1958-06-09

THE BUDGET


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the house that, barring unforeseen eventualities, I propose to introduce the budget on Tuesday evening, June 17, at eight o'clock, one week from tomorrow evening.



DISTRIBUTION OF

[Stage Direction]
1956-57 POOL ACCOUNT
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement to make with regard to the 1956-57 wheat account. The final accounting of the 1956-57 wheat account has been completed and the 1956-57 pool account closed as at May 9 last.
The surplus for distribution to producers is $25,083,697.42. Producers delivered 361.4 million bushels of wheat to the 1956-57 pool account. Therefore the average per bushel final payment is 6.941 cents.
There is considerable variation in the final payment for individual grades of wheat delivered to the 1956-57 pool. The final payment on No. 1 northern wheat is 8.650 cents per bushel, on No. 2 northern wheat 8.704 cents per bushel, and on No. 3 northern wheat 5.818 cents per bushel. In the case of No. 4 northern wheat the final payment is 2.752 cents per bushel. The payment on No. 4 northern wheat reflects the very heavy deliveries of this grade of wheat to the 1956-57 pool and the extent to which the wheat board had to discount selling prices for No. 4 northern wheat to effect sales. The final payments on No. 5 wheat, No. 6 wheat and feed wheat are 7.346 cents, 5.712 cents and 8.697 cents per bushel, respectively.
Final payments on milling grades of durum wheat are considerably higher. These range from 18.456 cents per bushel for No. 4 amber durum to 26.841 cents per bushel for extra No. 4 amber durum.
The final payment on the 1956-57 wheat account is in addition to the interim payment
which was authorized in February last. The interim payment was 10 cents per bushel on all grades of wheat except milling grades of durum, on which the interim payment was 25 cents per bushel. The interim payment provided for the distribution of $39,840,940.55. Combining the interim payment of last winter and the present final payment, the operating surplus on the 1956-57 wheat account was $64,924,637.97, prior to necessary deductions for the Prairie Farm Assistance Act levy.
Cheques to producers covering the final wheat payment will be issued by the wheat board following the distribution of the final payment on the 1956-57 barley account, which is now under way.



WHEAT BOARD


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a second announcement to make at this stage. I should like to announce that the governor in council has appointed Mr. William C. McNamara to be chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board. Mr. McNamara has been associated with the Canadian wheat board for the last 16 years. He was first concerned with wartime transportation problems of the board and was appointed special resident representative in Washington, D.C., in 1944. Mr. McNamara was appointed commissioner of the Canadian wheat board in 1945, and two years later assumed the position of assistant chief commissioner. He has been a member of the Canadian delegation on three occasions in the negotiation of successive international wheat agreements, and has taken an active interest in the work of the international wheat council, which has its headquarters in London, England.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly at this time. The payments that have been announced on the 1956-57 wheat crop, while probably not unexpected as to size, are nevertheless extremely disappointing to western producers since they are substantially lower than last year, and reflect a further deterioration in the general price at which wheat is selling throughout the world. I know the wheat board has done a good job under difficult circumstances but this exceedingly small payment underlines the need for the government

Health Insurance
to actively and favourably consider the making at an early date of substantial and adequate deficiency payments. I express the hope that an announcement in this regard will be made very soon.
As to the second announcement the minister has made, I know it will be welcomed by grain producers. I am sure it will be welcome news in the trade that Mr. W. C. McNamara has now been appointed chairman of the Canadian wheat board. I think he and his associates will continue in the future, as they have in the past, to do a good job on behalf of the producers, even though they face very great difficulties.



HEALTH INSURANCE


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a very brief announcement to the house at this time. As hon. members may know, I had the privilege earlier today to join with Hon. Dr. James McGrath, minister of health for Newfoundland, in signing an agreement between the province and the dominion government under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues I can say that we welcome this development as a further step toward the realization of a scheme which will be of benefit to all Canadians.
I might add that it is intended that this agreement shall take effect as of July 1, 1958.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all welcome the information just given to us by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. There will be general satisfaction that the province of Newfoundland has now signed an agreement entitling it to receive benefits if and when the amended hospital insurance act passes the house, as it undoubtedly will. I think I am correct in saying that the agreement with Newfoundland today represents the first agreement signed with the federal government in which a province takes full advantage of the proposal put forward by the federal government a year ago for diagnostic services for both in- and out-patients.
I hope the minister will either confirm or deny this statement. If that is the case I think it represents a very considerable advance, and a change from the agreement signed with Ontario in which that province took advantage of the diagnostic services proposal only with regard to in-patients.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, the agreements with Ontario and Newfoundland are both entirely within the terms of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not my question. I said that the agreement with Ontario did not provide diagnostic services for out-patients but only for in-patients, and that the agreement signed today with the province of Newfoundland provides for diagnostic services for both in- and out-patients.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I
answered that question earlier. Both agreements are entirely within the terms of the act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not understood my question.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the important announcement the minister has made. We feel confident that the provinces generally will sign agreements at an early date. I noticed in the press a few days ago that the province of Quebec was considering a hospitalization program. We express the hope that Quebec and the other provinces will all take advantage of this very important plan. I also express the hope that at an early date the government will announce that the hospitalization plan has been made complete by bringing mental and tubercular patients under it, in keeping with the consistent position of his party over recent years.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lamblon West) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters, presented to the house on June 5, 1958, be now concurred in.


Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Does the hon. member moving this motion propose to give the house any reasons why it should be concurred in? If he has anything to say I would be anxious to hear him. If not, I should like to say something about it.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I rather expected that the hon. member would have referred to this matter when I presented the report last Thursday. I expected, because of an argument in the estimates committee to the effect that committees should not sit while the house is in session, that he would present an argument then.
It has been the practice in the past for committees to get this power, either at the time the committee was set up or after the first meeting when concurrence was moved in the

first report. I have the records for quite a number of years, but I shall refer only to recent years. In 1955 there were 15 committees set up, three of which were given the power to sit while the house was sitting at the time those committees were constituted. There were six committees given this power subsequent to the presentation of the first reports to the house. In 1956 there were 10 committees set up, all of which except four were given the power to sit while the house was sitting, which power was requested after the first meeting of the committees. At the first session in 1957 there were eight committees, and they all received permission to sit while the house was sitting after the filing of their first reports. During the second session of 1957 four committees were set up, two of which were given the power to sit while the house was sitting. This power was granted after the presentation of the first reports. The other two committees were granted this power after subsequent meetings.
I might remind the hon. member that on three occasions he was chairman of the atomic energy committee and the research committee, and all those committees were given the power to sit while the house was sitting at the time those committees were constituted. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that at our first meeting last week everyone agreed that we would be asking for the power to sit while the house was sitting, and there was no objection. We had the reporters present at our meeting this morning, but we are not able to authorize the printing of the report until we get the concurrence of the house in this report. I may say to the hon. member who has raised this question that it was definitely understood by all members of our committee this morning that we would not ask the committee to sit while the house was sitting unless that was absolutely necessary.
It is expected that this committee will have to have eight or ten meetings. If another department were referred to us this would entail probably six additional meetings. If we do not get concurrence in the report today, Mr. Speaker, it might mean that we would have to ask later for the power to sit while the house is sitting. I appreciate, as do all hon. members in this house, that the opposition is limited in numbers, through no fault of ours.
The objection taken in the estimates committee was that the opposition wanted their members to be in the house. Now, if you or anyone else, Mr. Speaker, would like to count the number of Liberal members who are here, 1 think that you would find there are less than 20.
9, 1958	945
Mines, Forests and Waters Committee


Paul Joseph James Martin: Look at your own benches.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I submit that we are not asking for anything unfair. We will not sit unless it is absolutely necessary to do so; and, as I say, we will simply have to come back to this house again for concurrence in case we have to ask for permission to sit while the house is sitting.


George James McIlraith: Since I am not a member of the committee in question, Mr. Speaker, I propose to limit my remarks somewhat more than I otherwise might.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: I am not wholly displeased when I find that my remarks in this respect are not wholly agreeable to certain of the backbenchers on the government side, because if they were applauding me I would begin to think I was wrong. When they are opposing me I feel that I am right. The issue here is quite narrow and quite specific, and I think it should be laid before the house for its attention.
The part of the committee report to which I take exception is the part asking that the committee have leave to sit while the house is in session. The hon. member proposing the motion stated three times in his remarks- as a matter of fact, twice in the form of an undertaking-that he would not ask that the committee sit while the house was in session. I know of no stronger case that could be made as to why the committee should not have this extraordinary power.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That was not the
whole statement.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member will refer to my notes a little more closely I think he will see I said that I was not asking that the committee sit while the house was in session unless it was absolutely necessary.


George James McIlraith: That is correct; that is my understanding of what the hon. member said, and I heard him aright. I think this is the clearest possible reason why the house ought not to give this power. The power for a committee to sit while the house is in session is an extraordinary power, and unless the proponent of the motion asking for that extraordinary power is in a position to give some reason why that power should be given to the committee, I respectfully submit that it ought not to be given.
Some reference was made to the atomic energy committee. The case there was quite clear-if the hon. member will check his Hansards carefully enough I think he will

Mines, Forests and Waters Committee find that it was stated the first time the committee was set up-and it was simply this. The committee proposed travelling to the Chalk River plant of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and they wanted the power to be able to do that on a day other than Saturday or Sunday. The reason was quite clear in that case. That example has no bearing whatever on the case here.


Joseph Warner Murphy: I again rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member does not want to be incorrect. I should like to remind him that most of the meetings of that committee were held here in the House of Commons, and that we were absent from the city for only two days.


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I am not able to follow the point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It is a point of accuracy.


George James McIlraith: That committee asked for special leave to sit while the house was in session for what the committee thought was a very good reason, what was stated to be the reason and what the house approved as the reason. Today we have no reason whatever given for asking this extraordinary power. We have the rather unusual request that the power be granted as a matter of right for no reason at all.


Mr. Lennard:: Then it has been a little bit unusual for the last ten years.


George James McIlraith: The hon. member has had his opportunity to speak without being interrupted. If he is not sufficiently mature after this number of years in the house to grant the same courtesy to another hon. member when any matter of business is being discussed in the house, there is nothing I can do about it. I must only acknowledge his right to be here and say that I appreciate that right and will honour it. I cannot refrain, however, from having thoughts about the way he exercises that right.
It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to force a vote on the matter, and there is obviously no reason why the other part of the motion should not be separated and granted by the house; that is the part having to do with the printing of evidence.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: I think it would be unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, if the remarks just made by the hon. member for Ottawa West to the effect that this is a very extraordinary power were allowed to go unchallenged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: One might take it from his - statement that we were attempting to cut down the rights of parliament or were being


unfair to the opposition. I served on many committees during the 22 years I have been a member of this House of Commons, and during the whole of that time it has merely been part of the regular routine to give a committee the power to sit while the house is in session.


An hon. Member:: Under the Liberals.


Howard Charles Green: And may I remind the hon. member for Ottawa West that on more than one occasion the present government, while in opposition, had a very small number of members and was really in the same position in which he and his colleagues find themselves today. I do not believe, however, that there has ever been any serious objection to a committee having the power to sit while the house is in session; and that power, generally speaking, has only been used when it was reasonable to do so.


George James McIlraith: It has only been asked when it was reasonable to ask it.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no; the hon. member is wrong in that. Very often he has not been in the house, although he has been the hon. member for Ottawa West, and he has missed a lot of the things which have gone on here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is very unfair.


George James McIlraith: That is a very childish statement to be made by the leader of the house.


Howard Charles Green: It may sound very childish to the hon. member, but it is very accurate. We gave assurance during the debate on the amendment to the standing orders providing two additional standing committees that it was not the intention to have those committees sit while the house was in session unless it should be necessary, and that is the plan of the government. However, for the hon. member for Ottawa West to attempt to make a hue and cry about the report of this committee, which is identical with the reports of many, many other committees, is going beyond all reason, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that on reflection he will realize that this is only a bit of a smokescreen that he is raising.


George James McIlraith: No, that is not so.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Lambton West is simply carrying out the procedure of this house when he asks for concurrence in this report, which apparently has been agreed to by the hon. members of the committee, among which the hon. member for Ottawa West is not even numbered.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps there has been more than one unfortunate statement made during the course of this short debate. I will try not-


Some hon. Members:: To make another one.


Lionel Chevrier: -to adopt the same combative manner which my hon. friend across the way has adopted.
I do, however, resent very strongly the statement made a moment ago by the hon. member for Lambton West that our attendance in this house is not what it should be, particularly having regard to our small numbers. I would recall to the hon. member, and as well as to the house leader across the way, that on an auspicious occasion not very long ago, which I shall not name, the house was almost empty and the benches on the other side of the house were certainly far from being filled as they should have been for that very formal occasion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was the same on both sides of the house. Your leader was not even in the chamber.


Mr. Pearkes:: You were not in.
Mr. Pallet!: The house was not in session.


Lionel Chevrier: What was that again?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was the same on both sides of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: The point that has been raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West is well taken. While the house leader may be correct in saying that the power requested is not normally an extraordinary power, it is extraordinary having regard to the circumstances in which the house finds itself at the present time.


Mr. Fraser:: How does it find itself? It is no different.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the number of hon. members on this side of the house, charged with the responsibilities they have, it makes it extremely difficult to fulfil those responsibilities in the house and at the same time be represented on the committees.


An hon. Member:: Whose fault was that?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid I had nothing to do with that decision.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, you did.


Lionel Chevrier: If the second part of the report in which concurrence is sought read as the hon. member for Lambton West wanted it to read, namely that the committee would not sit unless it was absolutely necessary, perhaps that would put a different light on
9, 1958
Mines, Forests and Waters Committee the question; but that provision is not contained in the report. It is being moved without any conditions attached. Mr. Speaker, I am going to make a suggestion and it is this, that this matter be allowed to stand for today and that we discuss it tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that this report should have been brought in at this time in the exact terms in which it has been presented, in the light of the discussion we have already had in this house during this session and in the light of the very clear statement made by the Prime Minister. Now, a few days after he made the statement, we are faced with a situation completely contradictory to what he said. I refer to the statement he made on May 30 as recorded at page 702 of Hansard, when we were discussing the setting up of certain committees.


Joseph Warner Murphy: That concerned the estimates committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: He said;
One thing which was made extremely clear by the Leader of the Opposition was that to the maximum extent there should be no interference with the business of the house by the sittings of the committee and I could not be more in agreement with that, because we do not want the sittings of the committee to supplant in any way the operations of the House of Commons, whether In formal debate or otherwise.
While it is true that the reference of the Prime Minister was to one particular committee, I believe that in the sense in which it was made it is a statement the Prime Minister would have applied to the estimates of any department referred to any committee, no matter what the committee might be. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Someone mentioned that we should not endeavour to rush parliament. In other words, every opportunity should be given for the fullest consideration of the matters that come before the house, and that is true.
A little later on he said:
We wish to make this House of Commons as efficient and as effective as it is possible to do.
The membership of the committees of this house totals more than 700, and in view of the large number of committees I suggest that if there is any disposition on the part of the government to have any number of committees meet while the house is in session it will be impossible for hon. members to carry out their functions as they should. It has been said by the house leader that the objections we are raising are a smokescreen and that he knows many instances when the representation of the Conservative party in this house was no larger than the present representation of the Liberal party.
948	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mines, Forests and Waters Committee Mr. Fraser: On one occasion it was smaller; there were only 39 Conservatives in this house.
The house divided on the motion (Mr. Murphy) which was agreed to on the following division:


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes; and he indicated that these objections were not taken. I think the house leader will recall that at no previous session were so many committees struck as is the case at this time. It is not just a question of the size of the opposition parties. Of equal concern is the fact that more committees will be meeting this session than ever before. Some of these committees have not met for 20 years or more. Government members stressed this point when we were discussing the motion the other day. We are being asked in the motion before us to agree in advance, with the session just four weeks old, to have a committee meet while the house is sitting.
This discussion came before the estimates committee the other morning; and while two members of the Conservative party presented the motion it was spoken to by a number of opposition members. I observed one hopeful sign, in that new Conservative members on the committee were of the opinion that we should not ask committees of parliament to sit while the house is sitting. I believe a good precedent has been set. I would hope that this motion would be withdrawn and perhaps presented at a later time in a different form. If the government through its overwhelming majority should insist on having a number of committees meeting while the house is sitting, the government will be a party to making it impossible for opposition parties to function adequately this session.
I seriously urge the government to consider very carefully before taking any step that would make it difficult for opposition members to carry out the important tasks of opposition. I am certain the people of Canada will not look with favour on the government if they learn at some later date that hon. members must attend the meetings of several committees at the same time the house is sitting.
Because of the very clear statement made by the Prime Minister on this subject; because we believe committees should not sit while the house is sitting, and in view of the assurances given that this would not be done, we in this group are going to oppose this motion.
YEAS Messrs:
Aiken
Aitken, Miss
Allard
Allmark
Anderson
Balcer
Baldwin
Baskin
Beech
Bell (Carleton)
Bell (Saint John-Albert)
Bigg
Bissonnette Broome
Lennard
Lockyer
Macdonald (Kings)
Macdonnell
Macquarrie
MacBain
McCleave
McDonald
(Hamilton South) McFarlane McGee McGrath McIntosh McLennan
Browne (St. John's West)McPhillips Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway)
Brunsden Cadieu Campbell
(Lambton-Kent)
Campeau Cardiff Charlton Chown Churchill Clancy Coates Comtois Creaghan Crouse Danforth Dorion Doucett Drysdale Dubois English
Fairclough, Mrs.
Fane
Fleming (Eglinton)
Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke)
Flynn Fraser Grafftey Green Grenier Gundlock
Halpenny
Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace)
Hamilton (Qu'Appelle)
Hamilton (York West)
Hees
Henderson Hicks Hodgson Horner (Acadia)
Horner (Jasper-Edson) _	
Horner (The Battlefords) Taylor Howe	Thomas
McQuillan
Martel
Martineau
Martini
Milligan
Monteith (Perth)
Montgomery
Morissette
Morris
Morton
Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria) Murphy Nesbitt Nowlan Nugent O'Hurley Pallett Parizeau Pasco e Paul Payne Pearkes Pigeon Pratt Pugh Rapp Rea Ricard
Richard (Kamouraska)
Rogers
Rompre
Rynard
Skoreyko
Smallwood
Smith (Calgary South). Smith (Hastings-Frontenac)
Southam Speakman Stanton Stefanson Stinson Tasse
Jung Kennedy Kindt Knowles Korchinski Lafreniere Legere
Thrasher
Villeneuve
Vivian
Walker
White
Winkler
Woolliams-129.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?
Argue


Some hon. Members:: Question.	Batten

NAYS Messrs:
Benidickson
Bourget

Brassard (Lapointe)
Caron
Carter
Chevrier
Fisher
Forgie
Godin
Gour
Habel
Bardie
Herridge
Houck
Howard
Leduc
Mcllraith
McMillan
McWilliam
Martin (Essex East)
Martin (Timmins)
Mitchell
Peters
Regier
Roberge
Robichaud
Tucker
Winch-30.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief announcement by way of a question of privilege occasioned by a report in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday last. While I intend taking up this matter at a press conference later-
Proposed Legislation
minister began to speak I really thought he had become a convert to public financing of housing in Canada. However, when he was concluding his speech I thought he sounded like a bride who had flirted with an idea and then broken off the engagement.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, these remarks attributed to me were made by the hon. member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McGee), at page 924 of Hansard for June 6, 1958. I trust, as a result of my bringing this to the attention of the house, my party consistency and rectitude during this debate will be established, and I know the person responsible for causing me a week end of mental disquietude and embarrassment will do his best to remove this blot on my socialist escutcheon.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


An hon. Member:: Louder.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: While I intend to deal with this matter later at a press conference, which I understand is the new technique, I wish to bring it to the attention of the house in order to have a permanent record of the truth.
The news item is headed with the following words: "Name Calling Breaks Calm as Government Defends Jobs Plan; Gloating Grits Rapped." I might explain that the article is written by Mr. Bruce Phillips of the Southam news service. I might also explain that Mr. Phillips is a good-looking member of a group with respect to which, with two or three feminine exceptions, nature has been somewhat parsimonious in this regard. The part of the article to which I take exception reads as follows:
Surprising support for the government came from C.C.F. M.P. Bert Herridge, who said there have been "understandable attempts to make political capital out of situations by people who should be better informed.
"I think it is fair to say that this government by its specific actions on housing has provided yearlong employment in the past year for approximately 175,000 persons. There is no secret source for this information; it is fully available to the members of the opposition and I have been surprised that they have been asking such questions."
That is what I am supposed to have said, and hon. members can well understand that it raised my ancient hackles. At no time have I uttered these words in the House of Commons or outside. As a matter of fact, in order to indicate my point of view, when speaking on the question of housing I said in part as found at pages 159 and 160 of Hansard of May 16:
We support this resolution, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, although we think it is completely inadequate to meet all the housing necessities of the Canadian people. When the


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-23, to amend the Canada Elections Act (absentee voting).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is designed to establish a system that we classify as absentee voting in federal elections, under which an elector who, on election day, finds himself absent from the polling division within which he is registered, may cast his ballot in another polling division, provided it is in the same province or any adjoining province. There are several amendments to the act in this same bill, but they are all connected with the basic principle of trying to establish the absentee ballot.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIAN ACT


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-24, to amend the Indian Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this is a
minor amendment which has been requested for some time. As soon as the bill is available it will be apparent that it is very short.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister is certainly no minor minister. I think she ought to explain what the minor point in the bill is.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I must confess openly before the house that I do not have a copy of the bill with me.

Proposed Legislation
Having been saved by your kindness, Mr. Speaker, I shall now explain to the house that subparagraphs 1 and 2 of section 12 provide that persons who have received or have been allotted half-breed lands or money scrip, and their descendants, are not entitled to be registered as Indians. The purpose of this amendment is to make this provision inapplicable to persons who are now registered and their descendants.


Mr. Winch:: That is not a minor amendment; it is serious.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL BOARD


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-25, to amend the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The purpose of this bill is to change the composition of the board under this act to control the Lake of the Woods water levels. At the present time there are two members from the province of Ontario on the board and two members representing the federal government. This change will give to the province of Manitoba one representative; Ontario will retain its two representatives; and the federal government will have one representative.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LAKEHEAD HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-26, to incorporate the lakehead harbour commissioners.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


George Harris Hees: The purpose of this bill is to establish a harbour commission to administer the lakehead harbours. There will be five commissioners, one appointed by each municipality and three appointed by the governor in council. It is a similar bill to the one which set up the Windsor and other harbour commissions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YUKON ACT


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to broaden the purposes for which the commissioner of the Yukon Territory may borrow or lend money:	to authorize the
appointment of deputy police magistrates and provide for them remuneration and allowances; to make it clear that the governor in council may appoint judicial as well as administrative officers; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 8-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any of its departments, and the government of Saskatchewan, from July 17, 1956 to date, dealing with: (i) the building of power plants and electrical transmission lines within Saskatchewan; (ii) the construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Subject to the usual reservations.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations expressed by the minister, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to provide by amendment to the Criminal Code appropriate punishment for the offence of water pollution.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this resolution concerning water pollution I may say I am convinced that it is of great importance to all Canadians and especially to the people of Manitoba because the Red river and lake Winnipeg, are within the boundaries of the Selkirk constituency. It is, therefore, of great importance to the people of my constituency.
Since I am not a legal man or a medical man, the comments and observations I will make on this problem of water pollution will

be those of a layman. I will try not to get involved in the actual wording of the required amendments to the Criminal Code. These will have to be left to the legal profession and, if implemented, to the Department of Justice.
Water pollution is not a new problem. It has been discussed in the house on several previous occasions, but no positive action was ever taken by the former government. This is a major problem today, and it exists right across Canada. Streams, rivers and lakes are being polluted by raw sewage and commercial wastes, making these waters unfit for human consumption, and unfit for bathing and other recreation. It has become so bad that it kills fish and wild game.
There are many causes of pollution. Raw sewage is one; commercial wastes and oil are another; leakage from power boats and vessels is another. Any water pollution which can have a serious effect on the health and welfare of a community certainly should not be treated lightly. The many streams, rivers and lakes are God's creation and should be retained in their purity. They should not be allowed to be sacrificed to private greed or to wanton and wilful pollution. These streams, rivers and lakes should be retained for the comfort, recreation and relaxation of every Canadian. If all individuals thought about the good Christian virtue of doing unto your neighbour as you would wish he would do unto you and acted accordingly, I am sure that individuals or companies would not deliberately pollute the streams running past their neighbour's door.
The co-operation of individuals, companies and all levels of government is required to eliminate pollution. The only way to do this is to have laws to make pollution of water an offence for which an offender can be punished. A medical man can draw a chart and show you the various forms of pollution and the effect they have on various types of life. The legal man can draft necessary legislation to restrict all types of pollution and make them punishable by law.
Being from Manitoba I intend to take as examples some of the rivers in that province. The Red river is one of them. The Assiniboine river, the Winnipeg river and the Saskatchewan river all pass through Manitoba. As I previously pointed out, this matter of water pollution has been discussed in this house on several occasions. The last time it was discussed in the house was in February of 1956. I should just like to read a quotation from a speech made by the Prime Minister as reported at page 1631 of Hansard of that year. This was at the time
Criminal Code
he introduced an amendment respecting pollution of interprovincial rivers:
In other words, the amendment which I am suggesting is to cover the general situation arising out of the pollution of interprovincial streams in Canada. In the case of navigable streams offences are created in so far as the Fisheries Act is concerned when anything in the nature of an effluent and the like is dumped into a stream and causes harm to fish; but in so far as interprovincial rivers are concerned, as the law stands today there is practical immunity for those who dump effluent into the river because of the wording of the section in question which permits wanton and wilful pollution of streams when there is no effect upon the health and comfort of the individual.
There are many examples of this, one outstanding example being the majestic Ottawa river which adjoins these parliament buildings.
I am not going to deal with the Ottawa river. There are many hon. members in this house who are well acquainted with the Ottawa river and the problems they are having, and no doubt the matter will be dealt with by some of those hon. members. To continue this quotation from the Prime Minister's speech as reported at page 1631 of Hansard of 1956:
I believe that in the realm of God's richest bounty clean river water should have a high place and ought not to be allowed to be sacrificed to private greed or to wanton and wilful pollution. There is nothing today in the law to protect the public against wanton and wilful pollution by a small minority who for their own purposes contemptuously disregard the public interest in so far as interprovincial rivers are concerned.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if my hon. friend would speak a little more loudly. It is difficult to hear him.


Eric Stefanson: Did the hon. member ask me to speak louder?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, in order that we may hear you.


Eric Stefanson: I am sorry if the hon. member cannot hear me. The Prime Minister then goes on to say that this problem has been before the house on two previous occasions. The particular river he dealt with was the North Saskatchewan river flowing through North Battleford and Prince Albert, and at the time it was polluting the water at North Battleford, Prince Albert and The Pas.
I just want to go back to the Red river and Winnipeg. It has on many occasions created many problems from oil being dumped into it flowing into lake Winnipeg, from the raw sewage flowing down the stream and so on. I have here a quotation from a letter written by G. F. Jonasson, president of Keystone Fisheries Limited in Winnipeg. He feels that the pollution coming from the Red river, the Winnipeg river and other rivers are polluting lake Winnipeg to the extent that it is having a harmful effect

Criminal Code
on fish and is destroying such fish. This is a quotation from a letter he has written:
I have been engaged In the marketing of commercial fish in Manitoba since 1920. Ten years prior to that I was a commercial fisherman. During all this period I have been vitally interested in the commercial fisheries in our province. In latter years I have been greatly concerned about the apparent decrease of fish based on production, particularly in lake Winnipeg, and have given a great deal of study and thought to the possible reasons why the production seems to have been declining so rapidly, and I have come to a definite conclusion in my own mind, based on my practical experience throughout the years, and from information I have gathered, and my conclusion is that the reason for the apparent depletion of fish in lake Winnipeg is because of pollution, and my humble opinion is that the greatest source of pollution comes from the Manitoba Pulp and Paper Mills at Pine Falls, and discharge of oil substances into the Red river, all of which is carried into lake Winnipeg and through the entire length of the lake, destroying the fish at first in the south end and driving it north away from the pollution. However, the oily substance does not disintegrate in the water and will destroy fish in the northern part as well, though maybe somewhat slower, and my opinion is that if this is permitted to go on, eventually there will be no production from lake Winnipeg. It would seem obvious that the weaker fish such as the small immature fish, stand a lesser chance of survival and consequently both the natural increase through spawning of the fish and the liberated fry from the hatcheries, would be destroyed first.
The amount of commercial fish taken from the lake during the short fishing season permitted by the Department calculating the number of fish based on the tonnage taken, is, in reality, very small compared with the natural increase which should take place through natural spawning the fish liberated from the hatcheries.
Prior to the establishing of the pulp mill at Pine Falls there was an abundance of good fish Jn Travers bay, one of the better fishing grounds in the lake. Since the establishing of the pulp mill, it has greatly decreased until now there is no fish -there of any consequence, and the same applies now in other parts of the southern area of the lake.
I consider this situation serious enough that immediate action should be taken to make some thorough research and study of the condition of the water, and this should be carried on this summer before freeze-up, the earlier the better. Samples of the water should be taken at strategic points, commencing from the south end up to the north and from the surface of the lake and down towards the bottom. It has been noticed, and particularly so last winter, that fish caught out of -Gimli had a very unusual obnoxious odour, which is not natural by any means to the fish.
It has also been noticed that fishing boats plying in the waters around Gimli and further north, gather a decided film of oily substance on their hulls, which would be proof of an oily substance being in the water. It has also been noticed that when the boats have been travelling from the south end of the lake to the northern area, that particularly in the southern section large quantities of dead fish have been seen floating on the surface of -the water. I noticed in the press recently where comments were made about these floating dead fish, and the reason given was that the water was so warm or hot that the fish would swim up to the shallow water in the southern section and were killed in the warm water. However, this could not possibly account for dead fish being scattered over

the lake. A dead fish will only float for a short period of time before it would burst open and sink to the bottom or be eaten by gulls, therefore, the theory that these fish were killed through swimming into shallow hot water is not, in my opinion, correct. The water could not be hot enough to kill fish under any circumstances, and normally they do not swim that close to shore.
This letter is written by G. F. Jonasson of Keystone Fisheries Limited, who has been associated with that industry for many many years. It is dated August 13, 1957. If this matter is getting so serious that the pollution of our streams and rivers will have this effect on fish in the large lakes-because lake Winnipeg is larger in area than lake Ontario-it is certainly becoming a very, very bad situation.
I would just like to deal briefly with a few press clippings from the Winnipeg Free Press. The first one is dated March 28, 1958 and the heading is "Mayor Wades in on Pollution Case". It reads as follows:
Top officials of the city of Winnipeg sped to the Red river bank at Disraeli street Thursday after a private sewer line was discovered to be pumping highly volatile oil slick into the water.
Mayor Stephen Juba Friday was leading a tridepartment city investigation; and the Manitoba waterways association was demanding that charges be laid if they were justified.
Then on April 3, 1958 there is another heading as follows: "River Oil Blamed on Gas Company", and later on April 14, 1958, the heading in the same newspaper appears as follows:	"Oil Dumping Storm Brews".
The article on the oil dumping storm brewing deals with the fact that they did not know how to take action against the people responsible for the dumping of this oil. It states as follows:
One key point in the report raised a discrepancy which could not be immediately cleared up.
Here the clipping refers to a report of the commissioners, and it goes on as follows:
After the oil was reported, a sanitary spokesman said that until last year only the provincial government could license dumping into the river and that since last year the company had not been granted permission.
At the same time, a provincial government spokesman said that if the company ever had been given provincial authority that authority was not extended last year after the province stepped out of the field.
Then later on it continues:
So the questions arose: Did the provincial government grant permission? Did the sanitary district have the power to grant permission until a year ago or did it not?
So they did not know who to go after or to blame for the dumping, and all this raw sewage and commercial waste which enters the rivers creates a very great problem for any city located on such a river. It is a great problem to build sewage treatment plants, because they run into a lot of

money; and this is a question which is still being considered by the City of Ottawa authorities. They are still battling over who is going to pay for the sewage treatment plant. Ottawa feel they cannot afford to handle it, and are not to blame for all the sewage which comes down the Ottawa river. In Winnipeg the same situation has now developed.
There is another press clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of April 28, 1958, which is headed, "$200 Million for Sewage Treatment", and this clipping states as follows:
Treatment of all greater Winnipeg sewage before it reaches the Red river would cost the city and its suburbs more than $200 million, Winnipeg city council was told Monday night.
I imagine that an amount such as $200 million is beyond the means of a city of the size of Winnipeg, and that the authorities there would feel they could not put this type of plan into operation without aid from some other source such as the provincial or the federal government.
On June 6, 1958 I have another clipping from the same paper headed, "Red River too Dirty for Skiing", which states as follows:
The Winnipeg ski club has been refused permission to water ski on the Red river due to river pollution.
The Winnipeg parks board, which received a request from the ski club to water ski on the river, denied permission after receiving a report on pollution content from Dr. R. G. Cadham, city medical health officer.
The ban does not affect swimming-but applies only to the use of the river as a take-off area for skiing.
It is only logical, in my opinion, that if the water is getting too polluted for water skiers to fall into, it must also be getting too polluted for swimming. If this pollution continues in such lakes as lake Winnipeg, the population increasing as it is and in view of our increasing need for good clean beaches-and in lake Winnipeg we certainly have some very very fine beaches-we will find that the people of Manitoba no longer have the beaches they need for recreational purposes during their week ends and holidays.
I would like to give one other instance of something which happened a few years ago in the lake Winnipeg area, to illustrate how no one knew where or how to tackle the problem or who to blame for it. May I mention an article in the Winnipeg Free Press dated May 23, 1953 headed, "Oil Debris Brings Disaster to Beach". On this occasion oil flooded into the river and was all driven on the shore by the ice when the wind shifted on lake Winnipeg. All this oil debris was brought right on to the shore and to the people who lived there it was just as big a disaster as the Red river flood.
Criminal Code
On May 28, 1953 the Winnipeg Free Press had an article headed, "Irate Beach Mayor Hits Apathy Toward Oil Mess", and stated as follows:
An irate mayor Pat Irwin of Winnipeg Beach Thursday blasted politicians in particular and the public in general for the lack of interest in the plight of the town.
The beach resort, its lake shore piled sky high with oil-soaked brush and deadwood, had little hope of clearing off the mess in time for the summer season unless it gets help fast, Mayor Irwin told the Free Press.
This was on May 28, 1953, and then on May 29, 1953 the source of this oil was traced. It could have come from a commercial establishment in the town of Selkirk, the Manitoba rolling mill, although this was not proved. The Winnipeg Free Press says on May 29, "Rolling Mill Offers Help to Clear Oil"; and then there is a subheading, "Has 'Moral Obligation' to Winnipeg Beach, says Manager".
In all these things, however, when it comes down to a point of law there is no way of prosecuting or fixing the blame for this kind of pollution. This water pollution, as I mentioned earlier, is not peculiar to Manitoba, although we have our share of it. It is prevalent right across Canada, and I notice that they have set up a commission in Ontario to study this problem, as it has been studied in the prairie provinces. However, these matters are still just being studied and no concrete action is being taken at all. This matter is certainly not going to correct itself.
I wish to refer again to the remarks made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) on February 28, 1956, as recorded at page 1634 of Hansard. He referred at that time to the March, 1956 issue of Rod and Gun which contained an editorial in these words:
Rod and Gun readers will remember that pollution from the area of the city of Edmonton swept down the 400 miles of the North Saskatchewan river to Prince Albert in neighbouring Saskatchewan. It so affected the taste and purity of the water there that residents of P. A. were quite rightly up in arms over the whole thing. The water was unfit for human consumption-especially if you were the human that had to drink it. It is also almost certain that it had killed every game fish in the river over that 400 miles . . . There was enough evidence of dead fish around the P.A. water intake to further discourage the residents of that fine city.
In all the uproar that followed . . .the most significant thing to come out was that there is no legal machinery to properly handle pollution of interprovincial waterways. In fairness to the firm in Edmonton that some investigators feel was responsible for the first outburst it must be stated that they have, without any pressure from anyone, spent over $150,000 to try to reduce the noxious properties of the waste water they discharge into the river. However, just because one firm has done this is no guarantee that others will follow suit. And it may be stated with certainty that more than one Edmonton industry is discharging

Criminal Code
polluting substances into that river, just as there is more than one industry responsible for the deplorable situation on the once magnificent Ottawa river . . .
This problem is quite different legally from that posed by pollution entirely within provincial boundaries which then becomes a provincial matter unless the offence involves those waters affected by the Fisheries Act, regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, national harbours board regulations concerning the protection of navigable waters or regulations under the Canada Shipping Act,
Certainly there is a lot to be done within provincial boundaries, and in every province in Canada, where a shirking of responsibilities on the part of elected officials combined with a base display of public apathy has given us a situation that is close to desperate in several areas.
The Canadian parliament has before it a bill which can correct a long standing and evil situation . . . For these public waters do not belong to us. They are there for us to use and to enjoy, for us to build a great nation upon. But they are not ours to defile and to destroy. They are a part of the priceless heritage it is our duty and our privilege to pass on to other generations of Canadians.
In concluding my remarks on the subject of water pollution I would stress that this is a matter that is becoming more and more serious. It will continue to grow in proportion unless effective measures are taken to halt it. It is for these reasons that I have raised this question to bring it to the attention of the public and to the attention of this government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak quite briefly on this resolution and outline the general approach of this party to it and I shall leave the details to be filled in by subsequent speakers.
Before proceeding I must say I am glad to see that we have an expectant parliamentary assistant-to-be present in the house who apparently is going to reply to this resolution from the government side of the chamber. I hope that not only the hon. gentleman who has preceded me but all of us who speak in support of at least the spirit behind this resolution will ring a great big bell during this discussion.
This group gives its wholehearted support to the spirit and broad purpose of this resolution. We are not quite certain of the legal aspects of the situation or whether what the hon. member proposes is the most effective way to deal with the situation but we give him full marks for mentioning a question during his discussion today that has been raised by hon. members in this group for a number of years in this house. Hon. members in this group and in other parties have for years and particularly on private members' days dealt with the problem of pollution. It has also arisen in the house as a result of particular problems brought to the attention
[Mr. Stefanson.l
of hon. members from time to time. From my experience in the house over a number of years the great majority of hon. members are interested in this problem and concerned about it, but what strikes me as rather peculiar is that regardless of the long-time interest on the part of a large percentage of hon. members in this house we still fail to get very far in dealing with this most important problem of preventing pollution of our waters.
The purpose of this resolution as I see it is to amend the Criminal Code to make the pollution of waters a punishable offence and I am all for punishing people who destroy or mutilate our natural resources. However, before punishing people or enacting laws concerning natural resources I feel it is first necessary to have a policy of administration. It is necessary for us in the first place to establish a policy concerning natural resources which will be generally accepted by the federal and provincial governments.
It just so happens that this resolution aims to do something which is a facet of a resolution which I had the honour to bring before this house for a number of years, one that urged the calling of a dominion-provincial conference, as a result of co-operation with the provinces, for the establishment of nationwide principles and accepted policies for the conservation of our land, forest, water and soil resources.
We have dealt with this question from time to time, as I have said, although hon. members of this house and governments seem to recognize the necessity for action to conserve our resources progress is very slow indeed. The question of the pollution of waters is perhaps on a par with that of the conservation of our forests and they are closely related. These are perhaps the two most urgent aspects of the problem with respect to conservation of natural resources in Canada.
I suppose it is correct to say that pollution control involves and can be defined as the protection and preservation of the quality of public waters in order that they may serve their best uses. We have legislation which covers this in part. For instance, we have the Fisheries Act which concerns the pollution of sea water.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And inland lakes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes, and inland lakes, as the hon. member for Essex East mentions. There is also the Navigable Waters Protection Act, section 2 of which deals with the prevention of pollution, I believe. I have to leave that to a later date; I understand it will come along later. That is a section of an act that has not been administered to any great extent. It has been the law, and yet there is

a growing pollution of navigable waters, navigable lakes and things of that sort, which will require much closer co-operation between federal and provincial governments. But we have various provincial acts and each province has its legislation. I know that in the province of British Columbia matters concerning the pollution of waters, particularly for drinking purposes, come under the health act. Then, we have certain municipal by-laws and codes which are administered by the municipalities. Therefore, we have quite a lot of legislation which deals with the pollution of waters and yet today we have not had very effective results.
When we think of the pollution of waters it is easy to think of it as being directly related and possibly only related in most people's minds to the pollution of drinking water; but there are several aspects of water pollution. I think water pollution is divided into two main spheres: First, sea water pollution; and second, fresh water pollution. As far as the welfare of human beings is concerned, the first is the pollution of domestic water supplies from wastes of industrial plants, sewage and things of that sort. Then, we have what is known as hydraulic pollution. This is pollution of waters occasioned by silt and sand that affects the machinery of electrical installations and also silts up dams and structures and lowers their efficiency. Then there is such a thing in my experience in British Columbia in certain places and on certain occasions as the pollution of irrigation waters which can affect the conducting sources, pipes, installations, and if the pollution comes from sewage or industrial waste it can actually affect the crops to which the water is being applied.
Then there is such a thing as pollution for purposes of navigation. This does not concern us very much at this stage. It is mostly the question of debris and industrial wastes such as slabs, logs, things of that sort that are a pollution of water from a navigational point of view, plus silt and other deposits that affect steamer channels, courses of navigation and so on.
Then we have finally a most serious type of pollution, namely the pollution of sea or fresh water that affects our fish life. I think the domestic pollution of water and the pollution of water that affects fish life are the two main problems that concern us at this time. While the others are all of a serious nature the pollution that directly affects fish life is a serious problem to some areas on the pacific coast and in a few places in our interior lakes. I am fortunate to represent a constituency in which pollution of all varieties, in addition to water, is a rare thing
Criminal Code
indeed. Ours is a very rarefied atmosphere. We have a very fine type of people living among lakes and rivers largely unpolluted to date, and I am very fortunate so far as I personally am concerned. I am able to draw my water from a creek on my property from a thousand-foot waterfall coming directly from the snow of the mountains above, so I am one of those very fortunate persons. It is because of the enjoyment we get from strictly pure water that I recognize very quickly the pollution of domestic and other waters when I see it in my visits to various parts of Canada. It is for that reason, that contrast, which was brought to my attention, that I became particularly interested some years ago and began doing my little bit toward correcting this situation by speaking on public platforms in the provincial legislature and finally in this house.
While we fully support the necessity for amendment to the law, we must emphasize the necessity for the development of dominion-provincial co-operation in order to establish one national agency to deal primarily with sea pollution and pollution in the interior, under the jurisdiction of the federal government and one provincial agency in each province to deal with all aspects of fresh water pollution that comes under the jurisdiction of a provincial government.
In my opinion today's approach has many shortcomings and fails almost completely to meet the situation. It is a bits and bobs program. It results in inefficient use of federal and provincial government personnel, in the first place; it inconveniences industry and in many respects it is unfair to industry because I have known industries that were anxious to do something to correct a certain situation and, because of the lack of one central agency in the province, because of the lack of an over-all policy concerning pollution, what they intended to do was delayed and delayed from year to year. I think the present policy leaves the public largely uninformed of the problem and the growing menace it presents in many areas of this country.
In my opinion, armed with the necessary authority, federal or provincial pollution control agencies could carry out very well the following functions. They could undertake- and I think they are necessary-surveys of existing conditions. Let us know where we stand in this matter, just as we did with the inventory of our forest reserves so that we knew where we stood prior to designing an official conservation program for our country. Second, there should be participation in determination of best present and future uses of lakes and streams in each province and

Criminal Code
all other areas coming under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Third, there should be planning and implementation of control measures. Fourth, there should be stimulation and co-ordination of research. Fifth, there should be dissemination of information to the public in general.
In my opinion an agency with these functions could furnish a positive approach to the federal and provincial fields to the problem of water pollution control. In consequence, many broad but tangible benefits could be derived and very soon, indeed. I might say, this is a problem that does not require, as I see it, the expenditure of vast sums of money such as do hydro-electric installations and the installations of other great institutions and things of that sort. This simply means the co-ordination of the federal and provincial governments and a united function behind an understood and agreed policy. With the establishment of the federal and provincial agencies I have indicated it really means the co-ordination of our present resources with very little further expenditures. The approach of industry would be greatly simplified and problems created by present neglect would not arise. Government, group and individual interests could be integrated. Government departments now concerned with pollution would profit by technical assistance and administrative cooperation and planning. Enforcement of control measures would be efficiently conducted for the benefit of the provinces concerned and for the benefit of the federal government where its authority existed. I might say with respect to that aspect of my suggestions that in my opinion the international aspects of fresh water pollution would be clarified by the existence of a federal control agency working in co-operation with provincial agencies.
I have just outlined briefly some of our views with respect to this very important problem but before concluding I would reiterate our belief in the importance of the establishment of federal and provincial pollution control agencies. In order to discharge their potential functions, to provide effective control, I know it will require some reorganization and transfers of delegation of authority from one department to another, both on the federal and provincial level. But this is a serious problem and is not one of those problems where the matter is delayed because of the requirement of large expenditures of money. It is simply one that requires the attention of this government in co-operation with the provincial governments. In brief, it wants some of the planning that

this group has advocated over many years. As we view the problem, the following steps are required:
1.	Dominion-provincial co-operation for the establishment of a national policy on pollution of waters as a segment of a national policy on the conservation of renewable natural resources.
2.	Amendment to the law, both federal and provincial.
3.	Establishment of national and provincial water pollution agencies designed particularly for that purpose which I mentioned previously.
4.	A co-ordinated research program which I think would mean a saving rather than the expenditure of further moneys.
5.	Education of the public on the importance of the problem and its urgency, on the law, on government policy, on the administration of that policy, and on the co-operation from the public, industry and all other segments of our economy required to make effective our efforts to prevent water pollution in Canada.


Mr. Richard A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, no issue more basic and fundamental to the health and welfare of Canadians everywhere will likely be debated at this session than that which has been so ably presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). To the hon. gentleman for his fine contribution to the debate I should like to extend my personal congratulations. Of the great heritage of our natural resources none is more essential, none more indispensable, none more significant than our magnificent lakes, rivers and streams. The safeguarding of the purity of these fresh waters, I submit to the house, is a national as well as provincial responsibility and I have no hesitation whatever in supporting the resolution which seeks to make it an offence under the Criminal Code wantonly and wilfully to pollute or contaminate these great resources.
I share the view recently expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) that amendment of the Criminal Code in itself does not constitute the answer. As far as the resolution is concerned, there are some shortcomings, but it constitutes an important start and I hope that as I progress this afternoon in what I have to say I may be able to submit to the house some of the other actions which are necessary to accomplish what must be done to solve this major problem.
Actually this issue of water pollution is a segment of a greater problem, a problem perhaps the most significant in ultimate

consequences facing this twenty-fourth parliament of Canada. No nation in the world has been so profligate with its resources of soil and water as has Canada. Our profligacy, our prodigality, is catching up with us and in my opinion the launching of a genuine national soil and water conservation program is long overdue. It is such a program about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) has spoken so eloquently and so movingly on other occasions. It is my submission that such a program must provide as an essential feature not only for the conservation of the volume of our water resources but for the protection of the quality of those resources as well. No more vital or significant action awaits the attention of the government and parliament than the launching of a vast and imaginative national soil and water conservation program, and I am confident that the debate today of one aspect, one segment of the whole problem will make a helpful and significant contribution to progress on the larger issue.
As the hon. member for Selkirk pointed out, the problem arises principally in two ways; first, from the discharge of domestic sewage and, secondly, from the discharge of industrial waste. The rapid growth of population in our major cities since the second world war and, indeed, during the second world war, the expansion of industry-indeed, in the chemical field one might say the mushrooming of industry-have intensified the problem in many areas of the country to a critical stage. The use of atomic energy may well create an even greater hazard in the near future.
There is no use denying that domestic and industrial effluent must have an outlet. Later I hope to say something of the research developments concerning its disposal which have occurred recently but I believe that we should not, as we enter into this debate, lose sight of the fact that a water course must serve a number of functions. One of those is to carry away sewage and waste from communities, industries and other activities associated with the development of the country. The basic problem, therefore, is simply to ensure that domestic and industrial waste are given sufficient treatment before they are permitted to enter into water courses and that the protection of water quality for public health requirements and for recreational and wildlife purposes is assured.
The approach to the problem suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk is to make it an offence under the Criminal Code to discharge waste without sufficient protective treatment. This is a field in which, as a private member, the Prime Minister took a very vital interest,
Criminal Code
and I am sure that the intensity of his concern has not decreased despite the multitude of his other problems. The hon. gentleman has referred to the bill introduced in the 1956 session by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and I should like to make reference to the terms of the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code then suggested. It was proposed at that time to add to the Criminal Code a section dealing with nuisance, section 165A, which would read as follows:
Every owner, lessee, or person operating any industrial plant, oil refinery, chemical works, sawmill or other plant or works, or any other person, who discharges or throws or allows to be discharged or thrown any noxious waste product, raw sewage, oil, sawdust, chemical or other matter or thing into a river, stream or other water any part of which is interprovincial or which flows into any interprovincial water, which has the effect of endangering the lives, safety, health or comfort of the public is guilty of (a) an indictable offence-
Then it goes on to prescribe the punishment and continues with the alternative:
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
It will be observed that the effect of this is not to prevent the use of water courses for the carrying away of industrial effluent but it does provide appropriate penalties for the breach of a mandatory obligation that these effluents be so treated as to destroy or neutralize the noxious qualities before being so discharged. In the light of research developments which have occurred, some of which I want to refer to later, I think this is not too much to ask of industry. Personally I do not concede the excuse that industry cannot afford the cost of pre-discharge treatment of waste effluents. The nation cannot afford the cost of permitting industry virtually unrestricted access to water resources for the disposal of effluent. Effluent can and must be treated to render it harmless to humans and to fish and other wildlife and that, as I conceive it, is the purpose of the hon. member in moving this resolution.
The solution of the problem is complicated by the fact that we are dealing with three categories of water resources.
First, there are international waters. I am speaking now only of fresh waters, not salt waters. These, in turn, are of two classes; those lakes and streams, such as the great lakes, the St. Lawrence, the St. Croix and Pigeon rivers and other streams which constitute boundary waters. Then, there are those streams which rise in Canada and flow into the United States of America or those streams which rise in the United States of America and flow into Canada. These waters, of course, are under jurisdiction of the international joint commission. There is, I submit, over these waters a constitutional jurisdiction apart

Criminal Code
from the criminal law. The boundary waters treaty of 1909, which created the international joint commission, contained this provision:
Boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other side.
From tinfe to time since 1909 complaints of pollution contrary to this stipulation have been the subject of investigation by the international joint commission, and substantial progress has been achieved. The nature and extent of that progress, I do not intend to discuss this afternoon. But I should like to mention to the house that this progress is outlined in what I believe to be one of the best speeches if not the best speech, that has ever been made on the subject of water pollution. I refer to a speech made in the other place by Senator Norman P. Lambert, which is reported in the Senate Hansard of December 2, 1953, page 86. I would commend this speech to the attention of all hon. members who are interested in this problem.
The second category consists of interprovincial waters, those which form interprovincial boundaries as does the majestic Ottawa, and secondly those streams which rise in one province and flow into one or more other provinces, such as the great Saskatchewan river in its both branches. It was the opinion of the former prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, that the control of such watercourses was of local and private interest. With that view, I respectfully disagree. I find myself in respectful agreement with the view of his successor who, as the private member for Prince Albert, had this to say on February 26, 1956, page 1632 of Hansard:
In that statement the Prime Minister-
Of course, the reference is to Mr. St. Laurent.
-said that it had normally been a matter of local interest. I immediately challenged that suggestion with reference to an interprovincial river. It is of more than local interest. When a river crosses the boundary lines of one or two provinces it immediately becomes the concern of the federal government. The federal government concerns itself over the comfort and health of fish in that type of river. Is it too much to ask that the same regard be given to the demands of human beings? Certainly, the situation is very serious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Fisheries, of
course, is a federal responsibility.


Richard Albert Bell: That, of course, is true. The situation here is different. I am going to submit to the house two aspects over which the federal authority has jurisdiction. I am submitting that there would be no invasion of provincial jurisdiction in parliament acting to prevent pollution of such interprovincial water-courses; first through the instrumentality of the criminal law and,

secondly it is at least arguable that parliament has a jurisdiction akin to its jurisdiction over interprovincial works and undertakings.
Finally, there is the third category of waters, the exclusively provincial or local waters. I refer to those which lie wholly within the territory of one province. Many of these are tributary to international or interprovincial waters. When the Prime Minister, as a private member, sought to use the instrumentality of the criminal law to deal with this matter, he confined his bill to interprovincial waters or those streams which flow into interprovincial waters. Personally, I see no reason why the Criminal Code would need to be so confined. The fact that parliament can, if it so desires, create offences in respect of this third category of waters is, I believe, evident. The present resolution which the hon. member for Selkirk has placed before the house this afternoon, imposes no limitation upon the waters to which the penalties would apply.
Now to determine whether or not the somewhat drastic remedy which is proposed by the hon. gentleman is necessary, and if necessary, a satisfactory one, we must examine the extent of the problem. Has water pollution, in fact, reached a stage where only a drastic solution will suffice? Naturally, that body of water which I know best is that great river which uncovered this magnificent ancient rock escarpment to provide the impressive sight for these parliament buildings, the Ottawa river, which for 40 miles washes the northerly boundary of my historic constituency of Carleton. For a distance of about 360 miles from the head of lake Timiskaming to Carillon rapids the Ottawa river forms the boundary between Ontario and Quebec. I think it is fair to say that throughout the whole of its lower reaches, indeed from Chaudiere falls just above these buildings to its mouth, the Ottawa river has become incredibly contaminated, has become satiated with every kind of filthy corruption.
As I indicated earlier, no one in public life has made a more extensive study of Ottawa river pollution than Senator Lambert. I quote from his speech of December 2, 1953, Senate Hansard, page 89:
In short, one might say that the lower regions of the Ottawa river present at this time the most outstanding example of an open trunk sewer to be found anywhere in Canada, and its effect is to make a mockery of the beautiful site on which successive governments, as well as the people of the whole country, have envisaged an ideal capital city and district.
From my own observations I adopt Senator Lambert's opinion as my own. This opinion was almost fully confirmed by an elaborate report made in 1956 by the Ontario

department of health, sanitary engineering division, on the pollution of the Ottawa river and its tributaries, a copy of which I have in my hand. As the house will see, it is an exceedingly detailed document with many charts and tables setting forth the samples which were taken from different parts of the river or different parts of its tributaries. This is a document prepared with great skill, and it is a document of great interest.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You refer to Dr. Berry's report?


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: It is prepared under the direction of Dr. Berry, one of the most skilful sanitary engineers on this continent.
Without trying to follow the detailed evidence which is here presented I should like to refer to a few of the statements which are made and the conclusions which are drawn in this report. I should like to quote, in the first instance, from page 22, under the heading "Metropolitan Ottawa Area from Aylmer to Green creek". It reads:
The raw sewage discharged to the Ottawa river from Aylmer, Deschenes, Hull, Ottawa, Eastview, Rockcliffe Park, Gatineau Point, Gatineau Mills and Rockcliffe Airport-Manor Park district causes extensive bacterial contamination to the river which persists for almost forty miles downstream.
The resulting pollution is not difficult to imagine. At the Rideau locks sewer outfall, tourists taking the sightseeing tour down the Ottawa river on pleasure boats first have to pass through a patch of water where floating faeces, toilet tissue, condoms, oil, soapy water and other debris can be seen.
Then the report goes on to speak of the discharge from the various sewers in the area. At page 23 it discusses the discharge of industrial wastes into the Ottawa river in this particular area. I quote:
In addition to the municipal sewage, heavy contamination results from the discharge of industrial wastes to the Ottawa river.
Nine sewer outfalls from the E. B. Eddy Company carry waste sulphite liquor, fibre, wood particles and small amounts of bark. The quantity of waste discharged is estimated to be greater than the combined effluent from the Ottawa sanitary sewers. Although samples were not made available, it is estimated that the biochemical oxygen demand of the waste is equivalent to the domestic sewage from a population of one million.
Then it speaks of other industries in the area and proceeds to go on to speak of the Canadian International Paper Company, Gatineau Mills, which has seven trade wastes sewer outfalls discharging into the Ottawa river. It states as follows:
The total waste flow from the seven sewers is approximately forty seven million gallons per day____
The total waste effluent from this plant has a biochemical oxygen demand equivalent to the sewage effluent from a city of one and one-half million persons.
Criminal Code
In fairness to the pulp mills I have mentioned I think it should be said that no industry has spent as much on research in an endeavour to reduce and neutralize the contaminating effect of the waste from these plants. On this matter I hope to have an opportunity later to say a word. But the conclusion of this section of the report is this:
It is estimated from the analysis of the industrial waste samples collected, the population of the metropolitan area of Ottawa and Hull and assumptions made on the waste from the E. B. Eddy Co., waste that the combined biochemical oxygen demand of all the pollutants discharged to the Ottawa river in this area is equivalent to the B.O.D. of the sanitary waste from a city of three million persons.
I should now like to refer to one or two further statements on page 29 of the report under the heading "Ottawa River at Ottawa". It states:
The remainder of this section of the Ottawa river from the Chaudiere falls to Green creek consistently showed a heavy coliform index, with each sampling range showing points where the number of coliforms per 100 millilitres reached the hundred of thousands, indicating that conditions of gross pollution existed.
I repeat those words "indicating that conditions of gross pollution existed". Further on it states this:
Taken altogether, the results of the analyses conclusively indicate that the Ottawa river below the Chaudiere falls was quickly transformed into a heavily polluted river.
Then at page 30 this report deals with the situation from Ottawa to Pointe Fortune and states as follows:
The Ottawa river below Ottawa as far as the last sampling range at Pointe Fortune on the Ontario-Quebec border showed extensive bacteriological pollution over the entire distance. Each sampling range gave high coliform counts, and at no point in this section of the river did the analyses indicate that the bacterial contamination had abated.
This shocking analysis of the condition of the Ottawa river-and how could one describe it other than shocking?-must point up in vivid fashion the necessity of decisive and drastic action. The report of Dr. A. E. Berry was, as hon. gentlemen know, before the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the federal district commission at the session of 1956. It is not surprising that the first recommendation of that committee, the joint chairman of which was the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas), dealt with this problem. From the report as it appears at page 1052 of the minutes of proceedings of the committee, I read the following:
(1) We think that a project of basic importance to be undertaken and completed in the national capital area should be the elimination of the causes of pollution in the Ottawa river. It seems to your committee that the purpose of the beautification

Criminal Code
of a capital district would be frustrated if the pollution of this great water resource were allowed to continue unabated. Raw sewage and industrial wastes are dumped into the stream without control and with alarming results.
What troubles me, and what convinces me that the time for firm, resolute action has arrived is that the final report of the earlier joint committee, which was presented to this house on August 1, 1944, contained a very-similar recommendation. Hon. gentlemen who are interested in the terms of that report will find it reproduced at page 68 of the federal district commission brief as presented on March 21 of 1956.
I venture to submit to the house that for too long there has been a policy of drift, a policy of ignoring the problem, or perhaps a policy of hoping, Micawber-like, that something would turn up. Year after year at least in this area the problem has intensified and I confess that I do not believe that any public bodies, least of all this parliament, have taken the type of action required to control the problem.
It is because my hon. friend's proposal is a drastic one that I support it. It may be shock treatment, but coupled with the other action which I will advocate, I submit it would be effective to restore the waters with which the Creator endowed us, to safe use by all the people.
Earlier I mentioned that the pulp and paper industry, including the two mills on the other shore of this river, through the pulp and paper research institute of Canada, had spent large sums of money in research designed to reduce or eliminate the contaminating effect of their immense quantities of industrial waste. For their work, I think they deserve the highest commendation. Their experimental work has reached the stage where it may represent a technical breakthrough in research to dispose of simply, safely and economically both domestic and industrial effluents.
The practicality of the treatment of sanitary sewage by a new technique, called atomized suspension technique or briefly AST, was demonstrated last year. I have before me the pamphlet containing the material placed before a demonstration conference held on September 26, 1957 under the auspices of the pulp and paper research institute of Canada on the subject of "Treatment of sanitary sewage with the atomized suspension technique". I quote briefly from the foreword of this report as follows:
On July 30, 1957, the technical feasibility of destroying settled raw sludge in a few seconds, under atmospheric pressure and continuously was accomplished in equipment designed and built by the institute. Since then, intensive studies have

shown the reproducibility of the results, the flexibility of the process and its suitability for use right in the heart of a community.
The time has therefore come when other parties should become acquainted with the method, the equipment and the results, so that trials at a municipal scale can go forward to study the economics and technology of continuous day-in-day-out operation.
Urgency of the pollution problem-
And this, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, is the pulp and paper industry itself speaking. -is such that many trials should be conducted simultaneously. Our countries cannot afford the time for one company or one community leisurely to prove the case for all others. Moreover, circumstances differ so markedly from one community to another that simultaneous trials of several variants of the method would seem to be indicated.
Then finally the foreword goes on to say this:
Success in using AST for dealing with sanitary sludges suggests the strong possibility of using it also with other organic sludges such as are produced by fish canneries, petroleum refineries, meat packing plants, etc. These are the reasons why our industry-
That is the pulp and paper industry.
-having spent nearly a million dollars already on development of AST, and still spending more on pulpmill applications, was willing to have us look into the possibilities in these other areas.
To the preparation of this report and to the preparation of the basic material I believe the federal government, through the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, has made a substantial contribution.
To others with greater capacity for understanding the technology of this new experimental process, and greater capacity for converting the explanation of such technology to simple lay terms, I leave further discussion of AST or atomized suspension technique.
My purpose in raising the matter is to suggest to the government the provision of greatly increased amounts for research in this field. If, as appears possible, AST is a scientific breakthrough, its full import should be pursued with the greatest possible expedition and effectiveness. To this end I am sure that this parliament would have no reluctance in voting the necessary funds.
There is another field of research which offers considerable possibility for the relief of our streams and that is the treatment of sanitary sewage by means of lagooning. From a start five or six years ago in North Dakota of the use of sewage lagoons, these lagoons in western Canada have now become not uncommon and doubtless there are some hon. gentlemen in the house who are fully familiar with this method. I believe, for example, plans are being prepared for an installation at Swift Current to serve a population of

some 10,000 people. The hon. member lor Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) will be able to tell us more about this. A plan has also been prepared for the city of Regina to replace the Regina sewage treatment plant with a lagoon.
My acquaintance with this subject, I must confess, is largely confined to an excellent article entitled, "The Treatment of Sewage by Lagooning", written by Dr. J. G. Schaeffer, the director of the sanitary division of the Saskatchewan department of public health in Regina, and which appeared in the October, 1956 issue of the Canadian Journal of Public Health. For smaller municipalities, and probably for some of the municipalities in this area, this technique might well offer new and sound possibilities for sanitary disposal at low cost, thus providing relief for the contaminated and polluted rivers and streams from which we are suffering today.
I believe that leadership in the matter should be given by our federal district commission and I believe that the federal government itself must also give leadership on the whole question. Private industry, particularly the pulp and paper industry, having done so much, parliament must surely be prepared to encourage the national research council and other organizations of research in this government to pursue every possible remedy for what is unquestionably a grave national health problem.
While I support the resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk I do so with this qualification-a one front attack upon this grave problem will not be sufficient. But, by research, by dominion, provincial, municipal and industrial co-operation and by proper penalties, as proposed in this resolution, for the breach of accepted standards governing pollution, the proper control of the problem, I submit, can be provided and the problem can be solved within a comparatively reasonable period of time.
The cost of preserving the purity of our fresh water is one for which we as a nation, and all the governments of this country must pay. Our industries and our municipalities must recognize the paramount right of all Canadians to pure and uncontaminated water. I venture to say that we must call a halt to the excuse that industry and the municipalities cannot afford to dispose of their wastes except by invading the downstream rights of others. One of the ways, in my view, by which to bring this matter to a climax is that which is suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk and for that reason I submit this resolution deserves the support of this house.
Criminal Code


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I would like to say to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) that he has made a very tremendous contribution to this debate in the speech to which we have just listened and that there is very little in the way of other fields which could be explored because of the thoroughness of the research and the presentation of that hon. member.
We do, however, have on the statute books at the present time at least one act-the Fisheries Act-which in essence is supposed to protect navigable streams in which the fisheries department has an interest and in that regard I would like to go into a few details as to the present regulations and to point out what has happened with respect to those regulations.
The hon. member for Carleton spoke about the biochemical oxygen demand of water with respect to industrial wastes and he pointed out that those wastes have a high demand while human effluent has a very low demand. I believe the example was given that the discharge from the Eddy plant was equivalent to that of a city of some 500,000 or 600,000 people. Along the Fraser river industrial wastes have a much greater adverse effect on fisheries than has the disposal of sewage from the upstream municipalities or from the metropolitan area of Vancouver. This adverse effect is particularly serious with respect to the small fingerlings as they come downstream on their way to the ocean because the industrial waste takes up the oxygen content of the water and literally suffocates the fish, causing the death of the small fingerlings, and thus reducing the run.
The penalties for discharging industrial waste into streams protected under the Fisheries Act are rather modest and under section 61 it states that every person who causes or knowingly permits to pass into or puts or knowingly permits to be put lime, chemical substance or drugs or poisonous matter, et cetera, is liable to, on the first offence, a penalty of $20 and costs and on the second offence a penalty of not less than $20 and costs and not more than $80 and costs, and also in addition thereto a further penalty of not less than $10 and not more than $20 for every day during which such offence is continued.
This means that after the department has taken an industrial company to court that company by paying $20 per day can evade the law with respect to whatever kind of waste they wish to place in the stream. On the other hand, if you happened to be a farmer and were taking irrigation water from a fishing stream and you left out the screen

Criminal Code
at the intake of your water supply for your irrigation ditches, you would be subject to a penalty of not less than $4 and not more than $20 for each day or part of a day during which such ditch, channel or canal remained unprovided with such duly approved and properly maintained grating, netting or fish guard. This means that if you are pouring industrial waste into a stream equivalent to a city of half a million people you can get away with the same fine per continuing day as if you had left a screen or a netting out of an irrigation ditch.
What is required is some teeth in legislation such as the Fisheries Act and the Canada Shipping Act and this resolution would accomplish that end. As the hon. member for Carleton has said, it is rather drastic but if drastic means are the only means by which we can clean up our streams, rivers and lakes, then so be it. The penalties in regard to other sections of the Fisheries Act, having to do with the seizure of boats and the use of explosives and so on are relatively severe, but with regard to the pollution of water they really do not cut much ice.
Then with respect to seaports, as the ships come into the harbour they sometimes get rid of a lot of ballast, old crates and stowage materials for which they have no further use. This is prohibited, of course, by section 60 of the Fisheries Act which states in part:
Every one who, contrary to the provisions of this act throws overboard ballast, coal ashes, stones or other prejudicial or deleterious substances in any river, harbour or roadstead or any water where fishing is carried on, or leaves or deposits or causes to be thrown, left or deposited, upon the shore, beach or bank of any water, or upon the beach between high and low water marks, remains or offal of fish or of marine animals, or leaves decayed or decaying fish in any net or other fishing apparatus, is liable, for each offence, to a penalty not less than $20 and costs and not more than $100 and costs-
I can conceive that in certain conditions the payment of such penalty would be the cheapest way of disposing of refuse that was not wanted left on board ship. One way of attacking the problem of ballast would be to open the Fisheries Act, revise it and bring in amendments that would make it effective in achieving the objective it is supposed to achieve.
It was in 1954 that Canada was represented at the first conference on pollution of the sea by oil. At that time it was proposed that a 50-mile limit be established along the North American coastline which would, of course, protect Canadian waters. An amendment was made to the act in 1956 which provided for this and also extended those provisions to the great lakes. This indicates that we do have certain federal acts on which
[Mr. Broomed
work could be done in order to assist in clearing up a certain amount of the pollution that is taking place in the streams and lakes of this country.
Previous speakers have referred to the attempt made in 1956 by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code which would have made such offences a part of the code. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) today the situation existed at that time under which industrial waste in the North Saskatchewan river in the vicinity of Edmonton affected the quality of the water as far as Prince Albert and made the water of that river at that point practically undrinkable. The situation was remedied when the offending company spent $150,000 in treating this waste in such a way that it no longer had a deleterious effect. However, for each company that would be prepared to spend that amount of money there would be a great many who would not be in a position to spend the necessary money to improve their processes to the point where their waste products would not be injurious to either fish or wildlife or render the water unfit for human consumption.
A resolution such as the one before us, were it to become law, would mean that such companies would have to provide in their cost of operation for means to render their waste products non-injurious to others. In the debate on this subject which occurred in 1956 it was pointed out that under a judgement in Montreal it was made possible for someone who suffered injury as a result of dumping of injurious waste into streams to take action against the offender. The government of that day contended that action could be taken under the common nuisance section of the Criminal Code. It was ably pointed out in the debate in 1956 that although this appears to be the case on the surface it does not work out that way in practice. It is not possible to make that section of the Criminal Code do the job that this resolution proposes to do in the manner it suggests.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) suggested that a federal control agency might be set up. The hon. member for Carleton in discussing means of bringing about control of pollution of our water resources also suggested that a federal control commission could be established to do the job. I believe the most effective idea brought out by the hon. member for Carleton was that in regard to research. The pulp and paper industry which is a wealthy one is spending a large sum of money on research into its own problems but there are many

smaller industries which would be unable to undertake research of that kind to discover how to take care of their waste products. I believe that the federal government through the national research council and federal grants could institute a program which would help industry to help itself in this regard. I believe that industry is quite willing to co-operate in solving the problem if it is made known that where industry does not know the solution it will be helped to find one.
The atomized suspension technique or system could perhaps be applied to all types of industrial waste or perhaps only to certain types of waste such as come from the pulp and paper industry. In any event it represents a major advance in the control of industrial waste and encouragement and assistance should be forthcoming from the government to its possible application to other industries that contribute to the problem of pollution.
I did not intend to speak at length on this subject because I realize that other hon. members wish to advance their points of view. The resolution before us does not contain a full answer to the problem of pollution but it represents a definite step forward and would tend to assist in the speedy resolution of the problem. Before closing I wish to refer to the debate which occurred on February 28, 1956, with particular regard to pollution of the Ottawa river. After all, Ottawa will be my home for approximately eight or nine months each year and I feel I should take an interest in this river. On that occasion the present Prime Minister referred to an article in the June, 1945 issue of Forest and Outdoors, the official publication of the Canadian forestry association, which was reported at page 1632 of Hansard reads in part:
Two provinces get into the Ottawa river picture. The unsavoury, bacterial and chemically poisonous flotsam of Ontario (thus runs the report by Dr. Lucien Piche available from the Quebec biological bureau, University of Montreal) in effect flows into Quebec down the Ottawa river, and as it goes it mingles with similar outpourings and offscorings from Quebec itself. It is not what you might call a pastel picture.
The hon. member for Carleton eloquently described the Ottawa river today when he said it was perhaps the largest open trunk sewer in the world at the present time. This parliament has a duty to restore our streams to the condition in which they once were and to prevent their further deterioration which at the present time has not reached the point where they are completely spoiled but they may become so in the next 10 or 15 years and thus support no wildlife whatsoever. We have a duty to act on this and 57071-3-61J
Criminal Code
we should do it for the sake of our soil and water resources as the hon. member for Carleton pointed out. I should like to say that I support this resolution and I think the hon. member for Selkirk has done a service to this house and to this country in bringing this resolution forward today.
(Translation):


Mr. Rodolphe Leduc (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) on having introduced this motion here today. This provides me with the opportunity, following several other hon. members, of offering a few remarks on water pollution in general and more particularly on pollution of the Ottawa river.
Having been a member of joint Senate and House of Commons committee on the Federal District Commission, two years ago, I know that a report on this subject was prepared and tabled by Dr. Bailey, of the Ontario department of health. I am also aware of the fact that the Ottawa river, downstream from the capital city, is considered to be little better than an open sewer.
On the Ontario side, work is being carried out at this time with a view to eliminating or reducing the pollution caused by the sewers of the city of Ottawa.
In fact, there is at this time under construction a main sewer which will be connected to a sewage disposal plant at Green creek, to take care of this situation. Unfortunately, on the Quebec side nothing at all is being done, although reports clearly show that factories and paper mills on that side contribute to the pollution.
I feel that the only way to tackle this matter of the pollution of the Ottawa river would be for a conference to be held between representatives of the federal government and of the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments. There is no other way to solve the problem, as far as I can see. Until such time as the province of Quebec takes heed of its responsibilities, it will be impossible to rid the Ottawa river of this nuisance.
I therefore ask the ministers of the province of Quebec, who, I am sure, are interested in putting an end to the pollution of the water of the Ottawa river, to take such action as may be necessary with the provincial government so that a conference can take place between the three governments and a definite solution be found to this problem.
(Text):


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of privilege that I rise in this house to make whatever contribution I may to this debate. I wish to congratulate the other members who have

Criminal Code
taken part in this debate and brought out so many interesting points that are so necessary in the consideration of a resolution of this kind.
I would like to refer very briefly historically to water pollution. It is as old as the human race and perhaps Christ at Galilee, when he performed the miracle of turning water into wine, saw the necessity of protecting the guests who were there against the water which in that area would be grossly contaminated. In the South African war more soldiers were laid low by typhoid than by war and it was only through scientific research that typhoid and paratyphoid vaccine was made available and we were able to fight the war of 1914-18 to the extent that we did.
Medical science has emptied the hospitals of typhoid fever patients. This much medical science has done with the aid of sanitary science. It is with a sense of relief also that I take part in this debate for something specific, something that we have needed long to control rapidly what is becoming a major Canadian health problem. To me as a medical man and to hundreds of my medical colleagues the matter of water pollution is one of very real concern. We have been fortunate in Canada. Through municipal filtration plants, through chloridation and through the use of other chemicals we have been able reasonably well to protect our people against waterborne disease. But the problem is growing. Greater population and vastly increased industrial plants are adding daily to our dangers.
Filtration plants and the use of chemicals are only partial protection. They are only one phase of the defence against epidemic-threatening germs and bacteria that are latent in many of our waterways today. We are in the position of a country threatened by an aggressor neighbour that relies only on one branch of the service for a defence and that takes no steps to fight or to fit itself to strike back.
We have not a reasonably adequate defence for water pollution under present conditions, and I submit we have done very little, if anything, to hit one of the major sources of that pollution. The merit I see in this proposal is that it takes positive and specific action against those who selfishly or perhaps irresponsibly have done little or nothing to accept their responsibility for the well-being of the community at large.
When I rose, I said I was participating in this debate with a feeling of urgency. Thirty or forty years ago the Canadian economy was based largely on agriculture and on its raw materials shipped to other countries for processing. Agriculture and our raw materials
[Mr. Rynard.l
are still important to our national income. But, sparked by two world wars, we have become an industrial nation as well. More and more we are processing our raw materials and each year many additional millions of dollars are being added to our industrial capacity. New industry demands additional power and in spite of the greatly increased knowledge of atomic energy for peacetime uses, hydro-electric energy remains, and will remain for many years to come, our greatest source of cheap power for industry. More and more hydro-electric plants will be built and more and more new industries will be located in close proximity to those plants in order that they may reap the full benefit of cheap industrial power.
For the past 20 years the danger of water pollution by industry has increased over and over again. While the danger from waterborne disease has increased, the need for a supply of pure, uncontaminated water has likewise been growing at a comparable rate. The growth of our Canadian population in the years since world war II has been spectacular. The rate of natural increase has been high and has remained constant. We have been bringing new people into this country through immigration at an average rate of 150,000 a year. These additional people are one factor in the increased demand for a supply of clean, unadulterated water. Another is our changed way of living. As
I	mentioned previously, our economy has changed. No longer are we basically an agricultural nation. The trek to the cities from the farms has been constant and is increasing.
In the 13 years since the end of world war
II	our cities and towns have had a complete renovation. What in 1945 was peaceful, pastoral countryside adjacent to the cities is now part of the cities themselves. New housing developments have taken over the producing farms. The drainage ditches and the farm wells of 15 to 20 years ago have been replaced with sewage systems and municipal water mains. Domestically the demand for water has increased out of all proportion to our increase in population.
In industry the story is the same. More and more industry is using water in its processing. Today's modern industrial plant has all the amenities for comfortable working. Let me cite just one example of what these amenities mean in the increased demand for water. Today's modern factory is air-conditioned. Perhaps hon. members have not realized the importance of water in some airconditioning processes. I was amazed to learn on checking that to aircondition one large industrial building requires more water

than a community of 25,000 people. My authority for that statement is a United Nations publication, "Water and The World Today".
In asking industry to cease polluting our rivers and lakes we are not asking too much. The cost of treating raw sewage and waste is not high when it is compared with the money that industry is prepared to invest in the construction of plants and the purchase of expensive machinery. I thing these few remarks will indicate to hon. members the reason why I consider the necessity of legislation as a matter of extreme urgency.
I have said too that as a medical man I view the introduction of this measure with relief, for inherent in any water pollution is the danger of epidemics. Let me give the house some of the facts. In India, for instance, again according to United Nations publications, 4,000 people die every day from waterborne disease. From 1940 to 1945 water-borne diseases were the leading causes of deaths in Venezuela. In the years following world war II 25,000 Europeans died each year from diseases originating in impure water.
Filtration plants combined with the use of chemicals are far from adequate protection. For instance, in 1937 Croydon, a suburb of the great city of London, England, had a breakdown in its water purification system. The breakdown was momentary but that momentary breakdown let loose an epidemic of typhoid fever that brought many deaths and much illness. It was estimated by the United States federal department of health in 1949 that it had cost over $80 million for the treatment of diseases caused by water pollution.
The same danger exists in any municipality in Canada that depends for its water supply on polluted water made usable by a process of filtration and chemical treatment. Make no mistake about that. There are many Canadian communities in exactly that position today, many Canadian communities in which the tragedy of Croydon, England could be repeated. There are many areas such as the cities bordering the great lakes in that great country to the south of us where the dumping of raw sewage and waste is done without pre-treatment. It is true that some of these cities have sewage disposal plants but some have none and most of the effluent goes into the great lakes and so through to our lakes and rivers.
For instance, along the Ottawa river-we have heard about this before today-most of the sewage is discharged directly into the river without treatment. One of the largest septic tanks in Canada is located in southern Ontario. At times the water spills over
Criminal Code
polluting nearby bathing beaches and adjacent waters. There is a great need for more purification plants all over Canada. It is because of the danger inherent in polluted water that as a medical man I welcome this proposal, striking as it does at the source of pollution.
I could use many minutes of the time of the house in emphasizing the importance of water to mankind today. I could talk about the terrible effect of dehydration on the body if we did not have available to us the means to replace immediately the constant escape of moisture from the body. I could tell you how in the process of living we burn up oxygen so fast that we could almost be likened to moving flames. If we are to stay alive the body must be cooled by a quick and unhindered evaporation from the skin. In fact, our margin of safety is so small that a failure of a few hours only in our natural water cooling system could raise the body temperature those few degrees that mean the difference between life and death.
I could spend a great deal of time also on the importance of water to our economy but that too can be summed up in one sentence. Without an adequate supply of pure, uncontaminated water our economy will be like our bodies-it will dehydrate and die.
We can talk about our wealth of natural resources. We can talk about our forest. We can talk about our minerals. We can talk about our wheat, our oil and our coal. But I say to the house in all sincerity that without water these other things are completely meaningless. Without water we would have no hydro energy. Without water we would not be able to go deep into the earth to mine our gold, our silver, our nickel and our copper. Without water our lush farm lands would become barren desert.
Let me touch for just one minute on a phase of our economy in which an adequate supply of pure water is vital. I represent the riding of Simcoe East and in my riding are some of the finest lakes, rivers and streams to be found anywhere in Canada. Because of this I am perhaps more conscious of the importance of the tourist industry to our prosperity than some hon. members whose ridings perhaps are not so fortunate in this regard. Every holiday week end our roads are jammed with holidaymakers. They are on their way to our beaches, to our fishing camps, to some quiet spot beside a lake where they can relax and have fun. But kill the fish through water pollution, make the lakes and rivers unsafe for swimming and boating and the tourist industry in Canada dies.

Criminal Code
Again I emphasize that water is our most important natural resource. Let us guard it well. Let us continue to purify it by filtration and the use of chemicals but let us also strike at this one source of pollution by the effective action proposed in the resolution. It is a matter of urgency, a matter of national need. Today water pollution is the most widespread and threatening problem facing our nation. To restore the purity of our Canadian waters and guard them against degradation, legislation must be based on good will and understanding between the federal, provincial and municipal levels. It may be necessary for the federal government to participate in grants to take care of a certain percentage of the cost, or even a definite lump sum, whichever might be the greater, whenever the federal government deems it necessary to enforce action on the offending municipality. It will be my hope, and I am sure the hope of all Canadians that co-operation and co-ordination at all levels of government will assure us the finest water supply in the world.


Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the other members who have spoken on this matter today. In particular, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) upon his excellent speech. It was easy to see that he had spent considerable time studying the problem and gathering knowledge on this matter.
As has been pointed out, there was a time when the illness, plagues and so forth resulting from pollution were caused by ignorance of the effects of pollution. It is true that pollution has been with us for about as long as the history of mankind, but it is true also that, at least on this hemisphere, ignorance of the results of water pollution is no longer a reason for its existence. I would say, that the reasons we have this considerable extent of pollution in this country today are, first of all, carelessness and, secondly, greed and the great lack of consideration for our fellow men. It seems to me that we in this country have been behaving something like the irresponsible youth who squandered the inheritance passed on to him by his forefathers. Certainly, this is true of our natural resources, of our rivers, lakes, and so forth. I would agree with the hon. member for Carleton when he says that we have just about reached the end of the line. We have reached a stage now where we can no longer ignore the problem. We are like the irresponsible youth who sees his last $1,000, and says it is time to do something about this now. We are in that situation.
It is very interesting to remind ourselves that where there is no civilization there is
[Mr. Rynard.l
no such thing as pollution in this country of ours. The farther we get from civilization, the more pure become the rivers and lakes and the less danger there is of illness and other things which result from water pollution. It is fine to realize that and accept, it, but the question with which we have to deal today is, what are we going to do about it?
It has been suggested, certainly in many places across the country, that they would like to do something about this problem but it is too expensive. I would say it all depends upon what set of standards we are using. If it is expensive today to try to deal with this situation, it is only because of the accumulation of many years. It is only because a minor expenditure was neglected years ago that today we are faced with great expenditures to correct the situation. I would say that it is too expensive not to do something about it. Not only do we owe it to ourselves to do something about it, but we must remember our responsibility to the future generations of this country. Furthermore, because it may be expensive at the present time, because it may be difficult-certainly there are difficulties to be overcome-that is no reason for any further procrastination. This situation must be met. The longer we delay meeting the problem the more expensive it is going to be to solve it.
Hon. members from all parties in this house have expressed their agreement on this matter. I would say that they should be as enthusiastic on another matter which presents a danger to us today and which, according to our scientists, is going to be the cause of another form of pollution not only of our waters but the air we breathe. I am referring, of course, to the testing of atomic weapons. This is something that we are going to have to face, and it is going to be a bad thing, not only for our natural resources but for the very air we breathe.
One of the handicaps, if one could call it that, of such an exhaustive and thorough study of the situation as was given by the hon. member for Carleton is that he does not leave too much for anyone else to say. Many of the points with which I had intended to deal were very well covered by him, possibly far better than I could have covered them. The only comment I can make is that I heartily endorse the remarks he made on the various aspects of this problem.
Another thing I was interested in noting today was the fact that former speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) were quoted. Usually, this is a privilege reserved for the members of the opposition, but today it was done by members on the government side. The remarks of the Prime Minister that

were put on the record today indicated his full agreement with the measure before us, as did the hon. member for Carleton; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson), the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard), and the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome).
I would say, sir, in closing that with the more than adequate majority the government has at the present time, and considering the vital interest in this matter expressed by so many Conservatives, I should like to add my endorsation of this resolution and look forward to prompt action by the present government on this matter.


Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson), I do so with a certain sense of urgency and an understanding of the importance of the matter so far as my riding is concerned. I am the representative of Burnaby-Richmond which is, in a sense, a split-up riding. The particular part of the riding to which I shall refer today is the Richmond part.
The municipality of Richmond consists largely of two islands, Lulu island and Sea island, both of which are surrounded by the mighty Fraser river. Other speakers before me have taken the opportunity of giving a general outline of general problems relating to water pollution. I would like to turn to a situation of immediate concern and which, to a large extent, has been created by our great neighbour the city of Vancouver. Perhaps in order to give you a little background on the problem, I should say that Sea island, on which the Vancouver international airport is located, is right at the mouth of the Fraser. The city of Vancouver is adjacent on the other side of the Fraser river, and between the two of them is a small island called Iona island.
This is a large, sandy island but the Vancouver and district joint sewage and drainage board have been able to persuade the provincial government to allocate this little island as the site for a primary sewage disposal plant for the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver, with a population of some 400,000, was warned early in 1913 in the Lea report, that as to English bay, which is a large recreational area, the sewage that was being dumped into this particular area was eventually going to cause a problem. They have had other reports including the Brown report, and one recently in 1957 by Brown and Caldwell. The effect of all these reports has been to keep the pollution out of English bay and to distribute it into some other area.
Criminal Code
The question of expediency has arisen and of whether it is better for the 400,000 people of Vancouver to impede the future and the development of Richmond with a population of 28,000. At present it appears that expediency has prevailed. The pollution control board has granted a permit to the Vancouver district joint sewage and drainage board to establish this primary sewage treatment plant on Iona island. An appeal was made on Friday to the provincial cabinet. As yet I have not had the results of that particular appeal. That is the first matter of urgency.
In conjunction with the matter of pollution and tied in also indirectly with water pollution, is this situation. The city of Vancouver has filled one of its garbage dumps completely and is now desirous of establishing a new garbage dump, and the location of course is in the municipality of Richmond on the western tip of Sea island. They have had, shall I say, the semantic sense to describe the stuff they are intending to dispose of at the end of the island as "sanitary fill" but despite that description, to anybody looking at it, it just looks like a garbage dump. I raise that problem because this sanitary fill or garbage dump is right at the mouth of the Fraser river and would be in a sense used to enlarge that particular area.
The garbage dump on Kerr street which I have had the fortunate pleasure of passing several times is rather an interesting picture. It is interesting from the viewpoint of the thousands of seagulls that continuously hover over this particular dump. The city of Vancouver has had the excellent idea of establishing a dump on Sea island right at the end of the airport runway, something which would make it rather interesting for the pilots in trying to manage to manoeuvre through a flock of seagulls. The desire to move the garbage dump to Sea island, has,
I think, to a large extent been promoted by the sheer consideration of having to invest a considerable amount of money. It would cost the city $3 million to establish an incinerator and some $200,000 only to maintain the dump. So the city fathers, in their great spirit of benevolence, have offered to the municipality of Richmond $100,000 annually for the next 20 years in order to give the city of Vancouver the right to dump its garbage at the end of Sea island.
This is the second matter of urgency because tonight in the municipality of Richmond the city fathers will congregate and make the decision whether they will take up Vancouver's very kind offer and so affect the whole development of Richmond or whether they will reject that offer. I sympathize with them in being called upon to

Criminal Code
make this decision because, regardless of what route they take, they will be damned. The people in the Sea island community have no desire to see the new, modern covered wagons in the form of garbage trucks coming over from the city of Vancouver. I think it is estimated that these covered wagons will be proceeding at a rate of approximately one a minute and one of the routes that they will likely follow is through the residential area in Sea island.
As I have mentioned because of these two points I feel very strongly on the matter of water pollution. I feel that the city of Vancouver and possibly the provincial government are prepared to sacrifice the little island of Sea island in order to save the city of Vancouver a few million dollars of expenditure occasioned as a result of their lack of foresight. In the modern cities in the country where there are no Richmond in which to dump their garbage they have managed to dispose of the sewage through primary and secondary plants. If the city of Vancouver went to the expense of providing a secondary plant it would be possible to dump the effluent directly into English bay because I think the final product-I am informed that this is so, not being a sewage engineer-has the same consistency or the same purity as the glass of water which I hold in my hand. They could thus avoid causing a situation which will be very obnoxious to the municipality of Richmond. But as I mentioned, the difficulty has been the lack of foresight of the city of Vancouver and the matter of cost of perhaps a few million dollars.
I should also mention that some of the more advanced cities, with reference to their garbage disposal, provide adjacent to the primary and secondary plants a grinding-up unit by which the garbage can be ground up and then can be disposed of through the sewage plant. If the city of Vancouver were to adopt this expedient I feel the problem would be solved to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.
With reference to the problem of sanitary fill, I should like at this time to suggest to the Vancouver city fathers-inasmuch as they seem to think that Sea island would be an adequate place for the sanitary fill-that I believe in the area close to the centre of town in False creek, which is in the riding of my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Taylor), there is a suitable area which could be quite adequately filled with this particular sanitary fill. Since the city fathers have extolled the numerous advantages I feel that perhaps they would like to take advantage of the situation in order to have this result brought about. The city was extremely anxious to have the sanitary

fill shoved into Sea island; in fact they were so anxious that they paid the cost of taking three or four of the members of the Richmond municipal council and a couple of Vancouver people down to the San Francisco region. If I might be permitted to do so, I should like to quote briefly from an editorial in the Richmond Review. The editorial is headed, "A Dump is a Dump is a Dump" and it reads in part as follows:
The residents of Sea island are understandably-angered at the proposal, made by the city of Vancouver, that it should be permitted to set up a garbage dump {politely referred to as a "sanitary fill") on the western shore of their island home. They may be counted on to do everything humanly possible (aided by whatever assistance this newspaper can give them) to effectively kill such a scheme.
Having seen them at first hand, we can now say there isn't a single "sanitary fill" in the entire San Francisco bay region we would be willing to see snuggled up to Sea island.
They are what they are-dumps, with flies and millions of seagulls and rats, odours and flying paper.
The editorial concludes, and I think it actually hits the real difficulty in the city of Vancouver:
Only Vancouver officials know the answer to that one. We suspect it's a mere matter of dollars, and the gulf waters provide the cheapest hole to be found close at hand. If so, it's another of the reasons why we suggest those same officials are justifiably earning for their city the title "Slobtown".
I would like to conclude by saying that in speaking to this matter of pollution, and speaking as a lawyer, I realize the jurisdictional and constitutional difficulties in implementing the motion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) with relation to this particular situation. I hope, nevertheless, that the situation can be rectified so that one municipality is not sacrificed at the expense of a larger neighbour. I know that the motto of the city of Vancouver is, "By Land and By Sea We Prosper", and I would say in conclusion that I hope it is not going to be "By land and by sea we prosper at the expense of Richmond".


Mr. Percy Vivian (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon on the motion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) the house has, I think, heard a great deal of interesting information on a subject which is of considerable importance to Canada, not only for its own sake but also in relation to some of its international aspects. Throughout the debate two things seem to have been stressed, the matter of urgency and the matter of responsibility, and this motion has the practical effect of directing the attention of the government to the problem in the hope that action

will be taken on an amendment to the Criminal Code and expressing the need for urgency felt by many of the speakers who have emphasized their thoughts on the matter in various ways by speaking on one aspect or another of the problem.
The matter of water pollution constitutes a very large problem, a problem which needs to be viewed in all its component parts and its effects upon various parts of the country and its relationship to our various levels of government. Mention has been made of the fact that there are waters which lie completely within the territory under the jurisdiction of a province and that therefore there is immediately apparent the relationship between the local municipality in that province and its government. It would be extremely difficult to enforce an anti-pollution measure if we had to depend upon an amendment to the Criminal Code-if indeed that is possible -and I therefore submit that despite all this urgency, and there is urgency, there are a number of other matters which need to be considered in order to satisfy the need of the moment with respect to the pollution of so many of our waterways.
The problem becomes more complicated when pollution occurs in a territory other than within a province, perhaps within an unorganized territory under the jurisdiction of the federal government or in another province. It becomes even more complicated when pollution occurs in waters coming under the review of the international joint commission and I would like therefore in due process of time to deal with one or two of those things which I think are important, but mainly a subject which has not been touched upon at all, and that is the role of the joint international commission and its relationship to some of the problems in our navigable waterways and the effect of those problems on this whole question.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Reginald Percy Vivian: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was proceeding to mention the amount of factual material which was presented this afternoon by various hon. members who spoke and the sense of urgency they expressed concerning the problem of water pollution. I would now like to speak for a little while about the historical background of this question as it relates to the international joint commission.
Criminal Code
I mentioned that some urgency was expressed concerning water pollution this afternoon but I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that action with respect to the prevention of water pollution has been described as urgent since 1913. At that time the international waterways commission was absorbed by the newly-established international joint commission. I wish to quote from the statement made by Mr. George W. Kyte K.C. over a coast-to-coast network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on a program originating from Sydney, Nova Scotia on January 5, 1937. At that time Mr. Kyte drew attention to the fact that the international joint commission had been functioning since 1912 when it substantially absorbed the former international waterways commission which was created by concurrent legislation of Canada and the United States in 1902.
A treaty made in 1909 provided in article 4 thereof that the waters defined as boundary waters, and waters flowing across the boundary, shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other. Reference to this was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). It will perhaps be interesting to hon. members to note that the treaty was not signed by Canada but was signed by representatives of the United States and Great Britain because at that time Canada was not participating by itself in certain international arrangements. The treaty was subsequently confirmed by an act of the Canadian parliament.
Mr. Kyte on the occasion to which I referred went on to state:
The whole question of the extent, cause and localities in the United States and Canada, where boundary waters were polluted so as to be injurious to the public health and unfit for domestic or other uses was referred to the commission on August 1, 1912. This was but a few months after the commission was constituted, thus showing how urgently the problem called for a solution.
I submit that if the problem with respect to water pollution was urgent in 1913, how urgent is it today with the growth of population in Canada, the tremendous expansion of industrial development and the extended use of our waterways, navigable and otherwise, which presently exists? Mr. Kyte continued:
The investigation continued for a period of six years, and it involved an examination of the waters of the great lakes and their connecting rivers-* Rainy lake. Rainy river, the lake of the Woods, and the boundary portion of the St. John river on the east, wherever pollution might extend from one side to the other.
Mr. Kyte went on to state:
Article 8 of the treaty prescribes authority of precedence for the use of boundary waters, and no use is to be permitted if it conflicts or restrains any other use which is given preference.

Criminal Code
I believe this is particularly important because the preference that was given at that time was in this order:
The authority is:
(1)	uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;
(2)	uses for navigation;
(3)	uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
Mr. Kyte went on to comment:
Thus, not only is the importance and essential need of a constant supply of pure water for the citizens of both countries recognized, but it is given first place as to the uses to be made of it; and any use of boundary waters by navigation, power or irrigation companies that interferes with the purity of this supply may be a subject of reference to the commission to be regulated or prohibited.
The study mentioned previously which was begun under the authority of the international joint commission dating from 1912 stems from article 9 of the treaty of January 11, 1909, and a progress report was published under date of January 6, 1914. I think we all appreciate what the date January 6, 1914, meant to this country. I believe it is significant that the report should have been made at that time. The progress report indicated that a very full study was being made with respect to the pollution of boundary waters particularly as it contained a report of sanitary experts.
While memories are short perhaps hon. members will recall that the greatest single disability arising from polluted waters was typhoid fever. Fortunately that problem no longer exists in Canada but other problems of equal importance exist today.
A final report on this investigation dating from August 1, 1912, was submitted on September 10, 1918. The contents of the report include an introduction stating the terms of reference, the final procedure of the investigation and details on existing pollution in various locations at that time.
In this particular instance it is interesting to note the observations of the commission concerning the pollution from sawmill and industrial wastes existing in the Saint John and Rainy rivers which was not of a bacteriological character but had the effect of causing nuisances by making the shores and the bed of streams unsightly, unclean and malodorous. The report also states that this pollution is injurious to fish life. It also mentions that pollution due to chemical waste is likewise injurious to fish life and the fishing industry, and that both of these pollutions had in these instances transboundary effects detrimental to property and to health.
With respect to pollution from sawmill and industrial wastes I was reminded of this this afternoon when I heard the able remarks of the hon. member for Carleton on the subject.

This was perhaps the beginning of the interest of pulp and paper companies in the question of pollution.
Several hon. members who spoke this afternoon referred to those federal acts in which some attention has been paid to the problem of pollution as it affects activity in this country but not as it affects human life. Some sections of the Fisheries Act relate to the protection of fish and there is a particular interesting section in the Navigable Waters Protection Act which I find highly entertaining because of the fact that it speaks entirely of the effect of sawdust and other sections of wood which may be dumped into waters as a hazard to navigation but no mention is made of the effect of such dumping on human health.
And so, we go on from there. Not only does this report make those observations-* and I have drawn from it what happened in terms of protection to navigation and also the Fisheries Act-but there is also the matter of injury to health and property within the meaning of the reference to limits of permissible pollution and standards of sewage purification. Chapter VII of the 1918 report deals at some length with remedial treatment required and makes mention of the attitude of municipalities.
I submit that this problem of water pollution cannot be solved simply by an amendment to the Criminal Code, if that is possible. This is a matter of joint action between all levels of government and in this the attitude and behaviour of municipalities is of prime importance.
I now leave that point and refer back to the mention which was made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) today of two problems which devolved from and resulted in the 1946 survey undertaken by that extremely able person, Dr. Berry, an official of the government of the province of Ontario. Because of that survey and for other reasons there developed the Ontario water resources commission. Mention was made of his effort in the 1946 report. I hold in my hand a brochure of the Ontario water resources commission of which there are interesting observations which I wish to relate directly to this matter of the attitude of municipalities. I should like to add one word before I speak on that. I am a very firm believer that all government that is possible to be kept within a local area should be so kept, and that all government worthy of the name should be kept as close to the people as it is possible to do. In this we have the full responsibility of those elected to the municipal council level in as sane government as is possible in this country.

Under the terms of the act the Ontario water resources commission has supervision over all surface waters and ground waters in Ontario used as a source of water supply, drinking water and otherwise. This, of course, implies that there must be not only a service to bring this water into use but, because of the close relationship between an intake of water and the subsequent matter of disposal of waste in terms of sewage, and so on, there must also be a link between the intake of water and the disposal of waste. Therefore, in regard to such works this act says in section 37:
Sewage works shall at all times be maintained, kept in repair and operated in such manner and with such facilities as may be directed from time to time by the commission.
What is more important is that this commission is prepared to assist municipalities requiring water and/or sewage works to arrange for the construction of such works themselves or by the municipalities. In this connection assistance by way of planning, construction, financing and operation is available. I am just wondering about the problem of the city of Ottawa in relation to the Ottawa river. If the words contained in this brochure are accurate, and I have no reason to believe they are not, then I am wondering whether the municipality of Ottawa or the federal district commission have gone far enough to explore the possibilities through the Ontario water resources commission to obtain service in the matter of disposal of sewage and waste which would be commensurate with at least partial purification of the water which we now see flowing down the Ottawa river. This is one of the quandaries in which we find ourselves today. We feel that the municipal sections and municipal areas and their governments may not be playing such a part in this matter of water pollution and its deterrent as perhaps might be desirable.
I now wish to go directly back to the problem of the international situation where we have a very real problem in terms of action or no action by the federal government. The waters which come under the jurisdiction of the federal government are navigable waters. I have said that under the Navigable Waters Protection Act they are concerned mostly with hazards to navigation. No mention whatever is made to hazards to health which may come from those waters from which so many municipalities draw their supplies. We have heard earlier from other hon. members about the problem of fish life and its destruction because of pollution. Therefore, sir, I come to this point. While I am prepared to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Selkirk 57071-3-62J
Criminal Code
(Mr. Stefanson) for an amendment to the Criminal Code I do not believe it is sufficient for the purpose which we have in mind. I am going to suggest that we have been concerned today mainly with health matters. We should still follow the time-honoured precedent that where nuisances are committed those in the area in which they are committed should have the responsibility for their control and to go as far in this regard as it is possible to go within the resources and limitations of their local situation. In this, I refer directly to the municipal situation. From there I think the province has a responsibility with respect to its municipalities and the territory therein contained. They should play their full part to limit or control this extensive water pollution.
I now come to the last part in which there seems to be no control at the moment. After all, if this was urgent in 1913, it is more urgent in 1958. I refer to the part which the federal authority might play in bringing together the provinces of this country to consider what they might do with the help of the federal authority in making more effective those control measures which we know how to take and which for years we have known were necessary and on which so little has been done since 1913.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, leadership is needed and if there is to be leadership, then let the authority which asks for leadership take leadership in some area in which it has a direct responsibility. That area, sir, I submit to you lies in the responsibility of this government and of this house for the work which is undertaken by the international joint commission so that we may go forward and be as concerned about our navigable waters with respect to the hazards of health as we are with the hazards of navigation. We should deal with those matters that are concerned with fish and be equally concerned about those responsibilities with regard to human beings so that we may by the leadership of authority through this government bring together those concerned in the provinces, either departmentally or otherwise, and get on with the job.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, according to some members who have spoken today the pulp and paper industry seems to bear a certain responsibility for pollution. I do not want to engage in an all-out defence of the materials they discharge into our streams and lakes but I should like to point out that there are five pulp and paper mills in my riding and in every one of them over the last number of years tremendous

Criminal Code
improvements have been made in the cutting down of the waste products they are discharging into lakes and streams. For example, the liquor that is given off by the pulping process, especially the chemical pulping process, is being burned more and more within the generating boilers of the plants, thus lessening considerably the amount of waste products entering the streams.
Another development that seems to be making fairly rapid progress, and on which the pulp and paper research institute and member companies are working, is the use of such liquor wastes in the form of road building material. I think the progress throughout the whole pulp and paper industry in this field indicates we will have less and less damaging waste entering our streams.
In that regard I should like to express the disappointment that one cannot help but feel with regard to the research program of the forestry branch and the forest product branch of the federal government having in mind the lack of indication that anywhere in their very many research projects are they working specifically on the problem of the effluvia from pulp and paper mills entering our streams. I should like to suggest that is one aspect of federal policy that needs to be looked into before we move very far with this resolution. I think the previous speaker expressed my feelings almost exactly about the resolution, that in many ways it is worth supporting but that it does not come close to the real nub of the problem. He referred to the Ontario water resources commission and I should like to deal with it further by pointing out that section 27 of the act establishing the commission contains this provision:
Every municipality or person that discharges or deposits any material at any time into or in any well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream or other water or watercourse or on any shore or bank thereof or into or in any place that may impair the quality of the water of such well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream or other water or watercourse is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to a penalty of not more than $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both.
Therefore, in the Ontario legislation at least there are already some very substantial teeth that it would seem to me would be as effective as any amendment to the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the act goes on to provide that any person can lay a complaint with the water resources commission and have an investigation made. If you live any place in Ontario where you feel the water is being polluted you can take up the matter with the commission and according to the terms of the act they are supposed to do something about it.
Premier Frost has stated that within the next decade approximately $2J billion is

going to be spent by the municipalities and the provincial government in the field of water pollution and I suggest that is an indication that within Ontario there is general recognition of the problem. Rather than carry into effect a resolution such as this I think it would be much more effective to have a meeting of the federal and provincial authorities. I would emphasize that the purpose of such a meeting should not be to try to put pressure on the federal government for money but merely to co-ordinate the responsibilities of such departments as the Department of Transport and the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Finally, I suggest that such a meeting should consider the whole question of pollution by logging waste and bark that sloughs off into streams when a river is driven by logging companies over a great period of time in order to see whether there is not some means of removing this material by some form of dredging. Some of our best game fish streams are affected. I gather that the hon. member who moved the resolution was concerned mostly about commercial fishing but that is really a pittance compared with the amount of money, the interests and the social effects involved in game fishing. This may seem like heresy to maritime members but I think it is true and it certainly means a tremendous amount to our tourist industry. Every time a good brook trout stream is driven it means that it is no longer in that category for quite a number of years.
I know that the provincial authorities in Ontario are taking some part in trying to adjust these things but here is a case for research and development by the federal authorities, especially the forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources in connection with its other logging wastes studies. They could do a real job for us.
If the government is going to be advised to consider this resolution and is willing to do so, I and the other members of this group will be all for it but as the previous speaker pointed out we feel that a much larger field is involved than merely the amendment of the Criminal Code and we hope that in its consideration the government will take account of all other aspects.


Mr. J. E. Knowles (Norfolk):: Criminal Code
not only acts as a means of control in time of flood, but it also provides adequate means by which the flow can be maintained during the summer months of drought.
The policy of the former government in connection with projects of this nature was to make a contribution of 37J per cent. However, they did not enter into any agreement with the authorities or the provinces in connection with smaller dams. It is felt by many of the people who belong to these river valley authorities that probably the federal government would be better advised to take a greater interest in the construction of smaller dams because, in many instances, these dams would be more beneficial and the effect on the stream flow would be better than the construction of large dams. I refer to this subject during the discussion of this resolution because I feel it is one field in which the federal government should give some aid through the construction of smaller dams.
However, if all the water from the sewage disposal plant were pure there would still be a certain amount of pollution which comes from the farm land itself. I am speaking, of course, of the silting in. If, during the years, it is the practice to increase the amount of insecticide and fertilizer used in our soils I suppose that contamination would increase. As I listened to one of the remarks made by a member about the laws that had been passed down through the years, and how little has been gained from legislation,
I was reminded of a statement made by Aldo Leopold, that great conservationist in the United States who passed away back in 1948. He was also a very great scientist, and he had this to say, when speaking about conservation, flood control and reforestation:
Something is lacking and because of that lack education, law and public works fail to accomplish what they hope to accomplish. Without it the high-minded impulse to educate, to legislate and to manage becomes as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. And the thing that is missing is love, some feeling for as well as some understanding of the inclusive community of rocks, soils, plants and animals of which we are a part.
He came to that conclusion after years and years of work on conservation measures which he felt were necessary. He felt it was necessary, if people were to be interested in such problems as pollution, soil erosion, forest fires and so on, that they have a greater appreciation of nature so that they would have a genuine respect for it. It is very difficult, unless all our citizens have that appreciation, to legislate them into performing these works.
In conclusion, I should like to say that I believe this is an urgent matter. We should attack it from every angle, and especially

through the methods of conservation which would aid greatly in stream flow. I feel also it is time that the federal government, along with the provinces, made a survey of stream flow to determine the amount of waste material these streams could assimilate. I also believe a study of the sewage disposal systems in some European countries such as Great Britain, Germany and Sweden could give us much valuable information on methods by which this urgent problem could be attacked.


Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of water pollution presented itself to me in a rather drastic way a week ago today when I was visiting in upper New York state. I sat down to a dinner which included a fine steak and a rather muddy looking glass of water. I took a sip of the water before digging into the steak. The water tasted badly and it smelled badly, so I set down the glass and looked at the water for a moment. My neighbour, who was a minister, turned to me and said, "I must assure you, young man, that the water is not polluted". I kept repeating this remark over to myself, "The water is not polluted"; and after saying it five or, six times, autosuggestion took effect, my stomach whirled about and I had to leave the banquet in disgrace.
My first words, therefore, must be to compliment the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) for bringing this grave problem before us in the widest possible terms. He has not attempted to narrow down water pollution to navigable waters or anything of that sort but rather he would make it a criminal offence to pollute water. In this way I think it would cover three aspects of the subject which I should like to deal with in my remarks. I refer to water from the standpoint of drinking, from the standpoint of swimming and also for the support of fish life.
In Halifax riding we have the problem of pollution. We have one river, namely the Sackville river, which has become polluted to the extent that the fish hatchery operated by the Department of Fisheries is not able to turn out the brands of fish that it formerly turned out. We have there the problem of the Bedford Basin, a magnificent if somewhat chilly spot for swimming which every morning and every evening when the tide comes in, has a great array of garbage, peelings and old papers floating across it. This is perhaps pollution from the city dump, although the city of Halifax is quick to disclaim this suggestion and to say that it is pollution from an industry alongside the city dump. We have the Northwest Arm which several sewers enter and in recent years there has been

controversy there as to whether the water has such a high bacterial count that it should be unsafe for swimming. Almost every lake in the metropolitan area of Halifax or every stream is suspect of pollution. So for this one particular area in my riding I welcome the resolution brought before this house by the hon. member for Selkirk and I compliment him on presenting a resolution of such panoramic scope.
As I listened to the remarks made in this debate, I found no constitutional difficulties in connection with making the widest possible amendment to the Criminal Code in order to cover these matters that I have mentioned, namely the provision of pure water for drinking; good water for swimming so that you would not gulp down some disease; and good water for the support of fish. I think they can all be provided for within the constitutional powers that are given to this house by the British North America Act. I think we can draft or present a section which would cover pollution from the smallest source of water-let us say the well -to the largest source of water-let us say the large river.
One of the earlier speakers in the debate used the words "wanton or wilful pollution". That illustrates his concept of the criminality that should be attached to the offence or the extent of criminality that would make it an offence. But I would suggest to the house that in dealing with this important problem- and surely it is one of the most important problems we have because it affects the health of all of us-the offence should include the criminal negligence and not the more aggravated degrees of criminality that are implied in the words "wanton and wilful".
I think those hon. members of the house who have practised at the criminal bar will recognize the parallel that there is between dealing with an offence of water pollution and the methods used to strike out, stamp out or cut down on criminal habits in connection with drugs. In recent years the House of Commons and the other place in their wisdom have broadened and make somewhat easier the task of the crown in dealing with criminal offences by the simple use of the words "criminal negligence". Negligence, of course, is the breach of a standard, or of the duty of care that is owed by one to another or, if you like to go back to biblical terms, as one speaker did earlier in this debate, the question of observing the commandment:	Love
thy neighbour. The commandment "Love thy neighbour" has negative aspects as well as positive ones. It means: Do not harm him; do not, for example, pollute his drinking
Criminal Code
water; do not make it dangerous for his children to swim in the nearby lake.
I mention this point with some stress, because I noted that the hon. member for Prince Albert and present Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he presented Bill No. 186 to the House of Commons on February 28, 1955, treated this matter in very much the same way as I have been doing. There is no use of the word "wanton" and no use of the word "wilful" in the section which he proposed, namely section 165 (a).
I presume he used the law of nuisance in dealing with the matter of water pollution. I think that is the correct approach. I think it is the correct approach for yet another reason. The higher the degree of criminality charged, the greater the burden of proof that rests upon the crown to stamp out the offence that is charged, to make the case stick. To restrict these offences to the category of "wanton" or "wilful" I think would make it extremely difficult to take any court action which would be effective. I think the lesser degrees of proof in criminal negligence would fit the occasion better.
These are a few thoughts on the subject. I must say that I have listened with a great deal of interest to all of the debate so far this afternoon and evening. I can think of no more serious national problem which the parliament of Canada has not got its teeth into but with which it should grapple. I hope that reasonably soon we shall see this fine resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk translated into something that is basic and that will help to cure an outstanding national problem.
I think it should also be pointed out to the house that one of the problems we are going to face in setting up this safeguard, and I hope we do, is a municipal one.
Many of the municipalities will find it extremely difficult to finance sewerage and other large undertakings. They have found these projects difficult in the past with the result that many of the growing communities * and I have in mind particularly those in Halifax and in the Montreal area-have tackled the problem in a piecemeal fashion. There is a widespread use of cesspools, which sometimes stay within limits but sometimes, unfortunately, do not, thus causing great difficulties to those downhill.
I think in proceeding on a resolution of this kind we must be very careful that we do not initially throw too great a burden upon the municipal authorities who are finding it difficult enough at the present time to raise the wherewithal to provide for their necessary services.

Criminal Code


Mr. C. A. Milligan (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to make a few remarks with regard to the proposed resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). It would seem that the hon. member must have experienced some problems pertaining to the question of water pollution in his own area and I, too, have been much concerned with this matter.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) mentioned the glass of murky water, and brought back a memory of an occasion some two years ago at a restaurant in a city some 200 miles from my home, when a party who was sitting at the next table after sampling the water said, "You should taste the water at Napanee!" Napanee happens to be my own home town, and certainly we had a problem there.
I am very glad the hon. member has brought forward this resolution at this particular time because I feel it is a very vital problem about which most of us are concerned. Few people take it seriously, however, until in their daily life it is brought home to them. Although I am sympathetic to the proposed resolution I hesitate to agree that action should be taken by the federal government at this time because I feel this matter is the responsibility of the provinces and that conditions vary so much throughout Canada that any action taken by the federal government might prove to be restrictive in some areas while it might be very effective in others where action is perhaps long overdue.
A great deal has been said about this matter and I do not wish to repeat remarks made by other hon. members, so I will confine myself to the effect of this resolution on the provinces of Ontario and, in particular, on my own riding with which I am much more familiar.
Speaking, then, on the question of pollution as it affects the province of Ontario, I believe our province has recognized the problem for some time and has by means of legislation and research endeavoured to correct the situation and to find ways and means of disposing of the pollution from industry and the sewage of municipalities.
The treatment of sewage has been handled in a manner satisfactory to most of the taxpayers in the towns, villages and municipalities of Ontario, and this situation has not been brought about by a strict adherence to the act but by means of measures taken as a result of the advice of competent engineers working in co-operation with municipalities and having in mind the ability of those municipalities to meet the expense of such measures before taking any action.
[Mr. McCleave.1
Pollution by industry creates a very big problem, more particularly with respect to those small industries which have been in operation for a number of years and which have been increasing their production while at the same time their water supply has become more limited, as has the means for disposal of their waste as a result of poor conservation methods practised throughout the provinces over the past few years.
I can speak with some authority on this matter, having been a member of the council of the town of Napanee for some years where this problem existed and where it still exists at the present time, with a paper mill some six miles up-river disposing of waste directly into the river which is the only water supply available to that town. This mill increased its production and the flow on the river went down to a point where at times all the water that went downstream flowed directly through that mill. I think this situation might apply to other areas throughout the province of Ontario and that many of the problems facing us today in Napanee are also familiar to those faced by many communities in this country.
The provincial government has been very co-operative and I believe every possible action has been taken by industry to find a solution to this very serious problem. Engineers and chemists have worked together to try to find a method of correcting the situation caused by the waste going into the rivers, but up to the present time they have not been able to bring about the complete eradication of such waste. In this particular mill which I have mentioned equipment has been installed, as in many other mills throughout the province, which has been of some help in assisting to eliminate pollution.
I would like to mention that there is on the statute books legislation under which we can take action against plants causing pollution of this kind, and I believe that if we were to go far enough such plants might be closed up. I do not think it is the intention of the people of the provinces or the people throughout Canada that we should take these restrictive measures and go so far as to close down these plants, but rather that we should find ways and means of solving our difficulties.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) mentioned the AST process, the atomizing of this particular kind of sewage into the air in the form of gases which apparently is working very well. I happened to be talking to one of the engineers from Montreal only a few days ago with respect to this particular process and this engineer has great hopes of this method eventually solving many of

the problems facing us. As a matter of fact,
I believe a treatment plant of this type was set up on the campus of McGill University and was actually in operation for some two months with no ill effects upon any of the citizens of Montreal; in fact they did not know it was even in operation.
I know I might be wandering a bit into the field of conservation, but it seems to me that conservation and pollution are tied so closely together that it is almost impossible to separate them.
As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), the Ontario water resources commission was set up some time ago with the idea of developing more sources of water and dealing with the matters of conservation and pollution. I believe this problem is one of the most important which will be facing us in the future, particularly with respect to where we are going to get enough pure water to supply our industries in addition to supplying the increasing population of the various provinces.
I was speaking to the chairman of the commission some time ago. The work of the commission will be confined to western Ontario and they do not expect to get beyond a point east of Toronto in their work in the next five years. The chairman suggested we will have to discover ways and means of getting water other than from streams and lakes. I was advised that due to international regulations the level of lakes can be lowered to only a certain degree, this supply will be far short of meeting the needs of our fast growing cities. Many conservation dams have been constructed in the past few years. Due to irrigation practices water that has been released to supply cities has gone directly on to the land before it reaches the city and therefore is completely lost water because it does not flow back into the streams.
I am informed that there is three times as much water under the soil as there is surrounding it but no engineering methods have been practised or undertaken to locate and utilize that source of water. The resources commission has an important job to do and its report and findings will, I am convinced, be of great benefit to the province of Ontario.
With regard to water conservation in southern Ontario it may interest hon. members to know that in this area within the last 100 years between 80 and 85 per cent of once permanently flowing streams have become either totally or temporarily dry during part of the summer. This means a loss of many thousands of miles of once permanent streams. Every spring we waste the water of which we are in dire need during the
Criminal Code
summer and there are many examples that we all know that could prove this. A few years ago a check was made in the Humber valley. There was a rainfall of one and one half inches on March 16 and 17 and by noon on the 17th the water was running down the Humber river at a rate of 4,000 cubic feet a second. At that rate about one half of all the water that had fallen on the river basin had run into lake Ontario within 12 hours. At the end of September of the same year, instead of 4,000 cubic feet there was less than one cubic foot passing at the same point. The quick run-off in the spring may cause a lowering of the water table. This will result in an acute shortage of water from the wells upon which our farmers depend as do many of the cities and towns of southern Ontario. Lack of well water may soon become a limiting factor in the expansions and development of many of our industrial centres. It may soon be necessary to supply these centres with water pumped from our lakes at a terrific cost.
It is surprising the amount of water that plants require. One ton of corn requires about 300 tons of water for its production. One apple tree on a single summer day lifts about 800 pounds of water out of the ground. An acre of lush grass will lift six tons of water on a June day. One pound of beef requires directly or indirectly for its production about 20 tons of water. In urban centres 700 gallons a day are needed to supply the demands of each person for food and other necessities. Water needed in these quantities and for these vital requirements should be jealously conserved. What action can we as a federal government take to improve conditions in our streams today not only with respect to the problem of pollution but that of supply? As was mentioned by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Knowles), many conservation dams have been built but I am wondering if the federal government should not take more action in supplying assistance to municipalities for the construction of such projects which will assist not only in conserving water but in resolving pollution.
The former government brought in an act designed to assist in the construction of conservation dams but I am advised that no application has been made under it and no assistance has been forthcoming. In my own area with which I am familiar we wished to construct a conservation dam to increase our water supply and assist in eliminating water pollution but we were not able to proceed with the .project until the provincial government increased its grant to 50 per cent in 1956.1 know of one municipality which is paying 80 per cent of the cost of the project of building a conservation dam but very few municipalities are

Criminal Code
in a position to bear that cost. I urge the government to consider ways and means of lending encouragement and assistance to such projects through federal grants and thus in the long run contributing toward the solution of the problem of water pollution. This is a common problem and I think each of us is confronted with it in his own locality.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to place on the record the conservation pledge and this applies to pollution as well with which I think each Canadian should be familiar:
I give ray pledge to save, and faithfully defend from waste, the natural resources of my country- its soil and minerals, its waters, forests and wildlife.


Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Cartier-Lasalle):: Mr. Speaker, the idea of making water pollution a criminal offence is an excellent one provided we first solve the problem of anonymous, mass pollution by municipalities. Unless we do this first such a law would merely make it a criminal offence to flush a toilet and would be unenforceable.
The question of pollution is a most vital one in my constituency of Jacques Cartier-Lasalle where 100,000 people dump their untreated sewage into beautiful lake St. Louis every day. All the towns concerned would like to do something about it but unfortunately as the treatment of sewage by any one town only benefits the towns immediately downstream and not the town itself it is difficult to persuade taxpayers to approve the high cost of installing disposal plants. Most municipalities are ready to pay their share of the cost of such projects but feel that the cost of this expensive work should be also shared by the dominion and provincial governments. The province of Quebec has already set aside $250,000 to study the question on a province-wide basis but in our county we do not need any further research to convince us that a repulsive and dangerous condition exists.
Last December, as mayor of the city of Dorval, I called a meeting of the mayors, managers and engineers of the 18 municipalities that make up my constituency. They were unanimous in forming a non-political, technical planning board to co-operate in the study and planning of the most economic way of solving this most urgent problem. However, the municipalities feel, and rightly so, that the initiative must come from the higher levels of government in co-operation, and the problem of water pollution should therefore occupy a position of high priority in any federal-provincial conference.

To make individual pollution a criminal offence will be an excellent move, particularly when we have solved the question of mass pollution in the first place.


Miss Margaret  Aiiken@York-Humber: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words on this resolution that the government should give consideration to amending the Criminal Code so that appropriate punishment be visited upon those responsible for water pollution. I cannot speak from the legal point of view, the medical point of view or the engineering point of view, but I can speak as a Canadian well aware of and proud of the beauties of Canada. I think there is in this debate sweet harmony or complete unanimity in which to wipe out the pollution of our beautiful lakes and rivers. All of us want to maintain, or perhaps more properly recapture the uncontaminated purity of our waterways.
Recently there was a newspaper story which I found rather shocking in its disclosure of a situation in Brockville. The Brockville people had been warned that their water was unsafe. The article said:
An analysis of Brockville's water supply over an extended period of time showed intermittent heavy bacterial pollution much in excess of recognized standards.
Under existing conditions I suppose that could happen in any of our constituencies, because this was caused by pollution from various outlets and drainage in and around Brockville. In my riding of York-Humber, the Humber is a lovely, winding little river which goes all through the riding and which has been spoiled by pollution. I was just reading tonight that nearly one-fifth of the total metropolitan area of Toronto lies within the Humber watershed. It is one of the main drainages for urban waste. The low flows from the Humber in summer do not provide sufficient dilution for those wastes and a serious pollution problem exists.
I suppose we must blame progress for the despoiling of our waterways; but it seems to me that now the ingenuity of man must find a detour in the path of progress, a detour to correct the wrong that is being done. To make this detour is going to cost money. I believe it is the responsibility of all levels of government and, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) said this afternoon, it is also the responsibility of industry. In Ontario, however, it is estimated that the cost of cleaning up our rivers could be as high as a billion dollars within the next decade or so.
In this debate hon. members have said the resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) may be rather drastic, a sort of shock treatment, and perhaps that is so; but it seems to me that the dumping of

sewage in our beautiful rivers is downright barbaric. It must be corrected and I believe that all levels of government must tackle the problem. Certainly, water pollution, as has been proved throughout this debate today, has a very definite bearing on human welfare and on human health. So, too, has pollution of the air we breathe. This is found to be more of a problem in my city riding of York-Humber. I am sorry that the hon. member for Selkirk did not include appropriate punishment for the offence of air pollution as well.
In my riding of York-Humber, and I suppose this is true of any city riding, pollution of the air we breathe is an increasing problem. The greatest smoke nuisance in my riding is created by a railway roundhouse.
I suppose in the years ahead-I hope very immediately ahead-the replacement of the old steam engines by diesel engines will remove this nuisance, but in the meantime I do marvel at the tolerance of the people who have to live within that air pollution. Before you stop me, Mr. Speaker, from jumping from water to air, I want to say that we have this air pollution or smoke pollution or water pollution. The time has come when all citizens must tackle the problem and for that reason I welcome and warmly support this resolution of the hon. member for Selkirk.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul Mariineau (Poniiac-Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, rising after hon. members who have dealt with the question of water pollution in a masterly way, with a wealth of supporting evidence, it will be very difficult indeed, for me, especially in this, my maiden speech, to make a new and very definite contribution to this debate.
However, because it is an important problem, I did not want to miss my chance of congratulating the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) for bringing before the house a problem which is becoming increasingly serious with the growing development and industrialization of this country.
The fact of the matter is that today water pollution is affecting more and more areas of Canada. As an Ottawa valley resident, I know that for several years now the pollution of the Ottawa river has been a very serious problem. What I did not realize is that the problem is so acute in every area of the country, especially in circumstances such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Selkirk.
He, in fact, spoke of a river in his district, the Red river, which I knew only by name and through old songs that lumbermen and some of our pioneers, more particularly the early settlers in my own constituency of
Criminal Code
Pontiac-Timiskaming, used to sing. I was therefore quite surprised to learn that this river, which to my mind seemed full of poetic charm and magic attractions, was polluted to the extent where it constituted a serious threat in that area.
I wonder however if the remedy proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk would really solve the problem.
Before amending the Criminal Code, we should study the question thoroughly in order to avert a possible clash of jurisdictions. A number of provinces have, in fact, already adopted legislation which, in certain specified cases, prohibit water pollution. I wonder if this parliament would have jurisdiction in this connection. Another thing which we should consider is that nobody, wilfully or maliciously, would really wish to contribute to the pollution of waters. If there is water pollution, Mr. Speaker, it is not because people want to break the law governing public health. It has merely been brought about through the force of circumstances. Our country has been developing at a very rapid rate over the past few years and we are undergoing what are commonly called growing pains, among which we must include sewage disposal.
If this parliament were to adopt legislation which would make water pollution a criminal offence, what could we do, since, up to now, we have taken no adequate action to change the situation? If we were to amend the Criminal Code to make water pollution a criminal offence, we would perforce be turning into criminals a great many law abiding citizens.
Mr. Speaker, just as did previous speakers, I submit that, before we proceed to amend our Criminal Code, we should call a federal-provincial conference which would include representatives of municipalities so that the authorities concerned may act together in seeking means to solve this problem which is becoming a real plague. This conference could set up a permanent controlling agency, whose duty would be to study all aspects of the matter.
Mr. Speaker, I heartily commend the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). He brilliantly stated the case and ably went into the most technical aspects of water pollution.
After such a complete and comprehensive speech, I find it very difficult to deal with the matter. However, I do wish to say that in my view this discussion was most useful and that it will certainly cause not only in

Criminal Code
this house but in the public and among other authorities, a favourable reaction which will stimulate the search for a solution to this serious problem. I am convinced that, with the modern technology and methods that we have had for the past few years, we will manage to put an end to this situation.
This problem interests me all the more because it affects the Ottawa river, which rises in the pellucid streams of the mountains and remote areas of my constituency. It is certainly too bad that on reaching the national capital, this water should be so polluted instead of being improved, as it were, by the presence of so many luminaries in this house. I therefore hope that the house will be able to find the means of putting an end to this problem.


Mr, Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Pontiac-Timiskaming (Mr. Martineau), I represent a riding where unfortunately, despite the enchanting spectacle of Beloeil mountain mirrored in the magnificent Richelieu river, I, too, must recognize the existence of a water pollution problem concerning that river. It is not however peculiar to this river, for the Richelieu is not the only one to be polluted. I would like, therefore very frankly and very simply, to state my views on this matter.
Water pollution has become a very important problem because it has increased with industrial progress and the development of heavily populated urban areas. It is now a technical matter of administrative concern.
I need only state, as an example, the fact that the public health act of the province of Quebec controls to a certain extent, problems relating to water pollution. Section 40 of the Quebec public health act, chapter 183 of the Revised Statutes of the province of Quebec, 1941, states:
40.	Every camp used as a habitation for the workmen engaged in forest or mining operations or in roadwork must be erected in accordance with specimen plans supplied by the Provincial Bureau of Health.
It is a responsibility of that bureau to enact regulations to protect water against pollution. Now, here is section 41:
41.	Whenever an infringement of the preceding section or of the provincial health regulations respecting the sanitary condition of camps contemplated by paragraph 7 of section 8 is established to the satisfaction of the minister, he must give the offenders, the limit-holders, the mine-owners or the road-contractors, as the case may be, written notice to remedy the existing conditions forthwith, granting them a delay of fifteen days to do so.

If, after a delay of fifteen days, the sanitary conditions have not been rectified to his satisfaction, the minister may order and proceed to the suppression of such camps as human habitations and take the necessary legal proceedings against the limit-holders, the mine-owners or the road-contractors, operating themselves or through others, and they shall be held responsible for such infringement and shall be liable to a fine of not more than fifty dollars for each day during which such default continues.
Then, section 56 of that same chapter deals with drainage and with drinking-water. Section 56 states that:
No municipality shall establish or allow to be established, no corporation, company or person shall establish a water works or intake for drinking water or any device for the purification of water before submitting the plans and specifications prepared by a graduate engineer to the minister, and obtaining his approval.
In addition to the penalty attached to the infringement of this section, every work done without such previous approval shall be altered or demolished by the municipality, the corporation, firm or person doing the same, if the minister be of opinion that the water supplied may be injurious to health.
The Minister may require an analysis of the water to be made at the expense of the municipality, corporation, firm or person submitting the plans, before giving his approval.
No connection may be made between the public water distributing conduit and the distributing conduit of a private system, until the plans and specifications have been submitted to the minister and his approval has been obtained.
Plans and specifications of connections existing on the 13th of April 1933, were to be submitted to the Provincial Bureau of Health before the 1st of January 1934. Such connections must be done away with or altered, whenever, in the minister's opinion, they constitute a menace to public health. t This section shall apply also to proposed extensions of old installations.
And section 57 of the same act, concerning approval of drainage plans, provides as follows:
No municipality shall take or allow any steps to be taken and no corporation, company or person shall take any steps to carry out public or private drainage works or the installation of any plant for the treatment of sewage.
In addition to the penalty attached to the infringement of this section, every work done without such previous approval shall be altered or demolished by the municipality, the corporation, firm or person doing the same if the minister be of the opinion that the water supplied may be injurious to health.
This section shall apply also to proposed extensions of old installations.
58. The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by regulation determine what must be shown by the plans and specifications submitted to the minister for approval under sections 56 and 57.
To the sections I have just quoted, section 59 adds:
No municipal by-law relating to the construction of waterworks, a filter, or any other plant for the treatment of water, to a sewage-system or any plants for the treatment of sewage, shall be submitted for the approval of the ratepayers, in case

such approval is required, before the plans and specifications of the works referred to in such bylaw, prepared by a graduate engineer, have been approved by the minister.
And section 60 adds the following provision:
Every infringement of sections 56, 57, 58 or 59 shall render the municipality, corporation, firm or person guilty thereof liable to a fine of not more than one hundred dollars.
There is also clause 61, which covers any case of collective, inexistent or insufficient service. It also deals with the extensive powers conferred upon the Public Services Board.
Clause 65 deals with polluted intake of water, and I quote:
Whenever the minister finds, after investigation, that the source of the water supply of any municipality or community in this province has been rendered impure by reason of the discharge of sewage or other waste matter, or whenever he finds, after investigation, that any stream, lake or pond has been rendered so impure as to give off foul or noxious odours injurious to the health or comfort of those living in the vicinity, it shall be the duty of such minister to communicate the results of his investigation to any municipality, corporation, or person responsible for such pollution and impurity. If, after having heard the parties interested, the minister considers that it is necessary to make any change or improvement, his duty shall be to call upon such municipality, corporation or person responsible to take the necessary steps to do away with the causes of such pollution or impurity. The work necessary to that end must be completed within a delay to be fixed by the minister.
Section 66 supplements the provisions of section 65:
Whenever the minister finds, after investigation, that the water supply of any municipality is impure and dangerous to health and that it is practically impossible to sufficiently improve the quality of such supply by removing the source or sources of pollution affecting it, or whenever said director finds, after investigation, that such water supply is being rendered impure by reason of the improper construction or inadequate size of existing water purification works, he shall notify the municipality, corporation or person, owning or operating such water supply, of the results of his investigation.
If, after hearing the interested parties, the minister considers that improvements or changes are necessary and should be made, he shall call upon the municipality, corporation or person, owning or operating such water supply, to change the source of supply or to install and place in operation water purification works or devices, or to change existing water purification works. The work necessary to that end must be completed within a delay to be fixed by the minister.
All these quotations, Mr. Chairman, prove that at least as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, there is extensive and complete legislation covering all aspects of water pollution, and not only in the public hygiene act but also in the Water Course act, chapter 98, Revised Statutes of 1941, an act respecting the use of water-courses and the driving of timber.
Criminal Code
Section 51 of this act deals with certain offences and provides for certain penalties and the recovery of fines and damages from logging companies which do not protect our waters against pollution. Section 51, chapter 98, reads as follows:
Subject to any jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada in this respect, and to the provisions of any acts passed in the exercise of such jurisdiction, any person who throws into any river, stream, creek or brook, any bark, slabs, waste stuff or other refuse of any sawmill, or stump, root, shrub, tanbark or leached ashes, and allows the same to remain and to obstruct such a river, stream, creek or brook, shall incur a penalty of not more than twenty dollars nor less than twenty cents for each day during which such obstruction remains there, over and above all damages resulting therefrom.
Nevertheless, if the obstruction be caused without malicious intent, in good faith, or in the exercise of a right, the person causing the same shall not be liable to any fine or damages unless upon failure to remove the obstruction after notice and within a reasonable time.
This Water-Course Act, section 51, mentions the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada in respect of the criminal law, where it states:
Subject to any jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada in this respect . . .
Mr. Speaker, in spite of all these legislative provisions enacted by the provincial authorities, who enjoy prior jurisdiction in this matter of water pollution, the fact remains that it is an administrative and technical problem. Moreover, so to speak, it is a problem of public education. This means that the problems brought about by water pollution and the resulting damages must be brought to the attention of the public. The public must be brought to react and to work to the solution of this serious problem and to prevent its spread.
As for the rivers and lakes which would possibly concern several provinces, it would be well to promote an exchange of information between the provinces concerned so as to determine the best solution to the problems involved. In other words, we must put first things first.
To speak only of the province of Quebec, I could mention that an act was adopted in 1955 concerning water pollution, with the express purpose of allowing this problem to be studied as a whole in order that the technical and administrative recommendations might be made for its solution. I will quote here the preamble to the act respecting the pollution of water, chapter 11 of the Revised Statutes of Quebec, 4-5 Elizabeth II, 1955-56.

Criminal Code
Whereas the pollution of the water of rivers and lakes is a serious danger to public health;
Whereas it is expedient to make a careful study of this complicated problem and the means that can be taken to solve it;
Therefore, Her Majesty, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec, enacts as follows:
1.	The Lieutenant-Governor in Council is authorized to form a committee of not more than five persons to study the problem of the pollution of the waters of the public domain of the Province.
He shall appoint the members of such committee one of whom he shall designate as chairman.
He may also appoint to assist them a secretary, technicians and any other persons whose services he may deem useful.
He shall determine the remuneration of the members of the committee and of the persons so appointed to assist them.
2.	The committee shall inquire into the extent, nature and causes of the present pollution of waters of the public domain, try to find out the remedies therefor, and the measures required to prevent further cases of pollution, and report its findings and suggestions to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
3.	In the execution of its mandate and to facilitate the settlement of the problems deriving from the pollution of waters of the interprovincial public domain, the committee, under the direction of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, is authorized to collaborate with the other interested governmental authorities.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, instead of branding everybody as a criminal, we should, in my humble opinion, let the experts suggest scientific means of solving the problem. Any suggestion for amending the Criminal Code will bring no solution. I believe it might even be dangerous. This problem will exist as long as the experts who are studying it have not brought out constructive and truly practical recommendations.


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I think that most of the constituencies of our country are affected by this water pollution evil. Though I am not a lawyer, I must say that I fully share the views expressed by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) when he said, among other things, that this problem is the concern of the provincial government as much as of the federal government.
I recognize that the federal government can enact measures setting penalties for those who pollute waters. However, this would not solve the problem. For years municipalities have been running their sewage into our rivers, and manufacturers have been dumping their waste products into our rivers. That is the main cause of water pollution.
Now then, municipal sewerage is a provincial responsibility while laws governing

manufactures in our provinces are of provincial jurisdiction. In fact, by quoting several statutes, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville clearly demonstrated that the provinces are specially concerned in this problem of water pollution.
I remember that when I sat on the Federal District Commission we studied this matter with respect to the area in which the commission is concerned. We found out that in 1953 the province of Ontario set up a committee whose particular duty was to study this matter and that in 1955 the province of Quebec also set up a commission whose duty was to co-operate with the province of Ontario in seeking a solution to the problem of water pollution. On this occasion, no request was made to the federal government except that it kindly give financial assistance to provinces and municipalities in preventing water pollution.
If this motion were to be adopted, I wonder where it would lead us to. Even if fines were imposed on manufacturers or municipalities, would it change the problem? For the city of Hull alone, $40 million would be required to divert water from sewers and elsewhere to a disposal plant. In the case of the city of Ottawa the cost would be over $100 million.
In the city of Montreal, sewer diversion would cost a fantastic sum. And if large industrial plants were requested to change their existing systems, there again the cost would run into millions.
There is not a single municipality in Canada which could undertake such works at its own expense, and I do not believe that provincial governments are in a position to bear the full cost of changes required by water pollution.
I feel that, instead of asking the federal government to write into our statutes and into our Criminal Code new rules which nobody will ever be able to enforce, it would be better to ask for the establishment of a commission representing the provinces and the federal government, with a view to finding the means of educating people, as was suggested some moments ago, and to change a situation which has lasted so long, that it cannot be eliminated overnight.
I know that in Gatineau Mills the International Paper Company has put up an alcohol plant which is making use of wood waste. This has been of help, and I believe that the International Paper Company, in

Gatineau Mills, is not polluting the water as much as the E. B. Eddy Company, because they are using their wood waste, while the E. B. Eddy Company is not. The same can be said for almost every paper mill along the Ottawa river; the wastes are dumped into the river, and that is what causes pollution.
Even the federal government is guilty. At its Chalk river plant, all the waste of the atomic plant is dumped into the nearby creek whence they eventually pass into the Ottawa river. We would therefore have to start by convicting the federal government for polluting the Ottawa river. This would be rather difficult to do. So I think that, instead of passing that resolution, which suggests that a penalty be imposed on everybody, it would be better to ask the federal and provincial governments to establish a board or commission which would inquire into the best ways to prevent water pollution not only in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, but all over the country.


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, after all these outstanding speeches on the matter of water pollution, I do feel somewhat ill at ease, but I would nevertheless like to offer a few remarks. Needless to say, I need not return to the question of pollution of water in large industrial centres, where the situation is most acute. The Red river in Manitoba, the Ottawa river, lake St. Louis near Montreal and the Richelieu river were mentioned. Mention could also be made of the St. Francis river, in the area of Windsor Mills, of Drummondville and of several other places in the province of Quebec where the problem of water pollution has necessarily arisen following industrialization.
In my constituency a rather difficult situation arose some years ago. I would like to say a few words to the house in this regard. It concerns the Laflamme river and a situation which has been brought about by a producing mine in the Barraute area. After floods in this river, waste from this mine lay over a fairly large area of farmland all along the shore of this river.
This mine started to produce in 1951. And because there are floods every spring, damages caused to farmland along the river by cyanide as well as by other chemical products used in the working of the mine have turned those lands to waste. Farmers wronged in their rights as owners have made representations without obtaining any damages, because
Criminal Code
the laws then in force did not permit to find out clearly where the responsibility lay.
Last fall I travelled a distance of 60 miles down the Laflamme river to its junction with the Bell river and, over more than half that distance, I saw deposited along the river mine waste which surely destroyed a large part of the vegetation as well as all the fish in many places that, formerly, were a great attraction for tourists and people of that area. Even farther north, an area quite good for moose hunting has also been affected.
Following this damage, needless to say, it will be many years before normal conditions are restored, despite the fact that, since then, the mine has gone out of business owing to financial difficulties.
However, the farmers from Rochebeau-court, whose farms have been damaged cannot claim any more for the losses they have sustained since the mine in question is practically bankrupt.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I think it would be proper to act without any delay. I therefore support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) and I suggest:
-that the government should give consideration to the advisability of introducing a measure to provide appropriate punishment for the offense of water pollution.
In this way, we might keep our lakes and rivers in good condition.
Well, there has to be some action. I also agree with the hon. member for York-Hum-ber (Miss Aitken) in connection with air pollution and, when considering the advisability of introducing a measure relating to water pollution, we might see whether as hon. members who spoke before me suggested, a federal provincial-municipal conference should be called in order to arrive at some practical solution.
(Text):


Paul Joseph James Martin: Are we going to have a chance to vote on the resolution?


Mr. Marcel Bourbonnais (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, I come from an area where in 7,500 square miles there are two million inhabitants. This area comprises the whole Montreal area and all the sewers of this district are discharged into two of the most beautiful lakes in the province of Quebec, namely lake St. Louis and the lake of Two Mountains. The pollution problem is, therefore, very acute in this district.

Criminal Code
There are approximately 100 municipalities all discharging sewage into these two lakes and an estimated value of the property on the two lakeshores is well over $150 million. The real estate value, therefore, is very much affected by this problem. We also have the fishing industries, both for sport and commercial purposes, and the motor boat industry which are also affected. Some people maintain that the motor boat industry is not a very serious matter about which to be concerned but I might mention that in Montreal and the surrounding communities during the summer months millions of dollars are spent on boat building and accommodation, yacht clubs, gasoline and oil. This industry, therefore, keeps many of our people busy and provides a profit for many others. Another sport which is affected is the best summer sport, namely swimming.
This resolution which has been presented provides for a fine to be imposed on those people causing pollution, but I feel that this is not the only answer, and I do not believe we will find the answer during one short debate. The matter has been referred to provincial and municipal authorities and I believe it should also be considered by some other public authorities in order that a survey be made to endeavour to find some specific methods by which to fight this problem of water pollution.


Mr. Gordon Chown (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask the
hon. member a question. I am sure he knows that if he speaks now he will preclude the opportunity to vote-


An hon. Member:: He has an important contribution to make.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We want action.


An hon. Member:: How about Windsor?


Mr. Palleli:: This parliament isn't over yet.


An hon. Member:: Liberal closure.


Lionel Chevrier: We had an example of that this afternoon; complete closure by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the opportunity for voting has been precluded by the interjections of hon. members. There is a minute left. Is the house agreeable to my calling it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house what he intends to do tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we
shall commence with the resolution calling for approval of the NORAD agreement; following that the resolution concerning hospital insurance; then the resolution concerning the amendment to the Department of Transport Act and then the one dealing with the Cape Breton Highlands national park; and finally the resolution of the Minister of Finance concerning an amendment to the Canadian Farm Loan Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the government intends to do on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: That will depend on the
progress we make tomorrow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When are the
public works estimates coming on?


Howard Charles Green: You do not want more of that medicine, do you?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Howard: 1.	Is there a contract or agreement in effect between the government and the Bell Telephone Company with respect to the Bell Telephone Company operating the telephone system of the various government departments and agencies?
2.	If so, how much was paid to the Bell Telephone Company for the fiscal years 1956-57 and 1957-58?
3.	What formula, if any, is used for determining the amounts to be paid to the Bell Telephone Company?
Question
Answer by: Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):
1.	Yes.
2.	The Bell Telephone Company was paid the following amounts for switchboard and local telephone service in Ottawa:
1956- 57	 $1,115,342.00
1957- 58	 1,221,312.00
3.	The standard tariffs for telephone exchange service as fixed by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and specific services provided under terms of the agreement concluded between the government and the Bell Telephone Company.

Tuesday, June 10, 1958