1973-11-16

THE LATE HARRY KUNTZ

["It is just a case of revenge. You don't like him because he was a Liberal."]
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we learned with sadness this morning of the death of our colleague and friend, Harry Kuntz, member for Battle River.
Born and raised on a farm in Alberta, he had a deep respect and love for the land he represented. Although he was a relative newcomer to federal politics, his record of public service at the community level in Camrose was well established. As the father of five sons, he had an enthusiastic interest in amateur sports and volunteered his time to work with young people. Since he was elected to Parliament last year, he quickly became known among his colleagues as a dedicated constituency man. The concerns of his riding-agriculture, transportation and small business-became the concerns which he keenly pursued as a member of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I know all members will join with me in extending our sympathy to Mrs. Kuntz and her sons.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I was very shocked this morning to learn of the death of the hon. member for Battle River. It is always with particular sadness that one learns of the death of someone who is young in years, a husband and father of a young family.
Harry Kuntz came to the House of Commons from a part of the country where much remains of the spirit of the pioneers. He applied that spirit himself to the service of his neighbours. He was very active in the economic life of his community, in its civic affairs and, as the Prime Minister indicated, in community affairs.
His concern for the future of agriculture and the agricultural communities in his constituency was demonstrated with great sincerity and great conviction in this chamber. He was a man of very sound judgment, a man who spoke out when he had something to say. Knowing our hon. friend from Battle River, I and other members who come from other parts of the country came to appreciate the feelings and aspirations of the people he represented. I will miss his counsel.
On behalf of myself and my colleagues I join the Prime Minister in expressing our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Kuntz and her family.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our sorrow at the sudden passing of the late member for Battle River. Although Harry Kuntz had been a member of this House for only the period since the last election the seating
arrangements have been such that he was near us, physically at any rate, and my colleagues who sat close to him found him a delightful person to know. All of us wish to express our regret at his sudden and untimely passing. We extend our sympathy in particular to the Leader of the Opposition and to his party in the loss of a valued colleague.
We would ask that you, Sir, express on behalf of all of us in the House our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Kuntz and the five sons. The loss of a husband and father at such an early age is indeed a time of sadness, but we trust that the precious memories they will have through the years that lie ahead will be a source of strength and comfort to them even now.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself should like to join the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in expressing our heartfelt condolences to Mrs. Kuntz and her children.
Mr. Kuntz was a very devoted and active member of parliament. I believe that the House has lost one of its good members and this is why we join all hon. members in expressing our deepest sympathy to his family.


Mr. Speaker:: Later today it will be my duty to convey directly to Mrs. Kuntz the sympathy and condolences which have been expressed by the party leaders on behalf of all members of the House.



Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last Wednesday, on a point of order, I drew attention to certain questions which I have on the order paper and which have remained unanswered by the government for some time. My question of privilege arises from two things that have occurred subsequent to my raising the point of order last Wednesday.
The first is the nature of the reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council which I have had an opportunity to examine in Hansard and which contains what I find impossible to construe as anything other than a threat to the right and privilege of members of this House to ask questions of the government. The following were his words:

November 16, 1973
Privilege, Mr. Cossitt
I want to inform hon. members that I am attempting to find out the cost of answering these questions and on some of the more absurd ones I intend to make cost figures available.
It seems to me clear that in reality what has been said here is that members of the House should take warning not to continue asking too many questions of the government or they will be dealt with as posers of costly absurdities. There is, indeed, a not very veiled and threatening suggestion in the parliamentary secretary's remarks that members who ask questions of the government had better watch themselves or face unpleasant consequences. This sort of threatening language strikes at the acknowledged and long established duty and privilege of opposition members to examine and question in detail, without interference, any aspects of the governing of the country.
The second point on which I raise this matter of privilege arises from an article on page 41 of the Ottawa Citizen of Thursday, November 15, which reported my question and the parliamentary secretary's reply. This article contains information which the writer attributes to an unnamed member of the Privy Council staff who has told him that the Privy Council has had to hire extra staff for the sole purpose of answering questions from the member for Leeds. This is an untrue, malicious and blatantly irresponsible allegation by an employee of the government to a member of the news media, and it can scarcely be interpreted as anything other than an attempt by the government through one of its bureaucrats to discredit and interfere with the right and privilege of an opposition member to examine properly matters of concern to his constituency and to the country as a whole.
In conclusion, I make no apologies for questioning this government as often as possible and, like other members on this side of the House, I will continue to exercise my right and privilege to do so regardless of direct or indirect threats to desist from a government obviously easily embarrassed when its activities are questioned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the first part of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) it should be made clear to him at this point that there has always been a tradition in the House of Commons to refuse answers to questions that involve an inordinate expenditure of public funds. That precedent has been quoted more than once in the House, and if he will look at a primer on Canadian government he will find that this fact has often been quoted and established. I would refer him to MacGregor Dawson's book on Canadian government.
We intend, in the answering of questions, to be as responsible as possible and to produce all the volumes of information that can be produced, but I think we ought to assert, as has been asserted in the past, that in particular cases where the cost of answering a question is very large the government can refuse to answer it on that ground. In doing so we are not establishing a new precedent at all. As I say, it is a precedent that has been quoted in the House before this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds has raised the matter by way of a question of privilege. There is no motion. I would think it is a subject of debate, and I do not believe the Chair should be required to make an extensive ruling. The President of the Privy Council was allowed to reply according to practice. I suggest to hon. members that not much would be gained by pursuing the matter further and having a debate on the point raised by the hon. member for Leeds.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that the President of the Privy Council is in error if he is implying in any way that any of my questions have involved, to use his word, "an inordinate expenditure of public funds."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: This is a patently false statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Bell:: It is just a case of revenge. You don't like him because he was a Liberal.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane) moved: that the third report of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, presented to the House on Wednesday, November 14, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact hundreds of refugees from Chile have sought refuge in such countries as Panama, Honduras and Argentina and that many of them are seeking entrance to Canada, along with hundreds needing asylum within Chile, and in view of Canada's abysmal lack of response to this pressing human need, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House instruct the government immediately to follow the measures adopted toward political refugees from Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Uganda in 1972, thereby respecting the traditions which the Canadian people wish to have
November 16, 1973

respected, and to instruct our embassies and affected departments to act accordingly.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
[Stage Direction]
CHANGE IN NAME OF CONSTITUENCY FROM LASALLE TO LA SALLE-fiMARD- COTE SAINT-PAUL
Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of my constituency from "LaSalle" to "LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul". The basic reason for the change is that Emard and Cote Saint-Paul form integral parts of my riding and therefore I believe should be represented in the name. I ask that the name be changed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
What measure does he intend to take to ensure that air transportation of passengers and goods will not be interrupted through the relative uncertainty of the oil reserves situation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: So far, Mr. Speaker, air transport companies have indicated to us that they had enough fuel to provide all services in Canada, the only problem being that of supply in the United States where there is a rationing system.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the reports that some American planes are leaving Canadian airports with unneces-
Oral Questions
sary amounts of additional fuel on board, will the minister check to make certain that this is not going on in such a way as to erode the reserve supplies available to Canadian aircraft?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the problem we have is that fuel is rationed in the United States and it is not rationed in Canada. Would it be fair to say, therefore, that we are going to ration only American aircraft and not Canadian aircraft? We are looking into that situation now. This is why some Canadian airlines have to curtail their provision in the United States, and the reverse is not true. If we are going to have a shortage of fuel, I think we will have to do the same thing as they did to us in the United States.
[ Translation]


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister satisfied that the emergency plan which he has developed will be sufficient to ensure adequate air transport under any circumstances in Canada?


Jean Marchand: At this time I would say yes, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot say whether this will be so throughout winter.


ALLOCATION OF MILAN ROUTE TO CANADIAN CARRIER
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Can the minister tell the House if the oil shortage has had anything to do with the year's delay in assigning the Milan route to a Canadian carrier? Can he tell the House now when it will be assigned and what reason the government has for this unconscionable delay in providing an opportunity to a Canadian airline?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, maybe we can set up an inquiry board to see if there is a relationship between the two.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister advise the House what new crisis has made it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member's question supplementary? I gathered that he was rising on a supplementary question. If not, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Greenwood.


EFFECT OF FUEL SHORTAGE ON INSTITUTION OF NEW ROUTES TO UNITED STATES UNDER BILATERAL AGREEMENT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the growing fuel shortage and its effect on the air industry, particularly in the United States, can the minister advise the House whether this will have any effect on the institution of the new air routes under the bilateral agreement which was to have been initiated on January 1, 1974?

November 16, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little bit too soon to say. I do not know exactly when the bilaterals are going to be ratified by both governments, and I do not know what the fuel situation will be in Canada and the United States at that time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the many assurances given by the minister both inside and outside the House that the problems of Chilean refugees would be dealt with in the same humanitarian manner as the Hungarian, Czechoslovakian and Ugandan refugees were dealt with by the government in the past, and in view of the mounting evidence that no adequate steps have been taken to implement these assurances and that very few applications have been processed either in Chile or in other countries to which the refugees have gone, can the minister state now what steps the government has taken or proposes to take to ensure that Canada maintains the humanitarian standards to which the minister referred?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the humanitarian attitude taken by Liberal administrations toward the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Tibetans and the Ugandans will be continued.


An hon. Member:: Paul Martin.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shut up!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would ask Your Honour if it is within the rules for one hon. member to tell another hon. member to shut up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member for Greenwood that very special steps are being taken to deal with cases of Chileans either in Chile or outside of Chile who wish to come to Canada. Within Chile there has been a very limited interest in coming to Carada. We do know, however, of the presence in Panama, in San Jose and in Honduras of a number of people who have expressed an interest in coming to Canada. A team will be arriving in Panama on November 19 to begin processing applications. Another team is being sent to look at the whole situation in Panama, San Jose and Santiago to make sure that the willingness of Canada to accept those who wish to come to Canada is well known and that we shall take whatever steps are necessary to meet needs.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In taking those steps, is the government giving consideration to doing what I understand was done at the time of the Hungarian episode, that is, provide

means of transportation? Often these refugees have not got the means and without them they cannot come to this country.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, some preliminary consideration has been given to this. The teams that are being sent to Santiago and to the other points outside where there are individuals who have left Chile will report back within a week, when the government will take a decision on this particular point if, in fact, there is the kind of interest that has been suggested and there is need for special assistance.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Humanitarian considerations notwithstanding, can the minister give assurances to the House and to the Canadian people that all steps are being taken so that the entry of such refugees into Canada will be based on the investigations that the department generally undertakes in such cases?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in such cases the Canadian government believes, as it did in the case of the refugees from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Uganda and Tibet, that humanitarian considerations should prevail.


INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO CHILE
John Paul Harney: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As our embassy in Chile has been instructed by the Department of External Affairs to allow asylum within the embassy only in cases where individuals are being hotly pursued, that is to say, when they are being chased down the street by armed policemen, would the minister undertake to give different instructions to the ambassador to Chile so that we can see very clearly just how many people want to seek asylum in the embassy and then, in turn, seek refuge in Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult problem and I would hesitate to give any such assurance. Our experience in Chile has been an extraordinary one. I would like to pay tribute to the work of the ambassador and the members of the embassy for the way in which they have worked day and night in an effort to deal with this very difficult problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I say to the hon. member that he has not helped in facilitating the work of that ambassador.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Scarborough West on a supplementary and then attempt to complete the first round of questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
November 16, 1973


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the point of privilege which I would be allowed following the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They are very much in the nature of remarks he has made previously to the effect that I am spreading misinformation and making unworthy suggestions. I will not take up that point now. I will gladly take it up later if the minister keeps it up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Harney: In view of the fact Canada in 1956, under the active participation of the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, not only dispatched teams to Vienna but fortunately undertook to intervene directly to save the lives of refugees arriving from the Hungarian uprising at that time, will the minister now change the instructions he has sent to the ambassador so that Canada can have a record in this case at least as good as that of Sweden?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member it was under my administration that similar teams were sent to Czechoslovakia. I do not take any such remarks in good part. I say to the hon. member, and I repeat what I said before, that his action in distributing cables which he obtained somehow or other has made it very difficult indeed for our ambassador to operate effectively in Chile. Indeed, we have had to put special guards on the embassy.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on a question of privilege. In 1972, when the government of the time took generous action vis-a-vis Ugandans and were suffering attack on the hustings for doing so, I definitely approved and applauded their action. I think the minister is being extremely testy at the moment. I suggest I have a complete right to let the people of Canada know what their ambassadors are doing abroad, if the Department of External Affairs will not do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would want to pursue the matter further. He has made a point. The hon. member makes a point. At this time I should like to recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
We are all aware of the acquittal of the professional abortionist of Montreal, Dr. Morgentaler. Does the minister intend to take the necessary steps to have the 12 jury members submitted to psychiatric tests in order to determine whether they are truly sane?
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of questions that have been directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has an employee of the minister's department been investigated and possibly dismissed as a result of the release of a confidential document to a member of an opposition party in this House, as evidenced by a quotation from a dispatch allegedly from a Canadian diplomatic mission abroad, specifically our embassy in Chile, appearing on page 7504 of Hansard, following the recent precedent established by the dismissal of an employee of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for similar conduct?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I would just add that this is the first time in my experience a member of parliament has connived in this way in the distribution of a leaked document that could endanger the position of an ambassador abroad and jeopardizes diplomatic relations between Canada and foreign countries.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question-


Mr. Woolliams:: A question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, surely there is a question of privilege when the minister refers to conniving by a member of parliament. It is a slight on every member of parliament. I do not know what the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs had for breakfast. One told us to shut up. The other suggests that members of parliament on this and even on the other side of the House are conniving with certain public servants. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should withdraw those remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. I was referring to one member of parliament who has distributed some documents that were leaked from our embassy in Chile.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for coming to our defence but I think I can handle this one myself. I did not connive. The documents were handed to me and I made them public almost immediately. It is up to me as a member of the House to judge whether my actions will affect the well-being of Canada, here and abroad. I would say that if there has been any conniving it has been done on the other side, not on this side, because in this matter we have been getting much less than the full truth. People outside the House know the truth, and it can be
7866

November 16, 1973
Oral Questions
fully documented, but we cannot get at the truth in the House. All I can say is that it takes a conniver to know one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Rather than attempting two withdrawals we will call it a draw. I will return to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich for a supplementary.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of entering this dispute over connivance. However, I would like to know whether there has been an investigation with a view to a possible dismissal for the divulgence of classified documents from the department?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, an investigation is under way. It has not yet been successful.


PURCHASE OF HEATING OIL BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON USE
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the announcement that spot purchases of oil by the Canadian Commercial Corporation on government account will be used exclusively for government heating requirements, suggesting a government first policy on energy use, will the minister inform the House if priority is being given to the government having adequate supplies of fuel oil ahead of the government showing economies in its usq?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will soon announce the policy which the government intends to implement to cope with the present conditions.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Taking some comfort from the assurance that a policy will be announced some day, may I ask the minister whether he will indicate to the House the extent to which the use of federal taxes to subsidize federal government energy requirements is now creating a price shelter at the expense of Canadian consumers?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will also indicate the government policy as to the problem raised by the hon. member.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In the event of Air Canada purchasing a number of new DC-9s and other aircraft, is the minister considering having those aircraft maintained and overhauled at the Winnipeg air base?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that the question has hypothetical implications. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the question is hypothetical.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister negotiating with the province of Manitoba with regard to these aircraft being serviced in Winnipeg?


Jean Marchand: There are not usually negotiations on these matters, though there might be talks between the two governments. Air Canada, as is public knowledge, is about to buy new aircraft. We hope that some offsets can be negotiated and I hope some of them will be for the benefit of Winnipeg.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Has a final decision been made by Air Canada with respect to the location of its new computer centre and, if so, where is that centre to be located?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether that is a supplementary. Perhaps the hon. member will be recognized in a moment.


SUGGESTED CONVENING BY PRIME MINISTER OF FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the situation that is developing from day to day in connection with energy and the widespread demands that the Prime Minister should at once convene an energy conference representative of the federal government and the various provinces. Is he giving consideration to calling such a conference now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been in correspondence with the various premiers on this very subject in the past few weeks. I have told them we were going ahead with our program to have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources meet with their ministers on Friday of next week to lay the groundwork for such a federal-provincial conference, probably at the first ministers level. So far I have received no replies from the premiers indicating that they want to proceed with a full-blown conference without going through these preparatory stages for which we have laid the basis.
November 16, 1973


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister tell us which of the provinces with which he has been in communication have replied to his suggestion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I said none had replied to my suggestion. Therefore I take it they are happy to see the arrangements I have suggested to them go forward. One premier, Premier Barrett, and also the premier of Ontario, I believe-I will have to check my memory on that one-did suggest such a conference but I reminded them that this other conference has been scheduled for some time and that they would probably want their ministers to attend it and then make an assessment about the timing and subject matter of a future conference.


John George Diefenbaker: Having regard to the very serious situation in our country-indeed, there seems to be a stalemate of confusion on the part of the government- does the right hon. gentleman not think that now is the time, in the interests of the Canadian people, to convene a conference of first ministers to the end that this problem might be faced and suggestions put forward on the basis of which there would be agreement on a national energy policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That would be very nice, Mr. Speaker, but I must remind the right hon. gentleman, as I have done on a few occasions in the House, that we have wanted to put this subject on the agenda of federal-provincial conferences before, notably at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference last July. We wanted to have the subject of energy as one of the items on the agenda. It was apparent from the refusal of the western provinces to allow it on the agenda that they had not arrived at a joint position with regard to it. I have no evidence that since then they have reached such a joint position. I think this is why they are generally in agreement with my suggestion that a preparatory conference be held at the level of the responsible ministers before going into a federal-provincial conference at the first ministers' level.

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
It seems that the 100,000 non-operating railway employees who went back to work after last summer's strike are still waiting for the results of the arbitration ordered by special legislation of the Canadian Parliament concerning their new work standards. Since this has been going on for nearly three months, could the hon. Minister of Transport tell us how negotiations are progressing and if the results will soon be published or if all the settlement of this conflict will be forgotten much longer?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this question is somewhat contradictory as the hon. member asks how the negotiations are going when the problem involves arbitration, which means that the
Oral Questions
parties are not negotiating and are submitting their case to an arbitrator. But I think that the hon. member would get a more complete answer if he asked his question to the Minister of Labour who will probably be here Monday, since the report will be made to him.


INCOME TAX
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would address my question to the Minister of Finance. It arises from a statement by the hon. gentleman in the House some time ago that he would give further consideration to extending to small business the tax-free roll-over advantages now allowed between a farmer and his family. Can the minister inform the House whether there is at this time any plan to extend such advantages to small family-owned Canadian businesses which are so vital also to the Canadian way of life?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I want to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The Department of Finance is actively considering this matter. Of course, any resolution of it, if in the affirmative, would be a budgetary matter. There are, as I have said earlier, some special considerations militating in favour of special treatment of the family farm, one being the lack of liquidity of the holding. These are matters which would have to be dealt with.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a straightforward question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he has recovered from the last round. In view of the famine that is causing extreme suffering to many of the people of Ethiopia, and in view of reports that Canada's relief contribution through the United Nations is not reaching Ethiopia, can the minister say whether the government is considering direct assistance to that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it is only in comparatively recent days that the government of Ethiopia has admitted the extent of the drought and the effect upon the people there. This problem is now being considered by officials of CIDA. We have already sent a certain amount of limited direct assistance through the Red Cross and we are considering other measures.
26635-67J
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT

November 16, 1973


SUGGESTED ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND CLASS PASSENGERS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport related to those asked earlier on the subject of fuel shortages. Does the minister, in the interests of economy and efficiency, intend to pursue the suggestion made by the president of Canadian Pacific Airlines that the discrimination between first and second class status for passengers be ended?


Jean Marchand: This will be among the measures that will be considered if ever there is a real shortage of fuel.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of Transport, of which I have not given notice.
In view of the fact that aircraft burn huge quantities of fuel whether it is in short supply or not, can the minister inform the House whether railway companies intend to take advantage of the present situation to restore passenger train services which had been discontinued for many years, especially during the winter season, when travel becomes much more difficult, particularly in eastern Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly answer a question which is very hypothetical unfortunately. When we shall be facing this problem, railway companies will surely inform us of their intentions then.


AGRICULTURE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he be kind enough to advise the House of the nature of the new crisis that has arisen requiring the calling back of the Minister of Agriculture four days before he was expected to return from Rome to attend a special cabinet meeting tomorrow morning, while at the same time sending the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Moscow?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You spent all that time just to ask that?


George Harris Hees: I want to know the answer.


OIL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-INFORMING OF ARAB COUNTRIES OF CANADA'S POSITION
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the different and conflicting statements by various ministers on the question of oil exports to the United States, will the minister tell the House whether a statement representing Canada's attitude on oil exports has been sent to the Arab countries, especially to Saudi Arabia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the nature of Canada's relations with the United States has been made quite clear to the Arab countries, and I think the statements that have been made by various ministers are consistent and are quite well known.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, having in mind the Arab states and the fact that recent ministerial statements are confusing and have left doubt as to this country's policy on this matter, will the minister undertake to send special representatives to the Arab oil producing states to assure that Canada's position will be clear?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know from my conversations with the ambassadors here in Canada there is no such misunderstanding as the hon. gentleman suggests.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to modify or increase the responsibilities of the Minister of State for Science and Technology in line with the recommendations in the third volume of the report of the Senate committee on science policy? Will this entail legislation and if not, will a statement be made on motions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the third volume, along with the others, has been the subject of discussion between myself and the Minister of State for Science and Technology. We do have a plan for acting upon some of the recommendations therein and making various other policy decisions respecting science and technology. I would inform the hon. gentleman that it will not be at this session of parliament, but I think he may find traces of it in the next Speech from the Throne.
November 16, 1973


AIR CANADA
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Has an official decision been reached as to the location of Air Canada's new computer centre and, if so, whatever the location is, will the minister give us his assurance that this will not result in any further loss of employment by Air Canada in the Winnipeg area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read Hansard of yesterday he will see that my parliamentary secretary spoke on this during the late show last night and gave all the answers to the questions he has put now.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to go back to the question involving the Minister of Agriculture and address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Does the recall of the Minister of Agriculture from the very important meetings of the FAO in Rome dealing with the world food program for the next critical years mean a repudiation of the Canadian government's support of the world food bank and other proposals to meet this very serious problem?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would take that to be a most preposterous interpretation of the minister's return. He has already expressed Canada's policy at the FAO meetings, I believe on Wednesday of this week.


An hon. Member:: In a most qualified manner.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has attended the most important part of the meetings and had planned to come back over the weekend at any rate. I am very happy that he will be here in time for tomorrow's special cabinet meeting.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister on this very serious matter. It is because the minister's expression of Canada's viewpoint is so important to the world at this particular moment in history that we are concerned about his recall without a reason being given. Is the Prime Minister considering sending somebody else of ministerial capacity to show the rest of the nations that we are maintaining the position taken by the Minister of Agriculture last Wednesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that the minister has not been recalled. The minister had planned to come back and is coming back at the beginning of the weekend rather than at the end. His participation in Rome was a very important one, and we feel that the ministers
Oral Questions
of agriculture of the many nations assembled there have benefited greatly from the presence of our Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am very pleased that this confidence in his ability is shared by all sides of the House.


An hon. Member:: Don't smile.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think they will understand that after his very valuable contribution in Rome he is also a very valuable minister in our cabinet and we would be very sorry if we had to hold this meeting tomorrow without his presence.


An hon. Member:: Isn't Mitch valuable too?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We want Mitch.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore I think it is only fair to Canadians as well as to our responsibility as citizens of the world that the minister share his time equally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I understand the hon. member has a supplementary question, but I should remind the House that we are running short of time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, this is not a supplementary question, it is a request of the Prime Minister which I put in all seriousness and sincerity. In view of the importance of mounting a big world food program over the next four or five years, would the Prime Minister not consider having somebody of ministerial capacity, perhaps the minister in charge of fisheries or somebody associated with the food of the world, represent Canada at these very serious meetings of the FAO in Rome?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat that the minister has participated very earnestly for several days. He is leaving in Rome his deputy minister and many officials who will be carrying out his policy participation. There is some need, as the House will understand, for limiting ministerial time travelling abroad, as was just mentioned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that Conservative members support this proposition. Surely they should make up their minds whether they want ministers to be in the House or to travel outside the country.


An hon. Member:: Keep Mitch here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been some reference to the Secretary of State for External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Let's keep Mitch.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 16, 1973
Oral Questions


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, there is a very hungry world out there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]


THALIDOMIDE-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES FROM QUEBEC LIVING IN UNITED STATES IN ACTIONS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since a fairly critical stage was reached yesterday in the court proceedings instituted on behalf of a number of Quebec families living in the United States with thalidomide victims in their midst, does the hon. minister intend to assist these families in their lawsuits against the American firms concerned?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, judging from the results they have obtained already, these families appear quite capable of taking very good care of themselves and to be very well represented. Under these circumstances, there is nothing I can add to what I have already said concerning thalidomide children.


EDUCATION
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on October 17 I directed a question to the Secretary of State in the following words:
In view of the fact the government of British Columbia has declined to apply for assistance on behalf of private or independent schools under the federal official second language instruction program, can the minister tell us what steps, if any, are being contemplated to make financial aid available to these schools on the same basis as the public school system?
In reply the minister indicated that his officials were discussing this matter with representatives of the British Columbia government. I wonder whether he is in a position to give a reply today.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I am not. The discussions are continuing. I will get an updated report and speak to the hon. member personally.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the difficulty the government apparently is having in turning off the lights in government buildings at night, would the government consider investing in one of these new machines that automatically turn off the lights, and thus end the controversy once and for all?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we have no problems at all in finding the switches, but if the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster will put his finger on a live light bulb he will find that it has not only light but also heat.


INQUIRY AS TO LeDAIN COMMISSION FINAL REPORT-POSSIBLE LEGISLATION ON DRUG ABUSE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, after this bright exchange I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in respect of the final report of the LeDain Commission which was expected 13 months ago. Can he advise when he expects to be able to present this document to us, and can he also indicate whether he intends to bring forward legislation on the matter of drug abuse as promised by his predecessor?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I received a letter from the chairman of the commission advising me he expects to be in a position to make the report public in the latter part of December. But in light of previous experience with this particular commission and this particular report, I will limit my comments to that.


WELFARE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the increases in the cost of home heating oil will mean an extra tax burden to the people on welfare, and in view of the fact that many provinces have to increase the fuel allowance at this time of year, has the minister received any requests from the provinces to increase the 50 per cent cost-sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan, and what is the position now?


Marc Lalonde: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
November 16, 1973


HOUSING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for housing. In view of the fact that certain metropolitan areas in Canada are facing a critical shortage of apartment units, and in consequence rents will substantially increase and bring hardship to those on fixed incomes, what special programs, if any, other than the amendments to the National Housing Act which are not helping, has the minister devised to assist the cities and provinces to cope with this shortage?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the report to which the hon. member refers. The difficulty is that building activity in the country is being carried on at an extremely high level, and we expect building activity to be as great next year, so any increased activity will place an almost inflationary pressure on the supply of labour and materials. In terms of the people for whom the question expresses concern, the low and moderate income earners in Canada, the programs of social housing under the National Housing Act are being used as extensively as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North, then the Leader of the Opposition, and then call orders of the day.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the minister is having any program devised to replace the large pools of money which resulted from investment by wage earners, professional people and small businessmen and which have dried up. Prior to the changing of the Income Tax Act these people could use the depreciated cost allowance on apartment buildings as a write-off against their taxable income, so millions of dollars were poured into apartment blocks which kept the rents at a reasonable level for the average man.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we have in front of the committee right now Bill C-135 which is designed to help allay some of the difficulties to which the hon. member refers.


EFFECT ON INFLATION OF ENCOURAGING HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister suggested that a greater building program might lead to inflationary pressure. I should like to ask the minister whether it is the policy of the government to in fact encourage the construction of housing, which seems to be the view expressed by the Minister of Finance, or whether the minister feels this would be more inflationary so far as the price of housing and apartments is concerned compared with the inflationary pressure induced by an actual shortage of houses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, our goal is to meet our medium-term objectives which are about 250,000 units per year.
National Parks Act


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra rises on a point of order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Clark (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning the delivery of the text of the unanimous resolution of the House to the government of the United States and he replied that he would inquire into the question of who looks after such matters. I wonder if I could inquire through the Chair whether the Prime Minister has found out who handles such matters.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I discussed the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who assures me that the resolution has been transmitted by his department to the State Department for further transmission onward to the western states concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House, resumed, from Friday, November 2, 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.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, before I resume my remarks on Bill S-4 I am sure the House will allow me, as a member from Alberta, to express on behalf on my colleagues in that province our deep regret at the death of our colleague Harry Kuntz. We perhaps knew him best and had the best opportunity to appreciate his practicality and good advice. I would think the House would also allow these remarks because of Harry Kuntz interest in matters touched on by the bill we are discussing today, matters concerning national parks, particularly those in the north. He travelled with members of the standing committee to visit parks in northern Canada during the summer and planned to do so again. We will miss his company and his counsel.
When I began my remarks the other day, I indicated the general support members in this party have for the principles contained in Bill S-4, which is now before us, but also indicated the very grave concern we have for the lack of adequate provision in the bill as it stands for public

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
consultation with those people who are concerned about either additions to or subtractions from the national parks in Canada. We believe substantial progress was made in the other place when an amendment was introduced and accepted requiring the printing of a notice in the Canada Gazette. We also indicated our intention to seek a more extensive provision to ensure public consultation on these matters.
The discussion of this bill in committee will provide an opportunity to review the whole national parks procedure which has caused a great deal of concern to people who have had to deal with that in the past. As the House will know, members of the standing committee will be returning to Whitehorse early in December, at which time they will have an opportunity to continue hearings there on matters relating to the establishment of parks. We had the opportunity earlier to visit the spectacular site of the new national park in the Northwest Territories. Also, as the House would know, there is very grave concern in the north about some of the boundaries of the proposed new national park in the Yukon, concern on the part of representatives of a cross-section of Canadian interests, such as wilderness groups and the native people. We hope to give them all a fair and full hearing. It would be very useful to us to have the bill before us for those purposes.
As the House knows, this bill establishes legal descriptions, and in some cases new legal descriptions, for several parks in several provinces. It also changes the status of two historic parks, Fort Beausejour and Fort Anne, and it empowers the government to establish by order in council, as a result of the intervention of the Senate, through publication of a notice in the Canada Gazette, new parks in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Newfoundland and Ontario. We believe, as I indicated, that the amendment regarding the publication in the Canada Gazette is a significant improvement on the bill as presented to the other place.
There are some points which I wish to emphasize today. The first concerns the procedure of enshrining park descriptions in the statute, yet specifically allowing additions to national parks by order in council. This means that boundaries can be enlarged by order in council but they can only be diminished by parliament. I accept that parliament should pass on any proposal to diminish the boundaries of national parks; it is an acknowledged and welcome national responsibility of parliament to protect national parks for the enjoyment and use of future generations. However, we want an answer from the government as to why parliament should be asked to approve only diminutions of national parks. Why should we not be asked to make decisions with regard to additions? Why should that be a power that the government can exercise by order in council? Is the diminution of public land more important than the expropriation of private land? That is the principle inherent in the double standard which the government applies in this bill. It leaves citizens less protection than the state, and that is a principle about which we are concerned.
The second matter to which I would like to draw attention is the fact that this bill, as it was originally introduced in the other place, proposes that the enlargement of

public land and the expropriation of private land be achieved virtually without notice. That is unacceptable to us, as it was to the other place which introduced the amendment requiring publication in the Canada Gazette. In the testimony there, the director of Parks Canada indicated that there would be adequate safeguards by allowing groups who are interested to appear before the committees of this House and the other place. I think that the argument is a faulty one. People from distant parts of Canada will clearly not be able to come here to make the kind of representations that would be useful to committees of parliament, even if we have the time on our schedules to hear them, which we do not.
I want to point out that that argument, which the government attempted to incorporate in the bill that went to the other place, could be used to avoid public hearings on any subject. The House should note that the government's attempt to achieve this objective was stopped by the other place, which clearly possesses within its walls members who have a greater sense of democracy than does the government. As I indicated, the amendment regarding the Canada Gazette is an improvement, but we believe that the provision relative to public notice must be improved and fortified even more.
A third matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is the requirement in the bill for the agreement of any province to enlarge or establish national parks but it requires only consultation with the Northwest Territories. That is one more indication and affirmation of the colonial attitude which this government takes to the people who live within our Northern Territories. It is particularly dangerous coming from this government because it is clear on the record-and particularly clear on the recent record-that to this government consultation means mere advice. We would want to seriously consider and propose to the committee that the Northern Territories be treated in the same manner as the provinces, so that before parks are established in those areas there would have to be agreement rather than mere consultation.
The bill as it stands also proposes certain so-called housekeeping amendments, and principally an amendment which would allow the collection of traffic fines within the national parks. But I think it is the clear impression of members of the House, certainly members who are acquainted with the situation in national parks, that important as the question of traffic fines might be, there are several more important matters that have to be put in order in national parks. It is, of course, nonsense that matters relating to traffic fines must be referred to Ottawa now, but there is much more nonsense than that going on in the national parks as they are regulated and administered today. The committee members who came from other parts of Canada had the opportunity to visit townsites in the national parks of Banff and Jasper, and came away shocked at the colonial conditions there. They realise there is a much broader range of housekeeping matters that must be attended to, and I hope that we can attend to some of them in the committee. It is perhaps proper to ask why the government would stop to deal with the grievances of the RCMP, and not deal also with grievances of other citizens who live and work within the national parks.
November 16, 1973

I believe that the basic change which is needed in the administration and attitude of the government toward our national parks, and the people who live there, is the awareness that administration at a distance is not the best way to preserve the park values which most members in the House and most people in the townsites in the national parks know to be important. I referred earlier to the visit of the standing committee to the national parks of Banff and Jasper. Members of that committee from both sides of the House were shocked at the standard of architecture and at the look of the town of Banff. What shocked them most was the developments which had taken place under the direct control of the federal government. The reason they were undertaken is that the decisions were made at a place distant from the people who live there. By living in those places they indicate their own appreciation of the values and the beauty of the region, which is not necessarily reflected by those who live at a distance. It simply stands to reason that people who live in Ottawa and administer the parks will not be as careful about the look of a community like Banff as the people who have to live the rest of their lives in that community. It is simply one more indication of the dangers of administration at a distance which has been the underlying principle of the approach of this government to national parks.
There has been a consistent denial of self-government to the towns in the national parks. Discussions are now proceeding with the community of Banff. That does not indicate a conversion or a change of attitude; it is simply an accommodation to pressure, because extensive pressure has been applied by the residents of Jasper and Banff, as well as by the government of Alberta, in an unanimous resolution calling for a change in the approach to the administration of the two townsites. Now the government is creeping along because it knows that if it does not creep we will push it. I think members of the committee generally agree that the pace at which they are creeping now is not satisfactory, so we will push them beyond the meagre limits to which they want to go. The director of Parks Canada appeared the other night before the standing committee and refused to give a timetable for the vesting of some degree of self-government in the townsites of Banff and Jasper. I think it is very much the case that if the government is seriously interested in the housekeeping arrangements in the national parks, as indicated by the bill, we should give very high priority to self-government there. We hope that can be done.
One other aspect-and I think it is not particularly well known to people who live outside the parks-is that while the federal government keeps tight control of the right to govern which would be enjoyed in other communities outside the parks, it also keeps a tighter than usual control of the funds that are available to people who have the responsibility of administering whatever meagre powers are enjoyed by those townsites. I want to quote to the House from a letter written to me by the secretary treasurer of the Jasper school district relating directly to the grants in lieu of taxes from federal sources, which should come but which do not come to that community, from the federal government. It reads:
National Parks Act
Assessed value of federal property (at present) is $1,081,000 and at our current mill rate of 37.207 should produce $40,250.53 in grants in lieu of taxes.
Last year (1972) we received $7,970.00 grants in lieu of taxes at a mill rate of 48.085.
That is a shortfall of some $33,000 in the grants in lieu of taxes that would be paid by the federal government to a normal community. This is another example of the discrimination that is practised by the government against the residents of the townsites in the national parks.
Now I want to pass quickly to the lease situation in the townsites. There are in excess of 40 kinds of leases in operation, with the application of different terms, sometimes pertaining to the same sites. Some of these leases were imposed by duress upon the people who hold them, and the government refuses to recognize the duress that was involved. Instead, the government suggests to people who have problems that they take the matter to court, which is surely the last resort, but in this case is the only resort.
Another highly important matter that I think members of the House should be aware of, which concerns national parks, and which we might be able to consider in committee on this bill, is that there exists a very great uncertainty regarding the future of the people in the townsites within national parks and the degree to which they will be able to participate in the planning of those communities, let alone in the government of those communities.
Master plans for the townsites have been promised, and then delayed. In some communities there is a real fear that the communities themselves will be torn right by the federal government. I received a letter the other day from an executive assistant to the minister, a very alarming document, in which he expressed reservations about the right of the people in Waterton to take part in such planning. It is a dangerous precedent, I submit, for the government to suggest that the only people who have any claim of residence at all in a community have no right, because of technicalities, to participate in the planning of that community. As I say these are matters we will want to go into in more detail in committee.
Members of my party take a great deal of pride in the fact that it was a national Conservative leader who first established national parks in Canada and brought the national parks system into being. Obviously it is a distinctive and important feature of Canadian life, which allows us to maintain a respect for nature and the wilderness "for future generations".
I believe, and members on this side of the House believe that the government has taken important initiatives, some of which are outlined in this bill. We commend the minister and the government for this, but again I want to make the point that the initiatives they have taken are relatively easy initiatives. We would welcome this legislation much more if it had tackled some of the hard problems in establishing national parks in places closer to the people of Canada. Still, this bill is an important step forward. It will allow us to discuss in committee various important matters respecting the national parks system, matters that are important to the people who live within the parks. We are pleased that the bill is before us. We look forward to a
7874

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
productive discussion on the principles and precise details when the bill reaches committee.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)) introduced the second reading stage of this bill on behalf of the minister, he spent some time outlining the expansion of our national parks system which has occurred recently, an expansion which has also been mentioned by the minister, both in this chamber and elsewhere, as being a matter of great satisfaction to him. At the outset I would like to say I share that satisfaction, and I believe that the minister quite properly can take some pride in the progress that has been made in this direction since he assumed this portfolio.
For my own part, I am happy to say that both before and since the present minister took office I have believed in the desirability of expanding our national parks system, as to size and to number of parks, and over the years that I have been a member of this House I have done what I could to further that end. I just hope that the bill now before us does not represent the end of our forward movement.
The bill proposes some alterations in the method by which lands can be put into national parks. It makes provision for additions of lands to parks by proclamation of the Governor in Council, while preserving the basic concept that once lands are dedicated, as we sometimes say, to the national parks trust, they cannot be removed except by an act of the Parliament of Canada. This is a principle I can accept because there are cases when additions to existing parks are necessary and desirable, and subject to the agreement of provincial and local government authorities, I think it is reasonable that minor additions, and even possibly major additions to existing parks, could be made without having to undergo the delay involved in having legislation for that purpose introduced and passed by the two Houses of parliament.
There are two other ways in which the bill provides for additions to our park lands. One is that by proclamation certain parks which are currently, shall I say, in the process of formation, can be added to the national parks system in a formal way. One of these is currently known as the Pacific Rim Park in my constituency, a major seashore national park. This, of course, has involved negotiations with the province of British Columbia, and other parks are in the process of formation as a result of negotiations with other provincial governments.
The third proposal in the bill for the addition of lands to the national parks-and I make this distinction deliberately-is for major additions to the parks system in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I make this distinction because the lands involved in the creation of these national parks constitutionally at the present time are held in the hands of the government and the parliament of Canada.
I and my colleagues can accept all three of these proposals, with one important proviso, and one or two of my colleagues may have something to say about this aspect of the matter as the debate progresses. That proviso, Mr. Speaker, is the still uncertain status of much of these

lands in relation to the title of the aboriginal people of Canada. Of course, this has particular application at the present time with respect to the proposed national parks in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and the committee should consider it very seriously if this bill passes second reading.
The situation is not confined merely to the acquisition of park lands in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, however. It certainly is involved in the question of park lands within the province of British Columbia, and it certainly is involved in the question of lands for the parks proposed in this bill. By way of illustration, Mr. Speaker, within the proposed Westcoast National Park a number of reserves are set aside for the benefit and use of the Indian bands in that area.
In this connection, I should like to remind the House that the National Parks Act contains a provision which allows lands to be taken from the Indian people. The minister possesses this authority, but I am well aware that as far as the park to which I have made reference is concerned he has stated in writing to the Indian people that he will not use it. However, my colleagues and I have some very basic reservations about this important concept in regard to the acquisition of park lands as proposed in the bill.
"Public lands" as described in the bill, even as amended, means lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada. That is still the basic position which the minister has maintained in respect of lands within the national parks, even though they may in fact have been set aside as Indian reservations. This matter may be rectified in committee of course but I just want to say that while I approve of this bill in general on second reading, as far as this party is concerned its final passage through this House may be contingent upon resolution of that aspect.
Having indicated that I agree with expanding the area and the diversity of lands within Canada which are to be put into the national parks trust, I must say that the fact that there has been a rapid expansion in the number and diversity and location of these parks puts a particular responsibility upon members of this House to broaden the understanding of the role of national parks by the Canadian people. I think we have a clear responsibility to eliminate some of the confusion which currently exists in the minds of most Canadians regarding lands in the national parks trust, and lands which may be set aside for what is commonly referred to as recreational purposes. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) expressed a wish for the establishment of parks nearer to the people, and if this comes to fruition it is perhaps more important that the distinction be clearly defined than it was in the days when we only had a few wilderness parks in the Rockies.
In the case of the Pacific Rim Park, which had already achieved some status as a provincial park before the national parks were established, there is still a disposition to think of it as a place to play golf or other activities- and quite properly so-but the basic purpose of setting aside that area of the west coast of Canada was to preserve, for the enjoyment of this and future generations, some of Canada in its natural state.
November 16, 1973

The degree of misunderstanding that exists on this point is evident from the diversity of approach in the briefs submitted to the committee which was considering this subject. It brings up the related question of what steps can be taken by members of parliament individually and collectively to promote the idea of the necessity for increased recreational areas outside of the national parks system and I think we should be addressing ourselves to this key question. Indeed, the aspirations which the minister has expressed for further expansion of the national parks system are largely contingent upon a growing awareness of the system by the Canadian people.
Another matter which becomes increasingly important with the growth of national parks is the use of land immediately surrounding the parks by visitors. This immediately involves the provinces and while it may have been tentatively discussed with provincial authorities, I do not think that it has been adequately covered. The question of visitor service facilities outside the boundaries of a park is an idea which must be considered although it may not be too easy to put it into practice. This aspect is designed in part to avoid the kinds of complications which are referred to so often by the people in Banff and Jasper and by members representing those areas in this House. That is the sort of thing to which the hon. member for Rocky Mountain was just referring, and it is designed to avoid that kind of paternalistic administration which has so long characterized the life of the communities of Banff and Jasper.
In a speech that I once made following an earlier visit of the committee to Banff and Jasper, I suggested that the House should recognize that Banff and Jasper are anomalies within the national parks system which should never again be repealed. Although we recognize that because of the size and location of those parks they are useful and necessary to those who live in those particular parts, nevertheless there is a danger, and it is a very real danger which is based on my observations of Pacific Rim Park, the park which I am best able to keep under direct observation, that in the vicinity of the parks there may arise that uncoordinated sort of development which, in other localities, is described as urban sprawl.
Although that kind of development in our urban communities is considered undesirable by some, I submit that that kind of development in the territories surrounding our park is of even more serious concern, because it can ruin the parks themselves. Although the provincial authorities must of necessity be involved in this situation, I none the less urge upon the House, and I am inclined to think that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) will not quarrel with this, the idea that some of the other ministries of the federal government should concentrate on this situation to a much greater extent than has been evident up to this point. I urge that some retailoring be done with respect to some programs introduced by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; that, possibly, the thrust of the Industrial Development Bank should be reconsidered. Indeed, it may be necessary to retailor some of the programs carried on under the aegis of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That should be done so that we can
National Parks Act
easily make available the necessary financial muscle, for the use of those who are involved in the territories immediately surrounding the parks.
While it is all very well for us to urge upon provincial authorities the need for an interrelated planning concept in keeping with the needs of the parks themselves and the development of adjacent areas, none the less, in the total picture of provincial responsibilities, the fact remains that the thrust of a national decision to spend federal tax moneys in parks may create special, and in some cases unacceptable, burdens upon agencies of provincial governments which may have direct responsibility in those areas.
If we are to get the kind of co-operation we need from provincial authorities for their agreeing to transfer to the public lands of Canada pieces of territory within existing provincial boundaries, this Parliament will have to provide a clearcut understanding as to the ancillary role which the federal authority will play in making sure that we shall avoid repeating the mistakes in other parks which we have made in Banff and Jasper. As well, we must ensure that necessary ancillary services, which in many places means appropriate recreational areas, are available in the territory adjacent to the parks.
The only other point I wish to touch on at this time, and I do so because it was raised by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, is that of self-government in the existing communities of Banff and Jasper. One need not remind hon. members of the House, especially some of those now present in the chamber, that this has long been a thorny problem. It has been a matter of great regret to me that the report of the committee of this House following the visit by that committee to Banff and Jasper in 1966-67 was, in my view, a complete whitewash with regard to existing problems of Banff and Jasper and the need for constructive solutions to them. I am rather hopeful that the present committee, after having received, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, some report on this matter from the Director General of Parks of Canada, will perhaps bring in a more constructive report, with recommendations to this House for action by the government in this area.
Really, the things which were said to committee members during the recent visit to the parks this year are not very different from the kinds of things which were said to the committee in 1966-67. However, I am pleased to note that the kinds of things which the minister's officers said to the committee were slightly different from those things which were said following the visit in 1966-67 by the then minister and his officials when they met with the committee. Although this subject matter is really not directly related to the bill before us, I think the hon. member for Rocky Mountain properly brought to the attention of the House how important and urgent the matter is. I hope that the minister, perhaps when he is closing this debate, will give some indication of the kind of thrust he hopes to see the government take in connection with this long standing problem.
I am sure that the committee will want to go into detail about the proposals for specific park boundaries, and so on, as outlined in the schedule to the bill. We shall consider that when the bill comes before the committee. I do not think we can usefully consider this at present, during the
7876

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
second reading stage. Generally speaking, apart from the basic questions which I raised earlier, my preliminary observation is that, from a parks point of view, the areas which are proposed are ones which can be considered as suitable and appropriate as part of our national parks system.
Following that kind of detailed consideration by the committee, and possibly some agreement on any changes that may be desirable in the minds of the committee, hopefully we will be able to report back to the House a recommendation for the passage of this bill. However, I remind the minister that as far as the members of this party are concerned, our whole consideration of that final decision is going to be contingent in large measure upon what understanding we can reach in relation to the basic question of title to land which, according to the existing terms of the National Parks Act, are lands belonging to Her Majesty in right of Canada.


Mr. Dinsdale:: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, when introducing this subject to the House on November 2, the parliamentary secretary to the minister made the statement that Bill S-4, presently before us for second reading, did not incorporate any major policy changes in the National Parks Act. I have read the bill thoroughly, I have followed the debate in the other place, and I agree with the parliamentary secretary that this is the case. In my view this is the fundamental weakness of the measure. I believe new policy initiatives are long overdue.
The legislation before us contemplates the addition of new parks to the system and the alteration of some existing park boundaries. I wish to talk this afternoon about national parks policy in general and I trust that the minister, who is in his place, will also be making some observations on this subject. I am sure he agrees with everyone who has held ministerial responsibility for the national parks program that we are faced by a crisis situation calling for the wise management and multiple use of our renewable resources, a situation which can only be dealt with by comprehensive changes in government policy on park development generally. Here I am referring, of course, to the many other categories of parks outside the National Parks Act. These must be dealt with and considered if we are to meet the growing needs of our population for recreational facilities as well as the needs of a booming tourist industry.
I am delighted that at long last formal approval is being given to the acquisition of new parks. The discussions and negotiations which have been going on in this connection

have covered a period of some 15 years. When I took over responsibility for national parks in the early sixties, most of the areas covered by the legislation now before us were under discussions and consideration. As a result of renewed emphasis on national development, there was a major effort at that time to come to grips with policy initiatives on many fronts which were coordinated to deal with resource areas and development in Canada, much of which had been neglected for far too long.
The Atlantic Development Board was one of the key instruments in this regard, and it was during that time a decision was made to restore Louisburg as an historic park of some considerable magnitude at an initial cost of $9 million. The cost has, of course, increased considerably since that time because of the continuing problem of inflation in Canada. The decision to restore Louisburg is the kind of initiative that governments must take if we are to provide an adequate commemoration of our historic sites and at the same time provide some living memorials, living or animated museums so that succeeding generations will have the opportunity to actually experience the atmosphere of the highwater marks of the development of Canada as a nation.
In the area of new national parks, Terra Nova in Newfoundland became an early initiative, and later Kejim-kujik National Park in Nova Scotia. That is a tongue twister, and perhaps the reason there has been such a delay in actually getting Kejimkujik formally established is because of the difficulty in pronouncing its name. The first time I came in direct consultation with the hon. member of Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), who is now the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, was when we were undertaking negotiations which led to the establishment of this beautiful park in Nova Scotia, the second of its kind for that province, which is now being formally declared as established by the legislation before us.
The concern about northern Canada, and its lack of development, was expressed by the late Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent back in 1953 when Canada first assumed its responsibilities for the 3.5 million square miles of territory north of the 60th parallel and made it an integral part of the Canadian body politic. He used a phrase at that time which I think describes the situation quite eloquently when he said that the country had been occupied and administered in a state of absent-mindedness since confederation. A growing interest in northern development led to a consideration of the necessity of preserving some of the huge wilderness areas in the north for all future generations, and it was at that time that discussions in respect of Nahanni, Kluane and Baffin Island National Parks were commenced.
I want to pay tribute to some of the old pioneers of the north who first conceived of the notion of reserving these wilderness areas for posterity. Too often the residents of the north are accused of being only concerned with exploiting resources. The accusation has been made that those engaged in the mining industry, for example, are only interested in making a quick buck and getting out of the north. I can give evidence here today that the original suggestions for preserving national parks came from some of these pioneers of the north, the men who made it
November 16, 1973

possible for the upsurge in northern development which began under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).
In addition to some of the pioneers there were newcomers, and I refer particularly to a gentleman from Baffin Island-that great and magnificent scenic wilderness up in Canada's archipelago-Mr. Bryan Pearson who originated the idea of preserving some of the scenery in Baffin Island. In fact, he pioneered in the tourist industry with a project designed to attract the attention of the jaded sophisticates from the urban communities of Canada to lure them into the high Arctic and taste some of the savage beauty of Baffin Island. He used to advertise in some of the best tourist magazines in the United States. That gentleman is now a member of the Northwest Territories Council and is still active in promoting the northern part of Canada.
I do not want to refer to each of the areas referred to in the bill. They have been under discussion for a considerable length of time and it is unfortunate that it requires so much time and that there is so much delay in implementing programs which were emergent as far back as 15 years.
There is one area not mentioned in the legislation and that is the proposed Prairie Park which has been under discussion for a number of years. I see the minister nodding his head. There is all sorts of space on the Prairies. In fact, that is the one thing of which we have most, lots of open spaces. I would have hoped that by this time the government would have negotiated with the provinces concerned in respect of a tract of land that could be preserved for all time to perpetuate the sort of sentimental nostalgia referred to in a song we sing out west quite frequently which is in part:
Where the deer and the antelope play,
Where never is heard a discouraging word,
And the skies are not cloudy all day.
There are great areas on the Prairies still available for this sort of preservation, and unless the government gets busy soon we will have_lost the opportunity to develop a typical prairie park. I am sure the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who is in the House this afternoon, will endorse what I am saying, because it was one of his visions which encouraged the minister of his day to try to get this kind of wilderness area preserved under the terms of the National Parks Act.
There is obviously a need for upgrading national parks policy. The parliamentary secretary in introducing the legislation talked about the over-use of existing parks. We used to talk about that 15 years ago. It has become chronic now. That hon. member gave the figures showing that in 1952 there were 2.5 million visitors to the parks, in 1962 the figure had more than doubled to 7.5 million, and the latest figure for 1974 is something more than 14 million visitors. Most of these people have to be accommodated in the national parks system which, with the exception of the parks mentioned in the bill before us, existed when the pressure was much less. No additions have been made to the recreational areas of Canada. I had hoped that long before now there might have been an attempt to implement a definite policy in respect of recreational parks.
National Parks Act
In 1958, the camp ground and picnic site program was initiated in co-operation with the provincial governments in order to provide adequate tourist accommodation along primarily the Trans-Canada highway system which was then under construction and, to a lesser extent, along the other major highways throughout the provinces of Canada. That program expired in 1962. We were in the process at that time of activating a program to succeed and expand the picnic site and camp ground program which would be known as the recreational parks program. Nothing transpired in this direction until the minister introduced his by-ways and highways and special places program which was announced about a year ago. The title of this program is a high-sounding phrase for a recreational parks program. There have been long delays in coming to grips with this problem. Even at the present time I am not aware of any excessive activity under the by-ways and highways and special places program.
Before there is a move into the area of recreational development, there must be consultation with the provincial governments. A relationship of trust must be established between the federal and provincial governments. This is one area in which the present government has succeeded least. It believes in a policy of confrontation rather than a policy of consultation in the area of nonrenewable resources. In the current energy crisis this has led to the impasse, which all hon. members have been made fully aware of in recent days. For the purpose of consultation and continuing discussion, a federal-provincial parks conference was established to bring together from time to time on a continuing basis the provincial resource ministers and the federal minister responsible for the national parks in order that they might work together on a comprehensive policy that would meet the growing recreational needs of the population explosion that was referred to by the parliamentary secretary.
This consultation has not continued and as a result we are faced with a crisis situation which can be resolved only by some sort of emergency response on the part of the current government of Canada. In addition to recreational parks there must be another category of park established. We must have multi-purpose parks. Many of the national parks in western Canada do not fit into the rigid structure of parks as defined by the National Parks Act. This is quite obvious in respect of Banff, Jasper, Prince Albert National Park and Riding Mountain National Park. These parks have been in existence for many years, and, because of the shortage of recreational facilities in the western part of Canada, they have assumed a multipurpose role. In his remarks the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) referred to this problem. I have been a member of at least four parliamentary committees the members of which have made pilgrimages to the mountain parks in order to try to understand what the people of those park areas want. We have made recommendations. We have urged that a special status be established for these mountain parks which obviously do not fit into the pattern.
We have urged the adoption of a principle that would preserve the wilderness concept while at the same time cater to the growing demands of the tourist population and the Canadian population which visits the western

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
parks. However, nothing has been done in this regard. Instead there is a tendency on the part of the government, increasingly pronounced over the past ten years, to remove the facilities which are already there rather than utilizing them to the maximum and providing the recreational facilities that are required by the Canadian population today. I could refer to Riding Mountain National Park where a roller skating rink was closed down. It was located on the fringe of the park. It was a very wholesome recreational facility. It was close enough to the edge of the park so that it would not conflict with any wilderness aspect. It was arbitrarily closed down notwithstanding a strong protest from the people of Manitoba who were concerned that the taking away of this wholesome recreational facility- this was back in the 1960's, the decade of turmoil among our young people-would mean that the young people would turn to less wholesome pursuits for their recreation.
There was also an attempt to close down the church camps which provide excellent camping facilities for the young people of the province of Manitoba in Riding Mountain National Park. It was only after a massive protest by the church groups involved that the minister decided to intervene. He delayed the implementation of that policy until 1984. I do not know whether there is any significance in respect of the date 1984. It happens to be the date George Orwell referred to as the time of the takeover of all things in the Utopian state of which he wrote. I say to the minister that we must establish in concrete legislative terms a zoning policy, a multi-purpose park policy and a recreational park policy that will meet the obvious growing needs the demand for which has never been met. Because it has never been met and because of the long delay we now face a situation in which emergency legislation is necessary.
Turning again to the north which is an area in which the wilderness values I believe would be most beneficial to all the people of Canada, I might point out that there are only some 50,000 people still in the three and a half million square miles which constitute the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. I would hope that a wildlife sanctuary and a migratory water fowl sanctuary might be provided because the demand, as I believe the minister will agree, is even greater for this type of conservation activity than it is at this stage for the large national parks which are established under the legislation. It is not difficult to establish the huge areas which are marked in the legislation subject to the approval of the native people about which we have been made very conscious these days especially since the James Bay decision of yesterday which will require consultation with the native people even though it is now after the fact.
We also need wildlife and wild bird sanctuaries. The Wood Buffalo National Park fits largely into this category because it is there that the large herd of wood buffalo is preserved for posterity and also where the whooping crane, a species that came during the decade of the 1950's near to extinction, with only 23 birds remaining, finds a breeding ground. During the early 1960's public interest in the whooping crane became phenomenal, one of the major conservation issues. Eggs were flown south to hatching

grounds in the southern United States where the birds winter, and still, as far as we can determine, the population of this beautiful white bird has not reached more than 42 in its natural habitat. Were it not for the Wood Buffalo National Park, the species would be even more threatened as it makes that hazardous flight of 3,000 or 4,000 miles across the happy hunting ground of the Prairies and still manages to survive. This is the sort of thing that is needed in greater abundance in the northern regions of Canada.
To bring my remarks to a conclusion, I want to refer to the necessity of co-ordinated intergovernmental action in order to accomplish what must be accomplished urgently in the parks policy and in all these other conservation matters to which I have referred briefly this afternoon. In 1962 the Resources for Tomorrow Conference took place in the city of Montreal. In the light of what is happening today with the crisis in energy and so forth, even the title of that conference is prophetic today. Some 1,000 concerned Canadians met in the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal to bring their collective wisdom to bear on the problem of the threatened renewable resources, and since that time the renewable resource area has become a matter of prime concern to governments at all levels. But I remember in 1962 it was rather an "in" joke to laugh at a government that was occupied with the conservation of water resources-such a colourless subject when Canada had an abundance of water. In fact, I believe that the phrase used by one of the pundits of that day was that we had water running out of our ears.
It is only eleven years later, but we are all aware now that we are faced with problems of wisely managing our renewable resources. When I say "managing" I do not mean to put a lid on it. We had a positive attitude toward renewable resources. It was managing in such a way that they would be constantly renewable, and we are still far from achieving this high ideal.
Out of that conference, a Resource Ministers Council emerged which was to meet regularly to co-ordinate provincial and federal policy because of the problems of divided jurisdiction. That council did not receive the backing of the governments that have been in office from 1963 to 1968 and from 1968 until the present time, with the result that it has fallen into disuse and is now completely abandoned, so I understand. It might rise from the ashes under a new heading because there is a tendency of the government to re-issue old policies and put their own particular stamp upon them.
I will close with the admonition of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). If we are going to meet the demands and the challenges in the park area in the renewable resource area, it can only be achieved by continuous consultation, not token consultation. There was an attempt to decentralize the administration of the parks in 1962/63 and regional offices were established across Canada. Recently, two additional offices-originally there were three offices-have been established, one in Winnipeg and another in Quebec city. But the establishment of regional offices will serve no useful purpose unless there is a decentralization of authority, unless there is some local autonomy in this area. If the regional offices that have been established, and this has been the pattern over the past ten years, are merely a vehicle through
November 16, 1973

which the people in the areas concerned and the provincial authorities have to approach the summit in Ottawa, it complicates the process of consultation rather than facilitates it, and this has been the pattern that has developed.
I would urge the minister to give some real autonomy to these regional offices and to let them consult with the people who are concerned. Theirs is a positive concern, not a selfish or negative concern. The message now is accepted by all serious minded Canadians that we have to manage our renewable resources wisely, and if the message has not come through loud and clear to this point, the trials and tribulations through which we are passing at present because of the government's failure to come to grips with the resource policy will bring the message home to every Canadian loud and clear. This legislation is going to the committee and I hope that we have a thoroughgoing discussion on the broader issues. This is a housekeeping bill when we should be having a major breakthrough in parks policy after these long years of delay. 1 am hoping that after we are through with the bill in the committee some amendments will be adopted which will help to put some teeth into the legislation, particularly in the consultative process. Unless we bring all the people of Canada together in support of a comprehensive resource policy we will not get anything more than we have here this afternoon, namely the formal legislative approval, to discussions, negotiations, and actions that have been under way for at least 15 years. Governments which wish to cope successfully with the challenge must move much more quickly than that.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks today will be of very short duration. First I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Kuntz) whose tragic death we mourn today. I would like to pay tribute to him especially because he was very active in the northern affairs committee, was very concerned about national park matters, and played a real role this summer when we visited many of the national parks. We certainly mourn his passing.
I would like to divide my remarks about the parks into two sections, and as I said they will be short. The first has to do with the role of the Indian people in the parks. I am concerned especially about the Pukaskwa National Park, which is not mentioned in this bill. It is a park about which negotiations are going on right now, and is located on the north shore of Lake Superior.
There is the problem that arises when we take the rules under which we operate our parks and apply them to an area where our native people have been living for tens of thousands of years. We have records in that area showing that native people have been there for 10,000 to 15,000 years. Perhaps it is improper for me to say that a people are part of the environment, but in discussing Indian people we have to look at them really as people who are part of the environment. They know their environment, they understand it, and they live in it.
To say we are creating a park to preserve the environment, and then remove the Indians from that park, not allowing them to hunt or fish in it, is ridiculous. The native Indian people of Canada still feel strongly about
National Parks Act
their environment, and when we understand that then we can see the ridiculousness of the situation. There is a growing movement among native peoples to look back, to meet with their elders, to talk to the wise people and to the medicine people. More and more the young people are getting together with the medicine people and are studying their way of looking at the environment. Traditionally when an Indian killed a deer he did so for one reason, and that was for food. He also honoured the deer when he killed it. We have to learn about their attitude to the environment. One of my good friends, an ecologist, a top man in his field, says that the original ecologist is the Indian.
I am not satisfied when I hear our national parks people talking about making a deal with Indians so that in some way we can recompense them for taking away their freedom to hunt and live in the parks. That is not adequate. We have to be very concerned about the Indian people in a park like Pukaskwa-and I know there are others across the country-where they are part of the environment, and whose traditional life should not be disturbed but encouraged. They have a role to play in that park in terms of continuing to live in the manner in which they have for thousands and thousands of years.
The other point I wish to make concerns something quite different, namely, the communities of Banff and Jasper. They are two anomalies in our parks, but nevertheless they exist, have existed for many years, and will continue to exist as communities. There is no doubt about that. There is no question of their disappearing. They are very viable communities, but communities which are in a great deal of trouble. I think the most characteristic thought you get when you visit Banff concerns crowding. It is tremendously crowded. Far too many people are living in a small space. It lacks planning and cohesion. There is a great need for more space, and I think the extra space should be provided not at Banff itself but around Canmore. Jasper is not so crowded, but it, too, lacks planning. It does not know where it is going.
Both communities have one central problem to which we as parliamentarians must direct ourselves. All citizens of this country, no matter where they live, should have the right to govern their own affairs within their own community. A community cannot exist if its citizens do not have the right to make their own rules to govern themselves. This is something that is lacking in both these communities. One of the citizens of Jasper said to me that he has only one vote, and that that vote is for the federal representative, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). This is not to say that he is not doing a good job. I think he is doing a fine job for those communities, but the fact remains that the citizens of those communities have only one vote. They do not have a provincial vote or a municipal vote. In effect, they have no mayor and no provincial member. They have a federal member of parliament and that is it. They are denied other representation because they live in a national park. The point I wish to make is that both these communities must be given some kind of status within the parks, and be given it soon before lack of planning destroys these communities and the respective parks completely.

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
One other point I would like to mention about Jasper is that it is a railroad centre. A great deal of thought should be undertaken before any move is made to remove the railroad and railroaders from Jasper. I would be very concerned if any efforts were made to remove this turn around point without first having the utmost consultation with the people involved, with the railroad unions, and with the railroads. It is something that should be examined carefully. Having visited Jasper many times I see no reason why the railroad should not stay there and, as I say, before any steps are taken to remove the railroad considerable examination and consultation should be undertaken.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I am going to make only a brief intervention in this debate on the bill to amend the National Parks Act. I do so for two reasons. One is that I am genuinely interested in national parks and in their importance to our national life. The second is that the Prince Edward Island National Park lies mostly within my constituency, and I am especially interested in it. The Prince Edward Island Park is one of our smallest national parks, embracing only something like 150,000 square miles, yet over one million people visit it in the course of a year, which represents an extremely high use for this small area of land. Although this is very commendable, it also creates special problems.
In his speech introducing second reading stage the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo)) said, as recorded at page 7494 of Hansard:
The second important purpose of the bill is to allow future additions to existing national parks to be achieved by proclamation, thus avoiding the necessity of having to introduce new legislation for each such change. The other clauses amending the National Parks Act are basically administrative and updating.
To me this is an important procedure on which we are embarking because we are removing from Parliament control over changes in park boundaries. Changes can now be made as an administrative function, eliminating the role of the member of parliament as a representative of the area affected. Although I am in favour of this because it is necessary from the point of view of efficiency, it places upon the administrators a special responsibility to be extremely sensitive to the desires and will of the people affected by the changes they make. Local relationships are extremely important in matters like this. My caution applies with special force to the Prince Edward Island National Park because it is located in a relatively high density population area. Our greatest resource in Prince Edward Island is land, but this resource is limited so we must make sure that we use every bit of it to the best advantage. When these extra powers are put in the hands of the park administrators they have, therefore, a special responsibility to make sure that their actions meet with the approval of the local people.
In one sense, as the previous speaker pointed out, a national park is a local residence and everything that takes place there affects the local environment and the people who have been living there for generations perhaps. I would urge that the minister impress upon his officials the importance of maintaining rapport and an

excellent relationship with the people who live in the area of the park and who would be affected by any changes. While I have a great respect for experts, Mr. Speaker, I have a deeper respect for the innate knowledge of the local people. I believe there is a duty on the park administration to ensure that what looks fine on paper in some high rise office in Ottawa, makes sense when it is applied in a local area thousands of miles away. The parks administrators should make it a practice to take local people into their confidence, and to seek the advice not only of provincial governments but also of local governments and the individuals and associations concerned.
A case in point is the Prince Edward Island National Park. I am not in a position to judge the validity of the criticism or anything else, but apparently the park administration decided-and perhaps for good reason- that the very famous Green Gables golf course should be reconstituted and redesigned. They propose to subtract some land from the course, then buy other land to replace what has been removed. Hundreds of people were shocked and amazed at this action. There are two possibilities here: one is that the action was sensible and the other is that it was really necessary; but if such is the case it has not been properly explained to the people. I hope this is not being done just because of an administrative whim; perhaps they should have left it the way it was even if it were not so neat from an administrative point of view.
Another example might be given concerning that same national park which involved the intense use of land and the local facilities. The Stanhope school stands cheek by jowl with the national park. Two or three other local schools were added to it. Control over private property in the immediate area was lost, perhaps due to lack of suitable zoning by the provincial government, and so there is a great increase in the number of children but there is no proper playground for them. A request was made for a little bit of parkland to be used as a playground on a temporary basis. I do not know the outcome of this request, but I am sure the minister will give it sympathetic consideration.
I should like to cover two other points, Mr. Speaker. I agree, of course, with the change in the name of the park to Prince Edward Island Park from Prince Edward Park. In the bill there is an appendix which describes the new boundaries of the park in technical and legal terms in five sections; I would suggest to the minister that maps should be provided when the bill goes to committee in order that the proposed change in the boundaries of the Prince Edward Island National Park may be easily understood. I recognize the necessity for legal description, but it is meaningless to people not thoroughly familiar with the area.
I should like to reiterate how important it is for the park administration to realize that, in one sense, a park is a legal residence; it has to fit into the local community. Any action that the administration takes should be in harmony with the will, the desires and the activities of the area in which the park lives, so to speak.
November 16, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-4, an Act to amend the National Parks Act, deals among other things with speed limits within national parks as well as the enlargement of some of them, particularly in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.
As regards the province of Quebec we deal with Forillon but not with St. Maurice or Temiscamingue Parks.


Mr. Bechard:: Is there a Temiscamingue Park?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, this park is supposed to exist but I will not speak very long about Bill S-4. However, I would like to mention that for a few years now we have been asking the minister to instruct one of his officials to consider the possible establishment of a national park in Temiscamingue. Of course the minister cannot decide about the establishment of such a park without consulting the province. But I believe we are still waiting for provincial studies; we are waiting as well for Quebec authorities to decide to establish a park in Temiscamingue. When some pieces of land likely to be used for this park were proposed, they realized that there were economic rather than political interests that had to be protected at all costs such as forest and mining industries, on which the citizens of the rural Temiscamingue depend.
Of course, they assessed the situation and this is probably why provincial authorities were so slow in proposing a concrete and comprehensive program to the federal government. The bad /thing about all this, Mr. Speaker, is that for some years, they have been trying to use Temiscamingue Park as a political trump by saying: the Liberals will give you this park if you vote for them. They say that at both provincial and federal levels, but we are still waiting for the park. And yet, Mr. Speaker-


Albert Béchard: At the federal level, people did not vote.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, they did.


An hon. Member:: But not for the right party.


David Réal Caouette: Pontiac electors voted Liberal in the federal election.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Yes, quite right.


Albert Béchard: In Pontiac?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, in Pontiac, in the federal election. At the provincial level, Temiscamingue is Liberal!
Mr. Speaker, in my constituency, the electors show intelligence only at the federal level, since they vote for the Social Credit Party of Canada.


Albert Béchard: Not always.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I believe a question-


Albert Béchard: Ask Mr. Tetrault.
National Parks Act


David Réal Caouette: We could also ask the Liberal candidate in the Rouyn-Noranda constituency, a Mr. Millejour, I believe. Mr. Speaker, it was not because of the voters' convictions that they voted Liberal in those areas and in the hon. member's constituency, but because of their fear of separatism. But this has nothing to do with the national park.
Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that it was fear that decided the vote. Quebec premier Bourassa is the first to admit it. He is troubled by the fact that he has 102 members; I would have preferred him to have 30 fewer members but that will surely occur one of these days!
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against the Liberals. It is the separatists that I resent; I am honest and I say so in all sincerity.


Mr. Ouellet:: The Liberal party?


David Réal Caouette: No, I did not bear the Liberals a grudge.


An hon. Member:: For whom did you vote?


David Réal Caouette: I voted creditist. Of course, I admit that I lost my elections.


Mr. Prud'homme:: How did Mr. Wagner vote?


David Réal Caouette: I do not know.
Mr. Speaker, coming back to the Temiscamingue national park, I would like to point out to the minister not the area already considered or surveyed, but a specific area extending from Belleterre up to the Domaine in La Veren-drye Park. The Domaine is a rest area. From there to Belleterre is the finest natural site. It would not be necessary to carry out works, it is natural and lovely. There are large lakes, beautiful forests and maple groves. In short, everything is found there. It would merely be necessary to build a proper road and the park would be an entirely natural site.
I wonder then whether the federal government could not co-operate with the provincial government to develop this land strip from Belleterre to the Domaine. We would not have to stop forest operations, a basic industry, we would not be an obstacle to thousands of farmers, and we would own the most beautiful natural park of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I see the previous member for my constituency nodding in approval. He is right. It is not a question of politics, of partisanship, but rather a matter of logic. We have the land and its numerous opportunities, without weakening the local economy, taking anything away from anyone. The northwestern region of Quebec would be provided with one of the most beautiful parks, if not as beautiful as Forillon, certainly more so than Saint-Mau-rice Park. It would attract tourists who at present will not bother to make a detour by Rouyn or North Bay to get to Temiscamingue, but who would then drive through the Domaine at the heart of Temiscamingue.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister should have his officials give special consideration to my suggestion to provide Temiscamingue not with an artificial park, but

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
with a park that needs only to be acknowledged and developed.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured that I am quite pleased to participate in the debate on Bill S-4, which we are called to pass on second reading and whose objectives are as follows: first, to include Kejimkujik and Forillon in the national parks system; second, to authorize the Governor in Council to set aside by proclamation lands for eight additional national parks, including St. Maurice, and third, to extend, by proclamation, existing national parks without having to resort to a legislative measure in each case.
The most important aspect of this bill, as regards the province of Quebec, is obviously the establishment of two parks in that province, namely Forillon and St. Maurice.
It is not the first time that I speak about the establishment of a national park in Quebec, more specifically in the Gaspe Peninsula, as I advocated in my maiden speech delivered in this House in 1963.


Albert Béchard: -and also your colleague from
Bonaventure.


Alexandre Cyr: In this regard, I say that I have always been seconded by my colleague and friend from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
I knew then that such a tremendous project could not be achieved overnight. However, I also knew that if the project were approved in the near future, the citizens living near the park and Gaspe people generally would be very happy to benefit from the many advantages deriving from such a park.
Following that I continued to make representations to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well as the secretary for the province of Quebec. That was done only within the framework of the Canada-Quebec agreement for the development of the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe area. Section 55 of that agreement provides that Canada would undertake the development of a park in the Forillon Peninsula. The province of Quebec would take it upon itself to purchase the land and hand it over under a lease free of encumbrances to the government of Canada for a period and on terms acceptable to both parties.
As a follow up to that original agreement on May 26, 1968, negotiations took place between the two governments and I would like here to commend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and pay tribute to the courageous minister as well as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), formerly in charge of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, for bringing those negotiations with the province of Quebec to a conclusion.
In the agreement of May 26, 1968, it was agreed that the province would undertake to take the necessary steps before December 31, 1970, to free the lands from all possible encumbrances or acquire their ownership free of encumbrances, inform the government of Canada as the said lands are released or acquired and give free tenure of

the said lands to the government of Canada before December 31, 1970.
That is one of the obligations of the province of Quebec under that agreement. On the other hand, the government of Canada makes the commitment that the development and administration of that park will fully reflect the linguistic duality in Canada and more specifically the French characteristic of the province of Quebec and the Gaspe area. On the other hand, Quebec has agreed to have a utilization plan prepared for the pieces of land bordering on the park, while respecting its objective, natural beauty and fine qualities. The lease is for a 99 year term; however, there is a provision in the agreement whereby Quebec may, following a 60 year period, purchase Forillon Park from the Canadian government by reimbursing all capital expenditures which the central administration may have incurred.
Mr. Speaker, in the annex to this agreement appear all the amounts which must be spent during the period from 1970 to 1976-77, that is a total of $8,887,000 for the development of this park by the federal government.
Present and future economic benefits of such a park for the area are indeed numerous. Already, since the development operations of the park began in 1973, it has provided jobs for 175 Gaspesian residents. Last year's budget for Forillon Park totaled $2,500,000 and no change is expected this year. In wages alone $823,000 were paid last year to the park employees in that region. To this amount you can add the capital input of tourists. The park is obviously an incentive and a monetary input for the region directly involved, mainly the Forillon peninsula.
In 1972, the first year of operations, 84,726 visitors were recorded and their number increased to 165,000 in 1973. At the current rate, as someone said several years back at the time of the establishment of the park and as stated by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), Forillon Park should receive over 600,000 visitors.
As early as 1976, Forillon Park will become a genuine wildlife museum extending over 92 square miles.
Through the National Park Act which is aimed at ensuring the perpetual conservation as national inheritance of the regions containing important geographical, geological, biological or historical elements, the Forillon peninsula, by its history and situation, is an intouchable entity of this patrimony. Its 92 square miles and its varied natural elements surrounded by the sea are a splendour which no Canadian can ignore during a Gaspesian trip.
For true nature lovers and for the amateurs of natural sciences and the geologists or botanists, as well as for the historic peculiarity enthousiasts, Forillon Park will become a sort of museum of wilderness which will exhibit in their original surrounding the remains of prehistoric civilizations, the remains of ancient Micmacs camps, a lead mine opened by Superintendant Talon in 1758 and, offshore, ships sank by the Kirke brothers in 1628.
This park also includes Fortune Fort, an underground fort built during World War II to protect the Gaspe Bay against German submarines. This fort was restored last year.
November 16, 1973

Forillon National Park is also a sanctuary for several species of game animal, sea birds, birds of prey and marine mammals. Common and grey seals have also been observed in the territorial waters of Forillon Park from mid-May to the end of December. Their arrival seems related to a biological factor, the young being born around this period.
Now I should not want to use all my time as I know that several members wish to add their comments. It would take hours to describe the wonders of Forillon Park but, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to this House for the first time and announce publicly also for the first time in Canada a discovery we made this summer in the park. We found in Forillon Park the white headed eagle called the bald eagle and I quote a report prepared on the subject.
We observed that bird on June 4 and September 9, 1972. In both cases the weather was clear and it was easy to make a positive identification. In June 1937, Ball (1938) observed one of those eagles at Grande-Greve.
Mr. Speaker, this is to give you an idea of the fauna, birds of prey and game we find in Forillon National Park.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


Alexandre Cyr: If you want to know their names I have here a whole book on the subject.


An hon. Member:: Name them.


An hon. Member:: Table the book.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, this gives only a small idea of what Forillon Park is and what it will be when we shall have finished the arrangements. I think this park will become a paradise for tourists in Gaspe Peninsula and I invite my colleagues here in this House to spend their next vacation in that beautiful part of Canada: Forillon Park in the Gaspe Peninsula.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I may not have interpreted him correctly, but as I understood it the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) seemed to be claiming that the appearance in Forillon Park of the bald eagle was unique. I would like to point out that in Pacific Rim park they are very plentiful.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the government for bringing forward this bill to regulate our national parks. It is about time it was brought forward. These parks have been under consideration for a long time and this is a matter we should deal with in the House of Commons. I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that a speech made in this House by the minister's parliamentary secretary and printed in Hansard was circulated throughout the country. Unfortunately for the people of Canada, the minister felt that should be done. It is that kind of thing which runs the cost of government up and up and up. If a minister makes a speech in the House of Commons, it is not fair if he uses his departmental budget to circulate the speech across the country. Like any member, he has the right to purchase copies of Hansard, but it is an abuse of the money set aside to run the department if a minister uses a speech which he
National Parks Act
or his parliamentary secretary makes in this House as a method of propaganda.
I want to comment on one clause in this bill that bothers me. It has also been included in other bills which have come to this House. I refer to clause 3 which provides a criminal sanction against those who use the park-in a sense a new form of criminal law that activates within national parks and is created by the governor in council making regulations. I would not be so concerned about this except that it is the duty of parliament to make laws, especially laws which affect the rights and freedom of our citizens.
For too long we have allowed government, through some nameless bureaucrat, to produce regulations which somehow get pushed through the Privy Council office and approved by the governor in council. The new statutes thus created penalize people and amount to a new type of criminal law. Ordinary citizens can incur penalties imposed, almost at the whim of someone employed by government, because he has broken laws which have never been debated in this House or considered by the justice committee.
The particular provision which bothers me provides that for breaking these rules-rules which do not even exist so far-a person may be denied access to a park for up to five years. I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that major national highways pass through certain of our parks-those at Gaspe and Banff come immediately to mind-and it could easily happen that a person could be denied the right to traverse a park solely because some bureaucrat had made a rule or had been out to get him.
There is, of course, a need for regulation with regard to conduct in national parks. We must get tough with the polluter and the despoiler, the person who hacks the trees and leaves garbage around. But surely these rules governing the use of the parks can be brought by the Minister to the House for final determination, as is the case with any other criminal sanctions which apply throughout the country. As an illustration of what so often happens under the present system, I would refer hon. members to the rule which the National Capital Commission has made imposing a speed limit on the new route to the Ottawa airport. A new expressway has been constructed, yet a speed limit of 40 miles an hour has been imposed, one which is almost totally unenforceable and constitutes nothing more than a speed trap, for no reason whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is the sort of thing that goes on when bureaucrats who are not subject to election make rules and laws. This kind of thing constitutes an abuse of the rights of the people of Canada. I read with interest the statement made by the parliamentary secretary at the opening of the debate. I wish to bring the attention of hon. members to one paragraph of that statement in which the hon. gentleman said:
This brings us to the immediate and future needs of Canadians living in cities and growing urban centres who want, and need, easy and quick access to recreational land.

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
Unfortunately, this is all he says on the subject. He simply says he recognizes that Canadians in urban areas need ready access to recreational land. And he says nothing else. I regret that neither the minister nor his parliamentary secretary are here. Perhaps they will read Hansard. I should like to bring it to their attention that more than 80 per cent of the people of Canada will shortly be living in urban areas. It is all very well for us to establish national parks to reserve and preserve the national heritage of Canada, but a great many of these parks are totally inaccessible to the vast majority of the population.
While it is necessary for us to preserve the Virginia falls and the ice-caps of Baffin Island, I must say it doesn't do my constituents much good. I suppose this is equally true of those who live in most of the other constituencies represented in this chamber. We must tackle the real problem which the burgeoning urban growth of Canada is presenting. In 1952 a hurricane destroyed the lives and property of a great number of people in metropolitan Toronto. It is an ill wind that does not blow some good for someone. As a result of that hurricane, conservation and flood control measures were financed by the government of Canada. Certain parks were created. If hon. members go to those parks on a fine day in summer, they will find it very difficult to get in. By ten or eleven o'clock in the morning the gates would probably be closed. This is because there is such a pressing demand for parks around our great cities.
I shall be parochial for a while and refer to the great city of Toronto and the golden horseshoe area. We are in a difficult position because our recreational land, our wilderness land is to a large extent to the north in the shield country and it takes at least an hour, possibly two hours, to reach it. Unlike Montreal and Vancouver, there is no open land relatively close to our city. The province of Ontario has recognized this situation and has proposed a parkway belt around Toronto. It has also proposed to create parks of fairly significant size in and around the city. The intention is to freeze development and purchase as much as possible of the Niagara escarpment.
Unfortunately, while Ontario is treated as a wealthy province, when you get right down to it the reason they cannot acquire that parkway belt, the reason they cannot acquire the Niagara escarpment and assemble the recreational resources so urgently needed by those who occupy apartment buildings and townhouses, is that they do not have the dough. Hon. members may ask why this should be so. One of our problems is that the province of Ontario is rich and it pays 50 per cent of the total cost of the national government; and the great bulk of this contribution comes from the golden horseshoe area. I suggest that our contribution to the national revenue exceeds that made by all the industries and businesses in the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.


Mr. Cullen:: What do you get back for it?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am glad the hon. member asked that question, because we get back very little in terms of what can be done for the people who create the wealth of this nation. One of the things those who create the wealth need is a place to relax, to get out of the smog and breathe fresh

air. Maybe the smog results from our creating wealth, but somewhere along the line we must recognize that the people who work must have a place where they can relax, enjoy themselves and get some fresh air into their lungs. This is an important national interest and it is a matter in which this government should take a keen interest when considering a new parks policy. Not only do we need a new parks policy to reserve and preserve the beautiful and the historic but we need a policy designed for the purpose of providing recreation close to areas where our people work and live. Such a parks policy would cost a great deal of money. Recreational land is at a premium already and is being snapped up by people who build elaborate establishments, put fences around them and hang "No trespassing" signs on the fences. They sometimes even have a big dog and put up signs telling people to beware.
I suggest that farmland is being picked up in this fashion and the price is getting higher and higher. Very soon there will not be enough land left for the purpose of recreation. This is a serious matter and it is imperative that governments begin to consider the problems of people in the cities who want to get away on occasions to hike, ride bicycles, operate snowmobiles, fish or do other things of a recreational nature.
One might suggest that we build another Highway 401 or 400 so that people can drive 150 or 200 miles away from the cities, perhaps up to areas like Temiscamingue, but we have problems such as shortage of fuel and insufficient time. We must build recreational resources close to where people work and live. I urge the government to get together with the province of Ontario to work on this matter. The Niagara escarpment would be a beautiful place to preserve as a national park. Perhaps it could run from the escarpment or from Niagara Falls back through the gorgeous rocky rim to the trees and the bush along the Bruce Peninsula. But this cannot be done without money and without a government which is prepared to come to grips with urban problems.
Members of this House must pay attention to urban problems and the needs of the people living in urban areas. The province of Ontario is attempting to freeze or hold back development, but holding bylaws are of no real value because people build bigger establishments and bigger fences and then we have to expropriate the land at a much higher price. It is imperative that the national government recognize this as a national priority and get together with the province of Ontario or its conservation authority to build national parks close to where people live. This involves areas of high taxes and perhaps great wealth, but these are the areas of central Ontario which have a tremendous need for recreational facilities.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill S-4 coming from the Senate. I have always spoken in favour of the conservation of our natural resources, the preservation of our environment in its natural state.
As most other members, I had the opportunity to visit several national parks throughout Canada and we from New Brunswick are particularly proud to have Fundy National Park among the national parks as it will soon be
November 16, 1973

the case of the new Kouchibouguac Park which is the subject matter of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) has made, in my opinion, a quite valid criticism of the provincial government which does not seem to have any logical policy for the development of its parks. It undoubtedly shows a division between the federal and provincial wings of that party and I hope that the Tory members of Ontario will succeed in reconciling their views on the matter.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Peel South has also mentioned that the hard-working Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and his parliamentary secretary had distributed throughout Canada a great many copies of the excellent speech which the parliamentary secretary delivered in this House on November 2.
I find that there again it is perhaps a matter of petty and parochial politics. If we stop to consider, for instance, that the parliamentary secretary to the minister was the first Indian elected to the House of Commons, that the minister has honoured him by asking him to pilot this bill in the House, it does seem to me that it is hardly the right time for an hon. member issued from the first citizens of this country to start playing party politics.
Nevertheless, the speech to which I listened two weeks ago was one of the best I ever heard and I recommend its wide distribution across the country.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us gives us the opportunity to speak in favour of our own area, our parish, if I may say
so.
Of course, I support the bill and I feel bound to say at the outset that there is no problem here. As the parliamentary secretary put it, it is a milestone but an important one in the development of a national parks system throughout the country in the framework of a consistent national policy.
In Madawaska, people wonder whether a national park should be developed. They have been wondering about it for many years now. I might outline to my colleagues the geographical context that I am referring to. Madawaska was one of the first areas of New Brunswick to be settled. I shall not dwell on the circumstances which led Acadians, and later on Canadians from Quebec, to settle in that area. Anyway, the St. John River flows through this area and some 250 miles downstream into the Bay of Fundy.
Two major streams flow into the St. John River; on the one side, in the state of Maine, there is the Allagash River, which the Americans have tried to preserve in its natural environment, and on the other side, rolling down from the province of Quebec, there is the Saint-Frangois River. As there are many rivers with that same name in Quebec, I wish to specify that I am referring here to the one which forms, here and there, along the border between Canada and the United States, a chain of lakes in a natural environment that is most picturesque and virtually inaccessible, except by way of a rough country road that we have been trying to improve lately.
National Parks Act
Mr. Speaker, that area formed, in the early days of the settlement, an extremely large unit, not a political unit but a community of interests, on account of the background of its inhabitants, who were Acadians, and therefore Frenchspeaking. Later on people from Boston, Connecticut and other areas, following the American wars also settled in the area.
Now, in 1842, the Madawaska area was brutally divided into two parts, by the Ashburton-Webster treaty, negotiated by Lord Ashburton from England and Daniel Webster, of notorious renown for some reasons in the United States. The Madawaska community was thus divided into two parts and that division still exists and one should not be surprised for instance to find out that the vast northern section of the state of Maine is mostly inhabited by French-speaking people. I point out that Madawaska is also, of course, of French origin.
However we warmly welcome all people who come to visit us, or live with us regardless of their ethnic origin. This is the attitude that prompted us from time to time, through a gesture that has nothing to do with folklore but comes from a longstanding tradition, to proclaim the existence of the Republic of Madawaska.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister, as I have already done in writing a few years ago, to consider the advisability of developing an international park in this area enclosed by three borders, that of New Brunswick, that of Quebec and that of the United States. We have international parks in Canada that are more or less important according to their origins.
But as for us, the people from Madawaska, who have been historically denied some of our rights, who have lost a large part of a territory that we were traditionally claiming, we would readily accept a gesture of reconciliation on the part of the Canadian and the American authorities as well as the government of the province of Quebec, namely the establishment of an international park in the River Saint-Frangois area.
Mr. Speaker, as time is running fast, I will put an end to my remarks. I simply wish to give the minister the friendly warning that I intend to submit this proposal in the future, whether in this House, in committee or in private, because the minister has much sympathy for me and for all representations from the Republic of Madawaska. Therefore, I will only ask today, perhaps for the first time in this House, that an international park, a tri-border park, be established in our beautiful part of the country.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few brief remarks in respect of Bill S-4 which is before us. As a rookie in this House I find it rather strange that the bill should come from what I often hear referred to as the other place. Be that as it may, there are several points I should like to make.
First, I am very happy to see a bill before this House which gives us an opportunity to discuss the question of parks. If I had my way, the whole of the Northwest Territories would be a park and all the people here would be invited to visit us once in a while. I have found from my travels throughout Canada that many white people also like the idea of parks. They have to struggle in a

November 16, 1973
National Parks Act
concrete jungle for nine or ten months of the year, or more, and enjoy spending a few weeks in the hill country living something like the Indian people.
There are two particular points I should like to mention. I hope hon. members will bear them in mind when this bill is studied further and comes to a vote. One involves clause 10 which refers to agreement being reached with the province concerned that the lands to be set aside are suitable for a national park. Clause 11 provides:
The governor in council may, after the consultation with the Council of the Yukon Territory or the Council of the Northwest Territories, as the case may be, by proclamation, set aside as a national park of Canada, under a name designated therein-
I am a little concerned about the words "after consultation" because of previous experience in respect of consultation in the Northwest Territories. The consultation, to say the least, has been very poor. There is a danger inherent in this clause, as I see it, which could cause some worry especially to the native people of the Northwest Territories who at present are preparing a position to place before the government to the effect that there may not be any land to claim if the parks are set up by proclamation. That is one point I wish to make which I should like hon. members to bear in mind, that is, that the question of land settlement has not been settled in the Northwest Territories.
There are also questions in respect of the hunting and fishing rights of the people in the Northwest Territories. These rights must be protected. I do not believe the National Parks Act at present protects the hunting and fishing rights of the native people of the Northwest Territories. This must be borne in mind when one discusses the idea of national parks for both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
In order to point out the importance of hunting and fishing to the people of the north, I should like to refer to one or two statements made to me not too long ago. A chief from the area of Fort Franklin was quite concerned about hunting and fishing rights being eroded as a result of legislation in other parts of the country. He said that the white man has his bank, and that when things get tough he can go to the bank, write a cheque and receive the money necessary to buy groceries in order to keep going until things are better. The chief said that he did not have a bank in this sense, but that his bank is Great Slave Lake or Great Bear Lake where there are plenty of fish. He said that when things get tough and he needs a food supply for his family and his dog team, it is there. That is his bank and he would like to have it protected.
Another matter concerns the employment of native people in the parks across the country. I do not know how good the record is, but I would point out the experience of two chiefs from the Northwest Territories who visited our national parks four or five years ago. After visiting some of the parks they returned to the territories and said that the people of the south desperately needed parks because their lands were being used for other purposes; therefore land should be set aside for their recreation and that of future generations. They said they did not see any Indian people employed in the parks. They did not even see any who were visitors to the parks. They said that the only Indians they saw near a park were two outside the park
who had to pay to enter it. That did not leave a very good impression.
I should also like to refer to a comment made by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) who suggested that it would cost a great deal of money to acquire land and operate parks in Canada. I would mention the fact that before the coming of the white man this whole country was a park and my people ran them on total unemployment. We might examine this question with a view to reinstating that idea. The Indian people, being some of the great socialists of this country are, I believe, also some of the greatest park keepers this country has ever known.
Briefly, those are some of the points I wanted to make and I hope hon. members will bear them in mind when this bill goes to committee and comes up for a vote.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the minister that our party wishes to see this bill go to committee soon, so I will keep a watchful eye on the clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: I wish to echo the words of hon. members who spoke before me, specifically the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), and the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). I realize that wide-open spaces are very nice and I wish I could be there, living as I do so close to Edmonton, but this raises a point on which I wish to comment.
There is a small provincial park a couple of miles from my home. It is 15 miles from Edmonton. Almost any day of the week when you go past that park during the summer, you find an overabundance of trailers and people in it. Therefore, I think there is a great need for the federal government to find a way of financing small recreational-type parks within easy reach of people living in the cities.
A number of problems are tackled in the bill before us, such as the consideration of new park boundaries, the addition or deletion of the boundaries of parks and the administration of the parks. Because this bill outlines such housekeeping activities in parks as the collection of fines and traffic control, it opens up the whole question of self-government of the townsites in the national parks.
Although there is no national park within my riding, I am aware of the necessity for control of the internal administration of townsites by the people who live in them. Surely it is one of the principles of democracy that people living in a town should have jurisdiction and control over the traffic in that town, the repair and upkeep of its streets, the disposal of sewage and the proper development of the town. Surely people in townsites such as Jasper, Banff and Waterton have the right to self-government. However, I should like to caution the minister on one point before he grants self-government to these town-sites, and that is that there should be full consultation with the inhabitants.
I might add to what was said by the hon. member for Northwest Territories that in many cases the government does not seem to have the word "consultation" in its

November 16, 1973

dictionary. However, I have confidence in the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) because his answers appear to be straightforward and I believe he will engage in full consultation with the towns if he has in mind giving them self-government in the future. I would add that he might consider increasing grants, which the hon. member for Rocky Mountain has described as being pitiful, in lieu of taxes. I hope that in the future these townsites will receive the $33,000 which they seem to think should be coming to them.
Coming as I do from a small town in the riding of Wetaskiwin, I know that people are trying to escape the urban sprawl and migrate to smaller communities so that they can enjoy country life, what they call the good life. I think it is necessary for the minister to consider people who have residences within the townsites, who do not live there the year round but only come to them for the scenery or for skiing once or twice a year. Because of the great shortage of housing in the townsites of Banff and Jasper-I am aware of this because I was a member of the committee which went to those townsites and heard the people voice this problem-the minister said that he would provide trailers as a temporary measure to alleviate the problem. I understand, however, that he has had a change of heart. I hope that people who have lived in these areas for generations will be allowed to build houses there.
A point that was brought to my attention and which I believe should be mentioned is that there are no old-age homes within the townsites of Jasper and Banff. I may be wrong, and if so I stand to be corrected. However, I think it is totally wrong that people who have lived all their lives in these areas should have to go to Edmonton or other cities in their old age. I would like the minister to take this matter into consideration and provide the necessary facilities.
It is close to four o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude now.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a presumption on the part of some hon. members, especially the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), that so long as he has an opportunity to say what he wants, no one else has anything to add to the debate. There are a few remarks which I would like to make, and I think other hon. members also have a few comments to make on the bill. I should like to speak about the situation in my own province where there are delightful areas for the establishment of national parks for the preservation of nature and of the beauty of that province, especially in its northern portions. Before I embark upon extolling the beauties of the northern part of British Columbia to members of the House, I wonder whether I might leave that to another day when the bill comes up again for debate.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions in order to table a committee report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreeable to hon. members?
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments


Mr. Chretien:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we could pass this resolution first and then meet the request of the hon. member, because I understand the debate on second reading of the bill is concluded.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was asking whether the debate could be adjourned and said that he wished to speak another day. Because there are only 15 or 20 seconds left, I think that is a request that we might meet, as we do usually.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) that we revert to routine proceedings so that he may present his report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Isabelle.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the subject matter of the joint communique issued November 1, 1973, following the meeting in Ottawa between delegations of the European and Canadian parliaments, pursuant to the order made Wednesday, November 14, 1973.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps it is a somewhat unusual procedure, but for once in our lives we do not have a motion which someone moves and someone else seconds. I now call on the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras).


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I should like to express my appreciation for the way in which my motion was received by the House last Wednesday. It required the unanimous consent of members of the House for this debate to take place on the joint communique issued by the members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and the European parliament. It was granted, and I appreciate that very much.
My main purpose in bringing this matter before the House is to focus the attention of hon. members on an aspect of Canada's foreign relations which it seems to me has not been considered seriously enough. I am referring

November 16, 1973
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments to Canadian relations with the European Economic Community, the EEC of the EC as it is now called. As many hon. members are aware, a delegation from the European parliament was in Ottawa from October 31 to November 1 of this year. This was the first formal contact between the parliament of Canada and the European parliament, a fact which is rather surprising when one considers that the Treaty of Rome creating the original six-member EEC was signed as long ago as 1957.
It is appropriate that I mention how this first formal contact came about and how the two committees became involved. When the committee on foreign affairs of the other place undertook an examination earlier this year of Canada's relations with the European Community, they visited the Community headquarters in Brussels for several days and had an informal meeting with a delegation of the European parliament chaired by Mr. Peter Michael-Kirk, a British MP and chairman of the Conservative group in the European parliament. Subsequently, in their report the committee of the other place recommended some form of interparliamentary link with the Community parliamentarians. With the approval of both Speakers a letter was sent to the president of the European parliament, signed by the chairmen of both Canadian parliamentary committees dealing with external relations, inviting a delegation to visit Ottawa this fall.
I mentioned that it is perhaps surprising that no formal contact had been made between the two parliaments. It surprises me because the European Community is such a major force in the world today. Canada cannot afford to ignore it even if it wished to do so. Even before its enlargement from six to nine member states earlier this year, the European Community had become the world's largest trading entity. Its imports exceed by a significant amount those of the United States. Canada, as a major trading nation itself, must seek in every possible way to intensify its relations with this new economic giant in Europe.
As those hon. members who participated in the discussions of November 1 will agree, it was a stimulating and informative encounter. Led by Mr. Pierre-Bernard Couste, a vice-president of the European parliament, the delegation was made up of members of all the nine nation states of the community except Ireland and Belgium. However, despite the fact that the various nationalities of the delegates were easily distinguishable, it was clear that this delegation had come to Canada not as representatives of their own countries but as members of a cohesive European parliamentary group with a remarkably homogeneous outlook on the matters under discussion.

Before dealing with the subject matter of the communique, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express on behalf of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence our deep appreciation to you and your colleague for your co-operation and support that made that visit a success. The committee members were very satisfied with all the arrangements to which your staff co-operated so willingly.

Following the joint meetings of November 1 last, both delegations prepared and approved a release in which they recognized that the links between Canada and the Community could be improved and intensified. Both delegations agreed that periodic meetings should be organized between the European parliament and the Parliament of Canada. Regular contacts would help promote a better understanding and overcome disagreements.
I agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker, but I would go even further. I would like the matter of a regular interparliamentary link rather than periodic meetings to be examined thoroughly. I believe further parliamentary exchanges between both groups would be beneficial and would draw the attention of the European Economic Community on certain Canadian interests, particularly in the area of trade and economy. Indeed, I strongly urge Canada to take the initiative of establishing an interparliamentary link without delay. The report of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee on Canadian Relations with the European Community stated, and I quote:
Delay could result in the build-up by the Community of a network of parliamentary links with third countries' parliaments, leaving the members of the European Parliament with far less inclination or time to consider such links with Canada.
That is the risk involved and pointed out by the Senate committee.
The second point of the statement I wish to discuss especially, Mr. Speaker, concerns the following recommendation:
"that the establishment in Ottawa of an Economic Community delegation, together with an information office, should be considered as a priority by the European Community."
There is no doubt that very few people in Canada are aware of the existence of the European Economic Community and of the part it plays in the changes taking place in Europe. We undoubtedly need a positive information program to explain the Community to Canadians.
This delegation of the European Economic Community in Canada would serve as a link both ways, not only making Canada more aware of the Community and understand it better, but also keeping Brussels informed of Canada's particular interests and points of views.
Mr. Speaker, when thinking of Europe, Canadians are still inclined to recall the old traditional and bilateral relations, namely the relations which we had with France, Belgium, Great Britain and other European countries. From now on, we must learn to imagine new relations, Canadian relations with the European Economic Community. On the other hand, many Europeans have a tendency to consider Canada as an integral part of the North American entity, assuming that they could have with us more or less the same relations that they have with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, to clear up any misunderstanding and dispel any wrong interpretation on both sides, it might be appropriate to hold regular interparliamentary meetings and have a delegation of the Community in Ottawa.
Perhaps it would be interesting and useful to remind hon. members of some facts about the European Parliament. It is often mistaken for the Constituent Assembly of
November 16, 1973

the Council of Europe with which the Canadian Parliament has already had numerous exchanges.
Although the two groups meet in Strasbourg and are formed of Europeans, they have very few points in common. The Council of Europe, made up of 17 member states, is only an advisory body and is mainly concerned with human rights and co-ordination of national regulations and legislation, mostly in the social and cultural fields.
The European Parliament comprises representatives of the national parliaments of the nine member states of the European Economic Community, that is Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
There are nominally 198 members, although the British Labour Party has until now refused to appoint representatives. That number would increase when the Labour Party decides to send its own delegates. Even though the powers of the European Parliament have so far been of an advisory nature, this organization follows closely the progress of the Community through oral and written questions sent to the Commission, that is the bureaucracy, and to the Council of Ministers. Its powers are increasing and by 1975, it will have acquired budgetary control over administration and information.
In the European Parliament, the debates are conducted in the six languages of the Community members: Danish, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian.
It is interesting to note that members of the European Parliament do not sit by nationality but by party or ideological affiliation. The present parliament is made up of five main groups and a number of non-affiliated members. These main groups are the Christian Democrats, the Socialists, the Liberals and allied members, the Conservatives and the European Democratic Unionists.
The European Parliament meets once a year, mostly in Strasburg, but often in Luxemburg where the secretariat is located. The parliament includes 12 standing committees which meet mostly in Brussels, capital of the European Community.
If one compares the future importance of both groups, that is the European Parliament and the Advisory Assembly of the European Council, I believe it is fair to say that the European Parliament will probably gain in importance. When the Community will have integrated its trade business and can begin integrating its economic and monetary objectives, some form of political integration will most certainly follow.
At the present time, one can only surmise the impact of a political union of Europe on the European Parliament, but it will surely bring about eventually a substantial increase in parliamentary powers and control. Mr. Speaker, I think that this organization will become one of the most important parliaments of the future, and it is in the interest of Canada to establish close relationships with it.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the External Affairs Committee of the Senate on taking the initiative, in the spring of 1973, of making known its intention of meeting with delegates of the European Parliament and of visiting Brussels last March to start discus-
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments sions with representatives of the various member countries of the European Community. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the motion I moved on Wednesday was received with so much enthusiasm. I know that several members of the opposition have made known their intention of participating in this debate on the joint statement made public by the delegates of the European Parliament and by those of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and of the Senate Committee.
For their good work, Mr. Speaker, I want to express to them once more all my gratitude and appreciation.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) for his initiative and the informative and interesting remarks which he has just concluded. I think it is all to the good in this chamber from time to time to take the opportunity to deal with the kind of matters which parliamentary groups have been discussing. If I may say so, I think the other place long ago set a good example on this sort of thing. I commend the hon. member for his initiative and I support completely, thoroughly and most sincerely, the suggestions he has put forward and which are contained in the communique.
One cannot overemphasize the importance of our contacts with and broadening our knowledge of what might be called the new Europe-a new Europe exemplified in the parliament of Europe which the hon. member has so succinctly and so well described. Some of us, although not very old, remember when Europe was a divided Europe with contact points. Now we have developed a Europe which is much more than just a place where other great powers divide and perhaps confront each other explosively. We have seen the era of ostpolotik. I wish the Berlin wall had come down, but in many ways I think it is crumbling and that is to the good. I am very pleased that our country has an ambassador accredited to Brussels. This is a suggestion that I used to make during the past three years. I think on another level this typifies the significance of contact.
It is interesting that in a world of celerity and sophistication in communication, so often we are not really communicating very well. In Canada in the last weeks many people have suddenly awakened to the fact that there is such a world as the Arab world-but it has been there for a long, long time. The new Europe is there, with a tremendous impact and tremendous possibilities. I would like to see us developing the kind of parliamentary arrangements that we have had so long and so successfully with the United States. That is a most excellent group. I hope as parliamentarians we will be in the forefront of developing ties, regularizing contacts and meetings, not with the nation states of Europe-with most of them Canada is not unfamiliar-but with the new Community. This is not a Community which is only economic, but it is a political one in the broadest sense of that expression. So I look forward to the parliamentary exchanges and to our finding more and more opportunities for dialogue with the Community.

November 16, 1973
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments
While this is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, it is also imperative. I remember not long ago someone appearing before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and saying that perhaps a bigger danger than being taken over economically was being left out when it comes to trade. This statement was made by Mr. Fowler, a prominent member of the Liberal Party who made a thoughtful presentation to the committee. It would be unfortunate in the great world of economic and political giants if we were to find that we had been left out. So it is incumbent upon us to see that this does not happen not only in hard economic terms but in people-to-people contacts.
I am not quite becalmed despite the many assurances that all is going to be well in terms of trade. I do not think we know yet that there will not be ramifications and repercussions that could quite possibly be painful. One thing we do know however-that contacts, associations and friendships should all be stored for the mutual benefit of this country and the community of Europe.
Mr. Speaker, I know that some of my illustrious colleagues also wish to address themselves to this matter, so I simply conclude by quoting from the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) delivered by the eloquent voice of his parliamentary secretary during the visit of the European parliamentarians. He said:
In this context the suggestion of a Canada/European community declaration is attractive. But the determining factor will be substance-not form. Canada is seeking opportunities to develop a dynamic, meaningful and distinctive long term relationship with the European Community. If it is clear that such a declaration can contribute to this objective we will be ready to participate in its elaboration.
With or without a declaration the future evolution of the community's transAtlantic relationship will be of critical interest to Canada. I am confident that common interests and common sense will prevail.
I end as I began, Mr. Speaker, by expressing great pleasure in a debate which was so well launched by my hon. friend.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to emulate the admirable brevity of the last speaker. I, too, would like to commend the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) for his contribution to the debate and his statement about the European Economic Community and Canada's relationships with it. In this party we recognize the value of this interparliamentary encounter. I was one of the delegates who met with the delegation from the European parliament. I agree very much with what I think was one of the key statements in the communique, which was that regular contact would help to promote better understanding and overcome disagreements. The communique provided that this event, which had happened for the first time in history, would be followed by periodic meetings and regular contacts at a later date.
I am reminded, in this connection, that for I think 11 years now representatives of this House and of the Senate have been meeting annually either in Washington or in Ottawa with representatives of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Over the years I think we have come to know each other better. We are very close to the United States, in any event. It seems to me that there is, if not an equal need at least a

clear need for the parliamentarians of Europe, particularly of the nine countries which form the Community, to meet their Canadian counterparts so that we can understand each other's problems and in dealing with each other, as we are bound to do, learn to appreciate each other's problems.
We must recognize the new realities. The European Economic Community is one of the new realities of the world. It is a trading partnership. It is a new political creation, not necessarily like any we have known before. I think, the hon. member for Labelle told us that the Community has a commission which is composed of experts, or what we call permanent members. It has a council of ministers who negotiate, particularly on trading matters, for their particular countries, and it has a European parliament in which all the nine member countries are represented by members designated from the various parties. They meet, I think, about 100 days in the year. It is a truly functioning organization and is likely to grow and change.
We in Canada must recognize the great importance of this Economic Community. I will put a few figures on record. They may be well known to some. They illustrate that for our own prosperity and well-being, we must deal with the Community. The enlarged community has a population in excess of that of the United States, our largest trading partner. The Community's population is 250 million, the people mostly having attained a very high level of civilization and development. The population of the United States is 207 million. The Community has a gross production rate in excess of $700 billion a year. Since the British entry it has become Canada's second largest trading partner. In 1972 the nine member countries bought $2.5 billion of Canadian exports, or 45 per cent of all our exported goods not going to the United States.
In 1972 the Community sold us $2.2 billion worth of goods. The amount of goods imported by the Community is significantly more than the total amount of goods imported by the United States. In 1971 the Community imported over $10 billion worth of finished goods from outside countries. Canada's share was only 1 per cent of this finished product market. The implication for employment in these figures is tremendous. Last year, 1972, Canada lost its traditional balance of trade surplus with the Six and had a trade deficit. So without going into further figures, it is easy to see that the terms of access of Canadian goods and Canadian products into the Economic Community are of the greatest importance.
I think the hon. member for Labelle has already mentioned that there is a great need for having the European Community delegations come to Ottawa so that they may know what is going on here. It is important for Canadians to be made aware of the new Europe. Significantly, the conference which we had was hardly mentioned in the press. I think he Devoir was one of the few newspapers in Canada which thought it worth while noticing the conference. The Globe and Mail of my home town, which calls itself Canada's national newspaper and which used to be one of our best newspapers-I use the past tense deliberately as it no longer covers international affairs as well as it did-said nothing about this unique event. It said nothing about the representatives of the European Community
November 16, 1973

being in this country, although I am informed the newspaper was fully notified of the event. How can Canadians learn to adjust to the realities of the new Europe if events such as this go unnoticed, unattended and unassessed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is also important for Europeans to distinguish between Canada and the United States. We share the same continent, much of the same culture, and we enjoy a very close and intimate relationship with the United States. For these reasons Europeans sometimes think they need not consider Canada as a separate entity from the United States. They assume that Canadian concerns are similar to those of the United States and that the Economic Community's policies with regard to the United States can apply to Canada as well.
I think it is very much in Canada's interests to mark the differences between ourselves and the United States. The European delegation which came here acknowledged in the joint statement that European Community policies must recognize distinctions and differences between the interests of Canada and those of the United States. The United States and the European Community are already preparing a declaration regarding the principles of their relationships with each other. I think we need a similar statement which would apply to Canada.
The European Community is primarily a trading or economic bloc and as such is of very great importance. I want to mention another factor. No one can foresee exactly what it will grow into. There is every likelihood that it will grow into a more closely knit political organization. The Community now takes part in GATT negotiations on behalf of its nine member nations. This fact in itself shows that the Community is of very great importance. In addition, as I understand it the members of the Economic Community have now said that in the discussions with the United States about a new Atlantic charter they will work together. It is of the utmost importance to consider that although this trading partnership perhaps will not grow into a single state in the foreseeable future, it will grow into a more closely knit political entity with great power and influence in the world and it will act as a counterbalance, if you will, to the two superpowers of the United States and the U.S.S.R.
It behooves us, considering the position we are in, to maintain the closest contact with the European Economic Community, to have the fullest knowledge of it and to show the greatest sympathy for it. That should not be difficult because our links in any event are very close, not only with mother countries such as France and Great Britain but with other countries as well. Many people in Canada come from countries of the European Economic Community. There are very few parts of the world with which we maintain closer historic links.
I close by saying once more that I am glad of the initiative which enabled those of us who were present at the conference to testify to its importance. I express the wish that it will prove to be merely the start of close and growing co-operation between our respective countries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier),
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. De Bane) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), in that order, as well as other hon. members, let me say that I have checked with the officers at the table and understand that the document previously alluded to has not been printed anywhere in any form which would make it readily available to the public. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) also spoke about this difficulty.
In order to make that four-page communique more meaningful to those who may wish to refer to this debate, I wonder if it is the will of the House to print the document referred to as an appendix to Hansard. It would be inserted at the conclusion of this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Dupras: I so move, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's note: For text of communique referred to above, see appendix.]
[ Translation]


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, as the previous speakers, I also wish to commend the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) for the motion he has put before the House, which enables us to learn more about the work of the European Parliament and Canada's relations with the European Economic Community. All of us have followed the development of this community and I think the recent meeting is an historic event in a new direction. I feel Canada has shown maturity.
Until now, we used to evolve within a closed circuit with Great Britain and the United States as major partners, and many entertained great fears when Great Britain expressed the wish to join the Common Market.
So as to define the current situation I think we can do no better than look back to see wherefrom those two groups had the idea of meeting today. I was going through the journal International Perspectives when I came across an article by Maurice Torelli which reads as follows: Canada's reaction to Britain's entry into the European Economic Community reveals the basic ambiguity of the Canadian attitude towards the latter; on the one hand, Europe represents the colonial past, the "Land of Sin'' as Jefferson put it, whereas, on the other hand, the EEC, which is the largest trade bloc in a world in which an economy of conglomerates is becoming the rule rather than the exception, is acting more and more as a powerful attractive force. Futurologists a la Herman Kahn speak of the vitality of certain "winning" groups such as Europe or Japan, and of the decline of certain "losing" groups, such as the United States or the U.S.S.R., whose aging administrative structures are beginning to constitute a threat to economic growth. As far as its relationship with these large conglomerates is concerned, Canada, a country that certainly would never have been invented by an economist, is more or less associated with each of them, but the process of becoming a satellite, although it is at a very advanced stage, is not yet complete. This process may be stopped provided Canada adopts a policy consistent with the objectives of national independence and a general increase in prosperity set forth in 1970. In other words, Canada needs a policy of diversification that would make it possible to control the domination of its economy resulting direct-

November 16, 1973
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments
ly from the very magnitude of its relations with the United States and to find the new markets the structure of its economy requires.
Up to the present, however, Canada, unlike the United States, has not taken Europe seriously; nevertheless, three factors militate in favour of a change of attitude. On the one hand, the end of the war in Vietnam seems for the moment to have checked the observed shift in the economic axis of the developed world Japan exerts a considerable attractive force, but Europe remains clearly the principal economic partner of the United States. On the other hand, Britain's entry into the Common Market puts Canada in a situation similar to that which prevailed after 1846, when Britain abandoned Imperial mercantile protectionism in favour of a system of free exchange, thereby rendering European markets accessible. Because it eliminated the tariff-free importation of Canadian wheat into Britain, the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 was considered in certain Canadian quarters to be a "betrayal" and forced Canada to re-evaluate its general orientation.
This re-evaluation led first of all to the conclusion, in the 1850s, of the Reciprocity Treaty between Canada and the United States, which set up a sort of common market between the two countries for a whole range of products, and then, after the failure of the treaty, to Confederation in 1867. Confederation was the expression of Canada's will for a legal definition of its independence and led to a policy of economic nationalism and to the construction of Canadian transcontinental railways. Canada had decided to find its own identity without either Europe or the United States.
Today, with Britain's entry into the EEC, Canada feels somewhat as though it were the victim of a second British "betrayal"; the end of modern-day preferential treatment by Britain will certainly create difficulties for certain Canadian industries that will be in an unfavourable competitive position on the British market in comparison with the other EEC member states. Canada can opt for a rapprochement with the United States, as it did in 1846, or once again revert to economic nationalism. There is, however, a third solution; it consists in creating closer ties with Europe, the legal terms of which are yet to be defined but whose economic justification may be stated precisely: the third factor that makes Europe particularly interesting for Canada is the complementary nature of the two economies.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quote part of this article because I think it is partly the prelude of this very recent meeting which has corroborated the ideas of this article's author.
I have here the joint declaration issued at the conclusion of the meeting between the European and Canadian parliamentary delegations. May I quote some parts of it:
Both delegations admitted that there were numerous ways of improving relations between Canada and Europe. For their part, European delegates admitted that EEC policies should take into account distinct interests of Canada and the United States.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the most important points of the present statement which says that, at last, the European Community distinguishes us from the American block, makes a distinction between Canada and the United States, between the Canadian and the American economy and between Canadian and American commerce. I think it is a victory for our representatives here in Canada that they have indicated this approach and have had the European Community make this distinction.
We read further:
Aware, on one hand, of their common interests and ideas and on the other hand, of possible disagreement between Canada and the Community both delegations agreed that periodical meetings should be organized-
-by both Parliaments. And still, this is another argument, it is understood that if we want to remain friends

and to keep up this friendship, there must necessarily be a place of meeting. Then, we spoke of an information office in Canada and of a similar office at the EEC. Such an office is absolutely necessary to be able to discuss all points daily, at each meeting in order to follow the progress of commerce, industry and politics.
Mr. Speaker, we then read:
The extent to which present GATT negotiations will succeed in further liberalizing international trade in industrial and farming products, as well as defining a good behaviour code has been judged of significant importance both for Canada and for the Community.
Mr. Speaker, all the new transactions concerning the western grain, for instance, were conducted mostly on the European market, as Great Britain was the major importer of Quebec cheese. I believe this will open new horizons and broaden for Canada the access to European markets, those of Great Britain as well as of France and other member countries of this community. And if this is good for Europe, I believe it is even better for Canada, because, once more, it shows maturity in opening the door to other markets while breaking away from previous ones, mostly American, without neglecting them for all that.
I believe it is time more than ever before for Canada, as an independent country, to trade with other nations and take its place on the international markets.


Mr. Pierre de Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we can say that the constructive dialogue promised by the Nine at their Paris summit in October 1972 is well under way. Owing to various circumstances involving the government, Ottawa has hosted earlier in November large groups of European visitors representing European institutions and the information media the influence of which on the development of our relationship with Europe could not be overestimated.
Whether they were members of the European Economic Council like Sir Christopher Soames, Vice-president and Commissioner for External Affairs of the Council, coming for further discussions with Canadian ministers and officials, or representatives of the European Parliament coming to meet their Canadian counterparts, or representatives of famous newspapers from Western Europe coming to participate to the conference on Canada and the European Community organized by the ICAI with the co-operation of the Department of External Affairs and the European Economic Council, the government was very pleased to welcome them because their visit gave to Europeans and Canadians an exceptional opportunity to discuss the extension and deepening of relationships between Canada and member countries of the European Community. Those discussions should not be short-lived. It is desirable that the dialogue with the European Community be on a permanent basis and with good will that such exchanges of views be frequent and profitable.
It is with the greatest interest that we read the joint statement issued at the meeting between European Parliament delegation and the Canadian Parliament delegation on November 1. The government is encouraged in his own efforts by the positive tone that both parliamentary delegations gave to their discussions on the various items on the orders of the day.
November 16, 1973

The government particularly noticed the recommendation made to draft a statement on the various principles that are to govern the relations between Canada and the European Community. We must be aware that the continuing concern of the government is to ensure that the distinctive Canadian entity in North America, and its own interests and yearnings should be recognized as such by the international community as a whole, and particularly by our European partners, because of the leading part that they are bound to play in the policy of diversification in our external affairs. This means that the matter of a distinct declaration between Canada and the European Economic Community is presently undergoing a thorough examination within the government. Besides, it was already mentioned in a preliminary way with the member countries of the Community. We insist on the fact that in this matter as in others, the material is the most important. What we want is that the relations between Canada and the Community should from now on develop in concrete and dynamic co-operation. If a policy statement could contribute to the achievement of this objective, the government would certainly welcome it.
The joint communique suggests that the European Economic Community ought to give top priority to the establishment in Ottawa of a Community delegation, including an information office. This could not agree more with the views of the government. There cannot be any real communication unless it is bilateral. A European Economic Community mission in Ottawa would be the useful if not essential counterpart of our own permanent delegation to the Community in Brussels. It is certainly not for us to decide which priority should be given by the Community to the establishment of such a mission, but we can only wish that it be top priority.
The government will welcome the full support given by both European and Canadian delegates to freer trade. In fact, it has often stated its policy with regard to freer international trade and it would like it to be even more extensive. It is because we are convinced that such a liberalization would benefit all members of the international community members that we are pleased to see the European Economic Community take such a positive position with regard to a still greater liberalization.
It must be noted that the delegates have acknowledged the common interest that Europeans and Canadians have in cooperating so that Canadian raw materials may be further processed before being exported. This is a major concern of the government. Even if Canada is regarded as an important raw materials supplier, the Canadian people's interests require that these products be further processed before being exported. We would favour for this purpose the development of joint projects with the cooperation of European companies.
Obviously, this question bears a direct relation to that of foreign investment in Canada. The foreign investment review bill established a number of concepts in this regard. It is to be hoped that Europeans may continue to invest in Canada with tangible benefits for the Canadian economy.
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments
In this time of fast development on both sides of the Atlantic, it is important to remember, even if it is a truism, that as important as it is, the economic side of our relations with the EEC is not the only one to be considered, nor even the one that matters most. On this point, it is pleasant for us, but also greatly significant, that the European delegation has expressed its satisfaction over the constructive role played by Canada as concerns the CSCE. That part of the statement clearly shows that Canada is pursuing vital objectives in Europe, and it recognizes that the security of Canada cannot be separated from that of Europe and that bonds of all kinds, made through our history, origins and common ideals, encompass and surpass our respective policies for the greater prosperity of all concerned.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to join with the previous speakers in congratulating the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) who introduced the motion which is now before us. [English]
That was at your initiative, Mr. Speaker, having so graciously suggested that we table the communique of this meeting. With your permission I should like to enlarge the debate slightly, taking this as a point of departure. I should like to formulate a plea which has both historical and parliamentary overtones. What I want to see is a regular record of the meetings which parliamentarians attend, whether they be here or overseas. The latest example of such a meeting has just closed its formal gathering with a luncheon today. I am not suggesting that we try to put on the record of Hansard all the proceedings, but at least the agenda of the matters that were covered.
I should like to go back a bit in history and indicate just what is the degree of record we have of these various gatherings. I went back as far as 1959 because I had a direct interest in the initial proceedings of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group. At that time we managed to have tabled the record of the first meeting of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group. That followed through sequentially year after year until about 1966. For some reason not clear from the record, we did not manage to carry on. There was a break in 1966, and then in 1970 the Clerk of the House laid upon the table copies of the report of the thirteenth meeting of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group. I submit that is not good enough. Some of us in this House were chosen as delegates to this international gathering. We cannot all be there, but when we come back from such meetings we should be able to at least table the record here so that those who were not privileged to attend the meetings would know what we were doing. The Canadian public should know also.
I have been extremely fortunate in the short time I have been a member of this parliament to have attended no less than four of these meetings. One was in Bonn, before this session first convened, of the North Atlantic assembly. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) is not here; I was going to refer to something of interest to him. I also attended in July a meeting of the international parliamentary group in Washington. This was a very important one for me because the main problem discussed was the movement of tankers through the Strait of Juan de Fuca. I was also a Canadian member at

November 16, 1973
Communique of Canadian and European Parliaments the meeting of l'association Internationale des parlemen-taires de langue frangaise. I also participated at the meeting of the Canadian Parliamentary Association with the European Economic Community. Today we have, thanks to the initiative of my colleague the hon. member for Laprairie and our Speaker, the record of that meeting. We do not have the record of these other meetings in Hansard, but other places provide a partial record of the meeting in Washington.
I do not have much time left, but my plea this afternoon is merely to obtain the approval of the Chair and of this House to the suggestion that when meetings of this sort take place, someone who attends ought to table the report in this House, whether for debate or simply for the record, so it shall be known and there shall be a complete sequence in this House of the text of other gatherings in this country or abroad.
I hope, for example, that within the next week or so we shall have the means of tabling, just as a matter of routine, the proceedings or the agenda of the meetings we have just been attending here in this building, attended by the legislators of our provinces. There was an exchange of ideas to our mutual benefit, and that is a great thing. But more than being to our mutual intellectual benefit, it was to our mutual political benefit in the context that we were able to meet with our fellow parliamentarians and legislators across the country and discuss questions of importance to us.
I regret, as I said, that the hon. member for Laprairie is not here as this is one of the strange anomalies of tabling various reports. He was charged at the North Atlantic assembly with preparing a report on the fisheries of the North Atlantic. He did so and tabled it at the fisheries committee. It is there among parliamentary records, but it should be on Hansard. It is my plea that before too long we shall be able to proceed in this way in the normal course of
events, so there will be a record of all these meetings on our record.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I would not by any stretch of the imagination want to take up very much time, except I have an idea- which is perhaps a bit dangerous-that if we really mean what we say in this most interesting hour of debate, and I really think we do, one way it might be accomplished is for us as a parliament, if the government cannot do it, to persuade the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on an urgent basis-I am very serious-to visit first of all Brussels to ensure that the Canadian public and this parliament understands the importance of the link between the old Europe, which has sort of been reincarnated in the European Community, with Canada and also to visit other European countries. I have been here as long as the Prime Minister and I must say I did not think it would be so hard to get the right hon. gentleman to travel. I hope that if he or his advisers have time to read the remarks which have been made in the last hour there will be an understanding of the serious urgency of having the Prime Minister of Canada visit Brussels.
My own leader made such a visit in 1970, well before an ambassador was nominated for the special post of ambassador to the Community. I think in all the travel plans the Prime Minister has, none can be so urgent as a visit first to Brussels and, hopefully, to other countries of the Community. If invitations are wanted, of course they can be easily obtained. I hope this whole idea will go forward quickly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I sense that the House has met the objective raised by the hon. Member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) in presenting his motion on Wednesday, November 14. Accordingly, the hour for private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
November 16, 1973


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
A delegation from the European Community's Parliament today held the first formal meeting with members of the Canadian Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House of Commons Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
The two delegations recognized that much could be done to improve Canada-Community relations. The Canadian delegation welcomed the specific mention of Canada in the Paris summit meeting communique as a country with which the Community should maintain "a constructive dialogue". For their part, the European delegates acknowledged that EC policies must recognize the distinction between the interests of Canada and the United States. To this end all delegates agreed that a separate EC-Canada dialogue should be maintained. Taking note of the proposed US-EC declaration, the delegations further recommended that a separate declaration of principles be drawn up for Canada-EC relations.
Conscious on the one hand of the common interests and perceptions they share and, on the other, of the areas of potential disagreement that could arise between Canada and the Community both delegations agreed that periodic meetings should be organized between the European Parliament and the Parliament of Canada. Regular contact would help to promote better understanding and overcome disagreements.
The necessity for an EC institutional channel in Canada capable of two-way communication was recognized by the Parliamentarians of both sides. It was agreed that the establishment in Ottawa of an EC Delegation including an Information Office should be given the very highest priority by the Community.
In respect to general EC-Canada trade relations, Canadian members stressed the commitment which Canada felt to a truly multilateral trading system and their apprehension over the possibility of the major trading groupings becoming inward-looking. Such a development would run counter to the efforts of both Canada and the Community to diversify their economic and other relations. The success of the current GATT negotiations in further liberalizing international trade in industrial and agricultural products and in reaching agreement on trade conduct was considered to be of great importance both to Canada and to the Community. The delegates of the European Parliament stressed that both their own policy and also the overriding necessities of the Community's economy made trade liberalization a major priority for them. The whole recent history of the Community, and also the very high degree of trade liberalization which the Community had already achieved was evidence of this policy.
The European delegates expressed their appreciation of the constructive role Canada is playing in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
The two delegations recognized that although Canada was an oil-exporting as well as an oil-importing nation, it confronted many of the same problems the Community faced. The delegates concluded that methods for co-operation exploration and development of oil sources in the North Atlantic and Eastern Arctic and the Alberta tar-sands could be profitably examined. The two delegations recognized the great importance of co-operation in the field of scientific research and technology. The European parliamentarians underlined their interest in the results obtained in Canada in the field of nuclear reactors.
In addition, it was agreed that co-operation between member states of the Community and Canada in the upgrading of industrial raw materials could be mutually advantageous. Canada, a major supplier of primary products to the Community, was interested in joint ventures with European companies to develop further processing of its industrial raw materials before export. For their part, some member states of the Community were interested to ensure future supplies through such joint undertakings.
The Community is Canada's largest export market for agricultural products (35%). Canadian export sales to the European Community itself as well as to third markets are affected by the CAP system of support prices-e.g. for barley. British entry has meant that the impact of the CAP is being felt even more deeply. However, the Canadian parliamentarians recognized the important social and political significance of the Community's agricultural policy.
In discussing foreign investment in Europe and Canada, the two sides agreed that there were increasingly interesting investment possibilities between the member states of the Community and Canada in both directions. The delegates expressed the hope that such reciprocal investment projects would increase, whilst recognizing that the question of multinational corporations would inevitably have to be examined.
The European and Canadian parliamentarians, while recognizing the significance of their respective aid policies, agreed on the need to take more energetic action in implementing their responsibilities to developing countries.

[Stage Direction]
Participants from the European Parliament: Mr. Pierre-Bernard Couste, Chairman, Mr. Joseph Wohlfart, Mr. Jan Baas, Mr. Renato Ballardini, Mr. Ludwig Fellermaier, Mr. Roger Houdet, Mr. Hans Edgar Jahn, Mr. Peter Michael Kirk, Mr. Erwin Lange, Mr. Silvio Leonardi, Mr. Christian de la Malene, Mr. Willem J. Schuijt, Mr. Gerd. Springorum, Mr. Knud Thomsen, Mr. F. Vais, Mr. Mario Vetrone.
[Stage Direction]
November 16, 1973
Participants from the Senate: Senator John B. Aird, Co-Chairman and Senators Donald Cameron, C. W. Carter, John J. Connolly, Jacques Flynn, Allister Grosart, Paul C. Lafond, Keith Laird, Renaude Lapointe, A. A. Macnaugh-ton, Charles McElman and George C. van Roggen.
Participants from the House of Commons: Mr. Georges-C. Lachance, Co-Chairman and Messrs. Andrew Brewin,
Chas. Caccia, Eymard Corbin, Alexandre Cyr, Maurice Dupras, R. Gordon L. Fairweather, Rosaire Gendron, John Harney, Leonard Hopkins, William Knowles, Hon. Marcel Lambert, Gerard Laprise, David MacDonald, Miss Flora MacDonald, Mrs. Albanie Morin, Messrs. Donald W. Munro, F. Oberle, Alex Patterson, Irenee Pelletier, Doug Rowland, Reg Stackhouse, Sinclair Stevens and Jacques-L. Trudel.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 19, 1973