1987-05-14

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government response to the following 25 petitions: Nos. 332-1841 to 332-1860 inclusive, 332-1871, 332-1979 and 332-2104 to 332-2106 inclusive.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs has the honour to present its first report. In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 96(2), your committee has examined the question of food irradiation and the labelling of irradiated foods.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the committee requests that the Government table a comprehensive response to the report within 120 days.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Issues 2 to 12 of the Second Session, Thirty-third Parliament which includes this report, is tabled.


PETITIONS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. They are both identical and both have been approved as to form. They are signed by approximately 60 Canadian citizens who ask for the appointment of an independent arbitrator to consider the question of damages with respect to Fred Turner of Yellowknife.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, since Bill C-22 has not yet passed through the entire Parliament, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, pursuant to Standing Order 106, who feel that the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will severely increase drug prices for the Canadian consumer and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. They are calling upon Parliament to reject these proposals that are included in Bill C-22.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-255, an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (Privileges and Immunities).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Minister shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is civil rights legislation. Its purpose is to enhance the civil rights of the individual by circumscribing the freedom of speech of Members of Parliament in cases where irrelevant reflections are made on the character or conduct of private citizens during a proceeding in Parliament. In such cases Members of Parliament would be subject to the ordinary laws of libel and slander.

May 14, 1987
Order Paper Questions


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker. I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved:: Thut this House calls upon the Government of British Columbia to co-operate in setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the federal government provide for compensation to those interests affected by such a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the House confirms its intention to ensure the continued participation of the Haida people in matters affecting South Moresby.
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 am honoured to bring this motion forward today. I know many British Columbians and many other Canadians are going to be deeply interested in this daylong debate. From the consultations I have had with the Parties in this House it would appear that the Parliament of Canada is unanimous with relation to this motion. It being a day-long debate, if there are any Members of Parliament who have concerns about the proposed national park reserve in South Moresby, which would include negotiations with the Council of the Haida Nation concerning their rights, 1 hope they raise them today. In that way the B.C. Government will get as clear an understanding as is possible of the unanimity of parliamentarians concerning setting aside the South Moresby area, the Tangil Peninsula, Kunga, Tanu, Richardson and Anthony islands, in fact the 138 small islands included in the area proposed for this National Park Reserve.
I know of the enormous work that you have done, Mr. Speaker. I know of the work done by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), members of the Official Opposition including the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and my Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the work done by
my colleague, the Hon Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), as well as many other Members of this House. They have worked long and hard to finally reach this point in Canadian history where the Parliament of Canada is speaking with one voice to the Government of British Columbia in asking it to act.
I was particularly pleased to hear yesterday from the Government about the unanimity that now exists on that side. In response to a question I put to the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment said:
For our part, the entire Cabinet, in fact the entire caucus, including the B.C.
caucus, supports the establishment of a national park in what is arguably the
most important wilderness treasure in the entire Dominion of Canada.
I thank the Minister. I know it has been his long and difficult task to convince some Members on his side who had concerns that perhaps in setting this area aside huge numbers of jobs would be lost. A lot of artificial arguments were ballooned in British Columbia by Western Forest Products, Frank Beban Logging Ltd., and those associated with them in their clear desire to continue logging. A great deal of misinformation and, unfortunately, false information was put out to the public. A lot of well-known journalists like Jack Webster travelled down that path in British Columbia, unfortunately, claiming that setting this area aside would cause hundreds if not thousands to lose their jobs. They said it would mean the end of the forest industry in British Columbia.
This motion before us today allows us to speak with one voice. I know it is improper but I must say, Mr. Speaker, that you have been at the forefront of the fight even while you have been in the Chair. You have assisted Members of this House in having their voices heard on behalf of the Haida people and the setting aside of this area for all future generations.
A little bit of history is crucially important in understanding what the Haida people have been saying. 1 know that Miles Richardson and Guvjaw and many others are watching the debate this morning. They are encouraged by this motion and hope to hear from all Parties about their complete involvement in the evolution of negotiations and settlement of exactly what the meaning of the national park reserve will be and how the rights of the Haida people will be included.
It is important to understand that close to 10,000 Haidas lived in the South Moresby region until 1884. Between 1884 and 1890 that population of an enormous and famed group of people declined to less than 500 as a result of the ravages of smallpox and measles. I do not think there is another civilization around the world that went through such an enormous rate of decline from disease as did the Haida people. As you know, they travelled in huge numbers, sometimes by the thousands, by canoe from the Queen Charlotte Islands, Haida Gwaii, down to Victoria to trade in the wintertime and then went back up the coast. They were famed for their travel and art, and still are. They travelled as far south as California and Mexico in trading on the West Coast of North America.
The area of Anthony Island has already been designated as a UN world heritage site. I know many Members of this
May 14, 1987

House have been to Anthony Island and seen the rare and deeply moving beauty as you come into the pebbled bay and see the totem poles and longhouses standing in that area. I am sure Members are aware that in that immediate vicinity there are 10 species of whales, killer whales and others. It contains the largest rookery of Steller's sea-lions on the West Coast of North America. It has a large seal population and 250,000 breeding pairs of sea-birds. There are rare peregrine falcons, large populations of bald eagles and the world's largest black bear population. The area has all kinds of endemic species of plants not found anywhere else in this part of North America because that area, for a variety of reasons, was not covered by ice during the last ice age. It is a truly important area to the Haida people, to all Canadians, and to all people of the world to have preserved in as pristine a state as possible.
When Juan Perez sailed into that area in 1774 there were huge communities at Burnaby Island, Burnaby Narrows, Skedans and on Lyell Island. There were communities of thousands of people which were very large by any standard on the West Coast of North America for many centuries.
Members should not forget what this House did in 1981 and 1982 by including Section 5 in the Constitution Act. We recognized and affirmed aboriginal rights and title. It is certainly my view and I think that of all Hon. Members of my Party and of this House that that is a full box. Today we are demonstrating our intention to recognize that and affirm the real aboriginal rights of the Haida people in the area south of the Tangil Peninsula and those islands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: From 1935 until the end of the Second World War there was logging in the South Moresby area. The Sitka spruce was harvested particularly during the war for the production of Mosquito bombers and other small aircraft because of its incredible strength and its versatility for use in aircraft. However, only about 400 hectares were harvested in the entire South Moresby region. Some of the trees in that area are of incredible antiquity. There are spruce and cedar trees in that area in excess of 1,000 years of age. I have a piece of a Cyprus hanging on the wall of my office which is dated back over the last thousand years. It is truly remarkable.
The Windy Bay area, which I know you and others have been to and have worked to protect during your political life, is a remarkable area. I was speaking to a British scientist who was on the Queen Charlottes during the past year. He informed me that from his studies of tropical forests around the world and the width of trees and the biology and botany of Windy Bay he estimates that it has the highest amount of biomass per cubic metre to be found anywhere on the face of the planet earth. It is remarkable to think that that area has the largest amount of living biology of any place on the planet. That is why the area is so productive for fishing, shell fish, gow, herring, sea-lions, seals, whales, killer whales, falcons,
Supply
eagles, gulls, geese, ducks, sandhill cranes, rhinocerous auklets and many, many others.
The battle to protect the South Moresby area has been going on for decades. The Haida people have never moved away from that area even following the enormous decline of their population as a result of disease introduced by European populations. They have continued throughout the generations to go back into that area as a spiritual place of very deep attachment for them.
Over 3.5 million people represented by various groups have petitioned the Government of Canada in one way or other asking that the area be set aside as a national park reserve. The battle has gone on. From too many mouths we have heard it said that it is either jobs or the environment, that the Haida people are simply blocking them from being able to make a livelihood. All of these arguments have been thrown out.
I hope this day-long debate, the first in the history of this Parliament on this issue, will allow us to get to the bottom of the issue so that everyone will know where every Member of Parliament stands. There is an opportunity today for anyone who does not support this proposal to rise. However, I am quite sure that by the end of today everyone in the country will know that the House of Commons in the Thirty-third Session is unanimous in recommending that the B.C. Government move quickly in co-operating to have the area set aside.
Just over a year ago the 250,000 members of the B.C. Federation of Labour unanimously passed a resolution calling on the B.C. Government to negotiate a fair and just settlement with the Haida nation and South Moresby in support of the Haida action on Lyell Island.
I would like to deal for a moment with the issues which have been put forward in terms of values and what is happening in the forest industry in British Columbia. According to the former Minister of Forests, Mr. Kempf, British Columbia subsidized forest activity by over $250 million in 1985. According to his statements earlier this month over $1 billion in tax revenue was lost to the large companies because of improper forms of stumpage and taxation in the Province of British Columbia. We have been losing enormous amounts of revenues as a result of the tax measures and the stumpage system in British Columbia. During most of this decade the industry contributed less than 10 per cent of provincial tax revenue and only about 15 per cent of the gross provincial product.
The argument has long been that the forest companies, Western Forest Products in particular, has to have this area which represents less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of one year's annual allowable cut in British Columbia. Let us be clear on that, it is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the annual allowable cut in British Columbia, a tiny area.
Less than 3.5 per cent of the land base of B.C.is set aside for parks. Many Members have travelled in Africa and other areas of the world and have been amazed to find that Kenya, for example, has set aside over 15 per cent of its land base.

May 14, 1987
Supply
Countries which are incredibly poor have determined that tourism is a sound opportunity for the future of their country and that the setting aside of wilderness areas to preserve wildlife is crucial for generations to come.
The acceptance of all new park proposals made in British Columbia over the last decade would only raise the amount of the land base in B.C. set aside for parks to 6 per cent. As we know, there is now active logging in such parks as Tweeds-muir, Manning, Strathcona and others.
Comments of some of the Haida people in relation to this issue about which they feel so deeply are important to inject into this part of the debate. Nathan Young, the hereditary chief of Lyell Island, said last year before the Supreme Court of British Columbia: "This land is dear to me. This land was given to us by our Lord. Just as land was given to the Swedish people and the English people, so it is ours." In November, 1985, during the crisis in terms of the occupation by the Haida elders of Lyell Island a Vancouver poll found that two-thirds of British Columbians wanted the B.C. Government to negotiate Indian land claims and two to one supported the Haida in their actions on Lyell Island. An unreleased B.C. Government poll showed that this support reached over 80 per cent by last fall. One must wonder why a government would not co-operate when four of five British Columbians supported action on South Moresby.
Many from the group which has been supportive of the position taken by Western Forest Products and Frank Beban Logging Ltd. have tried to make this appear to involve a choice between the environment and the logging, that if the area is set aside and the rights of the Haida are recognized hundreds of thousands would become unemployed or underemployed. This motion addresses that head on.
I know that Parks Canada has done good work studying how Western Forest Products could be compensated. Studies have been done on how to use the Forest Act, what amounts of dollars would be required, and how the loggers who have worked there for a long time could be realistically compensated. They have studied how to compensate nearby communities which would lose part of the logging-associated activities, the provision of food, fuel and transport. These include the communities of Sandspit, Queen Charlotte City and Skide-gate.
The IWA recognized early on that this was not a situation as it was being portrayed by the corporate interests. Earl Foxcroft of the IWA, in November, 1985, supported the declaration of solidarity with the Haida and the natural resource workers. He said that for more than a decade government and resource corporations have been using IWA loggers to come between Indians and their rights. Jack Munro added at that time: "It was not the Indians who stopped this logging, it was the Government. They are directly responsible for this mess".
One of the brilliant and capable orators of the Haida people, the President of the Council of the Haida Nation, has spoken, not just throughout British Columbia but across this land. He spoke most recently at our national convention where he had an opportunity to be introduced and to speak to the convention in terms of how crucial this issue was.
Miles Richardson has worked hard and arduously across the country with the Minister of the Environment. He has attempted to work with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the Prime Minister and others. Finally, today we see light at the end of the tunnel as Parliament speaks with one voice to British Columbia.
Miles Richardson had the following to say when the Supreme Court action was taking place in British Columbia: "You have never fought us in a war and we have never surrendered. This is our land".
1 believe every Canadian has come to understand what it is that the first citizens of this country mean when they say these things about their deep attachment to the land and their understanding of their rights that are so crucial.
Bill Reid is a famed Canadian Haida artist. Anyone who walks through this building or any of the Parliament Buildings will see his art being displayed. As he pointed out, ''The forests of South Moresby should be treasured like the great cathedrals of Europe".
We need to think about these matters. We need to think about trees at which we must look far higher than this ceiling even before we see the very first branch; trees 10 feet through, of pure lovely wood, that rise into the heavens. Anyone who has walked along those streams and seen the salmon returning, saw the fauna and deep moss on the ground, and had an opportunity to hear eagles crying in the trees and saw the black bears walking on the beach has to be moved by the experience.
Mr. Justice Peter Seaton had words to say upon which I think we all must reflect when thinking of clear-cut logging of areas such as this. In considering the Meares Island injunction in relation to MacMillan Bloedel, he concluded that he could think of few, if any, aboriginal rights that would continue to exist in an area that has been clear-cut. No truer words were ever said by someone on the Bench or a parliamentarian.
Many years ago, during the debate regarding Lyell Island and the controversy surrounding all of South Moresby, I was struck by the words of an elder Haida who sat down with me to talk. He told me that there were 400 village sites in that area and that logging was taking place in and around those sites.
We must keep in mind that over 90 per cent of the Haida population was wiped out, not in a period of years or decades, but in a period of months. The Haida could not carry on their traditional practices of caring for those who had passed away.
I think we as Canadians and parliamentarians must understand what this elder was trying to say. He asked me to think
May 14, 1987

about the logging that is going on there, of the trees being felled in this area.
At that time, that area was more densely populated than almost anywhere not just in North America but in the world, by one of the most outstanding civilizations there has been in terms of their own laws, potlatches, art and tradition.
What he said to me sunk to my heart and will be with me for as long as I live. He said,"Jim, if a Haida went down on a skidder to a large graveyard in Vancouver and drove around with the blade down and pushed all of the headstones into a big pile, what do you think the white people in Vancouver would do?" He said, "That is how I feel about the logging on Lyell Island. That is how I feel about what is going on in South Moresby".
I understood him. I know what people in Vancouver would think if a British Columbia Indian was sitting on a skidder, pushing headstones into a big pile. We all know what that would mean.
I believe we must have that understanding between cultures, to know what the Indian people of British Columbia are saying and understand what the aboriginal people of Canada are saying, in order to get above those meaningless arguments that we must harvest or there will be massive bankruptcies of forest companies in British Columbia. That is hog-wash. The studies have been done, the forest companies have had their day. They have had the year of Bill Bennett and they have had the year of Bill Vander Zalm. This Parliament will speak today and the Legislature in British Columbia had better understand, because there will be no more logging in South Moresby.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: Let us take a moment to consider the area that is being proposed to be set aside in perhaps one of the most important processes that Parliament has entered into in order to deal head on with the issue of aboriginal title and rights in British Columbia, and to deal directly with a treasure of the globe, an area that has been identified by the United Nations as a world heritage site. It is an area that has been recognized by professional foresters, biologists, wildlife experts and others as one of those unique and rare oases on the planet Earth, where there is a multiplicity of life that is still interacting as it has been, not just for decades or centuries, but for thousands of years since the last ice age. It is a truly remarkable area.
The proposal is to have a marine park on the West Coast of the Queen Charlottes. Again, false arguments have been put forward that these marine parks would mean an end to commercial fishing. 1 have had discussions with the Minister who has been involved in the negotiations. There is no intention within the marine park proposal to limit in any way the commercial fishery that has traditionally taken place on either the west or east coast of the Queen Charlottes.
The western boundary would go out on the West Coast of the Queen Charlottes and include the San Andreas Fault, which runs up the West Coast of North America, so that in the future
Supply
those who are involved in underwater archaeology and geology and other important studies of the earth will have an opportunity to work in an area that has been preserved, with no other involvement by man and industry.
The boundary comes down, goes around to include Anthony Island, down around Kunghit, below Cape St. James, including the rookeries of the Steller sea-lions in that area and the 10 whale populations that use the area, up the East Coast and on the outside of Hot Springs Island, the outside of Lyell Island, including Tanu, Richardson and Tunga, up to include the beach at Skedans. This includes a vastly important area. On the land base, it would include those 138 islands, including what is left of Lyell Island, the other three islands and across the Tango Peninsula, providing for those 100 kilometres of archipelago that runs south of Cape St. James.
I have already indicated that the area has not been untouched by development. There has been harvesting, particularly of the Sitka spruce during the Second World War. There has been some mining and mine staking. However, I believe that the outstanding and widely known traditions of the Haida people and their occupation of the area is something that simply cannot be overlooked. I know that Parliament will no longer overlook it.
I worded the motion very carefully for this debate so that there would not be a perception that it was a partisan approach for someone from one Party to attempt to claim that he or she is trying to preserve this area and stand up for those rights. I have spoken to almost every Member of the House and I know that there is a mood of unanimity, a desire to speak to British Columbia and to the Legislature in British Columbia, to do what we can to get it to move quickly. I know that the proposal made last week to have 10 further years of logging in South Moresby has now been formally and publicly set aside by the Government of British Columbia. I think that demonstrates that the legislature is listening. It understands.
The two Parties in the B.C. Legislature are now coming together. I understand there were high level meetings yesterday involving both the Government side and the Opposition. They were looking at how to move as quickly as possible to complete the negotiations. No doubt the Government of British Columbia will drive a hard bargain in terms of getting what it feels is fair compensation. However, one has to understand that the Government of British Columbia has a rare and unique opportunity, as well as a responsibility, to British Columbians, to the Haida people, to people around the world. This area is very important. I have travelled throughout the whole of the area and it is truly remarkable and beautiful.
During today's debate I am sure other Members will have an opportunity to talk about the more technical matters. The Sterling Wood report has been completed. It evaluated what a fair amount of compensation would be as somewhere between $9 million and $18 million to Western Forest Products. A process has been undertaken by Parks Canada to evaluate

May 14, 1987
Supply
what a fair degree of compensation would be, based on weeks and months worked by each logger and each person involved in logging activity in that area. Many of us have worked on options to provide other forest lands, other cutting areas, to Western Forest Products, MacMillan Bloedel and Frank Beban Logging. It has looked at what kind of realistic package could be put together to expand the rights as they are negotiated with the Haida people in relation to the Haida Gwaii Watchmen so their involvement in the evolution of any developments in the area are on their terms and on terms which are acceptable to the people of the region, what kinds of dollars are required to preserve and make more healthy the economy of Sandspit and Moresby in that area and what to do for Graham Island so it can be included. There is an abundance of information. In my office I probably have 10 vertical feet of information regarding the South Moresby area. It has been studied and studied.
You have been most kind, Mr. Speaker, in giving me a few extra moments in speaking this morning. If any Hon. Members have any questions I would be more than pleased to spend a few more minutes either answering technical questions or anything in relation to what I have said.
1 am honoured to have had an opportunity to have simply put the words which are now before the House, but I think it will be an even more important day to me, because in the last few days I have considered offering my resignation in this House over this issue and ask that the Prime Minister call an immediate by-election so that I can run on this issue in my constituency. In my constituency the loggers, the fishermen and the Indian people understand this issue and I think if that was necessary, or is necessary in the future, it is something I will actively consider, because 1 take this issue as being fundamentally important in a constitutional sense and, as a parliamentarian, 1 take it seriously. I thank Hon. Members for an opportunity to speak and 1 look forward to speaking again.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, it is just a matter of seeking information. The Hon. Member mentioned what the population of the islands was back in the 1800s. I wonder if he could tell us what the population is now, in view of the fact he is asking for a national park reserve? It is generally considered that the activity of hunting and such like on reserves is very limited. I wonder if there has been any negotiation as to what the limitations are in that regard and whether or not people from the mainland might exploit the opportunities given to the residents of that island?


James Ross Fulton: I thank the Hon. Member for the question. With respect to the population, a considerable amount of work has been done by archaeologists and by universities, particularly in British Columbia, on the populations in that area. As I said, the South Moresby portion of the archipelago is the most densely populated historically by the Haida people. There are some 400 sites where there were communities of up to 1,000 people and more.
The largest part of the population decline occurred in the late 1880s. It occurred very rapidly with the introduction particularly of smallpox which came up the coast with some of the Haidas who were returning, as 1 understand, from Vancouver Island. The main population of Haida people on the Queen Charlotte Islands are in Skidegate. A Skidegate mission was set up by the United Church to assist those Haidas who had survived the ravages of the smallpox and measles outbreaks. The other main Haida community on the Queen Charlotte Islands is at Old Masset at the northern tip of Graham Island.
There are now about 5,000 Haida people. Many of them live off the Queen Charlottes now to work in Prince Rupert or elsewhere on the coast. The population of the Queen Charlotte Islands is about 5,000 at present, about half now of what it was a century ago. It is probably the only place in Canada where that is true for a geographic region, that the population is now much smaller. The re-evolution of the Haida culture has been taking place for several decades. As the Hon. Member knows, much of the art which hangs in the buildings here is West Coast art done by Haida artists.
In terms of the Hon. Member's question regarding harvesting in the area, there is no doubt that what is required under the National Park legislation which this House passes, and what will have to be looked at, is a rather unique approach in that the discussions which have gone to this point in the negotiations would allow for the continued trolling efforts principally for chinook and coho. That would continue.
In terms of hunting in that area, there never has been a great deal done. The deer population was gradually introduced about 40 or 50 years ago. There are extensive deer populations throughout the islands. In fact, throughout the islands right now, one is allowed to shoot 10 in a day or in a season. I think that is the only place in North American where those kinds of limits are allowed.
With respect to the bear population, as I said, the largest black bears in the world reside in South Moresby. There is limited hunting of them now. I do not think it would be that difficult to negotiate a situation where there was no hunting either of the deer or bear populations. There are no other predators. There are no cougars, no wolves. The Dawson caribou became extinct at the beginning of the century.
This would be negotiated between Canada and the Council of Haida Nation but I am certain that the major population of birds, the 250,000 pairs of breeding sea-birds and others, would be protected, along with the peregrine falcons, the eagle population and the whale population. I think it would be in the interest of everyone that those populations be protected as they are within the National Park system as it now stands. I hope that answers those two questions.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first few minutes of the Hon. Member's speech and he may have covered this, but I would like a point of clarification regarding the motion which speaks of setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen
May 14, 1987

Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve. Does the motion mean the entire island of South Moresby plus the 140 smaller islands around it? Could the Hon. Member circumscribe accurately what he means by the "South Moresby area"?


James Ross Fulton: The area which has been actively negotiated in a trilateral sense-including the Council of the Haida Nation, although it has not been involved as much as it would have liked-between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia, which as I understand it, is nearly complete. It would basically be an east-west line across the Tangil Peninsula just to the immediate west of Lyell Island. The line would then go up to just north of the Islands of Tanu, Kunghit and Richardson so it would include Lyell Island. Then the marine boundary would go up to just north of Skedans. So it would come across the Tangil Peninsula in an east-west line. It would go off the West Coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands to where the San Andreas Fault would be included which I understand is slightly more than 15 miles. I do not have the map with me.
It would then go south, down around the bottom of Cape St. James, including the Stellar sea-lion rookeries, and around the bottom of Kunghit Island, then running, in a surf-line fashion, some 12 nautical miles along the coast to the outside of Lyell Island, and then turning back and touching at Skedans. That is the outline of the area that has now been agreed upon by those who have been involved in the discussions over the last 15 years.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), on a supplementary.


Benno Friesen: One further point of clarification. The motion speaks of the South Moresby area. As such, it implies that it would comprise everything south of Graham Island.


James Ross Fulton: No.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member is now saying that that is not what is meant.


James Ross Fulton: The motion does not in any way intend to include South Moresby as it would appear on a map. What is intended to be included are those areas that have been the subject of active discussion between both levels of Government and the Council of the Haida Nation. The area is known generally by journalists and others as the "South Moresby area", but should not be taken to include the much larger South Moresby area itself.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Mr. St. Germain:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's motion is ambiguous and misleading, in the sense that more information is required. I am wondering whether he has taken into
Supply
consideration the recommendations of the Wilderness Advisory Council to any degree at all in respect of this proposal.


James Ross Fulton: I have, yes. One of the difficulties encountered from a parks perspective and from the perspective of the Council of the Haida Nation is that the area proposed by that Council would have included only a very narrow border along the west side of Lyell Island, taking in Sedgewick Bay but excluding Windy Bay and some other areas. That simply would not provide what is required to actually have a national park reserve. It does not fall fully enough within the scope of what is required for a national park reserve, or a national park.
In looking at this proposal, we have to deal with what the Council of the Haida Nation has been saying, that there will be no further logging on Lyell Island, We have to appreciate the number of Canadians who have come to support and understand that view.
Very little is left of Lyell Island. If one looks at a recent satellite aerial photograph, one will see that there is very little of Lyell Island left. It is an area that has been more than 20 per cent overcut in recent years. The remaining forested areas are comprised of a fringe on the west side of the island, the area around Windy Bay and the watershed in that area, and a limited area to the east and to the west of Sedgewick Bay.
In formulating the motion, I could have written pages and pages, setting out in precise terms the area involved, even to the extent of setting out the latitudinal and longitudinal reference points. Had I done so, I am sure Hon. Members may have had difficulty in understanding exactly what was involved, with the result that there may have been calls for further studies. I have tried to be as general and generic as possible in respect of the three main components of the motion, the goal being to achieve unanimity in terms of support for the motion.
1 know my hon. friend opposite now supports the setting aside of this area as a national park reserve, and for that I thank him. Moving this proposal along has been a long and difficult struggle for me. It is a proposal on which Members from other constituencies have always had a great deal to say.
As is the case whenever an Hon. Member is involved in a national issue, I myself will travel to that Member's constituency to speak on the subject; and in so doing, I try to be fair in my comments. In the case of this particular proposal, I think we are finally seeing the fairness aspect coming to the fore.
The motion deals with all three interests involved; the area itself, being the South Moresby area, the question of compensation for the loggers and companies, and finally the historical ties of the Haida people to this area.
The South Moresby area was the locus of the civilization of the Haida people-and not merely for centuries, but for thousands of years. The Haida people had evolved to one of the most profound civilizations on earth. It should not be forgotten that between 1874 and 1951, the Parliament of the Haida

May 14, 1987
Supply
people was outlawed. Those Haidas who practised potlatch during that period did so at the risk of imprisonment.
I have attended potlatches, as 1 am sure have other Hon. Members. The Parliament of the Haida people, as is the case in respect of other B.C. Indian Nations, functions in much the same way as this Parliament functions. In addition to dealing with marriage and death ceremonies, the potlatch, or Parliament, deals with the transmission of lands, the passage of new laws, the transfer of property and territorial rights, and so forth. These are all matters that are dealt with, by tradition, by the potlatch. The potlatch is in fact a sitting Parliament.
What happened to the Haida people of South Moresby in terms of the enormous decline of their population through the introduction of diseases inherent to our civilization is little understood. There were two major disease types involved, and a vaccine was available in Victoria for both. However, that vaccine was not made available to the Haida people on the coast.
In addition to bringing about an enormous decline in the population of the Haida people, we then made it illegal for their Parliament to sit.
It is only in recent times that the aspirations of the aboriginal peoples of B.C. are really coming to the fore. Their Parliaments are back in full activity; their traditional laws are fully functioning.
This proposal recognizes the title of the aboriginal people of that area, the Haida people, giving them the right to practise self-government in that area, while at the same time allowing British Columbians, Canadians, and citizens of planet Earth the opportunity to have that area preserved as a beautiful oasis of timelessness, a place where one can see water drops falling from trees a thousand years old.
That we can deal with it in this way is remarkable.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain).


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Hon. Member can become quite emotional in speaking of South Moresby. It is, after all, an area within his riding. However, I want to ensure that the Canadian public understands that it is this Government, the Progressive Conservative Government, that has taken the necessary initiatives to achieve this end. In doing so, all we ask is that common sense prevail for all groups involved.
That is the only comment I wish to make, in closing.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it has never been my intention to make this a partisan issue. I do not intend to quote what has been said by some Members of this House in earlier times. I think we have gone beyond that.
I thank the Government, led by the Prime Minister, for having taken such an active interest in this proposal. The
Prime Minister played a most useful role in getting a commitment from the Premier of British Columbia to resolve the matter. It is a commitment that found its way into the Speech from the Throne in the British Columbia Legislature. Just this week, both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister telephoned the Premier of British Columbia and once again got a commitment from him that the issue would be resolved; and with this whole House speaking as one voice, there is no doubt in my mind that it will be resolved.
I am being very serious in saying that we have to be nonpartisan in respect of this issue. This is not an initiative that is taken by any one Party; rather, it is an initiative that is fundamental to planet Earth, an initiative that is fundamental to the South Moresby area, and an initiative that is fundamental to the constitutional and historic rights of the original inhabitants of the area involved.
It is an area that must be preserved, and I thank the Hon. Member for his continued support toward that end.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on debate.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).
At the outset, let me say that the Hon. Member for Skeena is a gentleman who is noted for bringing a great deal of passion to this place in dealing with various issues. Some days I find myself in accord with the Hon. Member; and other days, I find myself in passionate disagreement.
I would be less than honest if I did not say that during the course of the Hon. Member's remarks today, as one who comes from Newfoundland, the other side of the country, but also as one who has a deep appreciation of the unspoiled environment in this country, I found myself carried away by his words, carried away by the passion, carried away by the commitment that he articulated in putting forward the proposition that that area known as South Moresby, all of the island south of the line known as South Moresby, ought to be protected and set aside as a national park reserve.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena for giving the House an opportunity to debate this motion today. I am sure, as the Hon. Member for Skeena has said, that today the House is dealing very much with a non-partisan issue. This is not an issue to be dealt with by parliamentarians in a manner that reflects the partisan differences of individual Members or of individual political Parties. I believe this motion deserves a conclusion to the process, that is, a unanimous endorsement from all Members of Parliament present from all three political Parties.
It is my privilege today to speak on behalf of my Leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), on this issue since he could not be in the House today. In fact, he
May 14, 1987

is not even in Ottawa. As Hon. Members will know, the Leader of the Official Opposition has had a long involvement and interest in the South Moresby issue going back over many years. He has made many visits to the region, both as a parliamentarian and, perhaps equally as often, in the days when he was not a parliamentarian, when he had absolutely no overt political interest in the matter. As recently as last fall the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra and his family spent a two-week holiday in the area with a gentleman mentioned by my friend from Skeena, Mr. Bill Reid, a very famous and well-known Haida artist. My Leader spent two weeks on a boat travelling through the islands, Lyell Island and others, in the South Moresby region.
On September 13, 1985, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra stood in the House and, pursuant to a motion under Standing Order 22, said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the situation in South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I had the opportunity last week, along with my wife and other friends, including Bill Reid, the famous Haida artist, to sail for six days around the South Moresby parts of the Queen Charlottes visiting the traditional Haida sites, seeing the most magnificent primeval forest on the face of the globe, which is really an environmental treasure. There is limitless aquaculture, among the richest in the world. It is nesting grounds for hundreds of varieties of birds.
This, of course, is the traditional home of the Haida nation.
For over 4,000 to 6,000 years they have lived there and built up a unique culture and tradition, and depended upon the resources of the islands and the sea for their livelihood. That is all threatened ... by indiscriminate logging, particularly on Lyell Island and, potentially, some of the rest of South Moresby. If this continues indiscriminately, the country will lose a priceless heritage.
I wish to suggest to the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan)-
The Minister is in the House today. The Environment portfolio was new to him back in September of 1985.
-that he, buttressed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), negotiate with the Province of British Columbia for a national park, recognizing the traditional rights of the Haida people in such negotiations and making an accommodation with the logging industry-
I began my remarks today by acknowledging the good work and the proper and appreciated efforts of the Hon. Member for Skeena in bringing forward this motion. It is also right and proper that I acknowledge the work of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) who has shown a genuine and a sincere interest in terms of this issue. Along with other Members, including the Hon. Member for Skeena, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, and 1 know, and the House knows that the Speaker himself has adopted this issue at a level that one could only describe as a crusade.
What we really have in Parliament today is the reflection of the will, in all honesty, of a handful of people in Parliament who have made converts of those of us from Toronto, Newfoundland, Quebec, the Prairies and the Atlantic Region, from all political Parties. Those few, that handful, through their passion and through the poetry they discover in their own language when they speak in this House about those forests that they have had the opportunity to walk through, that untouched and unspoiled land, at least the parts of it which they have had a chance to experience, speak primarily on
Supply
behalf of the Haida people. But, Mr. Speaker, you and I know that they speak on behalf of all Canadians who understand that for this country South Moresby is a test of whether or not we are able to stop, whether or not we are able to put the brakes on once in a while, and understand that a natural heritage such as South Moresby is the test of whether or not the civilization understands the real meaning of a very old Haida saying.
The Haidas have a unique way of expressing the notion of continuity and of responsibility in society. They say, "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children". What an incredible short few words to encapsulate the responsibility of Canadians in 1987, "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children".
Last December, after the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra came back from his latest visit to that area with his family, he invited Bill Reid to attend a meeting of friends and associates in his riding of Vancouver Quadra where Mr. Reid talked to the assembled people about South Moresby. His wife, who is not a bad photographer-in fact she is a pretty good one-presented a slide show. I have a copy of some of the words that Mr. Reid brought to the gathering. I think what he said bears repeating, since it speaks to the whole notion that somehow this is a conflict between a priceless heritage resource that belongs to all the people of Canada and jobs in the logging industry today. He said this:
This is not intended as a diatribe aimed at the most important part of our economy. I am not opposed to logging, loggers or the lumber industry. I do not want to see my fellow residents of British Columbia starve in the primeval forest. As one who spent many years using beautiful British Columbia woods in my work, I would be ridiculous if I opposed the end of the tree harvest. But for heavens sake, can't we, while we still have a little bit of a last chance institute true multi use of the forest with due regard for its own regeneration, the wildlife it nurtures and most important and most neglected its aesthetic values, that is the nurture it affords human life.
He said:
At this moment what is happening on the poor old Charlottes is a desperate attempt to loot a treasure house before the owners, you and 1, realize what is going on and take measures to stop it. This on our famous misty isles, home of the fabled Haidas, one of the places in our country still imbued with romance, a world renowned, unique ecological area,
I rise today on behalf of my Leader and my Party. My Leader speaks for all his members of caucus. We support the motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena which calls, as my Leader did last September in the House, for a negotiation on the part of the Government of Canada, the Government of British Columbia, and the Haida people to bring about a protected national park reserve in South Moresby. We are, as is Bill Reid, conscious and sensitive to the interests of those British Columbians, those Canadians, who have made their living as loggers.
I know, from having had the opportunity to talk with the Minister of the Environment, that in the ongoing negotiations between the Minister and the Premier of British Columbia, with the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 14, 1987
Supply
Mazankowski), that careful consideration is being given to ensuring proper, just, and fair compensation to loggers who might be affected by the establishment of a national park reserve. This meets with the approval and the appreciation of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra and indeed members of the Liberal Party.
I have not been to South Moresby. 1 have not had the opportunity, as have the Hon. Member for Skeena, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, and perhaps the Minister, of strolling through a primeval forest where the limbs start at a height equivalent to that of the ceiling of this Chamber, or where the raindrops fall from a tree which is 500 years old, a 1,000 years old, or whatever the case might be. 1 have not had the opportunity, as Bill Reid described in his talk, of walking through the riding of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, through a forest where the moss is so thick that only a young, strong, and healthy man could walk more than a mile. I have not had that experience.
1 am a Canadian who comes from a province which on the one hand sought the great benefits of industry, the economic advantages of industry, and the jobs associated with industry. On the other hand, we have always had a dark foreboding in our hearts because Newfoundland, an island and a part of Canada, is largely untouched. Its environment is largely unspoiled. It is a piece of the planet Earth which largely resembles the way it was hundreds and thousands of years ago, except for those changes brought about by natural evolution. As every Newfoundlander, I think I have an intrinsic empathy, understanding, and appreciation of what the Hon. Member for Skeena said, and indeed what my own Leader has said many times in caucus when he talked about South Moresby.
It is an area which has a quarter of all nesting sea-birds on the British Columbia coast. It contains some of the most ancient, oldest, largest, and last remaining Sitka spruce, red cedar, and western hemlock anywhere in the world. It contains a spectacular diversity of marine life including half of Canada's Steller sea-lions and 11 species of whale, as well as important fishing resources. It contains more endemic plants, insects, birds, and mammals than any other area in Canada. Of course it is renowned for its outstanding Haida village sites, unique in the world, including a UNESCO World Heritage Cultural Site designated on Anthony Island.
I believe the House speaks with one voice today in endorsing its support for the motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena. As well, I believe the House speaks with one voice in endorsing and lending our moral support to the work, which is being undertaken by the Minister of the Environment on behalf of all Canadians, to negotiate a just settlement with the Province of British Columbia and to ensure that the rights of the Haida people are acknowledged during the course of that negotiation.
I remind Canadians, and I remind the Government of British Columbia, that the Government of Canada is rightly prepared to incur financially the total cost of establishing and operating a national park reserve. That responsibility will be borne by the federal Government on behalf of all Canadians,
including taxpayers who live in the Province of Newfoundland. We do it with a happy heart. As well, we accept with a happy heart the cost of sharing in the compensation to those people who have traditionally logged those areas.
I come from a riding with 30 per cent unemployment. However, in the midst of the unemployment we suffer, and all the human misery which that entails, I know that the people of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe can reach beyond that present human condition and share in the aspiration and noble cause of preserving this part of Canada's heritage.
We also approve of the Minister's proposal to compensate those who have timber or lumber rights on Lyell Island-South Moresby generally. Canadians across the country are prepared for the Minister of the Environment, speaking on behalf of all of us, to make the necessary financial investments to ensure a national park reserve.
I do not want to get into the middle of the negotiations, but I hope the Government of British Columbia, representing the people of British Columbia and representing, as the Hon. Member for Skeena pointed out, the views of the vast majority of British Columbians, will see the resolution and the negotiation required to resolve the issue as an opportunity to see justice done.
The Hon. Member for Skeena said that they might drive a hard bargain. I have spoken with the Minister briefly. I do not know the details of what he wants to negotiate; obviously he cannot tell me that. However, I sense a willingness to be reasonable. I hope the Government of British Columbia will see this as an opportunity to make a contribution, not only to British Columbia, but to Canada as a whole and to the world's environmental community. I also hope that the Government of British Columbia will not see it as a priority in terms of seeking compensation for whatever package is finally negotiated.
Let me conclude by repeating the words of the old Haida saying. I first heard them, quite honestly, this morning. I thought they were some of the most profound words that I have ever heard to express the notion of man's responsibility in providing continuity in society. The Haidas said, "We do not inherit the land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children".
Through our support for this motion, we shall leave that land in good shape.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his remarks and for the support his Party is giving to the resolution and to the peaceful conclusion to this longstanding conflict.
I would like to seek clarification in relation to the policies taken by his Party in terms of the process that is now occurring. The federal Government is now negotiating with the Province to have the area set aside as a national park reserve. I
May 14, 1987

would seek the Hon. Member's assurance that he and his Party endorse the concept I outlined in part of my remarks, namely, that once we reach that important point, and perhaps even during this part of that process, the Council of the Haida Nation will be brought in and be a full partner, a completely equal partner, with the Government of Canada. Then in bilateral negotiations we should make sure that the rights of the Haida people are fully recognized and affirmed in the South Moresby area. They feel very strongly and I know the Hon. Member feels very strongly that that is the appropriate route we follow now.
We should complete this process of delineating the area of providing compensation to the province, to the forest companies, to the loggers and to the communities and put together a process of looking at the developments that can best deal with so-called tourism developments. The Member and his Party support-I am sure the Member does-the full involvement of the Council of the Haida Nation in the negotiations regarding rights in that area.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me say, in the style of one Joseph R. Smallwood, that we in the Liberal Party insist upon not the aspirations, not the wants, not the desires, not the feelings, not the mood but the rights of the Haida people. Intrinsic in using that word "rights" versus aspirations, desires, moods, wants, is the notion that something is provided, not as a matter of convenience, not as a matter of sensitivity, not as a matter of good intention but as a matter of right. That is precisely the kind of terminology we would apply to the role of the Haida people in finally resolving these negotiations.
Though I know the Member would understand if I add that while all of us in the House would use those kinds of words to articulate the role we see for the Haida people in these negotiations, none of us at this, I believe particularly happy stage, in what has been at least for more than a decade a long battle, would want to impose ourselves in the middle of whatever negotiations are ongoing.
I believe that we have seen evidence of serious and of constructive negotiations being carried on between the Minister of the Environment, the Premier of British Columbia, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Environment Minister for British Columbia, Mr. Strachan, who has had a few things to say in the last few days that sound positive. 1 know the Minister is certainly in touch with the representatives of the Haida people. He has consulted with them. That is as it should be.
While 1 want to assure the Hon. Member that we too share the notion of rights of the Haida people, those rights are more than merely aspirations or expressions of goodwill on the part of Governments. We believe as well that it is important now that the negotiation process be allowed to work, and that the job of Parliament is to give all-Party expression and nonpartisan support to the determination to reach a successful conclusion to those negotiations that should and must include the Haida people.
Supply


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in response to the motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). As all Members of the House are aware, the negotiations for the creation of a national park in the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia have accelerated dramatically in the last few days and, indeed, hours. The very fact that the House of Commons is debating this motion, not just as a British Columbia question but as a national and an international one, underscores the keen interest of all Members of the House from all Parties. It reflects, too, the strong hold that that unique collection of islands has exerted in the consciousness of Canadians.
We owe it to ourselves, to the world community as a whole and to generations yet unborn to save what is the most internationally significant wilderness treasure in all of Canada. I do not exaggerate when I say that the eyes of the world are upon us. The Minister of the Environment from the remote island nation of Indonesia, Emil Salim, recently remarked to a Canadian journalist that he found it incomprehensible that an advanced, affluent nation like Canada would allow the loss of an ecological gem as precious as South Moresby. He asked, with profound insight, if Canada cannot save one small irreplaceable part of the world's heritage what help is there for the planet?
The area is one of genuine splendour, both for its ecological diversity and for its rich cultural heritage. South Moresby has been described as "an evolutionary showcase", as the "Canadian Galapagos". Scientists tell us that the islands remained ice-free during the Great Ice Age, allowing the survival of plants and animals species now found nowhere else in the world.
The islands speak to our genetic memory of a time primeval, towering Sitka spruce rise from the rich moss-laden earth, untouched by the ravages of time or man. Bald eagles, unique forms of black bear and pine marten populate the region, as they have since time itself began. Plants, lichens, birds, fish and insects not to be found elsewhere thrive in the lush environment of this Canadian Garden of Eden.
The cultural heritage of the area is no less awesome. The Haida nation thrived on those shores for thousands of years before Christopher Columbus set sail for the East Indies. Their numbers were tragically decimated by the ravages of white man's disease. But they left behind the signposts of a great culture, and the Haida nation tenaciously and proudly fights for the survival of that culture today. The artistic expression of their binding connection to nature can be seen in the fallen totems of the Ninstints, declared by UNESCO a world heritage site. Like the flora and the fauna of the islands, the Haida culture is unique.
I myself had the pleasure of touring South Moresby within weeks of my appointment as Canada's Minister of the Environment. Despite advance descriptions from people who had visited the islands before me, including other Members of the House of Commons, I was singularly unprepared for the magnificence of the islands: the awe-inspiring forest canopies,

May 14, 1987
Supply
the bubbling hot springs, the teeming wildlife, the wide-open spaces, the pristine stillness, the sheer beauty of an unspoiled world. Sir, as a Canadian who lives on one island, Prince Edward Island, almost as far from the Queen Charlottes as one can reside and still be in Canada, I feel a special personal kinship for those remote misty isles on the opposite coast.
It has been said that some countries are shaped by their history, others by their geography. I believe that in large measure Canada belongs in the latter category. It is a statement about our sense of nationhood that Canadians from coast to coast care deeply, even passionately, about a small family of islands which many of them have never seen but which they know instinctively ought to be saved because they are part of themselves.
In the last three months alone, I have received nearly 1,000 individual letters urging the Canadian Government, through myself and Environment Canada, and through the parks service of my department in particular, to protect South Moresby. Many more people have spoken to me directly about their concerns, and still more have signed petitions and raised the issue with other members of the Government and other Members of Parliament. We have heard from Canadians in all parts of the country, of all ages and from all walks of life.
Typical of the concern expressed to me was a letter received from Silas Donham. He wrote:
I'm eleven years old, and I live on Boularderie Island, in Cape Breton. I live in the country and I'm very concerned about the environment. I have recently heard about the-Queen Charlotte Island logging. These islands harbour some of the rarest species of plant and animal life in the world, and they should definitely be preserved. I know you're always talking about the actions you're going to take, but it's not good enough to just talk. You have to do something.
1 agree with Silas and with the implied criticism, perhaps, in his letter. Talk is not enough. Parliamentary debate, however important, is not enough. Negotiations, though necessary, are not enough. Even deep-seated concern is not enough. In the words of this 11-year old, "we must do something".
In my first major speech as Minister of the Environment in September, 1985, in Banff, I committed the Government of Canada to the establishment of a national park reserve on South Moresby as a government-wide priority. Since that time, we as a Government have negotiated intensively with the British Columbia Government and consulted closely with the Haida people. The task has not always been easy. In many ways we have been racing against time and ducking the chainsaw. We are now at the crossroads. Time is running out. Key decisions must be made and value judgments rendered.
Allow me to stress one point. This is not an economy-versus-ecology issue. The world-wide interest in the ecology of this magnificent part of British Columbia and Canada provides us with a significant tourism opportunity in the context of establishing a national park. The benefits would accrue, not just to the people of British Columbia, not just to the people of
the Queen Charlotte Islands most certainly, but to all Canadians.
Those who believe the islands are too remote, too inaccessible or too inclement to attract and accommodate tourists do not know the tourism industry. No longer, Sir, is tourism a matter of mom and dad and the two kids and the dog packing themselves into the family station-wagon for a week in the country or a weekend at the lake. It is a highly segmented market with increasing numbers of consumers seeking a remote, wilderness, exotic, and even safari experience. It is no accident that in Yukon tourism is now the number one industry. Yet Yukon is farther removed from key population centres than is South Moresby, and its climate is less hospitable.
The essential appeal of South Moresby is so universal that its success as an international tourism destination is assured, provided it is saved. Indeed, it is a likely candidate for world heritage status, in the company of the Giza Pyramids and the Taj Mahal.
The Government of Canada is committed to working with the B.C. Government to develop immediately the tourism opportunity afforded through a heritage and environmentally sensitive economic strategy for the entire Queen Charlotte Islands area.
Difficult decisions need to be made. There are legitimate forest industry concerns. There are important questions of compensation, not just for the forestry companies and their contractors but also for the individual loggers and for others dependent on logging for their pay cheque. The communities life-blood has for years been drawn primarily from the logging industry. Those significant interests must be respected and reflected in any plan to establish a national park, and they will be.
If this were an easy issue, it would have been solved long ago and with much less soul-searching than many of us have had to do. Despite the support of all three federal Parties in the House of Commons, and despite widespread support in the country at large, we are not debating a motherhood issue. The establishment of a national park is never motherhood. Contentious and often complex land use interests are at stake, involving competing demands and conflicting values, each of them worthy in itself. After all, people have fought wars and spilled blood over land. Clearly, such is not the flavour of the current controversy, but land is at the heart of it. Whether we ourselves rise to the challenge to save a precious part of our heritage is a measure of our maturity as a country and of our civility as a people. The prophetic conservationist Aldo Leopold wrote in 1949:
Ability to see the cultural value of wilderness boils down, in the last analysis,
to a question of intellectual humility ... It is only the scholar who understands
why the raw wilderness gives definition and meaning to the human enterprise.
I take issue with this gentleman merely in one respect. It is not only the scholar who has such an appreciation. We politicians, representative of the people of Canada, must have that appreciation, too.
May 14, 1987

Sir, the South Moresby issue is a litmus test of our values as a society. Elow much importance do we attach to the aesthetic, the intangible, even the spiritual values that South Moresby represents? Those qualities do not readily lend themselves to cost/benefit analysis. That fact does not make them any less compelling. Again, some of the strongest arguments for saving South Moresby are economic. But it is the other arguments that cry out for us to act: the ones that strike at the heart of what we stand for as a people, the ones that address whether we stand for anything beyond feeding and clothing and sheltering ourselves.
Providence, Sir, has seen fit to bequeath to us the second biggest piece of real estate in the world, with resources beyond the imagination of most other nations and beyond even our own capacity to exploit them. In such a vast and bountiful land, do we have it in us to protect our country's finest features? Just as we have benefited from the foresight of other generations, we have an opportunity to save and pass on something special to our children, their children, and their children after them.
Genesis tells us that the Lord created the planet and all living things upon it and that He gave us domain over it all. It is for us, as mortal creatures, to decide whether we will exercise wise stewardship over those special features that give our existence context and meaning or whether we will treat them as dispensable in this throwaway society of ours.
Sir John A. Macdonald, the first Prime Minister of Canada, the man who forged a country from sea to sea out of a vast wilderness, who opened the west, who linked an infant nation with tracks of iron, had the vision of a great dominion in this, the winter half of North America. The same man saw the value of establishing the country's first national park in 1885 at Banff.
Banff, at that time, was just 10 square kilometres of wilderness surrounding some hot springs. Like the Queen Charlotte Islands today, Banff was seemingly remote and inaccessible, and even inhospitable. Many of the identical arguments used today against establishing a national park at South Moresby were used in 1885 against Banff. "Why would anyone want to go there?" Sir John A. Macdonald had a vision which went well beyond the immediate needs and wants of his generation. Are we ourselves so much less capable of vision that we cannot act to save this important part of our natural heritage? Can we not bring ourselves to say "this is special, this deserves to be protected, let us save it?" Only we Canadians can save South Moresby. If we do not do it, no one will. Once lost, it will be lost forever.
Even as I speak, the Government of Canada is involved in accelerating intense negotiations with the Government of British Columbia. I eagerly await the B.C. Government's most recent proposal, following a full discussion which I and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) had with the Premier of B.C., Mr. Vander Zalm.
Supply
Based on that discussion and on news reports which we are getting out of Victoria right now, 1 believe there is common resolve between the federal Government and the B.C. Government to act on this most vital of issues.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Whether I am right will be clearer today, perhaps before the debate on this important question is completed. Whatever the outcome may be, and I am optimistic that it will be what we all want, I thank all Members of the House on all sides for their support and encouragement. Although between Members of Parliament and between Parties we may differ on the particulars surrounding the establishment of the national park, we are, I know, united on one thing-South Moresby must be saved. Let us rise to the occasion and do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate most warmly the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), not only for spearheading the very positive negotiations with the Province of British Columbia, but for spearheading as well the non-partisan and very constructive debate we have heard in this Chamber from Members of different political Parties representing such vastly different regions of the country as Skeena and Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe in Newfoundland.
I am not trying to indulge in the natural cynicism of my former profession in the media, but I would like to ask the Minister a question for clarification. 1 trust that this is academic, but let us take the worst possible scenario and consider what would happen if negotiations for a national park failed. What happens if it is game over? Is there another route the Government could take? For example, could we establish a national park in South Moresby unilaterally without the cooperation of the province? It is an important question which I would like to have the Minister clarify.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the technical dimension of my answer and then with the values part of it. On the former, we must face the fact that this land does not belong to the people of Canada through their Government. It is British Columbia Crown land. We could not just march in and establish a national park without the consent of the people of B.C. as represented by their Government, even if we wanted to.
Some people argue that we should turn off the fiscal tap, we should withdraw transfer payments, we should renege on federal-provincial agreements, for example, in the forestry area. None of those things is even being considered because the people of Canada would not want us to consider them. It is not in the spirit of the country.
On the latter dimension of my answer, I think a national park must flow from the will of the people who benefit from the values which will be saved. The rest of our national park

May 14, 1987
Supply
system, now only half complete, was willed into existence as a reflection of what people wanted for their country; it was not the result of stubbornness or bull-headedness, much less the result of unilateral action by one government at the expense of another. We must will South Moresby as a national park into existence. It must flow from what the people of B.C. want and what the people of Canada want. I am convinced that that does exist. It is just a matter of executing it and reflecting it in fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, given the obvious and welcome non-partisan context in which this motion is being debated, could the Minister indicate whether he would be willing to support a proposal at the end of the day to have this motion deemed to have been passed by the House so that the House will have an opportunity to express itself in that very clear way? It would not involve individual Members standing up to vote, but is a procedure we have followed in the past. Today is one of the rare occasions on which it is totally appropriate for the House to do so. I seek the Minister's view on that.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an inspired suggestion from someone who himself is committed to the cause we are debating today, it is one of the peculiarities of this House that the rules do not lend themselves readily to votes on certain questions and in certain debates. We simply have a glorious debate, an exchange of views, and out of the debate comes some ill-defined sense of the House's will. 1 believe that there is so much support for what the lawyers would call the pit and substance of the motion we are discussing that the debate would be incomplete if we did not agree among ourselves that the debate and unanimity expressed within it constitutes, if not technically, then in effect a vote in favour of the motion.
Even if the rules or some particular circumstances surrounding the calendar of the House do not suggest that it would be appropriate to have a formal vote on the floor of the House later today at the end of the debate, let us all agree in the spirit of non-partisanship that that vote, nevertheless, be deemed to have been held.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate on behalf of the Liberal Party that we would very much support the proposal made by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, seconded by the Minister of the Environment, to have deemed at the end of the day that the House has voted on the motion and has unanimously supported it.
I would like to ask the Minister a question. While it is tempting to ask the Minister about the negotiations, I will not do so since they are still taking place. We know that his heart is in the right place on this issue. However, at the end of my remarks some 20 minutes ago, the Member for Skeena asked me about my understanding and the view of the Liberal Party,
including the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who has also been involved with this issue for a long time, of the Haida role in these negotiations.
We understand that governments negotiate at a certain level, but due to the great interest of many people who are watching or will read about this debate in Hansard, perhaps the Minister would want to use the opportunity to tell us what he believes is the proper role of the Haida people in the negotiations now taking place and which hopefully will be successful?
I agree with the Minister that the Government of Canada cannot go to British Columbia and impose itself in respect of B.C. Crown lands. I agree with the Minister when he says that national parks happen because these kinds of worth-while decisions are most easily taken when they flow from public will. Many Members have an interest in national parks. I have a national park in my riding. I know the Minister shares with me and many Members that very often-including the example of Banff National Park and Sir John A. Macdonald which the Minister gave-we must do more than sit back and wait for the parade. Sometimes we have to be more than mere politicians, but statesmen, and sometimes lead the parade. I believe that is what the Minister is doing in many respects in relation to South Moresby.
What does he believe is the proper role of the Haida people?


Thomas Michael McMillan: 
STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21
[Stage Direction]
with the negotiations that are going on, in parallel with ones on the national park, as far as land claims are concerned. On both counts, the interests of the Haida people are uppermost in my mind.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the unanimous views which have been expressed, could the House agree and have you put it on record, with unanimous consent, that the motion we are debating at this point will be deemed to have been passed at the end of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), the comment of the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the comment of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). Procedurally, the House can accept the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill at this point, and that will govern the rest of the day's debate. The record will show that at the end of the debate the House has been unanimous in supporting the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. I take it that is the pleasure of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the motion. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: That will be appropriately recorded.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have all had the privilege today of witnessing some of the most outstanding debates we have heard in the House for a long time. I suspect that this will continue for the remainder of the day, considering the line-up of speakers from the various parties. Since we will break for lunch in a few minutes, would it be appropriate to call it one o'clock and resume debate at three o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 12.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, two days ago Doctor Martha Kostuch of the Alberta Coalition on Acid Gas appeared before the Acid Rain Committee to make representations about the effects on the health of Canadians in Alberta and Saskatchewan from the activities of sour gas plants, tar sands refining, and the heavy oil industry. Her presentation gave us a classic example of economic gains being made at the expense of human health, property values, farm incomes and so on.
The Government of Canada should do something about this situation by directing the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to carry out an independent examination of the southwestern Alberta medical diagnostic review, by directing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to permit sour gas plant owners to write off capital costs for pollution control technology on an accelerated basis, and by making federal payments to tar sands and heavy oil industry, and any other industry for that matter, contingent upon emission controls and environmentally responsible performance.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform business people in my riding of the excellent work done by this Government on reducing the red tape inflicted on Canadian businesses.
The measures announced by the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) are aimed at reducing the number of overlapping investigations, centralizing data, designing shorter contract forms for Government suppliers, simplifying income tax requirements and cutting down on the number of import formalities.
Mr. Speaker, these measures were implemented as part of a specific action plan, followed by the publication of a progress report and the creation of an advisory committee consisting of representatives in the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, these measures will make life easier for our business people and let them take an active part in providing solutions for areas in which they are directly concerned, and thus enhance the growth of their businesses.

May 14, 1987
5. 0. 21
We have every reason to be proud of this initiative that will most certainly have a considerable economic impact on the entire economy of this country.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall that the Conservative Government set up a commission of inquiry, referred to as the Forget Commission, and that $6 million of taxpayers' money were spent on a study to reform unemployment insurance.
Furthermore, a committee consisting of Members of all parties in this House worked day and night, and a number of people appeared before this committee and submitted briefs.
Mr. Speaker, 1 warn the Government and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard). If this Government announces tomorrow that it will maintain the status quo for unemployment insurance, it will be the worst scandal we have ever known, twice as bad as the Prime Minister's shoes, Mr. Speaker. Everybody agrees, both labour and management, that changes are necessary in unemployment insurance. We are against the annualization of unemployment insurance, and we are in favour of an improved program that will protect part-time workers and ensure that people who are drawing benefits because of illness or maternity leave, are not penalized when there is a work stoppage. Mr. Speaker, if the Government doesn't announce any changes tomorrow, it will be an out and out scandal.


POLICE WEEK
Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, this is Police Week and 1 am pleased to take a few moments to express, on behalf of Members of the this House, our appreciation to the Canadian police community.
Advances in technology and communications are resulting in the emergence of increasingly complex and sophisticated crimes. Canada's police forces are adapting to these changes by enhancing the knowledge and skills of their members and by expanding the use of modern technology in the war against crime.
There is also a need, however, to update our criminal law to take into account the emergence of new crimes, new ways of committing traditional crimes such as theft and fraud, and complex criminal conspiracies which span continents.
Police Week serves as a cogent reminder to all Hon. Members that we as legislators have a responsibility to assist our police forces by providing them with the tools to deal with increasingly complex and sophisticated crimes while at the same time preserving the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians.
Today we salute the police forces and the police of this country.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement today by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) regarding Indian post-secondary education is a distressing statement. It is closing the doors on Indian students seeking higher education. It is limiting and restricting their entrance to post-secondary institutions. The Minister has made public only his Government's new restrictive criteria, which will suffocate many Indian students' education and employment aspirations.
While the announcement seems to assure those who are currently enrolled of continued assistance, this is not certain. Those whose applications were deferred last year-and 1 point out this was due to lack of funding-are also assured of some help, but high school graduates, or mature students enrolling for the first time, will only be considered if there are any funds left over in the budget. That is not very likely. The same applies to those who are seeking to do postgraduate studies or earn professional degrees in law, education or medicine.
[DOT] (M05)
Once again the Government of Canada is failing to live up to its trust and constitutional responsibilities to Indian people. It is running away. There will be a strong reaction to the Minister's efforts to limit his role in helping Indian students attain higher education.


ABORTION
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the eighteenth anniversary of the current abortion law. On May 14, 1969, Parliament voted to change Section 251 of the Criminal Code, a move which now results in over 60,000 abortions per year. In the last 18 years nearly one million unborn children have been aborted in Canadian hospitals.
May 14, 1987

The anniversary today will be marked by pro-life Canadians all across Canada. Many will bear silent witness in front of the hospitals which perform abortions, while others will gather in their places of worship to pray for an end to this destruction of living human beings.
Alliance for Life, Campaign Life, and Coalition for Life have declared this week to be a national Week for Life in an effort to remind Canadians that human life is precious and that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia should not be tolerated in our society. I commend them for their initiatives in bringing these issues before us.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, today the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs tabled its report in the House of Commons on food irradiation. It appropriately recommends that Canada take an extremely cautious approach to food irradiation, which is a procedure involving exposing food to ionizing radiation emitted from Cobalt-60 radioisotopes. These are stored in special facilities that are designed, made and sold by the Radiochemical Company unit of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
The report also recommends that we take the same caution before exporting this technology to the Third World, something that CIDA is not doing. There is a serious contradiction between what the committee recommends and what CIDA is doing. CIDA should immediately halt all its food irradiation projects, such as the one in Thailand, and all others that are presently on the drawing board.
CIDA should also make public, in the Third World, matters affecting the recipient country's food supply, including environmental assessments and any other studies dealing with worker health and safety. The public in the Third World should have the right to participate in any decision to adopt food irradiation technology.
It is inappropriate for us to have one standard here in Canada and another for the poor in the Third World.


RENDEZ-VOUS '87 TRIBUTE TO ORGANIZERS AND HELPERS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, on February 5, 1987, I drew the attention of the House to a unique event that was about to take place in Quebec City, and I am referring to Rendez-vous '87.
Today, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the leadership of Mr. Marcel Aubut, President of Rendez-vous '87, who has just released a financial statement that is truly exceptional.
Rendez-vous '87 wound up with a net surplus of $1.5 million which will be shared among 20 non-profit agencies and various levels of Government. The federal Government had invested $2.4 million in this event. This was a good example of co-operation between the public and the private sectors. The Progressive Conservative Government encourages valid private initiatives that make a positive contribution to the community.
Mr. Aubut's financial statement mentions the present and future impact of Rendez-vous '87, and according to a very reliable consulting firm, the economic spinoffs for the province of Quebec are estimated at $18.5 million. Isn't that fantastic, Mr. Speaker?
I am therefore proud to salute the organizers of Rendezvous '87 and their collaborators, who were able to win the confidence of socio-economic sectors at the local and national level and were able to focus the attention of thousands of spectators.
Three cheers for a job well done!


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have stood in this House on many occasions to ask the Government to increase the budget for the small craft harbours program. Dependable, well-maintained harbours and wharfs are absolutely essential, and the Government's neglect is a threat to the safety of our fishermen and boaters. The Government is being penny wise and pound foolish because the condition of our wharfs will get worse and the repairs will only become more and more costly.
Many fishermen in Prince Edward Island are deeply concerned over the condition of the hoists used to handle their boats.
O)
Apparently some hoists have been taken out of service and replaced with winches that can lift only up to 3,000 pounds.
The fishermen believe that funds should be made available to repair the hoists deemed unsafe; and where hoists have been removed the fishermen want new ones, with suitable capacity, installed.

May 14, 1987
I urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to approve this modest request.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, last week-end two Parkdale men were found in an apartment littered with bitters, beer and wine bottles. Their deaths have served to highlight the dangers of bitters, a herb-based drink which contains an alcohol content as high as 43 per cent.
Bitters can be bought in corner stores at any hour of the day or night and has proven a potent temptation to those individuals whose craving for alcohol overcomes their good sense.
It poses a clear hazard to impaired adults and minors who do not have access to other forms of alcohol, and as such it should be removed from store shelves immediately before any further deaths occur from its abuse.
The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the Province of Ontario must pay heed to the many representations he has received from the police, the Addiction Research Foundation, the medical community, and concerned citizens of Parkdale regarding the dangers of this product.
I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to bring his influence to bear on the Ontario Government to ensure the removal of bitters from corner stores, and to restrict access to that drink through provincial liquor control boards.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) announced the capping of one of the most successful programs ever delivered by that Department.
The Post-secondary Education Assistance Program has been the single most important building block in improving the quality of life for Indian and Inuit people in Canada. By providing tuition and living allowances for native students, the
Government has assisted thousands of people in their education needs.
By capping this program, the Government deliberately closes the door to education for a sector of our society that needs it most. By the Minister's own admission, the participation rate of Indian students attending colleges and universities this year stands at 4 per cent. For the rest of the country, the figure exceeds 20 per cent.
The Government is willfully pointing eager but poor native students in the direction of the welfare rolls, as if the shamefully high unemployment rates on reserves are not bad enough already.
Even the Nielsen report, Mr. Speaker, found that this program was not only worth saving but worthy of improvement. The Nielsen report found that 90 per cent of those assisted by this program found employment upon graduation. Not only is this higher than the national average, but something very much needed.
The New Democratic Party calls upon the Government to restore the PSE Assistance Program in the interests of fairness and justice for aboriginal people in Canada.


PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1987, this House adopted Bill C-22 which concerns the pharmaceutical industry. It cost the House $22,173 to hear 100 witnesses. On May 12, 1987, the Liberal majority in the Senate decided to challenge the principle of this Bill and to hear 200 witnesses, although the most important of these have already been heard before the House committee. The Senate will be spending $315,337 just to delay royal assent for Bill C-22.
And by the way, the Senate's itinerary has been planned, what a coincidence, along a route with the very best first-class hotels. The Senate is losing its credibility. The question of Senate reform will be discussed by the provinces and this Government between now and 1988, and meanwhile, the attitude of 43 Liberal senators who to all intents and purposes are defying this elected Government and thumbing their noses at taxpayers' money, this attitude will certainly be stimulating for certain proponents of Senate reform. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Senate, that repository of knowledge and wisdom, is still living in the shadow of the Liberals.
May 14, 1987


LITERACY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the difficulties faced by those who cannot read and write result in missed opportunities to work and provide a livelihood for oneself and family, the inability to function in today's ever changing and complex society, and feelings of rejection and poor self-esteem.
It is estimated that four million to five million Canadians are functionally illiterate, with up to one million individuals who cannot read or write whatsoever. Most affected by this unfortunate reality are, among others, immigrant women, Canada's indigenous peoples, and our country's poor.
For the illiterate, every-day tasks of shopping, associating products with labels, banking, and finding directions, become an unwanted adventure of desperation and frustration. Yet these difficulties need not exist to such a great extent. Canadians have become sufficiently aware of the concerns confronted by the illiterate, as nine out of ten of those recently polled termed the problem which warranted immediate action either "serious" or "very serious".
It is time for the federal Government, in co-operation with provincial Governments, school-boards, training centres, and labour organizations, to implement a national reading and writing campaign to eliminate the handicaps confronted by the illiterate. It is our collective responsibility to welcome these Canadians into a society which has shut them out for far too long and to harness their talents and aspirations in the building of a better and more prosperous Canada.


THE ARTS
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Last April 28, Mr. Speaker, seven days after the opening of the Canadian musical competitions the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) advised this volunteer and non-profit organization that its federal Government grant would be cut by $100,000. Coming as it does at the beginning of regional auditions in the 10 provinces of Canada, in which 3,000 young Canadians will participate, this grant cut-back is totally unacceptable and jeopardizes the national finals scheduled from June 27 to July 6.
As a result of this decision, Mr. Speaker, the music competitions of Canada will no longer be able to help finalists pay for their transportation expenses to take part in the national finals.
Oral Questions
I urge the Minister of Communications to revise this decision which affects thousands of participants from coast to coast and strikes hard at all men and women in this country who are interested in the classical music apprenticeship of young Canadian boys and girls.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who daily seems to be showing his inability to deal with Canada's energy problems.
This morning, a survey published in La Presse reported some disturbing statistics on the price of gas in Canada, and more specifically in Montreal and Toronto.
I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-who washed his hands of the Gulf refinery affair and is doing the same for Dome-whether he intends to repeat this approach and let the oil multinationals, including Petro-Canada, sell gas at ten to eleven cents more per litre in Montreal than they are charging in Toronto.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to consider all the so-called points the Hon. Member is trying to make, since they are entirely unfounded. As a former Minister of Finance in the Quebec Government, he ought to know that as far as prices are concerned in this country, the responsibility is shared by a number of authorities: the provinces, the Canadian Government and various departments.
The agencies concerned investigate such measures on a regular basis, and if people feel their rights have been abused, these agencies are ready to do everything they can to help.


POSSIBILITY OF MULTINATIONALS SELLING LITRE OF GASOLINE AT HIGHER PRICE IN MONTREAL THAN TORONTO- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the survey published this morning shows that in Montreal, regular gas is 52.8 cents per litre, while in Toronto it is 41.7 cents.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister's reply is unacceptable, since the problem goes beyond the borders of a single province.
I want to ask the Minister, and I don't want him to tell me it is because different taxes are involved because even when we consider the provincial tax, the difference is still 5 cents a litre, I want to ask the Minister: Will he let the multinationals set a double standard for Canadian drivers by charging 5 to 6 cents more for a litre of gas in Montreal than in Toronto?

May 14, 1987
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, in Canada the price of gas is established first of all according to the value of the commodity itself, plus federal taxes, which are the same across the country, and provincial taxes which vary from province to province. Furthermore, the price is established in terms of local competition and the distance of gas stations from the refinery.
Mr. Speaker, that is why prices are not uniform across this country.


DEPARTMENT'S MONITORING OF PETROLEUM MARKETING SYSTEM IN QUEBEC
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, since I cannot get an answer from the Minister of Energy, may 1 direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
On November 5, 1986, I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to explain why the price of gasoline was higher in some regions of Quebec than in other regions of Canada. He said that his Department was monitoring the issue and he would probably report to the House. Has the Minister completed his monitoring and when is he going to act to protect the motorists in the Province of Quebec?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau has undertaken, in response to a six-person request, a formal inquiry into the petroleum marketing situation in the Province of Quebec.
I think I need to remind the Hon. Member that if he is talking about price controls on gasoline in the Province of Quebec or in any other part of Canada, he must know that that matter falls within provincial jurisdiction. There is no power in the federal Government to put in a price-control mechanism, if that is what the Hon. Member is requesting.


SALE OF DOME PETROLEUM TO AMOCO CANADA
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It seems that while the Government is allowing consumers to be ripped off at the pumps, it is giving away our natural resources to foreigners.
In a poll conducted by the Minister's own Department, 77 per cent of those surveyed said that the Government should try to keep our oil and gas companies owned by Canadians, that
they should not be sold off to Americans. Why is the Minister of Energy thumbing his nose at Canadians and allowing an oil and gas company, such as Dome Petroleum, to be sold to an American company that 100 per cent owns the company trying to buy Dome Petroleum and to which this Government is giving its okay?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether, in the first part of his question, he means to say that the Government of Canada should have the authority to set the price of gas across Canada. I wish he would answer that.
Second, as far as Dome is concerned, we explained repeatedly that the company was in considerable financial difficulty, and this is known well beyond our borders. It was above all the interventionist policies of the previous Liberal Government that led to Dome's present difficulties. It was your policies that caused the problem.
This Government wants to ensure that the 3,000 people now working for Dome and company reserves as yet untapped at the present time will be respectively working in the sector that now belongs to Dome and used to meet our energy requirements in Canada.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this Government is worried more about what Washington is thinking than it is about what Canadians are thinking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, why is the Government smoothing the way for Amoco Canada to buy Dome Petroleum without allowing other bids to be made?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have never heard anyone make so many false statements in such a short sentence.
The Government ensured that Dome was able to consider three bids, three purchase offers, and those in charge of Dome have selected the offer they feel is favourable for Dome, its shareholders and its creditors. In the days to come, the latter will decide whether or not they agree with the proposal made by Dome's board of directors.
Mr. Speaker, unlike what the Hon. Member claimed, the Government is not concerned about what Washington will say but about the situation at Dome, and we took action to ensure that proposals were made to help save Dome.
May 14, 1987


SITUATION OF QUEBEC CONSUMERS
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Over a year ago I said that the Conservative Government's shut down of the Montreal Gulf refinery would have the following consequences: first, unwarranted loss of jobs in Quebec; second, more acute underproductive capacity in Quebec; third, handouts to the multinationals and certain friends of high finance; and fourth, I said that Canadian taxpayers and Quebec consumers would pick up the tab as a result of reduced competition in Quebec. Here is my question, Mr. Speaker: the April report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources indicates that the profits of oil companies in Montreal are twice as high as in Toronto. Does the Minister realize that Quebec consumers are now paying for the shameful action of his Government?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the Quebec leader of Canada's socialist party that in Montreal East there are now more people working in the petrochemical sector than at the time when, from the Conservative benches, he was telling us what to do.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should tell that to the unemployed Gulf workers and to Quebec consumers who, as a result of Conservative mismanagement, now have to pay twice as much as Torontonians do. What concrete measure does the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources intend to take to correct this injustice towards Quebec consumers?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that my colleague has not visited the Montreal region for quite some time. I would be rather surprised if indeed the price of gas in Montreal were twice as high as in Toronto.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ISSUE INSTRUCTIONS TO PETRO-CANADA
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, first 1 had the pleasure of being in Montreal yesterday with some of the Gulf workers and, second, I would urge the Minister to have a look at the figures put out by his own officials. Does the Minister intend to issue clear and specific instructions so that Petro-Canada will intervene and restore healthy competition in Quebec, in the interest of all Quebec consumers?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, we have anticipated the wishes of the Hon. Member. This Government gave Petro-Canada a mandate to operate on the market in accordance with Canadian legislation so as to promote competitiveness.
Oral Questions OIL COMPANIES


PRICE OF GASOLINE-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF INQUIRY
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Consumer or Corporate Affairs, depending on where his interests lie. As a result of the Conservative Government's negligence and failure to act in the Gulf refinery affair in Montreal East, for which we have Mr. Toupin and Mr. Masse to thank, today we have the following situation: consumers in Quebec are paying 11 cents more for a litre of gas. The Minister said earlier in his answer to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides that he was prepared to order an investigation if six people in Quebec asked for one. Is the Minister willing to do so, because six people have indeed written to the Investigations Commissioner to ask for an investigation? Furthermore, I am sending a letter to the Minister by messenger, right now. Considering the section in the Act that authorizes the Minister to request an investigation as well, is he prepared to acknowledge his responsibilities and defend the interests of Quebecers against the oil multinationals and to order an investigation as requested today of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should have been awake while I was responding to his colleague. I said the inquiry is under way. I have the letter in question. It was delivered to me by Canada Post.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's reply confirms what people have been saying since the shutdown of the Gulf refinery. What the Government is admitting today, and in fact, my colleague filed his request for an investigation several days ago, if today the Minister confirms that an investigation is being made, it just means that the truth is out and the Government was wrong.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROTECT CONSUMERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: My
supplementary is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, the Automobile Protection Association condemned the attitude of Petro-Canada, which claims to take the lead in these things and works hand in glove with the Governement in raising prices in the Eastern Townships and the Quebec City region. Would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, instead of sitting there doing nothing, be prepared to pick up the phone and call the President of Petro-Canada and tell him: Sorry, but Petro-Canada has to protect the Canadian consumer; you are

May 14, 1987
Oral Questions
entitled to make a profit but not by exploiting the consumer and applying outrageous price hikes.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question myself while answering the Hon. Member's question. If his assumption is that the situation in Quebec has become a problem as a result of the closing of the Gulf refinery, I would like to point out, first of all, that there are more people working in this industry today than-


Jean-Claude Malépart: That is not true.


Marcel Masse: -when Gulf closed down. I would also like to remind him of one thing, Mr. Speaker: If one refinery was closed, what about the three refineries that were closed by the Liberals a few years ago? Let him answer that one, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until it is quiet because I want to talk about money. The Minister is aware that the creditors of Dome Petroleum are meeting in Toronto this afternoon. One of the creditors has been quoted as saying that the offer by Amoco to Dome just will not fly. The Toronto Dominion Bank has been quoted as saying that it remains unacceptable.
Has the Government prepared for the eventuality of the bankruptcy of Dome and the cost of jobs in western Canada, or is the Government prepared to get involved in this matter and meet with the banks and some of the creditors concerned to try to facilitate an acceptable Canadian settlement of this matter?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not deal with hypotheses but with facts. The meeting will take place this afternoon and we will know the outcome in a few days.


CANADIAN OWNERSHIP OF OIL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister confirm that his Department took a public opinion poll and that 77 per cent of the people who answered
believe that the Government should act to prevent the takeover of Canadian owned oil companies by foreign owned firms? Did the Department take that poll? If it did, why is the Government taking this rather peculiar hands-off approach to the collapse of Dome?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not define its energy policy on the basis of polls.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THEIR IMPERIAL HIGHNESSES PRINCE AND PRINCESS TAKAMADO OF JAPAN
Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the Gallery today of their Imperial Highnesses Prince and Princess Takamado of Japan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED PURCHASE OF DOME PETROLEUM BY AMOCO CANADA
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should know that Canadians are getting sick and tired of his laissez-faire attitude on the Americanization of Canadian industry. Canadians cannot accept that big banks, fast-talking lawyers, and well-heeled executives should alone and unilaterally carve out Canada's energy future.
In light of the predictions of a possibility of a collapse in the current negotiations on Dome, the Minister's hands-off attitude, and the statement by the President of Investment Canada that he has no mandate whatsoever to investigate other bids which are available for Dome, can the Minister tell the House who will act in Canada's interests versus private interests should this bid fail?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that Canadianization has increased in all sectors since 1984, including energy, be it with respect to control or to ownership. I am still wondering why the previous Government which had spent billions of dollars with that in mind did not fare any better with its interventionist policies.
May 14, 1987


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is an intelligent man. It is about time he woke up and realized that he occupies a front bench seat as a Minister of the Crown and has to take his responsibilities. Talking about the previous Government will not solve Canada's energy problems.


POSSIBILITY OF OTHER BIDS FOR DOME
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Minister's hands-off policy, in view of the fact that to this time, as far as we in this House know, no government initiative whatsoever, direct or indirect, has been taken to examine any other potential bids, and in view of the fact that there is a prospect of failure with regard to the bid now facing us, will the Minister undertake to instruct the President of Investment Canada, despite the fact that it is not within his mandate, to be in touch with those other Canadian oriented companies which are interested in making bids on Dome?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that if I dared to act along that line the Liberal Party would promptly accuse me of undue interference.


Jean-Claude Malépart: It is in the interest of consumers.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. For some time Health and Welfare Canada has been considering changing the classification of irradiated food from an additive to a process.
Since the all-Party Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs tabled its report today recommending that food treated with ionizing energy continue to be classified as an additive to ensure that proper labeling and testing occur, will the Minister give the House and Canadian consumers his assurance that his Department will follow these recommendations?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe the committee also requested that the Government make a formal response within a 120-day period. It is, of course, our intention to do that. I would like to leave the details of that response until Cabinet has had time to consider it.
Oral Questions
As the issue of labeling affects my Department we will, of course, continue with the practice of ensuring that foods so treated are labeled.


IMPORTATION OF IRRADIATED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Since his Department is already responsible for the labeling of irradiated foods, and since the Science Council report indicates that irradiation may be used by more Third World countries for their exports of some fruits and vegetables aimed at North America, will the Minister assure Canadians that as those foods are irradiated they will be labeled before entrance into this country?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, under the Hazardous Products Act the Department requires that foods be labeled to indicate additives. It is the position of the Government now that irradiation constitutes a sort of additive and would have to be so identified.


IRRADIATED POTATO PLAN-INVOLVEMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is also with regard to irradiation. He will no doubt be aware that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited currently has in place a plan to test-market Canadian irradiated potatoes in Hamilton.
Given the concerns expressed today by the all-Party committee and the fact that the Conservative Chairman herself said that she would not eat irradiated potatoes, will the Minister order Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to put a hold on any tests of any potatoes in Hamilton or anywhere else in Canada until it gets a go-ahead from the Government?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, this has already been done at least three weeks ago.


MINISTER'S ACTION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Today my office spoke to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. They are looking at the December potato crop, to move ahead with irradiation at the A & P Store in Hamilton. That is the information from AECL today, just before Question Period.
Will the Minister issue a directive to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that Hamilton will not be used as a test point for irradiation zapping, and will he further direct AECL to ensure that no test takes place until it gets the go-ahead from the Government?

May 14, 1987
Oral Questions


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it proves one thing, that there are still people at AECL who intend to do just that, and I can assure you that instructions have been issued so it will not happen.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Either the Minister does not recognize the value and success of the Post-secondary Education Assistance Program, or he is indifferent to the continuing cycle of poverty and despair that faces many Indian and Inuit young people today. Why is he deliberately closing the door to education and a better life for Indian and Inuit young people by capping the Post-secondary Education Assistance Program?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, neither one of the Hon. Member's assertions in his preamble is accurate. We recognize the success of the program. We recognized it by creating an additional $12 million to be added to the post-secondary budget this year. That is some $94 million that is provided for some 12,000 students attending post-secondary educational institutions in Canada.
The growth rate from 1983-84 to 1987-88 is over 200 per cent. The reason that the interim measure had to be taken was to assure that there would be fairness and that the funds provided would be used in an equitable manner, to provide post-secondary education to Indian and Inuit students.


James Douglas Manly: The program was growing because it was working and more students were able to take advantage of it.


FUNDING OF PROGRAM
James Douglas Manly: Why
is the Minister closing this program at the very time when Indian communities recognize the possibilities available to them in post-secondary education, when more Indian and Inuit young people have come through school and are able to take advantage of it? Why does the Minister cut it off now when the program is beginning to work? Is that not an example of bad faith, to fund a program until people begin to take advantage of it, then shut it down?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to shutting down a program. An increase of $12 million over budget is not shutting down a program. Some 12,000 Inuit and Indian students are taking advantage of postsecondary education. The expenditures are some $94 million.
The interim changes were made so that those who are benefiting now and those who wish to benefit in the future will be able to do so. Ten years ago the program was funded at a level of $8 million. Today it is funded at $94 million. I suggest to the Hon. Member that there is a program in existence which will benefit Indian and Inuit students.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. The decision on Monday that Denis Lortie, a man who has been convicted of murdering three and wounding 13 others in a machine-gun attack, will be eligible for parole in some seven years is undoubtedly going to underline and reinforce the concerns of many Canadians who are calling for the return of the death penalty.
Bearing in mind that for many weeks now his Department has had the report of the Sentencing Commission, will the Parliamentary Secretary give the undertaking to the House that the Government will move immediately to reform criminal law sentencing? Will he give us the assurance as well that the Government will not wait until the end of the capital punishment debate to move to reassure concerned of Canadians in this area?


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon. Member for his question. Indeed, the Sentencing Commission tabled its report a few weeks ago, and the Department is completing its examination. But, as you know, there will have to be consultation with the provincial Ministers of Justice, in view of the fact that the administration of justice comes under provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the Minister has every intention of seeking the advice not only of provincial Governments, but also of federal and provincial Government corrections representatives and all individuals and groups interested in this important matter.
May 14, 1987


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last evening in the committee the Minister of Employment and Immigration made what can only be called a shocking confession on behalf of the Government, that there are absolutely no plans and there is no interest in preparing plans for the adjustment of all those communities that will be affected under a free trade deal. Yet the Government's own studies, prepared by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, have pointed out that thousands of workers will be displaced or dislocated across the country upon the signing of a free trade agreement.
Why is the Government totally ignoring its own studies and totally ignoring its responsibility to prepare some form of adjustment program that will provide help for those workers in those communities who will face dislocation and turmoil as a result of the Government's policy to negotiate a free trade agreement?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry had been present yesterday at the Committee meeting, he would have understood me completely. I said that manpower adjustment is a continuing problem: every year, 2.4 million Canadians are involved in job displacement and avail themselves of the various Government programs to achieve employment adjustment. Therefore, it is completely independant from the trade negotiations with the United States.
Also, 1 said yesterday that nobody is in a position to foresee exactly what individual area of our economy would be affected, should we ever reach an agreement with the United States. Studies have been made. I suggest it would be somewhat premature, before any agreement is reached, to indicate in which industry we should apply adjustment mechanisms. I can assure my hon. friend that if we need to define these industries, we shall do so. We do it already for 2.4 million Canadians. Therefore, instead of trying to frighten people, I think we should use the mechanisms that exist already. In my opinion, there is no problem at that level.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can take the opportunity at some point to introduce the Minister to his colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, whose Department has prepared a series of studies that demonstrate that in the automobile industry, the food processing industry, the appliance industry and in the agricultural sector there will be
Oral Questions
major dislocation of thousands of jobs, affecting communities in all those sectors.
When the Government states that this is the most important economic policy it has, surely it should recognize that it will need special programs to prepare those workers whose jobs will be lost or affected. Why is the Government doing absolutely nothing to prepare for that outcome? Is the real reason that the Government does not want to admit that there will be jobs lost because it will show that its policy is bankrupt?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to my hon. friend that he would rather try to scare Canadians than have them believe that we are right.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. I have been receiving many complaints from constituents that mail is being returned to the sender marked "Address Unknown". In each case, however, the mail was correctly addressed. I have been shown examples of such mail.
I have with me today a package that was sent from my office to a constituent, which has been returned in a completely mutilated condition more than a month after being mailed. In fact, the correct name, address, street, city and postal code are on both sides of the package. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect the people at the Post Office to learn how to read and provide the service for which people are paying?


Harvie Andre: Would you believe tomorrow?
The question of the service of the Post Office is very serious. As the Marchment Committee pointed out, there are very serious problems in the Post Office we are trying to address. 1 have indicated that service has to be the very first priority. In that regard, a large national consulting firm has been hired and will report on a quarterly basis to Parliament and to the public.


Mr. Benjamin:: That will cost the public.


Harvie Andre: Socialists apparently are not interested. It will report on a quarterly basis to Parliament and to the public about the service of the Post Office. It will be an independent outside audit.
In the meantime, I think complaints such as that of the Hon. Member should be directed to the Post Office so that the employee, supervisor, or manager who is responsible for that

May 14, 1987
Oral Questions
kind of shoddy service can be dealt with in the appropriate fashion.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Today I received petitions which represent 100,000 Canadians who indicate their opposition to the Draconian measures included in the Forget Commission Report on unemployment insurance. We have had commissions and studies. We have had committees studying the commission reports.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John R. Rodriguez: We have reports on the committees studying the commission reports.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


John R. Rodriguez: Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to put it to the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: -and call upon him to stop playing politics and start-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: -dealing off the top of the deck with the unemployed. Will the Minister stand in his place now and not only reject Forget's major recommendations but also announce improvements and strengthening of the unemployment insurance program when he makes his statement tomorrow?


Benoît Bouchard: At noon tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is as decisive as the Liberal caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He is not that bad, is he?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Gallup all the way, John.


Mr. Nunziata:: Rise and fall.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair cannot help but note there seems to be an attempt here to kill two birds with one stone.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would put his question.


PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
John R. Rodriguez: I want to apologize to the Minister. He is not that bad.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Now, having softened up and buttered up the Minister, maybe he will see fit to give me a positive response. Is the Minister prepared to stand up now and tell us that tomorrow, when he makes his announcement, he will not only be setting himself up as the great hero who saved the unemployed from Forget but he is prepared to make some positive changes along the lines suggested by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, which was dominated by Tories?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I shall not move as much as the polls have moved since yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Seriously, 1 want to tell my hon. friend that tomorrow I think will be an important day for U.I. I will try to give the best answer we can to the unemployed in the country, in those circumstances where we actually have unemployment in the country.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will address my question to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. I note the Leader of the New Democratic Party has disappeared overnight. I thought he might have been here to take a bow, but he is not.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us where rabbit John is? What burrow is he hiding in?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yesterday the OECD declared its opposition to the dumping of surplus grain onto world markets at subsidized prices. I wonder if, as a result of this agreement to which the United States was a party, the Minister has a commitment that the United States will not raid our traditional Canadian markets as it has been doing in the Russian market for wheat and in the Saudi Arabia market for barley. Has the Minister, as a result of this proclamation yesterday in Paris, received a commitment from the United States that it will stop this raiding of our traditional markets?
May 14, 1987


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, what did happen yesterday as a result of the OECD meeting and the communique is that for the first time we have 24 of the OECD countries unanimously making a declaration on agriculture. I think that is very good news.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: I also think that the Prime Minister needs to be congratulated for the lead he has taken, as well as the two Ministers of this Government who attended that meeting.


CAIRNS GROUP MEETING
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister points out that the Prime Minister should receive a bow, too. The Prime Minister noted that the Cairns group on grain is going to be meeting here next week. Since the two warring parties are the EEC and the United States, which is party to the agreement yesterday, is the Minister going to invite representatives from the EEC and the United States to be participants in the Cairns group meeting next week? Since they are the principal adversaries in this trade war, can there really be an effective or useful meeting without those two warring parties? Surely we cannot have a peace treaty without the two combatants in the war.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the first meeting which was held in Cairns, Australia, last August-hence the name "the Cairns group"-is made up of 14 so-called fair trading agricultural nations. It involves more than just grain. Thailand, for instance, is very interested in rice, and many of the developing countries are also there as a result of sugar and sugar-beets.
At the Cairns meeting both the United States and European Community were there as observers, as was Japan. Those invitations have been extended so that those countries and the European Community can be there and make their presentations as a result of being observers at the meeting. So they are certainly included. However, the prime focus of the Cairns group is to get 14 of the trading countries which believe we trade fairly in agriculture together so that collectively we can take that message to some of the other countries we think are causing the problems, namely, the European Community, the United States, and Japan.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR FARMERS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to the OECD Accord and grain wars in the world and the fact there is no timetable as of yet and no penalties if anyone breaks this Accord. Those are to be worked out during the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations.
1 want to ask the Minister the specific question which some farm organizations asked me this morning. They are concerned
Oral Questions
to know whether or not we have some guarantees that the European Common Market and the United States, which are the main culprits in the trade war, will be the ones which begin to roll back farm support massively before countries like Canada are expected to cut back on support to farmers. Can we have the guarantee from the Minister that we will not be cutting back on farm support to farmers until there is at least a level playing field around the world, if even at that time?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, that has been our position as a Government and that is the position of the farm community. We see the support we are providing for our farmers as being in reaction and in order to keep our farmers in business, as a result of the silliness which is going on between the Europeans and the Americans.
I will even go one step further and say that Canada in the past, in the early 1970s, participated by itself in reducing its over-all production. We have no intention of getting into anything like that either unless we have complete agreement and assurance from the other grain exporting countries that they are prepared to do the same.


GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENT TO FARMERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. Another concern voiced to me this morning by some farmers and farm organizations was with respect to the fact that we know the Government, at least publicly, has not made a commitment yet to a deficiency payment next fall. We know at least that that is the public position.
Can the Minister assure the House that in no way will the agreement reached in Paris yesterday jeopardize, influence or have any impact on the Government's thinking as to whether or not there will be a deficiency payment next fall? Can the Minister assure us that what happened in Paris yesterday will not influence the Government with respect to whether or not there will be a deficiency payment next year that might guarantee farmers a final price that is no lower than they received for last year's crop?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, surely the Hon. Member should have prefaced his question by saying that what happened yesterday in Paris at the OECD meeting is a step in the right direction and that it is some good news.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: With regard to the support the Government has shown for agriculture, it is substantial, it has increased dramatically. It is up 350 per cent.
The Minister of Finance said yesterday: "Just because we have called for a truce that doesn't mean that the support programs are going to disappear because you cannot leave the

May 14, 1987
Business of the House
farmer high and dry". That is a very strong commitment on behalf of the Government from the Minister of Finance to support farmers in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence for a question and a supplementary. That will close off Question Period.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State of Canada and the Minister of National Health and Welfare my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Departments of these two Minister have a major, basic, fundamental responsibility for the needs and concerns of the disabled and the handicapped, how does the Government account for the fact that in the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of National Health and Welfare only 1 per cent of the employees are disabled and handicapped-in other words only one in every one hundred-while the national average is six in every one hundred? Why is the policy of the Government: "Don't do as I do, do as I say"?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not authorized to answer for the two departments mentioned by my colleague. Yesterday however the Hon. Member quoted figures which are false and do not reflect reality. On the basis of the figures I am about to give him, I would ask him to check again the figures he has today because yesterday he said that Employment and Immigration Canada was one of the departments with the smallest number of handicapped employees. I would remind my colleague that 708 people are registered as handicapped employees working for the department. This amounts to 2.54 per cent, definitely more than the standards set by Treasury Board.
So in the case of the two departments he mentioned today 1 would ask him to check his figures before making the kind of statements we have just heard.


Roland de Corneille: I am shocked that the Minister would say that the figures from the Challenge report which his Department gave to the Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped are incorrect when those are the very figures his Department gave to the committee. It is shameful for him to deny that now.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as
House Leader take immediate steps to establish the Subcommittee on the Disabled and the Handicapped as a permanent standing committee of the House of Commons so that it will have the credibility and the status it needs to carry out its own recommendations?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion put forward by the Hon. Member is indeed a worthy one. However, it is one of those types of things that are normally transacted during the course of the discussions that take place among House Leaders. Perhaps the Hon. Member might want to ask his House Leader to raise it at our next meeting.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister what legislative menu the Government intends to bring before the House in the coming week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will be another allotted day. On Monday the House does not sit. Tuesday will be another allotted day. On Wednesday we will be proceeding with third reading of Bill C-37, followed by Bill C-57.
*	* v


PRIVILEGE
Marcel Masse: I want to raise a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: What is it this time?


Marcel Masse: I believe many of my colleagues on this side of the House clearly heard our colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie use, in our exchange of questions and answers, words which seem quite unparliamentary to us.
I can understand that Hon. Members may have exchanges on personal views, but as to the form, Mr. Speaker, I have always shown respect for my colleagues in the House and each Member is entitled to expect to be so treated. I believe the words used by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) were clearly unparliamentary and, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, he should withdraw them.
May 14, 1987


Jacques Guilbault: On the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. First I would point out that the Minister rose to attack my colleague from Montreal- Sainte-Marie in his absence, which is somewhat unusual.
Second, I would draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the Minister made a general attack without indicating in any way whatever the specific words which, in his opinion, my colleague allegedly used to insult him. I would suggest that the Chair ought not to accept that general accusations be made without specifying what they are all about; this has never been done.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in direct reply to my colleague's suggestion that a question of privilege cannot be raised when a Member is not in the Chamber, the Hon. Minister raised the question of privilege at the first available opportunity. If my friend's point is valid, then a question of privilege on items which take place in Question Period could simply be avoided by leaving the Chamber. I think the Minister has done the correct thing.
Waiting until the "blues" are available or until the other Member is available for comment are other ways of handling the matter. However, I do not think it should be thrown out simply because the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has left the Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member raised an important point, a complaint concerning the language used by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart). Unfortunately it was impossible for the Chair to hear clearly the words which are the subject of the complaint, but naturally when the Minister and, I think, a few other Members have heard a few words which obviously gave rise to this question, consequently-

Perhaps I can review the "blues", and if I think it is necessary and, in the interests of fairness, I would, of course, hear the Hon. Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie. Perhaps for now Hon. Members will let the Chair review the "blues". I will return to the House at an appropriate moment.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that I have received a notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLel-lan). I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary will have an intervention to make, which may prove helpful. I will now hear the Hon. Member.
Privilege



Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is with respect to a question on the Order Paper which was answered yesterday. I refer to Question No. 95 in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). The question reads:
For the period September 4, 1984 to March 4, 1987, did Members of Parliament travel outside of Canada at the expense, in whole or in part, of any department of the Government of Canada and, if so, for each Member and each trip what was the (a) sponsoring department (b) purpose (c) destination (d) cost?
Included in this answer, Mr. Speaker, is an expense item listed in my name, in relation to my attendance at the Forty-First Session of the United Nations General Assembly, in the amount of $25,721.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


An Hon. Member:: A typical "liberal" spender.


An Hon. Member:: One would think he was the Prime Minister, spending that amount of money!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to think that the Government would provide me with that amount of money for one week; but, I can assure you, if I spent that amount of money for a one-week trip, I would have to get my closets expanded.
While I can laugh about this matter now, it was not very funny this morning when it was flashed across the country as the lead news item. It caused great concern to myself, my family, and my constituents.
My office telephoned the Department of External Affairs regarding this, and the response received was, "Oh, well, that's too bad. Evidently, your name was confused with that of another Member, who had attributed to him expenditures totalling $25,720." But even in the confusion there was still attributed to me $1 more than that attributed to the other Member.
It is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker, when this type of erroneous information is allowed to slip through. It can do nothing but cause problems for the credibility of Members of Parliament, in addition to causing embarrassment to Hon. Members, their families, and their constituents. Some tightening up in respect of the compilation and dissemination of this information is required.
I do not disagree for a moment with the right of Members of Parliament to have this information, or the right of the press or the Canadian public. All I ask is that the right information be brought forward.

May 14, 1987
Privilege
In my particular case, according to External Affairs, my expenses in respect of that week amounted to $2,183. So, as one can see, it is not even a question of a misplaced decimal.
I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, for a public apology, and I ask that the correct figure be printed in Hansard as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Before hearing from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis), let me just observe that it is regrettable that this error has taken place. It is something that may have stemmed from over-enthusiastic investigative reporting.
In any event, we shall hear from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council on the matter.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that a serious mistake has indeed been made. On behalf of the Government, I rise to admit that an administrative error has been made, in respect of which I offer our sincere apologies to my colleague.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: I am advised that the correct amount is indeed $2,183. At the present time, I have no idea as to how such an error could have been made. The fact that a great number of figures are provided without error does not make any less grievous this particular mistake.
We regret that it has caused the Hon. Member and his family embarrassment, not to mention the time involved in straightening the matter out. Given my personal friendship with the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), I am particularly regretful that this error occurred. I can tell the Hon. Member that I expect to have the official correction ready for tabling tomorrow; or if not then, at the first available opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his response. I trust that the response given will completely satisfy the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-the Sydneys as well as his family and his constituents.



Mr. Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) on April 28 and May 5, as well as the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) yesterday, May 13.
I will first briefly recapitulate the sequence of events underlying the first question of privilege, as I understand them.
For the benefit of those Hon. Members who were unable to be here yesterday, as well as the public, let me say that this ruling relates to alleged leaks of information from committee meetings held in camera-, that is to say, in absolute privacy.
There have been several incidents over the last few months involving such leaks brought to the attention of the Chair. The Chair considers such leaks a very serious matter.
As was pointed out by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) a few days ago, when this place operates at its best, it operates on the basis of mutual trust. When Hon. Members take part in what is an in camera meeting-and it is not for the Chair to say when and under what circumstances such meetings are held; that is a decision for the respective committees-they have to be assured that what takes place in confidence will be held in confidence.
That, I am sure, is a sentiment shared by all Hon. Members, and it is that which the Chair intends to address in its ruling. I invite all Hon. Members, some of whom were unable to be here when the arguments were given, to reflect upon that, and I also want the public watching the proceedings of this place to understand exactly what it is the ruling relates to.
To briefly recapitulate the sequence of events, on March 24 last the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met in camera to consider a draft report to the House. The committee resolved-and remember, the committee was in camera-following a recorded vote, not to report the draft report to the House at that time.
On the following day, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), a distinguished member of that particular committee, and an individual for whom Hon. Members have a high regard, made a statement under Standing Order 21 criticizing the decision of the committee. In the course of his statement, he said;
In an anonymous office tower, behind closed doors and safely tucked away
from probing microphones, four Members of Parliament abrogated their
responsibilities to aboriginal people.
[Translation)
He then went on to disclose the names of four members of the Committee who, in his words, "voted to block the report".
On April 1, at another in camera meeting, the Committee considered a motion to report the action of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River to the House. The report was adopted on April 7 and later presented to the House. On the presentation of the report the House was formally seized of the matter.

The matter raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South yesterday concerned the publication in the press of certain proceedings which took place at an in camera meeting of the
May 14, 1987

Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources. In this case, as well, the matter was formally reported to the House by the committee. The Hon. Member provided the Chair with the relevant press reports, which constitute the only available evidence. The committee did not attempt to identify the source of the leak.
On April 28, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake raised the matter arising from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development as a question of privilege. Because of the absence of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, who was engaged on other parliamentary business, argument was postponed until May 5.
The presentation of the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake was very straightforward. He argued that the unauthorized disclosure of the proceedings of an in camera meeting of a committee could be damaging to Members and constitute a breach of privilege. He supported his argument with an apposite citation from the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.
The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, in a defence of his action, claimed that he did not violate the intent of the in camera meeting and that a clear distinction should be made between Votes and Proceedings. He argued that with the taking of a recorded vote, the in camera meeting was in essence suspended.
I noted at the time that the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River, who as I have commented is a well-respected Member of the House, did not take the position that a Member was entitled to reveal anything which goes on at an in camera meeting just because he or she did not happen to agree with it.
It is important for the Chair to make it very clear that that was not the thrust of the defence of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River. He was not saying that a particular Member ought to be able to reveal anything that happens in camera if he or she feels strongly about it; that was not the Hon. Member's position.
As I say, the position was that there was a difference, as he argued, between the substance of the discussion which had been taking place in the in camera meeting and the vote which took place in the in camera meeting. However, there is no doubt on the facts, the vote took place within the in camera meeting.
He argued that with the taking of a recorded vote, the in camera meeting was in essence suspended. As I say, I noted at the time that he did not take the position that a Member was entitled to reveal anything which goes on at an in camera meeting just because he or she did not happen to agree with it.
The Hon. Member was supported in his argument by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who is a senior Member of this place and enjoys the respect of all Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior
Privilege
requested the Chair to rule "that the revelation of a recorded vote under any circumstances at all is not the same thing as the publication of a committee's proceedings". He also expressed doubt that such a revelation could damage the reputation of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake in any event.
We had two Members arguing that there was a distinction between the substance of what took place-the discussions and the vote. Again I reiterate that neither Hon. Member was in any way, as far as the Chair is concerned, taking the position that in camera proceedings ought not to be respected just because a Member does not agree with what goes on there or, as I suppose could be implied in this case because both Hon. Members are very concerned about native matters, depending upon the seriousness of the discussion and the nature of the issue involved.
The Chair first had to decide, therefore, whether a recorded vote taken at an in camera meeting of a committee was not, as the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River and the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior claimed, a part of the in camera proceedings.
I must say that the two Hon. Members argued their points very effectively. However, the Chair has been forced to the conclusion that when a committee resolves to meet in camera, the intention of the committee is that all deliberations which take place at that meeting must be confidential unless and until it resolves otherwise. It is clear that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development did not resolve that its sitting should be resumed in public for the purpose of taking the recorded vote. The committee did in fact resume its sitting in public subsequently, but not before the vote was taken. I cannot therefore accept the argument that there is a distinction between votes and proceedings in this context and in the manner argued by both Hon. Members.
The next question to be decided by the Chair is whether this particular disclosure of what took place at an in camera meeting constitutes prima facie evidence of a question of privilege.
The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake quoted a sentence from the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May, which is repeated in identical terms on page 154 of the Twentieth Edition. The citation reads:
The publication or disclosure of proceedings of committees conducted with
closed doors or of draft reports of committees before they have been reported
to the House will, however, constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.

In the British House of Commons, this principle has always been strictly enforced. As recently as 1968 a British Member was ordered by the House to be reprimanded in his place by the Speaker for having revealed to a journalist confidential evidence received by a committee of which he was a member. In 1976, The Economist was censured by the Committee of Privileges for having published the confidential report of a select committee.

May 14, 1987
Privilege

Canadian practice in this area is less easily defined, although Citation 628(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition indicates that the publication of the proceedings at an in camera meeting of a committee would be an offence with which the House could deal upon receiving a report from the committee.
There are two rulings of October 21, 1975 and May 6, 1977, dismissing complaints arising from the disclosure of confidential proceedings of committees. These are two Canadian rulings of this House. 1 should point out that the circumstances of these two cases were not unlike those of the case raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South, but rather different from those of the one raised by the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake. In the 1975 case the complaint was dismissed because it was not directed against any specific individual or group.
In the 1977 case the complaint was directed against the press, and Mr. Speaker Jerome said the following in the course of his ruling:
It concerns me, however, that the motion appears to attack the press for publishing a confidential document but does not attack ourselves as Members of the House for our own attitude in respect of our own confidential documents. Since it misses that point it misses something I think most important with respect to the privileges of the House.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) referred to this ruling when he was speaking to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South. I must agree that it does not become the House to attack the press without reviewing the part that some of us as Members of the House have played in revealing the confidential proceedings of certain committees. One can hardly blame the press for publishing leaked information. It is far more important that we, as Members of Parliament, should address our own responsibilities in ensuring that such leaks do not take place.
I believe it is my duty on your behalf to state in categoric terms that when a committee resolves to meet in camera, all the deliberations which take place at such a meeting, including any votes which might be recorded, are intended to be confidential. All Members attending such a meeting, together with any members of the staff assisting the committee, are expected to respect the confidentiality of the proceedings which take place at that meeting. This place can only operate on the basis of respect for its rules and practice and of confidence and trust among its Members.
At this point I am prepared to rule that I do not feel I can accord precedence over other business to the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary South. My reasoning, as I think Hon. Members will have divined, is the same as that which inspired Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling of May 6, 1977. We should not attack the press before determining the measure of responsibility that attaches to ourselves as the possible source of the leaked information.
The question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake involves other considerations. The elements which influenced the Chair in dismissing the two complaints raised on October 21, 1975 and May 6, 1977 are not present in
this case. The complaint of the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake is directed at a Member of this House on the basis of undisputed facts.
The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was meeting in camera and a recorded vote was taken before the committee resumed its sitting in public. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River made a statement in this House under Standing Order 21 criticizing the decision of the committee and revealing the names of four members who participated in the vote. These facts were duly reported to the House by the committee. In these circumstances, it would be very difficult to dismiss the complaint of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake. I, find, therefore, in view of the evidence which has been presented to the Chair that this matter should be accorded the necessary precedence.
I should explain, in case the practice is not generally understood, that the Chair is not judging this issue. Only the House itself can do that. The Chair simply decides on the basis of the evidence presented whether the matter is one which should take priority over other business. For those who may get lost in these procedural terms, it just means that this matter is now deemed by the Chair to be sufficiently serious to be put to the House in precedence over anything else the House might be doing at this time. That is all it means. The point is that it is the House that is to make this decision.
The next step is normally the introduction of a motion by the Member raising the complaint. Such motions usually propose the referral of the issue concerned to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure; not back to the committee from which the complaint came, but to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. The House might then decide to take no further action until the committee has reported. However, 1 point out that the motion is debatable and the effect of my ruling is to allow it to be taken into consideration immediately, with or without debate. I might also point out that the usual practice has been for the House to allow the matter to go to the appropriate committee without debate but, as I say, I am saying that if any Hon. Member feels compelled to enter into debate, then that is the right of any Hon. Member.
Again, so far as the Chair is concerned, the vigorous arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River strove to draw a distinction between the vote which took place in camera and the substance of the discussion. I want to emphasize once more that if the Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake proposes the motion and it goes to committee, that is the question which the committee is to decide. It has been the sense of the Chair that you cannot divide these two, but it is also important for all Hon. Members to remember that in the vigorous arguments put forward by both Members in defence of the application neither of them at any time was advancing the notion that in camera meetings are not to be respected. I ask Hon. Members to keep that in mind.
May 14, 1987

It is important that this matter be considered in the context of the position taken by both Hon. Members, but it is also very important, in the view of the Chair, that this serious principle be addressed because it goes beyond the question of any one particular individual Member; it is a matter of grave importance for all of the committees that are operating in this place.
I therefore invite the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake to move an appropriate motion.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, in view of your findings, I move:
That the matter of disclosure by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River of a recorded vote taken at an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as reported to the House by the said committee on April 28, 1987, be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the ruling that you have made today is, in my view, an extremely important one. It is an important ruling for at least two reasons and probably many more than that, Sir.
First, I think that Hon. Members as a result of your ruling will have to give quite careful consideration as to whether it is in the best interests of Parliament and in the best interests of our work as publicly elected representatives to do our work in camera. The decision to go into an in camera meeting will have to be given much more careful consideration by each and every committee. On many occasions it has been done without the degree of thought and consideration that such a decision deserves. Is it really necessary and is it so important that Members work behind closed doors in strict confidentiality? That is the first point I want to make, and your ruling, I think, will impose on those who chair committees and who participate in decisions of committees that they give much more thought to this decision.
The second aspect of your ruling is that for the first time in the Canadian parliamentary tradition the due importance of in camera meetings has been underlined by you. I think Hon. Members in the past have perhaps considered that which goes on in in camera meetings too lightly but henceforth they will not be able to do so.
I come now to the third point. What still has to be considered by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, as I understand your ruling, is whether there is a distinction between proceedings and a recorded vote. You indicated quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, that all of this went on within an in camera meeting and, therefore, the rules of in camera as outlined by Beauchesne are applicable.
Privilege
It does seem that there is a bit of an anomaly herein that when you record something in an in camera meeting, that recording of a vote, of a division, among the members must be given confidentiality. That strikes me as a bit of an anomaly and I think it needs some sorting out.
The experience learned in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is that committees cannot be sloppy in their procedures. Obviously there was a bit of sloppiness that took place at that particular meeting with which we are dealing. When an Hon. Member who was distressed by the decision that had been made within the committee called for a recorded vote, it was at that very moment that members should also have taken the precaution and the necessary step to ask the Chairman and the Clerk of the committee that the in camera situation be changed and it become a regular meeting. In fact, this very item was subsequently discussed in the committee, and that is now the practice.
The motion which will be referred to the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure will establish important new precedents for the Canadian House of Commons. The lessons that can be learned from this for the work of committees will be important in the future. Committees will have to proceed with much more care about going in camera. If there is going to be a recorded vote they will have to take the necessary procedural step to make sure they are no longer in camera when the recorded vote is taken.
I thank Your Honour for the decision.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 want to thank the Hon. Member. Is the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rising to speak?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that since the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) is in our Party and we do not object to the motion, it should be put without any further debate so we can get back to the Opposition Day debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who is, as I said earlier, a distinguished senior Member of this place. His comments are helpful.
The question that I now have to put to the House is: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Holtmann) agreed to.

May 14, 1987
Committees of the House NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE


AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL FOR STANDING COMMITTEE
Philip Derek Lewis: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me say, just before we get back to Orders of the Day, that there have been discussions among the Parties and I wish to put a motion with respect to travel in order that the committee involved may make the appropriate arrangements. I move:
That the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare be authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada, specifically:
1)	Toronto, Ontario, May 20 to 22, 1987, inclusive;
2)	Victoria, Vancouver, Alkali Lake and Meares Island, British Columbia,
May 31 to June 3, 1987, inclusive; and
3)	Edmonton, Alberta, June 3 to June 4, 1987, inclusive;
to hold public hearings concerning the committee's ongoing study on alcohol and drug abuse and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether my point is a point of order or question of privilege but I did want to reflect on the ruling made at the lunch break. I do it with some trepidation because I hold you in very high regard.
I think the statement, which obviously is not available to me in the "blues", had something to do with assuming that there was unanimous consent or there is deemed to be unanimous consent in the House regarding the motion before the House. 1 would not argue at all that at the time of debate there was unanimous consent. 1 think there was that spirit of oneness among the Members and 1 am not speaking to the substance of the motion at all. There may well be unanimous consent throughout the day regarding the motion. However, I wonder if, by assuming at one o'clock that there is unanimous consent when there are still several hours of debate left, and since we do not even know who is going to be speaking to the motion, it would not be considered premature to consider that there is unanimous consent or there is deemed to be unanimous consent to the motion before the debate is over. Are we not proscribing the rights of other Members who have yet to speak
on the motion if, before the debate is finished, there is deemed to be unanimous consent?
While I do not want to disagree with you, I do draw to your attention the fact that an early decision regarding unanimous consent has the potential of restricting debate and restricting the rights of Members in the debate. Therefore, I would like to have a clarification of the remarks you made since, as I said, 1 do not have the "blues" at my disposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the Hon. Member who has raised a legitimate point. What happened just before one o'clock was that a suggestion was made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) that in view of the way the debate was going there might be some disposition in the House to take the position then that, at the end of the day, it would be deemed that this motion receive the unanimous support of the House. The point that the Hon. Member is making is that this is probably not the usual practice. It may be that some caution should be exercised when such a suggestion is made, especially if it is made relatively early in the debate on a motion. I think that is the sense of the Hon. Member's observations, and of course there always is the difficulty that if a motion like this should be accepted by the House early in debate, some Hon. Member who was busy attending to some other parliamentary duty might have felt that if he or she had been in the Chamber the matter might have gone a little differently.
However, the position the Chair before one o'clock was simply this. A suggestion was made by an Hon. Member. The Minister of the Crown concerned was in the Chamber. Both the Minister and the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), who seemed to be quite clearly speaking for the Official Opposition, indicated support for the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill. At that point, because this House is the master of its own proceedings and in view of the fact that the Chair could not see that there was anything out of order about the procedure proposed, the Chair listened carefully and I think properly made it clear what was being proposed, and then clearly put the question to the House. Therefore I think procedurally what took place is proper.
However, the Hon. Member raises a question which perhaps we could all keep in mind, that is, that while this was unusual and it may well be resorted to again, there is of course the caveats which the Hon. Member has pointed out. I am sure all Hon. Members will benefit from the comments made. However, I certainly have to find that what was done was done within the procedural rules and according to the will of the House, as the Hon. Member pointed out. I thank the Hon. Member for his observations.
May 14, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr, Fulton:
That this House calls upon the Government of British Columbia to co-operate in setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the federal government provide for compensation to those interests affected by such a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the House confirms its intention to ensure the continued participation of the Haida people in matters affecting South Moresby.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, concerning what the House did by unanimous consent in those moments prior to the lunch break, I want to say that I regard it as one of the highest moments in the life of this Parliament and in the life of the House of Commons, it being one of those occasions when we put our hearts and minds together and unanimously express the will of the House of Commons of Canada regarding the preservation of South Moresby and the creation of a national park reserve in that area. I am very glad that we were able to do that and I call the attention of all Canadians concerned about the preservation of that area to the fact that the House of Commons has acted in this way. I think it is a very important moment in the life of the House of Commons.
It is more than appropriate for us to have done this as a Parliament today because of the particular historical context in which we find ourselves, both as it concerns the recent report of the World Commission on Environment and Development chaired by Norwegian Prime Minister Madame Brundt-land, and also with respect to the historical context in which we have found ourselves for some time now. I would like to say a word about that. Perhaps because we have agreed that the motion shall be deemed to be passed at the end of the day, I will be freer to be less argumentative and more able to put what we have done here today in a larger framework.
I believe that at this point in human history we are faced with a unique set of planetary factors which call for a transcendence of all traditional western political philosophies and ideologies. None of these ideologies, whether they be capitalist or socialist, whether they have been production oriented or profit oriented, which have competed for so long for the minds of men and women are now adequate to the emerging reality of what has popularly become known as planet earth, although in my view obviously some views are more capable of meeting the challenge than others.
I refer to the moment that we are in by quoting from the World Commission on the Environment and Development, the chapter entitled "From One Earth to One World". It reads:
Supply
In the middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the first time. Historians may eventually find that this vision had a greater impact on thought than did the Copernican revolution of the 16th century, which upset the human self image by revealing that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils. Humanity's inability to fit its activities into that pattern is changing planetary systems fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards. This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized and-managed.
This is true in the physical sense that the prevailing view of economic growth, which is responsible in many ways for much of the clear-cutting that has already been done in all parts of Canada, needs to be transcended in order that the limitless thrust of this way of looking at things not bring us to destruction by its ignorance of the limits to the kind of growth that we have had so far, of the limits to the amount of pollution that the environment can take, for example, of the limits to the amount of resources that are readily available to us without environmental penalty, and finally, quite simply, of the limits upon systems and upon notions of our economy which seem to presuppose, and some even to require, infinite growth in a finite world.
We heard earlier from the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) about the spirituality, culture and traditions of the Haida people. I want to speak from the traditions of western civilization and talk about the philosophical roots in our own traditions of the problems that we face. It is important to recognize that much of the present dilemma cannot be separated from the limits of that view of nature which has complimented the establishment of what could be called the industrial paradigm, which is what I have been talking about, for the question of resources and of pollution is not just a question of limits of what nature can give and of what nature can take, but also of what nature should be expected to give and what it should not have to take. It is our whole approach to non-human creation which needs to be reflected upon at this point.
The critique of the modern world's attitude to nature has placed much of the blame for the exploitation of nature at the feet of Christianity. It is argued that the notion of man's dominion over nature derived from the creation story in Genesis is responsible for our present situation. This is no doubt partially true in the same way as many other modern attitudes can be traced to the selective expansion of a particular biblical theme at the expense of other themes and at the expense of the biblical stories from which the attitude is derived. The creation story is a good example. If you will permit me to revert to my other vocation I would like to quote from Genesis, Chapter 1, Verse 9, which I think is relevant to the South Moresby situation. It reads:
And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

May 14, 1987
Supply
In this Creation story we read that God created those things over which humans are said to have dominion before the creation of human life, and they are called good even before human life is added to them, which seems to suggest that nonhuman creation has value in the eyes of the Creator independent of its use to human life. God saw that it was good, that it was valuable, that it had value independent of the existence of human life. This is a way of reading the Creation story which needs to be emphasized. The fact that it has not been so emphasized is not so much the fault of the story itself as it is of its various interpreters down through the years.
Likewise, it is quite out of context to notice only the dominion of humanity without noticing the dominion of God and his intentions for the dominion of humanity. There is a unique role for human life in creation insofar as humans are able to understand and explain the rest of creation in a way that is not possible for other creatures. The power which this gives to humanity over the rest of creation is certainly a form of dominion, but it is not the case that this dominion could ever have rightly been interpreted as a licence to see the whole world as a mere instrument of human goals.
Thus, it is possible to admit that the concept of man's dominion over nature has found support in biblical teachings while at the same time suggesting that this dominion is more appropriately understood as a form of stewardship rather than exploitation. Human life is responsible, not only for itself but, as the image bearer of the same God who created and loved the rest of creation, human life is responsible for the well-being of non-human creation as well. The separation of human life from nature which human responsibility implies is rightly criticized by those who believe that we need to begin again to see ourselves as part of nature, as part of a larger whole with which we must live in harmony if we are both to survive and to be more fully human. Human vanity, aided and abetted by advances in technology, has led us to imagine that by dint of scientific and technological achievement in everything from medicine to pesticides, and now to genetic engineering, we could put ourselves beyond the place where we would have need of conforming to given natural realities.
This has been a mistake, but it would also be a mistake to imagine that somehow we can throw off our own nature and abdicate our humanity by simply leaving nature to itself. Even organic farmers have to weed the garden. We need to find a view of nature and ourselves which enables us to have a proper relationship which does justice to human responsibility for creation and for others, and to nature's own intrinsic worth as another aspect of the world intended by the Creator.
Nevertheless, it is true that the focus on human life and its fulfilment, which is characteristic of biblical religion, has tended to separate man from his environment in a way that has made possible the despoliation and depletion of that which was entrusted to the stewardship of humanity. A new view of our dominion over nature is needed, not just to save nature but to
save ourselves, for our dominion over nature, however interpreted, is not total and we threaten our own survival as we ignore the extent to which it is also true that in our relation with nature, nature has some dominion over us.
We need a view of the environment which sees human life as included, albeit in a special way, in the realm of nature and in which the idea of stewardship takes it meaning from a variety of places. This includes the traditional views of aboriginal peoples toward creation but also from what those of us who are Christians learn about true humanity in Christ, the servant King.
Human dominion is a form of service to all creation and to our fellow human beings. This is where I suggest we have the beginning of a view adequate to the ecological crisis which we now face and a view which should provide the framework for our debate today. Within that framework we will see that for too long we have been dominated by the false dichotomy of jobs versus the environment. While I emphasize that it is not necessarily the case that jobs and the environment are in conflict, let me say to those who are still captive to that false dichotomy that even when they are sometimes in conflict, it is a question of doing the right thing and making the right decision with respect to questions of inter-generational morality and what kind of future and planet we leave to those who come after us.
1 remind the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock- North Delta (Mr. Friesen), whom I do not see as an antagonist but as one who has an interest in biblical matters, that one of the complaints against St. Paul in Rome was that Christianity was putting people out of jobs. There was the complaint that people who made their living from making graven images were put out of work by the arrival of this new religion called Christianity. But St. Paul did not say that anything that does away with jobs must be bad so he will abandon the entire evangelical project. He said that the right thing must be done and the problem of employment can be addressed at the same time while certainly not drawing back from that which he thinks is right simply because it may endanger jobs.
In any event, that problem does not exist with South Moresby because more than enough provision has been made in the proposals put forward by the federal Government to the British Columbia Government in terms of financial compensation and alternative areas to be logged. We are not talking about a conflict between the environment and jobs.
The Brundtland Commission repeatedly raises the question of sustainable development. We are talking about a need to finally accede that whatever new economic development opportunities exist either in Canada or in the developing countries, they must be forms of economic development which respect the absolute and vital need to pass on a sustainable environment to future generations. This not only involves a question of aesthetics so that people with money can visit South Moresby and enjoy the scenery. It concerns an integral part of the planetary biosphere.
May 14, 1987

1 listened to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) talk about tourism possibilities. It is true that people who are concerned about economic development should keep in mind that tourism possibilities only exist to the extent that the magnificent ecosphere which people want to see is preserved. This is true not only of South Moresby but of the four mountain national parks, which I hope the Minister will keep in mind in his deliberations on the proposed expansion of Sunshine Village.
In the final analysis, whether it is tourism, agriculture or another sector, one cannot build a sustainable human future on a deteriorating environmental base, whether it is soil erosion in respect of agriculture, or the preservation of Moresby out of respect for the aboriginal claims of the Haida people or for tourism purposes.
I can only make one final argument because I have a commitment to speak in Winnipeg tonight. I regret that because I understand there will be an opposition motion tomorrow on the Brundtland Commission, a debate in which I would very much like to take part. However, other members of my Party will participate in the debate and we look forward to it.
The question of South Moresby has an international consequence in terms of Canada's position of leadership in the world with respect to environmental matters. The Brundtland Commission pointed out that the developing countries are finally able to begin developing or exploiting natural resources that we developed or exploited long ago.
A good example of those natural resources are forests. There has been much concern expressed internationally about the rate at which tropical rain forests in the Amazon are being cut down, some suggest at a rate of 600 acres a day. The preservation of these forests, which have sometimes been called the lungs of the world since they produce so much oxygen, is a concern not only to those areas but to the whole ecosphere.
What right will Canadians have to go to the people of Brazil and other countries that have a standard of living that is far below ours and consume perhaps one-eightieth of the world's energy, to ask them not to cut down their forests in order to save the planet if we in Canada, with our affluence and sophisticated political and economic society, cannot bring ourselves not to log Lyell Island or South Moresby? The Minister of the Environment and other Canadians would never be able to go to an environmental conference without putting a bag over their heads. They would not be able honestly to request other nations to respect the limits of the earth if we in Canada were not in a position to show that kind of leadership.
We are not just talking about a local decision. We are not talking about a decision made in British Columbia or in the South Moresby area or, for that matter, a decision made here in the House of Commons of Canada. We are talking about whether at this point in human history Canada is going to take
Supply
a step in the right direction or whether we are going to be part and parcel of that inertia to which the Brundtland Commission referred, and which, if it is not overcome, will see the day when our generation will be regarded-if there are future generations to regard us-as people who turned a blind eye to our moral responsibility to creation and to the people of the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being no questions and comments, we will resume debate. Before I recognize the next speaker, however-



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Literacy-Functionally illiterate adults-Need for Federal-Provincial Program-Request that Government set deadlines for ending illiteracy; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture-Wheat farmers 1987-88 crop year- Request for deficiency payment-Request for introduction of new debt restructuring instruments; the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Niagara River cleanup plan-Start of operations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fulton:
That this House calls upon the Government of British Columbia to co-operate in setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the federal Government provide for compensation to those interests affected by such a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the House confirm its intention to ensure the continued participation of the Haida people in matters affecting South Moresby.
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on the motion he has put forward today. It would be hard to find enough words to describe the perseverance, patience and imagination of the Hon. Member in his pursuit of what he believes is the right future for the Queen Charlotte Islands.
The news that South Moresby could have a happy ending comes, of course, as a great relief. Recognition must be given

May 14, 1987
Supply
to the present Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for the fine effort he has put into the negotiations, showing the readiness of the Government of Canada to entertain negotiation and find the necessary money in order to proceed with the implementation of the commitment, which was definitely much more than a good and sound principle of government. I think if this matter does have a happy ending, the name of the Minister will be remembered for a long time, and quite rightly so.
In the discussion of this particular potential area as a park, one very important factor emerges, which has been mentioned previously and one I would like to underscore as well, that is, the importance of recognizing the land claims of the Haida Tribal Council, because it is through this process of recognition of land claims, giving jurisdiction and management of these lands to the Haida people, that permanent stability and protection could be secured for these lands. That was the first lesson I learned when I became acquainted with this issue in 1984. It was put to me by Miles Richardson, the Chief of the Haida Tribal Council, a position he still occupies, as somehow the key to the solution of this particular issue. I do not know whether in the negotiations between the Minister and the Government of British Columbia the question of land claims, is paramount, but as I stand here I am convinced that in the long run the solution lies in ensuring that the aboriginal people of this area become the stewards and administrators. The long term responsibility for the management of these islands should be given to them in perpetuity because it is their land.
Another factor which comes to mind in this debate is the question of compensation, an issue which I am sure is a most contemporary and crucial item on the agenda in the negotiations. The loggers have to be compensated for the loss of jobs over a period of time. Solutions must be found for the logging companies which have been given, at least in the past, the indication that this would be an area which could be logged.
I never understood why land planning of British Columbia over the last three decades was worked out in such a manner as to provide so little elbow room for the Government of British Columbia to offer alternative logging areas if and when the need arose and if and when native claims would be made. It seems to me that a good part of the problems lies with the present policy of land use as implemented by the Province of British Columbia and that in future a number of potential problems could be anticipated and resolved by a revision of the present land use which gives to forest exploitation such a tight schedule, which does not permit certain flexibility and a slowdown in that exploitation if and when situations such as this do arise.
When it comes to the matter of compensation, it seems to me that compensation funds sought not to be taken from the operating budget of Parks Canada as is the experience of Parks Canada with respect to compensation for the Pacific Rim. Between this year and 1989, Parks Canada will be deprived of roughly $25 million in order to pay compensation for timber rights in the Pacific Rim National Park. The result
is that it creates limitations in the funds available to Parks Canada to run the existing network. Programs have to be reduced and sometimes even postponed in order to accommodate this hefty requirement.
Another lesson which could be learned from this South Moresby experience is that the compensation should be made by way of a special allocation by Treasury Board with a cabinet commitment to the cause that it would not expect the operation of Parks Canada to be curtailed because of suddenly having to cough up a substantial sum in compensation. In other words, the compensation ought to be a sum of money that is provided in addition to the normal budget of Parks Canada.
Those who have spoken before me have said very eloquently what South Moresby is all about. I only want to add that in order to qualify as a natural world heritage site an area must meet at least one of four criteria which have been established by UNESCO-just one. South Moresby, this fantastic archipelago, meets three of them, namely, it is of biological significance; it is of geological significance; and it is unique to the earth's evolutionary history. It could also qualify because it is a cultural world heritage site on account of the Haida culture which, as Hon. Members know, is not only well regarded and well respected at home but it is so abroad as well. I am told that there are only one dozen sites in the world that at the present time qualify as both natural and cultural world heritage sites.
I would like to return to the history of South Moresby. We have seen that the value of public pressure and the role of individual citizens and organizations have been extremely important. The efforts over the last 14 to 15 years by environmentalists as individuals or as groups and by native aboriginal groups have been important in registering and developing pressure on the respective Governments, both in Victoria and here in Ottawa.
The latest pressure that was brought to bear and which stands out in our collective memory is with respect to a caravan, the Save South Moresby Caravan, a train which travelled from coast to coast in March of 1986, if I remember correctly. It was organized jointly by the Canadian Nature Federation and the Save South Moresby Committee. It consisted of a train that gathered support throughout the country. It collected money and picked up as it travelled enthusiasm and financial contributions, small and large, as well as emotional expressions that go with an issue such as this. It culminated in Vancouver with an unforgettable march on a sunny Saturday afternoon from the railway station down to the harbour.
There were a number of figures, costumes and expressions of support by groups that participated in this march, which gave folklore and colour to the entire event. I remember that at that time a substantial number of signatures were collected in a very bulky volume of petitions which the organizers eventually
May 14, 1987

gave to the Minister of the Environment of British Columbia, thus registering the fact that from coast to coast Canadians cared about the creation and the formation of this park.
The questions we must ask are the following ones. Why do we all get involved in an issue such as this? Why do we have a day such as this in the House of Commons? Why is there this fantastic unanimous support in the House? I suppose it is because national parks are created for Canadians, for their benefit, education and enjoyment, as is stated in Section 4 of the National Parks Act. In that same section there is a notion that national parks ought to be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. I suppose that is why we all get excited about it and why we are so keen. It is because we see here something that can be transferred from the preceding generation through ours to the next generation. It is a real act of carrying a torch of beauty and enjoyment, of intangible values that one cannot express in dollars. One cannot measure in dollars the excitement that one feels when one sees wildlife at its fullest, as is the case in South Moresby.
Creating a national park is more than just creating a new entity or drawing a certain boundary on a map, making the necessary ceremonial speeches and the cutting of a ribbon. It is much more than that, which is why many of us in the Chamber, and I am sure the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) as well, get upset when we hear that some national parks at times are under pressure and that pressures are being developed on existing ones, as is the case in Banff. In Banff recently pressure has been brought to bear with respect to developing a ski resort at Sunshine which is well known for its sensitive meadows and delicate ecosystem which ought to be preserved. One must ask: Why is this happening? Why are members of the Alberta caucus not supportive of the Minister of the Environment in ensuring that the pressure that is being generated here will be contained and that this development will not take place?
We are worried about newspaper reports with respect to what is happening in Banff. The pressure is not limited only to Sunshine, although it is the most recent experience. It goes back to my time as well and is just not limited to recent time. There was pressure for logging in Wood Buffalo Park and for mining in North Yukon Park. There is a constant effort to encroach into these limited areas which we have decided, for better or for worse, should somehow be outside the scope of human exploitation. I know that it is extremely difficult to resist these pressures, but it has to be done. That is why in the debate on South Moresby, as others have already done, we must raise a cry to stop the logging.
As we are talking here today I am told that the logging is still taking place. The fantastic forests that have been so well described by others are being reduced in size. The whole quality of the South Moresby area could be seriously endangered, if not wiped out, if the logging on Lyell Island, for instance, is not stopped since it has a profound effect on the visual quality of the area. So when we are debating South
Supply
Moresby and the possibility of adding a park, we are also debating the necessity of retaining the integrity of what we want to acquire as a new area. But, as well, we want to retain the integrity of what we already have in inventory in terms of national parks in Canada. The integrity of our existing parks must become a firm commitment. We cannot permit any exception to the commitment, the policy, to retain the integrity of existing parks.
The Sunshine proposal carried on the front page, in addition to the names of the proponents, the name of Parks Canada, thus giving the impression that the proposal was put forward under the auspices, in part, of Parks Canada.
This debate today is in relation to the acquisition, as a national park reserve, of a fantastic site, a site proclaimed by UNESCO and a site admired by leading figures in Canada and abroad. Its preservation has been defended by successive governments, as well as being raised as an issue by the Haida people in the debate in respect of native land claims. In that context, it is put forward as a symbol of Canada's commitment to retaining, where possible, the richness of its wilderness areas.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, were I not to put on record a passage from page 163 of the Report of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, a commission headed by Madam Brundtland, the Prime Minister of Norway. Under the heading "Scope for National Action", the following sentence appears:
-governments-should review programmes in areas such as agriculture, forestry, and settlements that serve to degrade and destroy species' habitats. Governments should determine how many more protected areas are needed, especially in the spirit of how such areas can contribute to national development objectives, and make further provision for protection of gene reservoirs (for instance, primitive cultivated varieties) that may not normally be preserved through conventional protected areas.
In those words there is a message for Canada. I join with those who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the Minister on his efforts. I wish him success. It is a success that will be shared by many others, both inside this House and outside this House. As well, it will head off confrontation that will otherwise take place on these islands. As Miles Richardson has indicated on more than one occasion, if the logging operations do not stop, there will be confrontation.
It would be a red feather in the cap of the Hon. Minister if one day soon he can announce in this House that the negotiations proclaiming this area as a a national park reserve have been successfully completed. It is a subject that has generated a great deal of public interest and support. I feel sure that the Minister has the ability to succeed in this area, and from the bottom of my heart I wish him the very best of success.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? There would appear to be no questions or comments.

May 14, 1987
Supply
The Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), on debate.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, this morning, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), stated quite clearly the Government's commitment to seeking fair and equitable settlements to the problems of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
The concerns of the Haida people respecting Lyell Island and the South Moresby area demonstrate the importance of the participation of the aboriginal peoples in matters that affect them. The cultural and religious values that the Haida place on the South Moresby Island bespeak clearly of the necessity of involving the Haida people in the resolution of this question.
The federal Government, and I as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, have assured the Haida people that their concerns will be considered in discussions that may occur in reaching a solution to the problem.
In establishing national parks, the federal Government, since 1973, has recognized the interests of native people by creating national park reserves. National park reserves are distinct from national parks in that traditional native activities are provided for in such areas, with no prejudice to aboriginal claims. The legislation stipulates quite clearly that a national park cannot be formally proclaimed until there is a settlement of the aboriginal claim.
This, Mr. Speaker, as we all recognize, is a difficult issue. There are differing views. It is important that the views of the Haida people be known and understood.
In seeking a fair and equitable solution in respect of settlements with aboriginal people, this Government has taken some important initiatives. In December of 1986, we announced a revised comprehensive land claim policy, a policy that acknowledged the special relationship to the land that the aboriginal peoples have always claimed as the basis for their cultural distinctiveness and special aboriginal status.
In fact, it was a court case in the Province of British Columbia that prompted the development of the initial policy on comprehensive land claims, in 1973. The current policy is designed to deal with claims based on aboriginal title to lands. It seeks to resolve such claims through the negotiation of settlement agreements based on aboriginal title.
The objective of the land claims policy is to obtain certainty with respect to the use of the land. Although it is not legally obliged to do so, the Government has been willing to enter into negotiations with aboriginal groups with claims to aboriginal title.
A land claims agreement is a typical exchange transaction. One party, the claimant group, brings its interest in the land to the table, and in respect of that interest the other party, the Government, is prepared to bargain. The precise nature of the
aboriginal interest, the content of aboriginal title, in most cases is uncertain and controversial.
Whatever the interest may be, by virtue of being at the table, the parties are at the heart of the transaction. There is an implied willingness to negotiate.
In a land claims agreement, the claimant group exchanges vague and uncertain aboriginal rights for specific treaty rights and benefits.
Since 1973, the Government of Canada had insisted that all aboriginal rights, title and interests in and to the settlement areas, be extinguished in exchange for rights conveyed or granted back by the Crown through the settlement. This approach, commonly referred to as blanket extinguishment, was regarded by many aboriginal groups as offensive and unacceptable. They pointed to the recognition and affirmation of existing aboriginal rights under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 as being inconsistent with the extinguishment of aboriginal rights through claim settlements.
Concern was also expressed that other rights, such as rights to language and culture, might be affected adversely by a blanket extinguishment.
In 1983, we had the all-Party report of the Special Committee of the House on Indian Self-Government, which report recognized the problem. As I look around, I see some Members who served on that committee, most notably the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).
That committee recommended that the claim settlements should be limited to those matters specifically being negotiated, with the result that the revised policy no longer requires a blanket extinguishment of all aboriginal rights in comprehensive land claims settlements.
First, we explicitly acknowledge that only those land-based rights, those rights encompassed in the term "aboriginal title", are subject to negotiation in the new comprehensive claims process.
Other aboriginal rights which may exist are not at issue and will remain unaffected by the comprehensive claims agreements unless identified explicitly by the parties to be part of the negotiations.
The revised policy also proposes two alternatives to extinguishment which may be considered in negotiation. The first would involve the conveyance to the Crown of the aboriginal title claimed through all the settlement area but without the requirement for the use of the terminology of extinguishment. In exchange, the aboriginal groups would, as they do now, receive a grant-back of lands or land-related rights in the agreed upon areas.
The second alternative would involve conveyance by the aboriginal group to the Crown of the aboriginal title to certain specified lands within the claimed area. In this alternative, aboriginal title would remain undisturbed in other lands
May 14, 1987

selected by the claimant group. I should like to reiterate that aboriginal rights which are not related to land and are not under negotiation would not be affected in either case outlined.
Thus, the federal Government is committed to the resolution of comprehensive land claims through the negotiation of settlement agreements. We believe that negotiation rather than litigation on other adversarial approaches is the best means whereby the interests of aboriginal people may best be represented and served.
In any settlement area the continuing interest of claimants must be recognized. Agreements are not simply based upon land and cash or cash transactions. They should provide the means and establish the mechanisms whereby claimants can enhance their cultural and social well-being and promote selfreliance and economic development.
The Government has indicated that it is prepared to discuss a wide range of issues in comprehensive land claims negotiations. Some of the issues which may be discussed are: land selection, self-government, environmental management, resource revenue sharing, hunting, fishing and trapping rights, as well as other topics.
The policy of the federal Government on self-government acknowledges the desire expressed by communities to exercise greater control and authority over the management of their affairs. The objectives of this policy are based upon principles which we all understand. Local control and decision-making must be substantially increased. Flexibility is needed to recognize diverse needs, traditions, and cultures. Greater accountability to community must be achieved.
Self-government in the context of comprehensive land claims is tied closely to the need for the continuing involvement of aboriginal peoples in the management of land and resources. It is also linked to the development of self-governing institutions which recognize the place of aboriginal people in Canadian society.
In seeking to settle aboriginal claims to land that falls within provincial boundaries, the co-operation and participation of provincial Governments are essential. The federal Government has strongly encouraged the participation of provincial Governments in the negotiation of settlements involving areas of provincial jurisdiction or provincial lands and resources.
An opportunity will be provided to aboriginal groups to consider the implications of developments which may take place and to identify, where appropriate, the conditions under which such activities should be provided. Under the policy, interim protection measures can be planned and agreed to for a specified period of time at the outset of the negotiations rather than devised in an ad hoc manner as has been done in the past.
The comprehensive claims process has many important features which relate to the general issues under debate today. It seeks to provide clarity of rights of aboriginal people. It seeks to provide certainty to aboriginal and non-aboriginal
Supply
groups in respect of land ownership and management. It seeks to provide fair and equitable settlements through a process of negotiation which brings major parties affected by the claim to the negotiating table. As well it seeks to protect both aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests in the process.
Aboriginal peoples were the original inhabitants of the country. Their claims derive from their original use and occupancy of the land. Their aboriginal rights flow from their relationship to the land. They cherish their culture. They cherish their heritage. It is incumbent upon non-aboriginal Canadians to understand the aboriginal perspective and to respect it.
In recognition of the Haida claim which affects the South Moresby area, the federal Government would initially establish a national park reserve. Traditional native activities could continue, and the Haida people would be involved in all aspects of park planning and operations. While the establishment of a national park reserve would not of itself settle the Haida claim, the proposal would protect under federal legislation natural and cultural resources which are central to the Haida way of life. Moreover, a national park reserve would provide an important means for the Haida people to participate in the management of this key part of their ancestral homeland.
The creation of a national park reserve is something to which we all look forward. Again, the issue has diverse points of view. It is not as simple as some of us would initially believe it to be. However, as early as 1973, under the National Parks Act the creation of a national park reserve was recognized as being a way of protecting the aboriginal title until it could be addressed in another form and allowing aboriginal people-in this case the Haida people-to play an important part in the management of their land and resources, their ancestral homeland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment and pose a question to the Hon. Minister. I appreciate seeing the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) and the Hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) across the way, and I appreciate the fact that they have taken part in the debate. That is the way Parliament should work.
1 should like to refer to a report in which I was involved, not in a big way. 1 refer to the report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline inquiry entitled: Northern Frontier,Northern Homeland. I had the honour of being a co-counsel along with Ian Scott, who is now the Attorney General of Ontario.
Mr. Justice Berger issued a report on April 15, 1977, or just over 10 years from which I should like to quote the following:
The concept of native self-determination must be understood in the context of
native claims.

May 14, 1987
Supply
It went on to refer to the Dene of the Northwest Territories, but the following comments could refer to any native Canadian:
When the Dene refer to themselves as a nation, as many of them have, they are not renouncing Canada or Confederation. Rather, they are proclaiming that they are a distinct people, who share a common historical experience, a common set of values, and a common world view. They want their children and their children's children to be secure in that same knowledge of who they are and where they came from. They want their own experience, traditions and values to occupy an honourable place in the contemporary life of our country. Seen in this light, they say their claims will lead to the enhancement of Confederation-not to its renunciation.
Those words were very remarkable, especially when we consider that they were spoken 10 years ago. Perhaps if we had got on with the settlement of native land claims, we would not be in a position today where we have competing interests for land.
1 recognize that the Minister is not responsible for Saskatchewan. He is a Minister for Canada but he does not speak for the Government of Saskatchewan. However, he took part in the constitutional debate recently. He is from Saskatchewan and very close to its Government. Of course he is familiar with the constitutional positions on native matters of every provincial and territorial Government.
What is the position of the Saskatchewan Government on native land claims? How does it differ from the position of the Government of Canada, if it differs in any way?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan. However, in the best interests of accuracy, 1 must decline.
I should inform the Hon. Member that the entitlement discussions which are taking place between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan stem from an exchange of letters in 1979 between, I believe, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the former administration of the Province of Saskatchewan under Premier Blakeney. The entitlement was identified and the fulfilling of that entitled land, which had not been transferred after the signing of the treaties, would be drawn from Crown lands, the lands provided by the Province of Saskatchewan according to the Natural Resources Transfer Act of 1930.
Some transfers have taken place in the Province of Saskatchewan, not as many as we all would like. At present one, 1 know, is under discussion, namely, the Lucky Man transfer with which my colleague, the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) is familiar. That band has been rooming and visiting with the Little Pine people for 100-plus years, 1 believe. Hopefully they will receive part of their entitlement very shortly. Regarding claims or entitlement, 1 can answer the Hon. Member's question regarding Saskatchewan, but 1 do not pretend to speak on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan in the House.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, after nearly two decades in this place, I have come to realize that progress is never made in giant steps but little by little. When the Minister made reference to the revised comprehensive claims policy, I want to recognize, as he already knows, that there was some response to the report of the special committee and some response to the Coolican task force. We do have certain improvements. I would describe them as modest, but we are moving forward and that is important.
However, the Minister knows that in his claims policy there can still only be six claims negotiated at any one time. In the Province of British Columbia, 13 claims have now been accepted by the Government of Canada for negotiation. There are another seven that are being actively considered. The Minister has said with respect to British Columbia that he "hopes to discuss the policy with Ministers in B.C. and to propose more specific measures to ensure a more fruitful negotiation process in that province". I wish him well, Mr. Speaker. I want to encourage that undertaking. Specifically, though, has the Minister had these discussions? If so, how many of them? During the course of those discussions, if they have taken place, what proposals has he made and what response has British Columbia given?
Finally, what hope is there at all for the Haida people that their rights will be recognized and accommodated at some moment in time in the Province of British Columbia?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 recognize the real concern of the Hon. Member. I also believe that the changes are modest, that we will only know how successful those changes we propose and have implemented in comprehensive claims are after we have had an opportunity to proceed. As the Hon. Member is aware, we have one mandate in place for the Dene-Metis. Hopefully we will be negotiating with the CY1 and Yukon Government before the middle of June. TFN is next on the list. The discussions I said I would have with the Province of British Columbia have not taken place. The one claim we are negotiating now that has been accepted for negotiation and is on stream is the Nishga claim. I hope to be able to address that in the time period of the other claims that are left, the CAM claim and the Labrador claim.
The reason six are prescribed, as the Hon. Member knows, is because of the resources and the expertise needed to enter into these negotiations, some of which have been going on far too long, some of them for almost 12 or 13 years. We do not have within the Department the ability to handle any more than that.
1 will be discussing with Ministers in British Columbia in a more direct manner the British Columbia claims process when we come to British Columbia. All parties are involved in the other areas we are negotiating. Up to this time the Province of British Columbia has chosen not to negotiate. That is what makes the claims process in British Columbia very difficult. Again, and I have expressed this view, I find it more comforting, and I believe it is a more accurate reflection of the
May 14, 1987

interests of all Canadians, if we negotiate rather than litigate. We are elected representatives who can be replaced. From time to time we are involved in negotiations, which is better than the adversarial litigation route where decisions are made by men and women, although they be very intelligent and well meaning, who are not responsive to the electoral process and the wishes of Canadians in the same manner as the Elon. Member and I are as elected Members. I hope we will be able to negotiate in British Columbia rather than litigate. To that end I will be having discussions.
I believe the initiative taken today in the creation of a national park reserve will protect the land until we are able to enter into meaningful negotiations on behalf of the Haida people and the claim that has been recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no more questions or comments, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate and it is a privilege to do so. I would like to reiterate the motion so we all know what the debate is about. It reads:
Thai this House calls upon the Government of British Columbia to co-operate in setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the federal government provide for compensation to those interests affected by such a National Park Reserve; and
Further, that the House confirms its intention to ensure the continued participation of the Haida people in matters affecting South Moresby.
The motion asks for co-operation from the Government of British Columbia. As the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) said in answer to a question earlier today, those lands are provincial Crown lands and the federal Government could not move unilaterally into that area. The co-operation of the provincial Government is needed to make a national park.
Second, the motion asks that the federal Government provide compensation to the interests involved. This indicates there are interests affected. It is not an easy question. There are loggers there who have a legitimate interest. There are working people and there are native people who have an interest. The third part of the motion deals with protecting the great Haida culture and people.
There have been some fine speeches in this House today. 1 cannot duplicate those speeches. They had heart in them. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who opened the debate lives in a log cabin in the Queen Charlotte Islands, which is north of the affected area of South Moresby which is in the southern part of the Queen Charlottes. I visited the Member and stayed there. It is a magnificent part of Canada.
1 spent a few days this weekend in your part of the country, Mr. Speaker, south of Edmonton just north of Calgary on the Prairie. It was the first time that I had ever visited the rural Prairie. That too is a magnificent part of the country. It is so different from the Queen Charlottes, which is an area of trees. What a wonderful country we have! Those are just two
Supply
different parts of the country that have a completely different geography. If the Hon. Member for Skeena came from Toronto I think he would be a folk hero to the rest of the country. We have not made folk heroes in Canada yet, but in some ways the Hon. Member would qualify. He is a colourful Member of Parliament and an old friend of mine. We started our political careers together. He worked on environmental matters in the Queen Charlotte Islands when I was a young lawyer and visited him there. That is the first time I met him.
We heard a speech from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) with his normal magnificent eloquence. We heard a speech from the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) in Newfoundland. It is great to have someone from Newfoundland take part in this debate. He has a national park in his riding. We heard a very exceptional speech from the Minister. We also heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), and that was very welcome. We heard from the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who has real credibility on environmental matters when he speaks in this House. No doubt we will hear from other Members.
As David Suzuki said, a modern politician has to be able to deal with environmental matters. It is one of the big issues of our time. A modern politician will be judged on how he or she can deal with environmental matters. They are not easy matters to deal with. They are often scientifically complex. You cannot get some of these issues into the twenty-second news clip because of their competing interests and technical facts. You also have to know something about what you are talking about on these environmental matters. They are issues of our time.
While I do not often admit it, I grew up in the suburbs of Toronto. I will just say that very softly. My mother and father used to take me to Niagara Falls for a picnic. It was about an hour and a half drive. It was always great to see the falls. There was a story this week that the spray of Niagara Falls was polluted and had carcinogenic properties. I just could not believe it. What kind of world are we creating? I hope the story is exaggerated, I do not know.
As a Member of Parliament I travelled throughout southern Ontario this past year and I am convinced that we have some incredible environmental problems in our industrial heartland which have to be tackled. 1 am also convinced that there is a terrific constituency in favour of retaining some of our wilderness area. That is why the issue of South Moresby Island in the Queen Charlottes on the far West Coast of Canada is of interest to the average Canadian.
I want to say for people who are watching on television that this is a live debate today. I will tell you why.


Mr. Gormley:: You are not taped?

May 14, 1987
Supply


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No, I mean something else by that. Let me rephrase it. There is more going on than meets the eye. Some things are going on behind the scenes. By live debate 1 mean an evolving debate, and the issue is continuing. The Minister said during Question Period that he had been talking to his British Columbia counterpart just before Question Period. There is action, if you like, going on between the federal and provincial Ministers, as there should be. NDP, Liberal and Conservative Members of Parliament are participating, using whatever connections they have with their provincial counterparts. For example, we can put pressure on the NDP Leader in British Columbia to bring him on board. Our Conservative friends can put some pressure on through some of their Social Credit friends in B.C. The Speaker of the House of Commons cannot participate in this matter but people know that he has a deep-felt interest in the environment. He has colleagues and friends in British Columbia who are not without influence and who are deeply committed to this issue. These are Conservatives who are deeply committed to environmental issues. There was a dinner party for the Speaker in Vancouver about a month and a half ago. 1 had the privilege to attend and 1 met many people who were not of my political persuasion. Yet 1 could see they were deeply committed to environmental matters.
1 say this to the Government of British Columbia: There is a big constituency out there of all Parties who want to see a solution to this problem.
We are moving. The Government of British Columbia announced that it will no longer require a 10-year period of logging on South Moresby. That makes sense because if you had 10 years of logging, there would not be many trees left. We are making progress even as we speak in this debate. That is what 1 mean when I say it is a live debate.
This issue is also important because it tells us what kind of Canada we are setting up and where we are going. I had a chance to speak the other day with a person who works in Ottawa for the European Economic Community. They have an office here. 1 talked to him and he said to me: "I love being in Canada". 1 asked why. We have lots of problems, unemployment-, we do not own our own industry, sometimes I feel we are a colony of the U.S. He said: "No, I like it here because this is a civilized country". It is nice to hear the view of an outsider. I think what he would say in this debate is that to save South Moresby Island and create a national park would make us a more civilized country.
This debate has been going on for a while. I would not be human if I did not point out that on May 2, 1980, I had the privilege of introducing a Private Members' Bill in this House, Bill C-454, an Act respecting a national park on Moresby Island and its adjacent islands. I was not the only one. Later on my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena, introduced Bill C-45. He basically took my Bill and got all the geography right where 1 made mistakes. This Bill was one way of keeping the debate going in those years. I just want to read the following from the explanatory notes of Bill C-454:
This bill would authorize the Governor in Council to set aside, as a National Park of Canada, any lands on Moresby Island.
The southern portion of Moresby Island is internationally recognized as an outstanding biological, geographical, and cultural area.
The coastline has exposure to both Hecate Strait and the open Pacific, with a rich variety of shorelines including sea caves, sandy beaches, tidal falls, hidden coves, shallow reefs, and safe anchorages. The area contains a remarkable variety of intact ecological systems ranging from the San Cristoval alpine environment to the fresh water Victoria Lakes and from the Skincuttle Inlet marine gardens to the bonsai forest of Gowgaia Bay.
Moresby Island is home of the world's largest subspecies of black bear and the rare Peale's Peregrine Falcon. The unusual salt marshes are part of the migratory flyway of the Pacific Coast, and there are numerous highly productive salmon streams. The virgin rain forests of the area have Canada's largest and tallest Red Cedar, Sitka Spruce and Western Hemlock.
Moresby Island was inhabited by the Haida Indians until the last century, and includes numerous archaeological and village sites. Most remarkable is the assemblage of carved cedar totems found on Anthony Island, the best remaining example of a traditional west coast native village.
I read that to give you some idea of what the territory is like there. Have you ever seen that picture of the falling poles in the rain forest? Some poles are falling down and others are tilted and so on. That is Anthony Island. That is a beautiful sight.
I said the Hon. Member for Skeena followed this up with Bill C-45. On August 29, 1981, the UN declared some world heritage sites. One site was the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump in Alberta and the other was Anthony Island in British Columbia.
I quote from the press release of the Minister of the Environment as follows:
The Unesco World Heritage Convention, a treaty among more than 60 nations, recognizes that the world's natural and cultural heritage transcends national boundaries and must be identified, protected and preserved for future generations. The Pyramids of Giza, Egypt; Chartres Cathedral, France; the ancient city of Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic; the historic centre of Rome, Italy; the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador; Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) National Park, Nepal; and Yellowstone National Park, U.S.A. are among the other World Heritage Sites.
They also mentioned the Great Barrier Reef, the Palace and Park at Fontainebleau, France, and the Old City of Jerusalem. South Moresby, as a world heritage site, fits in with these places in the rest of the world, which I think we would all agree need to be preserved and protected. This is what we are fighting for today.
There has been a long and noble campaign. My friend and colleague, Murray Rankin, a professor of law at the University of Victoria, wrote in The Globe and Mail of July 26, 1979, about the battle raging to preserve rare wilderness from the axe. The Western Canada Wilderness Committee led by Paul George, an environmentalist from British Columbia, has tried to preserve the area. It presented petitions to Parliament and made posters and buttons, mostly out of their own pockets. These were not rich people and they paid for this mostly out of their own pockets. This campaign has inspired people. I received a letter from a young man in Peterborough in 1981. He said:
May 14, 1987

Last summer I had the opportunity to spend a month kayaking through the South Moresby wilderness in the Queen Charlottes, and subsequently have become very interested and actively concerned about the fate of this magnificent area. In addition to working on slide shows, distributing literature, etc, I have been working on a term paper focusing in on the social, economic and environmental issues underlying the controversy.
That is the kind of thing I am talking about, young Canadians kayaking up in the wilderness. The Western Canada Wilderness Committee sent me a letter on February 14, 1981, which indicates how many Members of Parliament supported my Bill in principle, how many did not support it, and how many were non-committal. They kept the pressure up, and 1 thank them for that. There was interest right across the country from Newfoundland to Peterborough and to British Columbia. They did not have much money, only a lot of determination.
I cited the Berger report called Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland earlier in my question to the Minister. I have already described how Justice Berger talked about the native rights and how self-determination meant being more Canadian rather than less Canadian. Through this report Judge Berger was trying to show that there were different interests, a frontier interest as well as a homeland interest. This is part of the homeland of the native people.
Often southern Canadians, if you like, look at the North and rural areas as big, empty areas which we can exploit. We forget that they are people's backyards. We should always try to remember that. When I am flying over northern Canada I try to remember that that is not just a big, empty land, but people's backyards. If we can think of it that way we can understand how the native people feel about it.
I was lucky to be in Banff on Tuesday. I went for a little walk and literally ran into some of the magnificent animals in that park. I thought of how lucky we are to have that national park.
These are difficult issues. They are not motherhood issues. There are different interests. As I said earlier, loggers have an interest and have to be accommodated. We must deal with tourist operators. We must weigh matters and cannot leave any group out. Our concept of Canada is that no one is left out, that everyone is encouraged. We will not leave the loggers out, but for the sake of 50 or 100 jobs we must think of what weighs against it. On the other side is the preservation of a most magnificent site for future generations.
I am confident that the Minister, helped by Members of the House from all Parties, can find a way to do this. This resolution will be passed tpday. By a rather unusual procedural measure we are going to agree to pass this motion as the view of the House.
I want to ask Premier Vander Zalm and his Cabinet to find a way to make an agreement on this matter. If they can make an agreement, they will be applauded by many, many people in British Columbia and in all of Canada. I think this can be accomplished. The Minister's participation and actions today should be applauded. For future generations we can establish a
Supply
magnificent park in that area which some day will be part of our national parks system of which Canadians can be proud and we can have a very civilized country.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to join with those who have commended the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for presenting this motion to the House today. His speech in support of this motion ranks among the best that I have heard given in the House of Commons. While I am handing out bouquets, I think the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) also made important and significant contributions to this debate.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena proposes a specific plan for South Moresby. It does not say, although I would argue that it is implicit within it, that the Queen Charlotte Islands, and South Moresby in particular, are part of a very important unsettled aboriginal claim.
The Queen Charlotte Islands are the hereditary lands of the Haida people. These lands are called by them the "land of Haida" or "beautiful islands". South Moresby, as a part of the Queen Charlottes, is both a unique and a very fascinating part of Canada. I am happy that I had the opportunity to visit those islands when my daughter was a resident there.
South Moresby is a part of the Haida lands which they claim have been in their possession for thousands of years. South Moresby contains, as others have noted, the highest concentration of endemic plants, birds, mammals and insects of any area of its size in all of North America. As well, there are major archaeological sites in South Moresby as a part of those Haida lands. So valuable and so important are these archaeological sites that certain responsible citizens in Canada who have the necessary knowledge and required expertise to make these judgments went to the United Nations and asked that South Moresby be declared a world heritage site.
One will find on South Moresby primeval forests containing western red cedar, yellow cedar, western hemlock and Sitka spruce which are among the largest of their genera. However, I am entering this debate today not only in support of the fact that South Moresby is unique and of great environmental significance. 1 recognize that and appreciate it. Other Members more competent in the environmental area than I can claim to be have spoken eloquently on that point.
I want to use the time allocated to me in this debate to talk about another matter of equal importance. It is that we are discussing today the homeland of the Haida Indian people. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development noted in his speech, since 1973 our nation has had a policy that recognizes that some Indian people have outstanding aboriginal rights or claims. These are claims that were never dealt with by way of treaty or by way of any other kind of agreement which is binding and legal.

May 14, 1987
Supply
This policy was given birth as a result of a Supreme Court decision rendered in 1973. It was the case brought to the Supreme Court by the Nishga Indian people of British Columbia. The particular case is known as the Calder case. In that case, six out of seven judges agreed that the Nishga people had an aboriginal title in accord with English law and that they had this at the time of the first contact with Europeans. However, the six judges split three to three as to whether that title still existed. There was one judge who opted out of the decision altogether, so that the Nishga people lost their case on a technicality.
But all was not lost. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau, who had strongly resisted for a long period of time the legal and valid concept of aboriginal rights, became persuaded otherwise as a result of that case. I remember well the day that he spoke on the issue from a different point of view. It was one of the important historic moments during which I have been here in the Parliament of Canada.
As a result of that, the federal Government decided to acknowledge the principle that aboriginal rights still existed today and the Government committed itself to negotiate those claims with the Indian people. That claims policy, with some recent and welcome modifications-although the Minister and I agreed they are modest in their scope-is still in effect today.
Today we talk about aboriginal rights, aboriginal claims, and aboriginal title. When you and I first came to Parliament, Mr. Speaker, it would have been a strange debate to hear anyone present these arguments. Today, parliamentarians understand them and Canadian citizens in growing numbers have an appreciation of what is involved.
1 want to submit, however, that we are very close to another important breakthrough. I hope that I am here long enough to see it happen. That breakthrough is to appreciate fully and adequately what is involved in aboriginal title.
I have had some delightful and interesting discussions in the Committee on Aboriginal Affairs with officials and others about the meaning of aboriginal title. For example, very recently I asked one senior official: "I get the impression from what you said to the members of the committee that you consider aboriginal title to be some sort of a burden or some sort of interest that exists on the Crown rights". He agreed that that is the way he interpreted it, but the question that has not yet been resolved in Canada is when the Crown right took precedent over aboriginal title.
How can we make the assumption that the Crown right exists and there is some sort of lien, called an aboriginal title, on the Crown right? In response to these kinds of questions, the senior official agreed with me. He said that, first, he has to work in somewhat limited confines and has to work within what the courts have told them. He said: "For example, the courts have not said as much as we might like about what aboriginal title is". This is interesting because it is so relevant to the debate today.
He went on to say that the courts will say a lot more because of the B.C. cases that are coming forward. It was his impression that all the courts have told them so far is that aboriginal title consists of hunting, fishing and gathering rights, traditional use rights over lands which the aboriginal people have continually occupied. I predict that we can expect very soon a major breakthrough on that limited understanding of aboriginal title. Aboriginal title is much more than that.
A curious process has been going on in Canada. Even if we live within these limited confines of what aboriginal title is, even then the aboriginal people of Canada are having difficulties with hunting, fishing and trapping. Those court cases will change the way we understand what aboriginal title means with respect to Crown rights.
The federal Government has now accepted 13 claims in British Columbia. Another seven claims are being examined by the Department of Justice.
The Haida formally submitted their claim to the federal Government in 1980. The Department of Justice formally accepted it as being valid for the purposes of negotiation in 1983. As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development pointed out to the House earlier, the problem is that the Government of British Columbia is not willing to negotiate along with the Government of Canada in the settlement of this or any other claim in the Province of British Columbia. It continues to take the view of those three judges in the Calder case, who argued that aboriginal title had been extinguished. However, no one has yet been able to show the document, the historical or the legal evidence, that would prove that that extinguishment took place. That is why those court cases in British Columbia are so fascinating and will be so crucial in the settlement of aboriginal title.
I sincerely believe that the Government of British Columbia should follow the dictum of John F. Kennedy, who said at one time: "We shall never fear to negotiate but we shall never negotiate from fear".
We know that aboriginal claims in this country can be successfully and satisfactorily settled. There is no reason for fear on the part of other Canadians, on the part of Members of Parliament, or on the part of third party interests. There is no need to fear negotiation in the settlement of aboriginal claims.
I want to say how strongly I agree with what the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said in the House this afternoon. It is far better to negotiate those claims than to have them resolved by way of litigation. If the courts impose settlements because there has been a lack of political will to negotiate, then those settlements may be objectionable to many Canadians. Instead of bringing the kind of peace and harmony that we all want in all parts of Canada in living with the aboriginal people of this country, those kinds of settlements may cause irritation and disagreement. That is not the way we want to go.
May 14, 1987

I have said that the claims of the Haida people have been accepted by Canada. I want to say as well that the Province of British Columbia is a signatory to the Constitution Act of 1982. The Constitution Act of 1982 recognizes that aboriginal rights exist. They are contained in Section 35 of our Constitution. Those Premiers who have gone to the First Ministers' Conference and argued that Section 35 is nothing but an empty box are fooling themselves. That is self-delusion.
Section 35, asserting that aboriginal rights exist, is not an empty box. It is a full box. That is why, even though the last First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal rights seeking a definition did not succeed, the aboriginal leaders knew that they did not walk away empty-handed because Section 35 is still theirs. In time, we will begin to see all that is in Section 35.
There is a recognition of these rights. Since the Haida claim has been accepted, is it not only logical that there should be a postponement of any kind of development in that area which has been submitted as a claim for settlement by way of negotiation? Whether that development is cutting down trees, building roads or establishing new towns or mining, all that should be postponed until there is a just, fair and adequate settlement of this claim accepted by the Government of Canada after careful analysis by the Department of Justice.
For one brief moment, I believe, the Government of British Columbia was recognizing this important point. At one point it did impose a moratorium on logging on a part of South Moresby on Lyell Island. Then, to the surprise and dismay of the Haida people, that moratorium was suddenly lifted. Should any of us wonder why there was a strong protest from those people, and why that protest generated so much sympathy and understanding right across the country? People are not only concerned about the environmental aspects of South Moresby but about the other matter, which is the burden of my contribution to this debate today, and that is, that there is an unsettled claim.
As part of those negotiations in the settling of the Haida claim, I believe, as the motion today suggests, that there should be active consideration of setting aside the South Moresby area of the Queen Charlotte Islands as a national park reserve. I accept that. The Leader of my Party is a strong proponent of that idea. However, it is also my firm view and that of my Party that the full participation of the Haida people is an essential requirement in any decisions that are made, whether they are about national parks or about any other kind of economic development. I am not talking about consultation. Members of Parliament who know about aboriginal affairs will realize that consultation has become a dirty word in relations between the Government of Canada and the aboriginal people. It has become a dirty word because it has been abused. Consultation has been a sham. It has been play acting. It has not been real.
Supply
What I am calling for, as the motion suggests, is not mere consultation, but full participation and full collaboration of the Haida people in the settling of this claim. I believe, with Members of the House and the Minister who is working toward this end, that in a part of that settlement we will see a national park reserve.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in this debate this afternoon. I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) for bringing this question before the House, particularly at this time. As the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said, it is a rather lively debate in the sense that negotiations are going on hourly right at this time between the Minister's Department and the Government of British Columbia.
This is also a rather odd occasion, at least for me. 1 have been in this House for several years now and it is not very frequent that we have such wide unanimity on any issue. This is more like a love-in than a debate. Even before the debate got started, the House agreed it would pass this resolution unanimously. I think that is very peculiar and unusual happening, particularly with respect to a motion put by the Opposition.
I have no hesitation at all in endorsing the motion which calls for the Government of British Columbia to co-operate with the Government of Canada in setting aside an area in South Moresby as a national park reserve. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), as we all know, has been working for almost two years to achieve this objective.
Hon. Members will recall, I am sure, that one of the first public statements the Minister made in 1985 was a pledge to work for the establishment of a South Moresby National Park. Since that time he has met on many occasions with various representatives, particularly those from the Province of British Columbia, in order to work towards the goal of preserving one of the greatest natural wonders of our country for the benefit and enjoyment of Canadians, and the development of a world-class tourist attraction.
Hon. Members from every province and territory will certainly have first-hand knowledge of what a national park can do for Canada. There are national parks in every province, I believe, and they are certainly an outstanding example of what can be done to preserve the original territory. I think Canada takes second place to no country in preserving its national parks.
I believe one of the most famous national parks is the Pacific Rim National Park in British Columbia, it was the first national park on the West Coast of British Columbia. The agreement with respect to that park was signed in 1970. The lands of the famous Long Beach section of the park were transferred to the Government of Canada in 1972. In barely 15 years the Pacific Rim National Park has grown to be one of the most attractive and popular national parks in Canada. In the last two years alone more than a million visitors have

May 14, 1987
Supply
enjoyed the peace and beauty of the Pacific Rim National Park. Since the park first opened, over five million visitors have visited this natural wonderland. 1 am sure all of those visitors would gladly endorse the motion of the Hon. Member for Skeena. I myself, with my family, have visited that park on many occasions. I can assure Hon. Members that nowhere else have I seen a greater example of natural beauty preserved in a manner which is capable of being enjoyed by everyone without destroying the natural flora and fauna.
As the Minister said today during his speech and on many other occasions, national parks in Canada are not a frill. They are not peripheral to the Canadian experience. They are part of our heritage and part of our way of life. They are places where Canadians find refreshment, inspiration and renewal. In a world which is becoming increasingly smaller and more crowded our national parks serve the purpose of preserving the original face of Canada.
I join with the Minister and Hon. Members of this House to urge the Government of British Columbia to co-operate in setting aside the South Moresby National Park Reserve. This is a difficult question. As someone said, it is not a question of motherhood. For that reason, and as the Minister has recognized so eloquently in his speech, it is necessary we talk about parks and recognize the competing interests. These are valid and difficult questions. Therefore, I strongly endorse the proposal that the federal Government provide for compensation and share in the costs of those interests which will be affected by such a national park reserve. Nothing is free in this society, and the establishment of a park is certainly not free. There are people who will suffer economic loss as a result of establishing a park in this area. Those people should be compensated adequately for the loss they will suffer.
The Minister of the Environment has said we will put our cash where our commitment is-right on the barrel head. I agree with that. We will cost share the buying out of the timber rights. That is only just. Compensation is really not the issue. As the Minister has said, it is a matter of political courage, will and responsibility to ensure that if this park is created, and 1 hope it is, all parties concerned will find it to their benefit and that no one will suffer inordinately from its establishment.
1 understand, and it is only natural, that the province will seek the most favourable terms possible for the creation of such a park. I suggest that this is not a poker game in which someone is trying to gain an advantage over another. This is part of nation building. This park will be part of our nation for time immemorial. I honestly believe that while a fair price should be paid, no one particular party should benefit to the disadvantage of another. Therefore, 1 urge the Government of the Province of British Columbia to come to the negotiating table in search of a fair deal and not an unfair one. The key to this issue has to be the cost to the various parties concerned, and those are the costs of the Government. I think other
matters can be worked out. Hopefully they are well on their way to being worked out now. Excessive costs will be the first thing that will torpedo this tremendous idea.
An agreement between Canada and British Columbia to establish the final boundaries for the Pacific Rim National Park was signed in February of this year. That is 15 years from the time negotiations were first started. The Government of Canada has agreed to pay $25 million as its share of compensation for forest interests. All those who are interested in national parks were pleased that the federal Government finally resolved this long-standing issue. I congratulate the Minister for so doing. This is a clear signal that the federal Government in living up to its commitment to the province for the Pacific Rim Park was seeking and is seeking similar cooperation for the South Moresby proposal.
It is time for political courage. I share the concern of the provincial Government and of Members of the House with respect to protecting the forest industry which, as we all know, is the cornerstone of the economy of British Columbia and a very important part of the economy of Canada. The proposal by the federal Government on this issue reflects that reality.
Of course logging will continue to be one of the main industries in the Province of British Columbia and in Canada. But national parks, and the one we are talking about in particular, raise the prospect of a great new industry in British Columbia in the Queen Charlotte area, an industry based on a world-class tourist attraction and destination.
The example of the Pacific Rim National Park which I have mentioned frequently may be useful to consider. It has been identified by Tourism Canada as a superior tourist attraction. The park attracted more than 75 per cent of the visitors to the region in 1983. The estimated total spending of visitors to the region was more than $5.6 million. The benefits of this national park are material and immeasurable, as they are in all national parks.
South Moresby has the potential to become an international attraction for visitors to British Columbia if we seize the opportunity now. If an adequate part of that unique area is protected, as I have said, there will be an opportunity to develop this area into a first-class tourist destination. There are currently some 15 tour operators working in South Moresby, and further interest has been expressed by the small cruise ship market and other tourist operators. We can anticipate that this interest will continue to grow.
At one time, as one of the speakers said earlier, when the parks of Banff and Jasper were established in western Canada people wondered why government money was spent on these remote areas. I can tell Hon. Members that the tourists and the people of the world are pounding at the doors of these parks. There is scarcely any room in them. In order to find a place to stay for the night one has to be there early. At times, reservations have to be made ahead of time. These parks have become very popular places.
May 14, 1987

Thus when we look ahead, we have to base our cost figures on the potential of these parks in the future, because there will certainly be no more land and there will always be more people. Hon. Members can rest assured that places such as Jasper, Banff and other national parks in Canada will be recreated and re-experienced by a place such as South Moresby when a park is created there.
By way of example, tourism in the Pacific Rim Park has grown by an average of 60 per cent in each of the past five years. What a staggering growth that is! I am sure that the proposed park in South Moresby will experience the same type of attraction to tourists throughout the world. We expect that tourism in British Columbia will increase even more if a world-class national park is established in South Moresby. However, tour operators and those who know have said that the tourist potential will be greatly reduced if excessive logging, in particular logging on the south slopes of Lyell Island and other areas visible from the proposed park, continues. Therefore, I welcome the British Columbia offer as it appeared in today's newspapers which stated that it would discontinue logging immediately should an agreement be reached with respect to this park.
From a review of a number of recently established national parks in other countries which have also been designated as world heritage sites, and from discussion with UNESCO officials, it has been confirmed that the establishment and active promotion of a proposed South Moresby National Park and its designation as a world heritage site would result in attracting new visitors to the Queen Charlotte Islands, especially from international markets. Of course that was the example in such areas in Australia as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park with which the whole world is now familiar. It has experienced an increase in attendance of 10 per cent per year since it was first established as a world heritage site. Certainly the site which is being proposed in the House this afternoon is no less an attraction than the Great Barrier Reef in and near Australia. Foreign visitors have played a significant role in that particular area. We expect them to play a very significant role in terms of the establishment of this park.
As we all know, last year British Columbia played host to the world through Expo. The world loved it. Tourism is turning out to be the main legacy of Expo 86. A world-class tourist destination in the Queen Charlotte Islands would make a continuing contribution to the province and to the Canadian economy.
According to the province, preliminary research has indicated that significant numbers of first-time visitors plan to return to British Columbia in order to fully explore that great and beautiful province. The tourism sector is optimistic about the future of post-Expo opportunities. The development of new products, such as cultural tourism and native cultural destinations, are considered significant new developments.
Supply
So quite aside from preserving the heritage of our beautiful country, there are very valid commercial reasons for proceeding with this proposal. We cannot ignore the commercial aspects of the proposal now before the House.
In the recent Speech from the Throne in the Legislature of British Columbia, we had an expression of the intention of the Province of British Columbia in respect of this proposal. In that speech, the Government of B.C. made the following statement:
We will attempt to expedite the federal-provincial negotiations for the establishment of a national park on South Moresby in the Queen Charlottes.
The speech went on:
My Government-
And that, of course, refers to the Social Credit Government of British Columbia:
My Government will seek a bilateral agreement with the federal government to develop the enormous tourism potential this area offers.
And the speech continued:
Working together, our two governments can create a national park and tourism environment that will not only generate major economic benefits for all British Columbia, but in particular, new employment and income for the friendly people of the Queen Charlottes region.
That is an objective, Mr. Speaker, that we share. I call upon the Government of British Columbia to carry through fully on that particular promise.
Today in this House we heard the commitment of the Minister to co-operate and to work hard toward the realization of that dream, a dream that has been around for many years. I call upon the Premier of the Province of British Columbia to match the Hon. Minister's enthusiasm.
I should like to take a moment to deal with another matter contained in the resolution, a matter which has been referred to on occasion this afternoon, that being the situation with respect to the Haida people.
I was pleased to hear both the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) and the Minister of the Environment indicate their commitment to the active involvement of the Haida in the planning and development and running of a national park reserve on South Moresby.
In closing, let me again congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena on his motion. It is a subject that warrants the attention and support of all Members of the House. I am sure that we all share his desire and the desire of the Minister to see the establishment of a national park reserve in this area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), on debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to congratulate those who have preceded me in the

May 14, 1987
Adjournment Debate
debate, starting with the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), who comes from a beautiful province on the other side of the country, as well as the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), and the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).
As a prairie boy, 1 support fully the efforts of all Hon. Members and the Government in the establishment of a national park reserve in the Queen Charlottes, and specifically the South Moresby area.
It is my hope that in the quest for an agreement, the loggers are not over-compensated. In my personal view, the compensation should amount to no more than the expenses involved in their departure from the area.
The trees of our wilderness areas belong to the people of Canada. Those companies involved in logging operations pay a royalty or stumpage fee on trees harvested. That is all they pay in order to harvest the forests of this country. Where a tree has not been harvested, no payment should be due the logger. But, in any event, let us get on with achieving agreement on this proposal for a national park reserve.
When it comes to the heritage of the environment, the resources, the natural habitat of this country, none of us have any right to leave a mess for succeeding generations.
Who do we think we are that we can waste our forests, pollute our waters, and foul our air in order to satisfy the bottom line syndrome, as I choose to call it, the principle of anything to make a buck? Since when does that take priority over the welfare of our people and our planet and our environment?
I hope that a national park reserve is no different from a national park. I am aware that in the case of some forest reserves, logging and mining interests have been allowed to operate. I am thinking of some reserve lands in eastern British Columbia and western Alberta, in the Rocky Mountains. These are what are called forest reserves and park reserves. Notwithstanding that they had been set aside as such, the regulations still permitted logging and mining operations.
I hope that in the establishment of the South Moresby National Park Reserve, no opening is left for the "cut-and-run" boys to move in down the road.
In supporting this proposal, I wish to take a moment to make an appeal for the establishment of the Grasslands National Park in southwestern Saskatchewan. This is something that the people of the Prairies, and particularly the people of Saskatchewan, have wanted for decades.
From my arrival here in 1968, there have been discussions and negotiations in respect of the Grasslands National Park. I can recall attending a large reception at which a profile map of
the entire park area was displayed. Agreement had been reached among the province and the federal Government, the local municipalities, the ranchers and other interests on the establishment of the Grasslands National Park. But, Mr. Speaker, we still do not have it. It is still not in place.
I suppose it could be called a place where the buffalo can roam and the deer and the antelope play, and groundhog and the sage grouse and the prairie dogs and rattlesnakes thrive. It could be a place where the original grasslands, and the Coulees, and the Badlands, and the Buttes can remain as they are and as they were.
I put in a plea that the Minister renew discussions on an urgent basis with the Government of Saskatchewan and any other interests on the establishment of the Grasslands National Park.
Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces still limited to one national park. Apart from the odd small area in the United States, the southwestern part of Saskatchewan is the only area where we still have the grasslands existing in their original state.
It is my hope that once the Hon. Minister has achieved agreement on the establishment of the South Moresby National Park Reserve, he will then turn his attention to getting established, once and for all, the Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan. As far as both are concerned, he has the unanimous support of all Members from all sides of the House of Commons. That being said, let us now get it done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to order made earlier this day, the motion is now deemed to have been adopted.

It is a great day for Parliament.

Motion agreed to.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, some 10 days ago I brought to the attention of the Government the fact that there are now five million functionally illiterate people in Canada and that their ability to find work in an
May 14, 1987

increasingly technological society is becoming smaller and smaller. I called upon the federal Government, in co-operation with the provinces, to develop a 10-year program with the objective to wipe out this blot on Canada.
I was appalled by the Minister's response, which simply promised more discussions and more meetings. There was little commitment, if any, to real action.
A substantial majority of the illiterate people in Canada were born in Canada. Almost half of them are under the age of 45 years. Some 60 per cent of them are unemployed and are not even looking for work. Given the 1.25 million unemployed at the present time, what chance would they have of being hired? Those who are lucky enough to obtain work are sentenced to minimum wage and uninteresting, mind-dulling work.
Who are the illiterate? They are farmers, native people, inmates in our jails and penitentiaries, and young people who somehow got through the school system without learning to read at a grade eight level or better. These five million people face a grim future for themselves, but their plight is creating an increasing danger for all Canadians.
However, the problem can be solved. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) announced a new program to tackle the problem of illiteracy among inmates in our prisons. I support the initiative but ask why we restrict the federal Government's involvement in the problem to our prisons.
Small successful programs have been operating in many parts of Canada. One of the most successful is Frontier College which has worked on this problem since the beginning of the century. In Ottawa, Calgary, Winnipeg, and other cities too numerous to mention, there are groups working with the illiterates in their areas. These groups were formed by churches, labour groups, and various community groups. They need the support of Governments, federal and provincial.
It has been demonstrated in Third World countries such as Cuba, China, and Venezuela that well planned programs which have the support of personnel and finances can succeed. Many of these countries have virtually wiped out illiteracy, which was so prevalent and was the fate of most of their people. If they can do it in Third World countries, we can do it in Canada.
These groups need support. They do not need to have plans worked out in Ottawa by the federal Government or even plans worked out in detail and imposed upon them by provincial Governments. The self-help groups need support, not only support of a financial nature. Their programs need publicity. They need more people involved and the development of new techniques. What they need the most is the assistance of thousands of volunteers who, I am convinced, would come forward to help in a very necessary program, if they were made aware of the need and were alerted to the kind of help they could provide in dealing with a tremendously serious problem.
Adjournment Debate
I call upon the federal Government to meet with the provincial and territorial Governments, to work out plans, and to set a timetable so that, if not in the 10 years which I suggested in my original questions, at least by the end of this century, the year 2000, we will no longer have to accept the reality that 20 per cent of the people living in Canada are still functionally illiterate.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had more than three minutes because I think the Hon. Member knows that I am also interested in this subject.
In 1980 the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and I served on a task force which identified this problem and made certain recommendations to the federal Government at that time. I am pleased to note now that our Government is taking some action regarding adult literacy. Because of the encouragement of the committee headed by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and its work, along with the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) and myself, continued pressure has been put on cabinet Ministers to come forward with a literacy program.
The former Minister of the Environment sits there and laughs and makes fun, but it is a very serious problem. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right in what he says. The problem was recognized in the Speech from the Throne. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Crombie) are taking active roles. Last week the Secretary of State met with many of the country's leading experts in the field of literacy. Among them were representatives of the Movement for Canadian Literacy, Laubach Literacy of Canada, Regroupement des Groupes Populaires en Alphabetisation, the Canadian Business Task Force on Literacy and the International Council for Adult Education. It was made clear at that time to the delegates that the Government does, indeed, recognize the problem and that it is taking a very active role. Another meeting will be held shortly, and the Minister will be presenting some information that I think Canadians will appreciate very much.
We are fully aware of the fact that illiteracy is costly in personal, educational, social and economic terms. The Member is correct that the volunteer sector is very important. It is the key to the whole program. I spent some time with the Peel Literacy Guild on Appreciation Night. Labour, industry and the volunteers-of which we have a large number in Peel but we can always use more-were honoured.
What the Secretary of State is doing at present, in cooperation with other Governments and organizations-because 1 think it has to be a co-operative effort-is trying to identify short-term initiatives immediately but in parallel with longterm strategies for lasting solutions. We have started with one of those short-term initiatives by increasing the basic adult literacy program among federal penitentiary inmates. This will

May 14, 1987
Adjournment Debate
increase the number of inmates who will be taught reading and writing. It will be established over the next three years, with an increase of 400 per cent in the number of inmates receiving this type of training. That is just a start on what I and this Government consider a very serious problem. There will be more action in the very near future.


AGRICULTURE-WHEAT FARMERS 1987-88 CROP YEAR-REQUEST FOR DEFICIENCY PAYMENT. (B) REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW DEBT RESTRUCTURING INSTRUMENTS
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) as a result of his trip to western Canada. I asked him whether after four days in the west he would decide to finally provide a deficiency payment for the new crop year, 1987-88.
The Prime Minister met, albeit with selected people- mostly partisan supporters of his own-but even in meeting with a very select group of partisan supporters the message was always the same, that the situation in southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba needed a commitment by the Government for the new crop year.
It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister refused to meet with the western wheat pools, the prairie pools and their constituent organizations, the National Farmers Union and the Keystone Agricultural groups. The Prime Minister when in the west operated on a solely photo-opportunity, closed-shop type of basis. It may have impressed people in eastern Canada that the Prime Minister was meeting with people in agriculture who are facing the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, but it did not impress the westerners themselves.
On Monday, May 11, the Montreal Gazette said the Prime Minister's message in the west missed the mark. The paper goes on to outline how the Prime Minister met with some Party supporters but did not get down to meeting with the broad-based agricultural groups who are facing such a difficult time. On May 9, The Globe and Mail said the Prime Minister's western trip generated scant enthusiasm. On May 10 the Sunday Sun reported that the welcome for the Prime Minister was lukewarm to hostile.
On Monday I asked whether or not the Prime Minister would make a commitment to a deficiency payment. The general strategy of the Government has been to keep talking about what assistance was provided in the current crop year, without making a firm commitment. The decrease in farm income is calculated at $2 billion to $3 billion from the 198586 crop year, yet we have no commitment from the Prime Minister. I believe he will be meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) on May 29. At this stage it appears that meeting will only be about an hour, a quick snapshot visit with the producers. The producers do not want the Minister of Agriculture to do what he did a few months ago, walk into the meeting, throw down a press release and say "this is what we are issuing as a result of this meeting".
The second part of my question dealt with the terrible financial crisis facing agriculture right across the country. It has been estimated that the value of farmland has decreased by some $17 billion since this Government came to power in September, 1984. There are about 170,000 economic-sized farms with gross sales of at least $20,000 a year. That means each of those farmers have lost an average of $100,000 in land value. When the Prime Minister talks about assistance amounting to $2 billion or $3 billion over the last couple of years, we have to compare it with the amount farmers have lost.
I asked the Prime Minister if he would make a commitment to bring in new debt restructuring instruments which would assist some 52,000 farmers who are facing either total insolvency or serious cash flow problems. His response was that he would be looking into it, but he made no firm commitment. That was a tremendous disappointment to every western farmer, indeed every farmer in the country. The Prime Minister went out there, he saw the malaise, hardship, indeed the tortured unfairness of it all. Farmers in this country are not receiving the same level of support as those in the U.S.
Thousands of our youngest and most productive farmers are facing the loss of their land and there are no proper debt restructuring instruments being put in place. The ones which are there are totally inadequate for the circumstances of the day.
I certainly hope that the Government will move expeditiously on both of these problems. We want a commitment now that farmers will receive an adequate deficiency payment in the new crop year this fall and that new debt restructuring instruments and programs will be put in place to assist farmers to stay on the land and continue to produce the food that is vitally needed for this country and for our international commitments.

Mir. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to complete what was said by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his answer to this question on May 11 this year.
The Government sees agriculture as a very important industry, a position that was reflected in the Prime Minister's pertinent and enlightened replies. The Government realizes that grain producers have been severely affected by the dramatic drop in world prices for grain, caused by a subsidy war between the European Economic Community and the United States.
We also realize that Western Canada has been particularly affected, and that is why we have taken exceptional measures to deal with this situation. Since we came to power, financial assistance to western farmers through federal programs has more than tripled. For this year alone, direct payments to
May 14, 1987

farmers under federal programs are expected to increase by about $1 billion over last year's, making a total of about $3 billion.
Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly frank, I think this is more than just lip service. These are concrete measures. They are official measures. These measures are the national expression of a national party, the Progressive Conservative Party, and were taken by our Prime Minister, by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) together with all provincial Agriculture Ministers, who represent four Parties between them, and they all agreed to help western farmers.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) may not fully understand the problem because his speech does not recognize the facts, it does not recognize that we are fully aware of what is going on, we are fully aware of the steps taken by our Minister of Agriculture, the Prime Minister, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board to help Western producers cope through cash payments, we are thinking of the coming stabilization payments, $702 million, $64 million extra payments that have just been announced to help pay freight rates. We are aware that under those policies we are putting in place to help Canadian agriculture, we must keep on co-operating with the farming industry, we must keep on working with provinces to finally give farming something decent, a stable role, a foundation within our economy, our economic activity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress to my colleague for Algoma that the Prime Minister is aware of farmers' problems, that he is the first Prime Minister in Canadian history who has ever succeeded in making agriculture a priority on the GATT agenda. That is a tangible move by this Government because agriculture is important to us, both in words and in deeds.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-NIAGARA RIVER CLEAN-UP PLAN. (B) START OF OPERATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised dealt with the Niagara River toxic problem and particularly with the management plan which was formulated to clean up the toxic chemicals which enter the Niagara River through municipal and industrial sewers and seep from old toxic chemical dumps through the porous bedrock directly into the river from the United States side. More details on how this plan will be defined, hopefully including targets, deadlines and a commitment to zero discharge, are to be released in July of this year.
Now, however, there is a wrench in the works and an open flank in the battle plan. It concerns airborne chemicals. The Niagara work plan agreed to in February of this year did not address the possibility of toxic chemicals being released into
Adjournment Debate
the air at Niagara Falls. This is a major blunder that could have been prevented.
In 1984, Dr. Barry Oliver, at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington, calculated that 50 per cent of the toxic chemicals in the Niagara River volatilized, that is left the water by way of vapours and entered the air at the Falls themselves. Dr. Oliver wanted to measure toxic chemicals in the mist in 1984, but the severe cuts that were inflicted in November, 1984, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and subsequent budgets of Environment Canada made it impossible for Dr. Oliver to receive the money or the help to pursue this research. Finally, Dr. Oliver left Environment Canada in February of this year.
When the blob in the St. Clair River occurred, its clean-up sapped the limited resources that Environment Canada had left to respond to chemical crises.
In October, 1986, Pollution Probe did what Environment Canada should have done. They took samples of the mist at Niagara Falls and found nine toxic chemicals, including chloroform, benzene and toluene, in small amounts, that are not immediate health threats but could pose a chronic, longterm health hazard.
Last week came the release of the study done by Donald MacKay and Michael McLachlan, of the University of Toronto, which indicated that 35 to 175 tonnes of chemicals go into the air each year at Niagara Falls.
The questions that emerge are fundamental. Why has Environment Canada been so reduced in its capacity and strength to study toxic chemicals that only one full-time scientist is working on the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan while Ontario has four people on site?
Why was Dr. Oliver not provided with the necessary funds to carry out the study at the Falls in relation to the plan that had been conceived in recent times and would have included the study of toxicity released at the Falls themselves? Will Environment Canada, belatedly and after many warnings, tackle the problems of toxic chemicals in the mist at Niagara Falls? Finally, Environment Canada must get heavily involved at the Falls in measuring these toxics. Otherwise, how accurate can the estimates be of toxic chemical loadings based on measurements at Fort Erie and Niagara-on-the-Lake?
We are talking about the health of millions of Canadians in the Niagara Peninsula. We are also talking about the viability of the tourist industry, which is very intense, with millions of visitors every year. We must ensure that the issue is handled and that we know the impact of the toxic chemicals that are released at the Falls. We must ensure the presence of Environment Canada in international waters because that is demanded of the Department. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a satisfactory answer.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, all of my answers are

May 14, 1987
Adjournment Debate
satisfactory so I do not know why the Hon. Member would add that caveat to his presentation.
I might say that there have been many solid achievements in the Niagara River issue. Of course, it is a major issue and one that should concern us all. Being an Ontarian and a Bramp-tonian who gets water from Lake Ontario, naturally I should be very interested in the issue. As a parliamentarian, I spent the weekend in Niagara Falls. A more beautiful part of the world is hard to find. There is no question about that.
The Hon. Member talked about the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan which had been agreed upon by Canada, Ontario, the United States and New York, and the second major initiative on February 4, 1987, of an international declaration of intent which is intended to accompany and complement the Niagara River Toxics Management Plan. This is a very important document because it talks about the political will to support the toxics management plan and to work toward what I think is key, the reduction of loadings to toxic chemicals entering the Niagara River by 50 per cent over the coming decade.
1 think that is a great goal to work toward. I hope they surpass it as, I am sure, does the Hon. Member. I think we all do. We have the political will now. The Hon. Member knows how difficult it was to get that political will. He is a former Minister of the Environment and he had his problems getting those agreements signed. He should be happy that the political will is there now and that we have to get on with the job.
With respect to the toxics in the air to which the Hon. Member referred, there have been some media reports about this matter. By the way, the Hon. Member asked this question last November and is just following up now. I find that interesting. There have been recent media reports relating to a University of Toronto modelling study. The model estimated quantities of volatile chemicals evaporating into the air from the Niagara River and Niagara Falls.
This particular study was supported by Environment Canada on the basis that previous research conducted by the Government provided indications of the volatile nature of some of the contaminates carried in the river. So we have been involved in that right from the start, and we support it. While the model predictions should be considered preliminary-and the Hon. Member will understand that-and speculative at this time, support of such work is indicative of the continuing efforts by Canada to investigate and describe the environmental pathways, fate and effects of chemical contaminates in this system. Environment Canada will be conducting further research on volatile chemicals at Niagara Falls this year.
The Hon. Member tells us that Ontario has four people on site and we only have one person on site. I can tell the Hon. Member that that has been one of the major problems with the Government of Canada, trying to outdo the Ontario Government or vice versa. The money all comes from the same pocket. The important thing is that work is going on there now and we are studying this particular problem. It is worrisome to us all. It is being investigated.
Now that we have the political will, I think that is about three quarters of the battle won. We can now get on with the toxics management plan, together with the declaration of intent, which is intended to push the parties toward the goal of zero discharge and virtual elimination in a scheduled and stepwise fashion, which I think is very important. I think we should congratulate the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) for the work he has done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
At 6.29 p.m., the House adjourned.

Friday, May 15, 1987


[Stage Direction]
Prayers