the hon. member using language and making charges which, by more than 100 years of parliamentary practice, are not accepted by all hon. members and should not be accepted by them.
That is why I suggest to the hon. member that he should again, as he did the last time, in co-operation not with the Chair but with the institution of parliament and with the House of Commons as well as with his colleagues on both sides of the House, accept these restrictions, since we are talking of restrictions, which place limitations on the language we can use. I know that the hon. member feels very strongly about this kind of debate, but it seems to me that in this instance he got carried away a little too far. It would be much easier for the House and certainly for the Chair, as well as for the orderly conduct of business, if the hon. member would indicate that he is prepared to cooperate with the Chair as he has always done in the past.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps it is time in our parliamentary system-and I am no great parliamentary reformer-


An hon. Member:: No, you are not.


John Howard Lundrigan: -perhaps we have reached the stage in our parliamentary history, especially since we brought in the new rules a few years ago and especially in view of the restrictions on the question period and the type of answers we are getting these days, to take a serious look at whether these ministers should be allowed, on the one hand, not to answer questions and, on the other hand, to give information which is not in accordance with the facts. Perhaps the minister could clear up the whole mess if he would stand up and admit that the answers he gave to my colleagues were not in accordance with the earlier statement he made. I am more interested in the quality of our performance as members than I am in a silly rule of 100 years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Rules, even though they are 100 years old, are not necessarily silly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It is hon. members who elect the Speaker, and there has to be some semblance of order in any kind of public assembly. Members in any assembly get together and choose one of their members, who is elected in the same way as all of them and who represents a number of constituents. That person is selected by the House, by his colleagues and peers, to try to have the rules respected. The Chair does not make the rules.
The hon. member suggests that the rules should be changed. I see nothing wrong with an evolving, moving and progressing institution such as parliament, and it may well be that the rule to which the hon. member takes exception is wrong and should be changed. But as long as it is there I am sure the hon. member himself would expect the Chair to see that this rule is enforced. It relates only to the use of certain words and certain language which when used, I suggest, complicates the proper conduct of our business. This is why I am asking the hon. member to change the wording that he has used. This is not the end of

the world. The hon. member has indicated that another member has misled the House, has given wrong information to the House. It is quite possible, according to the rules, to make that kind of charge. It is possible for a member to say of another member that he has given false information to the House, that he is wrong, that he is incorrect, indeed, that he is misleading the House. What is wrong is to charge another hon. member with deliberately misleading the House. This is a moral accusation, and I think that is why it is wrong. I doubt whether this is really what the hon. member wanted to do, and I hope he will find some way of assisting me in this respect.


John Howard Lundrigan: For the last year we have had the same circumstance occurring, and I am very serious about this. In the previous instance, regarding the minister's statement in New Brunswick when I indicated he was guilty of an offence, I backed away from that and I think I was dishonest with myself in doing so. He is guilty almost every day of telling the country half truths, and again today-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: He must change his attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says he is not backing away from anything. Does he expect the Chair to back away from the enforcement of rules? It has to be one or the other. I have to ask the hon. member to make it possible for the Speaker to do his work in the House of Commons. It must be one or the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Other rules are respected. As the hon. member knows, I am pleading with him to make it possible for the proceedings of the House to be conducted in an orderly and civilized manner. I think hon. members have the responsibility, and I cannot think of a single member who does not have that responsibility to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The Chair simply asks an hon. member, instead of accusing another hon. member of deliberately misleading the House, to change only one word to facilitate the task of the House and allow us to go on with our business. It seems to me that that is not asking so much. I take into account the fact that the hon. member feels very strongly about this matter. As he looks around him he sees that members sympathize with his position, and I would hope he would want to have sympathy for the position of the Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder perhaps if we could allow a little time for this matter to cool off and to give us a chance to examine the record and what the minister did say.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not according to the practice of the House. It is the fact that the words are used, not what was said or what was done, that is relevant at this time. It is simply that a charge is made by a member and that words are used that ought not to be used.
November 19, 1973

I think it would be difficult, indeed unacceptable, to suggest that the Chair and other hon. members be given an opportunity to look at the record.
Reference has been made to another incident. In that incident there were considerable difficulties in that there was noise in the House. No one knew exactly who said what, and I felt to be fair to hon. members that I should be given an opportunity to look at the record, which in fact made it even more difficult the next day to make a ruling. That is why, in such circumstances, I think there is really nothing to be gained by delaying the difficulty with which we are faced.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: I plead with the hon. member in that if he does not withdraw I will have the very unpleasant task of naming him. I have been Speaker of this House for eight years, and I have never had to go to this extreme. I think it really hurts the House of Commons, and hurts our image when we are placed in that position. This is why I think that out of respect for the institution, for the House itself and for all hon. members, individual members have a duty and an obligation to co-operate with the Chair, and make it at least half easy for the Chair to make a ruling.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise only for a moment to express what I believe is the wish of the entire House that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) respond to your request. I appeal to him that what is at issue is not the difference of opinion between himself and the minister, not the question of what he thinks about the way that minister performs, or his own view of what he said, but the only issue at this moment is the authority of the Chair which speaks for the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Chair has said that a statement that a minister deliberately sought to mislead the House should be withdrawn. I think the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will rise higher in our estimation if he will bring this incident to a close by a simple withdrawal.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am not unaware of the interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the good conduct of the House, and I am not unaware of that good conduct myself. But, Your Honour, we have got responsibilities over and above certain things which are not pleasant, and this is not pleasant. We have had occasions here when, with respect to the minister, there were presentations to the House which were misleading. Again, we have seen it today-a clear cut example of it.
I think myself that if we want to improve the quality of the performances of the members of the cabinet we have to make some serious representations through Your Honour to have some of our rules modified. I, personally, from now on, if it takes me the rest of my political career, which might last just one minute, will try to see to it that this minister will hold to some semblance of the truth in any presentation to the House of Commons.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Again the hon. member, in his last words, has not indicated very much that he is prepared to assist the House. I say it is not a question of assisting the Chair but of assisting the House and hon. members, because this is a matter which affects all members. I would again ask him to reflect, to act wisely, and prudently, and kindly, and with charity towards all members and towards the Chair in saying, in admitting or in accepting that he has transgressed the rule in the words he has used, that in fact he did suggest that another member deliberately misled the House. I think if he said simply that the minister or the member has misled the House, that would be most acceptable, and then we could go on to other matters.


John Howard Lundrigan: Your Honour, my House leader has just passed me a note which reminds me of one very unpleasant event in our party today, which perhaps places us in a position of some responsibility. I am going to say now that tomorrow I am going to say the minister has misled the House, and if the minister is prepared tomorrow to stand in his place and correct the record, which will be obvious to him then, having had that 24 hour period, Your Honour will not be forced to make a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to make a decision now. It is not tomorrow that I want to make a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member says that he is prepared to say today only that, in his view, a statement made by another member is misleading-if I understand correctly, these are the words which the hon. member would like to use-then I think a ruling should be made today.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: I think I have been as helpful as the Chair can be, and I have allowed as much time as possible to make sure I was not acting under pressure, without complete equanimity, and with every possible ounce of charity in my heart. That is why I am again appealing to the hon. member to share the charity that I have to the House. Knowing the particular regard that I have for the hon. member, I would hope that that perhaps might help him to help me.


John Howard Lundrigan: I have already indicated that I am quite willing today to indicate to the House that the minister has made a statement which is misleading, and is not in accordance with the statement he made on Thursday. I am hoping tomorrow he will not enjoy the unfortunate spectacle of having Your Honour placed in a very difficult position. I don't enjoy this any more than Your Honour does. It is not the kind of position that leads to great popularity, political or otherwise, and I hope that tomorrow the minister will stand in his place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Tomorrow will be another problem, another question. What I have suggested to the hon. member is that for today in any event he adopt a certain course. He says he said it. I did not hear that very clearly. If he says now that he is not saying the minister has deliberately misled the House, then certainly I will accept his statement. As I said, tomorrow is another day, and the day after tomorrow is again another day. There

November 19, 1973
Oral Questions
may be other difficulties. Maybe this will all be cleared up in other days. But for today there has to be a clear understanding that the hon. member has withdrawn his statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make one more brief effort. In view of the disclosure of the note from the House leader of the Official Opposition to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, I wonder if he, the House leader for the Progressive Conservatives, would join with me and others in requesting the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate to co-operate with the Chair.


John Howard Lundrigan: This is a form of bloody persecution. This is a form of persecution, a form of blackmail and persecution. This member stands in his place! I have already indicated to Your Honour that I am quite willing to stand by the remarks I have made respecting the minister's statement. I have seen members stand in their places-I could point them out in dozens-and make statements along the lines that I made today without nearly all the fuss and cut up in this place today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), flexing his muscles about his knowledge of parliamentary procedure, is placing other members in a difficult position. I only hope he would keep his nose clean-keep his nose out of this entirely.
I have indicated that I am willing to say that I have made a statement that the minister has made a statement which is misleading the House. I have said that two or three times. I hope that he will come in here tomorrow, stand in his place and correct his statement. If not I will place him in a most embarrassing position.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, since I have been mentioned as opposition House leader I think I should say, first of all, that we have a different idea of individuality in our party than some other members of the House have, but it is not my intention to raise any partisanship in this debate. I simply feel that there is now a way out to have this matter set over until tomorrow. Three times the hon. member has used the word "mislead" but not the word or phrase "deliberately," which I think is the word that would be bothersome to the Chair. So if there could be an acceptance of only the use of the word "misleading" we have got over the impasse for the time being at least.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is not here to make complications for hon. members. I have asked the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) to change his remarks. Now, whether he has to the extent that the Chair ought to be satisfied, and whether he has changed it to the extent that the other hon. member of parliament who is involved ought to be satisfied-he has not indicated whether he is or not and that, in itself, does not facilitate the task of the Chair. The hon. member says that he would like the matter left over until tomorrow so he can look at the record. Certainly, the Chair cannot make a ruling on that basis. The hon. member said that, for the moment, what he says is that the minister has misled the House. It may be that the Chair, exercising extreme leniency, would say that that constitutes a withdrawal. I would accept the

hon. member's statement only in this way, that I would myself consider it as a withdrawal of the words which he had said and these words are that another member has deliberately misled the House.
He says now that he has said three times what he is saying now, that another member has misled the House. Perhaps I should be prepared to accept these words. I am not sure whether other hon. members standing in my place would not be prepared to do that. The situation is not easy. My responsibility is to ensure that the House will continue to function with equanimity and with some measure of efficiency, so perhaps I should be prepared to accept the hon. member's half-hearted withdrawal. I wonder whether the Chair should be placed in the position where I have to extract the full pound of flesh or whether I should be satisfied with something less than that.
The hon. member cannot agree that he has made the situation easy by his half withdrawal of the offending words. The hon. member having done this, perhaps I should be prepared to see what the hon. member will want to do tomorrow and accept for today the hon. member's half withdrawal.
Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 15, consideration of Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock on last Thursday night we were discussing the merits of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I heartily support the amendment for the reasons I detailed at that time.
I should like to point out that, with development and investment which affects the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, it is very important that the residents of the area have a say in what is to be allowed. Natural resources are vested in the provinces and under their provincial control; in the territories, they are under the control of the federal government so that decisions affecting the resources could be made without the people of the territories knowing anything about them. This is a very important matter in the Yukon and that portion of the Northwest Territories that is close to Alaska, because of the development following the discoveries made at Prudhoe Bay.
November 19, 1973

The Yukon and the Northwest Territories will be affected in years to come by what happens to the oil and gas in Alaska and the Mackenzie delta; presumably it will eventually come south. It has already been decided that an oil pipeline will run from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, in spite of the discussion about the possibility of a Mackenzie valley pipeline. Should the pipeline through the Mackenzie valley come to pass, the question of Indian rights will be an important consideration. There has already been one very important court decision about the ownership of land in similar circumstances, the ecological effects of development and so on. It is important that the native people in the affected area have an input in all decisions. The United States has already decided upon the Alaskan oil pipeline. Had the alternative of the Mackenzie valley pipeline been decided upon, it would have meant a great deal of drilling and development work as much of the oil lies close to where the pipeline would go.
El Paso Natural Gas hopes to take gas from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez through a pipeline paralleling the Alaskan oil pipeline. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories there are proven reserves of approximately seven trillion cubic feet, and it is estimated that there is another 100 trillion cubic feet in the Mackenzie valley and the Beaufort sea, while the North Slope has proven gas reserves of 26 trillion cubic feet and estimated reserves of up to 400 trillion cubic feet. This is more than double the potential reserves of the lower 48 states.
Similarly in the Canadian north, our proven and estimated reserves are double the reserves present in the northern frontier areas. Reserves of 7 trillion cubic feet are not enough to support a pipeline down the Mackenzie Valley to Canadian markets, and North Slope gas will be necessary if that pipeline is to be feasible. So it is most important, Mr. Speaker, that the people who live in those areas and who are represented by the territorial councils, should have some say about the possibility of a pipeline. If this is to come about we can estimate the cost at $5 billion. Most of this money will have to come from the great financial institutions to the south, and of course this investment will be reviewed by a board of civil servants based in Ottawa. It is easy to see, Mr. Speaker, that the decisions made could be detrimental to the people in the areas affected and to the development of those areas. I think it is important for those areas to which I have referred to be allowed to decide whether or not there is to be investment in those areas. Certainly, in northern Canada more than in southern Canada, it is likely that foreign investment will be necessary, as in the southern part of the country resources can be more easily developed without foreign participation.
It seems likely that El Paso will be required to move North Slope gas through Alaska. That is perhaps another reason why supporters of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline are not likely to see a pipeline built in the immediate future. It is a fact that many Canadians do not see the advantage of combining North Slope and Delta gas in one system. I say this because many feel that Canadian Delta gas should be left in the ground for some time into the future. I think this position is quite unrealistic. I think the development of the remote delta areas would bring impor-
Foreign Investment Review Act tant effects for those who live in the Yukon as well as in the Mackenzie Valley. Such development would lead to increased economic activity, that is, to greater development, more jobs and so on. Unless something like this is done, the development of these other areas may be seriously compromised.
To repeat, I support this amendment. I think it is necessary. I think amendments which give the provinces greater input in the decision-making process ought to be pushed strongly. The same argument applies even more strongly to the territories. They are a long way from Ottawa. The federal government owns the resources in the ground where the development will take place. I hope the government will see fit to accept the amendment at the proper time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to Motion No. 2, which stands in my name on behalf of my party. I say at the outset, as others have indicated, that the subamendment has merit. I support it wholeheartedly.
As I said earlier when I directed a question to the hon. member proposing the subamendment, it would be useful to have on record the definition of territory and territorial council, as those terms apply to this legislation. The relevant definition is set out in section 3.(1) of the Interpretation Act, which reads;
Every provision of this Act extends and applies, unless a contrary intention appears, to every enactment, whether enacted before or after the commencement of this Act.
The definition section of the Interpretation Act says:
'province' means a province of Canada, and includes the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories;
Having said that, I feel that I was perhaps derelict in not talking over that interpretation in the first place with the hon. member for Timiskaming when he introduced his subamendment.
As the hon. member who has just spoken said clearly, the territories need as much protection, as the provinces, if not more. The mineral wealth in provinces is under provincial jurisdiction, whereas the mineral wealth in the territories at present is under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government. The people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories do not have the protection of provincial legislatures. Their governing counsels do not have the vested interest in their resources which provinces have in theirs.
Basically, the hon. member for Timiskaming seems to be showing concern for the rights of the territories vis-a-vis the provinces. He is concerned about the status of the territories as compared with the status of the provinces, in much the same way as we are concerned about the status of the provinces, as compared with the powers and prerogatives of the federal government. It is wrong to suggest, as the minister has by implication, that in this amendment we are discussing the veto power of the provinces, a veto power over decisions made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie). I do not think the minister meant to convey that impression so forcefully; certainly, it is not in accordance with the facts.

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
No one will argue that the bill, as drawn at present, gives the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the ultimate power in deciding whether any foreign investment is of significant benefit for this nation. That is as it should be. Many members are concerned about the minister's curious reluctance to take into account the concerns of the provinces in this area and their very real desire to contribute to the various factors which the minister must consider in arriving at a decision. This is rather strange.
I do not wish to digress from the amendment or the general subject matter of the debate, but it is interesting to note that this government has adopted a somewhat inflexible attitude to what I consider to be a reasonable proposition, which is this. Before the government decides anything about the control of foreign investment, the provinces must be given maximum opportunities for consultation. Let me illustrate.
The United Kingdom, generally regarded as a more centralized state than ours, geographically and otherwise, with longer traditions in considering movements encouraging home rule for its various regions, implicit therein, has been considering some questions. For example, there is a major move to give greater powers to the various regions of the United Kingdom. I refer hon. members of the House to the royal commission studying these questions headed by Lord Kilbrandon. That commission rejected the case for granting complete sovereignty to an independent Scotland and Wales, on grounds that the majority simply did not want it. The U.K. Government is actively studying the problem. It is apparent that there is a move afoot in the United Kingdom to recognize some of the ancient prerogatives as well as current ambitions of territories and regions such as Scotland, Wales and England itself, which all are encompassed by the United Kingdom.
Let me read briefly from a recent news report carried in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
The report said dissatisfaction in Scotland is largely based on economic considerations. In Wales discontent is linked with a desire to preserve the Welsh language and culture.
Eleven members signed the report. The other two members produced a minority report calling for a wider interpretation of the commission's term of reference.
Of the 11 who signed the report, a majority favored a plan of devolution which would transfer to directly-elected Scottish and Welsh assemblies powers over local government, town and country planning, education and other services.
That shows that the United Kingdom is prepared to make greater concessions to certain regions than it has heretofore. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce ought to consider that fact on continuing condition terms.
It is obvious that the representations we made to the minister in committee have been considered. However, I do not think we persuaded him to be more flexible in allowing the provinces more input into his decisions. It is clear that the minister is continuing to be completely inflexible in this regard.
We welcome this subamendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming. He wishes to include the Northwest Territories and the Yukon in any consultative input which might be granted to the provinces. That the hon. member wishes to extend to the territories this kind of

right indicates that he and his colleagues of the NDP realize that the members of my party are not trying to hamstring the minister or the government in the advancement of legitimate Canadian nationalism. We are simply trying to give those parts of the country which are poorest by virtue of their economic circumstances as much influence as other parts of Canada might have. We want to give the people of those areas a meaningful opportunity to influence the minister.
In the absence of meaningful guidelines to foreign industry, I again plead with the minister to reconsider his attitude and to take note of the fact that apparently some members of the New Democratic Party are changing their minds about the effects of these amendments. They realize these amendments are not necessarily going to impede the efficient administration of this particular bill. Rather, they will simply make it a bit more open in so far as the provinces are concerned, and a bit more courtesy will be shown them with regard to what is happening. The provinces will be provided with information which I am sure they will regard as confidential, and in no way will the basic efforts the minister is attempting to make be impeded.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on Bill C-132, I wish to make my position quite clear at the outset. While I am prepared to accept some of the amendments, I am not prepared to accept the bill as it now stands. I consider it to be totally unrealistic and unacceptable to the disadvantaged areas of this country. For that reason, I am not prepared to give it my support.
I have taken that position because I have a very good idea of the importance of foreign capital to certain regions of Canada. In particular, it is important to the province I know best, Newfoundland. I wish to make it perfectly clear also that we do not enjoy being dependent on foreign countries for our investment capital, but what choice have we had since becoming a province of this country in 1949?
Prior to confederation, there were three opposing forces in Newfoundland. One group supported the retention of the commission form of government that was imposed upon us by the British government in 1933. Another group supported a return of responsible government as it existed prior to 1933. The third group supported our becoming a province of Canada. A fourth group emerged some time later and advocated that we enter into economic union with the United States. I shall have more to say about that group later. The outcome of the ensuing referendum that was to decide our future is obvious because we are now the tenth province of Canada. There is very little to be gained or any justification for deliberating on past events or speculating on what could have been. However, there is a lesson to be learned from our past experiences as a province of Canada, and from re-assessing some of the shortcomings of confederation as they relate to our newest province.
In a great many respects, confederation has been very good for our people but, unfortunately, in certain respects it has been a dismal failure. I am afraid the bill we are now debating will add to our problems and further accen-
November 19, 1973

tuate the shortcomings of confederation as far as Newfoundland is concerned. For almost 25 years, we have been victims of the upper Canadian attitudes as expressed in their unwillingness to invest their capital outside of the golden triangle, or as my colleague, the member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) put it, their unwillingness to invest off the 401 highway.
This attitude on the part of the upper Canadian investors is reflected in this and previous governments with perhaps one exception, that is the administration of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). His heart was in the right place. He recognized the problems of the so-called have-not regions of this country. What is more important, he was prepared to do something about it, and would have, had he not trod on the corns of central Canada and posed a threat to their comfortable monopolistic position.
For an example, let us examine the 1973-74 estimates of the Department of Public Works. The total expenditure by that department in the Atlantic area under all headings is $27,776,000. In Newfoundland, it is $7,749,000. The proposed expenditure by the same department for the same period in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec is close to $300 million. This government is spending more money on cafeteria facilities, parking garages and air conditioning improvements in these two provinces than on harbour and wharf facilities in Newfoundland. One has to remember that the economy of Newfoundland depends to a large extent on the fisheries which, of course, depends on the provision of adequate fishing facilities such as breakwaters, wharves and good harbour facilities, all of which are the responsibility of the federal government. While I am not opposed to proper air conditioning, parking or cafeteria facilities for our public servants, I am opposed to their receiving priority consideration when they are secondary needs. I will, however, leave it to Your Honour's personal conclusion as to their relative importance to the well being of this country.
As a further illustration of this attitude, let us take a look at Canadian National, or perhaps I should say the Department of Transport because CN is a creature of the federal government and is answerable to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Their misplaced policies are probably the biggest single threat to confederation. While they moan and groan about incurring deficits in maintaining essential services such as rail passenger services in the poorer provinces, they are willing to spend $21 million on a useless tower in Toronto which will provide a variety of services, including a bigger and more sophisticated communications system in an area where there is already accessibility to 10 or 11 TV channels. At the same time, there are thousands of people living in the remote parts of this country, including Newfoundland, where TV, telephone or indeed any means of communication continues to be another unfulfilled dream. Is it any wonder that we view with mistrust and suspicion any attempt on the part of this government to take complete control of our destinies.
Earlier in my speech I referred to the political situation in Newfoundland just prior to confederation. I mentioned the various groups that were vying for power, including a group of people, many of whom have since distinguished
Foreign Investment Review Act themselves in business and Canadian politics. These people advocated that Newfoundland enter into a form of economic union with the United States.
On March 28, 1948, they launched their party and their leader gave a very stirring speech on the Newfoundland radio stations. Let me read into the record, a portion of the speech made in Newfoundland on that date:
The goal of full employment for Newfoundlanders thus ensuring permanent prosperity for Newfoundland can only be obtained through economic union with the United States. There is no other course that can solve Newfoundland's problems. . ..
In the event of economic union with the United States millions of dollars of American capital will flow into this country to develop our natural resources. Look to our great possession Labrador. Look to its vast timber and mineral wealth. Think what it would mean to this country to have this priceless territory developed. American money can do that, American capital must do that if we are to have a better way of life.
I have put those words on record for a very good and obvious reason. The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) was obviously having a great deal of fun when he spoke on this bill last week. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) whom he followed in the debate, was, he said, singing "O Canada" to the tune of "God Bless America". In the years preceding Newfoundland's entry into confederation, the hon. minister was so busy extolling the virtues of Uncle Sam and the generosity of U.S. capital that he didn't have time even to learn the tune of "O Canada". The hon. member has proven beyond a doubt his ability to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, because the words I have just quoted were written by him in 1948 in his role as chief propagandist and co-leader of the movement to have Newfoundland enter into an economic union with the United States. I am sure he has many memories, some of which must be embarrassing, of his involvement in that movement and the slogan he himself coined as its battle cry- "For a brighter tomorrow, vote economic union with the U.S. today".


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Walter C. Carter: Let us, for a moment, consider how other undeveloped areas thrive as compared to those closer to home. Though I do not wish to downgrade Canada's investment in other countries, I cannot help but think it is ironic that Canada continues to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in underdeveloped countries and, at the same time, justifies withholding assistance from the financially insecure provinces in its own country. International development is an infinitely complex field; it compounds the subtleties of social development and international relations with the difficulties of cross-cultural communication but its potential for good is incalculable. For example, corporations such as CIDA continue to grow steadily. Total funds made available by parliament in 1971-72 rose to $431 million an increase of almost $48 million compared with the preceding year.
Canadian business is a vital partner in the economic and social progress of developing countries. Under CIDA administration services and expertise may be found in more than 80 countries. Grants and long-term loans provided through CIDA offer a source of financing for Canadian goods and services. By helping low-income

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act countries achieve self-sustaining development, the Corporation assists in the expansion of world trade and increases the prospects for continuing exports of competitive Canadian products. I hate to say it, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes I wish Newfoundland were not part of Canada but, rather, a foreign country. Then, perhaps, we might at long last receive some type of assistance from this government.
From what I have said, Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that Newfoundland should not have to go begging to foreign countries when we have such a prosperous country closer to home. But it seems that Newfoundland has no other choice than to do just that-to go abroad for assistance. Until I am convinced that the attitude of Canadian investors is changing or that the federal government is willing to pay more than mere lip service to the issue of regional disparity, I am not prepared to support any attempt on the part of the government or the financiers of Upper Canada to cut off our only real source of investment capital.
A lot of mistakes have been made in Newfoundland in recent years, but I contend that these mistakes and the losses arising therefrom are a direct result of the unwillingness of the Canadian government and private investors to recognize our need for assistance in developing our resources and diversifying our economy. As a province we have never pursued a policy of attracting foreign capital per se. Rather, our objective has always been simply to attract to the province sufficient development capital to enable us to attain our economic goals. As Canadians, we would prefer that this development capital be Canadian. Indeed, it has been most disenchanting to find, as Canada's newest province, that sufficient development funds have not been forthcoming from within our own country. Accordingly, as long as this situation continues, we have no choice but to welcome foreign investment under whatever terms and conditions are available. To demonstrate that sufficient development capital has not been forthcoming from Canada, one has only to examine the financing of recent major development projects in Newfoundland.
By now, everyone has heard of the Come-By-Chance oil refinery. The total investment of that refinery was in the area of $160 million, of which the government of Newfoundland contributed $30 million, and foreign investment $130 million. Nowhere do we see Canada putting up any money. Again, the second oil refinery proposed at Come-By-Chance will cost $308 million of which $78,500,000 will come from Newfoundland and $230 million from foreign investment. Again, we see no contribution, loan or grant made by Canada. A third example is the liner board mill in Stephenville. The total investment in this operation came to $160 million, of which $89 million came from outside this country. The province invested $73 million. Consider, in the light of these and similar figures, the role which foreign investment has played in the economic development of our province. One can appreciate our concern at the imposition of any measure which restricts our access to such capital or reduces the likelihood of its continued availability.
One important factor which I feel is often overlooked is that the amount of development capital available in Canada is limited. I am given to understand that two

projects alone, the James Bay hydro project-a venture which most of Canada and all of Quebec does not want, but will no doubt get anyway-and the Alaska pipeline project, which stands to benefit the United States, would more than exhaust the supply of domestic capital. When we consider that these are only two of many large developments to be undertaken in Canada in the near future, the obvious question to be asked before a province such as Newfoundland receives any development funds is this: What are the advantages of supplying capital to an area where the financial risk is already high?
This, then, is the shape of the Newfoundland economy. To say the least, it is not a very pleasing picture. However, it should now be clear why it would be difficult for any Newfoundlander to vote for the bill before us. Past experience has taught us that if we are to survive we cannot depend on Canadian investors and that we must, therefore, depend upon outsiders.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take you even further away from the "Golden Triangle" to the extreme western and northern parts of our country as I make some comments on the bill and on the amendments before us.
As a small businessman and practical politician, I should like to pose this question: Why are we concerned about foreign investment? Why do we encounter a problem in this area? The answer, to my mind, having grown up in the business world and having established several business ventures, is that there simply is not enough capital in Canada to do the things that are necessary if we are to develop our potential and realise the dreams that Canadians cherish. One reason might be that there is no capital in Canada to do these things. The other reason might be that the people who control money in Canada are not willing to invest it in those areas where it does the most good. They have no faith either in the area or in the Canadian population.
It seems to me that the government can play a bigger role by telling banking and financial institutions in Canada that if they want to operate under a federal charter they should provide a service to this country. By this I mean to the whole country, not just to Toronto and Montreal, the "Golden Triangle" and highway 401. I am serious about this, Mr. Speaker. I am bothered by the fact that we have had a bill before us for the last two weeks which provides that some agency will direct foreign investment in Canada. A lot of work has been done by western Canadians to develop a dialogue with the Pacific rim countries, and they have also been expressing their anxieties at resource conferences that have been held. Some of this work, which has been done by sincere and dedicated Canadians, has been paying off in recent years, which might be one of the reasons we are so concerned today about foreign investment in Canada.
The government has realized there is a problem, and it has expressed itself by creating financial institutions like the IDB, the Farm Credit Corporation and so on. I, personally, have established several small business ventures, and on three occasions have gone to the IDB to apply for a loan for ventures in northwestern Canada. I knew that my
November 19, 1973

ideas were sound, and indeed these ventures have all paid off and are still thriving today. But on each occasion that I applied for a loan I was told, first of all, to go to my chartered bank. I went to my bank, which is the Toronto-Dominion Bank. I do not think it should be called the Toronto-Dominion Bank; it should be the Toronto Bank because it certainly has no meaningful plans for investing its money in the Dominion of Canada. I have gone to other banks and blackmailed them into helping me out with my business ideas, because invariably it takes 8, 10 or 12 months to receive an answer from the IDB.
Here am I, Mr. Speaker, a young, vigorous man who has had only 15 productive years and has no time to waste. I have already stuck out my neck and started what I thought was another really good venture. Having on three occasions applied to the IDB, I was able to tell them after some lapse of time that I had generated enough profit from my ventures that I did not need their money any more. In the last instance, the IDB wanted to sue me for the expense they had undergone in processing my loan, and this 13 months after I had applied. They wanted me to pay their solicitor's costs; they had tried to find out the colour of my grandmother's eyes and God knows what else before they could help me out with a little business venture. This is the sort of thing new development is up against, Mr. Speaker.
It is no wonder that western Canada, mid-Canada and northern Canada are in the state they are today. The Farm Credit Corporations makes loans of up to $100,000 to farmers who want to stay on the land and who want to encourage their children to stay on the land. I have a thick file concerning farmers who have sons who have expressed a willingness to stay on the land. But we do not have any faith in our farming community, their ability to clear the land with the modern means that are available and to do something worth while. This is why we are afraid of foreign investment. Foreigners who have overdeveloped and over-populated their own country look to Canada with feelings of envy, and also with a certain amount of disgust because of the way we have managed our affairs. Governments in this country-and I mean provincial as well as federal-have no faith in our people, and this is why we have a foreign investment problem.
People from the Pacific rim countries are looking to Canada today to provide some of the commodities, such as energy and lately food, which are in short supply in the world today. They are travelling around northern and western Canada assessing the potentials that exist. Certainly, they can see the potential much better than the federal government, and they are willing to lend us money to develop this potential. All they want in return is a share of the market.
It seems to me that all we need to do is to control the amount of investment that we allow to be put into each individual venture. We should also have some control over where the profits from such ventures are reinvested. Certainly, this would make sense to me. But quite frankly, I do not have faith in this government, because it has not demonstrated to me that if it were given the power of veto any significant benefit from foreign investment would occur. These profits might well be spread along highway 401 again, or used in the "golden triangle", or in the
Foreign Investment Review Act building of more concrete monsters in our large cities, while the government continues to forget that there is a back country on which Canada has to build its future. If the government had not failed to provide access roads to the resources of our vast undeveloped regions, more Canadians would have been interested in developing these resources. I suggest we are over-playing this foreign investment business, just as sometimes we overplay all this business about the ecology and the environment.
This reminds me of the story of the gardener who was visited by his priest. He was very diligently hoeing the potatoes and tending the rhubarb, and the priest, who had not seen the farmer in church for a long time, said to him: "Isn't it wonderful what one can do in co-ordination with the Lord? This wonderful garden is here and you and the Lord did it all". So the farmer said to the priest: "Yes, isn't it wonderful, but you should have seen the mess this bloody place was in when the Lord had to look after it himself"!
In British Columbia there are vast timber resources that are over-mature. Thousands of square miles have been burnt up because there were no access roads to enable us to fight fires started by lightning. The timber is overmature and will never be any good to anyone. We are harvesting only about 40 per cent of the timber resources of British Columbia; the rest is rotting away simply because Canadians do not have the faith to invest in their own country. Some of my colleagues sometimes ask for controls on lumber exports to the United States. They want tariffs imposed and more stringent controls. I say that is ridiculous. What we need is money to develop our vast timber resources that we are leaving to spoil.
I should like, for the benefit of the minister, to quote a statement made in response to an invitation by the Edmonton Journal to political and business leaders throughout Canada. I see the minister is not listening, but I should like to put on the record a statement made by one of his colleagues, which is the reason I refer to it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are also afraid that the minister will not be listening once this bill is passed.


Frank Oberle: That is right. The statement was made by Izzy Asper in the province of Manitoba. He said:
Manitoba and other western provinces have lived under a system of economic colonialism to eastern Canada for over 100 years and this cannot be allowed to continue.
Then he went on to say this:
Eastern Canada is an industrial community and has demanded, and obtained, various policies of economic protection from the federal government, from protective tariffs to restricted foreign investment. These policies are very restrictive to the development of the Western economy which is natural-resource-based and depends on world markets, free trade and large amounts of capital investment, the latter of which is largely foreign in nature due to the reluctance of the Eastern financial centres to actively promote Western investment.
During the Western resource conference, the premiers of the provinces told the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what they thought. All the premiers of the western provinces are Canadian nationalists. What they have said is: "Do not give us any more of your handouts, any more of your

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act financial institutions to help development in the west; just leave us alone, let us incorporate and establish some of our own financial institutions so that we can play the role western Canada should play in Canadian unity and Canadian nationalism". But the message has reached deaf ears. There has been no response from this government. Sure, they were told they could own 10 per cent of a bank, but where on earth can one establish that kind of institution with that kind of faith in the future of Canada, particularly the future of our northern territories.
When I speak about the lack of faith we have in our population it reminds me of a little story I should like to tell, although I am straying a little from the subject we are discussing. I know a man named Dan Reagan from Prince George, British Columbia. He came to me with an idea he had. It is not an entirely new idea but he has perfected it to some extent. He says he has invented a new type of energy. Scientists have played with this idea for hundreds of years, but he now has a little generator operating at Prince George, British Columbia, right here in Canada. It sits on a table. I watched it operate. All it takes to light a series of light bulbs at the end of this little generator is a continuous flow of sea water. What he has done is not new. Hydrogen can be extracted from any kind of water. He controls the molecular movement in sea water or any other water. He arrests the energy generated. He advances the movement of the molecules and arrests and harnesses the energy generated by this movement. I was terribly excited about this and said that it was a big deal. I told him I wished to take it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) in Ottawa and tell our people here that this was an idea which might become something.
I advised the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about this idea. I told him that Dan Reagan is a man of moderate means who has an investment of a lifetime in this little generator. I told the minister I would like to have Dan Reagan travel to Ottawa and bring his generator here. For this purpose I asked the Minister if he would advance $500 to bring Dan Reagan down here so that we could set up the little generator somewhere in his office and he could see for himself how it works. The minister asked me to leave the idea with him and said that he would get back to me on the matter. One of his underlings came back to me and told me they had checked it out with some of their scientists who said it was balderdash and could not be done. It cannot be done because it is not in the books. It cannot be in the books, otherwise we would not be using other types of energy. If the scientists had said it could be done, they would have had to admit to being stupid, otherwise why would they not have done it. So, the minister is not about to give me $500 to bring Dan Reagan to Ottawa.
However, Dan Reagan will soon be on his way to Japan. He will have the patent papers in his brief case. He has the invention registered with the patent office. This cost him $300. This was not federal money or provincial money; it was his own money and the money of a few other idiots like myself who backed him. The federal government was gracious enough to lock his invention in the safe. Today, he has his generator locked up in a little trunk and he will have an all-expenses paid trip to Japan. The Japanese are interested in this invention. They should be, as should

many other people. But our government is not interested in it. We have no faith in people.
When we recall other inventors, we realize that in their time they were all considered to be idiots. I know the Japanese and the Americans will come up with another source of energy, and we will take the back seat as we always do. This is an example of the lack of faith in our own country to which I referred, and the lack of faith in our own people. I am very much afraid that those people who have directed the investments of our financial institutions throughout this land over the last 100 years will now again be called upon to tell us where in Canada the need is for investment, and where it will be of the most significant benefit to Canadians. I am very much concerned that the answer will be that it be not in mid-Canada, northern or western Canada but where the financial institutions like to invest their money, that is closest to their front door so they do not have to worry about all the other things which are happening.
Canadian banks have never made a bad loan in Canada in 100 years. When I talk about this I get angry, and I often say if we could sell our Canadian banks to the Americans it would take us less than five years to buy back our country because of the way these banking institutions operate. The money would be made available to Canadians to live their dream and do the things they cannot do because they are hampered by these idiotic policies. The government should say to these institutions that if they wish to operate under federal charter they must make loans available where they are really needed. I hope the minister will realize that we from western Canada are very unhappy, that we must be assured we will have an opportunity to have our say and to demonstrate that investment made in western, mid-and northern Canada would be of significant benefit in respect of the future of our nation. Unless the minister gets this message, I expect there will be all kinds of problems for my colleagues in northern and western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the first question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) to motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
All those in favour of the amendment please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
November 19, 1973

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred.
Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 3?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question on motion No. 2 will be put after the vote is recorded on the amendment.
All those in favour of the said motion No. 3 will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion No. 3 stands deferred.
Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 4?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion No. 4 stands deferred.
The question is on motion No. 5. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Foreign Investment Review Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on motion No. 5 stands deferred.
The question is on motion No. 6. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on motion No. 6 stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of motions Nos. 7 and 8 which have been grouped together to facilitate debate and which will be voted upon separately. The question is on motion No. 7.


Mr. Nystrom:: I rise on a point of order. I notified Mr. Speaker when he was in the Chair that I wished to withdraw motion No. 7.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of motion No. 7?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: We will proceed to the consideration of motion No. 8.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as a result of discussions and further reflection, I feel that this particular amendment is redundant to some extent. It is almost the same in substance as amendment No. 6, and I would like to have consent at this time to withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House agree to the request of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and give unanimous consent to the withdrawal of motion No. 8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is suggested that motions Nos. 9 and 10 be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on motion No. 9 would also dispose of motion No. 10. I will put the question on motion No. 9. Is the House ready for the question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Chair also put the question on motion No. 10?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I shall do so.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) moves motions Nos. 9 and 10 as follows:

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
That Bill C-132, An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be amended in subclause 24(1) by striking out "five thousand" in line 14 at page 36 and substituting the following:
"one hundred thousand".
That Bill C-132, An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be amended in subclause 24(2) by striking out "ten thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months" on lines 25 and 26 at page 36 and substituting the following:
"one hundred thousand dollars or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Motions Nos. 9 and 10 are basically very simple. Their purpose is just to increase the fines if someone knowingly breaks the law. Motion No. 9, the first motion, is to increase the fine. As the law is now written, a person who is guilty of failing to give notice on a proposed investment is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000. It seems to me that a fine of such low magnitude is quite an insult, rather a laugh. The motion I am proposing is that the fine be increased to $100,000, which I think is more in keeping with what it should be if someone breaks the law as enacted by Bill C-132. If someone makes an investment and takes over a Canadian corporation without adhering to the regulations as outlined in the bill, and if he is the president of a huge corporation such as General Motors, a fine of only $5,000, in my view, makes a mockery of this law. It seems to me that if we do have a fine of that sort written into the law, we are accepting what amounts to a double standard, one for the rich and one for the poor. Even though it may appear to be a small thing, for some people in our society it makes some parts of the law, and some parts of the activities of this House a laughing matter.
The second amendment I am moving is similar to the first one. For failure to comply with the regulations there is a jail term which does not exceed six months. My amendment is to change the six months to one year. Again I think it makes the penalties a bit more realistic. In some cases six months may not be long enough. I believe it would be much more reflective of the opinion of hon. members if we changed this to one year. Basically, that is the purpose of the motions, to make the fines more realistic, increasing them from a maximum of $5,000 to a maximum of $100,000 and increasing the maximum jail term from six months to one year. I appeal to all hon. members to support them. They are realistic, and will make the bill more realistic. Symbolically it is important, when we talk about justice in our country, that it be seen that justice apply equally to ordinary citizens and to those who have a lot of money.
9 (1630)


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say one or two things with respect to the two amendments before us. I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) that there be sufficient sanctions in this bill to ensure compliance with respect to the provisions of the bill as enacted in accordance with the wishes
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel)]
of the people of Canada, expressed through their representative in parliament. But having said this, I suggest there are built-in sanctions in the bill which, I would argue, have the effect of providing sufficient inducements to compliance.
On the surface the amendments would make the penalties more severe in order to further the intentions of the bill. There would be increased fines for failure to notify the minister of a reviewable transaction. However, the real remedies in the bill are to be found in clauses 19 and 20. I would refer hon. members to those clauses, starting on page 31.
Clause 19 enables the minister to apply for a court order enjoining an investor who has failed to notify concerning a reviewable acquisition, or the setting up of a new business, from taking any particular actions which would prejudice the courts from acting under clause 20. Clause 20 permits the courts, on application from the minister, to make such orders as may be required to render an investment nugatory. This can include the courts ordering the doing of the following things-and these are the particular penalties which I think will ensure compliance with the bill's provisions, and which will have a greater effect than the penalties the hon. member is proposing: First, the revocation or suspension of voting rights attached to the shares of a corporation; second, the disposition by any person of any shares of a corporation acquired by him; and, third, the disposition by suspension of any property acquired by him that is or was used in carrying on a business. Failure to comply with an order from the courts would, in turn, allow the courts to punish for contempt of court.
I submit that these built-in sanctions, as well as those in clause 24(1) and (2) which the hon. member seeks to amend, are sufficient. For these reasons I submit that the amendments are not necessary to toughen the penalties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The question is on motion No. 9. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11) the recorded divisions on motions Nos. 9 and 10 stand deferred. The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 11 in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).
November 19, 1973


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That Bill C-132, An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be amended in Clause 27 by deleting all the words after the word "offence" in line 20 at page 37.
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly this is a housekeeping or draftsmanship type of amendment. Perhaps it is not all that significant. What it proposes to do is take away a redundant sort of situation where if a person, I suggest, clearly contravenes the legislation, the question should not arise as to whether or not a corporation with which he had some prior involvement was or was not prosecuted. As worded, the bill simply adds an unnecessary burden on the prosecution. I do not see the virtue of having this additional wording in there after the second mention of "offence." It seems to me there is really not much point in belabouring what seems to be the obvious. The draftsman, in putting this bill together, added an unnecessary factor. Surely, if a person contravenes this legislation it is not necessary to take into account this additional factor that is tacked on somewhat as an afterthought.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that this is a technical question, but the advice that I have received on this technical matter is that there is an important distinction in the paragraph as it is presently worded, and I would just like to review that with hon. members.
The words "whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted therefor", which are the words which the hon. member would delete in the last sentence of clause 27, are included in order to give notice that the government reserves the right to decide whether it would be worth while to prosecute the corporation for the offence, and that our right of action respecting the corporation is a matter completely separate and apart from our right of action against the officers, directors and agents of such corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that those are important distinctions, and I think they are not redundant nor irrelevant to the operation of the bill and this particular section.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 11?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 11 (Mr. MacKay) negatived on division.
Foreign Investment Review Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 12, again appearing in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That Bill C-132, an act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be amended in clause 30 by striking out the words "as soon as possible" in lines 4 and 5 at page 38 and substituting therefor the following:
"within sixty days".
He said: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment is to indicate that we in our party are not satisfied with the rather imprecise terminology of this particular clause. I do not know for example how one defines "as soon "as possible". I do not know how one distinguishes that with any certainty in a court of law and, perhaps more important, I am not sure how one would define it with any certainty in the court of parliament.
I have reason to believe that there is a certain sympathy for this on the other side, and that the minister is prepared to consider inserting some finite time rather than leaving it on the basis of "as soon as possible", thus leaving the phrase open to the interpretation, "when it is convenient" or "when we get around to it we will do something". I do not think that is a very good situation and such a possibility should not be left in the statutes of Canada. I do not think that provision should appear in a piece of legislation which, to some extent, is a landmark in legislation pertaining to the control of foreign investment.
I do not like to take an unreasonable or narrow interpretation of what definite, finite period should be put in there. It has been suggested that because of administrative complexities 60 days is not reasonable and, of course, I have to be guided to a large extent by the experience of the minister and those who have had administrative experience. However, Mr. Speaker, I still feel that there should be some period of time specified that will guarantee that parliament and the people of Canada will get an answer and a course of action.
One of my colleagues intends to speak to this proposition and possibly propose an amendment which will provide for a period of time in excess of that envisaged in motion No. 12. On that basis, I do not feel that I should take up the time of the House, except to reiterate that some finite period of time should be inserted to substitute for this vague term "as soon as possible".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose to move an amendment to the amendment in the hope of meeting at least part way the reservations that the government exhibits. I am not, perhaps, as impressed as my colleague with the government contention that it could not meet the 60 day deadline. I suppose that to ask this government to do anything within 60 days is just about hopeless, and I guess this is one reason why this bill gives us much cause for concern.
Unfortunately, a very lax practice has developed over the years on the part of the government. On numerous occasions it has failed to file annual reports within the statutory limits set down by parliament, and it has become

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act
increasingly careless in meeting the deadlines set by parliament. One can only assume that this is a mark of general incompetence and laxness on the part of civil servants and government officials involved, or that it is in some cases a deliberate attempt to withhold from the Canadian people important information until that information is no longer current or newsworthy. For whatever reason, it seems to be unacceptable.
Personally, I am very reluctant to move any change to the 60 day proposal, but in deference to the admitted willingness of the minister and his officials, we are going to attempt a compromise. We hope this will meet with the general approval of the House.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the amendment be amended by striking out the words "within sixty days" and substituting the words "within six months" therefor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I hesitate to accept the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). At first glance, the subamendment is a substantive motion in itself, as it may include a completely new proposal which would need a notice. Unless hon. members want to argue the point to help convince the Chair otherwise, I would have very much difficulty in accepting the amendment in its present form.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly argue that it is not substantive in the sense you have suggested. First of all, the government proposes that a report be filed; that is within the context of the bill as presented to the House. My hon. friend suggested an amendment that, rather than give the government open season and allow the government to take all the time it wished for filing a report and making information available to the House and to the country, some specific time limit be applied, this for the obvious reason that the regional wording was far too indefinite and consequently really put no pressure on the government whatsoever in order to get about the necessary work of preparing a report to parliament and to the Canadian people. So, the subamendment is related specifically to the government's original proposal.
It would be difficult to argue that the amendment was substantive, in the normal sense of that word. Consequently, it would be equally difficult to argue that my amendment to the amendment is substantive. It is relevant to this particular clause of the bill being considered, and is relevant in the sense that it offers what the government might consider as a more reasonable period of time in order to prepare and print the documents necessary to be placed before the House. To suggest that substituting six months for 60 days, in a clause which already requires the government to prepare and table at its convenience a report, is substantive would give the word "substantive" a meaning which it does not ordinarily have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of procedure, it seems to me that one of the most standard and defensible kinds of amendment is the kind that proposes a change in a quantity

already set out in a motion. We already have a motion which says that the time limit for filing a report shall be 60 days. The proposed amendment would extend that to six months. It seems to me that this kind of amendment presents the least difficulty.
Your Honour raised the question of this involving a wholly new idea. I submit that there is already in the bill a provision for the tabling of reports. I draw to your attention that nothing in the governor general's recommendation attached to this bill touches this aspect of the matter at all.
A while ago we had before us another instance where there was a motion to amend the bill by making reference to the provinces. A colleague of mine added to the ten provinces the two territories. That was allowed to be in order. As the House has already accepted as in order the motion on the order paper providing for a 60-day period, it seems to me that changing the time from 60 days to six months is hardly a new idea. So far as the government is concerned, the situation is not new. I hope Your Honour will find the amendment in order.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, when one follows the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), one is like a banjo player tuning up before a philharmonic orchestra. I wish to refer to something the hon. member said previously in this debate, when he supported the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). At that time he referred to Standing Order 75(8). In my humble opinion, the type of amendment proposed by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) is supplementary to the amendment standing in my name. With deference, I cannot see where there is a new idea in the amendment. It just extends the idea which had been originally proposed in the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Again, I say to hon. members that I sympathize very much with their opinions. Of course, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Trinity is relevant to the bill and relevant to the motion in front of the House. The weakness of his amendment is this: he seeks to substitute one amendment with a different amendment. The original motion consists of ten lines and the amendment itself is encompassed in the three words on the last line "within sixty days". If the amendment were covering a wider scope of the bill, in which was included an amendment also changing the delays with respect to reporting, then that would amend the motion with an amendment without destroying it. In this case the hon. member for Trinity to my mind is definitely making a completely new proposal to the House.
The House has before it at this time a motion which proposes a delay of 60 days. The hon. member wants, by an amendment, to eliminate that delay and replace it with another. His amendment asks for a six month delay.
I am wondering what is the purpose of having to give notice. In this case the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) went to the trouble of giving the Chair notice. He proposed that the delay be changed. In one simple amendment he proposed a definite figure. I do not think we can interpret the rules with regard to the amending of motions in a way-is the hon. member rising on a point of order?
November 19, 1973


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would permit a question, even if it is rhetorical. I wonder if Your Honour is taking cognizance of the fact that the amendment is not proposing a delay in some action but is, rather, simply extending the time within which something can be done. It seems to me that forcing something to be done within a certain time is quite different from permitting more time for that something to be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. My basic point did not have to do with delay. The basic point is that we are, with this amendment, making a substitution for all the basic words of the motion. We are replacing them completely with new words which mean that a longer time will be permitted. I must say that, according to my interpretation of the rules, in particular of the rule of notice which applies to the report stage of the bill, I am sure that, procedurally, this kind of amendment cannot be proposed at this time. For these reasons it is not possible for me to accept the amendment couched in the present wording.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I may rise on the same question, I wonder if, instead of changing days to months, we might just change the number of days in the amendment. Let us put in 180 days instead of 60 days, six months merely being the rounded out figure. I propose this for Your Honour's consideration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that would get us over the difficulty which Your Honour sees. That way we should not change the entire amendment, but merely substitute one number in the amendment with another. I would be quite prepared, in the circumstances, to change my amendment, so that it would read, "That the amendment be amended by striking out the word 60 in the last line and by substituting 180 therefor."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I still find it difficult to accept the change. This, of course, would have to be done by unanimous consent. I think, without setting any precedent, that the Chair should have time to look into the matter. There have been occasions where, by consent or at least by agreement an amendment was voted on although it was felt by the Chair it did not really correspond to our practices and procedure. With these restrictions, I am prepared to let the House vote on it. Although I have a strong reservation as to this type of amendment, I will put it to the House. The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) moves:
That the motion be amended by striking out the word "sixty" and substituting the words "one hundred and eighty".


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the amendment now that it has been ruled in order. Quite frankly, there were discussions among members of various parties with respect to the wording of the clause, particularly the words "as soon as possible".
Hon. members from both sides of the House know I was prepared to accept some substitution of those words because I, too, agreed it would be very useful to have a
Foreign Investment Review Act finite time. In other words, the will of parliament will be better preserved if we insist that the report be submitted within a specific period of time.
I was concerned about the original amendment "within sixty days". Clearly, that is an impracticable objective, laudable as it may be in terms of wanting to get a full report from the new agency or commissioner. In my mind, it is simply a question of what is a practical solution in the sense of a compromise between "as soon as possible" on the one hand, which provides maximum administrative flexibility and, on the other hand, the eagerness on the part of parliamentarians to receive the account of the foreign investment review agency. I do not think there is any magic figure. I think the technique that has been adopted in the past is good. That is to say the legislation respecting the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce requires that the minister shall, on or before the 31st day of January next following the end of each fiscal year or, if parliament is not then sitting on any of the first five days next thereafter that parliament is sitting, submit to parliament a report showing the operations of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for that fiscal year.
That language is in the bill. My department operates under that legislation as do the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Supply and Services. In effect, that particular legislation provides 10 months for the departments to submit their annual reports to parliament. The subamendment to the amendment, which would require that the report be made in 180 days, shortens that period of time from 10 months to six months.
I am prepared to accept it because it provides for a finite period. It may be on the tight side, but that will be the problem of a new agency to organize its affairs to provide a report to parliament. I accept the amendment because we on this side are anxious to have the foreign investment review agency play a very important part in the future development of this country. For that reason, I think it important that this report be placed before parliament as soon as it is administratively possible to do so.
I cannot help but observe that in moving the subamendment, the hon. member is not joined by all members on his side in wishing to have a report placed before parliament on such an urgent basis. From listening to some, it certainly appears they would prefer that this bill not be passed. However, I recognize there are a number of members on the other side who wish to see this act passed and see it work. For that reason, I am prepared to accept the amendment.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as some members know, I and others were concerned about having a finite time limit on when a report must be submitted to parliament. The original wording in clause 30, as soon as possible, left it wide open. For that reason, I and others in this party wanted a definite time limit.
Like other members, I do not know the magic number. However we are quite prepared to support the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) setting a six month time limit on when the minister must report every year on the progress of the legislation.

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the subamendment (Mr. Hellyer).
Amendment (Mr. Hellyer) agreed to.
Motion No. 12 (Mr. MacKay) agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Public Service-Alleged waste of money in purchase of art objects displayed outside buildings-Government position; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canadian National Railways-Request that pensions be tied to increases in cost of living; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Fisheries-Sports fishing in waters off Vancouver Island-Request for government assistance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-132, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That Bill C-132, An Act to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons and of the establishment of new businesses in Canada by certain persons, be amended in Sub-clause 31(1) by changing the period to a comma on line 15 at page 38 and adding the following:
"such a day to be no later than 60 days after Royal Assent."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is similar in intent to the amendment we dealt with a few minutes ago in that it attempts to set a time limit. Clause 31 deals with the coming into force of the legislation presently before us. At present, the date is left open to be fixed later by proclamation. I am concerned lest the minister, for one

reason or another, should choose not to have part of the act proclaimed for several months or even for several years. Or, should part of the act be proclaimed almost immediately, proclamation of the other part might be delayed for a year or two. I wanted to set a time limit, and my amendment therefore says that the date of proclamation shall be not later than 60 days after Royal Assent.
After consulting with a number of people I realise, now, that 60 days is probably too short a period; is would not give the minister sufficient time in which to draft regulations, hire staff, and so on. So, in a few moments one of my hon. friends will be moving a sub amendment extending that 60 days to six months or so. I think this would allow the minister a reasonable time in which to take all the action necessary.
I think it is important that we in this House should decide when the act is to come into force, not the minister. In my view, this is basic to the democratic process. In this way we can ensure that the act comes into force in the next six months. In the absence of such a provision, a whole series of hypothetical situations-and some might not be hypothetical-could conceivably delay the implementation of this measure. During that period all kinds of take overs and expansion into unrelated areas might take place.
So, I ask all hon. members to look seriously at clause 31 and try to reach some agreement on a definite time limitation in relation to the date on which this measure comes into force. As I said when I spoke briefly on the last amendment, I am not sure as to the precise terms of such a limitation but I strongly believe some date should be fixed so that the business community, those who are classified as non-eligible persons and the public generally, may know where they stand. This is only fair to everyone concerned. It is only democratic, and I trust the proposal I am making expresses the will of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend has indicated, there has been discussion among the parties with respect to the terms of this amendment. As hon. members have just heard, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has put down an amendment requiring proclamation to be made within 60 days after Royal Assent. At present, the date is left wide open. I understand the minister feels that 60 days is too short a period. We are therefore, prepared to lengthen that period and we hope the alternative suggestion we make will be acceptable to the government and to the other parties in the House. Surely, July 1, 1974, is not an unreasonable date. Assuming that the bill is passed by the end of this month, this would give the government not just 180 days but between six months and seven months to get ready to proclaim the legislation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That Motion No. 13 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "60 days after Royal Assent" and substituting the words "July 1, 1974".
At the moment, the amendment reads: "such a date to be no later than 60 days after Royal Assent". As amended, it would read: "such a date to be no later than July 1, 1974". I trust that this revision, or compromise, will be acceptable to the House.
November 19, 1973


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. It is acceptable to the Chair, anyway, from a procedural point of view.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to identify myself with those who desire to see this legislation in operation as soon as possible, and in such a way as to ensure its effectiveness.
Consultation has taken place with respect to the time necessary to bring in the necessary regulations, and recruit the staff required. Account must also be taken of the time required for the passage of the bill through the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't worry about the other place.


Alastair William Gillespie: For that reason, I should like to suggest to the hon. member that rather than July 1, which is a symbolic date, rather an important date, another way might be chosen; it might be possible to get the act proclaimed before the date the hon. member has in mind. I wonder whether "180 days after Royal Assent" might not meet his point while yet providing for the contingencies he has mentioned. I put this by way of a question to the hon. member who has moved the sub-amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We may well be talking about precisely the same length of time. If this bill is delayed in the other place, so that it does not get by until some time in December, 180 days would bring us to the middle of June. If that proposition is more acceptable to the minister than the one I proposed I have no objection to asking the House to consent to my motion being changed so as to read:
That Motion No. 13 be amended by deleting therefrom the words "60 days after Royal Assent" and substituting therefor the words "180 days after Royal Assent".


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I, personally, believe it is much better to set a definite date for the coming into force of that part of the bill which relates to investment than to leave the date entirely open as is presently the case.
The reasons are obvious. There are too many areas of uncertainty at the present time as far as the business world is concerned. The mere passage of the bill will open up many areas of uncertainty until such time as guidelines have been posted by the minister and test cases have been presented to the agency and the Governor in Council has ruled on them. Uncertainty will exist until a body of law is established that will give business and individuals in Canada some appreciation of exactly what this bill means and how it is going to be interpreted. To have an additional area of uncertainty as to when new investment will be covered by the bill is, I think, just one more grey area that would cause a good deal of concern. I, personally, think it is a good thing to eliminate this uncertainty by proposing a time limit, as is the case in the subamendment now before us.
Foreign Investment Review Act
It is obvious that the 60 days referred to in the original amendment was inadequate. Indeed, the hon. member who moved the amendment realized that himself. Having talked to others, he came to the conclusion that this period was quite impractical from the standpoint of administration. He realizes, as do the rest of us, that 60 days will go by before the minister even begins to put the wheels in motion. Indeed, at the end of 60 days he will be lucky to have his stationery printed and to have a few desks and other office appurtenances in place. So to expect anything more than what is basically pro forma in the first 60 days is unreasonable.
To suggest that we bring into force the second part of the act before the first part has been implemented and before guidelines have been posted would have created, if I may say so, chaos on a scale unknown probably even in the present circumstances, which is saying something, Mr. Speaker. This is why the amendment as originally framed would have had, I think, a chaotic effect. It would have produced a situation that would have been quite unacceptable and which would probably have detracted from the implementation of the bill. Rather than making it possible to move into this area smoothly and firmly, to establish precedents and a body of law which would make it possible for the minister and his officials to work efficiently and effectively to achieve the purposes set out in the bill, a great area of uncertainty would have been created which, as I say, would have prevented us from accomplishing what we want this legislation to accomplish. Therefore, we appreciate the fact that something is going to be proposed of a finite nature, which is comprehensible and understandable, and yet at the same time will give the minister a chance to give the first part of the act a reasonable shakedown cruise before the implementation of part two.
I should like to make this further appeal to the members of the NDP, who have demonstrated their sincerity in this area, to do the same thing with in regard to one of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). These hon. gentlemen represent a party that has three provincial governments in this country. Those provincial governments, as other provincial governments, are concerned about the problem of communications that exists between the federal and provincial governments. And their concern is well founded, Mr. Speaker.
The object of the exercise is to make this bill work in such a way that we can provide alternative investment capital necessary to develop all parts of Canada. In order to do this we must have communications of a sensitive yet instant kind, a kind that has not been forthcoming in this country for quite a while. We will require the kind of communications that are just the opposite of the sort we have had recently-the confrontation type of politics we have experienced between federal and provincial governments, particularly in regard to energy matters.
If the screening agency is to be effective and we are to use the mechanism that is set up to encourage Canadians to invest more fully in their own resource and industrial development, then it is absolutely imperative that from the very outset-not at some subsequent time but at the very outset-the lines of communication between the min-
7930

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act ister, his agency and the provinces of this country are kept open at all times. In other words, we must establish a hot line between the minister, his agency and each of the ten provinces, and indeed the territories as well. We should remember that they, too, are very directly concerned. Of all the areas of this country, there is probably no area that has more potential for development and is more concerned about obtaining adequate amounts of capital to finance that development than the two territories in the north.
Nevertheless, we do have this haunting fear regarding the lack of a time limit within which the minister must bring in his annual report. It is easy to see that wide latitude should be given. At the same time, unless there is some necessity to do something, the propensity is to find an excuse for not doing it. We now have a situation where the minister must file a report within a certain period of time. He has agreed this is a good provision and that there is pressure on him to comply. However, we also think there should be equal pressure on the minister to notify at once provinces that are affected significantly by any proposed takeover, in the first instance under the first part of the act, and then later on once the whole act has been proclaimed. What greater certainty could there be, Mr. Speaker, than having the minister and his agency required by law to consult the provinces by giving notice the instant they are advised of a particular situation coming within the ambit of the bill? We feel that this requirement is cardinal. We want a good bill, a bill that would be acceptable to all people across this country.
One could not help but be impressed this afternoon by the eloquence of those who spoke about the feeling that exists in the eastern and western regions in this country for some guarantee that the federal government will be sensitive to their real needs. Equally, one could not help but be impressed by the fact that the large amount of investment that has taken place in Newfoundland since Confederation has for the most part been from without Canada. This is not because that province would not have preferred to have Canadian investment and Canadian ownership and control, but when faced with the opportunity, Canadian entrepreneurs and financial institutions were not able to come through, and did not come through, with the necessary investment capital.
Perhaps there is a matter of insight involved in respect of those of us in central Canada who feel very strongly that we must come to grips with this problem, who feel very strongly that too much of our industry is owned outside of Canada, who feel very strongly that the trend in the future and immediately is toward greater participation in the development of our own industries and resources, and who feel very strongly that the moment of decision has come. We must also understand that people in other parts of the country feel equally strongly that their points of view be taken into account.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The minister seeks the floor on a point of order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because it seems to me the hon. member has wandered off the subject of the amendment before us concerning the

length of time for the proclamation of part I of the bill. He seemed to be speaking to amendment No. 14 proposed by his party which would provide a veto power to the provinces over the operation of the act. Perhaps he should reserve his comments until we reach that point.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, every time the minister speaks he makes me more uneasy. He demonstrates, in his impatience, that lack of sensitivity which is precisely what some of my colleagues fear most. He would seem to believe that all others, including all provinces in the east and the west, should be seen and not heard. It is precisely because we are now coming to grips with the implementation of part II of the bill at a specific time, which is good, which gives a definiteness to the bill which was previously lacking, that it is important once again to revert to the question of how the minister will ensure that the provinces will know what investments will be made, rather than having it left to the haphazard notification methods which might be employed by industry or by the press from time to time. It is a question which is fundamental to the whole bill, but specifically to part II and the date of implementation of the legislation.
I must admit that the more I listen to members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces, from Newfoundland, from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and from other provinces as well, not just Alberta but also Saskatchewan which had very real reservations about the channels of communication, and also Manitoba and British Columbia, the more I feel that those of us in central Canada must be more sensitive than we have ever been to their point of view. It is difficult, without listening very closely and very carefully to what is said by the representatives of those parts of our country, to appreciate that they feel very differently in some respects from those of us in the central part of Canada. I think they have stated the case very clearly and very eloquently. All they really ask is that there be provincial participation, not provincial veto by any stretch of the imagination. The minister knows as well as any hon. member that the provincial veto cannot be given without in fact making the bill inoperative.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Certainly.


Alastair William Gillespie: I should like to preface my question by reminding the hon. member that the fourteenth amendment, in the name of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) reads:
provided always that nothing in this act shall apply in any province until the minister shall have received the consent of that province to such application.
I suggest to the hon. member that there is only one interpretation which could be given to that particular amendment. Would he not agree with me that if that amendment were to carry, it would give any province concerned a veto power?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I would say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The minister, a few minutes ago, rose on a point of order and
November 19, 1973

suggested that the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) was speaking to amendment No. 14 which was not before the House at the time. Now he comes along with a question related directly to that amendment. I do not think this can be accepted.
The Chair has endeavoured to be lenient and allowed the hon. member for Trinity to generally speak of consultation in regard to the bill. Perhaps the Chair has given more leeway than it should. I believe the Chair has been lenient in respect of quite a bit of the debate. But a question directly related to an amendment which is not before the House, and concerning which the Speaker has already expressed some doubt, should not be accepted at this time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. First of all, may I say your generosity is appreciated. I shall be more than happy to answer the minister's question when we reach that stage in our proceedings. I wish to make it very clear that the members of this party do not support provincial veto. The members of this party support provincial participation in the sense that provincial points of view are taken into account before the governor in council makes a decision. What we are really asking is that there be channels of communication which are so fool-proof that we do not find ourselves in the position where a decision has been made before consultation has begun; in other words, so that there is not a sense of confrontation and the inevitable breakdown of good relations which could occur under those circumstances. It is for this reason we would hope the minister and his supporters would reflect on their earlier opposition to giving notice to those provinces significantly affected.
The minister made some rather feeble suggestion that he thought this necessitated informing all the provinces in every case. I do not think that can be substantiated for one moment. The only suggestion was that those provinces which beyond question would be significantly affected must, of necessity, be advised at the outset so they will have the time to consider the matter, the time to make their presentation, the time to have their experts consider the evidence and the time to do the economic and other studies necessary in order to determine whether or not they want to support the particular application. That is what is being asked. Is that unreasonable?
I turn my attention to the members of the NDP, through you Mr. Speaker, and ask them if they do not believe in their hearts that the provinces represented by NDP governments, as well as other provinces, would feel that the very least that could be done in so far as participation is concerned is that the courtesy of instant notification be extended. Is that reasonable? This involves merely the courtesy of being informed of what is going on at the outset, rather than after the decision has been taken or is about to be taken; in other words, when it is a fait accompli.
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to say I think these two amendments will greatly strengthen this bill and that the bill was lacking in these two respects in particular. First, there must be an assurance that the provinces will be notified that they are involved and have an opportunity to do their own research, their own studies and their own thinking before being faced with an off-the-
Foreign Investment Review Act cuff decision without adequate time for reflection and study. Second is the determination of a specific date for the implementation of the second half of the legislation so that the absence of definiteness will not permit the evasion of the act and will not leave in limbo that great uncertainty which would otherwise be the case.
In closing, I would urge once again my friends on opposite sides of the House, on the government side and on the NDP side, to consider the advisability of making this an even better bill-I say "a better bill" because there are still some weaknesses in it-by the adoption of these two amendments which in our opinion would strengthen the bill for all concerned.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I address myself to the amendment concerning the limitation on proclamation of the legislation. I am a little confused at the moment as to whether we are talking about 180 days or July 1, and I am grateful that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) should have come forward in this way with a date. I have been looking at the second subclause of this clause and find there is an open-ended time. In my ignorance, I am a little confused and I would be grateful for the comments of other hon. members, and particularly of the minister, as to whether this is an oversight in bringing into effect this legislation as it would affect new businesses in Canada; because the first subclause deals with what we commonly call takeovers, and the third large area of activity which concerns us all is not dealt with in the bill at all, namely, the expansion of existing businesses which are foreign-financed.
However, leaving that third section aside, I am concerned about when that portion of the legislation which relates to new businesses will be brought into effect. The wording has been turned into some sort of gobbledygook which defeats me. I understand it to mean simply that that portion cannot be brought into effect before the one which affects takeovers. But when will it be brought into effect? We know the record of the government in other matters. We were dealing with it in regard to filing reports, and we secured the unanimous consent of the House for an amendment requiring the agency to table a report within 180 days. But in view of the record of this government for putting things off I think that in subclause 2 we should have some assurance that if they are in earnest about this bill, they would be prepared to consent to a specific time limit for the coming into force of this legislation.
I am prepared to concede that this was simply a drafting error; but even this stretches my credulity to some extent because this is not the first bill of this sort that has been brought before us. Surely, with the drafting skills at the command of the government, they should not allow these oversights to occur in legislation that is brought before us. Therefore, I would be very pleased to hear from the minister or from other members of the House as to whether I am misinterpreting this clause. I believe we must have a time limit in clause 31(1) and that the same is required in clause 31(2).
7932

November 19, 1973
Foreign Investment Review Act


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is very interesting. Like the previous one, it proposes to substitute a finite time for a very indefinite state so far as the original legislative attempt is concerned. I think that most hon. members on reflection will feel this is the type of amendment that should be supported and, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) just said, one wonders at the drafting skill that brings to this House legislation worded in the way it is.
I think the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has expressed in his amendment a real concern that no doubt has crossed the minds of many hon. members, I suppose mostly opposition members, that this government may be a little less than sincere and frank in its desire to implement the various provisions of this foreign investment review act. No doubt it is a perfectly legitimate action on the part of the government to attempt to get the very maximum political mileage out of this step to finally control foreign investment in Canada, and none of us can argue that they are not entitled to it. However, they have had an opportunity to do this for a long time. They could have taken this step in the last session of parliament, but for one reason or another it was not done. Now, having had the initiative to bring the bill before the House, one would think they would want to see the proposals implemented as soon as possible.
Certainly there is a great deal of room for speculation in this regard. Long before I became a member of the House I can remember reading in various publications about acts that were brought in which were ostensibly for the good of Canada and were to have a considerable impact on our nation, such as for example the Canada Water Act which was brought in with great fanfare. I believe it was discussed for a considerable length of time in this august chamber, and finally passed with unanimous consent. However, in my humble opinion this piece of legislation has not been very efficiently promoted or fostered by this government. There is also the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act which, when it was passed by the House, afforded a great deal of comfort, in theory, at least, to Atlantic Canada.
What I am wondering-and so is, I am sure, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville; perhaps this is part of the motivation for his amendment, apart from the excellent procedural point of instituting a finite time-is whether he is also of the opinion that this government might very well like to have the name but not the game. I am wondering whether he does not think the government needs to have some guarantee forced upon it so that it would in fact bring in the relevant provisions. I would suggest, again without being too cynical, that the government may be less than happy to act as expeditiously as some members of the opposition would like it to act.
Of course, the minister can make the point, and with some justification, that so far as provincial consultation and notice are concerned, he needs the consent of cabinet and that, even if he so wished, he will not be able to act as some sort of oriental despot who can do what he wishes

under this legislation. There are certain political realities with which he must conform.
However, I wish to take a brief moment to make a final plea to the minister, as did the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and remind him that we have very real concerns in our various parts of Canada, including the territories. We hope that in considering the various ramifications of this type of legislation, the government will realize that we must have some sort of provincial consultation on the one hand and substitution of alternate forms of capitalization on the other. If some sort of attempt is not made by the government to understand this, then I fail to see how this legislation will receive the necessary acceptance and co-operation.
An objection has been made by some of my colleagues that the notice requirements, as defined by the Interpretation Act, would provide too much of an administrative burden for the government in supplying the various provincial administrations with the kind of information it would feel obliged to provide because of the definition of what "notice" may be. This is not entirely a valid argument. Surely there is some scope left to the government, and the minister does not necessarily have to follow in every literal respect the definition of "notice." Surely, with all the staff at his command, the minister would be able to provide the provinces, in some sort of summary form, the type of notice that would not be too bulky on the one hand and on the other hand would be sufficient for the provinces' interests.
There is really nothing more that needs to be said about the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. It is a good type of amendment and should be looked at seriously. Mr. Speaker, since you may require a little time to dispose of argument and perhaps rule on amendment No. 14, I will conclude at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 13 and on the amendment thereto?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) agreed to.
Motion No. 13 (Mr. Nystrom), as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. At the opening of consideration of the report stage of Bill C-132 Mr. Speaker indicated that he had some reservations as to the acceptability of motion No. 14. Of course, there was no debate at that time, but it is suggested that motion No. 14 is defective in that it is a substantive proposal rather than an amendment. In effect, it purports to give a province or provinces the authority to determine if and when a statute of Canada shall have force and effect. In other words, it proposes an alteration or change in the legislative procedure.
Hon. members may refer to May's eighteenth edition at page 510, paragraphs 10 and 11, which read as follows:
Amendments to a bill proposing that an address or a resolution of one House of Parliament should effect the repeal of the bill, or that the provisions of a bill should be subject to a referendum,
November 19, 1973

have been ruled out of order as proposing changes in legislative procedure which would be contrary to constitutional practice.
An amendment is irrelevant and cannot be admitted if it seeks to delay the coming into force of a bill relating to England only, until a similar bill should have been passed for Scotland.
Having put these thoughts in the minds of hon. members, perhaps I may call it six o'clock and later welcome comments from hon. members, unless they indicate satisfaction with the suggested ruling.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that your ruling would find the favour of most hon. members of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my understanding that hon. members do not wish to question the doubts of the Chair as to the acceptability of motion No. 14. This being the case, the Chair rules that the motion cannot be accepted at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since we have reached the end of the report stage amendments, perhaps I might be permitted, in the absence of other House leaders-I am sorry, one of them is reaching his seat now-to indicate that there is agreement that the deferred votes take place tomorrow afternoon after the question period.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we on this side are agreeable, on the understanding that we continue on with third reading following the divisions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to this also. It does not suit everybody in our party but it seems to be the best time to have the divisions, and it is the time we generally thought last week we would have these votes. So in order to continue with third reading tomorrow, we agree to the votes taking place right after the question period.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we give our support to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) just said. We gave our support as early as last Friday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the deferred votes and recorded divisions on the various motions that have been considered at the report stage be postponed until tomorrow afternoon after the question period, and that it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested to me by one of my omniscient colleagues that perhaps the House might like to know what we shall be dealing with at eight o'clock.


Maurice Brydon Foster: At eight o'clock we will be continuing with government order 56, Bill S-4 amending the National Parks Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, we agreed to this. We appreciate the government telling us it was coming up, and we think it would be nice if it would bring the NDP into some of these consultations.
National Parks Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who do you
think suggested it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I feel particularly pleased and honoured this evening to see so many cabinet ministers in the House, particularly the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who is the sponsor of this bill. It is an unusual sight at this time of the day.
This is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, not so much for what it contains, because it contains very little, but for what it does not contain in providing for the process and the mechanism by which national parks are established. It also affords members an opportunity to extol the virtues of their own areas and the beauties there and to explain why there should be national parks in areas where they do not exist at the moment.
In my initial remarks I want to point out that northern British Columbia does not contain any national parks at the moment, and therefore if I were to relate this bill just to the interests of my own area it would not really matter whether it passed or not. It would have no bearing on whether a national park is established in that area. That will come about as a result of discussions between the provincial government and the federal government and the assignment of lands and all the other matters that enter into an agreement to establish a national park.
On Friday, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) spoke about Forillon national park. What he said had merit but I want to depart from that position. He invited all hon. members and others to take a holiday and visit Forillon to enjoy the beauties of that park when it becomes developed. I disagree with the concept that a national park has to be developed before it can be enjoyed and appreciated. I think we have gone overboard on this concept of development and I apply this to provincial parks as well. We have tended to commercialize them, make them attractive to the mobile tourist who comes along with his trailer, portable television and all the accoutrements of home to visit these parks. I am one of those who wants to see them maintained and preserved in their natural state. I think

November 19, 1973
National Parks Act
the concept of parks should be that of preservation of wilderness areas and nature, rather than an encroachment upon nature and the development of blacktop roads, hot dog stands and commercial ventures and all the other highly organized accompaniments of today's concept of national parks.
Take, for example, the Queen Charlotte Islands, particularly the west coast facing upon the expanse of the Pacific Ocean. It is difficult to get to that area because there are no roads. One has to get there by boat or aircraft . Commercial aircraft do not fly there, so it becomes a charter venture which is not really that expensive when flying from some of the communities on the Queen Charlottes themselves. The west coast is an indescribable structure. It was the home of a number of Indian communities in pre-European days. It was an area in hibernation, so to speak, in which one could gain some concept of the spiritual nature of nature itself. The mere sight of that expanse of water, its movement and its surging, and the cliffs and trees and the sea life, with the wildlife of the area, is something to be remembered and preserved and conserved. I can think of no better way of doing it than by establishing a national park for that purpose.
Just north of Terrace where I live there are some lava beds, the result of an outflow of lava from a volcano that erupted something like 400 years ago. That lava flow is reflected in the stories and history of the Nishga Indians who live along the Nass River. They tell of the plight of their forefathers three or four centuries ago when the volcano erupted, spewed lava and drove people from villages to other sites. Just north, a few hundred miles away I believe, is the only active volcano in Canada. It is not active at this time, the eruptions taking place on a cyclical pattern which ends every 300 years or thereabouts.
I know that scientists of the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources are near Mount Edzizq, studying the lava flows in the Grand Canyon of the Stikine River. Several volcanoes have erupted in the region. There are a number of volcanic cones in the area. The top of this mountain area is glaciated. Areas like this should be preserved and dedicated in future as nondeveloped national parks. Their preservation as national parks is something that ought to be considered.
Also, we should consider our ocean spaces as national parks. A couple of years ago, as recorded in Hansard on October 19, 1971, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) spoke about what was loosely or generally referred to as an underwater or marine park in the Gulf of Georgia. Technically, it should be known as Georgia Strait; those of us who live in the area always refer to it as the Gulf of Georgia, although it is not a gulf. There is a reference in Hansard to the Minister of the Environment referring to studies and discussions taking place with the government of British Columbia about the park. Apparently, within a few weeks of October 19 there was to be a formal understanding with the province in that connection. We have heard nothing further since then.
There are a number of areas on the west coast and east coast, bordering on the ocean that should be preserved and set aside as conservation areas. In those areas people

should be able to see the beauties of undersea life. In this connection I have heard it said that national parks and other parks are valuable from the point of view of tourism and tourists. I know there is a tendency for people to extol the economic benefits that come to an area in which there is a park. They say that economic benefits come from tourists who visit those areas. A great deal of that so-called benefit is mythical. It does not come about.
Near where I live the world's largest steelhead salmon was caught in the Kispiox River, a river that is frequented by tourists. A few years ago a young lad of 18 spent four or five hours catching this fish. In the end he pulled out of the water a 92-pound spring salmon-a fantastically big fish. Let me point out that the Skeena River is one of the most important salmon spawning rivers in Canada, as is the Nass River and the whole northern area. These rivers attract tourists who come to camp and fish. Many come with self-contained campers. They bring their own gas, often in 45-gallon drums because it is cheaper that way than buying it locally. They bring their own larders stocked with food. They do not even purchase a fishing licence, very likely having bought it as soon as they crossed the border, if they are American, or in another town if they come from Canada. They leave behind relatively little in an economic sense. They leave their garbage and their litter-we provide facilities for that. The concept that tourism brings economic benefits to an area is just not true when viewed over-all.
An unfortunate situation has arisen in some of our parks, regrettably, because both federal and provincial governments have not been sure who had legislative or constitutional authority in the area. I am referring to situations in which people, primarily from the United States-I am not knocking United States citizens for this-have come with camper units and, as well, with a small canning factory. They have spent their time, say, on the Kispiox River or elsewhere and have engaged in sports fishing, which comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial government. They catch fish and can them in these mobile canning units. They clean the fish right there and then, and bottle or can them right there and then and take them back home. They catch salmon and other species of fish, sometimes for commercial purposes.
We must prevent this happening. I do not consider that where this sort of thing takes place the activity is of any great value to the area. We want to put our objection on record and say that when we are talking of developing or establishing national parks we should not do it with that concept in mind. Such activity is not necessary for people who go to a park to enjoy it.
I have some objections to the bill, Mr. Speaker. One of my objections is companion to the objection raised by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) the other day. It has to do with the relationship between the federal government and the provinces and the federal government and the two territories. Under the bill, parks can be established or expanded in a province when there is agreement with the province. When it comes to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, no such agreement is necessary. The territorial councils are not considered even as being competent to make those decisions.
November 19, 1973

The Yukon and Northwest Territories are treated pater-nalistically in the bill. I know how much the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development detests the word "paternalism". He drags it out every time he is in a corner. The bill is paternalistic inasmuch as the section of the bill dealing with the relationships with the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories speaks not of agreement but of consultation. We know, from the history of this government, what it means by consultation. It does not consult for discovering what others want, or for the purpose of getting advice about something with respect to which the federal government may change its mind. With this government, consultation is merely something for providing a technical avenue by which things can be discussed so that the federal government can go ahead and do what it planned in the first place.
A couple of days ago I looked up the word "consult" in the dictionary. Perhaps the most appropriate definition that can be applied to this government is the reference that says "to consult your pillow"-in other words, to sleep on the matter or think about it in your dreams. That is the type of consultation that is involved.
Some parts of this bill have merit. Although they will have some value for simple questions, they will denigrate the position of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Councils with regard to groups to be consulted but not to reach agreement. As far as I am concerned, the bill should fail on those grounds if none other. Surely, in this enlightened day and age, with all the respect we have for levels of government and democracy, we should write into this piece of legislation with respect to the Yukon and, the Northwest Territories that the formation of parks should become a matter of agreement between the federal government and territorial governments. I hope when we get to the committee stage the appropriate amendment will be written in.
I want to talk about a gross failing in the bill. This has apparently been endorsed by the Conservative Party. At no time during the second reading debate on this bill has one iota of interest been exhibited on the subject matter of aboriginal rights of the native people of this country. The other day, in the province of Quebec, there was a Superior Court decision involving the James Bay project. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took 275 per cent of the credit for that decision. I see the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) nodding his head and saying yes, he should. It is a shame that the hon. member is not raising the point I am going to raise with regard to this particular piece of legislation, because this carries with it a denial by the minister with regard to his concern for aboriginal rights.
If the minister and the government had that degree of concern totally and fully about respect for aboriginal rights, they would have included in this bill a clause repealing section 6 (3) of the National Parks Act. That is to be retained in the legislation; there is no thought of removing it. It is paternalistic and offensive. It should be offensive to the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo. The section reads:
The governor in council may authorize the minister-
National Parks Act
That is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
-to purchase-
That carries with it the concept of a mutual agreement.
-expropriate-
That means to steal.
-or otherwise acquire any lands or interests therein, including the lands of Indians-
The minister and other members of the government say how beautiful it is that they can stand up and say they respect the fundamental right of the Indian people with regard to the land they occupy, and want to carry it forward in the statute law of this nation. I know how much the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo wants to ask questions. I know how much he is in need of information. If he would do it in a formal way when I conclude my remarks, I will do my best to respond to him. To carry forward the government's right to expropriation of Indian lands flies completely in the face of the question of aboriginal rights. I would rather not see the bill proceeded with until we had dealt with this matter.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Ask the NDP in
the province.


Frank Howard: There goes the chatterbox from Kamloops-Cariboo. If he were the type of member he should be, and stood up and fought for the rights of the Indian people, I would pay attention to him. However, he has not done that. He has not done anything. He is an apologist for a weak, insipid government on the question of aboriginal rights.
I want to deal with another section of the National Parks Act. It concerns the relationship of Indian people and Indian lands. If the minister does not expropriate Indian lands, that is, take them without consent or agreement, but acquires them by lease under another section or regulation, the minister is permitted to levy taxes against those lands even though they were not expropriated. The act contains that provision. One thing the Indian people have held dear to them as a slim recognition of aboriginal rights is freedom from taxation on the reserve except taxation that the band council may levy. The minister wants to retain the authority to expropriate those lands and levy taxes for various purposes against them. If the taxes are not paid, the minister or the government can proceed to sell the land for unpaid taxes.
If the Indian people want to stand up for their fundamental right and say that the Indian Act states their land shall not be taxed, the minister can say it shall be taxed because the National Parks Act gives him that authority. That is regardless of what the Bill of Rights may or may not say. There was an indication of that a few days ago when the Supreme Court reached the stupid decision that the Bill of Rights had no validity whatsoever in any matter. If an Indian stands up for his right and does not pay taxes, the minister can seize and sell the land for non-payment of taxes.
There is another provision in the act. All of this can flow from section 6(3) of the act which is to be retained. If the Indian people want to exercise their fundamental basic right to fish or hunt for food, the minister can say they are

November 19, 1973
National Parks Act
in violation of a provision of the act because the regulations prohibit that, even though that is characteristic of the whole history of concern about aboriginal rights. It is easily understood; everyone has heard about it. There have been a great number of cases on this. If an Indian exercised his aboriginal right to catch fish, the minister could seek a conviction. The person would be liable to a fine of up to $500 and up to six months in jail if convicted.
If an Indian person decides to exercise his aboriginal right to fish and to hunt, which Indian people have done from time to time, this is their inherited right, something that was not taken away from them by treaty. If this is so, any park warden or any constable can without warrant or other legal process enter and search any building, structure, boat, vehicle, etc. In other words, mere suspicion on the part of a park warden could carry with it the authority to break into people's homes at any time of the day or night, within the park or outside the park, with respect to timber, minerals, hay, birds, fish, mammals-the latter being part of the way of life of the Indian people. And these powers are to be continued in the act.
As far as I can see, there is no provision in this bill which affects this right which the minister wishes to keep, namely, the right to expropriate Indian lands, to levy taxes against those lands and to sell them in the event the taxes are not paid, even though taxes may have been withheld on grounds of principle. All this, together with provisions for laying charges, imposing terms of imprisonment up to six months, and so on, is carried forward in the legislation as constituting authority which the minister wishes to keep. In my view this is contrary to what we should be doing in this House.
I have no great objection to what is contained in this bill, though I do have doubts about some aspects and I disagree with the position accorded to the Councils of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories inasmuch as they are not allowed any measure of real participation in making decisions about national parks. However, I do take strong and serious objection to the provisions which are allowed to remain in the act. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the minister should wish to retain those provisions, especially since he has been consistent, in the last few months anyway, in his statements about aboriginal rights.
All I can conclude is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has more to say in these matters than the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We all recall the position taken by the Prime Minister in September, 1969, when he said in Vancouver that as far as he was concerned the Indian people did not have any Indian rights; the government rejected that concept. The same view was expressed on a number of occasions, and it was only changed when the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in the Nishga case. Then the Prime Minister said, "Well, we did not think you had any aboriginal rights, but maybe you have some legal rights, whatever they are." He did not seek to clarify what those rights might be.
So either the provision giving the minister the right to take Indian lands, and the imposition of taxes and all the

invasion of property which goes therewith is retained in the act as a result of an oversight on the part of the minister-and I cannot take this possibility very seriously-or it is retained in the act because basically the government has no regard for aboriginal rights. Oh, ministers will pay homage to those rights when they are won by somebody else in a court, but when it comes to action, to doing something about them seriously, the answer is, no Sir. What other reasons could there be for retaining in this day and age a provision which says that a cabinet minister has the right to expropriate Indian lands?
Let us talk about the Northwest Territories. Here there are no surrendered lands; all the land belongs, in an historical sense, to the Indian people. Yet all the government is prepared to do is to consult with the Council of the Northwest Territories, without regard to the people native to the area, without regard to their historic claims, without regard to the fact that the whole of the Northwest Territories in an historic sense comes within the domain of the people native to that area. This is also the case in my own part of British Columbia. Yet here again is an area in which the minister wishes to retain the right to expropriate Indian lands. And with respect to those areas in which he is the sole commander-in-chief he does not even want to enter into an agreement with the elected council of the territory but simply to engage in consultation.
I also object to the manner in which the bill reached us. My views about the Senate and its facility or opportunity to deal with matters of a public nature are well known. I think that a great many senators do not represent people; they represent money, banks, oil companies and the rapacious capitalists in this nation. They represent the interests of the multinational corporations as opposed to the interests of the Canadian public. Today we are considering a piece of legislation which I believe ought not to have originated in the Senate because it deals with the fundamental interests of human beings. Perhaps we should make a start in this parliament on a bill denying the Senate the right to look at legislation which fundamentally affects the rights of human beings.
At one time the Senate did have a function to perform. It used to pass on divorce cases from Quebec and Newfoundland. Quite appropriate, I thought. But parliament took that function away. The Senate used to deal with private bills to establish corporations, insurance companies, and so on. Those bills used to originate in the Senate, quite properly, I thought, because the Senate represents those interests. However, as a result of a series of objections by some of us in this chamber, that authority too was removed from the Senate. Now such incorporations or changes take place by the letters patent process.
The Senate only had two opportunities to do anything worth while. One was to deal with divorce and the other was the incorporation of insurance and finance companies. They were removed. What has probably occurred is that the Senate, realizing how useless it was becoming, recognizing what has always been the fact, has implored the government to give it something to do. Therefore the minister went to his old friend, Paul Martin, and said, "Senator Paul, I have a bill that is designed to keep intact
November 19, 1973

in my hands the right to take away Indian lands, and I want to keep that right. If I bring the bill into the House early in the session"-and I point out that it was introduced in the Senate on March 27 of this year-"those guys in the Commons and those intransigent people in the Indian affairs and northern development committee will tear me to shreds. So how about you, an old friend of the people, introducing the bill in the Senate? In that way it will proceed through and no one will even know it is there. The public will pay no attention to it, there will be no press about it, and it will sneak through. Then we will bring it into the Commons in the last days before the Christmas recess when people are interested in other important matters, slip it through and no one will know the difference. Plus the fact that it will look like you guys over there are doing something".
After all, Mr. Speaker, this is Bill S-4, and bills are dealt with in the order they are introduced. Bill S-l was the traditional, respectful piece of legislation which was not designed to go anywhere but just maintains tradition. What Bills S-2 and S-3 are, I have no idea.


Mr. Barnett:: They must have got as far as S-6 by now.


Frank Howard: My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) says that they must be up to Bill S-6 by now. But I do have this objection to a group of people in the Senate who do not represent any constituents or any particular areas, a group that is not concerned about the public good to any marked degree and who have no responsibility to anybody, introducing a bill of this type. Even if they goof, which is standard practice, even if the Senate is at fault and makes an error, there is no way the general public can cast their ballot and say "Out you go".


Mr. Rodriguez:: There would be if they voted for us.


Frank Howard: Indirectly the public could do this, since we are the only party that stands on all fours for abolition of the Senate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have listened with interest to the hon. member for quite a while, wondering whether he was speaking about the bill before the House or, rather, about the other place. The hon. member seems to me to be digressing considerably from the principle of the bill to launch an attack on the other place, something the rules do not allow him to do. One thing that the rules do require, however, is that an hon. member limit his comments to the bill before the House, which I gather has to do with Indian affairs and northern development, being an act to amend the National Parks Act. I hope that the hon. member will deal with parks rather than with the other place.


Frank Howard: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that use of the word "park" in its verbal sense might appropriately apply to the other place. In any event, what I am seeking to do is to establish the groundwork for showing that honourable senators in the other place, as it is euphemistically called, have no concern for the rights of the Indian people, and the same may be said of the minister, because they did not concern themselves with the effect and purpose of this particular bill.
National Parks Act
I sorely wish that members of the Conservative Party, who on many occasions have raised in a theoretical sense the question of the aboriginal rights of the Indian people, would give this piece of legislation and the act that it seeks to amend that degree of study and examination that would require members of the Conservative Party to say that they, too, object to this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to interrupt the hon. member, not because he is speaking about the other place this time but because his time has expired. He may obtain the unanimous consent of the House to continue and I am prepared to inquire whether that consent will be forthcoming.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There are dissenters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In this place or in the other place?


Mr. Speaker:: Not necessarily from the other place; there are dissenters from this place. Therefore, the hon. member has been displaced.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order to point out that I did not request any additional time and did not want any.
[Transla tion]


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my first intention in rising and taking part in this debate was not to defend the Senate against the attacks that have just been directed at it. But I find myself compelled, for the second time in two days, to pay tribute to some efforts that were made by the other place.
I had the opportunity last Friday to take part in the debate on the joint declaration that had been issued after the visit of the European Parliament that had been arranged by the joint Senate committee and tonight I rise in a debate which deals with a bill coming from the other place.
However, this is not my only interest in this bill, as you will probably see in my remarks. The constituency I represent is very suitable for the establishment of a park. Besides, after I was elected, in 1970, I stood as champion of the establishment of such a park in the northern part of my constituency. And at that time, Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec had just agreed, after hesitating for years, to admit the principle of the establishment of a park in the Gaspe Peninsula, and another one in the St. Maurice Valley.
My other interest is to take the defence-though he is very clever to defend himself-of the minister responsible for Indian affairs, because I had the opportunity, during the La Macaza title transfer on January 10, with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who was with me, to find out, to really understand the minister's popularity among the Indian people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, most of the Indian leaders of the province of Quebec whom I saw during the ceremony have praised
7938

November 19, 1973
National Parks Act
the minister on several occasions. Unfortunately, he was recovering from that unfortunate illness which kept him away from the House for several months. On that occasion, the Quebec Indian chiefs repeated over and over again how much he was appreciated, how the Indians recognized his efforts, his eagerness and his steadfastness to improve their living conditions, act as their spokesman and the champion of their interests throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, we saw his first reaction when he learned the judgment of the court on the James Bay issues. He immediately upheld the interests of the Indians and I think that the native people are grateful and have not missed, on various occasions and not only when I was in La Macaza, to show their attachment and their admiration for everything he has done for them.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, right after my election to this House, most municipalities in my riding made representations to me seeking from this government with the agreement of the province of Quebec the establishment of a national park in the northern part of my riding, that is in the uninhabited area situated north of Chute-Saint-Phillipe and Val-Viger, east of Mont-Laurier, stretching towards Abitibi in the north-west for about a hundred miles. This conforms well with the character of people of this area and those situated a little further to the south because for years the riding I represent distinguished itself by the way it welcomes tourists, making tourism its industry.
There is a long-established tradition and the people of that are conscious of having a special vocation for that industry. The people in my riding, in that area at least, could very well guarantee the success of such a project, enabling the more than two million people in Greater Montreal to get closer to nature, to the mountains we find in my riding, to the magnificent lakes and rivers and also take advantage of that greenery that is found almost everywhere in the constituency, and all the more as the building of the Sainte-Scholastique or Mirabel airport, whether we want it or not, will mean a very important increase in population during the next decade.
That move is already being felt months after months. The real estate agents in that part of my constituency, in the lower Laurentians talk again and again about the interest generated by the building of the airport.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of new provincial parks, especially in that central part of the province of Quebec, is a must. The development of Forillon National Park was excellent news in 1968 or 1969 and I could say that the development of St. Maurice Park is excellent news for the people of the province of Quebec, for it will be as beautiful as Forillon Park, but it is not as readily accessible to the Greater Montreal area as a park in the northern part of my constituency would be.
I estimate it would take beween seven and nine hours to travel from Montreal to Forillon, while the area I refer to, which is north of Montreal, could be reached within two hours. Access to that oasis could thus be made much easier and much more regular.
When Forillon Park was being created, Mr. Speaker, following long-I should say too long-negotiations with

Quebec authorities, it was a result of pressures exercised by the people of the province who were asking for the establishment of national parks which could rival in beauty with those in the western provinces. They had been asking for these parks for years.
Finally, the provincial government of the time became sensible and gave in to the pressures or requests from the people of Quebec. However, we are still in the red considering the number of national parks which are found in Alberta, for instance, or in other western provinces, compared with the number that we have now in Quebec.
If you except the Plains of Abraham which, in my view, are much more a park of a special nature than a national park, I would say that both parks, St. Maurice and Forillon, will not meet the demand and requirements of the Quebec people.
It is true that today the number of national parks has nearly doubled compared with what it was ten years ago, thanks to the initiative and tenacity of the minister responsible. Not so long ago, he said that by the year 2,000, Canada should have at least 60 parks.
Who will profit from the facilities offered in these parks, Mr. Speaker? First, the population of Canada, and then the tourists who come to visit us each year from Europe or the United States. For several decades, people in North America, in Canada and the United States have gone to Europe, to the lands of their ancestors.
Now the European economy is allowing people from Europe to come to North America and visit this new land which has attracted so many of their sons. One finds, of course, a great many cousins in North America, both French-speaking and English-speaking, and of other ethnic origins represented in this country as well.
Since the European economy reached our level you can rest assured that Europeans with the easy means of communication available today will also want to enjoy our beautiful national parks, our beautiful rivers and lakes.
Surely those people will enjoy them as well as Canadians from all parts of this country who will soon enjoy a 38 hour week and undoubtedly a 36, 34 or 32 hour week would mean a work week consisting of barely four days of eight hours each.
All people, especially workers, do not have the means to buy a lot on the shore of a lake and enjoy the beauty of nature that can be found in the Laurentians. It will be pressingly urgent to set up facilities so they can drive their habitat with them, whether it be a trailer-tent, or ordinary tent, a trailer or a motor home and enjoy, as those well off, the beauty of nature and the pure air the Laurentians and a national park can offer them.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, before the province of Quebec catches up with some provinces in this country in terms of the number of parks several years will have gone by. However, I come back charging with the will of the representatives of city councils in my riding who in 1971 and early in 1972 asked that a park be set up in the northern part of my riding. Economically speaking, Mr. Speaker, it has become excessively difficult to interest industry in the private sector in coming down to that part of the province
November 19, 1973

of Quebec which, under certain aspects, is still underdevelopped.
In my opinion it could be illegal to shift tertiary industry to this area when we think of the damages which the presence of heavy industries could cause to the environment. Because of the aptitude already shown by the population, because also of the sites and the facilities available, the establishment of a park in that part of the province would surely be welcome and would help create employment, thus ensuring the financial security of the people in that sector of my constituency.
Just the same I would like, before ending my remarks, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a few clauses of the bill, particularly with the one conferring to federal authorities the power to regulate or to apply traffic regulations on these lands, to enforce regulations and laws. Moreover, Bill S-4 will enable the Canadian government to amalgamate or to add to existing national parks lands which our country already owns.
Clause 9 of the bill specifies the boundaries and description of Forillon National Park. From the description of this park, in the Gaspe area in the eastern part of the province, it can be seen that this very beautiful park the equal of those established in western Canada, covers an area of 60,000 acres or 92,805 square miles.
We welcome such measures. The Quebec population is delighted at the decision of provincial authorities to yield to popular demands for the establishment of national parks. However, I am convinced that the population is not satisfied yet. During a campaign I started in 1971-72 for the creation of a park in my constituency, municipal councils were unanimous in calling for the creation of a new park at the northern end of the constituency of Labelle.
Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to repeat to the minister that popular interest for this project is very much alive in my constituency.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this measure because I think that in referring the bill to the committee for study we will have an opportunity to examine in some detail the policy of this government toward the national parks and the national park system. One of the reasons I am particularly interested in this subject is the fact that although the government seems to have evolved a national parks policy, I submit that on the face of it the parks policy cannot work to the same degree in all national parks.
If I may, I would like to use as a prime example the national park in my own riding. The reason I use this park as an example is that although it is a famous park, it is probably the smallest national park in Canada. I have listened with a great deal of interest to hon. members who preceded me speaking of national parks of hundreds of thousands of acres and thousands of square miles in area. The park of which I speak, the Point Pelee national park, could be placed in one of the lakes of one of the Canadian national parks. Its area is less than that of the townsites found in the Canadian national parks.
Why is there concern about the policy? One should know something of the history of the Point Pelee national
National Parks Act
park to understand why there is a great deal of concern about the policy of this government with regard to national parks. That park is particularly noteworthy because it comprises the most southern part of this country, with the exception of Pelee Island lying in Lake Erie. Point Pelee national park is located as far south along the longtitude running through the city of New York and the parallel from New York to the northern part of the state of California. When you are standing in that particular park you are south of one-third of the population of the United States.
Because of this location, the forest, the fauna and the ecology of the park are unique in Canada. There are trees and plants to be found there that are not found in other parts of Canada, and there are birds there that are not to be found in any other part of Canada. It is the migration point of many of the birds in their migratory flight from the southern hemisphere to the north. Where else would you find butterfly trees? For those who are not familiar with butterfly trees, let me explain that these are trees which in the fall of the year are almost covered in their entirety with Monarch butterflies which rest there before migrating south across Lake Erie. Hundreds of tourists travel to that particular area to see this unique display.
This park has not always been a national park. It is comprised of some farmland, marshland and wooded land. The farmers there grew various crops, first grain crops and then specialized crops such as asparagus. There were apple orchards, and because of the particular nature of the point where the flow of the east and west part of Lake Erie come together with a vicious undertow, it was necessary in the early days to establish a lifeguard station. The lifeguards performed yeoman service, saving many lives. Even today it is necessary to patrol the beaches, which are unique for their very fine sand and are a great attraction to tourists, because they can be very dangerous owing to the undertow where the two bodies of water flow together.
The policy of this government with regard to the park went awry because the local citizens, municipal and township councils there were not taken into confidence by the government and had no idea what the government was attempting to do with the park. They just found that suddenly the normal use of the park was curtailed, and they were somewhat mystified as to what the government was proposing to do.
No doubt the government's policy in trying to preserve that park in its natural state was an admirable one. However, it must not be forgotten that throughout the years the park had evolved together with the community. Camps for boys and girls had been set up on an alternate basis. There were picnic grounds for family picnics and church picnics. This was part of the community. The park was an attraction for thousands and thousands of tourists, and as a result a tourist industry was developed all along the approaches to the park. Restaurants cropped up and cottages were built. The park became part of the community. Because it was a focal point for tourists, the area attracted hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for the people of the community.
Now, all of a sudden, because of the national parks policy, this is changed. The number of cars going into the park was curtailed, the parking areas were reduced, no
7940

November 19, 1973
National Parks Act
new leases were granted to householders and no new camps were established in the park. The roadways were curtailed to traffic, and traffic was stopped at the main gate in the main part of the park. A train was introduced to take people through the park. Bird walks were established and so were trails through the park.
This is all very fine, but it changed the whole complexion of the park. Right beside the park there was an extensive marsh. An additional problem was created because all of a sudden hunters were told they could no longer hunt ducks in that marsh. This might appear to be commendable, but let me point out that the ban disrupted the community because in the original deed of that area hunters were granted the right to hunt in the park. The hunters did not go to the park for the sake of shooting only. Throughout the years hunters have carefully taken in thousands of bushels of grain to feed to the ducks. When hunting they were careful to make sure that a sufficient number of birds was left to ensure the continuation of the species. They were careful enough to see that the flocks did not grow so large as to become a nuisance to the surrounding farmlands. That was one problem caused by the marsh.
A second problem caused by this extensive marsh was that it was adjacent to diked farmland and more than once water broke through from the marsh and inundated the farmland. There was constant questioning about who should maintain the dikes, the farmers, the provincial government or the federal government, and always the answer came back that it was the federal government's responsibility because this was a national park. The national policy did not allow for sufficient consultation between those who actually knew the park and the administrators in Ottawa, hundreds of miles away. In fact, we would have had more chaos had it not been for the park administrators sent to the area. Fortunately, they had an understanding of what the government wanted to do, as well as a real appreciation of the feelings of the people of the area.
One bone of contention between the administration and the local people was a child's camp in that park. It was established under an estate legacy. A board of administrators was set up and took children from all the surrounding communities on a rotational basis. Groups of girls and boys were carefully supervised during their time at the camp. They walked forest trails, saw the beauty of nature and swam in the lakes. Most were city children who would not have an opportunity to go to other camps. But the national parks policy changed all that. The administration closed down the camp, and had it not been for the intervention of local citizens who were very wrought up about the matter, and finally the acquiescence of the minister himself, that park would have been closed to the children.
It is all very well to keep parks in their natural state for future genera' ions, but surely the people and children of today have some rights. They must have some place to go. Reason must prevail. We should not shut out everybody in order to make plans for tomorrow. This is why I am interested in this bill, and it is why I hope when it goes to committee we will have an opportunity to inquire into the government's plans for the various national parks. Policies 
for national parks which encompass hundreds of thousands of acres may not be suitable for national parks that encompass only a few acres. My plea to the government today is that it take another look at park policies which encompass parks of totally different natures.
In my area, national parks are very scarce. Hundreds of thousands of people there would have to travel many, many miles to reach another national park. For them, Point Pelee national park has been an oasis for years, and it would be very sad if policies conceived by parliament and administered by Ottawa terminated the pleasure that local communities have enjoyed when using that national park. The local citizens are very proud of Point Pelee national park. Since they have a vested interest and are so proud of the park, it is only fair they should have some say in how the park is administered.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate may be questioned by some who wonder why I should bother to speak about national parks since there are none in my riding. I would point out that the constituency of Moncton is situated halfway between the two national parks which presently exist in New Brunswick. Because many of my constituents enjoy the facilities of these parks and because Moncton, being the transportation centre of the Maritimes, is traversed by everyone who visits the parks, I have a very special interest in them. It is true, as the parliamentary secretary said, that this bill is merely a housekeeping bill, particularly concerned with updating the administration. I am particularly interested in clause 2 which gives the governor in council power to extend the boundaries and incorporate Crown lands within existing national parks.
I have mentioned that there are two national parks in New Brunswick. The problem of expansion is not too critical in the Kouchibouguac national park. It is a new park and the government is still upgrading facilities there. Therefore I shall confine my remarks to Fundy national park. The hon. member who preceded me said that the national park in his area is the smallest in Canada. I cannot argue with that; but if Fundy is not the second smallest, it certainly is one of the smallest. It is about 80 square miles in extent. Although small, it is one of the most beautiful parks in Canada. Visitors who have been there will confirm this. It contains some of the most beautiful scenery in Atlantic Canada, sea line, rugged forest and mountain lines. It is one of the real beauty spots. The problem at Fundy is simply that the park is too popular. Maybe that is not quite the proper way to put it. Anyway, it is so popular that it is now completely overcrowded.
In 1948, when the decision was made to develop Fundy national park, there were very few roads in there. Being a pretty rugged sector of the country, it attracted few visitors except campers and prospectors. The popularity of the park has steadily increased since then and I can give some figures in support of that. It is said that attendance at our national parks has doubled in each decade from 1952 to 1972. Fundy national park was officially opened in July, 1950, and in the year 66,300 visitors went there. By 1970, this had increased to 640,000 visitors. I have not seen the figures for 1972, but I venture to say they are over 700,000 and perhaps close to 800,000. The reason for this is simple.
November 19, 1973

Fundy is within a day's ride of probably the greatest concentration of population in North America. Fundy draws visitors from all the Atlantic provinces, plus the whole eastern seaboard of the United States, which is the heaviest settled area in the United States. As a result, it has become a very popular area for American and Canadian tourists. The most recent figures available show slightly over 700,000 visitors in an area of 80 square miles, or approximately 9,000 visitors per square mile; and of course, the whole area cannot be utilized for visitors as the bulk of it is forest and woodland which is, quite properly, conserved.
This brings up the conflict that seems to exist in national parks policy, Mr. Speaker. Instead of presenting a housekeeping bill, I had hoped that the minister would present some rational parks policy to resolve the age-old conflict between the two aspects of national parks policy-the first recreation, and the second conservation. In 1970, a series of hearings took place throughout the country in every area where a national park existed. The briefs and submissions pointed up the great conflict between the conservationists and those who thought parks should be devoted to recreational purposes. I wonder what has happened to those comprehensive reports and the submissions we heard in 1970, Maybe the minister could tell us what happened to them and, specifically, what is being done for Fundy and some other parks.
Our parks are desperately overcrowded. While I realize that many people would reserve them for conservation purposes, I think we must also realize that people are entitled to have a place for recreation, whether it be camping, picnicking, swimming or whatever is their pleasure. Surely we can strike a balance somewhere along the line and reserve one park for the nature lover and set up another for recreation purposes.
Over the years we have advocated that Fundy national park be enlarged to become an integral part of the much discussed Fundy trail.
The minister has often heard the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) and myself extol the beauties of the Fundy trail in this House. This trail would run from the Maine border through the southern part of New Brunswick up to St. Martin's and would co-ordinate the whole area. I know there has not been any agreement between the federal government and the province on the allocation of funds for such a project, but I have suggested in this House before that perhaps the most economic way to do it would be to extend the boundaries of Fundy national park 15 miles westward in a narrow corridor to the existing settlement of St. Martin's. This would provide the missing link between St. Martin's and the present borders of the park and would complete the Fundy trail. I do not know how many acres are involved, but the coast road along that part of the Bay of Fundy could be completed if this were done. I am sure under the terms of Clause 2 the federal government could work something out. Perhaps the provincial government would make the lands available to the federal government and they could become Crown lands. I should like to draw this matter to the attention of the minister because the time is long past when we should
National Parks Act
take action to provide adequately for the people coming to Fundy national park.
It has been estimated that by 1975, 3'/2 million visitors will be coming to New Brunswick every year and that this figure will increase by 25 per cent each year thereafter. If this is true, and if the same ratio exists as at present, in the next five years we will be getting over one million visitors. Unless something is done to extend the facilities, those visitors might as well stay home.
In his remarks the parliamentary secretary made reference to transit facilities within the park. But it is also very important to provide easy access. As the minister is probably aware, the main road to the park is very dilapidated and many tourists, especially those hauling small trailers, hesitate to use it. I think this is a proper subject for dicussion with the province. Perhaps a plan could be worked out whereby the highways to and from the park could be brought up to modern standards so that tourists from the United States and other areas would be glad to come to the park and enjoy its beauty.
I do not want to take up very much time, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with this bill. I have no quarrel with any of its provisions except that I hope that when we get to committee the minister will feel inclined to strengthen the bill to provide for the future expansion of parks. I hope he will accept some of the suggestions and criticisms made in committee. If he cannot do it with this bill, I hope that in the future he will bring in a more comprehensive plan to allocate parks for purposes of recreation and conservation. With this hope, I encourage the House to get this bill into committee so that the minister can give us his ideas.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain a question?


Charles Humbert Thomas: Yes.


Eymard G. Corbin: The hon. member has spoken in justifiably glowing terms of Fundy national park and I certainly have no quarrel with him on that, because he spoke well. He has also referred to the problems of overcrowding, increased tourist flow and the consequent need for additional facilities. Would the hon. member not agree with me that part of the solution to the overflow of tourism and the need for new facilities would be the creation of a third national park in New Brunswick, an international triboundary park between the province of New Brunswick, the state of Maine in the United States and the province of Quebec, part of which would be located in the "republic" of Mada-waska, the beautiful doorway to the Atlantic provinces?
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I understand the interest of the hon. member, but I do not think that he ought to take advantage of a question to repeat the speech that he has so well made recently.
[ English]


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree with the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). I point out that, as a member of the opposition, I can only plead with the minister on behalf of our province.

November 19, 1973
National Parks Act
I will leave it up to the hon. member, who has influence with the minister, to get us another national park in New Brunswick.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the few moments in which I will speak-because I wish to see this bill go before the committee-I wish to underscore the importance of consultation between the federal government and the provinces on the development of a national parks policy, particularly as, abhorrent though this may be to some, more and more people are being packed on fewer and fewer acres in our cities. This will create great pressures in the cities of Canada. We shall need the co-operation of federal and provincial as well as of other levels of government if we are to develop an adequate parks system which will satisfy the thousands upon thousands of people who must live in our urban communities.
For a few minutes I want to talk about an area that is of great importance from the standpoint of conservation and the development of a parks system. I want to speak about the Rideau River system which must be developed as a result of federal and provincial co-operation. That system extends from the national capital across the countries of Grenville, Carleton, Leeds and Frontenac down to the St. Lawrence River. The St. Lawrence has been neglected both by the federal and by the provincial government which has jurisdiction there. There is a crying need for action to be taken with respect to the river, as suggested in the CORTS study which has been lying relatively dormant for a number of years. The area ought to be redeveloped, as it has all the earmarks not only of a national park but of an area of tremendous historical significance. I ask the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider reactivating that CORTS study so that within a reasonable time we can bring to fruition the plan suggested in that study. We must not overlook the historical importance of the river.
We must make a beginning by cleaning up the Rideau River. The city of Ottawa, with the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, has embarked upon a clean-up project which affects the Rideau River in the national capital area. I suggest that is merely the tip of the iceberg of the problem. Its solution will require all the resources of the city of Ottawa, of the regional municipality and, as well, of the provincial government. In order to administer a program for reclaiming or developing historical sites and developing national parks sites and camp sites for the accommodation of people, it may be necessary for governments to establish an authority composed of representatives of the federal, provincial and perhaps affected municipal governments. I think it is important for the work with respect to that great historic river to begin. As we are talking about national parks, I want once again to urge the reclamation and development of that great river which has such tremendous potential.
I also wish to commend the minister. In the southern part of my riding the St. Lawrence divides my riding from the thirtieth congressional district of the United States. On the banks of the river at Prescott, Ontario, there is a fort under the jurisdiction of the minister-Fort Wellington. If ever there is to be found an instance of co-operation between those responsible for federal institutions and

those who influence the lifestream and lifestyle of any particular area, it is to be found with respect to Fort Wellington. I thank the minister for the co-operation he has shown me and the people of Prescott with respect to the use of the fort.
In this connection I must mention another part of the area coming under the federal government, Windmill Point, which is of great historical significance. I thank the minister not only for co-operating with Prescott and with other municipalities in the area, but for co-operating with me as the member representing the area. What has developed will, I hope, enhance the facilities for tourists in the area. As a result of this co-operation, which I am sure will be ongoing, I hope there will be an augmentation of the very worth-while programs which are undertaken by the local people in co-operation with officials of the minister's department. I want to pay particular tribute to the curator of the fort and those who work with him.
Along the St. Lawrence there are miles and miles of history. At Windmill Point, for instance, Schulz was captured in a Fenian raid and was defended by Sir John A. Macdonald, then a young lawyer in Kingston. Relationships between Canada and the United States had deteriorated to war, and that part of Ontario is of historical significance because an invasion was launched from that area into the United States.
It is important for there to be co-operation between provincial, municipal and federal governments in the development of a parks system so that the miles of history along the river, stretching perhaps from Kingston down as far as Upper Canada Village in my constituency, can be developed. As we grow older as a nation it will be important for us to look back and preserve the elements of our history which were made during our growth. Although co-operation between different levels of government is important in many areas, it is particularly important in the development of national parks, especially in the area to which I have alluded. That area will become more important as we grow more conscious of our history. It is important, as well, because it will afford a means of enjoyment for those who are congested in our cities.
I urge the minister to consider the matters I have raised. I commend him for the assistance he has given me and my constituents. I will sit down now because I do not want to delay the bill getting to committee. I felt that I had to make some brief remarks on this subject.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak for a few minutes only. I support this bill in principle. I believe my party does as well. I have travelled around this country a great deal and heard people here, especially Americans, say how wonderful our national parks are. In many respects they are the envy of the world. Nevertheless, I want to point to a few problems connected with our national parks system.
The fact that this bill provides for new parks is good; the suggested name changes are fine. I understand that some traffic laws are to be changed. Perhaps these are required, too. There has been concern for some years regarding traffic control in our national parks. Recently, and I do not know how widespread this practice is in our national
November 19, 1973

parks, I received representations from several senior citizen groups who had toured our national parks by bus.
I understand that on one tour each senior citizen was charged $1 for a traffic licence to get into the park. I was told this was an administrative error and should not have happened, yet the bus driver collected $1 from each senior citizen. I understand the traffic licence is for a vehicle, not for the individuals inside it.
My constituency adjoins a park that was established in the 1920s by the late Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada. He represented the constituency of Prince Albert for some time. He also had the distinction of being defeated by a CCF member in 1945. This is a large wilderness park, with one townsite, called Waskesiu. A number of problems have developed over the years in northern Saskatchewan with regard to this park. Many years ago it was decided that Prince Albert national park would be a people's park, catering to the rich and poor alike. Over the years, the park policy was to allow shack tents along a certain part of Lake Waskesiu. Some years ago a number of bureaucrats decided to get rid of the shack tents and people were told they must move them. Even though the shack tents had been there for almost a generation, these people were told they would no longer be allowed. As far as I and the people of my constituency are concerned, this matter should be straightened out.
Many of my constituents had shack tents in Prince Albert national park. They were arbitrarily told they would have to move them. After some appeals, delegations to members of parliament and appeals by chambers of commerce to government, and so on, it was finally decided to slowly phase out the shack tents. There are thousands of miles of shoreline in Prince Albert national park. There are huge lakes such as Lake Waskesiu, Crean Lake and Kingsmere Lake. There are many areas of shoreline property that could be developed. I cannot understand why these shack tents were not left alone.
There is another matter that concerns the people in my area. I understand that some steps have been taken in this regard. I am referring to the lease fees which people have to pay for their cabins. At Prospect Point there are huge, palatial summer cottages. For years people paid a yearly lease of $50 or $60 for them. However, the yearly lease on small skid cabins with two or three rooms is $80 or $90. I cannot see the justice in that. I understand there have been some changes in this regard, but they are not substantial enough.
Another problem plaguing this area is the question of roads. There is one main road into the southeastern end of the park. This goes through the city of Prince Albert and carries much of the traffic from the west, North Batt-leford, Edmonton, Calgary and the western United States, which has to travel an extra 50 or 60 miles in order to get to the park. There is a road coming from the southwest and a provincial highway which is paved to the edge of the park. There are 15 or 20 miles of national park roads. They are curving, dusty and treacherous. They are not paved. For years people have been asking the parks branch of the federal government to build up and pave these roads. The parks branch has said no, one entrance to the park is
National Parks Act
sufficient. We feel that a second main road into the park is justified. Most national parks have several roads leading to them.
Prince Albert national park is basically a summer park, mainly June to September. Many people in my province are ski enthusiasts, but they have no place to ski. If the people in my home town have the money, they go to Banff or Jasper once every three years.


An hon. Member:: Build a mountain.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Someone says "Build a moutain." Half a million dollars was spent building a mountain east of Saskatoon. As far as I am concerned, that was the most useless expenditure ever made. It would have been better to build a ski resort in Prince Albert national park where there are some large hills. Prince Albert national park can and should be developed into a winter resort. For the people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and western Ontario the only national parks with winter facilities available to them are Banff and Jasper. Parts of Prince Albert national park should be developed for winter use.
In general, the national parks policy is good. I hope the national parks branch does not capitulate to private interest for huge-scale development. They should basically be wilderness parks. I sometimes wonder whether money is apportioned evenly between the national parks of Canada. A great deal of money has been spent on certain "Cinderella" parks like Banff and Jasper. For years people in my area have been crying for improvements to Prince Albert national park. Very little has been done.
It takes a great deal of money to build roads through mountains. It would not be very difficult to build roads into Prince Albert national park, an area of hills, lakes, muskeg and woods. If $10,000 were invested in that park every now and then, it would be money well spent. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) suggests that maybe they are waiting for Mackenzie King to come back.
I suggest another national park should be developed in Saskatchewan. I do not think there is a grasslands park anywhere in Canada. Some people may ask why we would want a grasslands park, because all you get there are gophers, prairie dogs and coyotes. Some of the shortgrass prairie is an element of our heritage that we should preserve. Perhaps that will happen in the future.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4 has many features. It has already been mentioned in this debate that many cities on the North American continent are becoming crowded and people are looking for greater access to rural areas, particularly parks.
I am glad to see this bill come before the House in its present form, but I wish it had contained provision for a project in which I took a great deal of interest along with many people in the upper Ottawa Valley. We received wholehearted co-operation from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), but I cannot say the same for the province of Ontario which I think has been very negligent in co-operating with the

November 19, 1973
National Parks Act
federal government in an effort to bring more national parks to the province.
I refer particularly to the project for an interprovincial national park which was being sponsored on the upper Ottawa River by the development committee of the town of Mattawa, the recreation club of Temiscamingue, Quebec, the chambers of commerce of both those towns and representatives of municipalities in those areas. We thought this would be a unique park among the national parks of Canada because it would be the first with an interprovincial flavour. It would take in a large area of the province of Quebec opposite the town of Mattawa, starting at a point about ten miles below the town of Temiscamingue. The northern boundary runs east of the Ottawa River to the town of Temiscamingue in Quebec, then along Highway 63 to the city of North Bay. The westerly side would be Highway 533 running from Highway 63 to a point just north of Mattawa, and from there over to the Ottawa River.
This takes in a region on the Ontario side of the river which is ideally suited for development as a national park. We also took into consideration the fact that Highway 17 would lead into the park from southern Ontario and the Ottawa-Montreal-Northern New York state region. Highway II would be the entrance from Toronto and other urban areas in the south as well as states bordering on the Great Lakes. Highway 17 would lead in from such northern cities as Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and North Bay. As well as being ideally situated, the park would be a tie between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The people of the area, including the representatives of the various organizations which represented the public thinking on the matter, spent a great deal of time on this project. They even went to the expense of renting a train for a day and taking a number of people on a tour, using the old CPR line from Madawaska across the Ottawa River and up the Quebec side of the river to Temiscamingue. We were met on arrival there by the mayor and his council as well as by members of the Chamber of Commerce who were glad to see such an upsurge of interest in this proposed national park. The town's only industry had closed down and the future looked black. In Mattawa, the Weyerhaeuser plant was closing down and this was the only major industry in the town. The people of the area were naturally concerned.
We took this issue to the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I, along with others, had personal talks with the minister. We received positive answers. The minister went so far as to make a public statement in the town of Sturgeon Falls during one of his visits to northern Ontario. When asked about the possibility of an interprovincial national park to be established between Temiscamingue and Mattawa, he said he was definitely interested. Perhaps I could put on record pari of a report which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 23, 1972:
Mr. Chretien said last week in Sturgeon Falls he is definitely interested in setting aside the area as a park but the matter was now in the hands of the Ontario and Quebec governments. They must expropriate where necessary and cede the land to the federal government. "If they say yes tomorrow, I am ready to go ahead".


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: At this point, if there is a disposition to let the bill go through I am prepared to sit down. But if there is no such disposition I should like to retain my right to the floor.


Frank Howard: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I suppose the hon. member wishes to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on September 14 I addressed a question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) with respect to the art monstrosities which have been placed in front of various government buildings around the city of Ottawa. At that time the minister replied that these specimens-that is a very good word-are chosen by a select committee composed of some of the best Canadian artists. He said it had been the policy of this and preceding governments to spend 1 per cent of the cost of a federal building on art surrounding the building.
Later, a written reply in response to further questioning on my part indicated that the earlier reply had been in error. On September 19 the minister informed us that the policy had only been in effect since January 4, 1965, so other governments were not implicated in this particular example of waste and extravagance.
To date there have been 133 of these so-called artistic statues placed around government buildings. The total expenditure has amounted to $2,167,997. A good deal has been said in letters to editors in defence of this expenditure. Someone has referred to those who dared criticize this use of public funds as uninformed, because in expressing an opinion on public art they were handicapped by personal limitations.
One of the persons serving on the selection committee, Mrs. Suzanne Rivard-LeMoyne, has said that the advisory committee on art speaks of the shine of Robert Murray's Haida, the $35,000 steel sculpture outside the external affairs building, in these terms:
November 19, 1973

The contrast of his work to the heaviness of the building, gives me a feeling of lightness," she says, "Its, airy, spatial, spiritual in a way".
Some editorials have been written on this matter and I select one from the Ottawa Journal of November 10 last entitled "Art for anarchy's sake". I do not think that this is an opinion that can be described as uninformed. It says, among other things:
Some mod (or mad) hipsters on the public works advisory committee are approving such trash; and the like of the sculpture, if that's the word, Haida outside the external affairs building, or the magnified intestinal writhings in the park adjacent to the National Arts Centre. Why? . . .
Nor are we against modern art, from Cezanne to Braque and from there to Pellan, Pollock and Riopelle; and lest we forget, sculptors Epstein and Moore. They and others of like genius refashioned the form and content of art to give us new insights. They are the glory of the last 100 years.
But if they changed the rules radically, others simply abandoned any and all rules. Dadaism, self-proclaimed as anti-art, was early in this century accepted as art. Though that school died a swift death, its denizens left spiritual grandchildren among us. Their claptrap of rusty welded metal and other scrap makes a wasteland of our art galleries and desecrates our public buildings.
Then the editorialist concluded by asking why the taxpayers should have to pay for these monstrosities. Those who defend the art say that the artists are trying to say something. In last weekend's Journal there was a series of replies from people who are trying to describe these so-called artistic creations. Perhaps I can give the House some of the reactions of a cross-section of the Canadian public. The title of the article is "Junk: By any other name, Ottawans don't like it". One person suggested that it be called "Abortion without demand". She explained:
As a graduate of the Ontario College of Art in the days of Arthur Lismer, Frank Carmichael. . . and other greats, my first comment to my husband on viewing this monstrosity was "There was a time when this sort of thing ended up in the junkyard, where it belonged",
Someone else suggested it be called The Crunch because it reminded her, in a vague way, of the energy crisis . . .
It could, of course, perhaps be a symbol to government waste and stupidity, but surely another monument to this combination would be redundant.
Yet another suggested that it be called "The Peace of God", adding wryly, "because it passeth all understanding". My reason for raising this matter tonight is to get an answer f'om the government that will make some sense. The question I asked on September 14 was:
Does the minister intend to accept the advice of the hon. member for Cochrane, who has advised the government either to get rid of them or to place a shroud over them, or is he going to wait until the Canadian people place a shroud over the government?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been requested to give an appropriate answer to the matter raised by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale). I should like, first of all, to say I have been told that politicians are not necessarily experts in this particular field of art. For that reason, on December 23, 1964, the federal cabinet, by document No. 565-64, accepted a recommendation by the then minister of public works for the adoption of a fine arts policy to be instigated by the
Adjournment Debate
Department of Public Works in all buildings and programs serving the general public directly.
I should like to quote the answer given by the minister on September 14, as reported at page 6596 of Hansard, to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris:
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works does not claim knowledge in the world of art. These specimens are chosen by a select committee composed of some of the best Canadian artists. It has been the policy of this and preceding governments to apply 1 per cent of the cost of a federal building to art surrounding the building. The question of what is art is a very subjective one and I would not want to impose my tastes nor the tastes of the hon. member on the public.
I spoke to the minister this afternoon and I should like to quote what he told me:
Someone has already stated, I do not recall if it was Shakespeare or my predecessor, that "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". What might appears to be a monstrosity in the eyes of one person could look like a masterpiece in the eye of another, which is why the government has wisely decided to establish an advisory committee composed of artists and supported by the National Gallery and the Canada Council who review the selections of these artists and proposed works of art. Who are we, mere mortals, to predict what in the future will be regarded as a masterpiece?
Those are the words of the minister.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-REQUEST THAT PENSIONS BE TIED TO INCREASES IN COST OF LIVING
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, October 17, as recorded at page 6958 of Hansard, I put this question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand):
In view of the fact that most pensions that come under the responsibility of the federal government either are, or soon will be, escalated by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, would the minister seek to prevail upon Canadian National Railways so that CN pensions can also be escalated not just by 2 per cent a year but by the full percentage increase in the cost of living?
The minister's answer was to the effect that pensions are negotiated between the unions and the railway companies and that I ought to have known that Dr. Deutsch was also looking into these matters. In reply I pointed out that collective bargaining between the companies and the unions did not include any representatives at the table from those already retired and that someone had to speak for them. I also pointed out that Dr. Deutsch's terms of reference did not include this area, namely, the escalating of the pensions of railway employees already retired.
Mr. Speaker, I believe from what I see across the way that the answer to my question tonight will be given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay), my good friend from the neighbouring constituency of St. Boniface which I am happy to say is now part of my city of Winnipeg. I know where my hon. friend stands on this issue. He is just as concerned about it as I am. In his riding, as in mine, there are a great many Canadian National employees, both active and retired. In fact, the Transcona shops are in his constituency.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I wish tonight that somehow we could turn the tables so that the parliamentary secretary could ask the questions and I could give the answers. If he

November 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate
were going to ask the questions, what would he say? He would say, "Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not agree that it is time for Canadian National pensions to be escalated every year, not just by two per cent but by the full increase in the cost of living? "He would also say, "Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre not agree that this is a matter that does not get negotiated at the bargaining table? Does he not agree that the only persons who are in a position to speak for the retired employees are those in parliament ant that it is the job of the government to tell Canadian National to get in step?"
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport put those questions to me, as I think he would like to do and I know he would do it with feeling, my reply to him would be that I agree absolutely. I agree, indeed I insist, that the time has come for Canadian National pensions to escalate every year by the full percentage increase in the cost of living, as most other pensions now do. I would say to the second question, "Yes, I agree that since the unions are not in a position to do anything about increasing the pensions of retired employees, it is up to the government to tell the Canadian National to get in step on this issue."
Now, since those are the answers that I would give to the parliamentary secretary if he were to put the questions to me, I hope he will reciprocate and give me the same answers to my questions that I would give to him.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say that my own personal answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is that I agree with him wholeheartedly because I believe that the retired employees whom he has mentioned should certainly have their pensions increased by the full percentage relative to the cost of living. I also feel, and I have said it many times, that the railway employees should have pensions in parity with those of Air Canada and the civil service. I agree with that wholeheartedly, and let the hon. member rest assured that I have been saying this since 1968, since the first day I came to the House.
Speaking on behalf of the department with regard to the hon. member's question as recorded at page 6958 of Hansard, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) said in reply to the hon. member on October 17 of this year that he is quite sympathetic with their representations. He is just as keen as anyone to see future and past pensioners get the best deal possible. But the point he made was that these are matters for negotiation in the case of former workers already on pension and under negotiation in the case of today's workers. Negotiations are conducted between the union and management.
The fact of the matter is that the board of directors of the CNR has approved an increase of 2 per cent in pension payments to former employees and to widows of former employees. The increase, which takes effect from January 1, 1973, applies to all employees or their widows who retired on or before December 31, 1972. This decision was in response to representations made by the general chairman of the Canadian National Railways pension board

and followed upon action taken during recent years to compensate pensioners for cost of living increases. In 1971, CNR increased individual payments by 2 per cent per year of retirement up to 1969, or more, and last year it increased by 4 per cent all pensions that had come into effect by the end of 1970, and by 2 per cent all pensions that had come into effect by the end of 1971.
The latest increase will affect over 32,000 pensioners presently receiving payments from the CN pension fund. It represents an increase of $11 million in the unfunded liability of the fund. This increase should not, of course, be confused with the pension rule changes requested by the general chairman and by a number of other labour groups for the adoption of a so-called 2 per cent per year of service formula as the basis for computing future pensions. That matter, as you are aware, is still the subject of collective bargaining and is particularly under discussion in current mediation proceedings with the non-operating unions.
I want to assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that I am with him all the way with regard to the pensions of CNR workers.


FISHERIES-SPORTS FISHING IN WATERS OFF VANCOUVER ISLAND-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to believe that this was going to be an all-Manitoba night. First, may I say that I am pleased that the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) is here tonight to participate. I know he is interested in this subject and I hope he will take the remarks I am going to make in the constructive sense in which I shall attempt to submit them.
On November 7 I asked the Minister of Fisheries what he planned to do to help restore sports fishing in the area around southern Vancouver Island. The minister acknowledged in his reply, as recorded at page 7624 of Hansard, that the cohoe runs were down but he did not appear to know why. He said discussions along the lines of moving the net fishermen were proceeding. I have a file full of letters from west coast fishermen describing the problem. I am sure the minister has a similar or larger file. The simple reason there are no cohoe for sports fishermen is that they are being decimated by the commercial fishermen. I, of course, do not want to stop the commercial fishing industry nor does anyone else, but a means must be devised whereby they can coexist. It is not impossible.
As the minister well knows, the fall-off in sports fishing began in 1957 when the net fleet was established at the western end of the Strait of Juan de Fuca in a move to get the salmon before the Americans did. This is the principal reason for the lack of cohoe in the fall season, but not the only reason. Expert opinion is that far too many cohoe are being killed by trollers fishing early in the Gulf of Georgia. The season opens in mid-April and cohoe are an illegal catch at that time. However, as the trollers are permitted to fish with hoochies and flashers, they catch up to one million cohoe by accident before the season opens on June 1.
November 19, 1973

It is difficult to determine exactly how valuable the sports fishing industry is to British Columbia. A Washington state study indicated that the Puget Sound sports fishing industry is worth $20 million per year. The McMynn study indicates that the B.C. salmon sports fishing industry is also worth $20 million per year. This study in 1964 estimated that 85,000 residents and 36,000 visitors were engaged in sports fishing and spent $19 million to catch only 1.6 per cent of the commercial catch. Clearly, the sports fishing industry pays a tremendous return for its share of the resource.
Mr. Roderick Haig-Brown, the world famous naturalist, estimates that there are now 300,000 sports fishermen attempting to catch fish from a supply that has been reduced to one-quarter of its former numbers. Surely all will agree that restoring these stocks is in the best interests of both commercial and sports fishermen. The people speaking for the west coast sports fishermen-naturalists, sportsmen, conservationists such as Alec Merriman, Haig-Brown, Rhys Davis, and A1 Playfair-are not moved to this cause by a selfish desire to preserve something for themselves. They believe, that with proper leadership and management there can be sufficient fishing for 300,000 or more sports fishermen without seriously diminishing commercial fishing.
I would like to commend the minister for the initiatives he has taken in the area of hatcheries. I request that he show the same initiative in controlling the times and locations of commercial fishing. It has been recommended that, first, the net fishing should either go back to the river mouth fishing of former years or at least be located where it will not have its 98lA per cent cut of the supply before the sports fisherman gets his chance at his l'/z per cent, and secondly that the commercial fishermen might well stay out of the gulf until June 15. This would enable the 3 pounds to 4 pounds springs to put on some weight and would also eliminate the killing of thousands and thousands of young cohoe and undersized Chinooks, fish which must be shaken off the hooks because they cannot be kept. At the very least, the commercial fishermen in the gulf should not be allowed to fish with hootchies and flashers.
Adjournment Debate
I urgently request the minister to give immediate consideration to this matter. We have had two very bad years for sports fishing and cannot expect our tourists to be eternal optimists. More important, hundreds of thousands of us who like to try our luck are being deprived of one of sport's greatest thrills, a good British Columbia salmon on the end of a line and jumping.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for his thoughtful remarks. In the next few weeks we will be having negotiations with the United States in respect of the sharing of salmon catches on the west coast, and I am hopeful that as a result we will be able to arrange our affairs in such a way that the escapement of fish of interest to sportsmen will improve not only around Victoria but also in the Strait of Georgia and off the west coast of British Columbia.
The salmon runs on the west coast of British Columbia are about as good as they were 40 or 50 years ago, but in respect of species some years are good and some are not so good. The sockeye run off the west coast of B.C. this year was the biggest since World War I, but it was a disaster in Alaska. Similarly, while sockeye was up in British Columbia, other species were down. The species of interest to sports fishermen, the cohoe and spring salmon, were somewhat below average.
A few minutes ago I phoned an official in the department on the west coast whose opinion I respect, and he told me that this year the cohoe which are normally resident in the Strait of Georgia were outside of the strait during the summer in the period when they feed and take a lure. This happens periodically for reasons that our scientists do not fully understand.
The escapement past the nets toward Victoria was roughly 50 per cent greater than the volume taken by commercial fishermen. Some 600,000 passed Victoria but were not feeding. Half of them went to the rivers and hatcheries on the Puget Sound side, and the rest to British Columbia rivers. Escapement both to hatcheries and British Columbia rivers was excellent this year, but they were not feeding as they went past Victoria.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, November 20, 1973