1984-06-01

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement regarding the Shelburne County enforcement crisis. By condoning the oppressive crackdown on lobster fishermen in southwestern Nova Scotia, the present Liberal Government is once again demonstrating its insensitivity to the need for Canadians in small communities to retain their dignity and economic self-determination.
These fishermen are being unfairly attacked because they were honest enough to inform the Government that the lobster trap limit set in 1968 was being over-fished and needed to be revised. Last fall, these fishermen were anxious to consult with federal officials and resolve the issue, but it soon became clear that the Government did not respect the knowledge and opinions of the fishermen. The Government was determined to bring in its heavy artillery and enforce the old trap limit in spite of evidence that lobster stocks are increasing. This enforcement would ultimately keep these fishermen below the poverty line, or drive them out of business altogether.
It is not only the fishermen who are under attack but the entire social fabric of Shelburne County. The reputation of the Crown is being defiled in the process. Fisheries officers are destroying legal fishing gear and refusing to acknowledge the fact. They are also guilty of making misleading statements and of unreasonable search and seizures, harassment, and unequal application of the law. Every attempt by fishermen to resolve this issue peacefully has been contemptuously rejected. I wrote to the Minister about this on February 28-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -and have received no response.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days, there have been frequent comments on television and on the radio that Indians are overfishing salmon. I would like to say that this is not altogether true, because last November, when the Government of Canada, through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, purchased fishing rights for the Mingan River, the Montagnais Indians in the area unanimously decided to refrain from all fishing in this river, in order to protect the salmon and evaluate fish stocks.
Mr. Speaker, what we must understand at this point is that the issue is not really the Indians' salmon fishing rights but their ownership claim on the salmon rivers.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are two things we must distinguish here. When the media tell us that the Indians refuse to observe salmon quotas, it is not the same as being told they refuse to act responsibly in this area. By fishing selectively, the Indians want to show us that they own these rivers. What the provinces must do is ensure that the Indians are given responsibility for the rivers and leave it at that. I am convinced the Indians will do exactly what they did on the Mingan River this year, where no salmon was taken at all. They are now proceeding with a scientific evaluation of the fish stocks.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should be careful when the media say the Indians are acting irresponsibly with respect to salmon fishing, because it is another case of claims being made on the basis of aboriginal rights.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions my colleague, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), has risen in this House to condemn the action by the United States of putting out to tender sub-sea oil and gas drilling leases in the Dixon Entrance area off the coast of British Columbia in waters which belong to Canada. This action constitutes a deliberate slight to Canadian sovereignty and threatens the peaceable resolution

June 1, 1984
of Canada-U.S. boundary disputes, yet our own Government stands mutely by and does virtually nothing.
It has now come to my attention that the United States plans to issue more oil and gas leases, this time in the Canadian sector of the Beaufort Sea east of the 141st meridian. As the Member of Parliament who represents the area concerned, I take great exception to this unwarranted, incautious, and antagonistic proposal, and call upon the Government of Canada to protest this infringement on our national sovereignty in the strongest possible terms.

[DOT] (mo)


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has recently announced that it is increasing the veterans allowances for those veterans whose claims are recognized, which, of course, must be welcomed by everyone. But the Government should also deal with the problem of veterans whose claims have not been recognized. There are many veterans of World War II who claim that they have pensionable injuries which are not being recognized or are being underrated by the Pension Review Board. Some of them received back or leg injuries which seemed slight at the time of discharge when they were young and healthy, but now, after many years of heavy industrial work, are seriously hindering the ability of these veterans to earn a living.
Some of these veterans have hearing problems, such as tinnitus, which can be related to the heavy bombardment they endured at places such as Arnhem. However, because it took years to show up, their claims are either not recognized or are very slightly recognized.
Many of these people have organized into a new group called "Suffering Veterans", some being members of the Canadian Legion and some not. They are trying to bring their case to public attention. When we have $100,000, which I welcome, to give to those veterans whose claims are recognized, we should also consider doing something for those whose claims are not recognized or are being underrated, in the opinion of the claimants. I would urge the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time, unfortunately, has expired.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, Liberal Members are so in the habit of blaming others for all of our nation's difficulties that they forget to look at themselves. According to the Liberals, high interest rates are the
responsibility of the Yanks, and unemployment is the result of a world-wide condition. With respect to the national debt, the Liberals say: "Golly, that just happened. Don't blame us". And when the Ministers mess up with poor legislation and ridiculous scheduling of House business, the Liberals blame the Opposition.
But careless Liberal priorities were revealed last night. With real urgency to complete the Standing Committee study of the Western Grain Stabilization Act amendments, which will provide immediate financial relief for western farmers facing financial disaster, who fails to have members in attendance? The Liberals. To the shame of the 145 Members of the Liberal Party in Parliament, they could not find even two of that number who had enough interest to attend. The Liberal Chairman would not try to fill the empty chairs, saying: "I have 300 miles to drive tonight". What a way to run a country! What a way to accept responsibility!
Who is responsible for the failure to get Bill C-33 out of committee? Not the six opposition Members who waited for Liberal Members to show up. This is the same Liberal gang who are responsible for high interest rates, the national debt, two million unemployed, and the lack of respect which many Canadians hold for the institution-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult enough in these hard economic times for average Canadians to live comfortably on their earnings. For our elderly living on low and fixed incomes it is virtually impossible. Our senior citizens struggle to stay alive while the Liberal Government wastes billions of Canadians' dollars on Canadair, de Havilland, Petrofina, and Maislin. Now the Liberals are trying to pay off their massive deficit on the backs of Canadians, taxing everyone and everything in sight, including the elderly.
Previously, when applying for the guaranteed income supplement, workers' compensation benefits were not counted as income, because a disability is a disability regardless of age. This year the Government decided that workers' disability benefits must be counted as income. Senior citizens who have suffered an injury on the job need and deserve the disability benefits which they effectively lose through this totally unnecessary government action.
There is a real fear among our senior citizens that this Liberal Government, insatiable in its quest for tax revenue, will directly tax workers' compensation benefits next. This must not be allowed to happen.
June 1, 1984

[DOT] (ms)
After a two-year delay, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has the nerve to announce a $25 increase in the GIS, while simultaneously declaring compensation benefits must be counted as income. This type of Liberal chicanery has driven one of my constituents, Mr. Harry Kuzick, of Surrey, B.C., to express his frustration: "Do those Liberal idiots in Ottawa know what $70 means to an elderly person's income?"


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, the House is so quiet today I think I should make an announcement. The Department of Employment and Immigration will announce in early June a new program called the Volunteer Initiatives Program. It is for people on unemployment insurance who are unlikely to find work. It will pay $50 a week to sponsors for their overhead. I am not sure whether it will pay the people on unemployment insurance any extra money. The sponsors are charities, schools, hospitals, and some community centres.
The problem is that this program is the old Liberal shell game of job creation. You take some workers off the streets and possibly replace people who are already working full time in these voluntary organizations. The Government is again using charities to fill gaps in the Public Service. We in B.C. know what it is like when nurses are laid off and low wage, unskilled volunteers are hired to fill their place.
I have three suggestions for the Government, one, that there be a mechanism in this program to protect existing workers in agencies so that we are not just displacing existing workers. Second, more people should be eligible. People on welfare, for example, should be eligible. Third, we should look at a full-scale program of job creation, not just one more stop gap, band-aid measure.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. He will know that the Minister of Sport, through his executive assistant, has put his riding president, friends of the Minister of Finance and relatives of Liberal MPs on the payroll of the Sports Pool. The
Oral Questions
latest news is that another of the Minister's election organizers, Mr. Norman Merssier, has been hired as comptroller of the Sports Pool, at a salary of $70,000 a year. Will the Minister now admit that, even for a Liberal, this Minister has gone too far? Or has the Liberal Party become so fat and arrogant that there is no standard of public morality below which it will not sink?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite my hon. friend to take that information with a grain of salt. For example, I was reading in one of the papers recently that a gentleman by the name of Mr. Deschesne from St. Laurent was a well-known Liberal organizer. My information is that this particular gentleman never got involved in politics or any political party at all. As a matter of fact, one wonders whether he ever voted. I think my friend should be very careful in throwing names around, and to begin with make sure he has the right information.
Secondly, the Minister has answered this question extensively in the House, saying that the people hired by the Corporation were hired after the normal interviews were carried out, and the decisions were taken by the Corporation itself. I am sure that if my friend looks carefully he will know that one of the chief organizers of his friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Rosedale, former Conservative Minister, was hired by the Corporation in a very senior position. If he looks carefully I am sure he will find Conservatives, and maybe even a few NDP people, among the staff in the organization. The Minister has said that the hiring was not based on political affiliation.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that advertising contracts have been let without tender to Liberal firms. The Minister will know that employees have been hired temporarily for six months at salaries of $40,000, with expense allowances, and two years' severance built into their contracts. He will also know that the Minister of Sport, who says it is just a sports pool, held meetings especially with members of the Liberal Caucus in order to tell them how to get their relatives, friends and neighbours on the payroll of the Sports Pool. How long does this have to go on before the Government will finally recognize that it is time for the House of Commons to have a full inquiry into the hiring practices, advertising practices, and employment contracts which have been let by the Sports Pool at the request of the Minister responsible for sports?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will take the case of the advertising companies. McLaren's advertising is doing the English advertising, and Planicom is doing the French advertising. Together these companies have several hundred employees. If my friend wants to investigate, I am sure he will find that there are people of all political affiliations and parties working for these two large organiza-
4272

June 1, 1984
Oral Questions
tions. Both of them are recognized as outstanding advertising agencies in Canada. Both of them have won prizes from their national associations for the quality of their work. Both of them have been recognized by receiving large contracts from private firms all across Canada. These are the facts.
My friend should look at the facts and recognize that the quality of those firms compares favourably with any other corporation. As the Minister has already said, the decision in that regard was made by the Corporation on the basis of the quality of the work which was going to be provided by those firms, and on the basis of their track record in terms of performance in the private sector over the last several years.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACTS BE TABLED
John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, let the Minister explain why contracts are let by the Government without tender. The Minister says this is just a normal matter. Will the Government arrange to have all of the contracts which have been let, and all of the employment arrangements which have been made, tabled in the House of Commons so that Members of the House may see whether the protestations of innocence are accurate, or whether in fact what we believe to be true is the case, that is, that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) is proving to be no amateur at patronage, potentially unfit for office, and an even sleazier user of patronage than the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, by his own sleaziness the Hon. Member shows that he is the one who is mainly unfit to sit in the House of Commons. I would hope that the people of his riding will take care of that when the next election comes.


Mr. Mayer:: Call it. Let them decide.


Marc Lalonde: It will be called in due time. You are going down fast enough. We will give you a little more time to go down even further, and then you will see.


An Hon. Member:: Call an election.


Marc Lalonde: The Hon. Member knows the rules of the House very well. If he is interested in getting information, he can put a question on the Order Paper. That is one way of doing it. In addition, there are parliamentary committees where the Estimates of all Departments are put forward. Witnesses can be called, and Members can ask for any information they wish to have. He knows what the rules of the House are. Rather than grandstanding like he does at the present time, and rather than resorting to the kind of phoney allegations he is making, he should at least read the rules of the House, and follow them.


PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF BROCHURE ON NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE RESOURCE ISSUE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not for the OECD reject. It is for the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Energy. The OECD reject has proved himself well rejected.
Apparently the Government has made a decision to send a brochure out to every householder in Newfoundland two days before the Liberal leadership convention which will come in the middle of the month. It is supposed to deal with the Government's offer to the Province of Newfoundland with regard to the offshore mineral question. Cabinet has apparently approved this. The only question remaining is whether it should be signed by the Minister of State (Mines), the Minister from Newfoundland, or the Minister of Energy who, as we know, is the new Rocky and a leadership contender.
What is the purpose of the Government and the Department of Energy now in sending out such a brochure over a year and a half after all negotiations ended? Why are they sending it out? What will it cost the taxpayers? The cost will be at least $50,000 to $100,000. Why is this felt to be necessary? Is this to give publicity and support to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his bid for the leadership? Just what is the purpose that lies behind this latest sleaze-bag effort in Newfoundland?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should think that the purpose of the effort should be self evident, that is, to give the people of Newfoundland the information that they ought to have about the attitude of the federal Government. I understand that the Government of Newfoundland has been quite active in making known to the people of Newfoundland its views on the offshore question. Doesn't the Hon. Member think it is reasonable that they ought to know what the federal attitude is, to enable them to make up their own minds? That is the sole purpose. I think that is pretty reasonable.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman's definition of reasonable does not correspond with ours.


CONTENT OF BROCHURE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there was some suggestion that this brochure might also explain what the agreement is that the Government is entering into with Nova Scotia. Certainly the documents that were issued yesterday obscure every provision of the agreement.
Will there be photographs of these Ministers in the brochure and, if so, is there not a grave danger that there might be a rash of premature births in Newfoundland if the pictures of these gargoyles get into every household in Newfoundland in such an insidious manner? Can the Deputy Prime Minister
June 1, 1984

promise the House that there will be no photographs of those Ministers, particularly not of the two I have mentioned?
Will the brochure explain why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was repudiated by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister after he reached a verbal agreement with the Newfoundland Government on the offshore matter? Could he please deal with those questions in a succinct and reasonable manner?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what photographs, if any, will appear in the brochure, but I would think that if the people of Newfoundland can stand the photographs of the Premier of the Province and of the Hon. Member, they can pretty well stand anything.


SOCIAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. As the Minister knows, 85 per cent of the children in Canada who have need are denied access to daycare. She said in committee yesterday that she, as Minister, was "persuaded there was a need for action now". Yet the day before she announced the establishment of a committee that would have the task of looking into ways of somehow improving the situation but would not report back until the end of this year.
Given the real need of the children of Canada, which the Minister has publicly discussed herself, is the Government committed to the principle of universal accessible daycare for all of Canada's children?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must be aware of the controversy that rages around this particular issue, and he must be also aware of the provincial sensitivities. That is why I met with my provincial counterparts on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week to discuss this very issue in depth.
I might add that the provinces justly guard their area of jurisdiction very carefully and want to be very sure of the direction we are taking, to ensure that we do indeed face the realities of child care needs in this country but do so on a flexible basis, and on the understanding that there are many kinds of daycare. We are all committed to changes to meet the needs in the country. I can assure the Hon. Member that, with the formation of this task force, we at the federal government level are taking a very real position of leadership in this area.


John Edward Broadbent: That is to define leadership as simply setting up a committee to study something for another six months. Once the report comes in, presumably it will be another six months before whatever Government is in power acts on it.
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION-REQUEST FOR COMMITMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said that there is a need for action. We agree. Instead of setting up committees, will the Minister take action? The current jurisdictional authority is with the provinces. However, when we took action on medicare the federal Government committed itself to the principle and then negotiated ways of implementing that principle with the provinces. I want the Minister to be clear cut today. Will she tell the House if the federal Government, the Liberal Party of Canada, is committed to the principle of universally accessible daycare?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that the federal Government is committed to changes in the daycare system. Whether the kind of system the New Democratic Party wants to put in place is the right answer, we do not yet know. It is clear the NDP is committed to this. What we, the Government, are committed to is a program that will meet the needs of the country. If the New Democratic Party were to examine the real childcare needs in the country, the NDP would know that there is not universal support for the kind of universal daycare the Hon. Member is describing. There is universal support for change, the kind of change that will meet the real needs of the parents and the children of this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at one time there was not universal support in this country for medicare either, but some parties took leadership on the issue to build universal support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ASSOCIATION'S FUNDING PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is clearly not committing herself to the principle at all. She has said there is an immediate need for the children. She said:
The current situation is just not acceptable.
Those are the Minister's words. On the question of immediate need for all the children of Canada, she has had a proposal submitted to her by the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association for an immediate grant of $5 per day from the federal Government for each licensed daycare space. That would amount to only 15 per cent of what the Government used to bail out Canadair. Will the Government at least commit itself, before Parliament recesses at the end of this month, to spending this minimal amount of money of $5 per day which the children of Canada badly need?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, no one knows better than I the requirements of daycare in this country. The Hon. Member should be very much aware of what the Government has done in this area. Through the CAP program we are spending something like $150 million a year, and we are also spending an incredible amount of money through the tax system. This Govern-

June 1, 1984
Oral Questions
ment has already indicated that we are prepared to move, and we have moved. We upped the childcare deduction from $1,000 to $2,000 last year, to a maximum of $8,000 per family. That is a considerable amount of money and a clear indication of this Government's commitment to this problem.
The Hon. Member brings up the Canadian Day Care Advocacy position, which is a very valid one, but it is only one position. I suggest the Hon. Member take a more realistic position. I suggest he sit down with representatives of those provincial Governments with whom I sat down to hear what their positions are, and then begin to negotiate honestly and fairly to do something. We are prepared to do that. I suggest he not make empty statements about what the NDP would do, because we know very well the NDP cannot do it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY OSKAR FISCHER, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
Mr. Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the German Democratic Republic, led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Oskar Fischer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISTRIBUTION OF PROPOSED BROCHURE IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister and it is supplementary to the one asked by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West. Why is the Government of Canada sending a brochure to the general population in Newfoundland? Will the Government be sending a brochure, a direct mailing, to the other coastal provinces, such as British Columbia? Why is the Government going over the head of the Government of Newfoundland in this way as opposed to taking the initiative to resume negotiations? More particularly, now that we have a Bill before the House, putting the Nova Scotia agreement in legislative form, why did the Government not take that opportunity to announce its position to the people of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are not going over the head of the Government of Newfoundland.


Mr. Forrestall:: You are going behind its back.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Surely the Government of Canada has an equal right with the Government of Newfoundland to advise the people of that province what its policies are. I understand
the Government of Newfoundland has been very diligent in ensuring that the people of the province know what it thinks about the off-shore. I believe it is in the interests of the people of Newfoundland to know what the federal Government is prepared to do. They can look at that, understand, and make their own judgment. It seems to me the maximum information that the people of Newfoundland have, the better. I do not understand why Newfoundland Members would object to that, unless they feel the attitude of the federal Government somehow ought to be concealed from the people of Newfoundland, or misrepresented.


J. Michael Forrestall: You are an expert at that.


TIMING OF DISTRIBUTION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, all I am saying to the Acting Prime Minister is that he will have an opportunity and the Government will have an opportunity, to tell the people of Newfoundland and the people of Canada just exactly what their position is when the Nova Scotia legislation is debated. I suspect the real reason is an intrusion into the Liberal leadership convention by this Government at taxpayers' expense, in order to help the aspirations of the Minister of Energy.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the on-going, whatever one might want to call it, debate, controversy, about the off-shore has nothing to do with the Liberal leadership race. It existed long before that event took place-


J. Michael Forrestall: Then keep it out of the race.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and probably it will continue well after it. I understand, and the Hon. Member can enlighten the House, that the Government of Newfoundland has been very active at taxpayers' expense, telling the people of Newfoundland what it believes about the off-shore. Is it not reasonable that the federal Government should be able to put its case before the people of Newfoundland? I think it is an act of confidence and an act of respect for the people of that province that we are prepared to tell them what we are prepared to do, and to let them make up their minds.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board, but he has left the Chamber again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.
June 1, 1984


DISASTERS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council, who has responsibility for Emergency Planning Canada. My question relates to the very serious situation that exists in northern Saskatchewan's agricultural areas. Because such severe weather conditions have occurred, there is a serious matter which negatively affects farming operations in that area. Has the Minister been in receipt, through Emergency Planning Canada, of requests for financial assistance to this important part of our country? Is Emergency Planning Canada going to respond in a positive way?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, we have a regional office in that region and we are in close communication with it. I want to assure the Hon. Member that if the natural disaster referred to meets the thresholds of our national policy to help regions suffering from such natural disasters, we will be pleased to assist in a financial way. We cannot do that unless we receive a request from the province, and we have not yet received a request from the Province of Saskatchewan. The minute we receive that request, I want to assure the Hon. Member that we will be most pleased to help in the same way as we have very often in the past helped many other regions of the country.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Province of Saskatchewan is taking action with respect to this unfortunate situation in northern Saskatchewan.
By way of a supplementary question, will the President of the Privy Council, as a member of the national Government, take the initiative and make inquiries to ensure if at all possible the wheels are put into motion so that we can get some assistance in northern Saskatchewan to help those people who are operating farms in that part of the country?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as I have just stated, whenever a natural disaster occurs in an area of the country, we usually have in the vicinity a regional office where the manager makes the necessary investigation and keeps us informed about any development. He is also there to provide all required information to the Provinces or regions involved and to brief them on how to proceed to apply for federal assistance if the criteria underlying our assistance policy in cases of natural disaster are met.
In this case, I can repeat what I have just told the Hon. Member in my answer to his previous question, namely that we have a regional director in the area, that we shall see to it that the Province is informed of all its rights and that we shall
Presence in Gallery
co-operate fully to provide assistance if at all possible under the provisions of our federal assistance program in cases of natural disasters.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Council on the Status of Women or to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. In any case, I will direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to find out whether there is any truth to the rumour we heard this morning about a woman being appointed as new chairperson of the CN board of directors.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, all Canadian women were very pleased this morning to learn that the Minister of Transport has appointed a woman, Mrs. Betty Hewes, as the new chairperson of the CN board of directors. As you know, Mrs. Hewes is from the City of Edmonton and she has a wide experience in the field of public administration and social affairs. She has been a member of Edmonton's municipal council for ten years, sits on Canada health councils on mental health, and is a former special adviser to the Minister of Health of the Province of Alberta.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, this is a great day as much for Canada as for the CN which will be headed by an extremely competent chairperson who will represent all Canadian women and make them proud. We are delighted and, on behalf of all my colleagues, I want to extend to Mrs. Hewes our best wishes of success in her new career.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Illinois, the Hon. George Ryan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 1, 1984
Oral Questions PARLIAMENT HILL


AUTHORITY FOR USE BY PEACE CAMP
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Each day as I come from the Confederation Building I notice a mini campground in front of the entrance to this great place, the House of Commons. I understand that the grounds are under the Minister's jurisdiction, and I ask him to clarify the status of the public grounds around Parliament Hill. Do these members of a special interest group have an agreement with Public Works, or are they paying rent?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member is referring to what has commonly become known as the Peace Camp. Am I correct? This situation arose quite a long time ago, as the Hon. Member knows. In fact it lasted throughout the winter. Perhaps the Hon. Member knows that under the previous administrative arrangements there was a committee composed of a number of Departments which, in fact, gave permission for the initial demonstration or manifestation of views to take place. So far the Government has not chosen to put an end to this expression of views.


CAMPING REGULATIONS
William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I would then assume that any Canadian citizen or group of Canadian citizens could apply for permission to camp there, or camp there without permission. What action would the Government take? Would they be welcome to camp there during the summer season in particular when there are a lot of campers who would be interested in such a nice camping spot?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the NCC provides other camping facilities with somewhat better services than those provided in front of the Centennial Flame. That being said, it is because of the possibility that other groups might want to set up a permanent Hyde Park corner type of arrangement that we are reviewing the administrative processes that I mentioned earlier.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure he is aware by now that the auctioneers presently running British Columbia, known as the Socreds, who are the Liberal wing in the West, have authorized in principle the export of fresh water from British Columbia. A short time ago, and I am glad to see him in the Chamber today, the Hon. Member for Dollard proposed damming the southern part of James Bay
with a 160 kilometre-long dike and diverting those rivers to the United States, undisputed by any members of Cabinet as to the legality or illegality of such a proposal.
In a letter to me dated February 3, the Minister said, and I quote:
-the Government of Canada has never formally sanctioned any water export scheme, and is clearly on record as opposing the export of our water resources. Provincial statements parallel federal policy in this regard.
Will the Minister tell us whether the proposal by the British Columbia Government is legal or illegal? Since it is not sanctioned, what does that mean? Will he stop it or not?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, as a citizen of British Columbia the Hon. Member holds part of the responsibility for that Province being up for sale. Having said that, I would confirm the letter from which he is quoting dated last February, by saying that a number of ideas have been floating around, not just in British Columbia, about water diversion and the export of water. Nevertheless, our position on that is clear and consistent. We do not subscribe to this notion. We reject the contention that water is available for export. This will be a very important commodity for Canadians in the decades ahead. We therefore reject any such notion, whether it comes from provinces, municipalities, or regions in the North.


JAMES BAY WATER RESOURCES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The Minister wrote me on February 15 stating that he supports the export of Canadian pop, Canadian beer and Canadian booze, but, to quote him: "You can be assured that the policy of the Government of Canada is not to sanction the export of fresh water." I wonder whether the Minister had his thinking cap on this morning and whether he can tell us if he supports and endorses the proposal by the Hon. Member for Dollard to divert James Bay to the United States, and what he thinks sanctions are in terms of the approval in principle by British Columbia to export water internationally.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is concerned about moving from one Minister to another for supplementaries.


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: Either we have procedures in the House or we do not. The Chair will permit the supplementary question.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, we certainly subscribe to the idea of exporting beer to any part of the world that recognizes the high quality of our product, but we do not subscribe to the idea of exporting our water. It is as simple as that.
June 1, 1984


NATIONAL DEFENCE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. It has to do with the engine problems experienced some months ago in the Aurora aircraft. Will the Minister indicate whether the engineering defects in those Pratt & Whitney engines have been overcome? Are all aircraft now operational?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. He is quite right that engineering difficulties were experienced with the guide vanes on the Aurora aircraft engines. Those problems have now been rectified. There has been a replacement of the guide vanes. I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that we identified the engineering changes that will be required. Those changes are presently being tested.


OPERATIONAL STATUS OF AIRCRAFT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether all the aircraft were operational. If not, can the Minister indicate when they will be operational? Can he indicate whether as a result of contracts with Pratt & Whitney and Lockheed, the cost of re-engineering these engines is to be borne by Canada, or were those engines under some form of warranty?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that as of this morning 12 of the 18 aircraft are fully operational. The changes have been effected on all the engines that had manifested difficulties. We have had a great deal of co-operation from the engine manufacturer and from Lockheed in effecting the changes. In terms of the cost, I will have to review and report to the hon. gentleman.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is further to the question of the Hon. Member for Skeena. I think he has misrepresented what is going on in British Columbia. What they are proposing to do is take water from a waterfall that is dumping into the Pacific Ocean, in a tanker and export it to Mexico. That would not be much more water than goes every year in beer bottles to the United States. What could possibly be wrong with taking water that is going to waste, and exporting it in a tanker to Mexico?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that a Conservative Member must
Oral Questions
rise to clarify a policy statement made by the Social Credit Government of British Columbia. I would draw his attention to the fact that when one begins to pump water into tanks for export purposes, one deprives the water basin of its water. In addition to that, it deprives the river of the biological role that that water plays downstream in its estuary. Thus, it affects the life forms along the shores and under the water surfaces that exist as a result of that water coming down from higher levels. Therefore, the removal of water has long-term and very serious biological effects. I am surprised that the Hon. Member is not aware of such an elementary notion, one that is known by every child in grade five.


WATERFALL ON PACIFIC COAST
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister, I would like to tell him that this water is coming from a waterfall and is dumping into the Pacific Ocean. It is not being caught upstream and diverted, but is going to waste. It is a completely different situation from the one which has been presented.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I have a little bit of envy for the capacity of the Hon. Member to think in compartments. To him, water that falls from a waterfall is different from water that flows along a river. I reject that notion because water is water, and it performs a biological role downstream no matter whether it comes from a waterfall or from a normal, peacefully flowing stream anywhere on this planet.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister is fully aware that the Sakharov case continues to receive world-wide attention and that much anxiety over this case is being expressed in Canada. That fact was impressed upon Dr. Arbatov, Director of the Soviet Institute of the United States and Canada, during his Wednesday visit to Parliament Hill. At that time we emphasized that abuses of human rights such as those affecting the Sakharovs are major impediments to achieving better relations between our countries.
Would the Minister inform the House of the results of the consultations he undertook with the Foreign Ministers of NATO countries during the NATO meeting in Washington earlier this week, which were prompted by the unprecedented action of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee in putting the prestige of that Committee behind a direct appeal to the President of the Soviet Union requesting that Andrei Sakharov and his wife Yelena Bonner be freed?

June 1, 1984
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter of this important human rights case in the House once again. Before I went to the NATO meeting in Washington we had an exchange, and I said that I would be exploring the possibility of having anything further done by the NATO Foreign Ministers.
Certainly the matter of the Sakharovs was mentioned frequently by Ministers in their assessments of East-West relations. On reflection, it appeared to me that it would probably be counterproductive for NATO Ministers to make a declaration on this particular case because it might be construed as being a confrontational and political move on the part of the Alliance, when it is really a case of human rights and humanitarian considerations. For that reason I certainly did not press my colleagues to go beyond that which each of us is presently doing, namely, carrying out the wishes of the people of all of our countries to urge the Soviet Union to respond to our pleas. As the Hon. Member knows, we have made quite a number of representations, and will continue to do so.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, may I remark to the Minister that that was the reason for the original suggestion which I made in the House, which was that this be done through the nations which are signatories to the Helsinki Accord, the C.S.C.E. nations, those nations which have a feeling for human rights that parallels our own.


REQUEST THAT JOINT APPEAL BE CONSIDERED
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister indicate to the House whether or not he would in fact be prepared to proceed with some type of joint appeal with the Helsinki Accord nations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, Canada would certainly have no difficulty joining in such an appeal. As the Hon. Member knows, the conference on disarmament in Europe is presently in progress in Stockholm and I believe that that is a place where one might make further representations or further references. I know that our ambassador in Stockholm has been discussing this matter with his colleagues.
As I said to the Hon. Member when responding to his question of last week, it is unlikely, and in fact will not happen, that all the signatories to the C.S.C.E. will sign such an agreement. However, while Canada would link itself with a joint appeal, 1 wonder whether such an appeal would be any stronger than the appeal which each of us in his own way and each country in its own way is presently making, and will continue to make to the Soviet Union.
The Hon. Member may have noticed that our friend, the Foreign Minister from Australia, made the case directly to Mr. Gromyko, as did Mr. Genscher and other Foreign Ministers of NATO who were recently in the Soviet Union. I think we are all working as hard as we can, and if there are other
more effective methods, including the one put forward by the Hon. Member, we are prepared to consider them.


EFFECT OF CLOTHING AND TEXTILE IMPORTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns international trade, and since the Minister responsible had to leave to catch a plane, he assured me that the Minister for External Relations would be willing to answer my question. As the Minister knows, Canada now allows a larger share than most other countries in western Europe and North America of its domestic market in clothing and textiles to be taken by imports from countries with Governments that have forced wages down to levels which are about 10 per cent of those in Canada. Furthermore, imports from those countries with very low wages have risen by about 20 per cent or 25 per cent over the last three years. This has created a serious unemployment crisis in the clothing manufacturing industry.
Will the Minister ask his colleague to reconsider his declared policy of reducing the import restrictions during the coming years? Will he ask him to institute import controls that enable Canadian clothing manufacturers to establish firm and long-lasting employment, on the basis of a reliable share of the Canadian domestic market?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the notes left by the Minister who is in charge of international trade really only cover the beef situation. I understand that there is such a thing as clothed beef, but clothing and beef are really two separate entities.
In the notes that are before me, the Minister makes the case that there are two types of beef imports. I myself knew that from being Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. One type is the chilled quality beef, and the other is the frozen beef. Most of our imports are in the second category. After that, the Minister makes the case that indeed there has been a tremendous increase in imports of beef, particularly from Nicaragua and Ireland, and that-


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the Minister that, as I understood it, the question related to clothing quotas.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, thank you for clarifiying the question to the Hon. Minister. I realize that he may have been concerned with dressed meat and thought that that was what I was talking about when I mentioned clothing manufacturing. However, I am very much concerned for the tens of thousands of jobs which may be lost in several parts of Canada, and I am sure that the people who may be laid off are not laughing.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would ask whether or not the Minister would ask his colleague, the Minister for
June 1, 1984

International Trade, to convene a meeting of the interested parties, particularly the manufacturers and unions in the clothing industry, with himself and his staff to address the present crisis which is being caused by the escalating share of the Canadian market being lost to countries that pay wages of 50 cents or less per hour?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that kind of discussion is really one in which judgment plays a very major role. How much Canada should import and how much it should prevent the importation of something is constantly under study. I am looking at the Minister of DRIE because his Department studies that situation constantly. It is a problem of balance. If we are too protective against other countries which try to export to Canada, obviously they will reciprocate in kind-sometimes in even greater measure against our exports abroad. The whole exercise is one of balance. It is quite normal that after talking to interest groups in this area, a Member of Parliament tends to exaggerate or tends to bend the other way. But the Government's role is really not to be excessive either way.


IMPACT OF BEEF IMPORTS FROM IRELAND
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question which I would like to address to the Minister for External Relations. My question relates to the Irish beef situation, which has been raised twice before in the House with the Minister of Agriculture and with the Minister for International Trade. I would like to ask the Minister if he is aware of the situation and aware of the serious problems which it is causing? Every time we import beef, we potentially put Canadians out of work.
I would also like to ask the Minister if he is prepared, through his Department, to assist the producers of the country develop their case in order that they will not have to spend the $60,000 or $80,000 that apparently it will cost to prove injury. Is the Minister, under the GATT arrangements, prepared to slow down beef imports? It is a very serious situation. I wonder if the Minister could bring us up to date on what the Government is doing or is prepared to do about this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly pleased to be viewed as relevant, because this is a subject on which the Minister for International Trade has beefed me up. The case which he is making is that indeed beef imports from Ireland have gone from 1.3 million pounds to 11.8 million pounds for a comparative period this year over last year. The Minister says that it is due to a substantial subsidy which was paid by the Government of Ireland. That subsidy has now been reduced. Consequently the effect on pricing in Canada is lower than it was-the difference being that it has gone from ten cents a pound to seven cents a pound.
The Minister has already indicated to the cattlemen-the beef producers in Canada-what to do in this instance, and
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie
has given them an indication of how to proceed. The Minister for International Trade ended his analysis by saying:
-it may be difficult to substantiate their claims as domestic prices have been relatively firm and have even shown some evidence of strengthening.
That is the description which the Minister gives of the present situation. It may not be conducive to dramatic action against Irish beef.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ASSIST BEEF PRODUCERS
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. Is the Government prepared to work with the producers to assist them in developing their case to show whether there has been injury? There is evidence which points out that there has definitely been injury. What I would like to know is whether the Government is prepared to work with the producers to develop a case as quickly as possible so that they will not have to go through the expense themselves.


Jean-Luc Pepin: course, Mr. Speaker. The Minister a few days ago, indicated just that. He is very keen to help those who feel prejudiced and to make that case to National Revenue.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, May 31, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It relates to the proceedings which occurred yesterday in the House and remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) which were wrong and incorrect. I would like to draw that to the attention of the House. Those remarks should not be allowed to remain on the record. The Prime Minister was questioned yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member alleging unparliamentary language? It is not a point of order to have a disagreement relating to facts.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, then I will rise on a point of privilege. I have been lied about in this House by the Prime Minister and I want to draw that to the attention of the House.

June 1, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat. The Hon. Member rose on a point of order. I have asked the Hon. Member whether or not it was dealing with unparliamentary language, but that does not appear to be the case. If the Hon. Member feels that he has point of privilege, I will hear him on a point of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that, if he has a point of privilege, the normal course would be for him to give notice to the Chair, which he has not done. If there is a difference as to the facts, there are various opportunities open to the Hon. Member, one of which is the "late show". If the Hon. Member does not have a point of order, he should give notice to the Chair before raising a point of privilege at this point.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: On what point does the Hon. Member seek the floor?


Mr. Nielsen:: Let him have a word, for God's sake.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is seeking the floor, the normal courtesy to the Chair is to indicate the basis on which he seeks it, whether it is order or privilege. If it is privilege, I have indicated the problem. If it is a point of order, the Hon. Member should indicate the point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: I certainly do not want to interrupt your good self, Mr. Speaker. My point is a point of order in my view. If it is not a point of order, then it is a point of privilege.
I was misquoted in this House by the Prime Minister yesterday. He tried to divert the House with a red herring by saying that at some time I had said the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) should go to Gabon to be with people who were swinging from trees.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point-


John Carnell Crosbie: That is false and I want to give notice that I will raise it with the Prime Minister when he comes to this House again. He is a liar by public opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that it is a matter which the Hon. Member should take up with the Prime Minister on the next occasion the two are together in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: That is exactly what he said.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case he did not have to take the time of the House today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 638 and 770.


Mr. Stewart: Is there a Laboratory Investigations Program and, if so, what (a) department or agency is responsible for its administration (b) amount was budgeted for the program in the fiscal year (i) 1982-83 (ii) 1983-84?


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: (a) The National Research Council of Canada, (b) (i) $1.1 million, (ii) $2.7 million.


Mr. Towers: 1.	Does the Government give any grants, bursaries and/or scholarships to students who are children of veterans attending post-graduate schools in Canada and, if so, at what (a) total cost (b) cost, by province?
2.	How many persons are now receiving such grants, bursaries and/or scholarships and (a) what is the average grant, bursary or scholarship and, in each case, what is the average amount paid, by province (b) during what average period do students receive such assistance?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes, the Department of Veterans Affairs provides postgraduate financial assistance to eligible children through the Children of War Dead (Educational Assistance) Act. (a) $164,204.33 FY 1983-1984.
) Province	Cost
Newfoundland	Nil
Nova Scotia	$13,884.65
Prince Edward Island	$ 2,290.82
New Brunswick	$ 3,231.57
Quebec	$42,244.79
Ontario	$48,559.26
Manitoba	$11,515.45
Saskatchewan	$ 9,584.28
Alberta	$ 6,049.79
British Columbia	$26,843.72
Fifty-six persons, (a) $2,932.22 per student annually. Average grant by province	
Nova Scotia	$1,983.52
Prince Edward Island	$2,290.82
New Brunswick	$3,231.57
Quebec	$2,484.99
Ontario	$3,468.52
Manitoba	$3,838.48
Saskatchewan	$2,396.07
Alberta	$3,024.90
British Columbia	$3,934.82

June 1, 1984

(b) The average period during which students receive assistance varies depending on students course of study and the degree of concentration of study. Generally speaking, their period is from one to four years of which six months per year is funded, based upon annual study requirements. However, no assistance is provided beyond age 30 or, the end of the academic term in which the student reaches the age of 30.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 749 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Highway Advisory Board and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Board meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
______________________________________4281
Yukon Quartz Mining Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister seconding the motion should be in his seat.


Mr. Speaker:: The Bill will be seconded by Mr. Lumley.


John Leslie Evans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe if you seek unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is such consent that the Bill not be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development but be referred rather to Committee of the Whole; and we will proceed through all stages of the Bill with one speaker per party.


Erik Nielsen: No, no!


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements which were suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary are fine, with one exception. Because this Bill does affect the riding of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yukon, we will have two speakers speaking on this Bill. I would not want to limit the motion brought forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to one speaker for each Party.


John Leslie Evans: That is agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it is moved by Mr. Pepin for Mr. Munro, seconded by Mr. Lumley, that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Rene Gingras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak on second reading of the Bill to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Although the proposed amendments are relatively minor since they concern only one section of the existing legislation, they are extremely important to the continuing stability and expansion of the mining industry in the Yukon. That is why I hope the House will expedite consideration and passage of these amendments.

guarantees that such activities will take place in a stable environment and that the Government is willing to contribute to the success of these ventures.
We have made many efforts to create such a climate. In fact, I feel that the definitive settlement of the general claims by the Yukon Indian Council will help politically to restore confidence and stability in the Yukon.
Furthermore, our policy for supporting a comprehensive and ongoing program for construction of roads and industrial facilities in the North is a clear indication to prospective entrepreneurs that the federal Government is prepared to make the North's resources more accessible. More directly, the Department has for some time been working closely with representatives of the Territorial Government and the mining industry to develop a comprehensive policy for mineral prospecting and mining in the North.
These efforts have been successful, and very shortly a series of documents will be published, dealing with some of the main problems connected with the long-term viability of mines in the North and their impact on the region's economic expansion.
Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House today is a direct result of our concern for maintaining this climate of confidence and stability. We must deal with a situation that might create a lot of confusion in the mining industry in the North and thus preclude future resource prospecting and mining in the Yukon. It is a situation that is not in the interests of the people of the Yukon or of Canadians. The proposed amendments will give us the means to circumvent this problem and establish specific regulations that reflect the realities of our time. This Bill is supported by the Territorial Government and the people of Yukon, by the mining industry and by this Government. I believe it deserves the approval of all the Members of this House.
Mir. John MlcDermid (Brampton-Georgetown): Mr. Speaker, I am going to participate very briefly in this debate, and then I am certain the Chair will recognize my colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who, needless to say, has a very great interest in this legislation.
1 will begin my remarks by referring to something that the Parliamentary Secretary said, that these are minor amendments but extremely important. They are extremely important to Yukon. For that reason I am very disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to bring the amendments to the House but has asked his Parliamentary Secretary to do so. I am not reflecting badly on the Parliamentary Secretary; he is a very fine gentleman. But I am extremely disappointed that the Minister, who has $3 billion in the Estimates, appeared once before the committee for approximately one hour and half and that is the last we have seen of him. I have heard rumours he is out campaigning for one thing or another, but
Yukon Quartz Mining Act
we are not sure because he does not show up in any of the polls they publish these days. I am very disappointed that he is not here to bring this Bill through. It just shows the people of Yukon-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I would just like to remind the hon. gentleman that referring to the presence or absence of Members in the House is not in order.


John Horton McDermid: I am referring to the Minister's Bill and he is not here to bring it in. I am very disappointed at that and the people of Yukon can see that he really does not have an interest in them at all.
I was very interested to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary talk about the great interest in mining this Government has and how it is all fired up to encourage it. The amendments to this Act will no doubt help. On the other hand, the Government is bringing in big clubs to regulate the industry through some onerous conditions to be imposed on certain mining sectors in the north. We are very concerned about that. We feel the Government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Although the Parliamentary Secretary gave a very eloquent address this morning, one that was obviously written for him by someone in the Department, we treat those remarks with some suspicion. I just did not feel that there was conviction in the tone of delivery.
This Bill abolishes Section 12 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and replaces it with a new Section 12. I will not go through all the things it does once again. The Parliamentary Secretary fairly well laid it out, although there were a couple of things I was concerned about. He said individuals could lease to mining companies and I think he means that they could transfer to mining companies. One of the concerns we have is that the old Section 12 referred to every person 18 years of age, et cetera. Of course, under the interpretation section a "person" meant "company" and that has now been changed to "individual". We were concerned that companies were excluded.
Under Section 88 of the Act there are conditions for the transfer of a mineral claim from an individual to a corporation, or in effect, I guess, to another individual. Section 93 refers specifically to where a transfer is made to any person or company after a certificate of improvements has been issued. The intent is very clear that in fact companies can participate through their representatives and transfer claims to the corporation. That was our major concern.
I must say that on my recent trip to Yukon I spent a considerable amount of time in the placer mining area near Dawson City. It was a great experience. I got to learn firsthand of the miners' problems and concerns over the heavy-handedness of the Government in its dealings with them. The concerns are genuine and I would hope that this Government, although it has a very short time to go, would listen to those concerns. I can assure those people that when we form the next government, we will listen to those problems and act on them because they are very real.

June 1, 1984
Yukon Quartz Mining Act
The placer mining industry is a key industry to the economy of Yukon. It is an exciting industry. I can understand the fever that hits miners in the field having listened to them, watched them work and observed the atmosphere in that great metropolis of Dawson City. I can understand some of the motivation that the miners have in getting involved in placer mining.
We on this side will be supporting the Bill and we hope to move it through all three stages this morning and have it passed into law so that the mining industry will not be retarded in any way because of our negligence in not passing this Bill.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention also to speak very briefly on this Bill. The objective of the Bill is to eliminate the restriction on the number of claims that can be staked by any one individual in the Yukon Territory. The reason that restriction was enacted years ago was to prevent one person from tying up too much ground. In the early part of this century and the latter part of the previous century prospectors would go out and, once they found a showing and had perhaps done a fair amount of work on that showing, it would then be staked.
That is not the way exploration is done these days. Most of the showings that could be found fairly easily have already been found and evaluated. On the basis of regional geology, regional geophysics or geochemistry, an area is now outlined and the exploration company or prospector will go into that area. They like to have some assurance of title on that area so that a fair amount of money can be spent on detail work. Very often the large area of ground is only required for a period of one or two years while this work is being done. When more desirable areas within that region have been delineated, the rest of the ground will be let go. That is the reason that for initial stages of exploration today it is necessary that far more than eight claims, which is about 400 acres, be held by one individual or corporation for the purposes of exploration.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House one instance of what I would call miscarriage of justice resulting from the Canada mining regulations made under the Territorial Lands Act. A few years ago under that Act there was a similar restriction on the number of claims that could be staked by any one individual. What is normally done in the Yukon today, as was done in the Territories on that day, is that people would go out and stake the maximum number of claims. A friend would stake the contiguous ground and then transfer it to the person who wanted it.
In this particular instance a prospector had gone up to the Hackett River area in the Territories. A group of some 150 claims had been staked and transferred to the principal by people who had assisted him. He then auctioned that ground to a British Columbia corporation. The auction payments were not made so he took the B.C. corporation to court and tried to sue it for the moneys owing. The judge in the case in a British Columbia court ruled that no moneys were owing because the claims had been improperly staked; that the intent of the
regulations had been broken and he had in fact acquired more than the permitted number of claims.
That presumably meant that the ground was open because the claims were improperly staked in the first place. The gentleman went back and restaked over the top of the ground he had initially staked. When he tried to record these new claims with the government official he was told that he could not do that because they were validly staked already. He was not able to recover in one way and was not able to get satisfaction in another way. That is one of the worst instances I can think of in Canadian jurisprudence where somebody got a pretty bad going over by the courts.
As a .result of that case, the restriction on the number of claims which could be staked in the Territories was removed. It was a lot easier to do in that case because we were operating with regulations rather than an Act of Parliament. I am pleased to see that this type of miscarriage of justice will not now happen in the Yukon as a result of the passage of these amendments.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to speak on Bill C-44 to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. One of the reasons that there is some urgency to have this Bill dealt with today is that there is a trial pending in the Supreme Court of the Yukon. It was originally set for this month but is now set for September. Under the existing piece of legislation there would have been some pretty severe ramifications for mining companies and individuals involved in the staking of claims, prospecting or mining.
The Bill currently before the House does a couple of things to amend Section 12 of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. It removes the limit on the number of mineral claims allowed to be staked. Second, it repeals provisions respecting staking of claims by power of attorney. Third, it validates all existing mineral claims which may be deemed invalid only by reason that they were staked without prior filing of a power of attorney and/or in excess of the limit imposed by the current Section 12 of the Act.
Having staked claims and mined myself in the Yukon when I worked at Big Creek south of Carmacks for Kaiser Resources, I know what the implications would be for many individuals and companies who have made use of the Act. As you will appreciate, it is a somewhat old piece of legislation; it was passed 60 years ago. It is the wording which is creating the problems. The existing Section 12(1) reads as follows:
Subject to subsection (2), a person eighteen years of age-
As has been noted by a previous speaker, "person" is no longer the proper word to be used in terms of interpretive law. It in fact should say "individual", as is now the case in the new Section 12. It goes on to say:
-or over, may personally or by attorney-
Historically that has meant that one can stake claims or by power of attorney one can be given the right to do that for someone else and then file those claims. It continues:


Erik Nielsen: It was a whole new Act.


James Ross Fulton: It was supposed to modernize it but there were a number of sections of that Act that were not popular with the industry. For that reason it did not make its way through the House.
Consensus for action has been difficult to achieve because, on the one hand, the mining industry which seeks this amendment has strongly opposed other measures which were included in the Yukon minerals Bill in 1970, and, on the other hand, there has not been much enthusiasm for opening the Yukon Quartz Mining Act to make only a few changes knowing that the whole Act must be brought into the twentieth century.
The anticipated reduction in investment in mining in the Yukon, foreseen if the Act was not amended, would have caused the loss of hundreds of jobs in mining which, as all Members will know, is one of the key employers in the Territory. Opportunities in the mining industry have provided employment for decades, not only to native Yukoners and Indian people in the Territory but to many who go there from other parts of the country, as I did from northern British Columbia years ago to work in the industry.
I am pleased to have spoken to the Leader of the Opposition in the Yukon Legislature, Tony Penikett, who supports the early and quick passage of this Bill to ensure that jobs are not

June 1, 1984
Yukon Quartz Mining Act
lost or that chaos is not brought to the industry by a court ruling which would have affected the number of claims, the title to many of those claims, and which could very well have brought a dark cloud over the mining industry in Yukon. I must say that with the existing government, the cloud over the mining industry in Yukon is dark enough.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since there was a House agreement to hear two speakers, including the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), I think we should make certain that we keep our procedures clear. Since we did go to two speakers, we would be willing to make it three speakers, including the Member for Yukon, so that he could make his speech. I know that it is a variation from the original agreement between the House Leaders to have one member per Party. We had agreed to allow the Member for Yukon to speak but our Party would again agree to a third speaker who could be the Member for Yukon.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. The understanding among House Leaders was that we would have one speaker per Party on the first Bill, one speaker per Party on the second Bill and that the Conservative Party would have two speakers on the third Bill. There would be one from the NDP. If time would allow, we would have a second speaker on the third Bill.
I understand that while I was away, unanimous consent was given so that the Hon. Member for Yukon may speak. I certainly agree to that. However, we were surprised to see that there was another speech; perhaps he did not know. In any case, provided that we get the three Bills this afternoon, I agree with the Hon. Member that the Member for Yukon should now speak. On the second Bill, it should be one speaker per Party and on the third Bill, it should be one Liberal, two Conservatives and at least one NDP member.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to say that I had a knowledge of any agreement between the House Leaders. If I have disrupted that, I certainly apologize for it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) and the member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) for their courtesy. I will be very brief.
I was waiting for the briefing notes, which the Parliamentary Secretary was courteous enough to supply to us, to be dealt with, but he did not deal with the points made in those very excellent briefing notes by departmental officials. In those briefing notes, the real reasons for the changes are given which are, with respect, more accurate than those which were expounded by the Parliamentary Secretary. However, that deficiency was cured by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who extensively used the briefing notes of the Department in making his remarks. Therefore I need not go into those now.
I think it would be of interest to members to know that there are two methods of mining in Yukon; placer mining and what
we call hard rock. This Bill deals with the hard rock. The Yukon Placer Mining Act, which is not under discussion here, deals with the other method.
Historically, putting it into perspective, the Bill was the brainchild of a man who subsequently became a Member of Parliament. He is the late Hon. George Black, who indeed occupied the Speaker's chair during the Bennett Government of the thirties. That Act was the product of his intelligence, as was the Placer Mining Act. It has stood ever since 1924 when the Act was originally passed. This legislation has enabled the industry to function efficiently and well in Yukon.
One notable, remarkable feature about the Quartz Mining Act is that it has not been changed significantly at all in those almost 60 years since it was first passed. I am afraid that every Bill that we see coming out of this place and other levels of government has a tendency always to contain a power to regulate, a power to make regulations to achieve the purposes of the Bill. The argument of the bureaucrats always is that they may have overlooked something and must make a regulation to cover the oversight.
This Yukon Quartz Mining Act has no power to make regulations and has worked very well and efficiently for 60 years. It will interest the Member for Skeena to know that the prime reason that the 1970 legislation failed-I might add after being two years in committee-was that there was a power to make regulations. The industry, the prospectors and the mineral developers in Yukon were as certain as I am now standing here today that if that power to regulate were included in the mining legislation in Yukon, they would be suffocated, as they are being now in the Yukon placer mining industry. They are being suffocated by inspectors from the Fisheries Department and inspectors from the Department of the Environment. Not that those matters are not important, they are. We have situations where a public servant from the Fisheries Department goes to a placer miner, and speaking about his mining of gold says: "Why do you want to mine it anyway, you cannot eat it?" Then he shuts him down for one reason or another.
That kind of conduct is not expanding, as the Parliamentary Secretary said in his remarks; it is suffocating the industry in Yukon. When the Parliamentary Secretary speaks of the need to pass this Bill because of the rapid expansion of the mining industry in Yukon, he is topsy-turvy. By reasons partly attributable to government and partly attributable to international markets, there is no mining industry in Yukon now except the placer mining industry and one silver mine, not three, and that mine having only opened up less than a year ago. All the rest have been shut down. Cyprus Anvil has been shut down, Venus has been shut down and Clinton has been shut down. Again, why? Partly because of FIRA and because of the application of impossible to live with regulations made by people who do not know what they are talking about; made by people like those, again with respect, who wrote the material for the Parliamentary Secretary to which he treated us
June 1, 1984

this afternoon. The kindest thing the Parliamentary Secretary could do would be to divorce himself from the beliefs expressed in the material which he gave to us.
The mineral industry in Yukon is important not just to Yukon, it is important to Canada. We displayed that when the Cyprus Anvil mine was fully operating and exporting. It affected significantly our balance of trade. It accounted for 40 per cent of the economy of Yukon. Now it is all but shut down. All that is going on now is a stripping program, with $25 million put up by the company and $25 million put up by the Government in order, as it were, to improve the asset.
What happens when the mining industry closes down, as it has in the Yukon? The railroad closes down. The railroad is still closed down because there is no backhaul of mine products. It remains closed down and the Government, knowing that there are international elements to pull together, labour elements to pull together, industrial developments to pull together from several different areas in order to reopen Cyprus Anvil and the railroad, is not acting as the catalyst it should in order to achieve that opening.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if that railroad or the Cyprus Anvil mine were in the area of Oshawa, Metro Toronto or Downsview, they would both be functioning by now. I cannot overstate the importance of the industry not being isolated to Yukon but being part of a very important asset that can be exploited to the benefit of the entire country.
Southerners really do not appreciate the richness of the asset that lies in Yukon and is affected by this legislation. Stability that amendment will bring; expansion, no. This very important amendment to Section 12 will not bring about any expansion. Expansion will be brought about by the Government addressing policy questions and solving problems that are solvable immediately. There is the question of transportation, a tied-up railroad, the question of energy rates set by a Crown corporation. We even had all-Party agreement on the Penner report, but the Government did not like it, shunted it aside and sent it over to the National Energy Board and the mine is still closed down.
What are the facts with respect to this specific amendment? Fifteen years ago when I was practising law actively I discovered the defect in Section 12 and some others, although they were certainly not as fatal as this one was. I prepared a very lengthy opinion, some 50 pages of legal opinion, for the client who eventually consented to have that opinion released to the Government.
I brought this matter to the attention of the Government some 14 years ago and asserted that, if it were not rectified, what the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) calls absolute chaos would be extant in Yukon. It takes only one case to be successful and the floodgates of overstaking and claim jumping would open. This is what this case is about to do which the Hon. Member for Skeena speaks of as being before the Supreme Court in Yukon next September.
The flaw was always there. It is vitally important that it be corrected and it is vitally important that it be made retroactive
Yukon Quartz Mining Act
to 1924 because every single mineral claim that has been staked under the provisions of Section 12 is fatally flawed by the defects. It strikes at the root of title to the holder of every mineral claim in Yukon. It throws a cloud over the operations-if it ever gets operating again, and I hope it will if the Government does the right thing-of companies such as Cyprus Anvil. It throws a cloud over the title of the operating silver mine in Yukon now, United Keno Hills, and virtually every other one that may come on stream. A change is vitally necessary. But the real reason for it is to cure a title defect. Without the change that case undoubtedly would go in favour of the interpretation of the existing legislation which this amendment is intended to cure.
I just want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary in the two or three minutes remaining, because I have finished my remarks, in the event future judicial interpreters of this legislation might get to the stage where they have to read the debates to clear up any meaning which a clause might have, whether he would give me his assurance that the changing of the word "person" to "individual" has no effect, when taken together with Section 88, in preventing partnerships, syndicates, consortia, partnerships between prospectors or companies, from acquiring mineral claims by way of transfer from the individual who stakes them under the new section.
That is my understanding of the effect. However, I think we should have the Government's assurance on the record that that is the intention, so that if we ever get that far in the judicial interpretation process it will be clear for future judges who might consider these matters.
I am sure the House would agree, Mr. Speaker, not to see the clock until the Parliamentary Secretary gives us that assurance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent not to see the clock? Is there unanimous consent also for the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the Hon. Member's question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Gingras: Mr. Speaker, if one reads Section 88 concerning the transfer of a mineral claim and continues through to Section 93, I should think that there is no possibility of misinterpretation. When reference is made to the transfer of a mineral claim, whether from an individual or a person, it is actually stated:
Where a transfer is made to any person or company after a certificate of improvements has been issued-
I do not see any interpretation problem because Section 93 does state that the transfer may come from anyone, from one company or other, from a person or from an individual. I can assure the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that the

June 1, 1984
Skagit River Valley Treaty
Government is not attempting to play hide-and-seek with this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is the House ready to proceed before the lunch hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Guilbault in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being after one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.03 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you will seek unanimous consent, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for us to consider Bill C-41 in Committee of the Whole and to do third reading today with one speaker per Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal just enunciated by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY TREATY IMPLEMENTATION
Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-41, an Act to implement a treaty between Canada and the United States relating to the Skagit River and Ross Lake, and the Seven Mile Reservoir on the Pend d'Oreille River be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the right mood for us to be in because this is a good news Bill. One of the major successes in the relations between Canada and the United States in the past year has been the satisfactory conclusion of negotiations to resolve the Skagit issue. This issue, the threatened flooding of the Skagit River Valley in British Columbia by the raising of the existing Ross Dam in the United States, has been a long-standing irritant in Canada's relations with the United States. The settlement proposal developed during negotiations involving the Canadian and American federal Governments, the Province of British Columbia and the City of Seattle, when ratified and implemented by all parties, will remove the threat of flooding, thereby ensuring that the Skagit River Valley can be treasured and enjoyed by future generations in its present natural state.
It is for these two reasons of diplomacy and environmental protection that I am very pleased to introduce into the House Bill C-41, its short title being the Skagit River Valley Treaty Implementation Act, a Bill that will provide the basis for federal support of the over-all Skagit settlement.
As my hon. friends know, this Bill is necessary to the ratification of the treaty. Essentially, it is necessary in order to authorize the export of electrical power by British Columbia for 80 years and a federal guarantee of possible financial obligations. These are the two reasons why the Bill is necessary.
The basic document in the over-all settlement is a detailed agreement between British Columbia and Seattle which reflects the long-standing position of the Government that the solution of this problem was best left to those directly involved. The federal Government, however, pledged to do all within its power to facilitate the settlement in any way possible. This the Government has done.
[ Translation]
That is why, Mr. Speaker, when negotiations began to bear on issues beyond the jurisdiction of British Columbia and the City of Seattle, the Canadian and American Governments took responsibility for settling those issues through a bilateral treaty, the Skagit River Valley Treaty. The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) had the great honour to sign that treaty on behalf of the Government of Canada when he met with his American counterpart, Mr. Shultz, in Washington on April 2, 1984. He said at the time that it was a supportive treaty, and that is indeed what it is. In fact, on March 30 1984, representatives of British Columbia and Seattle met in Vancouver to sign an agreement which is the keystone of the Skagit River settlement.
One of the essential provisions in the British Columbia-Seat-tle Agreement is the obligation on the part of British Columbia to supply electric power to Seattle over an 80-year period from 1986 to 2066. As you may know, Mr. Speaker,
June 1, 1984

currently the National Energy Board Act restricts the authority of the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the duration of export licences to a period not exceeding 25 years. British Columbia, therefore, could not obtain a licence under the existing Act to fulfil the province's obligations under its agreement with Seattle. In order to overcome this, the Government of Canada undertook in the Skagit River Valley Treaty to seek the authorization of Parliament through the Skagit River Valley Treaty Implementation Act to approve in this specific case the export of electrical power by British Columbia for a period of 80 years. In doing so now-and it is asking the House to authorize it-the Government of Canada recognizes that the Skagit problem requires a unique solution including an exceptional override of existing legislation.
The other provision of the British Columbia-Seattle Agreement which is supported by the Treaty and addressed by this Bill involves undertakings on the part of both the Canadian and United States federal Governments to guarantee potential financial obligations on the part of British Columbia and Seattle under their agreement. I should point out that a separate Canada-British Columbia Agreement-a fourth legal document-would ensure that the federal treasury is reimbursed fully in the highly unlikely event-I underline that because I would not want to be chastised in British Columbia for lack of faith in the financial responsibilities of the provincial government-that funds are paid out by the federal Government on British Columbia's behalf.
I would like to outline briefly for the benefit of Members, and possilby more for the benefit of students of Canadian-American relations, the background of the issue and the over-all settlement. Since the City of Seattle obtained an order of approval from the International Joint Commission in 1942 to raise the Ross Dam and thus flood the Skagit River Valley, opposition to this proposal has grown in Canada, especially in British Columbia. Early attempts to have the Commission order rescinded did not prove to be successful. However, in 1982 the International Joint Commission temporarily suspended the approval given in the 1942 order to raise the Ross Dam and established a joint consultative group on the Skagit to oversee the development of a satisfactory agreement between British Columbia and Seattle. The group was co-chaired by Commissioner Richmond Olson-who I am happy to salute in the gallery-and also by Mr. Keith Bulen from the United States. Both of those gentlemen were from the International Joint Commission. The group also included representatives of the governments of Canada, the United States, British Columbia and the City of Seattle.
In December, 1983 the group formally reached a consensus on a settlement package proposal consisting of the British Columbia-Seattle Agreement, the Canada-United States Treaty and the Canada-British Columbia agreement. The basic provision of the settlement is that Seattle agrees not to raise the dam and consequently not to flood the valley, in return for a commitment from British Columbia to supply to Seattle the equivalent electric power it would have obtained if it had raised the dam. That is the quid pro quo. In return, I
Skagit River Valley Treaty
repeat, Seattle will pay to British Columbia an amount deemed to be the equivalent of the capital cost of the dam plus an annual amount in lieu of the operation and maintenance costs of the dam. That is the basic trade off. The agreement will last for 80 years, which is the estimated life of the dam.
I provide this information to Parliament, even if Members of this House are not being asked today to approve the details, which are between British Columbia and Seattle. I would, however, like to register my admiration for what is in reality a very sensible solution, one which serves to respond to the interests of all concerned. I am particularly gratified that the International Joint Commission has again proven its value in resolving bilateral issues with the United States.
The settlement as outlined in the British Columbia-Seattle Agreement will run for 80 years. On the date the Skagit River Valley Treaty comes into force, the 1942 International Joint Commission order of approval sanctioning the raising of the Ross Dam will be terminated and a major environmental objective will be achieved. Bill C-41 is necessary if Canada is to fulfil its commitment to ensure the successful resolution of the Skagit issue. It is but a part of a settlement formula developed in an atmosphere of close co-operation with the Government of British Columbia. By adopting the Bill, Parliament will not only authorize export of electrical power and provide a recoverable financial guarantee, but it will also ensure that important provincial objectives and expectations are met by this supportive federal action.
In pressing forward with negotiations, the Government was conscious that the potential flooding of the valley was of serious concern to the House as well as to the population of British Columbia. This House has expressed, in two unanimous resolutions which were made in 1970 and 1973, its desire for a solution. Ministers of environment of this Government and former governments took an active interest in promoting a successful resolution of the Skagit issue. I know that many individual Members of the House have also sought to ensure that a satisfactory settlement be found before the valley was flooded and would want to ensure that the solution was implemented without delay.
Finally, I would also point out that the United States administration, having successfully concluded its internal arrangements concerning the settlement, is now working hard to ensure Senate ratification of the Treaty. I understand that the Treaty will be submitted to the Senate next week for its ratification. We are under a deadline to complete our ratification and implementation process. The British Columbia-Seattle Agreement cannot, of course, be brought into force until this ratification and implementation Bill has been proclaimed. If the Treaty has not been ratified by both the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States by December 31, 1984, the Agreement will not come into force and will terminate. Should this happen, the settlement will fail.
The Government of Canada is not at all confident that, if that happens, it would be able to reopen negotiations and obtain as good a settlement as it has in this particular instance. So we had better make sure that we get to church on time! Of

June 1, 1984
Skagit River Valley Treaty
course, I would not expect the opposite to happen-we will get to church on time. I believe that this House, which has already stated its desire for the kind of solution which is being proposed, will co-operate fully and ensure passage of the Bill before it adjourns for the summer. It might even do that this afternoon, if the mood remains as good as it has been up until now.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his remarks the Minister indicated that this was a happy occasion in the House today. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, to Government Members, to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to my colleagues inthe Progressive Conservative Party and to the public of Canada, that this is indeed a happy day in the House of Commons of our country.
What we are doing today completes the last stages of a struggle which commenced many years ago to save a beautiful valley in British Columbia from being flooded as a consequence of an order made by the International Joint Commission in 1942. That order was directed to permitting Seattle City Light, a power utility, to raise its existing Ross Dam on the American side of the border, and on the lower Skagit River, to an additional height which would have resulted in flooding on the Canadian side.
One may say, well, if that happened in 1942, how did it happen if so much objection was raised many years later? It is instructive, I believe, to advise the House of the hearing, which was held in Seattle, from which the 1942 order arose. It was held in the autumn, in September of 1941. I will read from a publication produced by a group of citizens, organizations and individuals who banded together years ago to save the Skagit River. It is called "A Citizen's Guide to the Skagit Valley". On page 54 the following records what happened in 1941, and I quote:
The only opposition came from B.C. Game Commissioner J. G. Cunningham. After apologizing that "I am not familiar with the subject discussed here today ... our Commission was not on the list of those advised", he continued "I am here merely to present a brief on behalf of the sportsmen of the Skagit River. It is one of the best fly fishing streams in the whole of British Columbia ... the more of that stream you flood, the less fishing we are going to have".
The book from which I am reading continues on in the next paragraph, and I cannot help but enjoy the smile of bemused understanding on the Minister's face because he knows what is coming. It continues, and I quote:
Canada's contribution to the Commission's deliberations was a fifty word statement from Victor Meek, Controller of the Dominion Water and Power bureau, who said: "I am representing the Canadian Government, Department of External Affairs, and I have no statement to make at this time. I assume that we will have an opportunity of presenting a brief later, after we have had a chance to study the details of this project as presented this morning."
The book goes on to comment on that pious hope of a further discussion and brief-and I see the Minister smiling broadly now "He never did". So the matter, Mr. Speaker, drifted away out of the consciousness of even those few people who did attend on that momentous occasion, and for many years in British Columbia those of us who loved fly fishing,
camping and the outdoors visited the Skagit River never realizing that between the years 1941 and 1942 an order had been passed, without any public notice of any tangible degree, which, if acted upon, would take that valley forever from the people of our country.
Hon. Members of this House will know that eventually, in the passage of time, the Government of British Columbia negotiated with the Seattle City Light utility as to what should be a fair rental for the land which was to be flooded. For a long time the then Premier, the Hon. W. A. C. Bennett, would not come to an agreement with the City of Seattle because he apparently did not think it was a good enough deal.
Then something quite extraordinary happened. In 1967 British Columbia suddenly signed an agreement with the City of Seattle, and again I quote from this short but succinct history book:
Considering how long the B.C. Government had stalled Seattle's plans, the terms of the final agreement signed by B.C. Resources Minister Ray Williston on January 10, 1967 are truly astonishing. For an annual rental of U.S. $34,566.21 ... and taxes of about $10,000 per year, Seattle Light gained the right to flood 21 km of prime Canadian land and to save itself $12-15 million per year on the cost of alternative electrical power.
Therefore, Hon. Members will understand why, when this information finally became public in British Columbia, those who cared were mobilized into action. It is impossible today, Mr. Speaker, even to begin to honour, to extend our appreciation and congratulations to all those Canadians who tried so hard in those early years to mobilize public opinion and who, by their tenacity in staying with the challenge, have contributed so substantially to this moment today.
However, some of the people should be mentioned. One person is a former Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly, David Brousson. Another person is the present Premier of the Province of British Columbia, Bill Bennett. When he became Leader of the Social Credit Party, he made a political decision to try to save the Skagit River. He no doubt listened long and hard and carefully to the arguments of Mr. Brousson, who worked with other members of the Legislature, including members of the New Democratic Party, to persuade Mr. Bennett to fight to save the valley.
Another person who it would be remiss not to mention specifically is the Hon. Stephen Rogers, who was the Minister of the Environment and had an outstandingly capable Deputy Minister, Mr. Ben Marr, at the time when the most difficult negotiations were carried on with Seattle. I believe it has to be remembered that if it had not been for the conviction on the part of the Hon. Stephen Rogers that this was the right thing to do, to find a way to make an agreement with Seattle City Light and to do this in a civilized way between good neighbours who share a common border, we probably would not be discussing this Bill today.
Having mentioned these particular politicians, Mr. Speaker, it must also be recorded that men and women of all Parties with goodwill in political life, who sit in the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia and in this House, have worked
June 1, 1984

continuously for many years to be sure that a happy result would indeed come about. So I pay them tribute.
I would like to pay tribute also to the International Joint Commission. The Minister has referred to two members of that commission, one a Canadian and one an American. However, I believe for the record that we should record that when this arrangement was finally effected under the aegis of the International Joint Commission, the Hon. J. Blair Seaborn was, and is, the Canadian Chairman; Mr. E. Richmond Olsen and Monsieur Charles Bedard are the other two Canadian members. At the same time the American Chairman was the Hon. Robert C. McEwan with his commissioners, L. Keith Bulen and Donald L. Totten. I am sure that the other members of the International Joint Commission will not mind at all when I single out the Hon. Richmond Olsen and the Hon. Keith Bulen for having played a significant and at times almost dramatic part in establishing a regime and climate within which the Agreement the Minister referred to was worked out.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to record the associations which made up the ROSS Committee, which was called the Run Out Skagit Spoilers Committee. These are citizens' groups in British Columbia. The Alpine Club of Canada; British Columbia Federation of Fly Fishers; British Columbia Wildlife Federation; Dogwood Canoe Club; Federation of B.C. Naturalists; Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.; Langara Environmental Voice; Recreational Canoeing Association of British Columbia; Sierra Club of Western Canada; Skagit Anglers; Society for Promotion of Environmental Conservation; University of British Columbia Environmental Interest Group; Vancouver Natural History Society; and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.
Some may have been missed. Certainly there is no way that all the individuals who helped can be recognized today. But it is also very important for everyone in this House to realize that if we had not had the dedicated help of American citizens on the other side of the line who with us wanted to save this valley, we would not have been successful. I know all Hon. Members will agree with me that we wish a tribute to be extended to all of the Americans who, over so many years, helped us in Canada to save this valley, not just for ourselves but for our children and grandchildren.
This has indeed been for me an exciting and wonderful occasion this afternoon. Dave Brousson, who I mentioned earlier, was a Liberal member of the Legislative Assembly in B.C. in the late sixties. In 1970 he came to me and asked if I would get involved. Would I be prepared as a lawyer, in my own time and at my own expense, to present a brief to the IJC. We did and that put some of the legal arguments and constitutional and international issues in the public forum. There were a great many people who worked very hard because they believed in something decent and right. They were able to persuade others that this indeed was the way to settle matters between Canada and the United States. To them I want to
Skagit River Valley Treaty
express my deep appreciation for the work which has led to this Bill being presented in this House today. I am sure that all Hon. Members will agree with me when I echo again the Minister's words, that this is indeed a happy day.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured as well to have an opporutnity to speak very much in favour of Bill C-41. It is a happy and important day where all Members of this House can rise and take some pleasure in complimenting those hundreds and thousands of Canadians who worked so long and hard to see the Parliament of Canada pass our part of this Treaty. I am sure we all share the hope that the U.S. Senate will move expeditiously next week to pass their part of the Treaty.
There are a couple of points which the Minister touched on which I think are worth reiterating. Power will be supplied by British Columbia to Seattle for the next 80 years. What this Bill does is override part of the National Energy Board Act which allows only a 25-year maximum firm power export. It also enshrines federal Government guarantees should there be any difficulties on either side regarding any change in view by Seattle City Light on the one hand, or by British Columbia on the other. The interim agreement reached on March 30 of this year, and the Bill we are going to pass in the House today, was signed by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and his American counterpart, Mr. Shultz, on April 2 this year. The Treaty will take us to the year 2065.
Before entering into the long history of this matter, Mr. Speaker, I want to add some kind words for the Ross committee. They worked long and hard for more than a decade to get Canada, British Columbia and the IJC moving, and to mobilize public opinion with our good neighbours in the State of Washington. I must say that wherever I went on this matter the work of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was well known. I think that Members of the House are aware of the work he did, even though at times certain Members on the other side tried to dispel that by saying it was simply a rumour. The record shows, and those who have been involved for many years know, that his work on this matter was crucial to our being able to stand to speak in favour of this Bill today.
The history of the High Ross Dam proposal is worth putting on the record for, as the Minister would say, the students of the history of Canada-U.S. relations on matters such as this. I will try not to go back over the points touched on either by the Hon. Member or by the Minister. The original concept of the integrated development of the Skagit River hydroelectric potential was formulated by Seattle City Light back in 1906. After they looked at the area and the size of the dam required to maximize power production, the next major move was in 1929 when Seattle acquired private lands within the proposed flood basin in B.C., lots 221 and 222, which totalled about one square mile. In 1937 the Ross Dam, stage one, began, and by 1941 Seattle City Light had applied to the IJC for authority to flood Canada under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.
On September 12, 1941, a hearing in Seattle lasted one hour and 55 minutes on the Seattle proposal. The Hon. Member for

June 1, 1984
Skagit River Valley Treaty
Vancouver South gave us a couple of appropriate quotations regarding that meeting. However, present at that time were only three of the six IJC Commissioners. The Canadian Chairman was absent. External Affairs was represented by a man who had not previously heard of this project and he stated that he assumed we would have an opportunity to present a brief after we had had a chance to study the details of this project as presented that morning. British Columbia, as has already been mentioned, was represented by Game Commissioner Cunningham, who was not officially notified of the hearing but simply came to talk about fly fishing for a total of about one minute.
In 1942 the IJC order of approval, giving provisional agreement for fair and adequate compensation of all interests in B.C., was concluded. The decision was taken by four of the six Commissioners, including the Canadian Chairman who had been absent at the earlier hearing. There is no known record of input by External Affairs on behalf of Canada, or by the public.
The next move in the long history of this matter was in 1947 to 1952 when there were a number of unsuccessful negotiations between Seattle City Light and British Columbia regarding compensation. Then the whole matter started to flare up in 1953 when Seattle City Light illegally flooded about one square mile of Canada's Skagit Valley line below the elevation of 1,600 feet. This was protested at the time and was subsequently covered by an interim agreement for British Columbia to receive the wonderful amount of $5,000 per annum from Seattle City Light for the flooding of a square mile of our country.
In 1967 it really started to heat up. British Columbia signed the agreement with Seattle City Light providing for the flooding of the Skagit Valley to an elevation of 1,725 feet, which is another 125 vertical feet of the valley floor, in return for an annual payment of just over $34,000 U.S. plus taxes. There was some quibbling as to how high the taxes would be. It depends upon which document you read; some say $3,000 per year and some say $10,000. Seattle was also required to clear the reservoir basin and replace the inundated sections of existing road before flooding using residents of B.C. for all the work.
It was at this point that Canadians started to realize the dilemma which had been created. The fishermen who went right down into the flood area at certain times of the year realized what was happening with the drawdown of the basin. They would see all the stumps and mud flats during the filling period, particularly early in the spring when there was some pretty good fishing. However, at that time it took most of the summer to fill the level of water up to any kind of a reasonable looking shoreline.
In 1969 there was an application for a licence by Seattle City Light and the public opposition really began. It was at that time that the ROSS Committee, the Run Out Skagit Spoilers, was formed. This group was very active for 15 years and still exists. In 1970 opposition to the High Ross Dam was
announced by the Government of Canada. As the Minister pointed out, in that year and again three years later Parliament spoke as one voice, as we occasionally do, in unanimously opposing the flooding of the Skagit Valley.
In 1971 there was a bilateral reference to the IJC with the terms of reference limiting study to environmental effects and the potential for mitigation with recommendations not inconsistent with the 1942 order of approval of High Ross. We have to reflect on what was happening during that period of time when the initial order was made in 1942. The world was at war and the meeting, as we know, was a very unusual one in that our representative of External Affairs said 50 words. Our other representative was a game commissioner who said about the same amount. It is on that original meeting in 1942 that the City of Seattle based all of the litigation and desire to flood that part of the Skagit Valley.
In 1972 the Government of British Columbia announced opposition to the High Ross. It had taken some time. Perhaps to some extent a change in government had allowed for that initial change in view within the Province of British Columbia.
From 1974 to 1977 the U.S. Federal Power Commission, which is now called FERC, held hearings leading to the approval of High Ross. At that time there was no formal intervention by British Columbia or Canada. In 1975 negotiations between B.C. and Seattle in view of settlement began. These proved fruitless and were finally suspended in 1979. In 1980, at the beginning of this Parliament, the United States Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision in favour of High Ross, rejecting inter-venors' petitions for review. I am sure that Members of the House recall that during the early days of this Parliament that matter was raised repeatedly and heatedly in the House. Various Members of the House intervened individually or as groups at that time.
On August 14, 1980 British Columbia filed a petition to the IJC requesting it to declare the 1942 order of approval a nullity. On reflection in a historical sense, I think we can all agree that in light of the circumstances of that period of the 1940s, that is something one would have hoped Seattle might have agreed to. The petition also requested the IJC to rescind the approval contained in the order, or to declare the raising of the Skagit River to an elevation of 1,725 feet contrary to the public interest of Canada and the United States, or to declare that no suitable or adequate compensation had been reached in accordance with the principles of the IJC, or to declare the 1967 compensation agreement invalid, and to direct Seattle not to flood the Skagit pending adjudication of the B.C. request.
The grounds for the request included the following: (1) That the 1941 IJC hearing was conducted by less than a majority of the Commission, and the 1942 order of approval was voted on by one member, of four voting, who had not heard the evidence, violating IJC rules of procedure and the rules of natural justice. (2) That the 1941-42 proceedings were undertaken during a state of national emergency in both countries with the
June 1, 1984

express purpose of rapidly increasing power production for military purposes, and these conditions no longer exist. (3) Failure of the Commission to consider environmental impact of the project before taking its decision. (4) That Seattle City Light illegally flooded into Canada in 1953 and no adequate compensation had been or can be afforded therefore. And finally, that the 1942 IJC order and subsequent 1967 compensation agreement effectively delegated to Seattle and B.C. the power to determine fair and adequate compensation, a power expressly reserved to the IJC by Article VIII of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty.
Having given a little history, I would like to restate a few of the remarks I made in an intervention to the IJC regarding the Skagit River in the fall of 1980 concerning the history of errors. I will try not to touch on the points that have already been raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South.
The 1942 meeting of the IJC to discuss approval of the dam consisted of four to six Commissioners, including the Canadian Chairman. Only one member actually voted to approve the application. This was against the rules of the Commission. Based on this information, the Commission's original order should be considered invalid and, in my view, is one of the fundamental justifications at that time for the full public hearings and review.
The Province of B.C. concurred in the project since there was a "state of emergency" existing in the United States and developments requiring electricity would be required. Despite these claims, no such building took place. In fact, comments from the IJC hearing in 1941 indicate an extreme vagueness in this area: "In other words ... in view of the present national emergency we do not know how much more power and what facilities are going to be required, and we want to be prepared to proceed to increase our plant to take care of that situation if it develops". That quote is from the IJC hearings in 1941.
Clearly the mood and the context in which the original order was made was that the U.S. was requesting of Canada and British Columbia a future right for potential flooding, principally for military purposes in the case of a national emergency. Clearly that has never occurred, but nevertheless the order is what they based all of their following legal arguments on.
The Commission did not consider the environmental damage to the Skagit Valley that would result from the building of the dam. However, the Ross Dam was completed in 1949. In return for allowing the dam to be built the Commission ordered that "fair and adequate compensation" be provided to B.C. Those negotiations took four more years, when Seattle City Light finally and illegally flooded 500 acres in British Columbia.
I would like now to refer to some of those who were the most active with the ROSS Committee in getting British Columbia, Canada, and to a great extent the State of Washington, Seattle City Light, and hopefully next week the U.S. Senate, all on board for what really is a momentous and important act of cooperation between our countries. The membership of the ROSS Committee who have been active since about 1969 included the Alpine Club of Canada; the B.C. Federation of Fly Fishers; the B.C. Wildlife Federation; the Dogwood Canoe
Skagit River Valley Treaty
Club; the Federation of B.C. Naturalists; the Federation of Mountain Clubs of B.C.; Langara Environmental Voice; the Recreational Canoeing Association of B.C.; the Sierra Club of Western Canada; Skagit Anglers; SPEC; the Vancouver Natural History Society; the Western Canada Wilderness Committee; and a number of others who were active or are active now.
One of their key spokespeople, along with Ken Farquuson, was Tom Perry who authored the book which was being referred to by the Member for Vancouver South. He did a phenomenal amount of work at his own cost and in his own time, not only in putting the book together and travelling extensively in the valley, but coming here to raise the consciousness of Members of Parliament in the early part of this Parliament to get moving again on this matter.
He also wrote articles such as this one, which is entitled "Hey, this Land is your Land, Too!" It appeared in Maclean's. I quote:
The issue is an environmental classic. City Light wants to raise the existing Ross Dam on the Skagit River, backing the reservoir 13 km north into B.C. Seattle would gain electrical energy worth at least $1 million annually. In return, B.C. would lose a unique river valley and get compensation of a mere $34,566 per year.
The Canadian Skagit is a flat low-elevation valley,, which is a rarity in a region dominated by high mountains. (Eighty per cent of B.C. is over 900 metres high, and 40 per cent is tundra.) The Skagit is only a two- or three-hour drive from half the population of B.C., yet it remains in public ownership, protected as a Provincial Recreation Areas. Through it flows the finest fishing and canoeing stream in the southwestern quarter of the province, and the valley's meadows support a rich diversity of wildlife, birds and rare plants unrivalled anywhere in the region. Tens of thousands of people, Americans and Canadians alike, visit the Skagit to enjoy these special values every year.
The work of people like Thomas Perry and others should not go unnoticed by the House. For some period of time during the negotiations, this Treaty looked very fragile and as though this event today and next week in the Senate might not occur. I can give examples of this by going back to newspaper articles from two years ago of which I have many. It is a very widely reported story, to say the least, particularly on the West Coast but also all across Canada.
On the Canada-U.S. page of the Vancouver Sun on March 17, 1982, the headline read: "U.S. half of Skagit Decision in Hands of Reagan Backers". The story filed out of Washington included the following:
President Ronald Reagan may as well have appointed three billy goats to guard a lettuce patch as to name the present members of the International Joint Commission to watch over the purity of boundary waters.
The commission's meeting here last week with B.C. Environment Minister Stephen Rogers, Seattle Mayor Charles Royer and their entourages led nowhere. At the end of a long day's argument, the meeting was characterized as 'helpful' which, translated from diplomatese, means nothing had been achieved.
The rest of the article is much more vicious so I will not read it. It became somewhat of a tit-for-tat situation between British Columbia and the City of Seattle, many viewing it as a situation where the then Mayor of Seattle was seen as likely trying to become the Governor of the State of Washington. All sorts of politics began to spill everywhere.

June 1, 1984
Skagit River Valley Treaty
The Province, on April 29 of 1982, ran another banner headline on the front page which read: "Seattle ready to go with Skagit Work". The story filed in Victoria reads:
Seattle will go ahead immediately with preparations for raising the Ross dam a year from now-just in case negotiations with B.C. fail, Seattle Mayor Charles Royer said Wednesday.
But it remains unclear whether Seattle has been given the green light to do so under a decision announced Wednesday by the International Joint Commission (UC).
The decision gives the picturesque Skagit Valley southwest of Hope a limited reprieve from the threat of flooding. It imposes a one-year moratorium on the flooding to allow more time for a negotiated settlement.
After this long history of difficulties and meetings that did not seem to be originally designed to come up with the conclusions they did, there was this long period of tit-for-tat particularly between the newspapers in Canada and the newspapers in Washington and other areas of the United States. It seemed that matters would likely heat up. This was evident on April 28 with another front page banner headline in The Vancouver Sun which read: "Skagit Flooding delayed a year to let B.C., Seattle Settle Dispute". In the same paper the story went on: "Seattle Mayor's Ambitions Blamed in Skagit Issue".
I will not get into all the things that went on, but from a historical perspective it is important for people to know that as well as this Parliament being united now for almost 15 years to bring about today's Treaty, many people on the U.S. side were mobilized as well because of flooding that would damage a very beautiful valley with thousand-year-old cedars and wonderful fishing areas. There was a great deal of co-operation on the American side. There is now a good deal for Seattle City Light and the people of Washington, the valley has been saved for Canadians and Americans on both sides of the border, to say nothing of the good work done by the IJC and all Parties in the House and the Canadian public.
I put my remarks on the record with respect to the friction that took place between Seattle City Light and B.C. only as a historical reminder of all the negative occurrences before we had the opportunity to stand here today. I simply conclude by saying that, as much as Members have done a great deal of work, I think we can end this debate today by going to the Committee of the Whole and passing this Bill with the knowledge that there are tens of thousands of Canadians today who have waited a long time for this important and historic occasion.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Herbert in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if you would seek consent, I think you would find that there is agreement to dealing with Bill C-42 in all stages today and referring it to a Committee of the Whole rather than to the standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The agreement involves having two members of the Official Opposition speak, at least one Member from the NDP and one from the Government side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Members have heard the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary. His proposal requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Agreed and so ordered.

[ Translation]


ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Externa! Affairs), seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved: That Bill C-42, an Act to establish the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose to the House the establishment of an institution which will go a long way towards strengthening the links between Canada and the countries of the Pacific region, and to make my fellow Canadians more aware of those realities. The Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada will also put in concrete form Canada's "Pacific" dimension from a geographical, historical, political and economic perspective. As a country which stretches far into the west, we have to look towards the East and Parliament has a unique opportunity to do that today.
For quite a few years now, Canadians have been ever more aware of the "Pacific" dimension of their country. Naturally, Canada is proud of its long-standing relations with Europe and the countries of the American hemisphere, but the last two decades have shown us the ever growing importance of our relations with countries of the Asian and Pacific region which stretches from the Pacific rim to South Asia where more than half of mankind lives.
June 1, 1984
[Stage Direction]


Canada's interest in this region is multifaceted. First, we are interested in it because of our security preoccupation, our preoccupation with peace, because of trade, commerce and economic development. We are interested in this region also because it was the first to receive Canadian development assistance. You will remember the Columbo Plan, Mr. Speaker, which was the first step Canada took in aid. The Columbo Plan was for that area. The Asia-Pacific region is also important from the point of view of immigration. Last year approximately 33,000 of Canada's 78,000 immigrants came from that region. It is important also from the point of view of education. For example, 33,000 foreign students who are studying in Canada now, 53 per cent of the total number, come from the region with which we are concerned now. Finally, it is important from a cultural point of view. I think we all know how much we have gained and how much we would gain from knowing more about those great cultures of Asia which are found in that area, referring to the Indian, the Chinese and the Japanese cultures. There is so much to be learned and so much to be absorbed from this region.
The recognition of the Asia Pacific region's importance to Canada is, of course, not new. The links constituted by human ties and commercial relations extend back to before the birth of Canada as a country. We Canadians have tended not to demonstrate a sufficient consciousness of this fact, about which I think all of us would agree. It was for this reason that over ten years ago the review of Canadian foreign policy priorities highlighted the Asia Pacific region as an area of challenge and opportunity for Canada.
The developments in the Asia Pacific region impact directly, as I said a moment ago, on our security and on our prosperity. We enjoy time honoured associations with many of the countries of the Asia Pacific region through our Commonwealth links. Furthermore, many Canadians trace their family origins to this region, which today is a major and valued source of immigration. In preparing for this speech through extensive research, I found that a decade ago the trans-Pacific immigration exceeded our trans-Atlantic immigration for the first time. Some of us might not be aware of that change.
Another related element of Canada's involvement with the region and an indication of the good faith of our commitment is demonstrated by the fact that approximately 40 per cent of our bilateral development assistance flows into the area, much of it to the heavily populated countries of south Asia. Curiosity forced me to see what that figure would be; it is over $300 million.
During the past decade, two-way trade with the Asia Pacific region has multiplied six times, and Canadian exports have increased faster to that region than to any other area of the globe. Another important landmark, if I may give another one, is that in 1982 two-way trade with the countries of the Asia Pacific region surpassed our trans-Atlantic trade for the first time. The two facts that I consider to be extremely important are, first, that immigration-wise ten years ago the Pacific region became a more important source than the Atlantic
Asia-Pacific Foundation
region to our population growth, and, second, that in 1982 our trade with the Pacific area became more important than our trade across the Atlantic.
The economic dynamism of many countries in this region has been extremely impressive, but the future holds even greater promise.
Many of us in this House are envious occasionally of the growth of some of these countries. I refer, for example, to Japan and Korea in this respect.
We must foster Canada's entrepreneurial capacity to contribute to and to profit from this process. There are not only great trading opportunities, but the scope for investment, joint ventures, and technological co-operation is significant. The Secretary of State for External Affairs gave a speech in Vancouver on May 22 entitled "Canada-A Pacific Nation", in which he gave some interesting examples of these developments with the Pacific region.
It is in recognition of these salient realities that the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), when he was Secretary of State for External Affairs, asked Mr. John Bruk, a leading Vancouver businessman with extensive experience in Asia, to undertake a feasibility study to determine how best to enhance Canadian relations with that region. Attention had earlier focused on the concept of a non-profit independent foundation as perhaps the best vehicle to accomplish these objectives.
To examine this idea, a founding committee was created under the chairmanship of Mr. Bruk with the mandate to report to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by July 1, 1984. It is an indication of Mr. Bruk's competence and dedication that he brought in his report well in advance of that date. In reaching their conclusions, Mr. Bruk and his founding committee travelled widely within Canada and held discussions with a broad cross-section of individuals, including representatives of provincial governments, businessmen and academics and others with a strong interest in the Asia-Pacific region. The response to the founding committee's research was extremely encouraging and, in the Speech from the Throne Address in December, 1983, it was announced that the Government intended to facilitate the creation of the Asia-Pacific Foundation. This is what we are doing today.
The aims of this foundation reflect the outcome of the founding committee's extensive research. These objectives are outlined as follows: to heighten Canadian awareness that Canada is a Pacific country as well as an Atlantic country; to raise Canada's profile in the Asia-Pacific region; to increase Canadian participation in the region's economic prosperity; to focus on policy choices facing decision makers in the private and public sectors and to generate public support for new policy initiatives; to assist business to be better prepared to interchange with and be more informed about Asia-Pacific affairs; and, finally, to educate and train young people so that they will have the knowledge and skills to support Canada's future role in the Asia-Pacific area.
[Stage Direction]
June 1, 1984
Asia-Pacific Foundation
The founding committee has also identified four key issues shaping contemporary relations between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region upon which the foundation is expected to focus initially. These include the dynamics of political and economic changes in that region, commercial challenges, the impact of cultural influences and the promotion of Canadian interests in a broad context. These objectives and priorities correspond to those of this Government. The Asia-Pacific Foundation is intended to act as a catalyst in the pursuit of these objectives. In some cases it will undertake programs directly. In other instances it will contract outside organizations or individuals to undertake projects.
How will this corporation, described as a private non-profit corporation with charity status, be composed and financed? The organization of the proposed foundation is to some extent a new venture in Canadian legislative experience. The structure provides for the federal Government to appoint the chairman and nine other members of the board of directors following consultation with members of the founding committee. The other 20 directors will be appointed by the board of directors itself and will include representatives from the provinces and from the non-governmental sector such as business, labour, the academic world and so on. In drafting this legislation, the Government has been guided by the desirability of giving the board the maximum possible discretion regarding its composition and function.
The Government has developed a five-year funding strategy of $5 million for the foundation, with an initial financial subvention of $1 million. It is hoped that provincial governments and the non-governmental sector will contribute to the foundation both by supporting its operations and in the financial context.
At noon I read that three provincial governments had more or less committed themselves to support the British Columbia Government not only morally but with an amount of money. If I may be indiscreet, I think the contribution from British Columbia will be as much as $200,000 a year. The Government of Ontario and the Government of Quebec have also indicated their support. As I said, I am pleased that a number of provincial governments and private sector corporations have already indicated interest in supporting the foundation.
There are three or four other points in my notes that I want to put on the record. The first is where the foundation will be headquartered. I hesitate to quote the Bill, but it refers to the principal office being in Vancouver.
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not Prince Rupert?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Prince Rupert in due course maybe, but it will need more gestation and more of the aging process. The headquarters will be in Vancouver, which is a tribute to the importance of that city and of the west generally in the affairs of this foundation.
Another question might be asked about the status of the foundation. I have already stated that it is a private non-profit organization with charitable status. It is not a Crown corporation like IDRC, for example. One other difference from IDRC
is that it does not have foreign content in its direction. It is made up of Canadians only.
Another question may be whether the directors of the foundation will receive salaries. The answer is no. There won't be a rush on that one!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: To be serious, board members other than the president-and I underline that the president is appointed by the board-who may be paid, will not receive salaries, although they will receive travel expenses and living costs for any work associated with the foundation.
What is the future of the founding committee? It has completed its work. It is hoped that some members of the committee will in the future be associated with the foundation.
What controls will the federal Government have over the foundation and its activities? The board is autonomous and policy direction will be formulated by the board. In the fifth year of operation, however, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the board will jointly evaluate the activities of the foundation, and this report, along with any recommendations, will be submitted to Parliament at that time.
I have already indicated the composition of the board, the chairman and nine others appointed by the Government following consultation with the founding committee. I also indicated how the other 20 directors will be appointed. The group includes 31 people, the thirty-first, the president, will be selected by the board.
At the committee stage following second reading, I will introduce two amendments. They are really technical only and not terribly important. I will state what they are. The French translation of Clause 8 of the Bill, page 3, puts things differently from the English text. In order to make sense and have the same on both sides, you have to say nine in the English text and ten in the French text. The English text says nine plus the chairman and the French text says ten minus the chairman. It is as crazy as that, but that is the way life is.
The other is an amendment to Clause 37. We have to say, "As soon as possible after the fourth year". If you want a review in the fifth year, you have to start in the fourth year, otherwise you have a review in the sixth year. Again, it is very, very simple.
I believe we have before us an historic opportunity to demonstrate this House's endorsement of the present and future importance of the Asia-Pacific region to Canadians. The creation of the foundation will symbolize Canada's commitment to the region and will provide the means to enhance mutual understanding for the people of the Asia-Pacific region. Canada should greatly profit from the foundation's activities not only in terms of the commercial opportunities which it will seek to enhance but also in terms of those other human and cultural riches with which the Asia-Pacific region is so bountifully endowed.
June 1, 1984

I hope that there is a will in this House to proceed quickly. I am sure that there is, and I commend this Bill to the consideration and action of my fellow parliamentarians. I will not sit down without having thanked John Bruk again for the dedicated effort he has put into the preparation of this foundation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of Bill C-42 today, an Act to establish the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada. One reason why I am proud to be here is that the Act establishing the foundation is an historic recognition of the fact that Canada is a Pacific nation. As the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) just pointed out, in terms of both immigration and trade, the Pacific region is now more important to Canada than the Atlantic region.
The second reason why I am proud to be here todayis that I can acknowledge the fact that the genesis of this initiative stemmed from the administration of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).


An Hon. Member:: Oh?


Pat Carney: I am sorry that the non-partisan nature of this debate should be spoiled by Members on the other side. However, that is a recognized fact and it is why this Bill is being introduced in a non-partisan fashion.


An Hon. Member:: I am not reacting to the Bill.


Pat Carney: I would thank the Hon. Member for his clarification. For the record, he said that he was not reacting to the Bill. This Bill has now been introduced and is being supported in a non-partisan atmosphere, as I am sure the Minister himself will agree.
As I was saying, the concept behind this Bill originated when the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead was Prime Minister. At that time, the Right Hon. Member went to the Tokyo Summit and returned with the conviction that the Pacific Rim was probably the most vibrant area for Canada's immediate and long-term future. He began a series of initiatives, including the planning of a major conference to focus attention on the Pacific Rim. This initiative was carried on by the then Minister of Trade, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), and I was asked to take on the responsibility of organizing the initial work.
At that time, the concept of a foundation was strictly theoretical as being one of the many things that were worth looking into. I think it is a tribute to John Bruk that he was able to carry this forward and it is also a tribute to the parliamentary spirit in which one administration will take forward ideas which originated with another administration. We hear a lot of acrimony in the House. There are many circumstances in which initiatives taken by one Party are not instituted by the other, but this is one initiative dealing with the future of Canada and the Pacific Rim which was taken up
Asia-Pacific Foundation
by the present administration with an acknowledgement of the work that had been done previously.
I would like to say a little bit about the background of this Bill because it shows some of the work that we as a country still must do in this area. When we first began to organize the conference at which the idea of a foundation took root, we thought that it would be something that would be of major interest to the western provinces. We did not anticipate the interest in the Pacific Rim that we found existed in the country as a whole.
When dealing with the business community, we found that it had in fact long acknowleged that Canada was a Pacific nation and that the Pacific was our front door and not our back door. The business community had long acknowledged that Canada as a whole had already done marvellous work in the Pacific Rim. We found that some of our best diplomats and some of the best External Affairs and trade people had already done much productive work in the Pacific Rim.
We found that the interest in what was happening in the Pacific extended well beyond Vancouver, a city which is and hopes to remain one of the biggest and most important centres on the Pacific Rim. I should mention that in acknowledgement of that, the City of Vancouver, under Mayor Mike Harcourt, has centred its entire strategic planning for the development of the city on its Pacific Rim future.
Premier Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, has just returned from China with glowing reports of the increasing ties that we have in the Pacific Rim. It is worth noting that the press commented on the fact that Premier Bennett, a premier who does not always have good words to say about the present administration, spoke only as a Canadian when he was in the Pacific Rim and he spoke for Canada as a whole.
The second surprise we found when doing the initial work on the Pacific Rim was that the interest in the Pacific went beyond trade. We sometimes forget that while trade is one of the most important aspects of our external relations, it is not the only one. The interest in the Pacific Rim extends beyond business ties. As the Minister has pointed out, the interest is cultural as well and involves the flow of people into Canada, the increase in our population, the desire for information about each other and the wish to travel and learn more about each other. Therefore, it is interesting to note that when describing the purpose of this foundation, the Bill acknowledges this very broad based interest. I shall read the clause in the Bill which relates to this acknowledgement. Clause 3 reads as follows:
The purpose of the Foundation is to develop closer ties between the peoples and institutions of Canada and the peoples and institutions of the Asia-Pacific region by
(a)	promoting mutual awareness and understanding of the cultures, histories, religions, philosophies, languages, life styles and aspirations in the Asia-Pacific region and Canada and their effects on each other's societies;
(b)	supporting development cooperation between organizations, institutions and associations in Canada and in the Asia-Pacific region;
(c)	promoting collaboration among organizations, institutions and associations in private and public sectors in Canada and in the Asia-Pacific region;
(d)	promoting closer economic and commercial ties between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region;

June 1, 1984
Asia-Pacific Foundation
(e)	promoting, in Canada, scholarship in and expertise on economic, cultural, social and other subjects relating to the Asia-Pacific region, and in the Asia-Pacific region, scholarship in and expertise on economic, cultural, social and other subject relating to Canada; and
{/) collecting information and ideas relating to Canada and the Asia-Pacific region and disseminating such information and ideas within Canada and the Asia-Pacific region.
As I said, the initiative for this foundation was at the government level but I think the personal initiative for this foundation lies with John Bruk. At the time he was asked to take this idea forward, Mr. Bruk was the President of Cyprus Anvil Mining Corporation. He served without any compensation for a very long time and his entire object was to promote and study the feasibility of establishing an institution to promote Canada's interests in Asia and the Pacific. His first report documented widespread interest, and in March, 1983, a founding committee was appointed. Its immediate objectives were to define the foundation's role, to set up the foundation's operating framework and to secure a broad base of funding.
It is important to note that this foundation is not one which will be funded only by the federal Government. The foundation has always worked on the belief that it should be funded one-third by the federal Government, one-third by the provincial Government and one-third by industry. The response was so encouraging and support came from such a wise cross-section of corporations and institutions that this Bill is before us today.
I should point out that the Asia-Pacific Foundation is not the first of its kind. Japan set up a similar institution more than 14 years ago. Countries such as Australia and Taiwan soon followed suit. We welcome the establishment of a nonpartisan foundation which represents all regions of the country. We also welcome increased contact and trade with Asia-Pacific. It will help us, as the Minister acknowledged, build a bridge of understanding in Canada with our many Asian neighbours in the Pacific. It will help to contribute to the Canadian cultural mosaic which makes Canada unique. It will help our Pacific neighbours understand our economic potential as a trader and become more aware of the many products and services which Canada has to offer. The foundation can help us to do all this. It is a positive step which we are taking to develop a bond of trust and mutual respect. We must work together through the foundation to make that happen. In that spirit, I am pleased on behalf of my Party to support this Bill.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to establish the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada. The purpose of the foundation is set out very well in the Bill. It will help to promote mutual awareness in the cultures, histories, religions, philosophies and languages of Asia-Pacific in its connections with Canada. It will help to support co-operation between organizations and groups from different sectors in the Asia-Pacific region. It will help to promote closer economic and commercial ties. It will help to promote scholarships and it will help students in the academic world in Canada to make
connections with Asia-Pacific. It will help to collect information and ideas relating to Canada's relations with Asia-Pacific.
It is important to note that the foundation could have been incorporated under the Canada Corporations Act, but we are doing it by an Act of Parliament with the co-operation of all Parties in the House. The reason for that is to show to the world and to show to our fellow Canadians the importance of this region to Canada now and in the future. As the Minister said in his speech-and it was a fine speech-the Bill shows sufficient consciousness and interest in the Asia-Pacific on the part of all Canadians.
I am pleased to speak to this Bill for the New Democratic Party and to support it. I have carried out consultations with respect to the Bill, especially with the Mayor of my city, Mike Harcourt, who, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) said in her speech, has been a long-time supporter of this concept. I also spoke with Alderman Bill Yee who is a Canadian of Asian origin and who has been a supporter of this concept. I have had discussions with my own caucus and I am pleased to say that the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), for example, who does not represent the Pacific area of the country, has shown an interest in this concept. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) always shows an interest in exciting areas. He has also shown an interest. He lives closer to Asia than any of us. He lives in a log cabin in the Queen Charlotte Islands.
I would like to extend my thanks to another Canadian, John Bruk, who is in the Gallery today. As other speakers have said, he has done much to get this concept going and to get this Bill into Parliament. I would like to quote from a letter which Mr. Bruk, in his capacity as Chairman of the founding committee, wrote to my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). The letter is dated March 8, 1984, and reads in part:
As you know, one of the major challenges facing Canada in the coming year will be how to react to the emergence of the Asia-Pacific region as a principal economic and political power. Therefore, there is a pressing need for greater emphasis in making Canadians fully aware of the growing importance of our trade with the Asia-Pacific region, as well as raising Canada's profile in those countries and enhancing the skills and understanding of Canadians doing business within the region.
Moreover, we must ensure that the next generation of Canadian political and business leaders and the general public have an even greater understanding of Canada's opportunity in the Asia-Pacific region.
When I was entering this House to speak today I said to the pages: "You should listen to some of our speeches because in a few years you will be learning Mandarin". One of the pages told me that, indeed, he will be starting a course in the Chinese language, as I am this summer. I will speak in French later on and I am sure the Minister will say that perhaps I should spend my time working on French. However, I think that the letter from Mr. Bruk hits the nail on the head with respect to why we are incorporating this Bill.
I think we must understand what is happening in the most dynamic growth area of the world, that is, the Asia-Pacific. Some statistics were given by the Minister. I would like to quote from the Chinatown News. The editor of the Chinatown
June 1, 1984

News, Mr. Roy Mah, has been very active in promoting this concept. He wrote an editorial on April 3, 1984, which reads in part:
Canada is a Pacific nation as much as an Atlantic one. Increasingly it is Asia which supplies our immigrants and purchases our goods. Last year, Asia provided 40 per cent of the new arrivals in Canada, compared to only 29 per cent of European origin. The Asian markets absorbed a record $8.6 billion worth of Canadian goods, while Canadian exports to Western Europe-worth $10.1 billion as recently as 1981-slipped to $7.5 billion.
Mr. Mah writes further on in the editorial:
It is important that we expand the pool of businessmen, civil servants, scholars and communicators who understand the cultures, languages, politics and markets of Asia.
He is right. Many of us in the House have had a chance, during this session of Parliament, to visit Asia. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was with me when a parliamentary group visited China last fall. On that trip we saw a joint venture. In Shanghai there was a joint steel mill which was built by joint venture between Japan and China. I hope that someday that will happen between Canada and China. I have had a chance to visit Hong Kong, the Philippines and South Korea, which are only a few places in the Asia-Pacific. When Members of this House return from those trips, they say they are impressed with the dynamic nature of the region.
It was mentioned in the Chinatown News that Canada's trade with the region has exceeded European trade for the first time. Japan is our number two trading partner and Korea is our number five trading partner. We are just beginning to get into the Asia-Pacific area. We are still Euro-centric. That is only natural. We still look to Europe because, given our background, many of us have come either directly from Europe, or our ancestors have come from Europe. As well, Canada has played a very important role in Europe. It has played an important role in institutions, labour, defence, research, business, politics and so on, which I think has been of mutual benefit both to Europe and to Canada. Now we are saying-and I think this is what the Asia-Pacific Foundation is saying as well-that we have to play the same kind of role in Asia. First, however, we must have a better understanding of Asia. The foundation will help in that respect. Second, there will have to be more involvement in Asia.
The opportunities are great. I gave the example of the steel mill in China. China has decided as a matter of policy that by the year 2000 it will quadruple its Gross National Product. That means that one billion people will be quadrupling their Gross National Product. What a task! Canada will be able to help with that task. After all, Canada is a large country as well. We have learned to tame hydro power in Canada. We have had to, in order to produce electricity. We have learned to transport materials over long distances. We have opened up mines in harsh terrain. All these things Canadians can do and do very well. So there is an opportunity for the railway technology, hydro technology and mining technology of Canada vis-a-vis China.
Asia-Pacific Foundation
Right now, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian engineering firm is developing a gold mine in China. We feel that these are bitter days when we see our people a bit depressed about the future because of the high unemployment rate in Canada. But what an opportunity we have. One of the Clerks of the House, who is sitting here today, was with us in China and we all could see the possibilities for Canada to play a role in the future of China. And not only in China but in Singapore and in the Philippines. We must, however, be honest about it. While there are opportunities, there are risks as well.
We should look at some of these risks. Our trade in fact is growing rapidly in the Pacific but-and the Minister might be interested in this-our trade is not growing at the same rate as in Australia or Japan. So we do have a lot to do and we have to deal with some very difficult problems which are coming out of the Asia-Pacific.
Take, for example, the low wage countries and the competition for our textiles. There are the low economic zones with low wages, bad working conditions and poor environmental and safety standards which we see in Southeast Asia. We must be honest about it. These are some of the concerns of our Party, as well as the concerns of other Hon. Members of the House. However, we must understand these conditions before we can deal with them. We should welcome the opportunity to open up our knowledge in that area.
The Hon. Member for Skeena and I myself have struggled with this problem. We in British Columbia live with the external trade policies of Japan. It often pursues a policy of oversupply of natural resources. So we open up northeast coal in British Columbia in competition with our southeast coal, or in competition with the Australian or Chinese coal mines, all at the bidding of Japanese policy. I am not knocking the Japanese policy. I am not even knocking the different coal projects in Canada. What 1 am saying is that we must understand what the Japanese policy is so that we can have an informed debate as to what our policy should be. I do not believe we have had a very informed debate up to now on, for example, northeast coal and other projects in British Columbia, and that is the challenge of the future. These issues have to be brought into the open. These are the risks we take in dealing with Asia-Pacific.
The biggest risk of all, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, is not understanding what is happening in this dynamic area and not taking advantage of our opportunities; and the Minister alluded to this. I do not believe we have truly recognized the dynamism of the Asia-Pacific region and we have not yet found our niche in that region. It is not just a problem or an opportunity for those of us in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the new Asiatic markets are important to my own Province of British Columbia, but other Canadian provinces will have to get more enthusiastically involved in trade with the Asian and Pacific countries. I am referring to Quebec particularly because there

June 1, 1984
Asia-Pacific Foundation
is a francophone culture in the Pacific region-Tahiti, New Caledonia and others-and there are always people who speak French in the former French colonies of Southeast Asia. Quebecers might take advantage of that common linguistic heritage to seek new markets for their own products. True, the principal office will be in Vancouver, but it will serve Quebec as well.

It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that all regions of Canada have an interest in this. We must understand the Asia-Pacific. One of the ways in which we might do that lies right under our own noses; that is, that we have Canadians of Asian origin who do understand the languages, cultures and the business of Asia-Pacific. We should mobilize this Canadian talent. We should lay a foundation as a means of mobilizing that talent. I have only very recently formulated this thought in my own mind-although I am sure it is an old one-but I believe it is an answer to those of us on the Pacific coast who struggle with the problems of discrimination against new immigrants and the problems of racism, which is inherent, I must say, in parts of Canada. Our history proves that. However, there is also a good side to Canadians. It occurred to me, and I believe it has occurred to other people as well, that we have this multicultural aspect of Canada, which makes us credible to the Pacific nations. They see us as a peaceful people, a people of different backgrounds, many of whom are from Asia-Pacific and who have learned to live and work together. They see the French and the English people of this country living and working together, and they are seeing other Europeans living and working peacefully with Canadians. They can also see Europeans and Asians all living together peacefully as Canadians. That gives us a tremendous advantage and we should work on that advantage. Therefore, I ask my fellow Canadians to open up our collective eyes and to work from our strength, to use our people of Pacific origin in a much better way in order to help us understand the land of their forefathers, the Asia-Pacific.
How do we raise Canada's profile in Asia? The Bill talks about the role of the foundation; an exchange of scholars; visiting students; selected conferences and publishing programs which are in place already. For example, Mr. Speaker, it was just announced that the school system in British Columbia is offering Japanese and Chinese as optional languages. That is a real step forward taken by the Social Credit Government. The Simon Fraser University, UBC and UVIC are planning to establish a centre for Asian Pacific studies in the new Canada Harbour Place in British Columbia. That is another step forward. This foundation will be able to publicize these initiatives, taking that message to Asia.
The Minister has already spoken about the foundation, so I will not say too much about it. However, I will say that its responsibility is split in three ways: the federal Government, the provinces and the private sector. Private sector does not only mean business, I hope. It also means labour, students, young people and the academia, and that is very important. I am confident that the first directors of the foundation will
keep that in mind. It is important that we get the youth involved.
I am proud that the foundation is going to have its head office in Vancouver. Recently the Vancouver City Council has twinned Vancouver with Canton, Kwangtung. That is a small step but it is a step forward.
I would like to conclude by saying that we are a bridge to the Pacific community, quite literally. We are a bridge between Europe and the Pacific. We are now truly a country which is both of the Atlantic and of the Pacific. This Bill, passed today on a quiet Friday afternoon, is a historic symbol and augurs well for the future. It is important not only for trade and jobs, but for world peace as well. If we can duplicate in the Pacific the efforts we have made in Europe, as I believe we can, we will be a positive force there. We can mobilize our human resources, our people from the Asian Pacific and here in Canada, to help us. Asia's coming of age is among the most significant themes of the remaining years of this century. The Asia-Pacific Foundation, through its organization of conferences, publications, information bank and promotion of educational and cultural exchanges, will bring us significantly closer to understanding Asia and will also help Asia to better understand us.
There is a Chinese symbol for crisis, Mr. Speaker, consisting of two components. The top character signifies danger, and the bottom character signifies opportunity. I think it is time to seize that opportunity, and this is what this Bill does. I think it was Confucius who said that you have to begin a journey of 1,000 miles by taking the first step, and I think we have taken that first step today in turning Canada into becoming increasingly a Pacific nation and taking advantage of the great opportunities in that region for Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Is it the pleasure of the House-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleague from Spadina wanted to say a few words on this matter. I think there is room for another short speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: A proposal was made that there be two speakers from the Official Opposition. However, if it is agreed, then I recognize the Hon. Member for Spadina.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this Bill, not mainly because I visited the western Pacific last summer for some weeks, although that certainly increases my interest, but because I was uneasy at first about where this project might lead. There have been some misuses by Canadian entrepreneurs of the Pacific region in order to sell our resources at bargain prices and get a little there at bargain prices. A policy that will benefit but a few rich people here and a few rich people there and is detrimental to the great majority both here and there is a road to ruin.
June 1, 1984

However, I had the pleasure of meeting John Bruk recently and finding out from him how he sees this foundation. I was assured by him that the primary object of the foundation is to gain information and facts. For example, one sort of thing that the foundation would look into would be to find out what are the real wages not only of the lower paid people but of the highest paid people in all the regions concerned. I expect that on that basis it would be possible for us to establish a healthy sort of trade relationship. In fact, Mr. Bruk commented on the fact that there cnanot be any healthy economy without justice. If that is the kind of leadership this foundation will have, then I heartily support it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Mr. Pepin, for Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved that Bill C-42, an Act to establish the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Herbert in the chair.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-42, an Act to establish the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada.
Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 8-First members of the Board


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is one of two amendments I have, Mr. Chairman. My suggestion is that the French version of Clause 8 of Bill C-42 be amended by striking out line 40 on page 3 and substituting the following:

dix administrateurs, dont le president du
I believe your assistants have already told you about the validity of this amendment.


Harold Thomas Herbert: The House has heard the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 8, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 36 inclusive, agreed to.
[ Translation]
On Clause 37-
Leasing of Crown Lands


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have an amendment here also. The Bill provides for a review after five years. If you expect to have a review after five years, you must initiate it during the fourth year. If you wait until the fifth year, you will be late with your review.
I therefore move that Clause 37 of Bill C-42 be amended by deleting line 15 on Page 8 and substituting the following:
As soon as possible after the fourth


Harold Thomas Herbert: The House has heard the amendment. Shall the amendment carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Harold Thomas Herbert: Shall Clause 37, as amended, carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING LEASING OF CROWN LANDS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, May 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nickerson, that Bill C-241, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there may be a disposition that this Bill be dealt with in its entirety this afternoon and be referred to a Committee of the Whole rather than the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I do not know whether that would receive the agreement of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: An amendment to the motion to refer the Bill to Committee of the Whole will require unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Agreed and so ordered.

June 1, 1984
Leasing of Crown Lands


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) for the assistance and co-operation which he and his office have given to this matter over quite a few years. I would also like to thank the House Leaders from the various Parties for allowing this Bill to proceed expeditiously this afternoon.
When I introduce this Bill I do so with a certain sense of embarrassment. If this Bill is passed into law, the advantages which will accrue therefrom will be most advantageous to those Members who live in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. There are not very many of us. There are three Members of Parliament and two Senators. The problem which this Bill addresses is that under Section 20 of the Senate and House of Commons Act as it stands today, due to inadvertency Members of Parliament and Senators are prevented from leasing federal Crown lands. In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, apart from a very small amount of privately owned land in municipalities, all the rest of the land is federal Crown land. That means that Members of Parliament from those Territories are unable to lease a cottage lot or acquire any land outside of privately owned land within the municipalities. I do not think that was the original intent of Section 20 when it was drafted. The intent was to prevent Members of Parliament from entering into contracts with the federal Crown from which they might derive pecuniary benefit.
Because I stand to benefit from this more than most Members of Parliament, I took the precaution of writing in advance to the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1980 when the Hon. Jeanne Sauve was Speaker. I asked whether it would be proper for me to introduce such an amendment. In a letter dated July 2, 1980 I was told that it would be in order for me to do so and I would not be contravening any of our rules in doing this.
I will return to the recent history of the need for an amendment. On May 14, 1970 the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rose on a point of privilege in the House and brought to the attention of the House the fact that he had been trying to acquire a cottage lease in the Yukon where he resided and had been turned down because of the provisions of Section 19, as it then was, of the Senate and House of Commons Act. As a result of his intervention on that day, the matter of his acquisition of a lease was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which duly convened to discuss the matter. It held a couple of meetings and issued a report which was tabled in the House of Commons on June 3, 1970.
The principal recommendations of the committees were as follows:
1.	The question of privilege is well founded.
2.	Your Committee, being of the opinion that as there may exist similar cases involving other Members of the House, recommends that the same considerations and recommendations should be made applicable in these cases.
3.	Your Committee recommends that the Government should consider the expediency of introducing legislation to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to resolve more clearly the question of the propriety of Members of Parliament receiving certain payments and advantages under Acts of general application and of Members making payments for leases, rent or sale of property in certain cases where they do not receive any special or undue advantages simply from the fact that they happen to be Members of Parliament.
The committee also recommended that the particular lease in question be granted. The report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections was concurred in by the House of Commons on June 10, 1970.
In my own case I have run up against Section 20, as it now stands, by virtue of the fact that before entering into politics I was a prospector and acquired, through staking, mineral claims in the Northwest Territories. A provision of the Canada mining regulations is that within a 10-year period a claim must be taken to lease. I was unable to obtain a lease because of the Senate and House of Commons Act and, therefore, property which I had previously acquired was in jeopardy.
The change which is proposed to the Act is a very simple one. I propose to read Section 20(1) as it now stands and insert the change. The sub-section reads:
In every contract, agreement or commission to be made, entered into or accepted by any person with the Government of Canada or any of the departments or officers of the Government of Canada-
We now come to the insertion:
-for which any public money of Canada is to be paid-
Now we go back to the old wording:
-there shall be inserted an express condition that no member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of such contract, agreement or commission, or to any benefit to arise therefrom.
It is a very simple change. It would not change the Act in such a way that Members of Parliament could enter into contracts for the provision of services to Government, or enter into contracts where money would be paid by the Government to the Member of Parliament. Rather, it would only apply the other way around, where a Member of Parliament pays money to the Crown.
I think that is a sufficient explanation of the changes which are proposed. I would again like to thank the other Parties, and particularly the President of the Privy Council for the co-operation and worthwhile advice they have given with respect to this matter over many months, if not years. I think it has taken that long.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few brief remarks to make in support of Bill C-241. I recognize the dilemma in which the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) finds himself. While it may appear that we are taking the time of the House to pass legislation that only benefits that Hon. Member, upon close examination of old Section 20(1) of the Senate and House of Commons Act, one can see that it may well affect others besides the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the Hon. Member for Western Arctic or the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). If one is to reflect on exactly what the wording means, for those Members of the House who may want to rent a cottage lot in Banff National Park it would not be legal according to a strict interpretation of the section as it exists today. If one were to read the section even more rigidly, one might suppose that even the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau)
June 1, 1984

house, Stornoway, or other matters directly related to federal properties would be included, because Section 20(1) states:
In every contract, agreement or commission to be made, entered into or accepted by any person with the Government of Canada or any of the departments or officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, there shall be inserted an express condition that no member of the House of Commons shall be admitted to any share or part of such contract, agreement or commission, or to any benefit to arise therefrom.
I presume it has been many years since someone has been confronted by such a technical situation. Clearly, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic was the first Member to really run afoul of it, one might say.


John Leslie Evans: No he was not.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps not afoul, but to run headlong into it.


Dave Nickerson: Erik Nielsen was.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for Yukon was the first. However, perhaps it is more clearly defined for the Hon. Member for Western Arctic. Although he is required in the Northwest Territories by law to proceed within ten years in order to gain title to the claims he staked out, in order to get leases on those claims, he is expressly forbidden to do that by an Act of the House. This Bill is important in terms of what has happened to the Hon. Member for Yukon and the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.
When the Parliamentary Secretary rises to speak, he will also point out that if this action were clearly interpreted and applied, its application would be found to be extremely broad. It could in fact cause a chaotic situation for many Members who, with their own money and without gaining any particular gain in relation to the activities of the House, federal law, contracts or grants, may have wanted to purchase a cottage lot but have not been allowed to do so since Confederation.
The words that have been added make it very clear that that is not the case. The words that are added in the section are simply, "for which any public money of Canada is to be paid".
It is quite clear that the passage of this Act will not bring any specific monetary, legal or other gains to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, the Hon. Member for Yukon or other Members of the House. It is simply an attempt to make this section of the Senate and House of Commons Act clear so that Hon. Members in the future do not lose an opportunity to get a cottage lot whether it is in Banff National Park or the Pacific Rim. In the case of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, it will allow him to deal legally with mining claims that he legally holds and must do something about.
I am pleased to rise and support this Bill. I trust that it will go through all three stages and become law today. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) will probably want to join with me in saying that perhaps we should make one further amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act, which is, perhaps, to abolish the Senate. However, I will leave it to you to decide, Mr. Speaker, whether you wish to rule that amendment in order. I am sure there are Members here this afternoon who
Leasing of Crown Lands
would very much like to pass such an amendment and get rid of the other House in a quick and opportune way this afternoon.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure the Chair would find that particular suggestion out of order.
I too rise to support the Bill. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and his office have certainly worked very closely with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on this particular matter. It is a situation that should have been corrected some time ago.
To my knowledge, the first person to run afoul of this section was the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) as a result of a lease on a cottage lot in the Yukon Territories. It was raised as a matter of privilege in the House of Commons and taken before the Privileges and Elections Committee. It was found in 1970 to be clearly a breach of the laws.
That situation is to be corrected permanently by what we are doing today. As the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has mentioned, this is much broader than just the coverage that one would find in the Northwest Territories or Yukon. It also covers many areas that one would think should not be covered in such a provision. For example, the National Capital Commission owns a good deal of land in the City of Ottawa and the National Capital Region. If a Member of Parliament were to lease a cottage lot at Meach Lake or Gatineau Park, of which there are some, that would technically be a breach of the Act as well. If a Member of Parliament were to rent an apartment on Sussex Drive on some of the land and restored buildings that are owned by the NCC, the Member would be in breach of the Act.
It is clear that there are some very serious difficulties with this particular provision. The law officer of the Crown has given the advice that the original intent of Section 20 of the Act was to ensure, as the Hon. Member for Western Arctic said, that a Member of Parliament did not engage in contracts, or transactions which would result in his or her receiving remuneration from the Crown. As the Hon. Member rightly pointed out, the effect of the amendment that the Hon. Member is putting forward today is to clarify that it applies in all cases in which a Member of Parliament was receiving benefit from the Crown in exchange for goods or services, but does not apply in cases where the Crown is receiving remuneration from a Member of Parliament for the lease of land or goods.
I suppose, according to this Act, if a Member of Parliament went to Crown Assets Disposal and bought a used filing cabinet, it would constitute a transaction between a Member of Parliament and the Crown. Prior to this amendment, it would be a matter that could be raised as privilege in the House. It would be in violation of the Act.
I am confident that there have been many Members of Parliament in the past who, like members of the general public, have gone to Crown Assets Disposal, which is in my riding, to buy a chair for an office or a filing cabinet. I am
4304

June 1, 1984
Leasing of Crown Lands
sure they have purchased something from the Crown while being a Member of Parliament. If I read the statutes properly, they have technically been in breach of this Act.
As the Hon. Member for Skeena has so rightly pointed out, the scope of this Act is far beyond what most would presume at first glance. The Government is pleased to have co-operated with the Hon. Member for Western Arctic in putting together this particular Private Members' Bill to correct this situation and bring the Act into line with the original intention. There is certainly a predisposition in the House that upon the completion of my remarks we would take this Bill through Committee of the Whole and third reading and pass it through all stages.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Gauthier in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.19 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 4, 1984