1974-04-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-272, respecting domestic control of Canadian entries in international professional rugby football.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the eventuality of a Canadian entry in an international professional football league by requiring that 50 per cent of the playing members of any such entry be Canadian citizens.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of bills:
April 1, 1974-The Minister of National Health and Welfare-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan".
Mr. Speaker:: It is the understanding of the Chair that the recommendation appearing under the notice of introduction of the bill to amend the Canada Pension Plan contains a provision that makes it necessary to obtain a new recommendation. With leave of the House, it is suggested that the present recommendation be replaced by a new recommendation, to be printed in tomorrow's order paper. Meanwhile, the notice of introduction of the bill will be allowed to stand until tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL ALIMONY AND MAINTENANCE ORDER ENFORCEMENT ACT ESTABLISHMENT OF AGENCY OF CROWN TO ENFORCE ORDERS
Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-273, respecting the interprovincial enforcement of alimony and maintenance orders.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a mechanism for the security of alimony payments in an estranged marriage, thus removing much of the anguish suffered primarily by mothers who frequently must spend time and money pursuing defaulting husbands and who often resort to welfare at immense cost in human terms as well as some $1 million daily in welfare costs. The mechanism would be an agency of the Crown from which alimony awards would automatically be paid and to which the husband, or wife where applicable, would make payments. The agency would have responsibility for enforcement.


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


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's proposal to build a massive hydroelectric project at Great Bear Lake to supply power for Canadian Arctic gas companies, can the Prime Minister advise why thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money have now been spent on feasibility studies for this project when the project is dependent on the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline which has not yet even been approved by the National Energy Board?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly take notice of the question. The minister is due in the House in a very short while.


John Allen Fraser: Can the Prime Minister advise why the taxpayers' money should be spent to build this proposed

April 4, 1974
Oral Questions
project when it would exist practically for the sole purpose of assisting the private corporations which wish to build the gas pipeline and market the gas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be very delighted to bring this supplementary and any other supplementaries that might be written down there to the minister's attention.


John Allen Fraser: Can the Prime Minister advise who will make the decision whether this great Canadian lake is to be spoiled by flooding of its shoreline and whether the project will be subject to the environmental impact assessment policy set out by the Minister of the Environment on March 14?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I indicated, all these supplementaries which are in front of the hon. member will be conveyed to the minister on his behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for York South. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Stanfield:: I am not trying to assume your role, Mr. Speaker, but since we had asked one question I assumed you would be turning to the New Democratic Party for a question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: I hope I can remember the question, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact it is now over four months since the passage of the Foreign Investment Review Act, and in view of the fact there are still no legal ways to prevent takeovers that come within the ambit of that act, has the minister been successful in either delaying or freezing the completion of any takeover transactions which are reviewable? If so, how many takeovers has he prevented?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the two takeovers that have been of particular interest, the Masco takeover of Emco and the Reynolds takeover of Macdonald, have been under very considerable discussion. Neither was prevented because they both went through quite legally. However, both companies have given undertakings. In the case of Reynolds Tobacco, they are substantial undertakings and I think they substantially meet the significant benefit test. In the case of the Masco takeover of Emco, I am not yet satisfied that the undertakings given by that company, which are entirely voluntary, meet the significant benefit test. I have been told by senior officials of Masco that they will resubmit undertakings to us.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In view of the fact the Financial Times has reported up to 14 takeovers since the passage of the act, will the minister advise if he has any monitoring operation under way on an ongoing basis to check the actual number of takeovers taking place across the country in order to at least have control of the situation that has developed since the act was passed by the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we have no special or legal monitoring system. Our sources of information are rather similar to the hon. member's. There is no legal obligation at the present moment for those involved in takeovers to advise the government of their intentions. I can say, however, that a large number of firms, maybe as many as 20, have come forward in conformity with the request I made last December to make us aware of their intentions, if they were contemplating a take-over, and to discuss the transaction with us.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since he stated on the CTV network that inflation is caused in part by higher social security expenditures, such as old age security and family allowances increments, and that the government was forced to grant those increases because of pressures from the opposition, what measures would the right hon. Prime Minister take to reduce inflation if the opposition did not exist?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is highly hypothetical.


HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT FROM ROUMANIA
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to the contract to purchase Roumanian oil at 99 cents. I should like to ask the minister whether the technical advisory committee to his department, consisting of representatives of the oil companies, recommended to the minister or to the government that this oil should be purchased, that the government ought to acquire the option of Canadian Fuel Marketers Limited and exercise it on behalf of the government?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the committee recommended no specific purchase from any particular contracting party but it did say that a shortfall in supplies in Canada was anticipated, and in the course of a committee meeting one of the importers in particular indicated the contracts his company would not be taking up. Various members of the oil industry, both before and after that particular meeting and in that same time frame,
April 4, 1974

indicated that while the Canadian refineries could cover their requirements some of the importers would not be in a position to do so, and that action would need to be taken. It was on this basis the decision was made by my department, specifically by myself, that it was necessary to acquire the refined product to ensure the security of the Canadian market.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the minister indicate to the House what expert advice he received, if any, as to the appropriateness of exercising this option to acquire this Roumanian oil, and also what efforts, if any, the government made to determine what oil might be available from other sources and at what prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The decision was made on the advice of officials of my own department who have had extensive experience in the international oil trade.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am advised that in the case of very many of the offers which were made to the government at that time, and, indeed, in the case of these particular transactions, these officials made checks with international oil traders for the purpose of determining the available market and the various terms. In each case, I understand, they made more than one check to determine the market and scrutinize the transaction.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister regard it as appropriate for the government of Canada to do business on this scale with an advisor to the government? In other words, does the minister consider it as coming within the framework of conflict of interest as laid down by the Prime Minister that the government of Canada should do any business at all, let alone business on this scale, with a representative of a firm purporting to give the government disinterested advice?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may be misunderstanding the nature of the technical advisory group. All of the eastern Canadian refiners and the major importers of oil into eastern Canada were represented on that body, for the obvious reason that the committee was an important source of information for the government in regard to supply of oil to the eastern Canadian market and the demand that could be anticipated. All of the Eastern Canadian industry was involved in the discussions in this process and, in fact, if the government had not been pursuing this particular course of action to protect Canadians, there would have been no one else to deal with under these circumstances. The decision was made by myself on the advice of my officials. At no time was there a decision of the technical advisory group to enter into any specific transaction. They provided information and informed comment on the market. The decision was ours.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary Centre on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands also on a supplementary.
Oral Questions


HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT FROM ROUMANIA-ALTERNATIVE BIDS-NECESSITY FOR PURCHASE-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Do I understand the minister to say that no alternative bids were either solicited or received in terms of heating oil requirements? In addition, was the minister convinced that it was necessary for the Department of Supply and Services to purchase the high-priced Roumanian oil in order to obtain supplies from the Caribbean area as well?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I said there were a great many other bids scrutinized at that time and the opinion of international oil dealers was taken, with regard to the market. With regard to the Roumanian oil, we were concerned at that time about maintaining an alternative source of supply of refined oil for the eastern Canadian market, and it was deemed to be important to keep that source open by the exercise of this particular contract.


Harvie Andre: In order to clarify the matter, in view of the denial by the President of the Treasury Board yesterday of the request for an inquiry, would the minister be willing to table, either in the House or in the committee on national resources, all contracts, correspondence, examples of bids and information passed between the technical advisory committee and the Department of Supply and Services and the minister's own department during this period so this matter can be sorted out to the satisfaction of the House?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, competitive and commercial information would certainly be involved here. I would be glad to see to what extent I can meet the request without, in effect, disadvantaging those who dealt with the government and thereby making it difficult in the future to get the co-operation of the industry in the case of another emergency.


HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT-AVAILABILITY FROM OTHER SOURCES-PRICE PAID FOR ROUMANIAN OIL
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources this question. When he made the recommendation for the purchase of this 26 million gallons of home heating oil, was he aware that the technical advisory committee which was advising him was made up in part of two firms, Canadian Fuel Marketers Limited and Shell Oil of Canada, both of which are owned by Shell International which has been the main beneficiary in this transaction? In light of those circumstances, did the minister take any action himself to make sure that no other suppliers were available?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, the technical advisory committee was made up of all the major firms engaged in the oil business in eastern Canada so that we would have a full spectrum

April 4, 1974
Oral Questions
of information on supply of and demand for oil in this part of the Canadian market that was threatened. I was aware, of course, that Shell Canada and CFM were participants in this, and obviously it made sense that they should be.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a further supplementary followed by the hon. member for Champlain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the minister made the recommendation to the government that these transactions should be concluded, was he aware of the fact that in order to get the 20 million gallons of Caribbean oil the government was going to have to pay 99 Vi cents per gallon for the Roumanian oil, which was 10 cents above the Rotterdam price and 20 cents a gallon above the Caribbean price?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, at the time the contract was exercised it was exercised on the basis of the Rotterdam price. I think it is fair to say that at the time of acquiring the options the Rotterdam price was not known, so it would be in accordance with whatever the commercial going price was at the time the contract was to be exercised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will return to those hon. members who want to ask supplementary questions on this subject, but for the moment the Chair will see the hon. member for Champlain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister said it was on the Rotterdam price but the Minister of Supply and Services said yesterday that the Rotterdam price at that time was 89 cents and the oil was purchased by the Canadian government at 99 V4 cents, so it seems to me that the two ministers ought to get together on what kind of evidence they are going to give to the House.


Mr. Goyer:: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the Rotterdam price at the time of delivery was 89 cents and the Leader of the Opposition mentioned yesterday that the then price was 74 cents, and I would like on a point of clarification to say that the 74 cents was for-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You better straighten it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The minister will appreciate that there is no such thing in our rules as a point of clarification, so he rises on a question of privilege. I would suggest to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that this is really an exchange of questions and answers. I indicated a moment ago that I would return to this interesting subject after I had given an opportunity to the hon. member for Champlain to ask his question or questions.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect- [Translation]


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Champlain, but the minister rises again on a question of privilege.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to point out the fact that it was indicated in this House that I have said that we paid 99 'A cents a gallon and that throws some confusion in the debate. The truth will never come out if I am not allowed to clarify what I have said and set the record straight. For this reason, I believe that in rising on a question of privilege I could very well inform the House by stating exactly what I have said.


Mr. Speaker:: This can be done by the minister, as by any other hon. member or by any other member of the government, by making a statement on motions. In any case, I must suggest to the minister that other questions may be put shortly that will give him the opportunity to clarify the situation. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Champlain.


THE ARTS
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Would he say, before the Canadian Arts Conference starts, whether he is acquainted with the claims of the province of Quebec concerning the remission to Quebec of all federal funds for cultural assistance, and how he feels this conference will start this evening?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there is no connection between the two events. I understand there will be a statement made in the legislative assembly this afternoon and I will read it after it has been made.


PURCHASES OF OIL BY GOVERNMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Can he advise the House whether he has any other outstanding deals like the Roumanian oil deal coming up in the near future and, if he has, has he an estimate as to just how much it will cost the Canadian taxpayer to put those deals through?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the minister does not want to answer I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver South is waiting for an opportunity to return to the questions he put earlier.
April 4, 1974


PROPOSED HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT AT GREAT BEAR LAKE-JUSTIFICATION FOR FEASIBILITY STUDIES
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which I directed to the Prime Minister earlier and I thank you for the privilege of asking it now. In view of the government's proposal to build a massive hydroelectric power project at Great Bear Lake to supply power to Canadian Arctic gas companies, can the minister advise why thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money have now been spent on feasibility studies for this project when the project is dependent upon the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline which has not yet been approved by the National Energy Board?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has yet been made in this regard. The department is responsible for identifying the resources we have in the Canadian north and obviously among them we have considerable hydroelectric potential. In the light of present plans for the north, it is quite normal for us to study the possibility of developing hydroelectric power perhaps to use it for the pumping stations of an eventual pipeline. We are now doing preliminary studies but no decision has yet been reached in this regard.


John Allen Fraser: Perhaps the minister can advise why the taxpayers' money should be spent to build this proposed project when it would exist primarily for the sole purpose of assisting private corporations which wish to build a gas pipeline and market the gas?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, just as usual, the opposition does not realize that there are people living in northern Canada and that the government will have taken a very wise step if it can provide the Mackenzie Valley Indians with cheap electric power.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well it is not going to be built for the Indians. Can the minister advise who will make the decision whether this great Canadian lake is to be spoiled by flooding of its shoreline, and will the project be subject to the environmental impact assessment policy set out by the Minister of the Environment on March 14, or is this to be another case of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development making the decision on his own?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is not very well informed. It is possible to harness the Great Bear River without raising its level in any considerable way. Before any decision is taken on this matter by the government, environmental impact studies will be made. Besides, as I have always said in this House, there is excellent co-operation between my department and the Department of the Environment.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It has to do with an announcement made by high level government sources in Regina. I ask whether or not an agreement has already been signed by the government of Saskatchewan and is to be signed by the federal government whereby the federal government will provide $35 million in direct aid to set up steel facilities, plus $25 million in loans and loan guarantees?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman will refer to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Regional Development of a week ago today he will realize high level government sources in the federal government, namely, myself, made that announcement last Thursday in the committee. It was not in fact disclosed to the committee last Thursday in as much detail as the right hon. member has exposed today, but essentially the fact is that an agreement in principle has been signed by Saskatchewan and we have concurred in it. I am not sure whether it has actually been signed, but in any event we are proceeding with negotiations along the lines the right hon. member has outlined.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I brought up this matter because I wanted to get the facts. I might direct this question to the Minister of Justice. Did he say yesterday or the day before that the question of such an agreement was a political leak by Premier Blakeney and of which apparently he knew nothing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the right hon. gentleman may be an interesting one and the minister seems anxious to reply, but I am sure the right hon. member appreciates that questions can be asked of ministers only in relation to their administrative responsibilities.


John George Diefenbaker: I entirely agree, Mr. Speaker, but when the one minister from Saskatchewan does not know what is going on it is time for parliament to look into the matter because apparently there is an hiatus in the ministry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South. The minister rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I find it is necessary to rise on a question of privilege when in asking an unauthorized or improper question the right hon. gentleman makes a completely false assertion about anything I said. I knew full well what was going on with regard to the development of a steel industry in Saskatchewan. Indeed, the first indication of that development was contained in regional expan-
1146

April 4, 1974
Oral Questions
sion papers in April, 1973, and the federal government has been working hard on this project ever since. My regret about what Mr. Blakeney did was that once again he showed no concern at all for what the government of Canada was doing-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, I could not hear the last of those words of wisdom. It concerns me that the minister would object to an NDP government saying anything after the wonderful alliance here in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Premier of Saskatchewan could have a more renowned counsel for defence than the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. Now that everybody's favourite minister is in, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the wholesale price of beef cattle has fallen steadily since about mid-February and the wholesale prices of hogs and turkeys have also fallen, is the minister satisfied that there has been an equivalent reduction in the retail prices to consumers of the meats I have mentioned?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate a compliment from such a distinguished parliamentary observer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And colleague.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Food Prices Review Board in its March 22 quarterly report stated that Statistics Canada beef price figures for March will not be available for a few weeks. However, information available to the board for the Toronto and Winnipeg markets shows the fall in cattle prices being mirrored in both the wholesale price of dressed beef carcasses and in the price of beef being charged by retailers.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members I was, of course, aware of what the Food Prices Review Board said in its last quarterly report. I want to ask the minister whether his department or the Food Prices Review Board does regular monitoring of the retail stores in this country and, if so, in what locations?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in respect of beef prices the Food Prices Review Board does keep the prices under review and in fact it has under way, as I have

already indicated to the House, a special survey of retail beef price margins. I understand the report will be available in the next couple of weeks. I also understand that as part of its general mandate it keeps in touch with food prices at all levels generally.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for another supplementary, but I have to remind hon. members that we are not moving too quickly. We are still receiving questions from those in the first row and I hope we can move back in a moment. The hon. member for York South has the floor.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the reports of the Food Prices Review Board may be of value if they are published in time, and in view of the obvious fact that to have a report every three months is hardly of value to the consumers of Canada even if there are occasional special reports, may I ask the minister whether any consideration has been given to requiring the Food Prices Review Board to publish weekly or fortnightly reports on its monitoring of food prices in areas where it does such monitoring so that consumers may be advised at such a time that it would be of value to them!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly something that could be considered.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have risen several times and written numerous letters to clear the name of a constituent of mine. I will direct this question to the Solicitor General or the Acting Solicitor General. Is it necessary for a Canadian citizen to be fingerprinted in order that charges standing in his name for offences committed by another person may be cleared from the RCMP files, and is this not tantamount to saying: you are guilty until you prove to the RCMP that you are innocent?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that this is a request for a legal opinion I think it may have been wrongly directed to the Solicitor General. If it is directed to me, of course it would not be proper for me to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General or the Acting Solicitor General. Does the Solicitor General really expect a member of parliament to recommend to a constituent in the circumstances surrounding this matter that he submit to fingerprinting as
April 4, 1974

suggested by the minister in the letter with fingerprint forms that he sent to me?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT FROM ROUMANIA-REASON FOR PURCHASE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to ask him which minister, if either, is giving the correct version, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said a few moments ago that the Roumanian oil was purchased in order to provide an alternative source of supply, or the Minister of Supply and Services who said on April 2:
I have to explain that if we paid such a high price for the Roumanian oil it was because it was part of the agreement with this company that we could not have any Caribbean oil if we were not ready to pay this price for five million gallons of Roumanian oil.
Can the Prime Minister tell us which of these ministers, if either, is giving the correct explanation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the opposition party does not seem to be too interested in giving the Minister of Supply and Services an occasion to give the explanation which would be of interest to the opposition. I am told that part of the confusion that exists in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition is due to the fact that he is talking about U.S. gallons and the minister is talking about Imperial gallons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: How did you think that one up?


An hon. Member:: The best improvisation of the week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Minister of Supply and Services attempted earlier to clarify another point. I ask the Prime Minister not to evade the question and to say which of these ministers has given the correct explanation as to why the option to buy Roumanian oil was exercised, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said it was done in order to provide an alternative source of oil, or the Minister of Supply and Services who said that it had been exercised in order to enable us to obtain Caribbean oil? Will the Prime Minister tell us which of these ministers is giving the correct explanation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Both, Mr. Speaker. The replies are complementary, not contradictory.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Pretty weak.


John George Diefenbaker: It is time for an investigation.


An hon. Member:: You need that trip to France.
Oral Questions HEALTH


SHORTAGE OF MEDICAL MANPOWER-POSSIBILITY OF TAX INCENTIVES OR FORGIVABLE STUDENT LOANS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that many areas in Canada are suffering from severe shortages of medical manpower and as the future of the national health plan depends on giving something approaching equality of health care, I should like to ask the minister if consideration has been given to tax incentive cards for those areas or forgivable medical student loans for periods of service in those areas?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this proposal has not been discussed or raised but I am sure it is one that my provincial colleagues will want to consider. I will make a point of letting them know the hon. member's view in this respect.


Philip Bernard Rynard: With reference to the second part of my question, has consideration been given to student loans that would be forgivable upon agreement to serve in such areas for a certain period?


Marc Lalonde: As the hon. member knows very well, these are matters that the provinces have to decide since the regional allocation of medical services is a matter of provincial responsibility. It is the type of matter I would certainly like to refer to my provincial colleagues for examination.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the minister that this is now being done in other departments of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House if it is government policy for senior civil servants not to give out information on government activities to news reporters and other sectors of the Canadian public?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the fact that the National Liberal Federation has sent out circulars to every weekly newspaper in Canada stating that "111,000 new
27451-10!

April 4, 1974
Oral Questions
manufacturing jobs were created last year by the federal government's two-year writeoff"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member can ask his question without making specific reference to documents of this nature. I think the hon. member can ask the question directly without quoting documents in the way that he is doing now.


Henry Perrin Beatty: would be delighted to do so. Did the minister tell the House that 111,000 new jobs were created in Canada last year due to the federal government's concessions to business?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I said that last year, 1973, there were 111,000 new manufacturing jobs, which was 8,000 more than the increase of the six previous years put together.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In
view of the fact it is apparent from the minister's answer that he was not attributing it simply to the corporate tax concessions he made to industry in last year's budget, may I ask him what steps he intends to take to ensure that the National Liberal Federation clears up the misrepresentation which they made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is not in order.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the Pickering airport inquiry has, true to prediction, been rendered a virtual sham because of the very restrictive terms of reference imposed by the government, will the minister consider at this late date amending the terms of reference to permit a full and meaningful inquiry into all the facts upon which the original decision was taken and not just new evidence, and thereby permit Toronto area residents a fair shake?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


Ronald George Atkey: Now that the Liberal Party of Ontario has wisely decided to come out in opposition to the Pickering airport, would the federal government, which has the ultimate constitutional responsibility to make airport decisions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I suggest to hon. members that they are not helping the situation by asking questions of this nature. The hon. member can obtain information, which may be very important and relevant, by asking his question directly. I will recognize him for that purpose.


Ronald George Atkey: In view of the information I have just given to the minister, I wonder whether he and his party would agree to listen to their own rank and file in the Toronto region and cancel this expensive and unnecessary project?


Jean Marchand: We have been listening to our own members, Mr. Speaker, because all the steps we have taken were under the pressure of our own members in the region of Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Oh, you don't pay attention to anybody else. Oh boy, you have really fixed yourself now.


Jean Marchand: I do not want to play politics-


George Harris Hees: Take a look at Pierre's face.


Jean Marchand: Oh, come on, shut up now.


George Harris Hees: Take a look at it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wishes to complete his answer he will be recognized, but we are coming to the end of the question period.


Jean Marchand: Because we had doubt in our minds, the inquiry was instituted. I think it is normal that we wait until we have the recommendation of the inquiry. If we are to talk about the attitude of the Liberals in Toronto, I would be interested to know the attitude of the provincial government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST THAT FEED GRAINS BE MARKETED BY WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact thousands of prairie farmers are very much upset and opposed to the proposed changes in the marketing of feed grains, will the minister reconsider his position and will he guarantee to the House and to the farmers that feed grains will be marketed under the authority of the Wheat Board and the Wheat Board only?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the reaction of farmers across the country has been very much in favour of the basic principles underlying the feed grains proposals, namely, that we move to a similar price basis all across the country and therefore have freedom of movement and trade as a one-market unit. The government is considering the reactions to and comments on the proposals we put forward on August 3 for the long-term solution of the feed grains situation. We propose to consider those in a final way before very long and to announce then what the details of the proposal will be for the future.
April 4, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for York-ton-Melville for a supplementary, then the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, and then call orders of the day.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the minister in charge of the Wheat Board will not give us a guarantee that feed grains will not be removed from the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, will the Prime Minister intervene and act in accordance with the wishes of the farmers of the prairies and maintain the Wheat Board as the sole marketing agency for feed grains?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with the premise of the question, that the hon. member is a spokesman for the farmers any more than the minister, or the farmers themselves speaking through a plebiscite.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Minister of Justice which calls for a yes or no answer. Is it government policy to deny that grand juries in Ontario have jurisdiction to inspect and report on federal government institutions?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when such an issue arises we consider the technical and legal questions involved and decide on the basis of those facts.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, that certainly was not a yes or no. May I ask the minister if Mr. John Hollies, counsel for the government, was expressing ministerial policy last Friday in Napanee, Ontario, when he allegedly informed Mr. Justice Lloyd Holden of the Supreme Court of Ontario that he was prepared to argue the constitutional validity of the jurisdiction of the grand jury to inspect the federal institution at Millhaven, Ontario?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, he was acting fully within the scope of his instructions.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is a shameful attitude.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter (Mr. Bell) on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Tom Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader a question. Although there was some doubt expressed in the corridors this morning as to how long we are going to be here, if we do get into next week what will the business be?
National Parks Act


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot foresee any circumstances that would prevent us from sitting next week and, indeed, well into the summer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would advise my hon. friend that today we will continue with the parks bill. If that is completed, we will take the export development bill for the remainder of the day. Regardless of the progress made, tomorrow we would begin with the Fisheries Development Act, to be followed by the adjustments to the three guaranteed loans acts. On Monday, regardless of what progress is made, we would begin consideration of the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An hon. Member:: Where is the football bill?


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


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He either did not hear me or heard and chose not to answer. I wonder if it could be indicated which was the case.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I did not answer because the hon. member directed a question to me that did not relate to my department. Perhaps he might clarify the connection between his question and the expected answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the connection might be clarified in another way than by an exchange on a point of order. I think the Chair should call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6 to amend the National Parks Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might have order for a moment. I believe the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) might be interested in the motion which is now coming before us. The minister and hon. members have looked at the motions before us, of course. I should like to suggest to hon. members that, at least at first sight, motions Nos. 1 and 2 would appear to be irrelevant and go beyond the scope of Bill C-6.1 appreciate that there may have been discussion between hon. members as to what might be done on these two motions, but unless the Chair is convinced otherwise the motions will have to be ruled out of order.

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on these two motions there is agreement among all parties that the amendments could be accepted by consent. Because of an oversight in one of the clauses there was some discrimination vis-a-vis the Indian Lands. This was discovered in committee, and all members of the committee agreed that I should introduce, for the unanimous consent of the House, this motion to take care of that designation of Indian Lands.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair might inquire whether there is unanimous consent in relation to motion No. 2, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), that is unanimous consent that both motions should be put to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw on a point of order.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to give unanimous consent to the putting of motion No. 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that there is unanimous consent in connection with motion No. 2. I wonder whether we might have the advice of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni on that point.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent to acceptability of motion No. 1, which stands in the name of the minister, I would be quite happy at this point to have motion No. 2 withdrawn. They are almost in the same language; at least they both have the same objective. On the understanding that we consent to motion No. 1, I am quite prepared to leave aside motion No. 2.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Barnett) withdrawn.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-6, An Act to amend the National Parks Act, be amended by adding thereto immediately after line 6 on page 3 the following Clause:
"2.1 Subsection 6(3) of the said Act is repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
(3) The Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to purchase, expropriate or otherwise acquire any lands or interests therein for the purposes of a park.".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not have many remarks to make. As I said earlier when I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion, we are doing it because section 6 of the act refers to Indian Lands and because we must establish a special procedure to expropriate Indian lands. I do not think Indian lands should be considered differently from others in Canada, and this is why, the committee members having recognized this anomaly, we have decided to refrain from mentioning

Indians when we negotiate the purchase of lands for national parks.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has expressed a view to which we subscribe, namely that the discrimination appearing in the original act relating to Indian lands should be removed. As I say, we agree. I should like to take this opportunity, in speaking on Motion No. 1, to make some general comments regarding Bill C-6 now before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think there should be some understanding on the part of hon. members as to whether it is possible at this stage to engage in a second reading debate or a third reading debate. Hon. members will agree, I think, that the rules of the House are clear. Motion No. 1 is now before the House and debate, as much as possible, should be relevant to that motion. The rules do not provide for general debate simply because a particular motion known as Motion No. 1 is before the House. Perhaps the hon. member could reserve his general comments for third reading or for some motion moved later which may lend itself to general debate.
Having said this, of course, I hasten to add that members are masters of their own procedure. I am here to help and serve members. I thought I should mention, however, that perhaps this may not be the point for general debate on the bill itself. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) may wish to give my remarks some thought.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by your ruling relating to Motion No. 1 and will not make extended remarks at this stage on aspects which are dealt with in other amendments. I merely wish to add that we, on my side, are concerned that the minister is using procedures which may undermine and reverse the work done in committee. I will elaborate on this further when a later motion is moved.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, may I say a word or two on this motion. I am happy to see that the House agrees unanimously to extend too the terms of the original act. I raised this question initially in committee; at that point the minister indicated that if there were procedural difficulties he would move the motion for me. This amendment to the National Parks Act is significant in that it removes from the act the sort of special references to Indian lands which date back over a lengthy period in our history. At one time, Indian lands were regarded as lands belonging to the Crown and held in trust for the Indian people, but not as lands which belonged to them. That concept of Indian lands is increasingly becoming obsolete. Hopefully, it will be removed altogether from the Statutes of Canada. That is why I am happy that the House is willing to consent to this amendment to the National Parks Act, even though the amendment in some ways is symbolic. Nevertheless, this amendment is important when viewed in the context of our relations today with the Indian people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.
April 4, 1974


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Motion No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has already been agreed that the motion has been dropped. That is to say, the House agreed to the hon. member's request for this motion to be withdrawn. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Motions Nos. 3 and 4. I suggest that perhaps these motions might be grouped together for consideration, that a division on Motion No. 3 will also be a division on Motion No. 4 and that there be only one debate on those two motions. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will now put Motions Nos. 3 and 4.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-6, an act to amend the National Parks Act, be amended in Clause 10:
(a)	by striking outlines 6 and 7 on page 5 and substituting the
following:
"10.(1) Subject to subsection (2) the Governor in Council may,"
(b)	by striking out lines 20 to 46 on page 6.
Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-6, an act to amend the National Parks Act, be amended in Clause 11:
(a)	by striking out lines 1 and 2 on page 7 and substituting the
following:
"11.(1) Subject to subsection (2), the Governor in Council may,"
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 25 on page 8.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these amendments are proposed because in committee there was elaborate consideration of a system of public hearings relative to the establishment of parks which have already been agreed upon with the provinces. I do not think it is advisable for members of parliament to create a situation in which they are likely to question the judgment of a provincial government, when a provincial government has decided to turn land over to the federal government for the establishment of a national park.
Members should be aware how parks are established, and how Crown lands in provinces which are available to provincial governments are turned over to the federal government so that national parks can be established within provinces. We must go to the provincial government and ask if it wants a national park in that province. If it does, the provincial government is responsible for assembling the land and transferring it to the federal government. Only then does the federal government step in. If a provincial government must expropriate lands, generally speaking we offer to pay 50 per cent of the cost of expropriation. The provincial government must decide if it wishes to place these lands in the hands of the federal government.
If we were to establish an onerous system of public hearings by which the judgment of provincial authorities could be questioned, we could jeopardize in many cases opportunities for Canadians to acquire more national parks. Of course, negotiations are entered into before land is turned over to the federal government. Agreement in
National Parks Act
principle is reached between the two governments. A system of public hearings in connection with a province's decision to establish a national park could force provincial authorities to reconsider their decision. I do not think it is up to us to question the decision of provincial authorities if they have decided to turn over lands to the federal government for the establishment of a national park. If we question their wisdom, I and any successor in my portfolio, might just as well forget about establishing national parks.
We have had a difficult experience in Nova Scotia. The public did not understand what was involved. It was decided at the provincial level that a national park should not be established if the public were against it. I do not think that the way the provincial government disposed of Crown lands was constitutionally proper. A case in Nova Scotia established very clearly that the system we have followed so far permits enough flexibility for a provincial government to change its mind before turning over land to the federal government. In the ship harbour case, there was agreement in principle between the federal government and the government of Nova Scotia to establish a national park in the Ship Harbour area. Apparently some people were not happy with that. I strongly disagree with the decision of the provincial government, and I stated this in strong words, to withdraw from that project because they feel it is not the best thing to do. I think the system has worked well. If we were to include in the act a provision to force the provincial governments to hold public hearings into all parks that have already been agreed upon, then what would the situation be?
We have 10 new national parks in Canada, seven of which were established in the provinces. The provinces are in the process of turning over or have already turned over these lands to the federal government. There is the case of the Pacific Rim National Park in British Columbia, Forillon and La Mauricie in Quebec, Gros Morne in Newfoundland, Kouchibouguac in New Brunswick and so on. The provinces have already acted on them and have turned over the land to the federal government. It would be most unwise at this time to have public hearings in order to question the wisdom of the provincial governments in deciding to establish these parks. I am quite at ease with the way things are now because there is no political coloration when dealing with the provinces about establishing parks. I have dealt with governments of all shades in the political spectrum of Canada.
When I negotiated for the Pacific Rim National Park, it was with a Social Credit government. In Ontario, I deal with a Tory government; in New Brunswick with a Conservative government and in Quebec with a Liberal government. In Newfoundland, I started negotiating with a Liberal government and now I am dealing with a Conservative government. In Nova Scotia, I deal with a Liberal government. I am now having discussions with regard to new national parks with the NDP governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
I do not want to cause any problems. I just want a proper mechanism that will protect something that is very important in Canada, the preservation of more acres of land for conservation purposes only. This is why I do not

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
think it would be advisable to impose in clause 10 the mechanism of clauses 4 to 7 for parks already agreed upon by the federal and provincial governments. I think it would make it more difficult for any minister in this portfolio to create new national parks.
I would like to be precise and state the case. The members of my party have not agreed to these amendments. I think they are self-defeating for the purpose of establishing national parks. Clauses 4 to 7 have been included at the request of the official opposition and with the support of other members, but not from my party. I would like the people of Canada to know that we did not like clauses 4 to 7, but we accepted them because they were recommended by the committee. I would like to give a warning to anyone who is in favour of national parks in Canada that this mechanism would make it difficult for any minister to be as efficient as this government has been in establishing new national parks in Canada, 10 new national parks in four years when there were only four new national parks in the previous four years.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a few comments to this particular motion. The motion refers to striking out clauses 4 to 7 of the amendments put in during the committee hearings. Our party appreciates that this particular clause refers to parks which have been set aside and which, in effect, are a fait accompli. It is not our intention to put any obstacles in the way of the development of these parks. Far from it. Our sole purpose in moving the amendments in committee was to make the point that, with regard to any new parks that might be developed in the future, public hearings should be held to determine the feelings of the people, not only in the vicinity of the park but across Canada.
I appreciate that in most cases parks are developed by agreement between the provincial and federal governments. The provincial governments do a lot of soul searching. They have a lot of discussion before agreeing to turn over the land to the federal government to develop a park. We-feel, and this matter was discussed in committee, that possibly an amendment should be made to the act to grant a public hearing with regard to the development of a park in instances where the provincial government sets land aside without having a public hearing. Our point is simply that we believe that, in connection with the development of any new park, there should be a procedure for full and complete public hearings.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister has tried to throw a red herring across the path of this House with his suggestion that this would somehow interfere with federal-provincial agreement on the creation of national parks. It was not the intention, nor will it be the effect of the amendment, that was accepted by the majority of the committee to question provincial judgment on matters respecting national parks.
The establishment of national parks in Canada is an important matter. The minister if asking this House to trust the judgment of two governments without any opportunity for citizenship participation, without any opportunity for individual people of Canada, whether they are affected directly, whether they are members of the national and provincial parks association of Canada or whether

they have any other reason to be interested, to make their views known relative to the boundaries, sites and related matters of new national parks that might be established.
I was amused to hear the minister suggest that the recent case in Nova Scotia somehow indicates there is an opportunity for individual Canadians to change decisions that are made in secret and in private by two levels of government. The best I can say for the minister's argument is that he is trying to make the best out of a very bad case. He knows as well as anyone else interested in parks in Canada that what happened in the case of Nova Scotia was a very exceptional and sad case in the history of the development of national parks in Canada. The reason the Liberal government of Nova Scotia caved in on the Ship Harbour national park was that there had been allowed to develop a substantial suspicion about it, a suspicion that was engendered precisely because there was no opportunity at the time when changes could have been made for the people directly affected to themselves make a case, express their concern and have some influence on the decision before it was made.
What the amendments accepted by the committee achieved is assurance that citizens will have a right to review decisions respecting national parks before they are a fait accompli. That is what was done. It was an attempt to assure to individual Canadians the right to question and perhaps improve upon decisions taken in secret by two levels of government. The amendment put before the committee, and accepted by the committee, would not have resulted in protracted discussion or debate which would have delayed interminably the establishment of new national parks. Provision was made for a limited period during which public hearings would be held. What the minister is concerned about here is simply an invasion upon the preserve which he and his officials have enjoyed exclusively for far too long. They have become accustomed to making these decisions in isolation without reference to the people of Canada, either those particulary interested because they live in areas where parks might be established, or those who might be concerned because of their particular interest in conservation.
The minister did make a concession. He allowed an amendment which would provide for a public hearing at such time or times as he, the minister, considered appropriate. Anyone who is experienced in this field knows that such an undertaking is virtually useless. It means that hearings will be held after the decisions have been taken. We have all had experience with that sort of thing. What the minister is offering in the amendment which he introduced, and which he has allowed to stand, is simply an opportunity for individual citizens to express their opinions, not to effect any changes.
Mr. Speaker, there are two kinds of public hearings. There is the public hearing which is designed to acquaint people with what has been done-that is a public relations hearing-and there is the public hearing which is allowed to influence what is going to be done. That is participation, and it is a useful kind of hearing. What the minister is trying to prevent, in the amendment now before us, is participation. He is all in favour of a public relations hearing which would allow citizens to become involved
April 4, 1974

when there is no point in their being involved. No opportunity would be afforded to conservationists or other interested groups to affect decisions which concern the location of national parks.
In testimony before the committee the minister was quite explicit on this point. He left no doubt as to his intention to shut the people of Canada out when it came to decisions on these matters. Of course, the original decisions have to be taken in private between the federal government and the province concerned, or between the federal government and the territory. But after the decisions have been taken, there should be an open public hearing. There are two reasons why this should be so. One is based on principle: there is a legitimate public interest in public business. The second reason is that continued privacy does not work. The system which the minister and his officials wish to perpetuate has created problems which public hearings could have avoided.
The best evidence of this concerns the proposed new park in the Yukon, Kluane. When the standing committee was in Whitehorse, we heard two concerns expressed by people who, before the arrival of the committee, had been given no public opportunity to discuss these matters arising from the establishment of a major new national park in their territory. The first concern was that no adequate survey of resources had been carried out, and that this failure to make an adequate survey might lead, later, to the disruption of the park. The second point was that there had been an inadequate explanation of the reasons which led the minister, after a discussion with mining companies, apparently in secret, to exclude 2,000 square miles of land originally scheduled for inclusion in the park. There was also the question of native rights, a question which had not been publicly aired prior to the arrival in Whitehorse of the standing committee.
I should like to put this question to the minister and to all Canadians who are concerned about national parks: whose interest is served when the size of a park is cut in secret by a minister meeting with representatives of mining interests in the north? Is the interest of the National and Provincial Parks Association served by a secret decision of this kind arrived at in the course of a meeting between a politician and representatives of mining interests? Is the general interest of the public served? Are the interests of the people of the Yukon served? Of course not. All these interests would be much better served if there were public hearings along the lines of the amendment we were able to introduce, and which was carried in the committee-an amendment which the minister is now trying to strike down.
I ask again: whose interest is served when a park is established without any serious effort being made to determine the hydro or resource potential which exists within its limits? I ask you to assume for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that a later generation happens to find a bonanza within the area of Kluane National Park, a bonanza similar to that which might have already been found had adequate surveys been carried out. If this bill stands and the minister's way prevails, mining interests in that later generation might also hold secret meetings with a future minister, meetings of the kind the hon. gentleman opposite has held with developers, and such meetings might result
National Parks Act
in a reduction of the land set aside in Kluane. More than the situation at Kluane would be affected, because once the process of excision begins in one park, no national park is safe. Parks would be endangered not only in the Yukon, but in all the provinces and territories of Canada. This is an aspect which all hon. members should consider before they cast their votes today on the minister's attempt to secure an amendment which would preserve this right to make secret decisions in areas of public business.
To return to the example the minister gave. Whose interest was served by so much secrecy and high-handedness in connection with Ship Harbour National Park, circumstances which led to the proposal for that park being cancelled and withdrawn? The secret procedures followed by the minister led to a situation in which Nova Scotia is without a national park at Ship Harbour. It was the purpose of myself and my colleagues on the committee to establish a procedure applicable to future parks, as well, but we were advised that an amendment along those lines would have gone beyond the ambit of the bill, that the unanimous consent of the House would have been necessary if it were to be accepted. And having looked at the minister's track record, we anticipated that the minister would not have agreed. So, in the circumstances, we sought to establish this principle in the case of the parks designated in the schedule to the bill, as well as those at Kluane, Nahanni, and on Baffin Island.
Certain valuable effects would follow if the House were able to uphold the judgment of the all-party standing committee and defeat the minister's attempt to undo the work of that committee. In future, when national parks are to be established or enlarged, a period of 90 days would be used for the purpose of determining whether special circumstances exist and, if there are problems, how serious they are likely to be. We would then be able to proceed on the basis of knowledge. The minister prefers to proceed as he did at Kluane, without holding public hearings and without telling anybody why 2,000 square miles were cut away. The minister did not even bother to find out what resource potential there might be which at a future time might mean a further large acreage being cut away from the park, setting a precedent which would endanger all national parks in Canada.
That is one result that would follow if we used the public hearings procedure. A second result that would follow is that it would provide a forum for the defenders of national parks, either of a park in that particular location or of national parks generally, to allay fears that might naturally develop. Had that been done at Ship Harbour, I venture to say that we would have had a new national park in Nova Scotia now. But we lost it because of the secrecy practised by the minister, which he now attempts to enshrine in legislation by these amendments today.
A third result that would follow is that we would inform more people about the importance of national parks. If the minister believes that his case for national parks in Canada has been won, that there is now a majority who in a given situation would prefer park development as opposed to resource development, then he is naive. Those

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
of us who believe in national parks in Canada have a great selling job to do, and public hearings, as has been demonstrated on other occasions, can provide us with an opportunity to do that job.
A fourth effect of public hearings of the kind we are proposing, and which the minister is now trying to undo, is that we would establish the principle that our national parks are public business, that the government trusts the people enough to heed their voice in regard to where parks should be established and where their boundaries should be.
I, myself, proposed in the committee one procedure for public hearings, a procedure drawn from federal practice. The members of the committee felt that the procedure I proposed was too cumbersome, and I did not argue with that because I was interested in the principle of public hearings, not in their particular form. I was interested in their having an effect at a time that would allow people to have some influence on what was going to be done, instead of simply casting a useless vote yea or nay. I did not dig in on the question of the particular form of the public hearings I proposed. Instead, I accepted the language that had been proposed by my colleague from the NDP, the hon. member from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), language which the minister now proposes to strike down.
By their nature, national parks interest a minority of Canadians, although they are people who are genuinely concerned about our parks. They care deeply about the preservation of wild and natural places, and about the safety and protection of rare species and places. Those Canadians who want new national parks want these parks deeply. So, I believe, do the majority of the members of this House of all parties. The members of my party want them so much that we did literally everything in our power to have this bill passed in January rather than April. Before we agreed to an adjournment of this House, we insisted as a condition of that agreement that this bill be brought back at this stage so we could proceed immediately to pass it.
The minister disagreed and delayed the bill. The reason he did so, on the evidence of his amendments, is that the minister wants more than parks. This minister wants parks, the absolute control of which rests with him and his advisers, his bureaucrats. The difference between us on this bill and these amendments is that the minister wants authoritarian control over the parks. We want parks established by democratic procedures. The minister does not want to be bothered with parliament or with public hearings. He does not want to be bothered with territorial governments or with the National and Provincial Parks Association. He is, of course, prepared to consult with them, on his own terms and in his own time, but he is not prepared to give parliament or the public the right to participate, in an effective way, in a decision about where parks should be established, or how, or even why.
When this bill was first introduced in the other place, it did not even contain a requirement for public notice. It allowed the government to negotiate in secret any additions to parks and then to proclaim them without notice. It proposed to give to government the power to shut out of the process people whose land and lives might be affected, the conservation groups who might be interested and, of

course, to shut out the parliamentary process. But that provision was too strong even for the other place. There is a greater sense of democracy in the Senate than in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development so far as parks are concerned, because the other place amended the original bill and wrote in the requirement for a 90-day notice and publication in the Canada Gazette. That was the first change toward democratizing the procedure for setting up parks, and was a change that was forced on the minister.
Then, in the standing committee, other changes were proposed and passed to ensure that the public, from the poorest native with a trap line to the most sophisticated conservationist, would not be shut out of the process of establishing national parks. In particular, the committee required that the notice be published in various popular media, not buried in the fine print of the Canada Gazette. It established a process to guarantee public hearings at a period when proposals could still be changed, not hearings after the fact, as has been the practice of the minister, and as is his desire in the amendments that he is putting before the House today.
The committee voted deliberately to ensure that when parks are created in the two northern territories, the elected representatives of those territories would have a power stronger than the power of a mere rubber stamp. While our party initiated that idea, the amendment which carried was proposed by my colleague from Comox-Alberni, the hon. member of the NDP, and we will look forward when the voting comes to his support for the measure he proposed.
Throughout its deliberations the committee voted and acted against secrecy. It voted and acted to establish a system of parks by a democratic process. The amendments of the minister are designed to strike down those advances and to return to a situation where parks policy is decided by a select and secret few without any apparent trust in the people. That is a most alarming suggestion on the part of the minister and a most dangerous amendment. It places us back in the days when it was felt by governments, of all stripes perhaps, that the public had no rights. We believe that the public does have rights on questions of importance, such as the establishment of national parks, and consequently we intend to oppose the amendments moved by the minister which would deny the public the opportunity of playing a role in deciding questions concerning national parks while there was still a chance to influence those decisions.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), with his usual eloquence, was discussing amendments 3 and 4, and since we are going to be voting on them together, I presume he was in order in doing so. It is not my intention to defend the minister from any of the attacks made upon his desire for extreme secrecy. I am sure the minister is capable of presenting his own case on that score. Nor is it my intention to try to go around and around again on some of the matters which went around and around for some time in the committee.
May I say at once that in my view the committee that dealt with this bill devoted itself with a great deal of diligence to trying to examine and to sort out a good many
April 4, 1974

complex issues that are inherent in this particular bill. I think it is fair to say that at the outset, when the bill was introduced in the other place, the minister, and probably his departmental officials, hoped the bill would be treated somewhat as a kind of housekeeping measure, to tidy up the situation and to put the final seal of parliamentary approval on the establishment of certain new national parks. Despite some of his criticisms about what happened at Ship Harbour, I think the hon. member for Rocky Mountain would not be averse to agreeing, at least to some extent, that the minister has devoted himself with some diligence to widening the national parks system in Canada. While there are many matters on which I may be in disagreement with the minister at this and other times, I am certainly quite prepared to give him some marks for his effort in this regard.
As I see it, there are essentially three important aspects to this bill, two of which are referred to in the two report stage amendments we are discussing in respect of Clauses 10 and 11 of the bill, and a third, which is not up for discussion at this time, covering provisions in Clause 2 of the bill for the governor in council to take steps leading to the addition of lands to existing parks. If you have noted the reprint of the bill you will have observed that there are certain additions to the original draft of the bill, incorporated in Clause 2, which apparently are not under debate or question at this time because no report stage amendments have been submitted to them. In point of fact the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) made some reference to these additions in Clause 2, in part at least. If I may say as an aside, they do represent what I consider to be an interesting development inasmuch as there is some automatic provision in that proposal for consideration by the standing committee and for action forthwith by the House on the report by the committee.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain spent most of his time talking about this question of public hearings, and I think quite rightly said his party put certain proposals forward in respect of public hearings which have not emerged in the bill as reported from the committee. He was quite right when he said that. The additions to Clause 10, with which the report stage amendment proposes to deal, are in terms which I proposed originally on Clause 2 as accepted by the committee. I fully admit that at the point in time when this particular matter was under consideration, it was with the tacit agreement of members of the NDP who were on the committee that this addition be made to Clause 10 and part of it to Clause 11.
One of the important constitutional issues involved in Clause 10, and I think this fact should not be lost on this House in light of the remarks by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, is the question of transfer of jurisdiction of lands within the provinces to the Crown in the right of Canada. Under the terms of the national parks trust, unless some future parliament undoes what parliament does at a given time, those lands remain forever in the status which parliament has assigned to them as national parks for the enjoyment of future generations of Canadians in unimpaired condition.
I do not quarrel too much with the argument put forward by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, and also
National Parks Act
put forward very eloquently in the committee by his colleague the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), about the desirability of public hearings into the question of the establishment of parks. I hope his eloquent remarks today, and during some of the discussions that took place before the committee, will not fall on deaf ears so far as the governments of the provinces are concerned. As I said, if I recall correctly the lengthy discussions we had in trying to sort this thing out, at the point in time an approach is made by the federal government to a province for certain lands to be put into national parks, and at the point of time when a provincial government is prepared seriously to consider that proposal, or if indeed the provincial government were to decide to take some initiative to offer certain land to national parks, it would be very desirable that the government of the province initiate and hold the kind of hearings to which the hon. member for Rocky Mountain referred. It is very unfortunate that the government of Nova Scotia did not see fit to take that kind of action in respect of the Ship Harbour proposal at an earlier stage than the point in time at which it apparently decided to abandon it.
In the matter of the establishment of new parks in the provinces, that is the point in time, and I agree strongly with the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, that public hearings should be held into the advisability of there being created within that provinces, and from the lands of that province, a national park which would be surrendered to the people of Canada forever for that specific purpose. There is no way in which we in this House or this parliament can impose a provision of that kind upon the governments of the provinces. I do not have any regret that the hon. member for Rocky Mountain and his colleagues in the committee stressed this question of the need for public hearings so vigorously. But when one attempts to sort out all the complex issues involved, and I say this in spite of the fact that I was a party to this becoming part of the bill reported back to the House, then I must say I am now prepared to support the minister's report stage amendment.
I am not regretful in any way that we are having this report stage debate on this subject, and I am not regretful in any way that the minister was pushed to the point where he has to lay this kind of issue on the table, because hopefully the minister, in negotiating with the provinces, will pass on to them some of the views which are apparent among members of the House of Commons from all provinces regarding this matter of public hearings. My reaction might have been different under other circumstances, but I am glad the minister is not in his report stage amendment seeking to delete sub-clause (3). He is, as a result of the initiative of members of the Conservative party at the committee, leaving in that provision which requires the minister-and it says "shall"-to hold hearings on the question of how the park is to be used once it is officially established. I consider that to be a major improvement to the legislation as it was introduced. I think that in the context of the committee debates it should be apparent that the credit for initiating that particular idea during the committee proceedings rests with the hon. member for Rocky Mountain and his colleagues.

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
The situation with reference to clause 11, which deals with the parks in the Territories, is of course quite different constitutionally to that which applies to the provinces because there the land is held in the right of the federal Crown. Normally, for administrative purposes, this land is under the authority of the Territorial Lands Act which act, in addition to the National Parks Act, I think is one which gives the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) responsibility. So, in the case of the Northwest Territories, the minister simply is saying that, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, he wishes to take that land from his jurisdiction under the Territorial Lands Act and propose that it be put under the National Parks Act. I think the minister can be cited for a lack of adequate public hearings on the question of advisability of establishing those parks. This is a matter of debate. However, all that clause 11 does is propose that three specific parks be added to the schedule of the National Parks Act.
So far as I know, the only public hearings that were held on the question in the sense the term is being used by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain were the public hearings held by the committee. That was one reason I strongly supported the idea of the committee going to Whitehorse, so we could at least learn the views of the people of the Yukon Territory. We had before the committee in Ottawa spokesmen interested in the various aspects of the proposed parks in the Northwest Territories. That process has taken place. There is information contained in the records of the committee which satisfies me that the councils of the two Territories had in fact approved the idea of these parks and that there is agreement on all questions except that of the rights of the aboriginal inhabitants of the area. Although there are other aspects of the territories in the north which will come up under one of the other report stage amendments, which I shall not go into at this point, it seems to me that this idea of having further committee hearings, which the deletion of the proposed section would call for, would be really rather redundant at this point in respect of the three specific parks proposed for the two territories.
So far as I am concerned this is not something which should really concern us too much. The minister at this point in effect is saying that we do not need committee hearings to examine these three particular parks in the territories. I really wish that the clauses of the bill which have to do with additions to existing parks had referred to the establishment of new parks. This relates to something the hon. member for Rocky Mountain said. This is beyond the scope of the bill but if that proposal had been included, along with the proposed committee amendments to clause 2 of the bill, then we would have had the other side of the coin. If there were a proposal to establish, either in the territories or in the provinces, a new national park, the standing committee of this House could examine the merit of the proposal, hopefully concurrent with public hearings held under arrangements made by the provinces or in the case of the territories hopefully through some arrangements made by the standing committee with the territorial councils. I think the status of the territories is a matter being discussed not very far

away from this chamber this afternoon by the committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I might have something to say about this later on when we come to one of the other report stage amendments, but so far as I am concerned the really important improvements that it was possible for the committee to make will be retained if the report stage amendments as introduced today are accepted by the House. I hope that, without too lengthy discussion by other members of the House, it may be possible for us to achieve the purpose that has been referred to by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain so eloquently; that is, a desire to have these particular parks which are to be finally established by this bill come into being for the benefit and use of the people of Canada.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, right at the outset I wish to indicate I am disappointed the minister has assumed this posture this afternoon. He has been in charge of the national parks program for a number of years. I think that anyone who has the privilege of this responsibility learns as his first lesson in the area of national parks administration that the essence of wisdom is communion with public opinion and having close rapport with the needs of the people of Canada. This is the reason, following the deliberations of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the amendments were first proposed that there be close consultation with the people in all respects and this is why the amendments were approved at that time. I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) who just concluded his remarks, and who was with us in this viewpoint at that time, if he reconsidered the statements he has made, would come to the conclusion that his original wisdom was the correct approach.
The minister, in his statement this afternoon, has spoken once again about the marvellous developments that have taken place in the Canada national parks system in the past few years. I would remind the hon. gentleman that it has taken an unconscionably long time to achieve this breakthrough in the development and expansion of our national parks system. The amazing thing is that the public pressure for national parks has been growing, and under an atmosphere of that kind it should be relatively easy to have fairly substantial tracts of land reserved in order to meet the rising demand for recreational facilities and for the conservation and preservation of areas of particular interest in Canada. Notwithstanding the growing demand in the face of population pressures, in the face of more leisure time and also more disposable income, it has taken almost 20 years to make a major breakthrough in the development of national parks.
The bill that is before us now is the climax of negotiations that have been going on ever since the department of northern affairs and national resources was established in 1953. The minister at that time was the Hon. Jean Lesage, and he immediately began negotiations for the expansion of the national park system which has been carried on by succeeding governments. There had been hardly any development in the conservation area for a couple of decades previous to that time. The war, of course, interfered with developments at this time, and it was not until a depart-
April 4, 1974

ment was established that was specifically dedicated to the proposition of northern and resource development that we began to move in a positive direction.
Therefore, I am disappointed that the minister who has the responsibility for the department at the moment is reversing the approach that has gradually unfolded as the sensitive negotiations that have been going on for this long period have made it possible now to legislate some specific park areas into being.
I know that the initial breakthrough came in the latter 1950's and early 1960's with Terra Nova in Newfoundland, and also with a new national park in the province of Nova Scotia. The Maritimes have always been more responsive to national park development because long ago they recognized that one of their major assets was the natural beauty with which they are endowed. It was, therefore, fairly easy to persuade the Maritime provinces, particulary Nova Scotia when it was under the leadership of the hon. gentleman who is now the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), to co-operate in the national parks development. He had a great sensitivity to the prospects of national park development in the interests of the general economy. Let me state as an aside that it was also in Nova Scotia that one of the major historic park developments was negotiated between the federal and the provincial governments, namely the complete restoration of the historic Fort Louisbourg which is now almost completed. That was also in the time of the provincial leadership of the hon. gentleman who is now leading the opposition in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Other than the Maritimes, it has always been difficult to get provincial approval for a national park development. For example, when the first minister of the department of northern affairs and national resources, the Hon. Jean Lesage, became premier of the province of Quebec he became interested immediately in making available large tracts of land in that province which would become a part of the national parks system.
The two great areas of underdevelopment in the national parks system have been in the two major provinces- Ontario and Quebec. They preferred to develop their own provincial park systems rather than to work under the umbrella of the national parks system. I know from my own experience that one of the reasons they were so sensitive to federal intrusion was Ottawa's refusal to consult and negotiate in public, which is the posture that the minister is reverting to under the amendments which are before the House this afternoon. Unfortunately, the negotiations with the province of Quebec were delayed because of the "quiet revolution" that took place when the matter of federal-provincial jurisdiction became one of the major political concerns in the decade of the 1960's. Quebec has now established some national parks; Ontario still has a long way to go.
I suggest to the minister, who is not here at the moment-I trust that he will read my remarks-that he will not help to persuade Ontario to become an enthusiastic supporter of the national parks system if he reverses the trend that has been under way, particularly since the Resources for Tomorrow Conference, since the establish-
National Parks Act
ment of the Federal-Provincial Parks Association, and particularly since the establishment of the Resource Ministers Council which brought a new era of mutual understanding and concern in the conservation area. The refusal to consult in public, both with the governments and the people concerned, will hamper to a substantial degree the improved atmosphere that I am sure still prevails and the more positive attitude that prevails in the province of Ontario.
The proposal that is being made here this afternoon in the minister's amendments will make it extremely difficult to negotiate in the north. The new department of northern affairs and national resources for the first time brought that huge northern expanse of territory into the Canadian body politic in the early 1950's. Immediately negotiations got under way with a view to establishing a park in each of the territorial areas, in the Yukon territory, and in the western and eastern parts of the Northwest Territories. Ottawa, of course, had complete jurisdiction over the land area in the territory north of the 60th parallel, so the government of Canada could take quite an arbitrary approach in setting aside lands for the establishment of national parks.
Northerners are a very independent breed of frontiersmen and pioneers, and they made it quite clear that they wanted to have a say in how the land area of northern Canada should be used. Proposals have been under discussion with the various interests in the territories for a considerable number of years, and now they are coming before the House as legislation. They are still not finalized. The amendment before the House flies in the face of the experience of the committee when it met in the Yukon last December to consult with the local people with respect to the establishment of Kluane National Park. It was as a result of the direct contact of the members of the committee with vox populi as we discovered it during the two days of hearings at Whitehorse, that amendments were introduced to the legislation and approved by the committee. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) certainly felt, after hearing the expression of public opinion, that it was absolutely necessary that the process of consultation be extended. As a result, following the hearings in the Yukon, the committee approved these amendments.
Mr. Speaker, it is not going to ease the situation to reverse ourselves in this respect; indeed, I hope parliament will not do that and I hope that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will stay with his original viewpoint. It was fresh in his mind when he first supported the amendment to broaden consultation. I guess after two or three months he has forgotten the forcefulness of public opinion in the territories on this matter. I suggest that he present himself to the committee that is now meeting in another part of parliament hill and listen to the representations by the spokesmen of the territorial governments.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says he would be there if he did not have to listen to me. I do not order the business of this House, and I think it is unfortunate that members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development are occupied with this debate this afternoon when they should be listening to the representations

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
of members of the Northwest Territories and Yukon Councils who are in the city. My point is that if the hon. gentleman would listen to that voice once again and get tuned in to it he would not reverse himself as he indicated he was going to do in supporting the amendment proposed by the minister.
I understand the problem of the minister and the conflict of interest that is built into his portfolio. Northern development is actually opposed to the conservation interests. This conflict has always existed in the department, even when it was called northern affairs and resources. There were two aspects of that portfolio that had to be administered by the one minister. He had to assure development of the north and, at the same time, he had the conservationist responsibility under the resources aspect of his portfolio. The dichotomy is even more severe today and more difficult to reconcile because the department now emphasizes northern development which accentuates areas of economic development responsibility. It used to be merely northern affairs and this did not imply any particular emphasis. I am sure this problem cannot be reconciled until the minister is relieved of his responsibility in the area of resource conversation, and particularly in the area of administration of national parks.
I believe that national parks, in all their various manifestations, should come under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Environment. I trust that one of the major changes that will be made in the set-up of government departments will be in this area. I am sure that in the ministry of environment, the minister responsible will be only too pleased to consult with the people of Canada because no conservation program can be successful until it has the broad support of public opinion.
The vast majority of Canadians are now strongly in favour of wise management and multiple use of our renewable resources. National parks are in the area of renewable resources and, as the National Parks Act says, they should be kept in their original unspoiled state for the use of succeeding generations.
When it comes to consultation, the minister blows hot and cold, particularly in regard to national parks in western Canada which, like northern Canada, originally had the greatest acreage dedicated to the perpetual use of the people. That was because of the constitutional situation, of course, which provided that western lands areas were originally under the jurisdiction of the federal Crown, even as the northern land areas are under the jurisdiction of the federal Crown up to the present day. But national parks in western Canada increasingly have had to meet growing demands for multiuse of land areas in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but I have to interrupt him because his time has expired. He can pursue his remarks, of course, with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the motion before the House, motions Nos. 3 and 4, there was an agreement that a decision on No. 3 would apply to motion No. 4.
On motion No. 3 (Mr. Chretien). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to on division. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Motion No. 5:
That Bill C-6, An Act to amend the National Parks Act, be amended in Clause 11:
(a)	by striking out line 3 on page 7 and substituting the following: "after consultation with the Council of the Yukon"
(b)	by striking out line 19 on page 7 and substituting the following:
"the consultation referred to in subsection"


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief because I only want to explain the purpose of this amendment.
I think there were lengthy discussions in committee to determine the kind of consultation that should take place both with the Council of the Yukon and the Council of the Northwest Territories with respect to the establishment of national parks in the north. After major discussions on the meaning of the words and the interpretation of the Department of Justice, I find I must ask the House to replace the words "approval by the Council" by the words "consultation with the Council" because the term "approval" actually means laying out a right for the Council of the Northwest Territories and the Council of the Yukon, or some sort of a right of veto over the administration of Crown lands in the north and it is not appropriate to discuss that matter here in this House when dealing with parks. If hon. members want to transfer the control of northern resources to the elected representatives of northern Canada, it will have to be done under another piece of legislation introduced before the House and now being considered in committee, the bill on the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories Administration.
With respect to clause 11, it would not be appropriate to change the very nature of Crown relations regarding land north of the 60,h parallel. That is why we decided to put back in the words "after consultation" because I think it is a question of eligibility since "approval" would give the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories constitutional powers not provided for under the Northwest Territories and Yukon legislation.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the government decided to re-establish the word "consultation" and if hon. members wish to submit the control of Canada's northern resources
April 4, 1974

to the approval of the representatives of the Territories, they should do it before the committee or during the consideration of the bill on the constitutional status of the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by my colleague from Hamilton East (Mr. Munro), I move that Motion No. 5 be adopted by the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House. The minister is proposing a return to the original language of the bill, language which in the considered judgment of the committee was inappropriate, language which the committee acted to strike out, to amend. The original language would have written into law a statutory double standard. It provided that if you wanted to establish a national park in Quebec, you must ask the local government; if you wanted to establish a national park in Ontario, you must ask the local government; but if you wanted to establish a national park in the Yukon or Northwest Territories, you tell the local government. Provisions like that make a mockery of any claim of belief in more self-government for the territories. We, in my party, do not propose to pass a mockery into law.
The minister has made the point that this matter can be discussed in committee during study of another bill. The point remains. There is language in the bill before the House today with which we, as a parliament, must deal today, in considering this bill. It is language in this bill, not in any other, which expresses the attitude of the House of Commons of Canada on the status and potential of governments in the territories of the north. You cannot get around this by saying that it should be dealt with in another bill. If this should be discussed during the consideration of another bill, the minister should not have introduced the word "consultation" into the present bill. He did. It is that with which we are dealing. A principle is involved which, although it might arise on other occasions and in other bills, has arisen here and cannot be blinked away.
Actually, it is known to members of the committee that there has been agreement by the councils for the particular parks established. There is no threat to them. What we are doing is establishing the attitude of parliament, the view of parliament, that there should be an increase in the powers of self-government existing in the northern territories. We also think that this bill would set a precedent for the establishment of future parks, so that if more parks are to be established in the north there must be approval by the elected representatives of the people and not merely some kind of consultation.
We, in the Progressive Conservative party, introduced an amendment which would, for the limited and special purposes of establishing national parks, give the people of the territories the same rights as the people of Ontario, Quebec and other parts of Canada, an amendment which would treat them as citizens not as subjects. Instead of consultations, we proposed that there must be the agreement of the elected councils of the territories before any large part of a territory could be taken away and used as a national park.
National Parks Act
My colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), a member of the NDP, preferred a gentler word than agreement. He preferred "approval", an amendment requiring that the elected territorial councils approve of any proposal to permanently remove lands from an area that will soon be a province. We accepted his softer language. It expressed the principle that democracy means something in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. So, the amendment approved in committee is an amendment in the language of the NDP, and it is that which the minister proposes to strike down today. We oppose that action by the minister, that strike against democracy, and will look forward, when the voting comes, to having the support of the NDP in sustaining an improvement which the NDP itself proposed.
It is apparent to me, sir, that the minister and his advisers find it inconvenient to treat the people of the territories as though they are citizens. The minister and his advisers concocted a phony argument in committee, that to give the councils of the territories a say on whether a national park is to be established in this region is somehow to give them absolute control over all the natural resources of the north. That, sir, is an absurd argument, which ignores the very special nature of national parks. I, as the representative of a constituency with national parks in it, have every reason to know that when a national park is created, all manner of administrative problems are created too: Native rights are affected; normal jurisdiction over municipal highway and other matters is suspended or changed; planning becomes very difficult. That is evident in Alberta and wherever else national parks exist. The establishment of a national park very much alters and affects the future of the region in which the park lies. The word "consultation" would mean that the territories concerned would have no right to influence that territory's future direction. "Approval" would at least allow for a chance to shape that future.
Sir, the larger question of resources is not affected at all. Elected spokesmen of the territories have made it clear that the status they want is a status-I quote Ken MacKinnon of the Yukon Territorial Council, in testimony to the standing committee in Whitehorse in December:
Without the immediate control of natural resources, the reason being that we think we have to prove to the people of Canada and to the government of Canada that we are as capable of dealing with the resources of the province as any other area of Canada.
So, there is no question at all about control of resources.
There is, however, sir, a basic question which must be faced, the question as to whether we are going to trust the judgment of Canadians who happen to live in the two territories. Are we going to say that when it comes to establishing parks we trust the premier of Quebec more than we trust the elected representatives of the Yukon; that we trust the premier of Ontario more than the elected representatives of the Northwest Territories; that we trust the premier of Nova Scotia more than the duly elected representatives of the north? That is what it comes down to. Perhaps it is a hard question, because so much land is involved. I remind the House that there is also a lot of land in the north of several provinces, and while it might be inconvenient for the minister and his advisers to have to deal with elected representatives in the province before taking land away forever and creating a national park, we

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
put up with that inconvenience because we are a democratic state. The amendment here, by the minister and his advisers, would have democracy stop at the border of the territories, so far as national parks are concerned.
The real question facing us is: Are we prepared to endorse that double standard and write it into law, or will we extend to the citizens of the territories the same trust on the limited question of national parks that we extend to the citizens of the rest of Canada.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to make a few comments on my position on this matter. I wish to make it clear that my position is not influenced by the semantics of the minister or the rhetoric of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). As the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) stated, an amendment was proposed in committee to substitute the words "consultation with" by the words "agreement had been reached with". We got into quite a discussion about what was involved in the legal meaning of the word "agreement". As the hon. member for Rocky Mountain said, I suggested that the words that might be used would be "following approval by".
The minister still maintains the position that somehow or other this would give the council of the territories legal power over the resources of the north. I am not going to argue that point with him now, but I would like to state briefly to the House my view of the position. We are looking at the text of a bill which is hopefully moving toward becoming the law of Canada. In this clause we are dealing with a proposal to establish three parks in the Northwest Territories. I stated in committee, and I still maintain at this time in history, that regardless of what should be done about changing the constitutional position of the two territories, under the bill that is being considered today, national parks should not be established in the Northwest Territories without the approval of the council.
According to the records of the committee, and the testimony given by people in Whitehorse with regard to these three specific parks, the territorial councils have given their approval by resolution of the territorial council of the Yukon and, I understand, by consensus of members of the territorial council of the Northwest Territories. That is the situation with regard to these parks. If this legislation is passed, these areas will become parks within the provisions of the act as it emerges from this House. As far as I can understand this amendment, if we adopt it, the minister will be obliged to consult with the councils of the territories with regard to how he goes about developing those parks. In this regard, I submit that the councils of the territories will, in fact, be on all fours with the legislatures and governments of the provinces.
Even though the law does not state that the minister has to consult with the provincial authorities, this kind of consultation does take place. In effect, what we are doing is tying the minister down to consulting with the territorial councils on the development of those parks. That is what I understand the law will mean when it is passed. The present minister, or any future minister responsible for the establishment of national parks, in Canada, would be stupid to establish a park in either of the territories

without the prior approval of the two councils. In fact, I would be happy if it were possible to have that provision in the law. When arguing the bill in the other place, the minister almost invited us to consider this aspect of the matter. It will be interesting to hear his views in committee on the bill to amend the territorial act. We can discuss that question there. Obviously, we cannot at this time tie down the question of prior approval in the parks act.
Having tried to consider what the law will mean, I am satisfied at this point that if it means the withdrawal of the proposal I made in committee, I am prepared to accept this proposal that the consultation that will be required in the development of those parks is really what is essential. However, I am not in any way retracting anything I said in committee about the need for the approval of the territorial councils to be obtained in the establishment of the parks.
In point of fact, the minister did obtain that approval, even though I might agree with the hon. member for Rocky Mountain that some of the proper hearings that should have taken place with regard to those proposals did not take place. Nevertheless, the council did approve the establishment of these parks. In that sense, let me close by saying there is some validity to the argument that the words "approval of" would be redundant in connection with this particular clause of the bill.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division stands deferred.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, because you have just recently taken the Chair, you would not know there was agreement among the whips to have this vote now. I am sure the House would want Your Honour to call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I thank the hon. member. The Chair did not have notice of that. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills. There being no items under the heading private bills or notices of motions (papers), the House will proceed to public bills.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport-Continuity of CNR ferry service to Prince Edward Island in the event of future labour disputes; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Agriculture-Action to ensure packing plants pass on beef subsidy to producers; the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Hollands)-Public buildings- Edmonton-Reason for reported purchase by government of Holy Redeemer College.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East) moved: that Bill C-105, to amend the Canada Elections Act (leave of absence) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the aim of this bill is simply to make every Canadian eligible to be a candidate for election to Parliament to a degree not presently enjoyed. It is true that every Canadian citizen has the legal right to stand for parliament and, if elected, to serve in it. However, it is not true that every Canadian has the economic possibility of doing so because there are many Canadians who are prevented by the conditions of their work from utilizing to the full the opportunity which they are given in political theory. The purport of this bill is to make it

April 4, 1974
Canada Elections Act
possible for any Canadian who is working for a corporation, an institution, or is employed in some other way, to be eligible to stand for parliament and to serve in it without jeopardizing his own and his family's economic future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: The need for this provision, and the practicality of it, has been illustrated in the report of an organization called The Conference Board, an American group which recently did a study on policies on leaves for political and social action. They took a survey of 800 of the
1,000	companies studied by Fortune magazine. To this survey, 34 per cent responded, of which 28 per cent indicated they had formal policies on leaves of absence. In the report that they published they indicated the following reasons for having such a policy of providing leaves of absence so that employees might be elected to public office or in another way serve the community: first, to demonstrate corporate responsibility. A company and an institution have a certain kind of citizenship and they can be either responsible or irresponsible corporate citizens. A company that wants to indicate that it is taking a responsible part in the life of the country will surely make it possible for its employees to have the freedom to be candidates and to be members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: The second reason was that the corporation recognized that democracy does not function well unless all segments of the population are represented. It is, therefore, desirable that the widest possible representation of the labour force be found in the House of Commons. Third, it was recognized by the companies which have this kind of leaves of absence policy that, to a large degree, the well-being of business depends upon the kind of government that a nation has. It was said once by a corporate leader in the United States that what is good for business is good for the nation. But I think that increasingly we recognize that what is good for the nation is also good fur business.
Finally, the point was made that an opportunity for employees to participate in the political life of the country is in itself a form of job enrichment, that today we are seeing we must have a wider definition of work. Work includes not only that for which we are paid; it includes also opportunities for serving society, and one ought to see the opportunity of serving in parliament as an extension of his daily work.
I hope that it will be possible for parliament to give second reading to this bill, and to send it to committee, so that we might think in terms of it becoming the practice in Canada that all employers will be required to give to their employees a leave of absence if they become candidates for parliament, and a leave of absence should the person be elected, so that the person might then be free to serve without economic anxiety.
I could suggest to you, sir, certain precise advantages to the employee affected were this to become the common practice in Canada. First of all, it guarantees to him the record of continuous service which is necessary for most pension plans and other benefit programs. Second, and

more important, it would provide the employee with job security. One of the things that we need to make it possible for working people to seek public office is to remove the financial anxiety which now haunts so many political candidates, to make it possible for a candidate to stand for office and to serve a term here knowing that if, at the end of that term, he decides to return to industry or business or if he is defeated in the next election, at least he has a job to which to return.
There are many members in this parliament who, because of the nature of their work, are self-employed. They are able, as it were, to suspend many of their activities and their self-employment through their profession or privately owned business. They know they can go back to that activity and they enter into politics with a sense of security and family responsibility. But let us think of the large number of people who are prevented from offering themselves for public service simply because they lack that security. Can we not by this simple action make it possible to open the door of opportunity to serve in public service to a much larger number of Canadians?
I think the need for this is illustrated in the very membership of the House of Commons. I think it is fair to say that more than 50 per cent of members of parliament are self employed. As I look over the number of occupations represented in parliament I am impressed, not only by the rich diversity, but also by the way in which certain occupations are much more largely represented than others. There are 20 businessmen, two contractors, one druggist, 18 farmers, 5 industrialists, 63 lawyers, 13 merchants, 1 notary, 1 osteopath, 2 ranchers, 7 doctors, 2 veterinarians and 3 publishers, for a total of 148.
Probably most members of parliament are self-employed or in occupations and professions in which they would find it relatively easy to become self employed. I do not mean that their businesses or professions are in any way easy but it is certainly easy to become self employed if you are a member of a profession or experienced in business.
So I put it to you that we should think more in terms of parliament representing Canada as it is, and Canada is certainly not a country where 50 per cent of the people are self employed but rather, most Canadians are working for a corporation, a small business or an institution. I think that if most Canadians are to have a chance to stand for parliament and seek public office, they must have this kind of opportunity.
I think there are two important precedents that give support to the bill before us. The first of these was legislation passed in 1942 by the parliament of Canada called the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. It was a forward looking measure that anticipated the economic insecurity forced upon a large number of Canadians who had volunteered for armed service and who, in many instances, had no guarantee that when they came back from service overseas or from another part of Canada they would have a job to return to.
Some companies, in a spirit of patriotism and social responsibility, had made that kind of guarantee, but not all employers had made it. So in 1942 parliament passed the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act which required all employers to reinstate in employment any member of His Majesty's forces who was employed before
April 4, 1974

going on active service. If we could do that for armed service, in time of war, why can we not do it for public service in time of peace? If it was right then, it is right now. We could do it then, so let us do it now.
The second precedent that gives support to my proposal is the Quebec Elections Act which in two instances accepts the principle that this bill, C-105, enunciates. I think the national assembly of Quebec has taken a forward step in this regard. The Quebec Elections Act requires, in respect to election officers, that an employer is required to allow any employee to be an election officer and to give him time off from work, and is forbidden to dismiss him on that account. Section 142a of the same act provides that every employer whose employee is a candidate must allow the employee to absent himself until the day following polling day; the employer is forbidden to dismiss him on that account, and does not have to pay him. The act provides penalties for any employer in the province of Quebec who does not comply with this provision; he must make it possible for an employee to be an elections officer or a candidate, if the employee has requested time off from his duties, without jeopardizing his future. If we extend that principle to cover the time off work that would be required for persons to serve at least one term in parliament, then we would achieve an objective which, I submit, would be welcomed across the country, one that would make it possible for Canadians to realize their aspirations.
We do not need to have any serious apprehensions about creating difficulty for an employer. For one thing, if this bill were enacted it would affect only those Canadians who are seeking public office, and that number is never enormous. In any case, it would affect most of all those who become candidates for the major political parties; consequently, we are only thinking of about 1,000 candidates every four years or so. As well, we are thinking in terms of a fraction of the 264 persons elected to parliament because there would always be a significant number of members who would be self-employed. We are thinking of a small and manageable number who would be able to contribute to the well-being of their country.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would refer hon. members to "The Great Canadian Stampede", by Alan Heisey. I think we can take his words very seriously in light of this problem. A little more than ten years ago the writer considered offering himself as a candidate for parliament and was challenged by his employer. He had to make a snap decision whether he would go ahead with his ambition to serve the people of Canada, and jeopardize his future and risk his family's security, or back off. At page 104 of his book he writes:
Before citizens can play larger roles in the political process there needs to be a clearer authority for such activities. Large corporations often discourage their employees from taking an interest in public life...
. . . we need . .. clarification in every jurisdiction of the right to elected office. Only if you have been faced with a weekend to decide between withdrawing from a commitment to public office or facing instant dismissal from your employer, can you fully share the sense of need.
That is one voice from a fellow citizen outside this chamber. Let us listen to that voice, let us recognize
Canada Elections Act
realistically that his view is shared by a large number of people, and let us do something about it. This bill gives us such an opportunity, and I hope members from all parties will join in making it possible for the bill to stay alive in order that it may go to committee for further study and, hopefully, at a later date become part of the law and the practice of this land.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak on this bill this afternoon, because it is not a bill that we would look at in a partisan way but one that should concern us all as individual parliamentarians or citizens. I am sure there are few of us who did not have a great deal of concern, when we decided to seek public office at the federal level, about giving up a profession or a job often in the most productive years, to devote ourselves full-time to being an MP. We must all have wondered what would happen when we tried to re-establish ourselves in our professions or jobs after a period of time.
I compliment the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse) for bringing forward Bill C-105 to amend the Canada Elections Act. The bill introduced by the hon. member and given first reading on March 18, 1974, proposes to provide to employees to whom the Canada Labour Code, part III, is applicable, leave of absence, with or without pay, to seek nomination. It would also require an employer to grant an employee elected as a member of the House of Commons leave of absence, without pay, for up to and including five years.
In any democratic jurisdiction it is recognized that it is the duty of every qualified citizen to participate in the political process of the nation and, should he aspire to being a candidate for election, that the restrictions of his employment should, in so far as reasonably possible, be removed to permit him to exercise this civic duty. This, in essence, is the provision of section 23(14) of the Canada Elections Act and is reflected for the public sector employment in section 32(3) of the Public Service Employment Act, recognizing that such action by the employee should not prejudice his continued usefulness to the public service. This provision is a natural consequence of protecting employees who wish not to sever their public service employment in the event they are unsuccessful in being elected and to ensure that the public service retains its politically neutral character.
Under the PSEA a public servant, if elected, ceases to be an employee of the public service. Bill C-105 would require employers to grant leave of absence, without pay, to an employee elected to the House of Commons, for up to five years. The rationale of this provision is to provide security to the employee to return to his former employment, should he so elect, after one tour of duty as it were, in the House of Commons.
The motives behind this provision are commendable, to a point. While the number of persons taking advantage of such a provision would no doubt be small, the impact on the employer either in the public or the private sector should be examined to determine whether such a provision is fair to an employer. It should be noted, of course, that in most cases federal jurisdiction in labour matters relates to large corporations: banks, railways, shipping companies, airlines and other national corporations. Usu-

April 4, 1974
Canada Elections Act
ally we are not considering the small employer, the employer who hires two or three people. I think that the heavy financial burden involved in this proposal would weigh heavily upon an employer who is without considerable financial means. In addition, we should consider the possible effects on the employee if he should wish to take advantage of such a provision were this amendment to become a reality.
In the past, such provisions have been brought in on a fairly large scale, in the event of a major conflict, as an incentive to providing the necessary manpower to achieve mobilization plans. Employers undertook to respect the spirit as well as the letter of such provisions as their contribution to the nation at a time when its existence was threatened. This aspect of employment security has not been considered necessary at times other than of national emergency. This bill seeks, for a very small group, special provisions for such security up to five years. Such security has been recognized to a degree by providing legislation to ensure a pension to any member of the House who has served in more than two parliaments.
One must consider the position of the employer in the private sector who would be required to rehire the employee, without notice, at any time up to the five-year anniversary date. The bill does not refer to the type of employment or level which upon return the employee would expect. In certain cases his seniority might be respected, whereas in others, especially where the absence had been for some time, one can anticipate that circumstances would have altered to the point that the rehiring would cause embarrassment to both employer and employee.
Turning to the public sector-as I see it, this provision would apply to Crown corporations-similar embarrassment could result for both employer and employee. As mentioned earlier, the Public Service Employment Act makes no such provision for extended leave of absence, and we believe that none should be considered if it is intended that we continue to respect the character of a politically neutral public service. I believe the committee must examine this aspect of the question. If someone has been active in the House of Commons in a partisan way- and we must be partisan if we are properly to carry out our function-can that person, if he is again employed in the public service, assume the degree of political neutrality which we expect of our public servants?
We must also remember that this legislation would affect only a small part of the labour force. I do not say that we should not pass this bill because it affects only a small number of people, but we must recognize that only about 6 per cent of all employees in the nation are covered by federal jurisdiction respecting employment. Those coming under provincial jurisdiction would not be included. As I understand it, this measure would not apply to persons of federal civil service status. This is another aspect which we must examine.
Is it desirable for people to play a politically partisan role and at the end of five years return to the public service: would not the political neutrality of such a person be destroyed? I think most members will recall the case

which arose a couple of years ago of the public servant who wished to be nominated. The request was refused. In the case in question the public servant played a special role requiring a high degree of independence. We must consider the many aspects of this bill. We are all concerned about the heavy responsibilities members of parliament must assume personally, and about the loss they must suffer through not following their careers or professions during time spent in the service of the House.
I want this bill to be examined by the committee. Let it be examined objectively by members of parliament who could be much affected by it. We must be cognizant of the heavy workload of the committee in connection with the electoral boundaries readjustment references now before it. Although that work must be done, I am confident that this bill will receive some consideration in the committee. Having said those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and allow other hon. members to speak.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the bill before us. I am pleased, also, the party opposite will allow this bill to go to committee. I hope it will not be held up for long in committee. My party has always believed in giving individuals the freedom to run for political office. Quite a few provincial governments support the concept of leave of absence for persons who want to run for political office at the federal, provincial or municipal level. I myself was fortunate in being granted leave of absence on a year to year basis for as long as I need it. Mine is a very broadminded school board. I know of other teachers who have become members of this House but who were not able to obtain leave of absence. Clearly, there is no equality of opportunity for people to become members of this House.
I support the principle of this bill and would go even further than it does and extend the term contemplated to ten years or even for an indefinite time. Some employers are already doing this. I know that in the past some employers have harassed employees of a different political stripe who wanted to stand for nomination. A couple of years ago a story appeared in the daily newspapers of my home province concerning a chap in Vancouver who wanted to run for the NDP. His employer, obviously of a different political stripe, denied the employee, who was an executive in a small corporation, the right to be nominated. In the end, bowing to pressure exerted on him the would-be candidate withdrew. That does not speak well of our democracy.
When I was first nominated in 1968 I applied for leave of absence. My school board granted me eight weeks leave of absence without pay. Several weeks later I heard that my school board had been called by some political hatchet man who had asked, "Can Nesdoly remain as school principal if he loses the election, in view of his political beliefs?" This is the sort of thing that people in my party and, I am sure, those in other parties have had to face on occasion.
If we really believe in practising democracy we should bring forth legislation that will protect the rights of people who run for office, if they so desire. On that note I
April 4, 1974

will resume my seat and give other members a chance to say a few words. Or perhaps we could give this bill second reading now.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for the position he has taken on behalf of his party. I think the principle of this bill is worthy of consideration. The parliamentary secretary dealt with one matter with which I somewhat disagree, namely, the position of the public servant. I do not think a public servant, or any other person who has sat in this House, is tainted for the purpose of resuming his employment. We have examples of such men in Mr. Justice Abbott, the Hon. Davie Fulton, now a judge, Judge Clunis, and Judge Honey. Should such men be disqualified, because of service in the House of Commons, from sitting on the bench? Being a member of the House may be a broadening experience; in fact, it may make them better judges because there is an element of judgment and discretion which a member has to exercise and with which he learns to deal. I dare say the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would agree that sitting in this House should not even disqualify one from sitting in the Senate.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I really rose on behalf of public servants, to put forward that caveat and to congratulate the parliamentary secretary for the position he has taken, because we are dealing with a very important principle.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could call it six o'clock, it being almost that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With the mood the House is in, maybe we could pass another bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the excellent suggestion of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock and the time allotted for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
National Parks Act AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, to amend the National Parks Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. We are considering motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 which should be grouped for the purpose of debate as has already been indicated. Motion No. 6 might be voted upon separately. It is also suggested by the Chair that the vote on motion No. 7 should also dispose of motion No. 8. Unless hon. members quarrel with this thinking, this is the way in which the Chair suggests we should proceed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: As Your Honour is aware, the three motions deal with the same subject matter. Two are in my name and one is in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). I think you will find that motion No. 7 embraces in its subject matter my motions No. 6 and No. 8. If it were agreeable to the House, I would be willing to agree that we discuss and reach a decision on motion No. 7. If that motion were to pass, it would become the text of the bill as amended and then, in the circumstances, it would be acceptable to me if I were permitted to drop my two motions. Thus, I suggest we debate motion No. 7 which stands in the name of the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that we consider motion 6, 7 and 8, but that instead of putting motion No. 6, the Chair should put motion No. 7, and that the disposition of that motion would determine the other two. The hon. member has raised a good point of order. Perhaps I could hear other hon. members thereon.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, since the motions concern the same subject matter we are agreeable to dealing with them at the same time and the debate taking place on motion No. 7.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of motions 6 and 8 is included in my own motion No. 7, and if we were to dispose of motion No. 7 we would be disposing of motions 6 and 8 in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). However, I would not want to take the credit away from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni: it is really his motion, anyway.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that it is agreed, and it is so ordered. For the record, I shall put the three motions and we shall consider them as a package on the under-

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
standing that the fate of the other two motions will be determined by the disposition of motion No. 7.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) moves:
Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-6, an act to amend the National Parks Act, be amended in subclause 11(1) by deleting lines 6 to 17 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"mation, set aside as a reserve for a national park of Canada, pending settlement of any right, title or interest of the people of native origin therein, the lands described in part I, II or III of schedule V to this act or any lands within the boundaries of the lands described in part I, II or III of that schedule, and upon the issue of a proclamation under this section, notwithstanding any other act of the parliament of Canada, and save for the exercise therein by the people of native origin of the Yukon or Northwest Territories of traditional hunting, fishing and trapping activities, the National Parks Act applies to the reserve so set aside."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Who seconds the motion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will second it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) moves:
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-6, an act to amend the National Parks Act be amended in clause 11:
(a)	by striking out lines 6 to 17 on page 7 and substituting the following:
''mation, set aside as a reserve for a national park of Canada, pending a settlement in respect of any right, title or interest of the people of native origin therein, the lands described in Part I, II or III of schedule V to this act or any lands within the boundaries of the lands described in part I, II or III of that schedule, and upon the issue of a proclamation under this subsection, notwithstanding any other act of the parliament of Canada, and save for the exercise therein by the people of native origin of the Yukon Territory or Northwest Territories of traditional hunting, fishing and trapping activities, the National Parks Act applies to the reserve so set aside as it applies to a park as therein defined."
(b)	by striking out lines 40 to 45 on page 7 and substituting the following:
".Further (3) Following a settlement in respect of any right, title proclama- or interest of the people of native origin in lands set aside tion"	as a reserve by proclamation issued under subsection (1),
the governor in council may, by further proclamation, set aside such lands, or any portion thereof, as a national park of Canada, and upon the issue of a proclamation under this subsection, notwithstanding any other act of the parliament of Canada but subject to the terms of any such settlement, the National Parks Act applies to the national park of Canada so set aside as it applies to a park as therein defined."
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni moves:
Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-6, to amend the National Parks Act be amended by deleting lines 40 to 45 inclusive at page 7, being subclause 11(3), and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Following settlement of any right, title or interest of the people of native origin in the lands designated in subsection (1), and subject to the terms of any such settlement, the governor in council may, by further proclamation, set aside such lands, or any portions thereof, as a national park of Canada."


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have been a member of this House for a number of years, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and to my recollection this is the first

occasion on which any motion of mine has been seconded by a minister of either this government or a previous government of any political stripe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: It shows you who is running the coalition.


John Napier Turner: It is a high-water mark.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Some of us might call it a low-water mark,


Stanley Howard Knowles: It shows that
even the government can be right once in a while.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wish to say seriously, however, that I am pleased the minister has agreed, in effect, to endorse this proposal of mine. In some respects I consider it to be the most significant of the changes which are being made in the original draft of the bill which, as hon. members will recall, we received from the other place. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, after much discussion in the committee I feel that a proper recognition of the rights of the Indian and other native peoples of Canada to be able, with some degree of equality, to negotiate a settlement is as well embodied in this amendment as in any measure that has come before this House.
As hon. members know, there are certain parts of Canada where no settlement by treaty or in any other form has yet been reached regarding what is sometimes referred to as native title. One of the areas of Canada where this is true to a great degree is the province of British Columbia, from which I come as a member of this House. But the same is also true of almost the entire area of the two territories. This is a situation that I think it is incumbent upon the House to consider, particularly in view of the existing constitutional structure which, for the time being at least, leaves the entire authority vested in the Crown, being the responsibility in this instance of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien).
To me, Mr. Speaker, this amendment and its passage have an importance in the context of our situation in Canada today which overrides almost any other consideration in relation to the withdrawal from normal exploitation of any lands in the territories. The amendment was originally proposed by myself in committee but was not, like certain other of my amendments, accepted. I therefore put it on the order paper, originally in the last session, for debate at the report stage without any foreknowledge whether it would receive support from any quarter of the House other than the caucus of which I am a member. I am hopeful that it will receive the unanimous endorsation of the House despite the fact that it replaces, in effect, an amendment which was moved before the committee by members of the official opposition and which, I may say at once, I did support in the form in which it was presented because at that point, as I have often had to do, I took the position that a half a loaf or a quarter of a loaf was better than none.
In view of some references, oblique and otherwise, that have been made during the course of this report stage
April 4, 1974

discussion as to whether or not I have changed my mind on certain matters, I think I should take a moment to outline the situation that has led up to our dealing with this amendment in this particular form tonight. As members of the House will recall, the committee travelled to the capital of the Yukon territory, Whitehorse, not under an order of reference dealing with this bill but under a reference of the annual report of the department. The committee heard representations in Whitehorse from quite a large number of the citizens of the Yukon territory on a variety of subjects. Because this bill was technically in the hands of the committee at that point, many of the representations that we received tended to centre upon this bill and its implications.
I think it is fair to say that as we listened to the representations that were made in Whitehorse great interest was shown about the Kluane park in the Yukon territory. While there was not what I would call unanimous support for the establishment of the park, I think there was general endorsation of the idea of a national park in the Yukon territory. In fact, as far as there was a representative voice of the Yukon in the form of its territorial council, that council made it clear to the members of the committee that they did endorse the establishment of Kluane park.
There were some serious questions raised about what this park might do to potential hydro development. Questions were also raised about what it would do in the elimination of possible mining development. But generally speaking I think it is fair to say that the people of the Yukon were interested in, and rather excited about, the possibility of a park in that vast, rugged area of mountain wilderness that runs along the easterly side of the coastal range. I think it is fair to say that that approach was acceptable to the Indian people of the Yukon territory, both those who are registered Indians and those who are sometimes referred to as non-status Indians. But they did have one very important reservation regarding their acceptance of the idea of a park, and that was that they did not want any hard and fast boundaries drawn-in fact, they said they did not want a park established-until they had completed the negotiations which are currently in progress on their land rights.
The amendment put forward to the committee in an informal way while it was in Whitehorse contained the provision that any establishment of a park should be without prejudice to the right, title or interest of the Indian people. As far as I am concerned, the idea of that amendment was sound enough, except that in law, so far as I could see, it did not effectively protect the rights of the Indian people to negotiate. However, I initially supported the amendment even though I felt it was somewhat inadequate in its actual terms. That feeling was borne out by the representations received from the president of the Yukon Indian Brotherhood. He made very clear his concern that establishment of this park as proposed would, in effect, effectively block any possibility of Indian negotiation regarding any of the lands, right or interest that they may have within the boundaries of such a park.
The basic effect of the proposal, at least as I saw it, was that the park having been established and its boundaries set, if later on it was recognized in negotiations that even
National Parks Act
as much as one acre of land within the boundaries of the park was land that remained Indian land, then this would have meant a special act of parliament would be required to remove that one acre of land from within the boundaries of the park. This was a conundrum with which I wrestled because I was very anxious that this rather unique piece of land should receive as soon as possible the kind of protection the National Parks Act provides for certain parts of the territories in Canada. At the same time, I did not want to be a party in any way to weakening the ability of the Indian people to negotiate a fair and complete settlement.
When listening carefully to the representations put to the committee by the spokesman for the Kluane park, I became more convinced that they had some real claims that should be considered in relation to the area involved. That is why I endeavoured to present to the committee an amendment which would clearly have established the intent of parliament that this area should be included in a park reserve, while at the same time putting it under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Act rather than having it remain in a park reserve in respect of which the minister has authority at any time to change his mind and decide to pull it out of the reserve. There is nothing to prevent that.
In fact, this was the position which had existed for some time in reference to Kluane, having in mind the fact that it was not in a park reserve, but a game reserve. In attempting a reasonable reconciliation with what to me were two important considerations, I felt this proposal offered a fair solution. For that reason I am pleased that the minister has agreed to lend his support to this idea. I hope all hon. members of the House will do so. I do not think it will do any substantial damage in respect of the desires of anyone concerned with the preservation of wilderness areas in Canada, particularly the unique ones, to make them part of our parks heritage.
As one individual who spoke to the committee at Whitehorse very aptly observed, if you are thinking in terms of a wilderness park, as long as you do not do anything to it, it will not go away. Having that concept in mind, I thought that was one of the wisest things I listened to in the Yukon, and I believe the proposal before us will ensure that Kluane park is preserved as part of our wilderness heritage. I may say that similar ideas have been put forward in written representations by the Indian and Innuit peoples of the Northwest Territories in respect of the Nahanni and Baffin Island park proposals.
I have here communications from organizations of the Innuit people and the Northwest Territories Indian Brotherhood that they agree with the soundness of the proposal we are discussing in this report stage amendment. I shall not take up the time of the House to detail them for the record, but I feel I should take a few minutes to draw to the attention of hon. members what I consider to be the basic importance of this report stage amendment. While I may have views that range from lukewarm to strong about some of the other issues we have been discussing, I feel the issues involved in this amendment are the most important in relation to what in all fairness we should or should not do at this point about setting aside lands which have

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
not been surrendered by the Indian people to the national parks system of Canada.


Douglas Charles Neil: I should like to say a few words in connection with the three motions, Mr. Speaker. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), and I gather he has changed his mind. He suggested that from the submission made to our committee the public generally in Whitehorse approved of the parks in principle, but I understood from what he said at various committee meetings that he and members of his party were concerned about public hearings in respect of parks. After listening to him tonight, I take it he feels there is no need for public hearings in respect of these parks in the territories.
Motions Nos. 6 and 8 put forth by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni have the same effect as motion No. 7, and after reading the motions I cannot help wondering why they were put forward in the first instance. Rather than setting aside lands for the Kluane and Nahanni parks, these motions would put the lands into reserves. Bill C-9, as amended in the committee, would set aside the lands as national parks, yet the effect of these three motions would simply reserve the lands. Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but in both cases-in the original bill and in the motions as filed-the interests of the native people would be protected and in both cases the provisions of the National Parks Act would apply.
By virtue of the three amendments, the lands would be set aside simply as a reserve. In speaking on clause 10 earlier today I said that the establishment of these parks was really a fait accompli and that the matter did not require a public hearing. The parks we are concerned about, namely, Baffin Island, Kluane and Nahanni, fall into a different category than those under clause 10. In effect, the amendments put forward by the minister and by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would preclude the possibility of public hearings in respect of these parks. I had the opportunity of attending the committee meetings at Whitehorse last fall when we heard numerous representations from people in the area in respect of Kluane park. I felt there was some opposition to the park. There were suggestions concerning alteration of the boundaries, and so on. It seemed to me there should be, under these circumstances, public hearings in order to give all interested persons an opportunity to provide input to either the committee or to the department with regard to the park.
Also during the course of our committee hearings we heard from the Innuit and native Indian association with regard to Baffin Island park. It is my opinion that in the case of the parks with which we are concerned this evening there should be public hearings and public input. It is interesting to note that under clause 10 there is reference to the Pacific Rim and four other parks. When the minister moved his motion to amend the bill he retained subclause (3) which provides:
The minister shall, at such time or times as he considers appropriate in the development of national parks in the areas described in subsection (1), hold public hearings in relation to the plans for the development of those parks.
(Mr. Barnett.]
When he came to the amendment contained in clause 11, he ignored the possibility of having public hearings with regard to the development of these three parks above the sixtieth parallel. I hope this was an oversight by the minister and I suggest that at some time in the future he bring in an amendment to the effect that when it comes to the development of these three parks above the sixtieth parallel he follow the procedure set forth under clause 10 regarding the Pacific Rim and other parks and hold public hearings to determine the feelings of the people concerning the development of the parks.
I also wonder, in respect of clause 11 which provides for 90 days' notice and publication in the Canada Gazette, why the minister retained the provision for publication in both official languages in various newspapers in Canada for four consecutive weeks, if there is no provision for public hearings to be held. I should like to know why the government would advertise in the newspapers for four consecutive weeks the intention to proclaim a park unless there were some provision to allow interested persons to provide an input. If there is no such provision, then it seems to me we are just wasting the taxpayers' money because there would not seem to be any purpose in advertising in the newspapers and saying we are proclaiming a park, if the public is to have no input. It would seem to me that if the newspapers learned that a park was to be developed, they would be happy to publish this information as a news release.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, in respect of this particular clause, to consider in the immediate future bringing in amendments to the act so that clause 11 will be in accordance with clause 10 and will provide for public hearings on the development of parks.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the amendment before us. I wish to congratulate the minister and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) for bringing in amendments that are very similar. I understand that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has withdrawn his amendment because the two amendments aim at the same objective, which is the recognition and, hopefully, the settlement of aboriginal claims in the north. It seems to me that this is a forward step.
I suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that similar action should be taken with respect to other lands not within park areas. Surely if we can deal with the rights of the native people in northern Canada within the confines of a national park, it makes sense that other lands should also receive similar treatment especially in view of the recent application by a consortium of 27 companies to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline.
It would seem to me that a great many problems could be solved by the government of Canada if it would tackle the problem in a manner similar to that provided in the amendments before us tonight. I realize, as I believe every member of this House realizes, that this amendment is turning new ground so far as government is concerned. I do not think we need be too apprehensive. The natives in northern Canada have claims. These have been resisted by federal governments over the years and finally, within the last few months, we have witnessed a decision by government to recognize that some of these claims are valid and

at least should be discussed on the basis of what the natives in these areas should receive. I said earlier that is one of the reasons I certainly endorse these amendments and intend to vote for them.
While we are on the matter of national parks in the north and the rights of the native people in respect of areas which might be covered by them, there are one or two more comments I should like to make. There is no doubt that national parks, or their establishment, have been neglected over the years. National parks represent a heritage we in 1974 can leave to those who come after us. While the setting aside of great chunks of the northern territories for national park sites might seem to be excessive in light of the small number of people living in the area, nevertheless we must realize that as time goes on these will become areas of great importance. They will be wilderness parks where 50 or 100 years from now people will find out what Canada was really like. I regret deeply that more land in the southern section of Canada was not set aside for similar purposes over the years, for as time goes on we are losing some of the choicest sections of our country. Some of the rights within these areas of course have to be negotiated, whether it is north of the sixtieth parallel or in national parks' sites within the established provinces.
I do not think there is much more that I wish to say about this question, but I again urge the minister to deal with the Canadian territory north of the sixtieth degree of latitude, and I point out to him that there are other areas outside national parks which should receive attention similar to that which I hope we will take through this amendment to the National Parks Act. Again, I tell the minister that he is moving in the right direction. Although we would like to see him go a little further, we intend to support this amendment because it is good for Canada and it will, I hope, resolve one of the most serious problems facing us in the settlement of aboriginal rights in the northern part of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to my understanding, we are now dealing with motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 and it is agreed that a vote on motion No. 7 would also dispose of motions Nos. 6 and 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the proposed amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Chretien) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement that was reached earlier, this also disposes of motions Nos. 6 and 8.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-6, to amend the National Parks Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.
National Parks Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-6, particularly with regard to a very unique area, namely, the short grass area in the southern prairies. This area is unique and fragile. It is disappearing, and it offers a challenge to those who would like to see it made into a national park. Of course, the question is whether it is possible to preserve the prime ecological features of the area and still have a park for all. I must say that in my heart I have great sympathy for the minister and his endeavours in this regard. The requirements must be specific. Government authorities, federal and provincial, must operate in such a way as to keep the residents of the area closely informed of the negotiations and the consequences of those negotiations so that the full support of the people in the area may be obtained if a park is established.
There has been much opposition to the park in my area and most of the questions concerning the area between Val Marie and Killdeer in southern Saskatchewan have arisen because of the failure to make known to the ranchers in the area and to the general public answers to questions such as, why establish a park at all, and the pros and cons of establishing a national or a provincial park. People would like to know more about the actual proposed boundaries of the park and the consequences to the local inhabitants, as well as the park's attraction to the general public.
It seems only reasonable that the public, including the residents of the area, can make a wise decision on what they actually want only when they are given the factual information on which to base a decision. The government's answers that the information is confidential or that no decision has been reached have become not only frustrating but unacceptable. In his speech to the 1973 annual meeting ot the Saskatchewan Natural History Society, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) met some of the conditions required when he stated that a new national park in this or any other part of Canada must not be established to the disadvantage of local residents whose way of life depends on their traditional use of the land. So I am glad to say that if these conditions are met, there would be much less opposition to the parks, and certainly the assurance that there will be no expropriation of ranches for this Grasslands park is a "must".
The minister further stated that there will be no compulsion on ranch owners within the ultimate boundary to move. The right of the owner to pass on his land, or the right to his land to his heirs would be undisturbed, and if and when a rancher chose to sell his property, the government would be prepared to buy it at a fair market price and to offer its services to assist the rancher to relocate.
It should be possible for some historical events, such as Sitting Bull's famous rendezvous at Pinto Butte, to serve as the focus for dramatic productions, for nowhere is the campfire more characteristic than in the pages of prairie
1170

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
history, and campfires are always welcome focal points for visiting, relaxing and learning.
Now I would like to list a short summary of negotiations between the provincial government, the federal government and municipal governments in an attempt to establish this Grasslands park in the southern area of Saskatchewan. It spans a period of over 16 years. Progress has been very slow but I think we are moving toward the establishment of a park. I must say that I was very pleased yesterday to receive a letter from the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, dated April 2, in which he said:
This is further to our previous correspondence about the proposed Grasslands national park in Saskatchewan.
You will be interested to know that we have recently had meetings about this on a senior level with the Saskatchewan Department of Natural Resources, and I understand that the Saskatchewan government will make a decision shortly.
I suppose it really all started in my area back in 1957 when the Saskatchewan Natural History Society introduced the idea of a Grasslands national park. Later on, in 1959, the same Saskatchewan Natural History Society passed a resolution urging the Saskatchewan government to set up a national grasslands preserve. In 1964, once again the Saskatchewan Natural History Society put forth an actual proposal for a Grasslands national park in Canada comprising some 25 townships immediately north of the U.S. border and extending from Killdeer on the east toVal Marie on the west. This area includes a diversity of habitats and scenery and contains a minimum of roads, fences and farm or ranch buildings.
Later on, in December, 1964, the Saskatchewan Stock-growers at their annual meeting discussed the possibility of a Grasslands park and expressed the hope that grazing would be allowed. This was the point which was to become a major stumbling-block over the next few years. In 1965 there was an announcement by the federal government that an attempt would be made to establish the park in Saskatchewan and once more, in April, an announcement was made by the federal government that a search for suitable areas in southern Saskatchewan was to be carried out during the summer.
The federal government, in 1966, after consideration of the previous summer's investigation, concluded that the Val Marie area appeared most suitable for the park. Some of the other areas considered were Lost Mountain Lake, Qu'Appelle Valley, Moose Mountain and Estevan. Later on, in 1966, the first sour note was revealed in a letter from Saskatchewan's public works minister who opposed the proposal. In 1967, more concern was expressed by Saskatchewan members of the legislature. The suggestions were that the prairie park be established in a province other than Saskatchewan. Then we move to 1969, with an announcement of a stalemate in negotiations between the two governments. This was the first of several that blocked progress toward the Grassland national park.
In 1970, active negotiations were reopened between the provincial and federal governments. Later on, in 1970, the federal government released a statement which said that the signing of the park agreement was little more than a formality now. They stated that all major difficulties

appeared to have been overcome. However, the provincial government replied stating that details had yet to be worked out, and the signing of the agreement was still quite far away. Still later on, in 1970, a guarantee that the grazing rights would be left or there would be no park was the crux of a statement issued by the premier of Saskatchewan. Later still, in December, a letter from the minister in Ottawa and Regina had been resolved. In 1971, the first direct contact with the ranchers occurred when members of the provincial government in Saskatchewan held a meeting in Fir Mountain, and it was here that the ranchers expressed concern over a park policy which did not allow grazing within the park.
I should like to digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker, and say that it is less than 100 years ago that a Minniconjou Sioux war party arrived in my area of southern Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, in 1876 several lodges of Minniconjou Sioux, led by White Eagle, arrived at Wood Mountain. These Sioux had fled from Minnesota following violent conflicts with the whites over land rights. The situation grew worse when in June of the same year the Sioux, under the leadership of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, gathered at Little Big Horn to completely annihilate Colonel Custer and his 212 troops. The Sioux became a people on the run, turning to Canada and the Wood Mountain district for the protection of the Great White Mother. We know the rest of that story, Mr. Speaker.
Later in 1971, a liaison committee of ranchers was formed to help communications between ranchers and the government. Early in 1972, it was pointed out in Regina that if the federal government did not soon create a park, the provincial government would proceed in establishing a provincial Grasslands park. Then in May, 1972, negotiations were terminated by the provincial government when the conditions they set out appeared to be unacceptable to the federal government. In October, 1973, the federal minister announced that the federal government was willing to allow grazing rights within the park but that mineral rights would not be given up. It appeared that the federal government was willing to go halfway.
The premier of Saskatchewan stated that if grazing rights were allowed, mineral rights would be negotiable, so although there now seems to be no real obstacle to the establishment of a national Grasslands park in the Canadian plains, we cannot as yet be sure that negotiations will be completed. Developments to date have been extremely slow, but I believe that people are increasingly aware of the need for preserving samples of natural areas.
I conclude by saying that the vast grasslands are gone for ever and neither this generation nor generations to come can ever hope to replace them. But in the sparsely inhabited lands between Killdeer and Val Marie there exists a part of this vanishing legacy. I only hope that we realize in time the value of this prairie heritage, before all that remains would be the scars of technology.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by commending the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) on his remarks in this third reading debate on the amendment to the National Parks Act, and for bringing again to the attention of the House a subject which is of great concern to the southern area of Saskatchewan. This Grasslands national park, as
April 4, 1974

outlined by the hon. member, has become a controversial issue in southern Saskatchewan and I should like to touch upon some aspects of that tonight, particularly the manner in which negotiations have taken place to date.
The problem with the operation of government departments is that often one department does one thing and no other department knows what is being done. I say this to my hon. friend because while the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is seeking to establish Grasslands national park in the corner between my hon. friend's constituency and my own for the preservation of national heritage, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has signed a general agreement with the province of Saskatchewan for regional and industrial development. What kind of development do they have in mind, Mr. Speaker? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and I have been interested in the development on one side of the southern Saskatchewan area of a large inland lake running between Weyburn and Estevan in order to create an industrial base. Mr. Speaker, that is not entirely congruent with the development of the tourist industry.
At the other end of the constituency running into Coronach in the area where they are attempting to put the Grasslands national park, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation is carrying out an examination of the possibility of building a large hydroelectric power project. This would employ hundreds of people and maybe reduce some of the unemployment for the people of areas like Moose Jaw. That kind of development is not entirely congruent with the establishment of the Grasslands national park. There is general agreement between the province of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada. Under this agreement the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has the right to sign a subsidiary agreement. I suggest that they should do this and establish an over-all game plan for this development in southern Saskatchewan.
It is often assumed that the tourists are dragged into northern Saskatchewan where there is already a national park with lots of land, lakes, trees, etc. I submit that in southern Saskatchewan, running from Moose Mountain park through to Cypress Hills, there is real scope for the development of an alternative route to the Trans-Canada highway. If people were routed through Kenosee Lake down to Highway 13 and through the southern part of Saskatchewan, perhaps the Grasslands park could be developed without disrupting the livelihood of the people. We would be able to develop other aspects of the tourist industry in the area of my hon. friend, the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, and in Assiniboia. A considerable number of French communities have settled there and have developed their culture. For instance, in the community of Willowbunch you will find a bilingual museum, some of which was built with OFY grants. You will find evidence of a marvellous history, of which most people travelling through Saskatchewan are not aware.
In the community of Flintoft you will find, unless it is torn down, evidence of the Roumanian culture of the people who settled in the area. If your game plan is to develop routes through southern Saskatchewan, you could develop an alternate route which would include cities like
National Parks Act
Moose Jaw, the areas of Swift Current-Maple Creek, Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain-to show I am not partisan- and Assiniboia.


An hon. Member:: That is highly unlikely.


William George Knight: The hon. member thinks that my lack of partisanship is highly unusual. Speaking of the tourist business, the hon. member mentioned Sitting Bull and referred to the Sioux, the tribe which went back to the United States where many were slaughtered. Some of those people stayed in the Wood Mountain country. The Big Muddy is where the outlaws operating in the Dakotas and Montana used to hide in days when U.S. marshals wanted to bring them to law. This could be developed into a tourist attraction.
I am trying to convey to members of the House the tremendous potential there is for developing the tourist industry in southern Saskatchewan if only the correct game plan is followed. Of course, it will be difficult to develop the tourist industry if, less than 50 miles from an attraction, you allow a strip mining operation to deface the land. If strip mining is carried on, I do not care whether under a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist or Social Credit government, you had better institute a program to reclaim land. Do not leave those ugly hills, which were left in Estevan, over which when I was a kid I used to scramble. What happened was a terrible example of misuse of land after it had been strip mined. Strip mining is still going on. It is not a pretty sight. I know that water basins are formed with a view to creating an interest in fishing. I suspect that local residents mainly do the fishing. Many have been interested in seeing grassland parks established. The former member for Regina East and I have studied documents which came from the government two years ago dealing with matters which the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek dealt with in his remarks.
On the basis of recent statements made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in Regina, I think there is a new willingness to accommodate the wishes of people who live in the south country and who are interested in preserving grassland. If the governments at Regina and Ottawa could keep open avenues of communication, I suspect the situation could improve. It will not improve if there is bungling on the part of civil servants, if one group says one thing and another something else. The main thing is that they should be interested in establishing communication.
I think hon. members of the House are interested in seeing national parks established in places like southern Saskatchewan in a way that will not be detrimental to the people of the area. There is a long history of national parks being established in a way that does not take into account the interests of local people. For instance, a national park was established in Newfoundland and the interests of the fishermen in the outports was not taken into account. Much bitterness arose as a result. Sometimes local people are bitter when young people from other parts of the country come to their national park in summer and get employment. There is bitterness when locals have not been able to obtain employment. These remarks apply to Prince Albert national park. I do not think there was any
27451-11)

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
difficulty when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, but there has been a lot of trouble since then.
If you want to establish a national park anywhere, you must be flexible in your approach. This government speaks of communications, of retaining the rights of farmers and ranchers to grazing, and of trying to accommodate the wishes of local communities. These things must be done if you want to establish a national park. After all, the preservation of our heritage is in the public interest; therefore, you must heed the interests of local people. They want to learn what is happening. Do not establish the park in such a way as to create suspicion and mystery. Let people know what is involved. The government must communicate, accommodate and consult if it is to meet some of the grievances of those who are affected by the establishment of national parks.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) involved in this debate. He anticipated some of the remarks I intended to make on third reading of the bill, particularly the emphasis I would place on the necessity for consultation. I do not know if the hon. member was in the House earlier today when his party reversed itself on this issue. I am sorry the hon. gentleman did not speak earlier because, knowing his eloquence, I am sure he would have persuaded some of his wavering colleagues of the error of their ways. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). I agree that we can only meet the rapid increase in demand for national park facilities if the minister, the government as a whole and departmental officials are willing to meet with provincial governments and then take part in meaningful consultation with the people who are involved in the area.
Our purpose in establishing a national park is not suddenly, overnight, to create a new situation. Unfortunately, in most areas of Canada that opportunity no longer exists. Our purpose is to place the natural areas of Canada, which have now been clearly designated, under the federal government's national parks branch with a view to developing these areas over a reasonable period of time as typical specimens of national beauty or, in the case of an historic site, restoring its significance as an historic site.
Several members today have spoken about the prairie Grasslands park. This particular topic has been thrown about for the past 15 years. The tragedy is that, as expressed by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), the opportunity that existed 10 or 15 years ago has now passed. There has been development in that area which makes it impossible to establish a prairie park along the lines of the initial concept. In the early negotiations for this park it was hoped that by meaningful consultation with the provinces and the people who are settled in the area it would be possible to reach agreement whereby we could have a grasslands park that would straddle the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary. It is difficult enough when Ottawa is negotiating with one province, but when you get a second province into the act you need to have the wisdom of Solomon and the sensitivity of a most polished diplomat.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We will get one.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Unfortunately, as I have viewed the acti-vies of the government in this regard during recent years, they seem to lack these qualities.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have created ten new parks.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: For example, the Suffield military reserve became available. It is already Crown land. If a proper approach had been made, it could have become the initial part of this greatly to be desired grasslands park area. It would have at least established a beginning for an area that is far too rapidly coming under the influence of commercial development.
This afternoon we were hoping to get the support of our friends in the New Democratic Party to re-emphasize once again the need for continuing consultation in the establishment of national parks. Unfortunately, that hope has now passed. In the vote earlier today at committee stage we were unable to convince NDP members in this regard.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), but I wish he would check what happened this afternoon and read the motion. It called for consultation, which is what we voted for and he voted against.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Good point. They	are	against
consultation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. This is more debate than a point of order. I should take this opportunity to point out to hon. members that we do not achieve very much by trying to pass judgment on previous votes. The debate will progress more rapidly if the hon. member will come to his point.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can understand the hon. member's sensitivity on this point.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Tell the truth: you are not for consultation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Hon. members have been swallowing themselves so consistently recently that I notice even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has a slight tendency toward corpulence. As I understand what took place this afternoon, we had worked together-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is still discussing the vote of this afternoon. That is against the rules of this House. I would also like to say that his party voted against consultation. But if I am not permitted to do that, the hon. member should not be permitted to comment on this afternoon's vote. He does not have the right to discuss the vote of this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please, I am sure the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not want to decide for the Chair, that he has confidence in the person who is sitting in the Chair and that in due time we will see to-
April 4, 1974


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I can understand why the minister is somewhat confused about this matter.


William George Knight: I think I know who is confused.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are confused. You are against consultation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: At the moment we are running a two ring circus in northern affairs. A committee is meeting on another part of the Hill with members who are interested in northern affairs, particularly the very important question of local government and autonomy for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I would like to be there. I am sure the minister would like to be there tonight. In fact, I just came from that committee meeting. Because the minister was not able to be present tonight, his parliamentary secretary suggested that we have an extraordinary meeting tomorrow morning so that the minister will have the opportunity of consulting, if I may use that word, the members of the committee. A situation has developed because members of parliament were able to meet with the elected representatives of both the northern territories in order to get the local viewpoint on the question of autonomy.
I shall not pursue the question of consultation and whether the vote this afternoon was for or against consultation. However, I want to make the point that as a result of the visit of the parliamentary committee to the national parks last August and again in December, members of the opposition came to the conclusion that the bill now before us does not make provision for consultation and deliberation with the people concerned in areas where national parks are proposed.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who concurred in our viewpoint in this regard and supported our amendments, which were reversed by the amendment introduced by the government, would agree that what we heard at Banff, Jasper, in the Northwest Territories and Whitehorse in the Yukon had a strong influence on the attitude members of the committee took in subsequent discussions on the legislation that is still before parliament. In those deliberations we discovered we were fighting a straw-man with regard to the idea that the public is against the conservation, reservation or designation of representative, substantial areas of land that would preserve our natural heritage. We discovered that the people, particularly in Banff and in the national parks which were established initially, are entirely in sympathy with the concept of the wise management of these national resources and their multiple use.
However, a problem arises when the minister refuses to listen to the legitimate requests put forward by these people and when his officials refuse to listen to legitimate representations. Some of the officials were with us, and I am sure we all came to the conclusion that as far as the support of the public is concerned, the battle has been won. This is the feeling which emerged from the friendly conversations and discussions in which we engaged.
National Parks Act
We are now considering this bill on third reading. There is not much we can do, unless we get support from the New Democratic Party, to move the government in the direction of public consultation, but I trust that when shaping future national parks hon. gentlemen opposite will think in terms of a more diversified program. National parks fall into only one of the categories required to meet the leisure time needs of a growing Canadian population. We need wilderness parks, certainly-unspoiled heritage. But we also need multipurpose parks. In addition, we need to preserve historic sites, many of which are being lost.
I remember the opposition we encountered from the party which now sits on the treasury benches when the Conservative Party had responsibility for these matters. In particular, I remember their vitriolic opposition to establishing a national park in the Yukon territory to commemorate one of the most romantic periods in Canadian history-the gold rush and the trail of '98. We faced tremendous opposition simply because we were spending comparatively small sums of money, when viewed in the light of the astronomic expenditures of the present government, in preserving historic sites which are being lost all too rapidly. That particular project is now being resurrected. However, I do not think there is one building in the Yukon which has been preserved in the interim, other than the old theatre. So we need to move rapidly.
I shall not prolong my remarks, because there are others who wish to speak and time is limited. However, I believe that in the interests of developing our parks' program I should once again say to the minister that consultation is the name of the game. He still has not been able to persuade Ontario to make available the necessary land for national park purposes. He still has to negotiate some of the master plans which have been under consideration for the past 14 years and which would restore excellence to some of the western parks such as Banff, Jasper, Prince Albert and Riding Mountain. These have developed in a diversified manner to meet a multiplicity of demands.
When these master plans are finally placed before the people in the respective provinces, I trust adequate opportunity will be given for an expression of opinion and that the wishes of those concerned are taken into account. If the minister is willing to engage in consultation at this level, I hope we can convince him that the only way in which he can move rapidly toward the establishment of the number of parks we need is by encouraging this process of consultation right across the board.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the bill to amend the National Parks Act which is now before parliament for third reading. It is important we should note the tremendous progress which has been made in the last five years. During that period, the number of national parks has grown from 18 to 28 and the amount of acreage has doubled. Only four new national parks had been created in the previous 40 years. I know that all members, those in the official opposition and in other parties, would wish to extend congratulations to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) who has carried out this magnificent program of expansion.

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
Provinces such as Quebec and Ontario, which had not co-operated previously in establishing national parks, have now done so. Not long ago there were no national parks in Quebec: now there are two. In Ontario there were three small national parks, all of which had been established on federally-owned land. But during those five years the Pukaskwa national park was established in the area west of Wawa on the shore of Lake Superior. It is one of the most magnificent national parks anywhere in the country; its rugged grandeur should appeal to almost any eye. I had the opportunity to go there with the initial inventory team. It took us three hours to fly over this park twice, using a Twin Otter. The Trans-Canada Highway gives access to this new park. In addition, I understand three new national parks were established in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories during that five-year period.
I turn for a moment to the subject of national parks in the province of Ontario and the need for further parks in that province. The establishment of Pukaskwa park represented a real breakthrough and is greatly to the credit not only of the minister but of the Hon. Rene Brunelle who was provincial minister at that time. I should like to speak tonight about the opportunity which exists for the establishment of the next national park in Ontario. I believe it should be established on Manitoulin Island, which happens to be in the federal riding of Algoma. This is the largest fresh water island in the world. It is some 100 miles long and varies in width between four and 40 miles. It has dozens and dozens of inland lakes and is a magnificent part of this country. Recreational land opportunities there are spectacular.
It happens that on Manitoulin Island there is a large amount of property owned by the Ontario Paper Company. They have shown interest in selling it for several years. Both I and the provincial member of parliament have been trying to encourage the two levels of government to co-operate together in purchasing it. The land is owned, in the final analysis, by American interests and would therefore be a natural piece of property to repatriate and to be owned by Canada. Manitoulin Island would be a natural place to establish the next national park in Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I note with encouragement that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) applauds my words. This tract of land comprises 78,718 acres. There are about 57 miles of lakeshore on Lake Huron and the north channel of Lake Huron. Besides this there are miles of inland waterfront property, all of it located in Dawson and Robertson townships which are at the extreme westerly end of Manitoulin Island. There is also a great deal of property on Cockburn Island which is located about two miles west of Manitoulin Island. The largest percentage of the land on Cockburn Island is also owned by this paper company. The land was previously used for pulp and paper purposes but it is not used as much now for forestry.

One of the spectacular features of this proposal is on the north shore of Manitoulin Island, which is on the north channel of Lake Huron. It is considered the best boating area for cruising vessels in North America. People from all over eastern Canada and the United States go there to cruise. There are good boating facilities at the ports of Gore Bay, Little Current, Kagawong, and Meldrum Bay. The islands located in the north channel are often compared in beauty to those of the Greek Islands.
As I mentioned, this property has an estimated value of $5 million, but when you consider the value of the lake-shore and the recreational land available today, I think it would be a good move for the provincial and federal governments to co-operate in acquiring this property and establishing a national park. In a way they would be buying back an important, beautiful and valuable piece of Canada from foreign owners.
Access to Manitoulin Island, which would be very important to any new national park, is readily available from the Trans-Canada Highway, No. 17, utilizing Highway 68 from Espanola to Little Current. This coming summer, in the month of July, a new ferry service will be established plying between Tobermory on the Bruce peninsula to South Baymouth, Manitoulin Island. This new ferry service will cost over $9 million and represents another joint federal-provincial co-operative venture. Space for 110 cars will be available and the ferry will carry people rapidly to and from Manitoulin Island, providing much better access to central parts of southern Ontario. Likewise, there are good facilities for people coming by vessel to Manitoulin as well as by aeroplane to Gore Bay-Manitoulin federal airport. A new ferry service is being proposed from Meldrum Bay to De Tour, Michigan, which will provide ready access for visitors from the states of Ohio and Michigan who come in large numbers every summer. This access would be very important to any proposal for a new national park.
Support for the proposal to use the Ontario Paper Company property for park purposes has come from the Manitoulin Municipal Association, the Western Manitoulin Board of Trade, from the town of Gore Bay and from the economic development committee of Meldrum Bay. Recently we have received support from other members of parliament, such as the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). He has indicated there is real support among members from the Toronto area for more park and public recreational land easily accessible to this growing metropolitan area. This proposal would certainly be the best hedge against future needs for parkland for both central Ontario and northern Ontario. It would have important economic advantages for western Manitoulin. This area, which was at one time active in agriculture, logging and fishing, has declined in population in recent years although the opportunity for recreation there has never been better.
Therefore, I should like to compliment the minister on the progress he has made during the past five years on a national parks system. I hope he will take to heart this advice to locate a new national park on Manitoulin Island and that he will see it as an opportunity to establish an excellent new national park to serve not only the people of north and south Ontario but the rest of Canada.
April 4, 1974


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, because this bill vitally affects the two northern territories in the establishment of one park in the Yukon and two parks in the Northwest Territories, I choose to speak this evening. I draw the attention of the members of the House to the fact that all afternoon and evening the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been considering Bill C-9, which is the principal reason that I and many other members who have been attending those committee sessions have been unable to participate in this debate. This is one more reason why standing committees should not be sitting while the House is sitting, particularly when the subject matter of a bill such as the one presently before the House conflicts directly with a kindred subject matter in a standing committee. There is no way members can split themselves into many different parts and attend to matters that vitally affect their constituencies, when this kind of programming occurs.
The first matter I want to deal with relates to the number of representations that have been received by members of the standing committee, and I presume by members of the House, from conservation and environmental organizations respecting the stance that this party took on the amendment that in committee stood in the name of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), requiring that before the establishment of any park occurred in the two northern territories, the approval of each of the two northern councils had to be sought.
Clause 2 of the bill makes it mandatory for the government not simply to seek the approval of but to seek the formal agreement of the provincial governments before any park is established or any boundaries are set. We in the two northern territories took the position that simple consultation was not enough. In 1970 when the Yukon Act was amended, the standing committee, when dealing with a provision which enabled the governor in council to dissolve the councils of the two territories prior to the expiration of the full term of four years, introduced an amendment which changed the situation of the governor in council consulting the two councils before such dissolution. Even that was distorted because the standing committee report to the House, and I can quote it almost precisely, said "where such consultation is deemed necessary or advisable". That kind of weasling wording means nothing. Now when we see a phrase such as that in clause 11 which obliges the governor in council to consult, we know it does not oblige the governor in council to do anything, such as seeking a formal agreement, so that the parks may be established in the north or altered after this so-called "consultation with".
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni and his colleagues in the committee quite rightly supported the position we took that that was not enough because it did not oblige the government to do anything of a concrete nature. What does consultation mean to this government? Surely my friends to the left have sufficient experience with the phrase "participatory democracy" as it was mouthed in 1968 to know that that kind of language means nothing. Surely they know that that kind of phrase is meaningless. The Indian people across this country have had enough experience, as a result of this participatory democracy, to
National Parks Act
realize that a phrase such as "after consultation with" means that there is a decision by the government and then they are told what the decision is. That is the process of consultation! It is in effect a fait accompli. The phrase "after consultation with" does not mean a damn thing.
Therefore, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, his colleagues and members of this party on the standing committee, realizing the failure of the government to go through this process of consultation, decided to put some teeth into this bill. We deleted the phrase "after consultation with" and required the government to seek the approval of the elected representatives of the people in our two northern territories.
That brings me to another point and I will deal with the somersault of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I am greatly disappointed by the completeness with which that hon. member is able to swallow himself on many occasions.


Walter David Baker: He would rather switch than fight.


Erik Nielsen: He was a strong advocate of the views of the committee that Canadians above the sixtieth parallel should be on an equal basis with Canadians below the sixtieth parallel. But now he has made a complete turnabout, going along with the government in order to get his own amendment accepted. He has been able to swallow himself in respect of that principle which he supported in the committee.


Walter David Baker: Sold out for a mess of potage.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member just what he has in mind in respect of the rights of the Indians and whether it is important to protect their rights, in view of the fact that the Yukon council has already indicated its approval for the establishment of the park.


Erik Nielsen: That has nothing to do with it. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the minister can drag red herrings back and forth across the trail as often as they please, but they cannot justify what the hon. member has done in reversing himself in respect of protecting these rights. Both he and the minister know that when the committee visited Whitehorse an amendment was introduced that protected these native rights which the minister has omitted from the bill, and that amendment was accepted unanimously by the committee.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the record should be set straight in that regard. Before we introduced the bill in the House we had the wisdom to seek the opinion of the elected members of the council of the Yukon, who voted in favour of the bill. The hon. member is now attempting to catch up after history has already been written.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I would suggest that these remarks are more in the form of debate than a question of privilege.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While I recognize the situation the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) described when he began to speak, and I sympathize with his frustration in trying

April 4, 1974
National Parks Act
to be in two places at once, I feel I must take part in this question of privilege, as a member of this House, by drawing to your attention that the hon. member offends the privileges of this House by distorting our rules. I would draw to your attention that the privileges of members are being affected under Standing Order 35, which states in part that no member should reflect upon a vote of the House except for the purpose of moving that such a vote be rescinded.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You know the rules; you are supposed to be the master.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If the hon. member wishes to consult with his colleagues and then move that the decision be rescinded, he might be in order. But when he tries to re-debate something which has already been decided, he is overstepping the provisions of the Standing Order and I have a right to rise on a question of privilege.
In resuming my seat I might say that at the proper time and in the proper place I will be prepared to re-debate the matter with the hon. member for Yukon, because I know he is away off base when talking about consultation. There was consultation with the Indian people before this decision by the Yukon council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I suppose the hon. member may carry on with his speech now.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Comox-Alberni doth protest too much. He knows he is caught with his principles down, and he cannot stand being confronted. He, like other members of his party during this as well as the last session, has constantly been caught in that position. He should be the last one to speak about trying to be in two places at one time, because most of the members of that party are past masters at the art of getting into bed with the party which is now occupying the treasury benches in an attempt to justify-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: They are sucking and blowing at the same time.


Erik Nielsen: That is precisely what I was speaking about, sir. I think these unco-ordinated people to my left would find it extremely difficult to walk and chew gum at the same time. They are paragons of virtue. Sir, they have betrayed their own principles.


Walter David Baker: They left their principles in the bed.


Erik Nielsen: The minister speaks of consultation. I know it is improper for me to comment on evidence given before the standing committee today and I certainly do not want to bend the rules in that regard. I do not intend to do so. However, the minister stands in his place and says we had the views of the territorial council in the affirmative before we passed the bill. They never even saw the bill until it was tabled in the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They were consulted on the subject.


Erik Nielsen: Consulted on the subject! I put it to the minister that clause 11 was never the subject matter of consultation with the territorial council two years ago, which is the time of which he speaks. The council, I can assure you, agreed wholeheartedly that their approval should be sought.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: They approved the parks.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo says that the council approved the bill before. He is deliberately distorting what happened. What happened was that the minister obtained an order in council freezing the boundaries of the parks as they are now described in the bill, and two years later a bill came forward. It was in the intervening time, before any member of the council of either territory had any opportunity to see the bill, that those conversations took place. No one can suggest to me that that is a process of consultation with regard to the provisions of the bill. That is consultation in hypothesis, in limbo.
Another thing I must say before I resume my seat, sir, is that I believe the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) should be standing in this House espousing the rights of the elected members of the Northwest Territories council. His conduct today in rejecting the proposal made by himself and the members of his party before the standing committee, when he and his party went along with the reversal that the minister and the government forced upon them, does nothing but a disservice to the people he is supposed to be representing.
I do not hear the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. L'Heu-reux) and I would not want him to smuggle words on to Hansard which might go unanswered. If he has something to say, perhaps he would make a statement so that it would appear on the record.


Mr. L'Heureux:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) a question. Will he put on the record now that what he has been talking about is that in his opinion there should be a veto on the part of the councils of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory over the formation of national parks in those two territories? Is that what he stands for? I think the Canadian people would like to know. Is that what his party stands for?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member is either ignorant or has deliberately distorted what he has been hearing from me and others on this side over and over again. I invite the hon. member to look at clause 2 of this bill. Has the hon. member looked at clause 2? I do not think so, because it says that the federal government must come to an agreement with the provinces before it establishes a park; and all we are asking in clause 11 is that there be, not a formal agreement but that the government come to the elected representatives in the two territories and seek informal approval. I do not know how that could amount to a veto.
If the hon. member is correct in describing our position as a veto, then he must also say that clause 2 in effect gives the provinces the same kind of veto he is describing. I do not read the bill in that way. All we are doing is asking the minister, who is supposed to be the champion
April 4, 1974

of the rights of northern Canadians, to give those of us who live above the sixtieth parallel the same kind of voice as any other Canadian. The minister refuses to do it now. He has refused ever since he has been in that portfolio, and his predecessor refused to do it. So long as he occupies that post and so long as this government stays in office, we in the north will be regarded as colonials and second class citizens of Canada.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I understand the bill is to go through tonight, and only a minute or two remain. I should like to make one or two comments. We have seen an attack on two members of our party by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I want to tell this House and the people of Canada that these members have worked more for the ecological situation and parks in Canada than any member of the Tory party. The new member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has done a better job for the native people during his short time in this House of Commons than the member for Yukon in the entire period he has been here. There can be no doubt about that.
There is one point I should like to make to the minister before this debate closes. In speaking of national parks there is one more thing I wish to draw to his attention. I refer to the establishment of a very large number of ecological reserves from one end of Canada to the other. He knows about the activity which is going on in this field and I hope he will assist in the establishment of these reserves which could be used for research purposes in the years to come.
I see it is ten o'clock. There are other things I should like to say, but we will abide by the commitment to let the bill pass.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It appears that the House might be ready for the question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which I am raising again this evening, relates to a question that was asked on March 14, as recorded at page 505 of Hansard, with respect to the hoped for final solution with regard to the increasing frequency of disruptive rail ferry tie-ups primarily between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and also, of course, since the time of
Adjournment Debate
confederation with respect to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Hon. members will recall that in August of last year, during the latter part of the month, we were called back to Ottawa in order to pass legislation that would end the rail strike at that time. It is undoubtedly true that the strike created considerable difficulties for people all across Canada, but I think we must admit at the outset that there were two provinces that were more disastrously affected than any others, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
At the time of the debate, hon. members may also recall that I sought an assurance, and I think received one, from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) that some mechanism would be established after the resolution of that strike in order that we might have a permanent means of ensuring continuity of service, as guaranteed under confederation, between these two island provinces and the mainland. Some hon. members may be aware, as well, that following the passage of that legislation in September and October I addressed correspondence to the responsible Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) as well as to the premiers of the two island provinces. In the first letter, dated September 14, I merely laid out the facts again and re-emphasized what had been said during the debate on August 31, that the departments of labour and transport must come to grips with the CNR, in this instance, and with the respective unions in order to work out a format that would be acceptable to all parties.
On October 9 I laid out a specific alternative, quite a radical one and one that received a fair amount of public discussion at the time. Therefore, on March 14 I concluded, after passage of more than half a year that it was quite likely that either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour would be able to report on satisfactory progress. I was shocked to discover from the answer that I received initially from the Minister of Transport that there was a protest being carried out with respect to this problem. That was a pretty vague answer to the important question that was before him. Even later, the Minister of Labour said that officials from his department had been meeting with officials of appropriate unions in an endeavour to work out some acceptable arrangements to make sure there would not be a work stoppage in the future.
You can imagine my shock to see across my desk two or three days ago a press release from the Minister of Labour indicating that he was pleased with the results of his first meeting with Canada's top rail union leaders to discuss alternatives to confrontation during forthcoming negotiations for new contracts in the railway industry. What has the minister being doing for the last six months? Why, in spite of the correspondence not only from myself but, I am sure, from other concerned members from these two island provinces and from provincial officials, has literally nothing taken place?
We are told the following in this press release of March 27:
The thrust of the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall... as well as the alternatives suggested by labour minister Munro were examined in detail-
We are not given any indication of what the minister's alternatives were. Finally, in this release we are told that
1178

April 4, 1974
Adjournment Debate
the meeting "resulted from an exchange of letters last February between Mr. Munro and Mr. McGregor". I think it is absolutely intolerable that a minister of the Crown who accepts responsibility for labour harmony and the reconciliation of difficult labour questions in this country should, having gone through the experience of August, 1973, have let lapse a considerable number of months before beginning to come to terms with this most difficult problem. The premier of P.E.I. suggested the alternative of a separate Crown corporation. Other members of the House have suggested the establishment of a special authority under the Ministry of Transport.
My own proposal which is recorded in Hansard of October 26, 1973, at page 7266, spells out what I will refer to as a double penalty, military alternative for maintaining continuity of service. I will not go into the details here. One thing is certain, with which I hope the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport will agree, that we are dealing with a vital service which was guaranteed and binding under the pact of confederation entered into by these two island provinces.
I find it shocking and unacceptable that to this date, some six or seven months later, we have not progressed. There is no indication that we will have this problem resolved shortly. What is most terrifying of all is that a comment appears in the minister's press release as follows:
The fact that we are sitting down together, looking ahead to some nine months from now, indicates we are ail aware of the public's concern if the next round of railway bargaining should end in a strike.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Which minister?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The Minister of Labour. Is this an indication that we are on the path of another disruption of transportation between the two island provinces? Is this the kind of responsible action taken by this minister and the Minister of Transport to provide an acceptable solution? I hope that tonight the parliamentary secretary can give us much more information than we have had to date. The people of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island are fed up with this lack of responsibility toward this vital question.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility this evening is to answer on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). If the hon. member has some questions for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), I am sure he knows the way to approach that problem. In regard to the question he referred to, the Minister of Transport recognizes the problems created by the disruption of service between Borden and Cape Tormentine as part of the Canadian National Railways' railway strike in 1973 and is anxious to find solutions. However, since there are alternative means of moving surface traffic to and from Prince Edward Island, he does not believe that he would be justified in taking any action which would interfere with the right to strike enjoyed by many Canadian workers.
We are hopeful that a partial solution might lie in the logical separation of railway and ferry matters, and to this end the east coast marine and ferry service was set up in late 1973 as a separate body within the CN organization to manage and operate the ferries and coastal service en-

trusted to CNR by the Ministry of Transport. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any recurrence of the problems encountered as a result of the 1973 railway strike, the east coast marine and ferry service has entered into discussions with the various unions involved and we are optimistic that a mutually acceptable solution will be found.


AGRICULTURE-ACTION TO ENSURE PACKING PLANTS PASS ON BEEF SUBSIDY TO PRODUCERS
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, on March 29 of this year I raised a question with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on the subsidy which he announced, pointing out that it goes directly to the packer and not to the producer. I asked the minister to inform the House and the beef producers of Canada of any move to assure the producers that they will be gaining a subsidy and the packers will not. The minister gave no definite assurance to the producers of this country that they would receive that subsidy. I think this is a most serious situation, Mr. Speaker.
When the government announced a seven cents subsidy on certain grades of wheat, a number of factors were involved which pointed up that the subsidy would not go to the producer, and the consumers of Canada ought to know this. Number one, the payment of the subsidy is not made to the producer in any manner; it is made to the packer. Number two, when the subsidy was announced, the price on the Canadian market fell by an amount at least equal to the subsidy, so that the only beneficiary of the subsidy will be the packing industry.
The problem with the subsidy stems from the manner in which it is paid to the packer. There is no assurance for the consumer of this country that price will go down. There is no assurance, in other words, that although the price on the market has gone down in the last week, the saving will be passed on to the consumer. There is no evidence of any mechanism in the Department of Agriculture to make sure that any price reduction in the marketplace will be passed on to the consumer. So we have created the situation in which packers in this country can rip off the government and Canadian taxpayers. They can pay reduced prices to producers but not pass on the savings to the consumer. That is a bonanza for the middleman, I hope this problem will be dealt with in the answer given this evening.
At this point in time, because of concern expressed by cattle associations in Canada, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association in particular, over the influx of American beef into Canada there is support for a system of tariffs which could drive a wedge into the North American market. Because the associations demanded such action, the government acted. To keep prices down, the government paid a subsidy. I submit that by paying a subsidy to packers, who are to pass it on to producers, the government created a situation which allowed the packers to drive down the market price to the level of the American market. This has happened in the last few weeks.
April 4, 1974

If I as a member of parliament am critical of the manner in which the subsidy is paid, it is also my responsibility to suggest alternative courses. First, if you are to interfere with the market place you ought to establish a guaranteed price to the producer. The difference between the actual going price and the guaranteed price ought to be paid directly to the producer. Second, although not all grades were covered in the initial announcement, I commend the government for moving in the direction of covering all grades. That was a good move. Third, you must allow the North American market as a whole over the long term to establish a balance between supply and demand. The government cannot afford to create a strictly Canadian market. We are a country of only 22 million people. The beef producers of this country are interested in the Canadian market as well as in the international market. In that sense, I submit we should only act after consultation and negotiation with the Americans. We can ill-afford to cut ourselves off from a market of 240 million people. The beef industry needs the North American market as a whole.
Fourth, as we have learned, any attempt to freeze the price of a commodity such as beef is totally unrealistic. You cannot apply such a freeze to the beef industry. Attempts to freeze prices per se lead to disaster, as has been demonstrated. In short, you will meet the problem of the importation of American beef to Canada through a joint agreement between the two countries and not by putting up barriers and tariff walls to which I am basically opposed. You must move in the direction of a reciprocal, two-way quota system which will operate between the two countries in the direction of an overall agreement which will allow so many head of American cattle to come to Canada and so many head of Canadian cattle to go to the American market. The agreement must be based on the share of the market which each country's industry has enjoyed in the last five years.
Finally, I predict that if the American cattle industry again uses DES in the rearing of cattle, the government will restrict importation; it will go almost as far as closing the border. This will drive up the price on the Canadian market. That will happen within the next six weeks. It is a whole new kettle of fish for the government. They ought to attempt in every possible way to get the American government to outlaw the use of DES in the United States, or within the next six weeks the government will be outlawing so many American cattle that it will have closed off the Canadian border.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the beef program is designed to improve the returns of beef producers which have been too low due in large measure to government action in the United States. The results of this action are still being felt by producers in this country. With the subsidy now in effect, Canadian producers marketing A, B and C cattle are receiving market price plus five cents per pound. On the basis of today's prices, Canadian producers are receiving a price about $10 per hundredweight above the price prevailing in the United States. With respect to the producer, the payment of subsidy is quite simple. The producer receives the subsidy at the time of sale, either in
Adjournment Debate
the sale price or added to the price, if the sale price does not include the premium.
The changes the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) announced last weekend have improved the situation considerably, and the strengthening of market prices this week reflect this improvement. The hon. member opposite will be pleased to note that the number of cattle entering Canada from the United States has dropped off dramatically since the introduction of this much needed program. The producer has always had to decide whether or not he was satisfied with the price he was being offered for his animals. There is no difference now. The producer simply has to satisfy himself that he is getting the $5 per hundredweight on his eligible cattle.
In conclusion, if the hon. member opposite or any hon. member has any evidence of anyone misusing or trying to take advantage of this program, the Minister of Agriculture would appreciate its being brought to his attention at once.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS-EDMONTON-REASON FOR REPORTED PURCHASE BY GOVERNMENT OF HOLY REDEEMER COLLEGE
Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last, April 2, I put the following question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), as reported at page 1069 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact the government has reportedly purchased the Holy Redeemer College which lies on the southern outskirts of the city of Edmonton, would the minister tell the House what the government intends to do with this institution?
Your Honour saw fit to rule the question out of order at that time but was gracious enough to suggest that it be raised at the time of adjournment. This matter was first made known to the people of the area by way of a newspaper article some two weeks ago in the city of Edmonton. That report stated that the Holy Redeemer College was to be used as a minimum security institution. Needless to say, the residents of the area were deeply concerned by this report, particularly as they had no previous knowledge of such an intention and had been given no opportunity to make their views or wishes known.
The location of this college is among some of the finest residences and is a totally residential community adjacent to the city of Edmonton. Many of the residents have purchased or built homes of very substantial value, and in my opinion they have cause to be concerned by the appearance of a report such as I have described. The value of properties in the area would obviously be adversely affected and the quiet way of life the residents enjoy would be jeopardized.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, a very disturbing aspect of this question came to my attention only yesterday. I had every intention of raising this matter on Tuesday, April 2, the day on which I put the question and the day on which Your Honour advised me that it might be raised at the time of adjournment. The reason I did not raise it on Tuesday night was simply that the minister advised me it would be better for me to delay my question because he
27451-12,!

April 4, 1974
Adjournment Debate
was unable to obtain the necessary information at such short order. Yesterday, however, the Edmonton Journal carried a report containing some of the information I had sought in my question. Since the minister had stated he was unable to assist me because of lack of information, I am forced to wonder how it is that he could assist the press. Perhaps he would be good enough to explain this in his reply.
Tonight I am seeking to obtain from the minister a simple undertaking. I am asking him to give the residents of the area his word that there will be no prisoners housed in the institution either in the period immediately ahead or at any time in the future and, further, that if he should at any time decide to adapt facilities which have been used for other purposes with the intention of housing prisoners therein, he will make this intention known to the residents of the areas affected and arrange that public meetings will be held accordingly.
It is my opinion, strongly held, that a law-abiding citizen should enjoy the right to select a site, build a home and raise his family in an atmosphere of security. Residential areas should be maintained in the character intended
and home owners should not be faced with the insecurity resulting from penal institutions being placed in their midst.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Hollands) and in response to his question, may I say the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) would like to make it clear at the outset that while an option has been taken on this property in order to protect the potential interests of the Canadian Penitentiary Service related to its possible needs, no final purchase has as yet been made. The Solicitor General wishes to add that the Canadian Penitentiary Service is interested in the possibility of employing the Holy Redeemer College facilities as a staff training college for the Service in the prairie region.
Discussions are now going on with the government of Alberta with a view to determining our respective needs in the area. The Solicitor General would like to assure the House that no final action will be taken on this matter in the absence of the fullest consultation with the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, April 5, 1974